HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5281  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 8:09 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I still want the original “Pink Line” HRT and think it would be cost-competitive if interlined with the Purple Line.
And the red line. HRT should be a must for this corridor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5282  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 10:00 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
La Brea route will be neglecting where the City of West Hollywood will want and have buy in on the alignments that will best serve their city because they will be contributing $$$. The city recently approved investigating tax-increment financing strategies to help fund the acceleration of this extension through their city.

Though La Brea being the cheaper option going underground but it is only a small dot of the line will serve their city. Metro and the board will ultimately cater to that need where Fairfax and San Vicente options are stronger because it serves more of WeHo.



The phasing of segments and transfer connections are key and I believe that if you have to phase a project of this size, you have to go with the alternative that has the most ridership based on how it is phased. I believe Fairfax has an advantage.
Do you think WeHo will buy off on an E-W spur line on Santa Monica Blvd while the N-S alignment goes via La Brea?

I think a lot of us have this understanding that Santa Monica Blvd probably should be its own transit corridor AND that La Brea is the one of the most logical N-S route. If WeHo get a spur line that connects to Hollywood Highland and that spur line can eventually be upgraded into a proper E-W line, that should provide Metro with political capital to choose the most logical N-S route. Of course the budget will be even higher but I think total ridership will be significant higher as well. And you can definitely have phased segments if you build the spur line.

Think of a spur line as phase 1 of Venice Beach to DTLA line... so eventually, it will go something like this: Venice Blvd to La Cienega Blvd to Santa Monica Blvd to Sunset Blvd to DTLA where it could connect with West Santa Ana Branch to Artesia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5283  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 3:28 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 135
I know everyone is having their fantasy maps on possible lines, but the reality is this N-S is the only line in the next 30 years. If La Brea is picked then West Hollywood will not have any line until 50+ years from now. West Hollywood knows it and thats why they want the line there. Plus I bet they want a line that goes directly to LAX rather than have to do a transfer.

There are just way too many projects on the wait list waiting for money and the longer it is the more expensive they will become especially very costly LAX-Valley route. Even the better spend rail line on Vermont Ave is downgraded to a BRT. No money to upgrade the Orange Line to rail. So talking about a Pink Line is just fantasy at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5284  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2019, 6:22 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Do you think WeHo will buy off on an E-W spur line on Santa Monica Blvd while the N-S alignment goes via La Brea?
I strongly doubt that the City will except that considering they feel they were the strongest supporters of the two recent sales tax measures. Unless it is a streetcar that only serves their city limits to which they use their funding as a down payment for it and Metro contributes the rest as a consolation.

Quote:
I think a lot of us have this understanding that Santa Monica Blvd probably should be its own transit corridor AND that La Brea is the one of the most logical N-S route.

If WeHo get a spur line that connects to Hollywood Highland and that spur line can eventually be upgraded into a proper E-W line, that should provide Metro with political capital to choose the most logical N-S route. Of course the budget will be even higher but I think total ridership will be significant higher as well. And you can definitely have phased segments if you build the spur line.

Think of a spur line as phase 1 of Venice Beach to DTLA line... so eventually, it will go something like this: Venice Blvd to La Cienega Blvd to Santa Monica Blvd to Sunset Blvd to DTLA where it could connect with West Santa Ana Branch to Artesia.
Here's the issue with our fantasy lines, saybanana is exactly right, they need to be part of a Long Range Transportation Planning (LRTP) document as a strategic unfunded project for their to be even consideration and even then it is part of pecking order of other Regional projects as the poster noted;

Quote:
Originally Posted by saybanana View Post
I know everyone is having their fantasy maps on possible lines, but the reality is this N-S is the only line in the next 30 years. If La Brea is picked then West Hollywood will not have any line until 50+ years from now. West Hollywood knows it and thats why they want the line there. Plus I bet they want a line that goes directly to LAX rather than have to do a transfer.

There are just way too many projects on the wait list waiting for money and the longer it is the more expensive they will become especially very costly LAX-Valley route. Even the better spend rail line on Vermont Ave is downgraded to a BRT. No money to upgrade the Orange Line to rail. So talking about a Pink Line is just fantasy at this point.
Right now, what is in the LRTP document is "Crenshaw Corridor Northern Extension to Hollywood" there is nothing that says "Santa Monica-Sunset Blvd High Capacity Transit Corridor" or even a "Venice Boulevard Transit Corridor"

So it really doesn't matter that I could think of it this long line as from Venice to Artesia via Culver City, WeHo, Hollywood, Downtown LA etc.

What matters is that those lines need to be included in that LRTP document.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Sep 5, 2019 at 6:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5285  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2019, 6:27 PM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by saybanana View Post
I know everyone is having their fantasy maps on possible lines, but the reality is this N-S is the only line in the next 30 years. If La Brea is picked then West Hollywood will not have any line until 50+ years from now. West Hollywood knows it and thats why they want the line there. Plus I bet they want a line that goes directly to LAX rather than have to do a transfer.

There are just way too many projects on the wait list waiting for money and the longer it is the more expensive they will become especially very costly LAX-Valley route. Even the better spend rail line on Vermont Ave is downgraded to a BRT. No money to upgrade the Orange Line to rail. So talking about a Pink Line is just fantasy at this point.
I think you underestimate future Metro expansion. Crenshaw north via La Brea by 2030, Sunset/Santa Monica/La Cienega by 2040, Pico by 2050, Western by 2060, and Fairfax by 2070 are all perfectly reasonable expectations over the next 50 years. There will be more ballot measures, and there will be more funding from other sources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5286  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2019, 10:41 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,961
I definitely don't foresee us having to wait 50+ years for another rail line serving West Hollywood. Numble and I had a conversation several months back with me basically lamenting the slow speed of progress, to which he pointed out that once the R/M projects are out of the way (most of which are part of the 28/28 plan... not realistic at this point though), the transit capital funds aren't allocated to specific projects.

Metro releases fiscal revenues for A/C/R/M on their website, but I wish things would be more transparent as far as how that money has been spent up to this point. For instance, Measure R allocates $4.2 billion for the Westside Subway Extension. Based on these documents:

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/ft...-profile_1.pdf
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/ft...-profile_1.pdf
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/ft...-3-profile.pdf

Only $3.46 billion has been used (factoring the 2.97% interest rate for TIFIA loans). So that's about $700 million remaining. How's it going to be spent?
__________________
“Stop being a spectator ... and start being an active participant.”

Stephen Duneier

Last edited by Quixote; Sep 7, 2019 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5287  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2019, 1:42 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is online now
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
First off a big part of the climate in LA consists of the marine layer which is often associated with smog. Though smog gets mixed in with this, I am aware of it. Freeways don't cause smog-- cars do. I've made this argument many times here and so far no one has disputed it. The engine of the car is what causes pollution as well as other various components contributing to fine particulate emissions.

Yes I care greatly about the environment as I hike and explore it all the time. I am a Sierra Club Member, I donate to WWF, have an America the Great Pass I use the shit out of, etc. I care about mobility just as much and unless you want to live in a cave or force everyone to pander to your version of what you decide is most efficient, we need freeways. Far too many posters on this forum have their heads in the sand, respond with stupid and snide remarks, and provide no argument other than induced demand(!!!) or the environment with no further insight.

We have a severe housing shortage because of problems created by the liberal government in the state and on local levels. Removing several thousand housing units won't worsen it and arguably will make it better by allowing better mobility and fostering a healthy economy as such. Some homes torn down, property owners and renters properly compensated, and other areas of the city become more dense because of it. This is done all the time in other countries and used to be the way here until the same people constantly opposing the housing you want got too much clout blocking freeways from being built. Arguably decisions, more than likely made of out of racist spite, the plow through minority prominent communities were practical, though again racist, and the best path forward was many of the routes. That wasn't always the case, yet where the racism becomes perfectly evident is the rich, white communities that were successful in stopping these routes. Wealth is also a factor. With all of that said, it has become tricky to build new surface freeway routes as ones that are needed for regional efficiency through impoverished or minority strong communities are shot down as racist. The rich raise a stink and then go onto to complain about traffic after they shoot down a good proposal out of selfishness.

So yes I am suggesting were tear down "thousands" of units and that is not of the slightest reasons new freeways in LA to connect gaps are a political non-starter. You should calm down which you clearly aren't based on your post. You should rest easy knowing what I want ain't happening, chief. Now now and not for a long while if ever. The HDC(if built), SR-138, and CA 70 are likely the last freeways ever constructed in LA county. It is getting almost impossible to simply widen freeways as shown by the 710. We shall see how the 105 and 405 widening proposals go. I hope the most ambitious widening proposals are selected but I am skeptical they happen at all at this point.

The freeways I suggest built are tunneled using various methods(cut and cover where possible) and caps to better connect any communities divided and reduce the need for properties. With more and more freeways and roads not all of them have to be the monster 20 lane freeways that have become the norm in LA. With more connections many of these proposed freeways can be a measly 8 lanes and flow just fine.

https://la.curbed.com/2019/2/1/18204...n-trains-buses

Before blue line closures and shown ridership down. NOT entirely because of Blue line.
You are so aggressive and in love with your arguments, it's quite a treat to watch. I just read through all your pro-freeway speech with much amusement.

You automatically assume the induced demand argument, before bringing up your own rock solid counter-argument that "it's basic math". You then proceed to talk about the freeway flow in Phoenix and OKC yet refer to no scientific data, before saying my data is cherry picked and flawed

I would like you to point out to me which cities underwent massive freeway expansions and widening since 2010 with positive results on congestion. With actual data of course, not your own personal observations...

You mention that freeway expansion and widening needs to follow growth. That is exactly what freeway proponents were advancing in the 60's, which led to the massive urban sprawl (amongst other things) that makes public transit planning so difficult and expensive today. The same urban sprawl that has contributed to the destruction of the environment in hundreds of metropolitan areas on our continent and continues to do so today. You're a Sierra Club member, you should know that right?

So instead of talking about growth, why don't we talk about smart growth? AKA the contrary of what most U.S. cities have done in the past 50 years. And that is by creating, dense, walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods where people don't need a car to get around. I know that seems like a strange concept in a country like yours, where driving is seen as a right for a lot of people (as opposed to a privilege), but this is actually the way to build cities which pollute a lot less, in which citizens are healthier and where space is used much more efficiently. By not doing that, we are moving faster towards a planet which has no future.

You point at London as having failed with their congesting pricing scheme, yet London has seen a 7% raise in public transport mode share since the pricing was implemented in 2003, and an 11% drop in private transport mode share (source: https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/st...32290067345409). Funny how your arguments seem a lot less solid when deconstructed with actual data.

You declare that cars are "being safer and safer" and that the grade-separation of freeways is king in transportation safety. Assuming that you also consider public transit, biking, walking as modes of transportation, how do you explain that you are seven times more likely to die by driving than by walking? For cycling, it's 40 times more, and let's not even mention public transit. So no, freeways are not the king in transportation safety, they’re the very opposite. Not even mentioning that cars also cause the majority of pedestrian and cycling deaths.

I love how you mention that you care greatly about the environment ("I contribute to the WWF" ) yet go to great lengths to defend one of the biggest polluters (20% of CO2 emissions in the U.S. come from personal vehicles) and the very culture that has contributed to speeding up global warming (automobile dependency and urban sprawl). Oh, and also a top five leading cause of mortality in the U.S (accidents), not mentioning the many studies on the decline of health related to the pollution emitted by these same vehicles.

Sure, you say there is nothing wrong with being anti-freeway, I say there is everything wrong with being pro-freeway.

Last edited by SkahHigh; Sep 8, 2019 at 4:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5288  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2019, 6:11 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
There will be more ballot measures, and there will be more funding from other sources.
It is more politically prudent for the state to allocate portions of the huge budget surpluses to local projects than to CAHSR. So state money for the section BART tunnel is SF Bay is the obvious one for NoCal and the Sepulveda Pass line is the obvious one for SoCal.

If, for example, California lobs $5 billion in state money at the Sepulveda project, then the money Metro has allocated to that can be shifted to something else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5289  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2019, 10:57 PM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I definitely don't foresee us having to wait 50+ years for another rail line serving West Hollywood. Numble and I had a conversation several months back with me basically lamenting the slow speed of progress, to which he pointed out that once the R/M projects are out of the way (most of which are part of the 28/28 plan... not realistic at this point though), the transit capital funds aren't allocated to specific projects.
After the 2028 projects per the expenditure plans here's the priority order per the Measure M ordinance:
  • Gold Line Eastside Extension (one segment)
  • Crenshaw Northern Extension
  • Lincoln Blvd BRT
  • Green Line extension from Torrance towards Long Beach (if funding is allocated and study is completed)
  • Green Line Extension to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station
  • Sepulveda Pass extension Westwood to LAX
  • Gold Line Eastside Extension (second segment)
  • Orange Line conversion to rail
  • Vermont Avenue Rail corridor conversion

Under the System Connectivity/State of Good Repair bucket these are the projects that are included as part of Measure M spending per the ordinance.
  • Metrolink Improvements
  • Link Union Station
  • Burbank/Glendale LRT
  • Red Line extension from North Hollywood to Burbank Airport

Again unless the push is made to get the fantasy corridors in a LRTP document where and how they spend will be moot.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5290  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2019, 11:33 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,961
^ Do you know of any budgetary surplus with regard to the Westside Subway Extension? An extra $700 million would be very useful in covering Sepulveda's added expenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
After the 2028 projects per the expenditure plans here's the priority order per the Measure M ordinance:
  • Gold Line Eastside Extension (one segment)
  • Crenshaw Northern Extension
  • Lincoln Blvd BRT
  • Green Line extension from Torrance towards Long Beach (if funding is allocated and study is completed)
  • Green Line Extension to Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station
  • Sepulveda Pass extension Westwood to LAX
  • Gold Line Eastside Extension (second segment)
  • Orange Line conversion to rail
  • Vermont Avenue Rail corridor conversion
How feasible would it be to turn rail lines over to the private sector as part of a larger P3 partnership that includes extending those lines? For instance:

Extend the Red Line down Vermont and eliminate the interlining with the Purple line. Then solicit a RFP to extend the Purple Line to Santa Monica, the full line being operated by the same or a different private entity.

Orange Line should be a P3 project, since it's a stand-alone line.

There's really no reason why we can't accelerate every project when we have a no-sunset 2% sales tax and can therefore bond against future revenue.
__________________
“Stop being a spectator ... and start being an active participant.”

Stephen Duneier

Last edited by Quixote; Sep 8, 2019 at 11:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5291  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2019, 12:00 AM
WrightCONCEPT's Avatar
WrightCONCEPT WrightCONCEPT is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ Do you know of any budgetary surplus with regard to the Westside Subway Extension? An extra $700 million would be very useful in covering Sepulveda's added expenses.
Given that this project is not complete, I believe that $700M are contingency funds in case they have cost overages. However how this project has been handled from day one has been spot on to make sure they carefully spend their resources wisely. Yes that $700M will be nice to put towards the Sepulveda Pass project since it is in the same subregion under Measures R and M so projects that completed under budget.

Quote:
How feasible would it be to turn rail lines over to the private sector as part of a larger P3 partnership that includes extending those lines? For instance:

Extend the Red Line down Vermont and eliminate the interlining with the Purple line. Then solicit a RFP to extend the Purple Line to Santa Monica, the full line being operated by the same or a different private entity...There's really no reason why we can't accelerate every project when we have a no-sunset 2% sales tax and can therefore bond against future revenue.
Anything is possible. \
However do ensure we don't make the same mistakes as our predecessors, do we have enough $$ to cover this while maintaining and expanding and gradually aging system and keep the system operating. That is one of the exposure risks the agency run in bringing this to the private sector. If the service is operating with care or with a level competence than the P3 will be a charge order contractual nightmare for the agency and riding public.

Quote:
Orange Line should be a P3 project, since it's a stand-alone line.
The Orange Line LRT would have been the perfect turnkey P3 project if the right of way was still the original railroad before the Orange Line busway project. The reasons are that the mostly at-grade railroad operations would have kept capital and operating costs under control because it would have crossing gates for higher speed operations a few grade separations (around Woodman/Oxnard) and high activity centers and the right size for capacity (Warner Center, Pierce College, Van Nuys, Valley College, North Hollywood Red Line transfer and Burbank if it went that far).

A rail manufacturer like Siemens or Bombardier could have easily done this project this way. This method is what Houston executed with their starter LRT line down Main Street that got high usage right from day one and led to the growth of their system.

With the conversion from BRT to LRT there is still potential provided they protect as much of the right of way to allow this conversion to take place while keeping the Busway operational and that they keep the alignment as straight as possible.
__________________
"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully

The Opposite of PRO is CON, that fact is clearly seen.
If Progress means moves forward, then what does Congress mean?

Last edited by WrightCONCEPT; Sep 10, 2019 at 12:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5292  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2019, 6:40 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
You are so aggressive and in love with your arguments, it's quite a treat to watch. I just read through all your pro-freeway speech with much amusement.

You automatically assume the induced demand argument, before bringing up your own rock solid counter-argument that "it's basic math". You then proceed to talk about the freeway flow in Phoenix and OKC yet refer to no scientific data, before saying my data is cherry picked and flawed

I would like you to point out to me which cities underwent massive freeway expansions and widening since 2010 with positive results on congestion. With actual data of course, not your own personal observations...

You mention that freeway expansion and widening needs to follow growth. That is exactly what freeway proponents were advancing in the 60's, which led to the massive urban sprawl (amongst other things) that makes public transit planning so difficult and expensive today. The same urban sprawl that has contributed to the destruction of the environment in hundreds of metropolitan areas on our continent and continues to do so today. You're a Sierra Club member, you should know that right?

So instead of talking about growth, why don't we talk about smart growth? AKA the contrary of what most U.S. cities have done in the past 50 years. And that is by creating, dense, walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods where people don't need a car to get around. I know that seems like a strange concept in a country like yours, where driving is seen as a right for a lot of people (as opposed to a privilege), but this is actually the way to build cities which pollute a lot less, in which citizens are healthier and where space is used much more efficiently. By not doing that, we are moving faster towards a planet which has no future.

You point at London as having failed with their congesting pricing scheme, yet London has seen a 7% raise in public transport mode share since the pricing was implemented in 2003, and an 11% drop in private transport mode share (source: https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/st...32290067345409). Funny how your arguments seem a lot less solid when deconstructed with actual data.

You declare that cars are "being safer and safer" and that the grade-separation of freeways is king in transportation safety. Assuming that you also consider public transit, biking, walking as modes of transportation, how do you explain that you are seven times more likely to die by driving than by walking? For cycling, it's 40 times more, and let's not even mention public transit. So no, freeways are not the king in transportation safety, they’re the very opposite. Not even mentioning that cars also cause the majority of pedestrian and cycling deaths.

I love how you mention that you care greatly about the environment ("I contribute to the WWF" ) yet go to great lengths to defend one of the biggest polluters (20% of CO2 emissions in the U.S. come from personal vehicles) and the very culture that has contributed to speeding up global warming (automobile dependency and urban sprawl). Oh, and also a top five leading cause of mortality in the U.S (accidents), not mentioning the many studies on the decline of health related to the pollution emitted by these same vehicles.

Sure, you say there is nothing wrong with being anti-freeway, I say there is everything wrong with being pro-freeway.
I've exhausted myself arguing on this point. Sorry but I am not responding to all of this other than I will respectfully disagree with most of what said and apologize that you feel I am aggressive. I am glad I could provide some amusement as you can find something positive from all of that. I am aware my responses are sometimes quite strong and it is something I am working on. Obviously my debating style wouldn't fly in a town hall meeting and better I work on it on a talk forum website than elsewhere.

PS, I respect your views and thank you for being civil unlike several other posters.

PPS, I have a lot to say but I might or might not respond later. If I do, I'll try and make sure my post is unassertive so it isn't misconstrued.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5293  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2019, 8:37 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
The Orange Line LRT would have been the perfect turnkey P3 project if the right of way was still the original railroad before the Orange Line busway project. The reasons are that the mostly at-grade railroad operations would have kept capital and operating costs under control because it would have crossing gates for higher speed operations a few grade separations (around Woodman/Oxnard) and high activity centers and the right size for capacity (Warner Center, Pierce College, Van Nuys, Valley College, North Hollywood Red Line transfer and Burbank if it went that far).
Has anyone ever drawn a fantasy rail map that connects the Orange Line (converted to light rail) to the Gold Line in Pasadena? I fooled around on Google Earth and couldn't come up with anything aside from paralleling expressways or super-expensive tunnels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5294  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 12:21 AM
SkahHigh's Avatar
SkahHigh SkahHigh is online now
More transit please
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
I've exhausted myself arguing on this point. Sorry but I am not responding to all of this other than I will respectfully disagree with most of what said and apologize that you feel I am aggressive. I am glad I could provide some amusement as you can find something positive from all of that. I am aware my responses are sometimes quite strong and it is something I am working on. Obviously my debating style wouldn't fly in a town hall meeting and better I work on it on a talk forum website than elsewhere.

PS, I respect your views and thank you for being civil unlike several other posters.

PPS, I have a lot to say but I might or might not respond later. If I do, I'll try and make sure my post is unassertive so it isn't misconstrued.
I realized I was too harsh in my response. You have every right to your views as well.

Feel free to answer whenever, I'd be glad to keep discussing in a civil manner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5295  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 5:31 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Has anyone ever drawn a fantasy rail map that connects the Orange Line (converted to light rail) to the Gold Line in Pasadena? I fooled around on Google Earth and couldn't come up with anything aside from paralleling expressways or super-expensive tunnels.
I did this a few years ago: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1689...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

If Metro is going forward with center running BRT on Colorado Blvd, then it can be converted to center running LRT later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5296  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2019, 3:27 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by WrightCONCEPT View Post
Given that this project is not complete, I believe that $700M are contingency funds in case they have cost overages. However how this project has been handled from day one has been spot on to make sure they carefully spend their resources wisely. Yes that $700M will be nice to put towards the Sepulveda Pass project since it is in the same subregion under Measures R and M so projects that completed under budget.
The current life of project budgets for the 3 Purple Line segments (the budgets provided to the FTA for grant purposes) already include significant contingency funds. There is a $2.5 billion budget for Section 2 but the status reports make it clear that there is $345.7 million inside that $2.5 billion which is considered contingency funds (they have already spent almost $30 million of that contingency amount; page 15 has the info): http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPG...-section-2.pdf

There was also a $200 million surplus from the Expo Line that was allocated to the Purple Line Section 2: https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...%7C&FullText=1

If Quixote’s calculations are correct, and the Purple Line doesn’t have any construction delays or cost issues, there could be $900 million plus whatever budget surpluses are leftover from Purple Line.

Based on the Purple Line status reports, the construction has been going well so far, unlike the Regional Connector or Crenshaw Line.

I think culvercitylocke over on the Transit Coalition forum was theorizing that the contractors for the Purple Line are making sure they do a good job so they don’t jeopardize being shut out of the billions that will be available in the coming decades as part of the Measure M program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5297  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2019, 6:22 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,961
^ Man if that’s true ($900 million leftover), then we’d only be $500 million short of funding a Purple Line extension to SM. That’s assuming it would be competitive enough for 50% FTA New Starts matching funds and $700-750 million per mile capital costs.
__________________
“Stop being a spectator ... and start being an active participant.”

Stephen Duneier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5298  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2019, 4:44 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,961
What’s with the repeated “mechanical issues” that constantly plague the entire Metro Rail system, particularly LRT? Is it lack of proper maintenance? Or does the exposure to the elements make overhead hires more susceptible to damage/malfunction? I get this isn’t unique to LA, but our system is so much newer. On top of these incessant delays, the lack of explanation/transparency with Metro is disheartening.
__________________
“Stop being a spectator ... and start being an active participant.”

Stephen Duneier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5299  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2019, 4:15 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
I did this a few years ago: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1689...0RCbaHaMpVS7fw

If Metro is going forward with center running BRT on Colorado Blvd, then it can be converted to center running LRT later.
I like it, but I was just in LA last week for the first time in a few years (I will post photos here later) and rode one bus, the 720 from the Getty Center back down to Wilshire, around 5pm. That ride was absolutely insane. It took the bus 4-5 light cycles to make it under the 405 at Church Ln, then another 2-3 cycles to turn east onto Sunset.

Not sure how BRT could be made to work across LA without breaking the acceptability of blocking the box during rush hour. There are so many more intersections in LA than in Manhattan, where they successfully broke the culture of box blocking back in the 90s.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Sep 21, 2019 at 3:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5300  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 12:27 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 147
A lot of new information on the Crenshaw Northern extension at the next West Hollywood City Council meeting. The alignments under consideration new include a hybrid of the San Vincente and Fairfax alignments, more underground sections for the alignments, including the La a Brea alignment now fully underground.



https://weho.granicus.com/AgendaView...&event_id=1156

I tweeted about them here:
https://twitter.com/numble/status/11...033093125?s=21

https://twitter.com/numble/status/11...343731714?s=21
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.