HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4441  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2017, 7:31 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Did anyone go to the transit coalition Rick Meade event last night? Anything interesting come out?
I was there. Present in the audience were mainly contractors, architects, engineers who were getting the specifics on what project can/will be P3 and how to go about the bidding for those things and what Metro is looking for in P3 Or in the types of construction and financing for each line. People were asking which projects would be a Design-Build Or a Design-Bid-Build or Design-Bid-Finance-Build. I found it very interesting.

Last edited by hughfb3; Oct 30, 2017 at 7:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4442  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2017, 5:51 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
I was there. Present in the audience were mainly contractors, architects, engineers who were getting the specifics on what project can/will be P3 and how to go about the bidding for those things and what Metro is looking for in P3 Or in the types of construction and financing for each line. People were asking which projects would be a Design-Build Or a Design-Bid-Build or Design-Bid-Finance-Build. I found it very interesting.
Aside from Sepulveda Pass, West Santa Ana Branch, and Express Lanes, which projects did they indicate would be available for P3?

Anything to report on the potential for acceleration?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4443  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2017, 9:15 PM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephE View Post
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to build a one-station extension to serve an NFL station. I'm not surprise that it was only projected to get 900 riders a day.

Stations along Hawthorne would get higher ridership, since more people live within walking distance and the busier bus routes are on Hawthorne.

But I hope I'm not implying that I think the Hawthorne route should get service before any of the line planned for Measure M. While it would probably have higher ridership per mile than the Eastside Gold Line extensions or the second phase of the Santa Ana Branch (south of the Green Line), those projects have been promised to voters and should be delivered.

I'm thinking about a line on Hawthorne in the context of the new LRTP, due in 2019, and the next plan to expand the system. I expect Metro will go back to the voters in 2024 to request funding to complete the currently planned projects sooner, and will add another 10 or so projects: just like with Measure M.

The Hawthorne line through Inglewood and Hawthorne would certainly be one of the top dozen useful projects after Measure M. Here's what I would put on the project list for a 2024 ballot measure: a line on Sunset/Santa Monica, Purple Line extension to Santa Monica and East LA / Pico Rivera, Electrifying Metrolink to Burbank and OC, a Vermont Subway to South LA, Light Rail down 7th street in Long Beach to VA/CSULB and a couple other projects: Pico subway? BRT on Reseda? Converting Van Nuys and Orange Line to LRT if not already funded, depending on the politics and the size of the funding package.
That makes sense in the context of regional balance for the next ballot measure. But the Hawthorne spur doesn't make any sense in isolation.

Just like the Eastside Gold line extensions, it is probably the most palatable option to throw in for South Bay but it is going to be a really low ridership line unless Hawthorne gets significantly up-zoned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4444  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2017, 2:44 AM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
Central LA wouldn't get all of those projects in several ballot measures under the present project selection process. Not that they're not worthy projects.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4445  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2017, 3:17 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 35
Here is a useful presentation that is attached to Metro's November Construction Committee agenda, shows the current non-accelerated schedule for projects in the pipeline for the next 12 years or so:
http://metro.legistar.com/gateway.as...5da35085fc.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4446  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2017, 3:50 PM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
I wish they had the equivalent of the measure r project management dashboard for measure m projects. Looks like Crenshaw northern should be kicking off environmental studies soon. The alternatives analysis for that is going to be interesting
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4447  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2017, 4:07 PM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
Also, they now have WSAB listed in one phase with an expected completion of 2029... is that new since the P3 was announced?
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4448  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2017, 6:42 PM
Ragnar Ragnar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 179
That document claims the cost and schedule of the Regional Connector are green.

Lol ok.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...109-story.html

A year late and 28% over the original budget.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4449  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2017, 6:47 PM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
That document is based on Metro's internal project management. Project Managers don't care about original cost or schedule, they care about approved cost and schedule. The extended timeline and extra costs were approved by the board, so green just means they are within approved bounds. As of now.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4450  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 6:01 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
I wish they had the equivalent of the measure r project management dashboard for measure m projects. Looks like Crenshaw northern should be kicking off environmental studies soon. The alternatives analysis for that is going to be interesting
They did update this dashboard to include some Measure M projects. It seems to only include those projects that are in the Measure M groundbreaking timeline for the next 8 years.
https://mtadash.mlmprojectservices.c...ansit+Projects

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Also, they now have WSAB listed in one phase with an expected completion of 2029... is that new since the P3 was announced?
I think that is just there because under Measure M, WSAB (without mentioning of phases) is listed as having estimated opening date between 2028-2030.

The P3s technically aren't approved yet. I think it was in the July 2017 Planning and Programming Committee meeting where staff discussed that they will continue to plan and conduct studies under the normal process, in case the P3s don't ultimately materialize or are approved and so that they have some leverage in the P3 discussion process (the P3 contractor is further incentivized to give a competitive offer if they know that Metro has the fallback option available).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4451  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 4:05 PM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
Oops forgot my pdf of the expenditure plan was before the last minute board changes. Thanks!
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4452  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 4:11 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is online now
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,595
I remember there have been tons of issues with the Regional Connector ever since they started doing utility relocation all those years ago. I'm not surprised with this delay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4453  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 12:26 AM
bzcat bzcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I remember there have been tons of issues with the Regional Connector ever since they started doing utility relocation all those years ago. I'm not surprised with this delay.
And the budget increase was driven largely by 2 lawsuit settlements. Only a small portion of the increase was eaten by delays and contingencies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4454  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2017, 5:45 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 274
https://i.redd.it/etpvntbaneyz.png

(I would post the image but can't figure out how to resize it... how do I do that??)

Apparently this will be part of a report presented at a Metrolink (or maybe Metro?) board meeting tomorrow. This would be enormous if actually implemented. 7.5 minute headways to Burbank, 15 minute through all of the San Fernando Valley and Orange County, and 30 minute through the SGV! Supposedly electrification of at least some lines is on the table in order to achieve this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4455  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 2:44 PM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 35
Blogging about Metro is a very lucrative gig:
https://metro.legistar.com/Legislati...ch=&FullText=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4456  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2017, 7:43 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
And the budget increase was driven largely by 2 lawsuit settlements. Only a small portion of the increase was eaten by delays and contingencies.
Sounds about right for California. It's really hard to logically justify any of these projects when you look at their cost per rider. Especially with transit ridership going down despite billions in investments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4457  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 4:59 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Sounds about right for California. It's really hard to logically justify any of these projects when you look at their cost per rider. Especially with transit ridership going down despite billions in investments.
Rail ridership has gone up while bus ridership has gone down.
What is the cost per rider for the Regional Connector and Purple Line extensions?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4458  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 5:42 AM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 466
$20,000/rider on the regional connector and about $70k/rider on the purple line. But imo the PLE ridership estimate is unaccountably low.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4459  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 9:00 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
Rail ridership has gone up while bus ridership has gone down.
What is the cost per rider for the Regional Connector and Purple Line extensions?
Exactly. You're just spending Billions of dollars to move people from buses to trains with the overall system seeing a loss in ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4460  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 6:06 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 274
Latest quarterly cap and trade auction raised $800 million. If that pace keeps up, we're looking at $3.2 billion per year. By law, 25% of that goes to high speed rail, 10% to transit capital, and 5% to transit operations. That means $800 million for high speed rail, $320 million for transit projects, and $160 million for transit operations annually! Not bad!
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 5:12 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.