LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[numble]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

It can't be both?

I'm pretty well sure I know NSMP's answer too, but I'll let them tell it. Regardless, Metro is pretty trapped since they've been selling the line for years as "connecting SE LA to Union Station and the regional transit network". Changing the line into a connection between SE LA and the financial district this late in the game, even if it makes more engineering sense, is going to rile up a whole lot of people. That's not something you want at such a critical stage of the project, especially if you're trying to keep to as tight a schedule as Metro currently has planned.

Although Eco-Rapid is currently in favor for the Union Station Forecourt station (the alignment will not stop at Union Station but near it), they are also for an extension to Glendale, and if it is more costly to head out from Union Station towards Glendale, they may change their minds.


http://www.eco-rapid.org/Records/Age..._14_18.pdf?v=1

[numble]

For the past several months, Metro’s been internally considering P3 for the East San Fernando Valley Line:

From February 2018:
http://boardarchives.metro.net/Board...ess_Report.pdf


From July 2018:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tup5bcmfc...ort-1.pdf?dl=0


Unless he was misquoted, based on Metro CEO Phil Washington’s comments on October 26 at the Eco-Rapid Summit, it seems to suggest that Metro have decided to pursue a P3 for the East San Fernando Valley Line.
http://www.eco-rapid.org/Records/Age..._14_18.pdf?v=1


I think it could make interlining with the Sepulveda Line more likely, if it turns into one big P3 with multiple phases. Based on my calculations, they have $1.563 billion of funding in place for the East San Fernando Valley Line.

The P3 contractor for the LAX people mover is contributing $1.57 billion in financing for the 2.25 mile people mover project. If they pursue a P3 for Sepulveda+ESFV, maybe a hypothetical P3 contractor could contribute more funding since this is a much longer line which would mean more yearly operating and maintenance payments (9.2 miles for ESFV, 10-14 miles for Sepulveda Section 1, and around 7-8 miles for Sepulveda Section 2).
http://www.infrainsightblog.com/2018...roject-at-lax/

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by numble

Although Eco-Rapid is currently in favor for the Union Station Forecourt station (the alignment will not stop at Union Station but near it), they are also for an extension to Glendale, and if it is more costly to head out from Union Station towards Glendale, they may change their minds.


http://www.eco-rapid.org/Records/Age..._14_18.pdf?v=1

The Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the LA county supervisor representing the project region have already come out against any alternative that doesn't end at Union Station though, which is a pretty clear sign of how this debate is turning. Seeing as that's pretty much every local government along the project route, and it doesn't bode well for Metro to try and fight them. Considering Metro has already shown a tenancy to avoid irking locals with their projects, even if this results in a less cost efficient design, odds are better than even they'll pick the Union Station option.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

The Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the LA county supervisor representing the project region have already come out against any alternative that doesn't end at Union Station though. That's pretty much every local government along the project route, and it doesn't bode well for Metro to try and fight them. Considering Metro has already shown a tenancy to avoid irking locals with their projects, even if this results in a less cost efficient design, odds are better than even they'll pick the Union Station option.

Eco-Rapid has also said they’ll oppose anything other than Union Station and IIRC were the reason way GCCOG swung that way as well. It’s about as close as can be to a done deal.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by numble

For the past several months, Metro’s been internally considering P3 for the East San Fernando Valley Line:

From February 2018:
http://boardarchives.metro.net/Board...ess_Report.pdf

From July 2018:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tup5bcmfc...ort-1.pdf?dl=0

Unless he was misquoted, based on Metro CEO Phil Washington’s comments on October 26 at the Eco-Rapid Summit, it seems to suggest that Metro have decided to pursue a P3 for the East San Fernando Valley Line.
http://www.eco-rapid.org/Records/Age..._14_18.pdf?v=1

I think it could make interlining with the Sepulveda Line more likely, if it turns into one big P3 with multiple phases. Based on my calculations, they have $1.563 billion of funding in place for the East San Fernando Valley Line.

The P3 contractor for the LAX people mover is contributing $1.57 billion in financing for the 2.25 mile people mover project. If they pursue a P3 for Sepulveda+ESFV, maybe a hypothetical P3 contractor could contribute more funding since this is a much longer line which would mean more yearly operating and maintenance payments (9.2 miles for ESFV, 10-14 miles for Sepulveda Section 1, and around 7-8 miles for Sepulveda Section 2).
http://www.infrainsightblog.com/2018...roject-at-lax/

I’ll be happy as anyone for an interlinked rapid transit line here if that’s what we get. But it’s important to note that that would be, depending on the scope of the agreement, a P3 of enormous magnitude and complexity. That means fewer bidders and higher cost.

[202_Cyclist]

Westside and South Bay clash over how to connect two rail lines


By Laura J. Nielsen
LA Times
11/24/18


A Metro Green Line train leaves the Aviation/LAX station in El Segundo in 2016. The new Crenshaw Line will meet the Green Line near this stop, but transit officials are at odds over how to run trains along the junction shown to the right. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

"One of the most important elements of the $2-billion Crenshaw Line, the light rail route under construction in Inglewood and South Los Angeles, is a Y-shaped convergence of track at the end of the line in El Segundo.

The junction will allow Crenshaw Line trains to merge onto the tracks used by the nearby Green Line, which runs alongside the 105 Freeway. In a sprawling system in which riders can face multiple transfers to get to their destinations, the design creates a rare opportunity for riders: a seamless, 22-mile trip between Norwalk and the Mid-City area of Los Angeles..."

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...124-story.html

[plutonicpanda]

The Boring Company's tunnel under the 405 is canceled. Surprise surprise. I am growing more and more critical of Elon by the day.

[numble]

Here is Metro staff’s report on options to obtain the $26.2 billion needed to complete the 28x28 plan. Ideas include increasing debt, using ExpressLanes revenue, using more city funding, taxing Uber/Lyft, selling BikeShare, using P3s, fare increases, state/federal funding (including Olympics-dedicated funding), congestion pricing, selling more advertising, delaying full electrification of bus fleet, value capture, etc.

This report also provides more strong evidence that Metro intends to pursue a P3 for the East San Fernando Valley Line, even though they have made no public announcements on this issue.

https://metro.legistar.com/View.ashx...7-1607668230BE

[SIGSEGV]

26.2 billion? That sounds like a marathon effort.

[Illithid Dude]

Welp time to implement congestion pricing on ten corridors 

[numble]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

26.2 billion? That sounds like a marathon effort.

Based on the report, they seem to think there are some low and medium hanging fruit that can get them to $20.6 billion.

The report doesn't seem to account for the likelihood that the next Congress will pass a big infrastructure bill, though it does expect to get $2 billion from the federal government due to the Olympics.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by numble

Based on the report, they seem to think there are some low and medium hanging fruit that can get them to $20.6 billion.

The report doesn't seem to account for the likelihood that the next Congress will pass a big infrastructure bill, though it does expect to get $2 billion from the federal government due to the Olympics.

Given the current state of our federal government, I wouldn't count on $2 billion for the Olympics much less a gigantic infrastructure bill....

[SoCalKid]

Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry introduced a bill to lower the special tax voter approval threshold to 55%. That could open up the door for a true urban transit measure with the bulk of the money going to core transit projects, without large amounts for highways and exurban extensions. This could be huge, imagine a 2020 measure that funds the Crenshaw Northern Extension, the Vermont Subway, a Purple Line extension to Santa Monica, the Sepulveda line all the way to LAX, a Santa Monica Blvd line (to compensate Weho for picking a more direct Crenshaw North route), and BRT lines along all the heaviest bus corridors, all in addition to the 28 by 28 projects. If this passes and Metro/local leaders handle the opportunity correctly, this could be transformational for LA.

https://www.record-bee.com/2018/12/0...ocal-projects/

[DJM19]

SCRRA (Metrolink) would like to take advantage of the lower threshold. They seem to intend to put before voters a measure to bolster the system including electrification of lines, more grade separation, and increased service.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by DJM19

SCRRA (Metrolink) would like to take advantage of the lower threshold. They seem to intend to put before voters a measure to bolster the system including electrification of lines, more grade separation, and increased service.

That'd be great, as long as it's not the terrible car/highway heavy Move LA proposal. Only 10% of that would go to Metrolink.

[Pedestrian]

Riding on Cabin, the sleepover bus from S.F. to L.A.

[BrownTown]

Not a big deal, but it looks like Google Maps has new images for LA so you can see some good progress on the various lines currently under construction.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Not a big deal, but it looks like Google Maps has new images for LA so you can see some good progress on the various lines currently under construction.

Thanks. Do you foresee any of the at-grade crossings on the Crenshaw Line as being especially problematic? I am thinking of a similar slowdown area to what exists where the Expo and Blue lines join south of the Staples Center.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

If this passes and Metro/local leaders handle the opportunity correctly, this could be transformational for LA.

Given Metro's track record, that's a big if. Besides, wouldn't the Metro Board of Directors (which has representation from all over the county) have to give its approval before the measure goes before voters? That's just as big an obstacle as the ridiculous supermajority threshold.

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by DJM19

SCRRA (Metrolink) would like to take advantage of the lower threshold. They seem to intend to put before voters a measure to bolster the system including electrification of lines, more grade separation, and increased service.

Even a 55 percent threshold is likely too heavy of a lift for Metrolink. Their public visibility is low, and it's tough to sell voters on a ballot initiative to fund something that won't result in new rail lines.