LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion - Page 182

NSMP · #**3621** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 4:59 AM**

Well it's tough to say. Given the results, it seems like people voted based on projects in their area, as opposed to projects other people were getting or the timelines, etc. So, yes, I do think that there was slack to cut highway funding some and increase transit funding some and still pass Measure M. Ultimately, 66.7% of voters in a 10 million person county is an absurdly high bar. I can't fault Metro for playing it safe, and their abundance of caution paid off. As far as other ways to finance new transit lines... it's tough to say right now. The city of LA might need to step up more on some important lines within city limits. Or maybe CAHSR falls apart and that money reverts to municipal rail projects (I don't want this to happen, just saying). There's a lot of time to figure out what comes next, just look at the measure m map and remind yourself that that all just shot from fantasy to reality in the last two weeks. We did a very good very significant thing.

I'm a bit skeptical of the P3's until specifics start coming to light. I don't feel like Metro has shown a strong enough commitment to service levels or equity, and depending on how the contracts are drawn up, they could potentially sell their right to improve in a given capacity over a long period of time (Shout out CBS/Decaux street furniture contract!). I'm hopeful, but definitely skeptical.

ChargerCarl · #**3622** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 4:01 PM**

NSMP, what do you think about rail on vermont? Transit twitter was advocating for a subway there the other day since it's one of LA' highest performing bus routes.

NSMP · #**3623** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 6:37 PM**

I actually was the one posting the boarding counts from Vermont. It's a top tier project when you're talking about importance. I'll probably have a few more tweets about it in the next few days.

Qubert · #**3624** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 7:36 PM**

How's this for a Vermont line:

Convert the Orange line to LRT, where it dives underground around Chandler/Hwy 170, then runs along the existing Red line to Wilshire/Vermont, for connections to Purple. The line then rises to an elevated viaduct along Vermont for it's journey down to CA 1, where to makes a left and follows the PCH to Long Beach Blvd, then joining the Blue for service to Downtown Long Beach.

Positives:

Disconnects the Red and Purple, which gives needed capacity to the Purple.

Creates seamless transportation option for the Southern SFV to DTLA/West Side (via Purple line transfer) as well as LAX (via Green Line transfer).

Creates necessary SFV-Westside capacity.

Challenges:

Conversion of Red Line to LRV (mostly the switch from 3rd rail to catenary)

Bringing line above ground in Koreatown (eminent domain a possibilty here)

Bringing line into Long Beach (alternative corridors could be considered)

What do you guys think?

Quixote · #**3625** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSMP

Well it's tough to say. Given the results, it seems like people voted based on projects in their area, as opposed to projects other people were getting or the timelines, etc. So, yes, I do think that there was slack to cut highway funding some and increase transit funding some and still pass Measure M. Ultimately, 66.7% of voters in a 10 million person county is an absurdly high bar. I can't fault Metro for playing it safe, and their abundance of caution paid off. As far as other ways to finance new transit lines... it's tough to say right now. The city of LA might need to step up more on some important lines within city limits. Or maybe CAHSR falls apart and that money reverts to municipal rail projects (I don't want this to happen, just saying). There's a lot of time to figure out what comes next, just look at the measure m map and remind yourself that that all just shot from fantasy to reality in the last two weeks. We did a very good very significant thing.

I'm a bit skeptical of the P3's until specifics start coming to light. I don't feel like Metro has shown a strong enough commitment to service levels or equity, and depending on how the contracts are drawn up, they could potentially sell their right to improve in a given capacity over a long period of time (Shout out CBS/Decaux street furniture contract!). I'm hopeful, but definitely skeptical.

They could've cut back on "non-sexy" Transit Operations and Maintenance, which probably wouldn't have had any negative impact in regard to the voting results. In other words, they could've found a way to sneak in a project like Vermont HRT to at least Expo/Vermont. In fact, that was one of the projects the stakeholders had on their wishlist and was actually part of the plan before inexplicably being taken off at the last minute. I know that any expansion of infrastructure also requires increased maintenance. I also know that we don't want our infrastructure falling apart like WMATA and BART. But between A/C/R/M, it seems like operations and maintenance is getting a disproportionately greater amount of funding.

You've pointed out the moral victory aspect, which I can appreciate. For me, Measure M was basically about three things: 1) Sepulveda subway (there's no money to build it, otherwise), 2) Purple Line to VA ASAP, and 3) no-sunset clause. It's more relief than happiness on my part.

NSMP · #**3626** Posted **Nov 26, 2016, 10:31 PM**

Including operations and maintenance is important *because* it's not sexy. Too much highway spending is the major issue, that and various white elephant rail projects in the Valleys

Edit: but each served and achieved a political purpose

NSMP · #**3627** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 12:03 AM**

Re Vermont Plans: I'd be happy to see the HRT line eventually extended to Bob Hope on the northern end and as far south as San Pedro or Wilmington to the south. There's actually decent potential to branch service and serve San Pedro and Wilmington with the branch point falling somewhere from Carson to Harbor City. CAHSRA should be encouraged to help fund a Bob Hope extension of the Red Line to meet up with Burbank's HSR station. Failing that, it's ultimately not a high priority.

Phase one: Vermont HRT extension to Green Line, elevated south of Gage.
Phase two: Burbank Extension
Phase three: one or both branches to Gaffey/19th in San Pedro and Wilmington/Anaheim in Wilmington

Edit: deleted broken link

NSMP · #**3628** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 12:50 AM**

Deleted

ChargerCarl · #**3629** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 12:56 AM**

NSMP, what's your twitter handle?

NSMP · #**3630** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 1:50 AM**

@safrazie

ChargerCarl · #**3631** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 3:57 AM**

lol I'm already following you

Quixote · #**3632** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSMP

Phase two: Burbank Extension

I've always felt that this project was vastly overrated. It sounds like a worthwhile idea on the surface, but is severely lacking in transformative value (especially vis-a-vis the price tag). Keep in mind that Bob Hope Airport's annual passenger traffic is absolutely minuscule compared to LaGuardia, Reagan, Midway, or Oakland; LA lacks a true secondary airport. I don't know what that figure is, but I'd estimate it to be around 3-3.5 million. Is that number really substantial enough to warrant its own subway station?

What do I want? This:

mrsmartman · #**3633** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 7:45 AM**

Freeway is the backbone of LA, to which light rail is subordinated to.

NSMP · #**3634** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 11:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

I've always felt that this project was vastly overrated. It sounds like a worthwhile idea on the surface, but is severely lacking in transformative value (especially vis-a-vis the price tag). Keep in mind that Bob Hope Airport's annual passenger traffic is absolutely minuscule compared to LaGuardia, Reagan, Midway, or Oakland; LA lacks a true secondary airport. I don't know what that figure is, but I'd estimate it to be around 3-3.5 million. Is that number really substantial enough to warrant its own subway station?

It makes a logical endpoint for the red line, being, eventually, a metrolink/HSR station and an airport. That opens up the possibility of getting CAHSRA to fund some part of a short extension. That potential for funding is the only reason to try to fund that leg of the route before the Harbor extension, which would hit higher population densities and a few colleges/job centers, and be at least partially above grade.

Personally, failing some state funding, I don't see a compelling reason for a northern extension of the red line at all. Especially not as far north as Sylmar, which is bound to be low ridership regardless, barring some significant zoning changes. Tying up the far ends of the system always looks like an attractive option but the reality is it's probably not worth the expense if you have an alternative capable of handling the relatively small demand on that corridor, like the orange line. Just IMO

Rational Plan3 · #**3635** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hughfb3

So let's hope and rally for the west Santa Ana branch rail or the harbor subdivision to create the alameda to little Tokyo alignment option so we can have an alternate way for blue and expo to get to Union station while we grade separate the flower st. Alignment in the future

Why don't you just close traffic lanes on that stretch? Or study real tram systems of Europe where the busiest tram lines run 30 to 40 trams an hour through busy city centres. It can be done. The biggest constraint is the existing terminal, which will be gone with the regional connector.

NSMP · #**3636** Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 11:15 PM**

The biggest constraint is the existing terminal, but when that's fixed the biggest constraint will be the flower/Washington at-grade junction. That junction will be handling 48 3-car trains per hour during peak hours.

plutonicpanda · #**3637** Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NSMP

Including operations and maintenance is important *because* it's not sexy. Too much highway spending is the major issue, that and various white elephant rail projects in the Valleys

Edit: but each served and achieved a political purpose

Too much highway spending? There is more rail spending than highway spending on this ballot, is there not?

ChargerCarl · #**3638** Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Too much highway spending? There is more rail spending than highway spending on this ballot, is there not?

You could argue that the highway projects on metro's wishlist (710 extension, 405 carpool lane through supulveda pass, etc) are wasteful on a $ per capacity added relative to rail projects they could support.

NSMP · #**3639** Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Too much highway spending? There is more rail spending than highway spending on this ballot, is there not?

None would have been fine with me.

202_Cyclist · #**3640** Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

I've always felt that this project was vastly overrated. It sounds like a worthwhile idea on the surface, but is severely lacking in transformative value (especially vis-a-vis the price tag). Keep in mind that Bob Hope Airport's annual passenger traffic is absolutely minuscule compared to LaGuardia, Reagan, Midway, or Oakland; LA lacks a true secondary airport. I don't know what that figure is, but I'd estimate it to be around 3-3.5 million. Is that number really substantial enough to warrant its own subway station?

The airport formerly known as Bob Hope had more than 1.9M enplaned passengers in 2015 (enplaned passengers are departing passengers. Total passengers at an airport is roughly double this: https://dwuconsulting.com/images/Art...Passengers.pdf).

BUR has experienced decent growth over the past year: http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank...816-story.html.