 |
Re: Joe's Good Question
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-02-2019 - 08:23
The Purple Line is an extension of the current Purple line subway, which is already a full six car station, 3 minute headway system. The current six car station configuration is already being tested for its maximum capacity at 7th and Flower, where it intersects with the Expo and Blue line LRT. Since back in the 1980's when we first designed the first phase of the subway, I have pointed out the long run problem of six car stations, when we probably needed 8 car stations.
The Wilshire line has been the highest performing candidate subway project corridors for transit demand in a major US City, all of the way back to 1960's when the Wilshire subway line was first proposed. It still is. So given the loading demands at the stations 3 car LRT capacity (which we already had to reconstruct on the Blue line from the original "two car" platforms, but which we designed into the Gold Line phase I forward), the full six car heavy rail trains will be needed. So the purple line, as designed, extends an existing train, and meets the minimal needs of that corridor.
I oppose conversion of the so-called Orange line BRT to rail at this time. And the future demand for LRT would only add about 15,000 new riders to today's 25.000 BRT riders, for a rail conversion cost of up to $3 billion, making conversion one of the costliest MTA projects in terms of cost benefit for each additional rider. By comparison, the new West Santa Ana, UP, alignment project is around $ 3 billion for a project, that would carry over 90,000 riders on the day it opened.
Political promises to the disparate factions in the San Fernando Valley are truly the "tail that wags the dog" in LA transit politics. They aske for everything, until they get it, and with my experience on such things as the much needed widening of the 101, to the LOSSAN double tracking, and a host of other Valley projects, the the political leaders like Sheila or Zev get spooked the political "wannabee's" and their hoards of "anti everything" Nimby mobs, that they've mostly stirred up on purpose, and it all gets to be a muddled in a mess. And, in the end, they usually are able to screw themselves pretty good, end up with disappointment's like the old Chatsworth line BRT "compromise" (because they opposed rail in the Valley, in the first place...????"), and continue to wallow in ever worsening traffic congestion and complain.
As the bloated costs of some of this, there are valid reasons, and then their is our political culture.... As I have pointed out many times, and as Pogo noted, "we have me the enemy and he is us..", maybe it is because, with the money that seems to be poured into our politics, by those seeking favor and benefit, that we do so often appear to have "the best government that money can buy...".
The Wilshire line has been the highest performing candidate subway project corridors for transit demand in a major US City, all of the way back to 1960's when the Wilshire subway line was first proposed. It still is. So given the loading demands at the stations 3 car LRT capacity (which we already had to reconstruct on the Blue line from the original "two car" platforms, but which we designed into the Gold Line phase I forward), the full six car heavy rail trains will be needed. So the purple line, as designed, extends an existing train, and meets the minimal needs of that corridor.
I oppose conversion of the so-called Orange line BRT to rail at this time. And the future demand for LRT would only add about 15,000 new riders to today's 25.000 BRT riders, for a rail conversion cost of up to $3 billion, making conversion one of the costliest MTA projects in terms of cost benefit for each additional rider. By comparison, the new West Santa Ana, UP, alignment project is around $ 3 billion for a project, that would carry over 90,000 riders on the day it opened.
Political promises to the disparate factions in the San Fernando Valley are truly the "tail that wags the dog" in LA transit politics. They aske for everything, until they get it, and with my experience on such things as the much needed widening of the 101, to the LOSSAN double tracking, and a host of other Valley projects, the the political leaders like Sheila or Zev get spooked the political "wannabee's" and their hoards of "anti everything" Nimby mobs, that they've mostly stirred up on purpose, and it all gets to be a muddled in a mess. And, in the end, they usually are able to screw themselves pretty good, end up with disappointment's like the old Chatsworth line BRT "compromise" (because they opposed rail in the Valley, in the first place...????"), and continue to wallow in ever worsening traffic congestion and complain.
As the bloated costs of some of this, there are valid reasons, and then their is our political culture.... As I have pointed out many times, and as Pogo noted, "we have me the enemy and he is us..", maybe it is because, with the money that seems to be poured into our politics, by those seeking favor and benefit, that we do so often appear to have "the best government that money can buy...".
