 |
Re: Joe's Good Question
Author: Joe Cullum
Date: 04-04-2019 - 10:15
Thank you, Bob! Very informative as always.
Joe Cullum in Exeter CA
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...".
Joe Cullum in Exeter CA
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...".
