HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #561  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 10:23 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,445
Westsidelife:

Quote:
New Starts funding *and* a federal loan. Okay, now there should be absolutely no reason why we can't get the Purple Line to Brentwood by 2019...

L.A. Seeks Federal Loan to Speed Measure R Projects

January 5, 2010

Los Angeles city officials filed a request with the federal government Tuesday to borrow money to speed up plans for the "Subway to the Sea" and other transit projects planned under Measure R.

The City Council asked that the proposed National Infrastructure Development Bank, to be created under legislation now pending in Congress, advance money to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to speed up Measure R projects.
The proposed National Infrastructure Bank is a great idea and the legislation to create it has 44 cosponsors but it is now stalled in Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:6:./temp/~bddG3X::|/bss/111search.html|. Under the proposal from the Obama administration, the infrastructure bank would be capitalized with $5B per year over five years to make loans such as this to be repaid with a guaranteed funding source.

I attended a transportation roundtable back in October and I asked a staff member for some Republican on the Hill why this legislation hasn't advanced in Congress. The GOP is constantly stating the need for alternative forms of financing rather than raising the gas tax. This would appear to be perfect type of alternative financing for these large, long-term infrastructure projects. It seems like this proposal is stalled for no other reason than politics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #562  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2010, 11:59 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
I attended a transportation roundtable back in October and I asked a staff member for some Republican on the Hill why this legislation hasn't advanced in Congress.
What was the response?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #563  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 3:12 PM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Sector meetings begin next month to discuss the proposed June 2010 Metro service enhancements. Armageddon for bus service hasn't come, yet. Measure R operations funding (15%) has been the reason why more service is preserved than created.

A couple of highlights:
1) a new Rapid Line - 733 down Venice Blvd, which means the removal of the Limited stop 333

2) Make permanent route 902 and introduce mid-day service

Source: http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/special_services/public_hearings.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #564  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 4:41 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,616
Lightbulb

Quote:
The proposed National Infrastructure Bank is a great idea and the legislation to create it has 44 cosponsors but it is now stalled in Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...11search.html|. Under the proposal from the Obama administration, the infrastructure bank would be capitalized with $5B per year over five years to make loans such as this to be repaid with a guaranteed funding source.
I attended a transportation roundtable back in October and I asked a staff member for some Republican on the Hill why this legislation hasn't advanced in Congress. The GOP is constantly stating the need for alternative forms of financing rather than raising the gas tax. This would appear to be perfect type of alternative financing for these large, long-term infrastructure projects. It seems like this proposal is stalled for no other reason than politics.
So how will the borrowers pay back the National Infrastructure Bank? Raising the gas tax, or inventing some new unheard of tax? Republicans are mostly against raising taxes, any type of taxes, not specifically the gas tax.

Most local transit agencies have the ability to raise capital funds by selling local bonds. They don't need to borrow funds from the National Infrastructure Bank which is going to be repaid by selling local bonds later, or by raising taxes or fares.

The purpose of creating a National Infrastructure Bank is not to build infrastructure projects, its purpose is to replace the private bonding market. A private bonding market that's not broken I might add. I don't find it surprising to see Republicans against replacing private markets with a public markets. Especially stocks and bonds, which the government should be regulating, not participating. Why do you?

I'm not suggesting I favor one side of this political argument or the other. Just stating what the other side may be thinking......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #565  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 6:05 PM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
So how will the borrowers pay back the National Infrastructure Bank? Raising the gas tax, or inventing some new unheard of tax? Republicans are mostly against raising taxes, any type of taxes, not specifically the gas tax.

QUOTE=electricron;4640712]Most local transit agencies have the ability to raise capital funds by selling local bonds. They don't need to borrow funds from the National Infrastructure Bank which is going to be repaid by selling local bonds later, or by raising taxes or fares.

The purpose of creating a National Infrastructure Bank is not to build infrastructure projects, its purpose is to replace the private bonding market. A private bonding market that's not broken I might add. I don't find it surprising to see Republicans against replacing private markets with a public markets. Especially stocks and bonds, which the government should be regulating, not participating. Why do you?

I'm not suggesting I favor one side of this political argument or the other. Just stating what the other side may be thinking......
Btw, what is the current state of the bond market? Are private financiers healthy enough to provide loans to public agencies at low interest rates? I understood that rates were rising.... at least a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #566  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 6:26 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,445
Electricron--

Quote:
The purpose of creating a National Infrastructure Bank is not to build infrastructure projects, its purpose is to replace the private bonding market. A private bonding market that's not broken I might add. I don't find it surprising to see Republicans against replacing private markets with a public markets. Especially stocks and bonds, which the government should be regulating, not participating. Why do you?
One of the main purposes of creating an infrastructure bank is to find alternative ways of financing transportation projects. There has been no commitment to raise the gas tax during the last 15 years and as we've seen with Michael Bloomberg's failed effort in New York, there isn't the political support in the U.S. for funding strategies like congestion pricing.

Financing could also be obtained from the federal government at lower interest rates, saving taxpayers a significant amount of money over the repayment period for the bonds.

Third, a National Infrastructure Bank would remove be a great step towards removing politics and earmarking from the process of allocating funding for transportation projects. I think the board of directors of the bank would be appointed for fixed terms, giving them greater independence than legislators who must continually be reelected. The projects that get financing from an infrastructure bank would have to satisfactorily meet benefit-cost criteria.

You are correct that the borrowers will pay back the bonds through either some combination of a dedicated tax, toll, or other fee. This toll or fee, however, could be part of a congestion pricing strategy, thereby managing capacity on our highways better than the gas tax does now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #567  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 7:19 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,616
Lightbulb

The Bank would get a total of $5 Billion to invest in just a few years. Assuming the loan repayment period is over let's say 10 or more years, what would be left, available for projects after the first few years? Nothing....
Another $5 Billion from the Federal Bankroll would have to be given to the Bank so it could continue to lend money before it gets all its money back.

So, it isn't going to be a one time allocation of money by the Feds....those proposing the Bank seem to forget that point.

DART sold a $1 Billion of bonds earlier this year at a very good rate (one transit agency for just one city amounting to 20% of the Bank's proposed capital). Other transit agencies have sold bonds this year too. So there wasn't a problem selling bonds this year in the private markets, as long as the agency selling the bonds was in good financial shape.........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #568  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2010, 7:39 PM
mwadswor's Avatar
mwadswor mwadswor is offline
The Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 1,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
The Bank would get a total of $5 Billion to invest in just a few years. Assuming the loan repayment period is over let's say 10 or more years, what would be left, available for projects after the first few years? Nothing....
Another $5 Billion from the Federal Bankroll would have to be given to the Bank so it could continue to lend money before it gets all its money back.

So, it isn't going to be a one time allocation of money by the Feds....those proposing the Bank seem to forget that point.

DART sold a $1 Billion of bonds earlier this year at a very good rate (one transit agency for just one city amounting to 20% of the Bank's proposed capital). Other transit agencies have sold bonds this year too. So there wasn't a problem selling bonds this year in the private markets, as long as the agency selling the bonds was in good financial shape.........
I agree with much of what you're saying, but your argument is assuming that this infrastructure bank will be the sole source of capital for infrastructure projects. If Dallas can get a decent rate through the private bond market, who says they'll even qualify for a loan from the infrastructure bank? This is the federal governmnt we're talking about, loans would be based on need, not ROI. If a project like Dallas has alternatives, I doubt they'd qualify for need. The other point to remember, (and I haven't looked into this bank much, so I'm not sure), is this is the federal government we're talking about. Federal money always comes with loads and loads of strings attached... plenty of projects currently decide to forgoe federal money because it's quicker and easier to pursue other funding routes, who says that trend wouldn't continue?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #569  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2010, 4:32 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 8,206
Whittier plans grass-roots effort for light-rail line, not money for consultants

From the Whittier Daily News:

Whittier plans grass-roots effort for light-rail line, not money for consultants

By Mike Sprague, Staff Writer
Posted: 01/09/2010 09:34:48 PM PST

WHITTIER - Grass-roots pressure, not money spent hiring expensive consultants, is the way city officials plan to promote a light-rail line from East Los Angeles to Whittier, officials say.

Whittier City Councilman Owen Newcomer said he doesn't believe his city needs to match the planned spending - as much as $70,000 - of six San Gabriel Valley cities that support a line along the 60 Freeway ending in South El Monte.

"We don't need to do a new analysis," Newcomer said.

"In our opinion, the analysis Metro did supports Washington Boulevard," Newcomer said, referring to a route that would end in Whittier at Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital. "We have the facts on our side."

Newcomer was referring to a Federal Transit Administration minimum "user benefit" figure and the fact that the Washington Boulevard route would have higher ridership than along the Pomona Freeway.

The Washington Boulevard route calculates at about $85 per rider and the 60 Freeway route is more than $130, said Tham Nguyen, assistant project manager.

The figure is developed through a formula dividing the cost by benefits, which includes ridership numbers.

In addition, the 9.3-mile Washington Boulevard route would have a projected 15,660 riders per day, while the 6.9-mile 60 Freeway line would have an estimated 12,270 riders per day.

The Washington Boulevard line would cost an estimated $2.2 billion, while the Pomona Freeway alignment would cost $1.8 billion.
As a result, what Whittier needs to do is mobilize its residents, Newcomer said. It would be similar to the way the city successfully fought a proposal to build a state prison hospital at the former Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility, Newcomer said.

Still, the cities of El Monte, Industry, Monterey Park, Montebello, Rosemead and South El Monte have formed a coalition and are planning to lobby Metro in favor of the line along the freeway.

"We have our consultants on board and have a meeting in February to look at bringing in an outside planner who will help us look at opportunities to increase ridership and transit-oriented development," said South El Monte Councilman Joseph Gonzales, chairman of the SR-60 Coalition of Cities.

Gonzales said the exact amount of spending remains to be determined, but predicted it will be in the range of $50,000 to $70,000.

Nancy Mendez, Whittier assistant city manager, said her city is preparing to respond to those efforts.

The first step was creating a council subcommittee of Newcomer and Councilman Joe Vinatieri, Mendez said.

"Now we're at the point of gathering information about how we might be able to influence Metro to consider the Washington Boulevard route," Mendez said.

Mendez said officials in Whittier are trying to determine how best to influence Metro to support the Washington Boulevard route.

"Hopefully, (Metro's deliberation) will be a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of this line," she said. "(But) it's difficult not to be swayed by the political process when working with a political board."

Some think Whittier should be doing more to promote the Washington Boulevard line.

"Those guys have their act together," said Whittier Uptown resident Les Howard, about the San Gabriel Valley cities.

"We need to start orchestrating our forces, sitting down with Commerce, Pico Rivera and Montebello," said Howard, a professor of sociology at Whittier College who emphasized that he doesn't speak for the college. "If necessary, we should be willing to put some resources into this."

Vinatieri said Whittier has had a successful two-pronged approach.

"The first prong was to make sure we got into contention and to make it sure it didn't come down the Greenway Trail or Whittier Boulevard," Vinatieri said.

As part of that, both Newcomer and Vinatieri went to Metro meetings, he said.

And the Washington Boulevard route is preferred. Greenway Trail and Whittier Boulevard are not, Vinatieri said.

"Now the second prong is to go after it and support it in two ways," he said.

"We do it from the bottom up, grass-roots style," Vinatieri said. "From the top down, we have the political aspect. We have the councils and electeds supporting the (Washington Boulevard alignment)."

Vinatieri said he's prepared to spend money, but only if it's necessary.

"Light rail needs to come to Whittier because it's all about our future," he said. "On the projected route through Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs into Whittier there are businesses along the line that would benefit.

"It also ends at one of the largest employers in Whittier," Vinatieri said, referring to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, which employs upward of 3,500 people.

[email protected]

562-698-0955, ext. 3022
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #570  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2010, 3:55 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Federal Rules Changes Could Benefit Metro, Other Transit Projects

By Steve Hymon
January 13, 2010

Some significant transit news out of Washington D.C. today: The rules that govern which major transit projects receive federal funding have been eased so that theoretically more projects can qualify.

Why does this matter to Los Angeles County?

Metro is currently seeking federal funds for the Westside Subway Extension and Downtown Regional Connector projects from the federal New Starts program. In the past, decisions on which projects received New Starts were largely made on the basis of whether a project met certain “cost-effectiveness” guidelines.

Here’s the first sentence from the press release from the Federal Transit Administration:

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #571  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2010, 3:22 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Some unfortunate news from The Transit Coalition:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gokhan
...

The biggest news is that an initial opening to Crenshaw is no longer an option. CPUC has just demanded automatic train protection (ATP) to be installed at Washington/Flower. This will delay the project by 6 - 9 months and cost $4 - 6 million. Expo also doesn't have the money; so, they will have to go to Metro.

The delay was reduced to 47 weeks from 54 weeks. It was claimed that this is because the Venice/Robertson superstructure will be bidden out to a new contractor. This puts the Phase 1 substantial completion on December 27, 2010, and the Phase opening to Venice/Robertson to May 27, 2011, or earlier. But this doesn't include delays due to ATP installation at Washington/Flower and likely delays in the construction of the Venice/Robertson superstructure. Note, again, that an initial opening to Crenshaw is no longer an option.

...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #572  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2010, 4:29 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,445
UC Berkeley published the latest edition of its Access magazine this week. There are several interesting article (carsharing and TODs, airport congestion, etc...). There is an article "Moving Los Angeles" (http://www.uctc.net/access/35/access35_Moving_Los_Angeles.pdf that some of you might be interested in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #573  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2010, 12:23 AM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
Some unfortunate news from The Transit Coalition:
I really wouldn't call the deferral of the opening of the line to Crenshaw "unfortunate". It would be better for operating costs to wait until the line is further west than Crenshaw to open the line. However, it looks like the Expo Line opening to Washington/National could be done before 2012, or an opening to La Cienega would be well suited.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #574  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2010, 2:09 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Interesting. I wonder how the SGV will fight to try and get it's second LRT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #575  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2010, 2:59 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAofAnaheim View Post
I really wouldn't call the deferral of the opening of the line to Crenshaw "unfortunate". It would be better for operating costs to wait until the line is further west than Crenshaw to open the line. However, it looks like the Expo Line opening to Washington/National could be done before 2012, or an opening to La Cienega would be well suited.
Logistically speaking, I agree about it being better to open the full stretch of Expo to Culver City rather than a portion of the route to Crenshaw five months in advance. However, a 2010 delivery date is what was advertised and expected; it's never good PR to open a project of this scope a year late (despite what Gokhan thinks).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #576  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2010, 4:10 PM
suga suga is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Simply ridiculous. The city of whittier fought against the most logical and practical location for the light rail line, and the one that would garner the highest cost-benefit, the whittier blvd option. They basically killed a century long investment that can totally change the dynamics of the city for a 2 year old dirt trail and the assurance that their cash cow is left undisturbed. The whittier bl/greenway option also followed the old PE line that whittier was built around, meaning the community aesthetic and layout would have been the most accomodating for this alignment. The alignment they now selfishly back runs down an industrial truck corridor and ends at an isolated hospital, leaving the rail line with little proximity to any residential area, nonetheless any major activity hub.

Now they want to use the same facts they ignored to promote the most useless alignment option possible?

They screwed themselves by killing the most beneficial alignment possible, and now they must pay for their myopic shallow viewpoint.

Here are other reasons why their little scheme is BS obviously crafted by selfish people with no idea about transportation policy:

-The washington alignment option is so far from making FTA funding guidelines (beacuse of poor ratings on cost benefit analysis) we would have to totally fund it ourselves.
-The strip of washington that the train will be el is a heavy truck corridor, meaning no pedestrian value and the high possibility that a trcuk will take out a pylon eventually. No other train is el in an industrial area like this in the whole county.
-There is a empty right of way (for the old PE line) less than a mile south of washington.
-The SR60 cost projection is based on some absurd notions of how the line will be built. The train is envisioned as running elevated on top of an elevated freeway that has plenty of room on the south edge to facilitate a rail line, meaning the grade seperation is already built in, but MTA people are too stupid to make use of it and get grade seperation with at-grade costs. The train is also planned to go el through whittier narrows, a low density giant park with few crossings (I believe 3-4 for for 3.5 miles) and no real need for grade seperation. plenty of land is avaliable to support a 25' ROW, some crossing gates are all that is needed at the at-grade crossings. If we were willing to hammer an at-grade train through some of the most dense parts of the county (east LA), then it is absurd to now waste money building the line elevated through the largest patch of low density open space on the eastside.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #577  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2010, 5:58 PM
bmfarley's Avatar
bmfarley bmfarley is offline
Long-Time Californian
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: California; All Over
Posts: 1,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by suga View Post
Simply ridiculous. The city of whittier fought against the most logical and practical location for the light rail line, and the one that would garner the highest cost-benefit, the whittier blvd option. They basically killed a century long investment that can totally change the dynamics of the city for a 2 year old dirt trail and the assurance that their cash cow is left undisturbed. The whittier bl/greenway option also followed the old PE line that whittier was built around, meaning the community aesthetic and layout would have been the most accomodating for this alignment. The alignment they now selfishly back runs down an industrial truck corridor and ends at an isolated hospital, leaving the rail line with little proximity to any residential area, nonetheless any major activity hub.

Now they want to use the same facts they ignored to promote the most useless alignment option possible?

They screwed themselves by killing the most beneficial alignment possible, and now they must pay for their myopic shallow viewpoint.

Here are other reasons why their little scheme is BS obviously crafted by selfish people with no idea about transportation policy:

-The washington alignment option is so far from making FTA funding guidelines (beacuse of poor ratings on cost benefit analysis) we would have to totally fund it ourselves.
-The strip of washington that the train will be el is a heavy truck corridor, meaning no pedestrian value and the high possibility that a trcuk will take out a pylon eventually. No other train is el in an industrial area like this in the whole county.
-There is a empty right of way (for the old PE line) less than a mile south of washington.
-The SR60 cost projection is based on some absurd notions of how the line will be built. The train is envisioned as running elevated on top of an elevated freeway that has plenty of room on the south edge to facilitate a rail line, meaning the grade seperation is already built in, but MTA people are too stupid to make use of it and get grade seperation with at-grade costs. The train is also planned to go el through whittier narrows, a low density giant park with few crossings (I believe 3-4 for for 3.5 miles) and no real need for grade seperation. plenty of land is avaliable to support a 25' ROW, some crossing gates are all that is needed at the at-grade crossings. If we were willing to hammer an at-grade train through some of the most dense parts of the county (east LA), then it is absurd to now waste money building the line elevated through the largest patch of low density open space on the eastside.
Well, I am ususally all for rail extensions, especially practical/useful ones. However, in this case.... I don't like either of the presented options. The southern one to Whittier is characterized by low density residential neighborhoods, a twisting and turning alignment, and what appears to be low-density employment job centers. The SR60 alignment .... come-on... it's in a freeway median - terrible terrible place for riders.... waiting at a station while cars go by at 70mph. It's noisey and impractical for users to tolerate in great numbers.

Last edited by bmfarley; Jan 22, 2010 at 3:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #578  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2010, 9:49 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,100
SR-60 has WAAY more potential for TODs. In fact, the projected ridership isn't that much lower than the Whittier via Wasington alignment, according to the study on the Metro website. Something like 15,000 to 13,000. But if Whittier is chosen, a Purple Line subway extension could still happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #579  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2010, 12:59 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,652
JANUARY 16, 2010 | Expo Line

Time for another photo update on the progress of the Expo Line. From The Transit Coalition:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Only an eleven short months away from the Phase 1 substantial completion, things shape up very rapidly. I hadn't seen the line almost in a month and was dying to see it. With a very rainy week coming next week, the weekend was the last opportunity for a photo shoot. So, I decided to take a comprehensive view of the line.

In fact, the progress has become so apparent now that some drivers are thinking that the line is operational now, slowing down and paying attention to the tracks and avoiding to stand on them.

Starting at Venice/Robertson, it was nice Saturday afternoon, with many people walking around. The station supports need to be finished by April so that the new contractor can start the construction of the superstructure. They only have eight months to build the superstructure and to finish it with the substantial completion of the rest of the line. Therefore, the new contractor will have to work day and night and with many crews in order to finish the west end of the line so that the line can go to systems testing in December and prerevenue service in March 2011, with a possible opening around May 2011. Phase 2 will also be underway after September 2010.

It seems indeed they will be able to finish all the supports by April. Here six supports are in view looking east at Venice/Robertson. The station will be about midway between Venice and Washington:



When you get closer to the westernmost supports, you realize how tall they are. The station will be quite high from the ground. This is perhaps unnecessary but they are trying to achieve the maximum vehicle clearances I'm guessing. Although, in most LA freeways, we see clearances as little as 14 feet:



Here are four single supports in line in view looking west toward Washington. Note how short is the easternmost support. There will be an abutment immediately to the east of it and the line will come at-grade shortly thereafter. The abutment will soon be built and I already saw narrow steel cages stored to be used in its construction:



National Blvd eastbound has now been widened to two lanes. Once the work on the railroad right-of-way on the north side is finished, it will take its final form. The realignment of the street and rail tracks and to topologically separate them was a very good idea. This is looking east:



Slightly further east you see the Ballona Creek abutment for the LRT bridge. Note how short in height the abutment is. The LRT will quickly come at-grade past Ballona Creek, just past the abutment, in this way the houses will not be visually impacted:



This falsework is for the LRT bridge over Ballona Creek and Jefferson Blvd. Note that there are twin supports on both sides of the creek, the eastern supports in view in this picture:



The same bridge continues over Jefferson Blvd. There is a single support east of Jefferson, followed by an abutment. Between this abutment and the La Cienega western abutment, there will be walls and an earth-filled section in between them:



Skipping the La Cienega bridge, which also has quite a bit progress, here is a beautiful view of the La Brea bridge looking north. The forms are already being peeled off. It looks like the bridge is now virtually completed. My aqua car also appeared in the background:



This is how it looks when viewed from the west. Some NIMBYs managed to have Exposition closed here with K rails for several years now:



Even the tracks are now being installed on the eastern approach ramp:



A close-up view of the track installation:



And, now, the right-of-way between La Brea and La Cienega is being prepared, with sound-wall posts sticking up. You can see the La Brea bridge in the distance:



Moving west, here is a view of the tracks curving east toward Exposition and Rodeo, viewed from Arlington:



And this is the view toward the west from the Arlington grade-crossing:



The Exposition and Rodeo intersection or the Gramercy Place and surrounding area are now enclosed by K rails. Notice how wide the enclosed area is compared to the traffic lanes. It looks like there is a lot of utility work to be done in this area. In fact, it will stay closed until July:



Further west we come to the Western Station. I agree with the others that the canopy doesn't look impressive at this stage. It may look better after the station blends in with landscaping. It certainly is not functional as far as sun and rain protection is concerned but perhaps it could protect people from a hail or meteor storm. This is the west split platform, looking northeast:



And this is the east split platform, looking northeast again:



The grade crossing was being redone for Western, with the street closed. The same thing happened with Denker. The story is that Expo had done these two crossing prematurely by Metro crews, in order to discourage a possible reopening of them by CPUC. Apparently the crossings are misaligned or there are other problems and Balfour Beatty Rail is redoing them.

When I pictured it, this guy was slowly moving down the tracks, towing a dolly behind it. It almost looked like it would cross the grade crossing at Halldale. It probably vibrates and stabilizes the rail and ballast:



Finally this is an obscure view of the tracks by USC near Watt Way. Tracks in this area will be embedded until the end of the Vermont west split platform. USC preferred colored concrete to ballast. Grade crossings are also embedded in this section, unlike the regular ballasted tracks covered with concrete slabs in the other areas.



So, despite everything, the Expo Line is almost here, and we can't wait to ride it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #580  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2010, 3:08 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,777
Thanks for posting those photos from The Transit Coalition! It's nice to see progress happening on the Expo line.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.