Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife
|
Compare that with Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Beverly, Century City and Westwood? It's not close at the moment and most of that residential density is greater around the Beverly Center/Cedars Sinai area. Also the limit of density along that corridor at Wilshire/Robertson is 6-8 stories for Commercial, 3-4 stories depending on lot size. We could get those same increases regardless of a subway station. If a solid Beverly Hills zoning plan were shown for a massive upzoning in that area in conjunction with the subway station and that area could then we'd have something to work with.
Quote:
And I noticed that you intentionally left out the Crenshaw station. It's too huge of a gap between Western and La Brea.
|
Its a gap that Metro has an optional station, it needs further review. I'm just recording those facts.
In addition there are two neighborhood areas that have very rigid HPOZ's (Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning) that makes the ability to increase the density impossible for not only residents but
commercial. Given the cost of Subway stations are a good chunk of the cost of the subway work which affects that rigid FTA Cost-effectiveness rating, so station placement is essential.
Despite the trade-off of no station @ Crenshaw (playing the other side for a moment) it makes up for it with a faster operating speed between the two areas trimming two minutes off of the running time which means potential increases to ridership to offset that rigid cost-effectiveness rating.
Quote:
...That right there is the underlying problem. The FTA deliberately makes it difficult to get New Starts funding, so much so, that many projects won't get built. It's pretty clear that, given America's limited urbanity, most projects won't ever be eligible. The bar has been set too high. Even the Subway to the Sea, one of the most cost-effective projects that will ever fall onto the FTA's agenda, barely meets the frame of eligibility. It's ridiculous..
|
There is only so much $$$ to go around. Regional Connector is more cost-effective that the Wilshire Subway right now and that
doesn't include Expo to Santa Monica or the Gold Line extension to Azusa/Citrus College, that rating can improve even more.
Now if we could shift the Feds attention from financing wars and finance our infrastructure, we could have a stronger fighting chance.
Quote:
So why can't we do the same? Eliminating stations is not the solution. If there's a need, then there's a need. We need to work around those needs.
|
What is the "need", how is that "need" defined? Because any "need" can pose itself as a need. That is why of the rules. Without those kind of rules you'll have silly and much more wasteful projects like BART to San Jose or Boston's Silver Line BRT subway or a subway from Chatsworth to Simi Valley. How do we work around that, well we could do a number of ideas;
* Build the station footprints to be much smaller (abotu 150') and have a driverless automated system like Vancouver's under construction Canada Line. This reduces the cost to build, operate and maitain. (The Unions would raise hell about that, no operators)
* Build the stations using slave labor. (Construction trades would raise hell)
* Have stronger public-private partnerships with development, landbanking and increases in zoning for growth. The Toronto's first subway, Yonge Street subway was done with this in mind with a intensive upzoning along the entire subway corridor at the same time as the subway was being built.
In Charlotte's case they were building on an existing rail right-of-way. (Something we don't have on Wilshire) If Wilshire corridor had an easement or strip of land that we could utilize to build the right-of-way and then develop on top and around it, like Charlotte did and is doing with the developers then its a win-win. One, because construction would be easier and cheaper. Two, there is another financing source to offset the subsidy, the building of new developments in conjunction of building the rail meant a greater catchment of ridership that would bring.
The Feds saw Charlotte's LRT plan as not only for mobility of moving people but building affordable and economically sustainable neighborhoods, that economically sustainable neighborhood means more $$$ for Washington D.C.
* Not go after Federal funding and do the thing ourselves and treat the Feds as our In-laws that we can't stand and don't need or want any help from them because we'll have to play with their rules.
Quote:
Again, if it weren't for the strict FTA rules, then this wouldn't be an issue. In NYC, low density outer Queens has several subway stops.
|
First of all, those were built
before there was an FTA, they were built privately without union labor and not needed fire sprinklers and other fire/life safety requirements in their infrastructure. You can't compare the two.