LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion - Page 165

ChargerCarl · #**3281** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 8:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

I just hate BRT. It's such a stupid idea. If you're going to have a dedicated ROW for transit why not go the whole way and build light rail?

Because it's really expensive.

King Kill 'em · #**3282** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Because it's really expensive.

but it's more expensive to build BRT, that will eventually be forced to carry more than it was meant to pretty quick, and then spend tons converting the line to light rail.

BrownTown · #**3283** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

but it's more expensive to build BRT, that will eventually be forced to carry more than it was meant to pretty quick, and then spend tons converting the line to light rail.

By this same logic we should never build light rail either and just go with heavy rail. The argument isn't valid because different locations have different demand for transit and some would benefit best from buses, some from BRT, some from light rail and others from heavy rail. It's not a one sized fits all sort of thing, you have to tailor your approach to the specific corridor.

Quixote · #**3284** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Because it's really expensive.

It's even more expensive to NOT build rail lines that have long-term viability. At 10 years old, the Orange Line is already operating at capacity.

I absolutely hate the fact that we have to water everything down by "spreading the wealth" equally among the county's sub-regions. What we should really invest in are 5-6 high-quality, high-capacity HRT projects that have the potential to more than double the current ridership.

King Kill 'em · #**3285** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's even more expensive to NOT build rail lines that have long-term viability. At 10 years old, the Orange Line is already operating at capacity.

I absolutely hate the fact that we have to water everything down by "spreading the wealth" equally among the county's sub-regions. What we should really invest in are 5-6 high-quality, high-capacity HRT projects that have the potential to more than double the current ridership.

I'm not advocating to convert the Orangle Line now, just don't build any more BRT. LRT and HRT only.

What the plan should have been in terms of new transit ordered in level of importance:

Crenshaw to Hollywood
Sepulveda LRT from Sylmar to Airport
WSAB (west bank-Alameda option)
Vermont HRT
LRT from NoHo to Pasadena
Whittier LRT
Green Line Extension

ardecila · #**3286** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Ok this might get a bit wonky, but is there a way that a municipal tax could be guaranteed by the federal gov't which would create a mechanism to issue bonds so the money could be accessed up front instead of spread over decades?

What do you think a bond is? Municipalities can already issue bonds. If they partner that with a new dedicated tax, the bond will get a better rating since the rating agencies feel more comfortable about the ability to repay.

The problem is that municipalities also have to pay interest on bonds, which siphons off a portion of the tax proceeds and means that there is ultimately less money available for the municipality to access. This interest comes to the bondholders as income, which is taxed by the Federal government.

30/10 was ultimately an effort to create a new class of bonds where the boldholders would be exempt from taxes on the bond income. With the tax exemption, investors would pay more for the bonds upfront and allow Metro to ultimately use a greater portion of the sales tax proceeds.

San Frangelino · #**3287** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 8:20 PM**

I got these from http://ridethepinkline.blogspot.com/

Busy Bee · #**3288** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

What do you think a bond is? Municipalities can already issue bonds. If they partner that with a new dedicated tax, the bond will get a better rating since the rating agencies feel more comfortable about the ability to repay.

The problem is that municipalities also have to pay interest on bonds, which siphons off a portion of the tax proceeds and means that there is ultimately less money available for the municipality to access. This interest comes to the bondholders as income, which is taxed by the Federal government.

30/10 was ultimately an effort to create a new class of bonds where the boldholders would be exempt from taxes on the bond income. With the tax exemption, investors would pay more for the bonds upfront and allow Metro to ultimately use a greater portion of the sales tax proceeds.

Thank you ardecilia, you know more about bonds than I do.

Quixote · #**3289** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 9:30 PM**

^ LOL.

It's my birthday today and I still hate what's proposed. What a shitty birthday present.

ChargerCarl · #**3290** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's even more expensive to NOT build rail lines that have long-term viability. At 10 years old, the Orange Line is already operating at capacity.

I absolutely hate the fact that we have to water everything down by "spreading the wealth" equally among the county's sub-regions. What we should really invest in are 5-6 high-quality, high-capacity HRT projects that have the potential to more than double the current ridership.

This is wrong:

https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/...range-crushed/

https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/...-still-golden/

It just depends on whether or not you expect to hit capacity in the capital depreciation period.

Agreed about "spreading the wealth" though. Just a sad political reality unfortunately.

Busy Bee · #**3291** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 11:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ LOL.

It's my birthday today and I still hate what's proposed. What a shitty birthday present.

Happy Birthday fellow internetarchitecturetransportforum dork!

Quixote · #**3292** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 11:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

This is wrong:

https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/...range-crushed/

https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/...-still-golden/

It just depends on whether or not you expect to hit capacity in the capital depreciation period.

Agreed about "spreading the wealth" though. Just a sad political reality unfortunately.

Well, I rest my case. That the Orange Line operates "only" on 4-minute headways, which is standard peak-hour frequency for most of the respectable rail systems across the globe, only drives home the point that it's essentially at capacity.

Running buses on 2-minute headways doesn't solve anything; it just delays the inevitable. You'll eventually encounter the same problem later on, only the cost to build the rail line will have substantially increased.

King Kill 'em · #**3293** Posted **Mar 19, 2016, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Agreed about "spreading the wealth" though. Just a sad political reality unfortunately.

Especially when you have to pay for the Northern County's desert highway

Quixote · #**3294** Posted **Mar 20, 2016, 12:13 AM**

I just wish that Metro would find the balls to focus on quality instead of quantity. By that I mean a proposition that's, say, 65% transit/25% operations/10% highway. If it were to fail, so what? At least they would have a much better idea of what their boundaries were. This measure's Achilles heel is such that it would give voters the impression that they were being asked to vote on the exact same projects as in 2008. Throw in the absurd delivery dates, and the measure's essentially defeated before it even gets voted on.

ChargerCarl · #**3295** Posted **Mar 20, 2016, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Especially when you have to pay for the Northern County's desert highway

Yup.

Politics killed CAHSR too with it's crappy alignments.

Quixote · #**3296** Posted **Mar 20, 2016, 4:35 AM**

What's unfortunate is that despite the seemingly universal malcontentedness, I'd only give it a 50/50 chance that Metro actually listens and makes major modifications.

blackcat23 · #**3297** Posted **Mar 22, 2016, 4:10 PM**

Exploring Measure R2: The Next 50 Years of LA County Transit

Looking at the transit lines proposed within the $120-billion potential ballot measure

ardecila · #**3298** Posted **Mar 22, 2016, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Thank you ardecilia, you know more about bonds than I do.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound snippy!

There may also be local or state laws that limit the total amount of debt a municipality can have outstanding, or require state-level approval for debt above a certain amount.

Presumably some form of bond with Federal backing could bypass these requirements.

ChargerCarl · #**3299** Posted **Mar 23, 2016, 12:47 AM**

Even more important than new rail lines is increasing density in the region IMO.

losangelesnative · #**3300** Posted **Mar 23, 2016, 10:27 PM**

Purple Line update

http://thesource.metro.net/2016/03/2...ine-extension/