Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait. m Get L.A. Moving Plan (A Working Proposal) Transit Coalition Monthly Meeting 23 January 2007 Presentation by Damien.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " m Get L.A. Moving Plan (A Working Proposal) Transit Coalition Monthly Meeting 23 January 2007 Presentation by Damien."— Presentation transcript:

1 m Get L.A. Moving Plan (A Working Proposal) Transit Coalition Monthly Meeting 23 January 2007 Presentation by Damien Goodmon

2 m LA County Rail Transit 2011 Heavy Rail –Red (& Purple) & Green Light Rail –Blue, Gold & Expo/Aqua Commuter Rail –Metrolink

3 m LA County Rail Transit 2025 ?

4 m Background: Boston Square System The Square: Center of the community - Events/festivals Job center Outdoor shopping & dining Filled with pedestrian activity –Allows small businesses to compete with chains Harvard Square (Cambridge, MA)

5 m Background: Boston Square System MBTA (“T”) The subway station was the center of the bus system for the local area –Hub and Spoke –Train = heart –Bus = veins

6 m Initial Research MTA Library –Environmental Impact Reports –Major Investment Studies –MTA Long Range Transportation Plans –SCAG Regional Transportation Plans –Predecessor Rail Systems: P.E. & LARy Transit Advocates –Transit Coalition –Skyscraper Page Forum –Sierra Club Media –Politician’s Statements

7 m Consensus Research revealed general agreement on need & placement of rapid transit –No concrete plan to build a system to get L.A. moving

8 m Factors: MTA Transit Service Policy Daily Boardings Greater Than 50K/day = 100% Grade Separation Station Spacing –Urban Rail: Average 1 per mile Travel time: 30 to 34 miles/hr –Commuter Rail 3rd/Vermont

9 m Factors: Current Transit Usage Bus Ridership Rapid Bus Service –Major Transit Corridors –Rapid Bus Stations

10 m Factors: Projected Traffic Increases FREEWAY SPEEDS: Red: Less than 20 mph Yellow: 20-35 mph Blue: Greater than 35 mph

11 m Factors: Population Density Pop. Growth: 3-6 million new Angelinos / Southern Californians by 2020 Projected 2030

12 m Factors: Employment Density Job centers expected to generally remain in place Projected 2030

13 m Factors: Transit Dependency A census tract is designated transit dependent when according to 2000 census: 1. 1.13.5% or more households do not own a car. 2. 2.21.7% or more households include individuals 65 or older, and less than 34.1% have 2 cars, and less than 17.1% have 3 or more cars. 3. 3.17.6% or more of the households have income of $15,000 or less (in 1999 dollars).

14 m Factors: Destinations Transportation centers, Tourist attractions, Malls, Museums, Stadiums, Entertainment districts, Schools

15 m 85% of the Lines are Unoriginal –One canvass: Build a system not lines Proposal as of January 2007 Digital Production by Steve Boland and Jason Law

16 m Get L.A. Moving System Stats Metro Rail –12 Lines –344 Stations –387 Total Miles of Revenue Track –309 Miles of New Track Metrolink Lines –10 Lines –30 Metrolink Stations (LA County) –86.8 Miles of New Track Hollywood/Highland Station

17 m Getting It Built: Organization Divide Map Along Metro Sector Boundaries San Fernando, Westside- Central, South Bay, Gateway, San Gabriel –2011: System will have branches to build from in all sectors Complete projects within boundaries by uniform date Joint Powers Authorities or divisions of larger construction authority –JPA advantages: More flexibility (state laws) & quicker response to construction challenges –Division advantages: Design consistency, central project management & improved overall coordination Metro’s Current Planning Districts/Sectors

18 m Getting It Built: Aggressive Schedule 13 Year Deadline Simultaneous Investment –First 3 years: Develop bureaucracy(ies) Finalize EIR or begin design or construction of projects with up-to-date studies Train workforce –Ensuing 10 years: All projects in EIR, Design or Build stage –Involve the entire county throughout the process M.O.S./Phased Openings Example: Westside-Central JPA/Division Total: 79.2 miles of new rail

19 m Getting It Built: Tunneling Community preferred –Significantly less environmental impacts during construction and operation Permits longer construction workday if necessary (16-22 hours) Tunneling has become cost competitive (capital) –At-grade option not as attractive More expensive (real estate acquisition, longer construction schedules, utility relocation, etc.) Metro Transit Service Policy requires route serving 50K/day to be 100% grade separated –Elevated rail nearly as expensive as subway Drastic improvements in tunneling technology –Single-bore twin track instead of twin tunnel –One tunnel boring machine = 3 miles/yr 11 T.B.M.s = Excavate 33 miles/yr –Not limited to corridor Diversions possible –GLAM: 99% on streets & highways –Shallow Tunneling Allows open air (trench) stations 50’ diameter tunnel boring machine (Madrid)

20 m Getting It Built: Stations Boring Shallow Tunnels with O pen-cut/Open-air/Trench Stations –Trench stations significantly cheaper than cut-and-cover Stations: Open-cut stations: $15-25 million each Red line MOS-3 (Opened 2000: Hollywood/Highland to North Hollywood) –Cut-and-cover stations: $61-78 million each –Tunnels: $40-45 mil/mile Possible placement of Crenshaw Line Leimert Park open-cut station (Leimert/Vernon): D.C. Metro Open Cut Station:

21 m Getting It Built: Financing Capital Cost: $31-38B Economy of Scale: –Subway: $100-125 million/mile –At-grade: $40-60 million/mile $20 Billion County Bond –Bond repayment: $1.3 billion/year –‘06 LA County budget: $21 billion (likely $24B by ‘10) State & Federal Matches –Several projects would be #1 urban rail priority in the country and #1 transportation priority in the state –Need to identify additional funding sources 2010 County Budget: 2023 County Budget:

22 m Case Study: Beijing “Underground” Expansion Plans: Jan 2007: 71 miles (33 miles of subway) 2010: 169 miles 2020: 348 miles Proves it is physically possible to build a substantial amount of subway tunnels quickly

23 m Case Study: Madrid “Many cities around the world desperately need new metro lines, but they cannot afford to build them at an estimated [$300 million to $400 million per mile], nor be forced to wait a dozen years for the lines to become reality. The truth is these estimates of cost and time are simply wrong. In Madrid, with all humbleness, we have now proved it on more than one occasion.” - Madrid Metro President Manuel Melis ‘95 - ’99 Subway Expansion: –23 miles at $70 million/mile ‘99 - ’03 Subway Expansion: –36 miles at $85 million/mile Included rolling stock and yard ‘03-’07 Subway Expansion: –33 miles Spain: World’s 8th largest economy, European Union country, union labor, stringent environmental & safety standards

24 m Case Study: Madrid Economy of scale Sizeable but functional stations Single-bore (31’ diameter), twin-track tunnels –10 T.B.M.s currently in operation –Simultaneous investment Divide project into small manageable segments –Civil contracts plus two specialist consultants contracts for quality control & technical assistance –Fixed price with a bill of quantities Architectural and civil engineering project management the responsibility of a small group of engineers employed by government –‘99 - ‘03 Expansion: 3 chiefs engineers and 6 associates Designer exclusion from construction Time is money: both to engineers/contractors and system patrons Extensive monitoring of conditions around worksite Political leaders respond to construction concerns within 24 hours

25 m Case Study: Los Angeles Mayor’s Sept. 8 Meeting: –13-mile Wilshire subway: construction to operation in 18 months 8 - 10 T.B.M.s simultaneously excavating twin tunnels Requires capital up front Mayor: Currently polling a local bond to complete local transit projects

26 m Current State: NIMBY to IMBYF NIMBY: Not in my backyard IMBYF: In my backyard first –Lack of large dedicated funding source forces LA County politicians and transit advocates to compete against one another instead of combine their powerful forces to work together –Wastes time and resources necessary to effectively lobby for matching funds: state, federal & private Short phases take too long to complete –Wilshire Subway: Who wants to wait 20 years? –Term-limited politicians and voters have no confidence rail expansion will directly benefit them Direct result of piecemeal planning Shared Burden = Shared Benefit –Christmas tree legislation/Coalition building: The more stakeholders invested in the success of the system the greater the commitment to its completion

27 m Angelinos Want A Solution Crises: Mobility, Gas Prices, Environment, Terrorism Mass transit is the solution –Poll: 60% of county voters are willing to increase taxes for rail expansion projects Issues are not partisan; impact everyone –Potential to create a truly widespread coalition Current efforts to lower threshold from 2/3rds to 3/5ths or 55%

28 m LA Economy Requires a Solution The high cost of traffic/personal autos –Lost income –Goods movement –Companies have to increase salaries to attract the skilled workers willing to endure the commute –Lost time with families and friends –Health impacts The housing crisis –3 - 6 million more Angelinos by 2020: where are they going to live? –Saturate marketplace with housing –Must increase density where appropriate without sacrificing mobility The high cost of sprawl –Infrastructure: civil & social services D.C. Metro Silver Springs station before and after

29 m Transit Villages/Smart Growth Transform our streets currently lined with single-use land and single-story buildings into walkable, bikeable, livable and enjoyable communities –Elegantly increase density where appropriate –Create and cultivate thriving local economies and small businesses –Connect our communities and major destinations (not just intersections) Lifecycle cost versus Capital cost –Create transit-oriented development not just transit-proximate development While preserving single-family home neighborhoods Arlington County, VA (EPA Smart Growth award): Los Angeles General Plan (1974)

30 m We are the Vehicle for Change Support is going to come from the grassroots –It takes courage, commitment and long-term vision not currently widespread among politicians –Up to average Joe & Jane Citizen to spark the conversation about a regional master plan and educate the electorate about its importance –We must continue working together to maximize our limited resources of time and energy, and inspire average citizens to join the effort There are many steps in this journey: –Preserving and increasing mass transit operational funding, 1998 Prop. A ban, Robbins law, etc.

31 m Los Angeles Is A World City Learn from fellow world city’s successes and challenges: –London –Tokyo –New York –Paris –(Curitiba’s not on the list of world cities)

32 m City of Dreams/“Can Do” Country L.A. voters responded to the school overcrowding crisis with 19.2 billion in bonds and now students that attended elementary schools that were busting at the seams when the bonds were passed have a completely new choice of brand-new first class high schools to attend We have the capacity - Let’s create the plan - LET’S GET L.A. MOVING!

Download ppt " m Get L.A. Moving Plan (A Working Proposal) Transit Coalition Monthly Meeting 23 January 2007 Presentation by Damien."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google