Green Light For More L.A. Rail

[WhoozOn1st]

Light-rail line through South L.A. OKd

"The 8 1/2 -mile line is the biggest beneficiary to date of Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects that L.A. County voters approved last year."

As always there is a hue and cry to build underground:

"...some residents and officials want more of the line underground, saying that it would reduce accidents, ease community concerns and speed up the line.

"The MTA has grappled with this issue before.

"The Gold Line Eastside extension was criticized by one of its biggest backers, Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, because it is mostly at street level, where, she says, it could pose a risk for drivers and pedestrians."

 

[the_traveler]

Building underground is much more expensive than at street level, and officials said they don't know where the money for Ridley-Thomas' plans would come from.
.......

Ridley-Thomas estimated that the project would need about $400 million in extra funds to build the line as he would like, and said he is going to Washington, D.C., in the near future to speak with members of Congress about other sources of funding.

Now I'm not saying "Me, me, me", but why should I pay $400 million more for LA and $xxx million for Austin and $xxx million for ???, when I live across the country and may never use them? :huh:

The "safety improvements" are mainly for the idiots who think the "rules" and "laws of physics" don't apply to them! (Why else do people drive around downed crossing gates? :huh: )

 

[jis]

Now I'm not saying "Me, me, me", but why should I pay $400 million more for LA and $xxx million for Austin and $xxx million for ???, when I live across the country and may never use them? :huh:
The "safety improvements" are mainly for the idiots who think the "rules" and "laws of physics" don't apply to them! (Why else do people drive around downed crossing gates? :huh: )

What? You mean you will not be participating in the 2014 AU Gathering in LA? :lol:

 

[the_traveler]

I did say "may never use" not "won't ever use"! :lol: (Besides, I thought it was 2017! )

 

[WhoozOn1st]

I recalled this from AU member George Harris in a thread about L.A.'s Gold Line:

Consider these very general:
Puting the rail line in the air casts about 3 times as much as putting it on the ground.

putting the rail line underground costs about 3 times as much as putting it in the air.

If it is underground it is also much more expensive to keep and operate because you must have lighting, power ventilation, and generally pumps to get the water out.

So . . . when you get these people that complain and say they want the transit or rail system underground and out of sight, say of course, but, here is the bill. Start writing checks, and know that the writing of these checks will never end, and it will happen.

 

[zoltan]

Here's the thing about very expensive transit "safety improvements", like putting this underground:

Road travel is far more dangerous than rail travel.

Even when traveling on roads, traveling by car is far more dangerous than traveling on transit, with a trained professional driving.

Therefore, any safety measures that mean either that transit projects take longer, or that fewer transit projects can be afforded, will probably in reality lead to more deaths and serious injuries, as fewer people travel by safer modes of transport.

 

[DET63]

I thought in L.A. they had decided not to build any more subways because of earthquake issues.

 

[WhoozOn1st]

I thought in L.A. they had decided not to build any more subways because of earthquake issues.

There was indeed a subway construction funding ban, but not because of earthquakes, and it's been lifted. Los Angeles Times, 1-11-08:

"Congress last month lifted a 1986 ban on subway funding put in place by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who said the ban was imposed for safety reasons, although critics have long contended the ban was done to please homeowners who didn't want a subway in their neighborhood."

Whatever the motive, Waxman used a gas explosion under a Ross Dress For Less store during Red Line construction as the public rationale for the congressional ban. Large tracts of L.A.'s westside are former oilfields, and the threat of further natural gas explosions caused by subway construction was the stated reason for the ban. Later geological studies concluded the threat was illusory, but the ban remained, preventing any subway progress for decades.