Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway Sept 26, 2014 13:59:04 GMT -8
Post by JerardWright on Sept 26, 2014 13:59:04 GMT -8
Really? Crenshaw didn't get the tunnel they wanted, and Brand isn't much narrower. They'd have to remove the median and convert diagonal parking to parallel parking, but they wouldn't have to remove any traffic lanes to fit rail there. I guess it's similar to Van Nuys in that there's a ton of car dealerships along the route, who are for obvious reasons not rail-friendly.
Burbank is the part that needs tunneling---there's no easy way to get from the end of Chandler to Glenoaks and Providencia.
As for the Glendale and even Van Nuys CBD parking concern one smart mitigation is to build parking structures in the business areas, it does two things;
- Earns political buy-in because you will need to provide the replacement parking for the fear of losing business because of a perceived lack of parking
- Gives you the cover to replace the surface parking into a use that moves people (bike lanes, bus lanes, dedicated at-grade LRT)
You're essentially providing the mitigation before the mitigation is even asked to temper concerns. As the area grows and intensifies that parking structure can be a money maker and community transformer as it will consolidate the other surface lots and have them available for development.
On the surface it seems backwards and anti-smart growth but parking strategies like these are the central focus to build successful vibrant/pedestrian friendly communities because you're eliminating the potential setback and enable active alternatives to surface.