|
Post by masonite on Jul 10, 2014 15:52:39 GMT -8
FYI, this was posted in the Upgrade to Light Rail thread.
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Jul 10, 2014 16:30:19 GMT -8
Since the article above states that Mayor Garcetti might be interested in studying a conversion of the Orange Line to rail, I wondered if any members, just for fun, would care to make an estimate on the cost of such a conversion. A lot. A lot. Basically similar to any other light rail line. All told, not counting the Warner Loop, we need about 17 miles worth of track, 17 stations, and a new maintenance facility... likely in Chatsworth by the Metrolink station so we can use the already existing heavy rail line there. Assuming we are talking about a full high floor LRT line built to the same operating specs as the rest of the Metro LRT lines, the entire right of way would have to be re-cleared with the asphalt and much of the landscaping removed. The stations and all of their equipment, paths, etc would have to be disassembled or demolished. Additional soundwalls and fences would have to be installed (I know, LRT isnt that much more noisy or dangerous than buses, but I guarantee you the neighbors would force this hand). And probably the biggest kicker... not counting the Warner Center loop, it would involve the installation of no less than 41 at-grade rail crossings. Thats a best case/lowest cost scenario. Its likely they will be forced by politics, neighbors, or traffic to grade separate several of the crossings (possibly Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Balboa, White Oak), which will drive the price up. Several of the current bridges and undercrossings WOULD be reusable on an LRT conversion, which will save some cash and time. But make no mistake, this will be an expensive project. The Foothill Extension is costing around $810m for 12 miles of rail and 6 stations, plus a yard. They had to pay for a big bridge out of that, but weve got more stations so lets just say it evens out. And lets also assume we're getting all 41 of those crossing at-grade, too. With those assumptions, a 17 mile line would cost $1.1 billion. I think thats a very low estimate, and would expect it to be much higher once the inevitable additional grade separations are factored in... if it happens.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 10, 2014 21:25:21 GMT -8
For the Chandler/Van Nuys/Sherman Way routing I've suggested, here are the miles:
4.4 mi NoHo - Van Nuys via Chandler 2.1 mi Chandler - Sherman Way via Van Nuys (construction costs shared with East SFV corridor) 8.5 mi Van Nuys - Canoga via Sherman Way 5.5 mi Chatsworth to Warner Center via Canoga
Without including the Van Nuys segment, assuming that will be budgeted under East SFV, it comes out to 18.4 miles, all of which will be within existing right of way or street medians.
In terms of construction, the Chandler portion could be built first concurrently with the East SFV corridor, providing a direct rail connection from North Hollywood to Sylmar when both are completed. The Orange Line / 901 buses would continue uninterrupted along Oxnard and Lankershim.
Phase 2 would probably consist of the 8.4 mile stretch of Sherman Way. Since Sherman Way is a major corridor with a wide median, I don't think grade separations would be needed except for perhaps Sepulveda and Reseda. An elevated wye might not be a bad idea for the Sherman Way/Van Nuys connection either.
Phase 3 would be the final 5.5 mile link to Chatsworth and Warner Center, and the second time the 901/Orange Line buses would have to be re-routed. My suggestion would be to move 901 service from Canoga to Topanga Canyon permanently.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 12, 2014 11:06:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Jul 12, 2014 13:09:07 GMT -8
How in the world do they get $100M per mile, I thought the bridges where specified for rail weights.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 12, 2014 13:37:21 GMT -8
How in the world do they get $100M per mile, I thought the bridges where specified for rail weights. My guess is that it will be even more once you factor in the maintenance facility and all those crossings. All the stations would have to rebuilt. Also, how would it connect to the Red Line - I suppose it doesn't have to go underground to meet it. There doesn't seem to be much demand outside of the stations immediately to the a West of the Red Line. I think building light rail here makes sense just in the section East of the 405 once the 405 line is built. It could share that maintenance facility, and the Orange Line could still be in place for the rest of the line in the West Valley. I am not generally a fan of interlining, but it would work great here as demand would be much higher in the Sep. Pass over Sylmar. This way you could run something like 5 minute headways in the Pass and 10 minute headways on both the current Orange Line east of the 405 and the 405 line north of the ROW, which would probably be much more efficient.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 12, 2014 15:24:34 GMT -8
How in the world do they get $100M per mile, I thought the bridges where specified for rail weights. My guess is that it will be even more once you factor in the maintenance facility and all those crossings. All the stations would have to rebuilt. Also, how would it connect to the Red Line - I suppose it doesn't have to go underground to meet it. There doesn't seem to be much demand outside of the stations immediately to the a West of the Red Line. I think building light rail here makes sense just in the section East of the 405 once the 405 line is built. It could share that maintenance facility, and the Orange Line could still be in place for the rest of the line in the West Valley. I am not generally a fan of interlining, but it would work great here as demand would be much higher in the Sep. Pass over Sylmar. This way you could run something like 5 minute headways in the Pass and 10 minute headways on both the current Orange Line east of the 405 and the 405 line north of the ROW, which would probably be much more efficient. From what I remember from past ridership numbers, the stations north of Woodland Hills leading to Chatsworth have the least ridership and are also the newest, but stations west of the 405 still have good ridership numbers and full, overcrowded, buses which is why there has been continually build up to convert the Orange Line. Woodland Hills will probably see some of the highest population growth in the next decade due to some projects already announced including a few towers across the street form the Canoga Station. Metro has stated that all of the bridges, including the Lassen St bridge were engineered to accommodate trains. The roadway is concrete and asphalt. The asphalt is easier to tear out than concrete but why would the concrete need to be removed since it is already there and rails are connected to concrete for example on aerial stations. Train stations are upgraded and platforms remodeled all over the world. Just a few months ago the French determined that their new HSR trains didn't meet the platform requirements and thus the platforms had to be remodeled. link I believe Caltrain up north will or has also made changes to their platforms. Certainly the anemic stations of the current Orange line would need to upgraded and would cost money but wouldn't be the biggest engineering challenge. The East San Fernando Valley Transit project preliminarily identified areas for a maintenance facility in either Symar or Sherman Oaks. The potential 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit corridor would probably need maintenance facility (MF) in the valley because West LA would probably be even more expensive. With 2 or more rail lines, they would need at least 2 MF unless they could build a really large one. Bridges would be nice, but considering the expense, they could be omitted. Trains still cross major intersections in the valley without grade separation. But this might be the biggest money challenge. I think that comparing the expense of a new rail line that doesn't have all of the infrastructure already in place like the Orange line does is a bit challenging for everyone. The North Hollywood Station has already been approved for a tunnel under Lankershim Blvd so that passengers on the Orange Line would not have to walk across the street for a Red Line connection. The Red Line Universal City station also has a bridge approved for passengers traversing the street. In any case, it needs to be studied to really understand the costs involved. It would also help if Metro would makes a good commitment to the valley in any new Measure R+ ballot measure.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 12, 2014 16:28:26 GMT -8
even if they convert it to rail, the trains will still be stymied by the same traffic light issues the buses face.
If you fix the traffic light issue you can expand the capacity of the line for the cost of a few more buses.
And if you're not going to fix the traffic light issue for rail or bus then there is no point switching to rail, other than to satisfy a train fetish.
At the very least, they should first fix the traffic lights and then see if they still need rail once the primary problem of traffic lights is solved. Switching to rail does nothing to address the primary problem, the line converted to rail might even exacerbate the effects currently felt by the buses if it is left unaddressed.
But undoubtedly the standard issue graft of metro construction will force us to inevitably switch to rail rather than doing the nearly free and extremely effective solution of clicking a few computer toggles on the traffic light controls.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 13, 2014 10:47:08 GMT -8
even if they convert it to rail, the trains will still be stymied by the same traffic light issues the buses face. If you fix the traffic light issue you can expand the capacity of the line for the cost of a few more buses. And if you're not going to fix the traffic light issue for rail or bus then there is no point switching to rail, other than to satisfy a train fetish. At the very least, they should first fix the traffic lights and then see if they still need rail once the primary problem of traffic lights is solved. Switching to rail does nothing to address the primary problem, the line converted to rail might even exacerbate the effects currently felt by the buses if it is left unaddressed. But undoubtedly the standard issue graft of metro construction will force us to inevitably switch to rail rather than doing the nearly free and extremely effective solution of clicking a few computer toggles on the traffic light controls. That's nonsense. Running trains means that more passengers are moving through an intersection since buses have constrained capacity and are even now "bunching up" along the Orange Line. You need to run multiples of buses to equal the throughput of a train.I understand that your trying to say that Metro should force the city to redo the timing of lights and Metro could purchase more buses, or longer buses, or hire more drivers etc. but when you have x many people to move and capacity is constrained rail makes sense. With respect to the "graft" that you suggest, why should a region of close to 2 Million people vote to expand the system through your neck of woods like Culver City, West LA, West Hollywood? What is this graft exactly? It doesn't matter since I voted for Measure R and don't begrudge the completion of the Expo Line. The Orange Line or the East San Fernando Transit Corridor will have higher ridership than a Gold Line extension (as I wrote about the numbers a few posts above) but I don't call it graft or a waste and do not begrudge that extension.
|
|
outthere15
New Member
Take back the rails
Posts: 33
|
Post by outthere15 on Jul 14, 2014 8:23:09 GMT -8
I believe that the problem is political and not technical as it will be hard to convince many constituents that we should spend $1.8 B on a retrofit of a workable system when so many other areas of the county are in dire need of upgraded infrastructure. At one time there was talk of amending the codes to allow extended length busses on the Orange Line busway, does anyone know if it went anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 14, 2014 12:17:31 GMT -8
I believe that the problem is political and not technical as it will be hard to convince many constituents that we should spend $1.8 B on a retrofit of a workable system when so many other areas of the county are in dire need of upgraded infrastructure. At one time there was talk of amending the codes to allow extended length busses on the Orange Line busway, does anyone know if it went anywhere? Don't believe so. In fact, Metro announced recently that they would be standardizing future purchases on 40-foot buses only, which suggests they will be eventually phasing out both the shorter 30-footers and the NABI 60-footers.
|
|
|
Post by North LA on Jul 15, 2014 21:41:07 GMT -8
Why do people assume that the orange bus is LRT equivalent? It is a rapid line, and a slow one at that. No better, and potentially worse, than any of the red buses driving the county. To say that other regions need infrastructure before The Valley is to say that everywhere that has a rapid line is taken care of and should move to the back of the line. A color name and private road doesn't change the travel times, capacity, or absence of economic activity..
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 16, 2014 6:51:38 GMT -8
Ah but we could improve the travel times by clicking a couple computer buttons.
A rail line wouldn't be faster it would probably be slower and would have much more infrequent head ways than the buses.
Why would it be slower? Because it would be constrained by the same traffic signals that keep the buses so slow.
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 16, 2014 8:34:55 GMT -8
I was wondering if OUTTHERE15 was still outthere?
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jul 16, 2014 8:42:06 GMT -8
Ah but we could improve the travel times by clicking a couple computer buttons. A rail line wouldn't be faster it would probably be slower and would have much more infrequent head ways than the buses. Why would it be slower? Because it would be constrained by the same traffic signals that keep the buses so slow. All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. Rail would get crossing gates in most places, and the faster acceleration would make a difference in travel times. Crenshaw is the only place in the system where a line on private ROW has to stop at a light, and I doubt they'd make that the dominant way of doing things on this line. A few (Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Reseda) might be like that, but definitely not all of them. Trains not needing to run as frequently makes the impact of stopping cross traffic for it less. The difference between 4 and 6-10 minute headways on waiting times is small enough it won't make much of a difference.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 16, 2014 19:29:13 GMT -8
Rail would get crossing gates in most places, and the faster acceleration would make a difference in travel times. Crenshaw is the only place in the system where a line on private ROW has to stop at a light, and I doubt they'd make that the dominant way of doing things on this line. A few (Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Reseda) might be like that, but definitely not all of them. Trains not needing to run as frequently makes the impact of stopping cross traffic for it less. The difference between 4 and 6-10 minute headways on waiting times is small enough it won't make much of a difference. Exactly. Instead of many buses that are carrying lots of people, a three train set could carry up to around 400 people, at once, more efficiently. LADOT would probably be more inclined to let the the trains through every 5 or 6 minutes depending on the headway of the trains. From Metro's Source Blog, it appears that the Metro Board could decide next week to ask for a study to expand the Orange line to Pasadena, upgrade the line, and maybe convert it to light rail. thesource.metro.net/2014/07/16/motion-asks-for-study-of-upgrading-orange-line-and-possibly-connecting-to-pasadena/
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 16, 2014 22:15:58 GMT -8
Rail would get crossing gates in most places, and the faster acceleration would make a difference in travel times. Crenshaw is the only place in the system where a line on private ROW has to stop at a light, and I doubt they'd make that the dominant way of doing things on this line. A few (Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Reseda) might be like that, but definitely not all of them. Trains not needing to run as frequently makes the impact of stopping cross traffic for it less. The difference between 4 and 6-10 minute headways on waiting times is small enough it won't make much of a difference. Exactly. Instead of many buses that are carrying lots of people, a three train set could carry up to around 400 people, at once, more efficiently. LADOT would probably be more inclined to let the the trains through every 5 or 6 minutes depending on the headway of the trains. From Metro's Source Blog, it appears that the Metro Board could decide next week to ask for a study to expand the Orange line to Pasadena, upgrade the line, and maybe convert it to light rail. thesource.metro.net/2014/07/16/motion-asks-for-study-of-upgrading-orange-line-and-possibly-connecting-to-pasadena/Expo has 12 minute headways and that hasn't changed the signal synch at Crenshaw, Western, Vermont, Jefferson, 12th Street, and other places along the line. Just switching to a rail line doesn't mean LADOT would do anything differently. There is no evidence to support that assertion
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 17, 2014 11:43:03 GMT -8
Masonite, based upon what you wrote above and your prior unsubstantiated attack on me in these forums, it is very apparent that your reading comprehension is akin to that of someone in middle school, it is, unfortunately, very poor indeed.
I wrote that they could "probably" be more willing to work with the headway of a train. Your mistake, obvious to educated readers, is mistaking the meaning of "probably" with "will" or "would" or some other wording, that I did not use, to reinforce or bolster my point. Therefore, your assertion is not factual and is incorrect and not logical.
I am sure you have a wealth of knowledge but you are very poor at communication. There is indeed a chance that LADOT would not budge but there is also a chance, maybe even a slight chance, that things could change, even the timing for the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by Dan W. on Jul 17, 2014 15:28:33 GMT -8
The only people who see riding n a seat on a bus on pavement as "equal" to riding in a seat on a train on rail must be people who commute in the comfortability of their single-occupancy automobiles.
It's not just a "political" problem that people prefer rail to buses. It's as some BRT-enthusiasts feel that if they only talk down to riders enough and keep saying, "Don't you see? If we get signal prioritization this will be just as good as a train." that somehoe if they repeat it enough people will be satisfied with that.
Flame me if you want because I said what isn't supposed to be said in transit planning circles, but riders know the difference in ride quality in their experience. And it isn't just about "signal prioritization".
Once there is an east-west light-rail from Woodland Hills to Pasadena and a north-south light rail from Sylmar to LAX in the works, then people in the San Fernando Valley will probably be more willing to fill in other corridors with more BRT and Rapid Bus lines.
For any 2016 ballot measure to pass, I cannot imagine the San Fernando Valley, with 2 million people voting for it thinking, "Sure, go ahead and build light rail in the rest of the county. We'll happily settle for our little BRT line."
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 18, 2014 10:43:56 GMT -8
The only people who see riding n a seat on a bus on pavement as "equal" to riding in a seat on a train on rail must be people who commute in the comfortability of their single-occupancy automobiles. It's not just a "political" problem that people prefer rail to buses. It's as some BRT-enthusiasts feel that if they only talk down to riders enough and keep saying, "Don't you see? If we get signal prioritization this will be just as good as a train." that somehoe if they repeat it enough people will be satisfied with that. Flame me if you want because I said what isn't supposed to be said in transit planning circles, but riders know the difference in ride quality in their experience. And it isn't just about "signal prioritization". Once there is an east-west light-rail from Woodland Hills to Pasadena and a north-south light rail from Sylmar to LAX in the works, then people in the San Fernando Valley will probably be more willing to fill in other corridors with more BRT and Rapid Bus lines. For any 2016 ballot measure to pass, I cannot imagine the San Fernando Valley, with 2 million people voting for it thinking, "Sure, go ahead and build light rail in the rest of the county. We'll happily settle for our little BRT line." Well it takes two to tango. The state and local voters made pretty big contributions to get the Orange Line built and won't be happy to see that investment mostly flushed out so soon. People would lose confidence in Metro in that they build a line and then want to destroy it a few years later. Who is going to support a major tax increase for that? People in suburban areas assume people in the City will automatically vote for another Measure R no matter what, but that is in serious doubt as many people feel 1.5% is enough of a sales tax for transit and people are getting pickier about wanting a rail station outside their front door. Not everyone will be pleased with any list of projects that may come out for 2016. I personally think it is a long shot and people will have to live with just a Measure R build out for the next 20 years. The Valley homeowners and their related groups ran Metro's predecessor out on a stake when they proposed rail along the Orange Line corridor back in the 80s. The scene was described in Railtown in which the South Bay Rep for the LA Rail Planning Commission, who had grown up in the Valley encountered middle class homeowners in the Valley who were so irate over plans for a rail line that she needed a security detail to exit the meeting. They then convinced their local politicians in Sacramento to pass a law against possible rail in that corridor and with the Orange Line build out - there you have it - those actions put it 40-50 years behind other areas. They can't blame people over the hill for not having rail as they had nothing to do with it. Also, there isn't much of a consensus in the Valley for a line since it is such a sprawling area. People in Burbank - Glendale want their own light rail line to Downtown. People in the northern parts of the Valley just want a north-south line. Other people want a Red Line extension to Burbank Airport. This is the complete opposite of the SGV, which throws almost all of its eggs in the Foothill Extension. Even just a few years ago, members of the Transit Coalition went to describe their possible plans for a 405 Line. They met Valley homeowner and business groups and for the most part were met with complete indifference. It seems like that opposition or indifference to rail has changed in the last few years, but rail lines don't just pop out of thin air. They take many years and even decades of building support and then securing funding and then planning and then actual construction.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 18, 2014 11:07:58 GMT -8
As for my take on it, living in North Hollywood, I'm just frustrated with the lack of good connections. Right now, if I want to get to Pasadena, I can either hop on an LADOT Commuter Express bus at extra cost (that only runs on weekdays), do the transfer shuffle between Metro local lines, or ride the Red Line to Union Station and catch the Gold Line, which takes about an hour to do what a car can do in a third of the time, most of the time.. If I want to get to Glendale from North Hollywood, the choices are bus connections or rail+bus from downtown.So yes, I posted this thread because I would love to see at least Metro Rapid level service as a continuation of the Orange Line toward Pasadena. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be better than we have right now (a giant middle finger to transit riders). It wouldn't be cheap, but it would cost a hell of a lot less than upgrading the entire corridor to rail and then building a connection to Pasadena. It's something that we could totally fit into a Measure R2, and the best part is it wouldn't have to be scrapped when the corridor is eventually electrified, because it wouldn't use the rail right of way and would serve more communities.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 18, 2014 11:18:22 GMT -8
Masonite, based upon what you wrote above and your prior unsubstantiated attack on me in these forums, it is very apparent that your reading comprehension is akin to that of someone in middle school, it is, unfortunately, very poor indeed. I wrote that they could "probably" be more willing to work with the headway of a train. Your mistake, obvious to educated readers, is mistaking the meaning of "probably" with "will" or "would" or some other wording, that I did not use, to reinforce or bolster my point. Therefore, your assertion is not factual and is incorrect and not logical. I am sure you have a wealth of knowledge but you are very poor at communication. There is indeed a chance that LADOT would not budge but there is also a chance, maybe even a slight chance, that things could change, even the timing for the Expo Line. I never attacked you. I simply pointed out the problems with the East Valley Transit Corridor Project as your expectations for it to be developed so quickly are not based in reality. 1. The project has $170M in funding. Metro has said that is not even enough to do a bus project in the area much less a $2B rail line. Most likely the only way this would be able to be funded would be through another county sales tax, which at the very soonest wouldn't start flowing until the middle of 2017. 2. The corridor is not currently connected to any other part of the rail system. It would be highly unusual for an agency to build a rail line completely disconnected from the rest of its system and Metro would be highly reluctant to do this for risk of becoming a world laughing stock and losing voter support. This means the Sepulveda Pass project would have to be under construction and that is many many years away. 3. The area has no job centers or regional destinations. This means it has limited appeal except to those who live right along the corridor. It is called the East Valley Transit Corridor, but that is a terrible name. People in the Eastern part of the Valley like Glendale, Burbank, and Eagle Rock have little to no use for this line. That is part of the reason there has never been any support for this type of line until just very recently and even then it is highly questionable whether most people in the Valley would be excited by something like this, although they probably would be more behind it if it included a full Sylmar to LAX type line.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 18, 2014 16:41:21 GMT -8
I never attacked you. I simply pointed out the problems with the East Valley Transit Corridor Project as your expectations for it to be developed so quickly are not based in reality. 1. The project has $170M in funding. Metro has said that is not even enough to do a bus project in the area much less a $2B rail line. Most likely the only way this would be able to be funded would be through another county sales tax, which at the very soonest wouldn't start flowing until the middle of 2017. 2. The corridor is not currently connected to any other part of the rail system. It would be highly unusual for an agency to build a rail line completely disconnected from the rest of its system and Metro would be highly reluctant to do this for risk of becoming a world laughing stock and losing voter support. This means the Sepulveda Pass project would have to be under construction and that is many many years away. 3. The area has no job centers or regional destinations. This means it has limited appeal except to those who live right along the corridor. It is called the East Valley Transit Corridor, but that is a terrible name. People in the Eastern part of the Valley like Glendale, Burbank, and Eagle Rock have little to no use for this line. That is part of the reason there has never been any support for this type of line until just very recently and even then it is highly questionable whether most people in the Valley would be excited by something like this, although they probably would be more behind it if it included a full Sylmar to LAX type line. That is a very passive-aggressive defense for your prior post that you have written above. In your prior post, you tried to make an assertion on something that I didn't write. With your new post, you yet again, and passive-aggressively, attack me for "your expectations for it to be developed so quickly are not based in reality." Where did I state that that it would, or even should, be developed quickly? What time frame did I state? When? How long? Where? ? *** The points that you make above have a few truths to them. NONE of the other projects in Metro timeline has enough money currently allotted to them for construction. Therefore they all need money. Lots of money. So no surprises in this statement as it should be applied to every single forthcoming Metro project. Your point 2 is questionable since Metro would therefore have to rule out every Valley project unless Metro built out the network only from it's current map. Your idea also precludes Metro from planning a connection to the current system at a latter date while starting service in the valley. Your point 3 is full of half truths, cynicism and contempt it is almost laughable. If the San Fernando Valley, the region of almost 2 Million people, has, as you state "The area has no job centers or regional destinations.", the region must be filled with the unemployed. Or people who work at home. Or maybe they must drive to other parts of Los Angles County but not those parts of the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, San Fernando or Glendale that are in the Valley. There must not be any jobs in Woodland Hills, Encino, Sherman Oaks, Northridge, Chatsworth, Sherman Oaks, Burbank, Sylmar. No studios in Burbank, Studio City or Universal City and Panavision must not be in Woodland Hills.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 19, 2014 7:04:13 GMT -8
North Valley: Don't feel bad. I got attacked because I agreed with the California Public Utilities Commission. Tey called the USC Trench a subway and demanded that ventilation be installed, So I called it the USC subway instead of the USC trench...people were frying me in their posts And said that their opinion was better than the PUC!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 20, 2014 22:03:04 GMT -8
The points that you make above have a few truths to them. NONE of the other projects in Metro timeline has enough money currently allotted to them for construction. Therefore they all need money. Lots of money. So no surprises in this statement as it should be applied to every single forthcoming Metro project. Your point 2 is questionable since Metro would therefore have to rule out every Valley project unless Metro built out the network only from it's current map. Your idea also precludes Metro from planning a connection to the current system at a latter date while starting service in the valley. Your point 3 is full of half truths, cynicism and contempt it is almost laughable. If the San Fernando Valley, the region of almost 2 Million people, has, as you state "The area has no job centers or regional destinations.", the region must be filled with the unemployed. Or people who work at home. Or maybe they must drive to other parts of Los Angles County but not those parts of the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, San Fernando or Glendale that are in the Valley. There must not be any jobs in Woodland Hills, Encino, Sherman Oaks, Northridge, Chatsworth, Sherman Oaks, Burbank, Sylmar. No studios in Burbank, Studio City or Universal City and Panavision must not be in Woodland Hills. 1. Many Metro construction projects are fully funded. We have 4 projects under construction now with a fifth to start in the next 6-9 months. They had to get their funding in order before issuing a notice to proceed. There are others like the Airport Connector, which you earlier said was behind the East Valley Corridor in its progress, that have funding through Measure R and have an additional source funds from LAWA. 2. You are incorrect in that the Valley has quite a few projects that could be built that connect to the current system. The Red Line to Burbank Airport and the light rail line to Glendale from LAUS are in the Long Term Plan right now. There is talk of extending the Foothill Gold Line West into the Valley. None of these are orphan lines, like the East Valley corridor is now. It needs the Sepulveda Pass project to either be built or planned at the same time for it to be viable. Your logic is building orphan lines is not an issue, because it would be bad for the Valley. That of course is not a reason. Where else in the world has anyone built a 5-6 line 100 mile rail system and then decided to build a line completely separated from it? There is a reason why the project is not in the Long Term Plan right now. 3. My post was about the East Valley Corridor not the entire Valley. There are no significant job or regional centers along the East Valley Corridor. A few car dealerships along Van Nuys Blvd. does not count.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 21, 2014 0:17:19 GMT -8
A foothill to Orange Line Valley connector ought to be the first step in converting the orange line to rail. Once you've connected orange and gold, you could then worry about converting orange to gold, by making it rail and creating one massive rail line across all the various named valleys. by pumping 2 billion down the orange line conversion toilet, you're not spending that 2 billion on other valley rail projects that would expand and inter-connect the network.
1 billino could probably get you the red line to burbank airport (one additional stop at the airport) 2 billion could probably get you the red line to the airport and another stop in between the NoHo station and the airport.
2 billion could probably get you rail from chandler to San Fernando/Colorado. Another 2-3 billion might get you all the way down colorado blvd to connect to the gold line and pasadena. Or getting to San Fernando/Colorado could open the possibility of continuing on the right of way back to downtown/union station (yellow line). But it's an investment that opens opportunities. Investing 2 billion in converting the orange line doesn't open any further opportunities. There will be a time to convert the orange line, but that time doesn't seem now. the opportunity cost of using the money now on the orange line do-over vs using the money now on expanding access to the rail network in the valleys seems pretty clear to me.
(my numbers might be off a bit, I forgot to include five or six billion for LADWP to pretend to relocate utilities for 600,000 working days before construction ever starts, "whoopsie, we just trenched to find out where our utilities are, we didn't actually do anything to change any of them, that was just 'discovery' as the lawyers are fond of saying. We'll need another ten or twenty billion to actually move the utilities, and since we didn't write anything down, we'll need to trench again to figure out where the utilities are, not that we're going to move them...")
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 21, 2014 7:31:41 GMT -8
3. My post was about the East Valley Corridor not the entire Valley. There are no significant job or regional centers along the East Valley Corridor. A few car dealerships along Van Nuys Blvd. does not count. On what planet do you live? Heavy ridership along the Van Nuys Blvd corridor is the reason why Metro's establishing the "Valley U" bus route. Rapid 761 along Van Nuys has an annual daily ridership of over 12,000 in the last two years. Don't forget the heavy concentration of jobs around the Van Nuys Civic Center. Or the relatively high-density, transit dependent population living in the same general area. The entire corridor is lined with relatively low-income residents. I've ridden the 224 from North Hollywood to Pacoima and even as late as 7 PM it's still fairly crowded. That local bus has a annual daily ridership of 9,000 (which peaked in 2010 at almost 11,000). Anyway, the only real point I've heard is that the East SFV corridor is going to be orphaned as designed, which is why I'm arguing if they're going to electrify anything, then they need to electrify the portion of Chandler from Van Nuys to North Hollywood so they can at least run trains from Sylmar to North Hollywood (or beyond) for the 20 or so years it'll take to get a tunnel constructed under the pass. The buses can continue running the rest of the way to Warner Center and Chatsworth until it's practical to electrify the rest.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 21, 2014 10:58:51 GMT -8
3. My post was about the East Valley Corridor not the entire Valley. There are no significant job or regional centers along the East Valley Corridor. A few car dealerships along Van Nuys Blvd. does not count. On what planet do you live? Don't forget the heavy concentration of jobs around the Van Nuys Civic Center. Or the relatively high-density, transit dependent population living in the same general area. The entire corridor is lined with relatively low-income residents. I've ridden the 224 from North Hollywood to Pacoima and even as late as 7 PM it's still fairly crowded. That local bus has a annual daily ridership of 9,000 (which peaked in 2010 at almost 11,000). Van Nuys is simply not a regional job center like Warner Center, Downtown Glendale, Westwood, Century City, El Segundo, Downtown Long Beach, etc.... It is no where even remotely close to those areas as a job center. It would be more comparable to the West LA Civic Center in Sawtelle.
|
|
|
Post by Burrito on Jul 21, 2014 13:16:18 GMT -8
Van Nuys Civic center is much bigger than West LA Civic Center, Van Nuys has State offices, Federal offices, a Jail, the beautiful mini City Hall, bigger library, the Valley HQ for LAPD, etc, etc. Van Nuys Civic Center is for sure a Regional Center, mainly a Valley center but the valley got a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 21, 2014 19:43:35 GMT -8
1. Many Metro construction projects are fully funded. We have 4 projects under construction now with a fifth to start in the next 6-9 months. They had to get their funding in order before issuing a notice to proceed. There are others like the Airport Connector, which you earlier said was behind the East Valley Corridor in its progress, that have funding through Measure R and have an additional source funds from LAWA. 2. You are incorrect in that the Valley has quite a few projects that could be built that connect to the current system. The Red Line to Burbank Airport and the light rail line to Glendale from LAUS are in the Long Term Plan right now. There is talk of extending the Foothill Gold Line West into the Valley. None of these are orphan lines, like the East Valley corridor is now. It needs the Sepulveda Pass project to either be built or planned at the same time for it to be viable. Your logic is building orphan lines is not an issue, because it would be bad for the Valley. That of course is not a reason. Where else in the world has anyone built a 5-6 line 100 mile rail system and then decided to build a line completely separated from it? There is a reason why the project is not in the Long Term Plan right now. 3. My post was about the East Valley Corridor not the entire Valley. There are no significant job or regional centers along the East Valley Corridor. A few car dealerships along Van Nuys Blvd. does not count. I can't believe that you have decided to come back for more, at least now your not trying to be a passive-aggressive troll. Of course, you did accuse me basing my expectations of it being developed quickly but you can't back that up because you made it up. Correspondingly, your reading comprehension skills are akin to the flotsam of the city sewer. It's sad. So let's go. 1. You wrote that July 18 that the project only has 170 Million dollars. I responded that none of Metro's projects have enough budgeted money. Your response is that many Metro construction projects are fully funded and that another soon will be under construction. That is a totally insufficient response when we are discussing upcoming, Measure R or Metro long range plan projects. How many upcoming projects are fully funded or close to construction? Let me help you with this; before these under construction projects were green lit for construction they had some funding assigned to it, whether by Measure R or elsewhere but they had to start somewhere. Did these projects miraculously have the exact amount of money assigned to them from day one prior to any project planning? If you, Masonite, answer yes you are wrong. I suppose we could be more precise and limit this discussion to rail or subway projects. Probably the project with the most amount of money allocated to it are the Gold Line Eastside extension or the 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. The Gold Line Eastside Extension has pathetic ridership numbers as an example: *** East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor LRT study stated that the line would have 37,500 boardings for $1.8-2.3 Billion Dollars. Where do these riders come from Masonite please enlighten us. Eastside San Gabriel Valley Gold Line extension either 16,700 boardings for $1.2 Billion Dollars or 19,900 boardings for $1.7 Billion Dollars. *** The ESFVTC has had it's route shortened and the route south of the Orange Line is now part of the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. This probably means that the cost of the ESFVTC has decreased but we will see. I wonder if you have started to troll the Gold Line forum considering those numbers and have started complaining about "job centers". LOL 2. You wrote "You are incorrect in that the Valley has quite a few projects that could be built that connect to the current system." This is hilarious. I didn't write that. You made that up!!!! You did it again!!! Please re-read my first paragraph. 3. I tire of this and the posts above this stand proof positive of what is wrong with Masonite's thinking. (The rest of the poor readers I give you this scenario (as Masonite shakes his fist at me): Prepare to burst your mind. An Orange Line conversion to rail coupled with the ESFVTC and an Orange Line extension to Burbank/Glendale and Gold Line. Or how about ESFVTC connection to the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor, a single seat ride, and couple this with a West LA Line (down Sepulveda?) and a connection to the Expo Line. Before you get mad and exclaim that these are pipe dreams, well maybe they are but we have to start with what we have now.) This plan is not my idea and I don't claim any credit. But I think it would be pretty swell. There were plenty of people at the public meetings of the ESFVTC that stated something just like this.
|
|