|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 10, 2008 7:14:03 GMT -8
Valley's Orange Line has appealBy Sue Doyle, Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 07/09/2008 09:54:26 PM PDT NORTH HOLLYWOOD — Soaring gas prices have fueled record-high ridership on the Orange Line, where passengers in June took a record average of 26,596 daily bus trips, officials said Wednesday. The 63 percent jump since buses first pulled away from the North Hollywood station in October 2005 has prompted Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials to call for more buses to run the 14-mile route and to consider adding express lines. "We encourage people to save money and stick it to OPEC," said county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a Metro board member, at a news conference. Metro's board last month adopted a proposal to extend the busway four miles north to the Metrolink station in Chatsworth along Canoga Avenue. However, the agency still must vote on a final environmental impact report in January 2009. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump Wednesday in Los Angeles averaged $4.57, up nearly 50 percent from a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association's Fuel Gauge Report. At the same time, motorists' demand for gasoline across the country has dropped 2 percent from the same time last year, according to the federal Energy Information Administration's weekly petroleum status report. The skyrocketing gas prices are enough to make Peter Bunce, 46, leave his car in his Van Nuys driveway. He now hops on the Orange Line to commute downtown, where he works as a language teacher. "I can't even back my vehicle out of my driveway for under $5," Bunce joked Wednesday as he waited for the Orange Line. More popular Breaking all previous records, weekday trips taken by Orange Line riders grew 8 percent from May to June, with 26,596 boardings recorded, according to Metro. The Orange Line had just 16,360 average daily weekday trips in its first month of operation. Saturdays on the bus line that ends at Warner Center also netted 15,629 boardings in June, a 10 percent jump from May. The popularity of the $330 million Orange Line has surprised transit officials who initially projected 22,000 weekday riders by 2020. But that forecast was surpassed 17 months after the bus line took off. By March 2007, weekday ridership reached 23,243, according to Metro. Orange Line rider Andre Stewart, 67, is saving for a compact car that won't drain his wallet. Meanwhile, the North Hollywood man rides mass transit and sees crowds growing larger for the bus. "I've noticed more people waiting for the Orange Line," Stewart said. "It's harder to get a seat." The transit agency is reviewing express lines that could speed up the 38-minute commute across the Valley by 8 percent, said Richard Hunt, general manager for Metro's Valley sector. Fewer stops? One option is omitting stops and sticking to the most popular ones, such as Reseda, Van Nuys and Sepulveda boulevards. "The growth of the Orange Line is phenomenal," Hunt said. Last August, the transit agency introduced a 65-foot bus to the Orange Line, the longest bus in America and one capable of holding 16 more passengers than 60-foot buses. Metro officials aim to phase in nine more of these behemoths to the bus line but are waiting for legislation to clear allowing the nontraditional-sized buses on the street, Hunt said. Christopher Rodriguez, 20, of Hollywood said that despite the swarms of people, he'll still ride the Orange Line — even if it means standing in an aisle for his trip's duration. "There are definitely more people on board," said Rodriguez. "For me, it's convenient. It runs across the whole Valley."
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 10, 2008 8:02:15 GMT -8
Kymberleigh Richards has pointed out on her website that "something" will have to happen soon. Proposition 108 funds were used and that calls for an upgrade to rail within a few years.
I'd prefer a Ventura Blvd. subway, but that's not feasible any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 10, 2008 8:31:05 GMT -8
Kymberleigh Richards has pointed out on her website that "something" will have to happen soon. Proposition 108 funds were used and that calls for an upgrade to rail within a few years. I'd prefer a Ventura Blvd. subway, but that's not feasible any time soon. Be rest assured, despite anything that Kymberleigh may point out, the Orange Line isn't going to get funding for rail any time soon. It isn't in the upcoming ballot projects or on the long range plan. Perhaps, a factual point, but nothing is going to happen on this. Period.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 10, 2008 9:08:07 GMT -8
Much of why the SFV only got a Busway and the rest of the county is getting LRT/HRT is because the SGV never really rallies together FOR something. Zev (who's made his share of successes and mistakes) had to slam this Orange Line Busway through the opposition of myriads of NIMBY's.
Now it's a success, and for the next generation this Busway will remain as such. Future major investments for the SFV probably involve extensions and connections to the Busway and a Major Investment Study of a way to enhance subway connections between the SFV and the rest of the City/County of Los Angeles. Probably more Metrolink service.
When the SFV wants to be FOR something, and starts clamoring about why the rest of the county is getting LRT and HRT, and is willing to smack down the NIMBY minority, this change to the Orange Line Busway (probably after Zev is out of office) will occur...or at least show up on the Long Range Transportation Plan Update in years to come.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 10, 2008 9:20:39 GMT -8
I think there would already be Valley support for a rail line from Sylmar to LAX. However, at the moment, getting Metro to take mass transit travel between the Valley and the Westside seriously is a point in futility.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 10, 2008 10:59:46 GMT -8
I think there would already be Valley support for a rail line from Sylmar to LAX. However, at the moment, getting Metro to take mass transit travel between the Valley and the Westside seriously is a point in futility. No, Metro reflects what the community and citizens are asking for. For example the big asks over at the Valley Industry and Commerce Association are items such as connecting the 170 south to the 101 north. Or asking that the Orange Line reach Bob Hope Airport. No big vision or much of any vision. Some low hanging fruit like increasing midday, night and weekend Metrolink service is not even on the bar graph. This would make the Valley a major rail center without subway or busway expansion of hundreds of millions. It will take another 10 years until the old guard dies and an the rest start asking for transit a decade late. Check out a neighborhood council. They want potholes repaired and no development. And they claim, despite Metro investment in bus, busway, subway, freeway service patrol, sound walls and other betterments and assets, that Metro gives the Valley Zero. Deep thinking here too.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 10, 2008 13:30:07 GMT -8
As much as uncoordinated individuals speak of connecting the Westside and SFV, it's truly amazing that UCLA and the north-south destinations do NOT speak anything of a light rail or other rail lines like we see with Expo and the Foothill Gold Line.
Bart and I have done this for years, and nothing gets coordinated either politically or at the grassroots. Nothing. Nada.
I suspect this will change as the Expo and Purple Lines move westward, and perhaps if the Green Line and LAX are connected, but right now there is just no movement whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 10, 2008 15:48:21 GMT -8
As much as uncoordinated individuals speak of connecting the Westside and SFV, it's truly amazing that UCLA and the north-south destinations do NOT speak anything of a light rail or other rail lines like we see with Expo and the Foothill Gold Line. Bart and I have done this for years, and nothing gets coordinated either politically or at the grassroots. Nothing. Nada. I suspect this will change as the Expo and Purple Lines move westward, and perhaps if the Green Line and LAX are connected, but right now there is just no movement whatsoever. It is too bad, because while I think a South Bay to Orange Line along roughly the Sepulveda corridor in and of itself would have some appeal, it would be a wildly successful line just because of links to the Green Line, Expo, Purple Line extension and Orange Line. I think it really suffers because there is no natural ROW or obvious place to put it and the Crenshaw Line has really taken precedence over this and this isn't room for both for quite some time.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jul 10, 2008 17:00:01 GMT -8
I thought I'd put in how well the Orange Line works. I go from Van Nuys/Woodman to Vermont/Sunset daily. My usual route taking the 761 south to the Orange Line east to the Red Line southeast takes 50 - 60 minutes in the morning; however, in the afternoon, usually due to the northbound 761 being hit or miss, and an added 10 minute travel time on the 761 due to the afternoon/evening rush, it can take 60 to 80 minutes to make the trip back. Recently, Metro started 724 service on Lankershim; and as an alternative, I take the 724 northbound to Van Nuys (761) going west back to Van Nuys/Woodman. I make it back home in 50 - 60 minutes going through Sun Valley vs Panorama City. The Orange Line is great, but it drops me off on Van Nuys south of the traffic jams around Roscoe; the 724 is just as fast as the Orange Line and drops me north of the Panorama City jams.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 11, 2008 11:00:10 GMT -8
There is enough potential support out there for a Sepulveda/405 Line of some sort. Look at Metro's "Imagine..." blog and see how many people mention it.
However, it may take the Purple Line and Expo Line and the Green/Crenshaw Lines hooking into the airport coming first, as transit advocates are currently invested elsewhere.
Once the Purple and Expo Lines are underway, then people see it as having something to "hook into". I'd be the first to support such a project, but I am focused on a SantaMonica/LaCienega alignment right now. Others are focused on other projects.
If we are going to use "colors", I like the "Tan Line" as it the closest one to the Ocean. Some transit advocate today could form "Friends of the Tan Line" (or "Sepulveda Line" or whatever).
I'm just sorry, that Metro didn't like Alternative #9 that had SMB trains runnign to Hollywood/Highland and up to North Hollywood, for a one-seat ride from the Valley to the Westside.
I hope at least the Sepulveda busway moves up the priority list.
Should these busways even get "colors"? Or should all the busways be known as the Orange Lines?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 11, 2008 15:50:21 GMT -8
If the Orange Line were upgraded to rail, I think a subway alignment along Ventura would be much more appropriate, although I think some of the nimby's in the Valley are really opposed to any more density on Ventura Blvd. so that I believe is the main reason a Valley subway is not on the radar, although there does appear to be growing support to get the red line to Burbank. Metro Rail, Orange Line Set New Ridership Records (Metro-122) As far as the June ridership numbers are concerned these are blowout numbers! Wow. Lets hope Metro is preparing to add trains/reduce headways so they keep these passengers and not treat them to severely overcrowded trains when it is not necessary. Washington gave a little more money for operating costs in public transport so hopefully some of this flows to Metro to add cars to trains. Otherwise a horribly wasted opportunity, since Metro is not short cars like Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jul 12, 2008 9:31:59 GMT -8
If the Orange Line were upgraded to rail, I think a subway alignment along Ventura would be much more appropriate, although I think some of the nimby's in the Valley are really opposed to any more density on Ventura Blvd. so that I believe is the main reason a Valley subway is not on the radar, although there does appear to be growing support to get the red line to Burbank. There is NO evidence of support to extend the Red Line to Burbank. If you are referring to the VICA goal, this is the same group that wants to connect the S/B 170 to the N/B 101, which is a huge waste of money. And the Orange Line, nothing is going to happen except the extension to Chatsworth. Metro Rail, Orange Line Set New Ridership Records (Metro-122) Yes, without months of tracking, the June numbers could just be a spike without repeat, as Metro is now in its weakest ridership quarter. And, no, Metro is NOT going to add trains or increase frequency. That is a budget issue and would only be addressed if there was real overcrowding perhaps for a six month duration. Many times overcrowding is caused by folks jamming into the first and last cars and leaving the middle of the train set with plenty of capacity. And Washington HAS NOT given any more operating funds. The idea was in one bill, but it has months to go through the process and it could then be vetoed by President Bush, who doesn't see transit as anything but welfare to people who would never vote for him. Think of transit in dog years. What should happen in one years takes 6 or 7 and two years = 12 years. Until the middle class sends a clear message to the elected officials, such as a sales tax vote, expect status quo. Look at the State of CA and the $1.4 billion that the Legislature and the Governor are taking from transit from the budget that was due July 1. It's great to be optimistic and wish that rational things can happen, but it requires sea changes in attitudes that is perhaps 6-10 years away.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jul 12, 2008 11:29:04 GMT -8
Don't forget that The Transit Coalition is advocating better rail service in the SF Valley, which is to upgrade the existing Metrolink service in the area.
For those who are not aware of this project, I invite you to visit the Metrolink Max Website to see what this campaign project is all about.
The project calls for some modest capital upgrades which include track upgrades and reliable, round-the-clock rail service linking Chatsworth to LAUS via the Ventura County Line, and the High Desert suburbs to LAUS via the Antelope Valley Line. Service is advocated to operate every 30 minutes and will include weekend and late night service.
Frequent Metro bus service will feed to/from the system which includes Metro Rapid and the Metro Orange Line extension to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station.
Other Metrolink lines that can be upgraded to 30 minute intervals are the OC Line to Laguna Niguel (now in the works with OCTA) and the San Bernardino Line to DT San Bernardino.
Rendering provided by New Urbanism.
With the combined presence of 30 minute Metrolink service, the Orange Line, the Red Line at North Hollywood, and CA HSR, the Valley will one day become a livable, urban community that is not centered around the car.
The organization has encouraged people to write letters to the Metro Board of Directors that shows support of 30-minute headways on Metrolink trains from Chatsworth to Laguna Niguel and elsewhere. Postcards are also available for those who live in LA County.
These letters can instill interest in regional rail by bringing it to the attention of transportation leaders.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 12, 2008 22:15:59 GMT -8
If the Orange Line were upgraded to rail, I think a subway alignment along Ventura would be much more appropriate, although I think some of the nimby's in the Valley are really opposed to any more density on Ventura Blvd. so that I believe is the main reason a Valley subway is not on the radar, although there does appear to be growing support to get the red line to Burbank. There is NO evidence of support to extend the Red Line to Burbank. If you are referring to the VICA goal, this is the same group that wants to connect the S/B 170 to the N/B 101, which is a huge waste of money. And the Orange Line, nothing is going to happen except the extension to Chatsworth. Metro Rail, Orange Line Set New Ridership Records (Metro-122) Yes, without months of tracking, the June numbers could just be a spike without repeat, as Metro is now in its weakest ridership quarter. And, no, Metro is NOT going to add trains or increase frequency. That is a budget issue and would only be addressed if there was real overcrowding perhaps for a six month duration. Many times overcrowding is caused by folks jamming into the first and last cars and leaving the middle of the train set with plenty of capacity. And Washington HAS NOT given any more operating funds. The idea was in one bill, but it has months to go through the process and it could then be vetoed by President Bush, who doesn't see transit as anything but welfare to people who would never vote for him. Think of transit in dog years. What should happen in one years takes 6 or 7 and two years = 12 years. Until the middle class sends a clear message to the elected officials, such as a sales tax vote, expect status quo. Look at the State of CA and the $1.4 billion that the Legislature and the Governor are taking from transit from the budget that was due July 1. It's great to be optimistic and wish that rational things can happen, but it requires sea changes in attitudes that is perhaps 6-10 years away. My mistake on the federal transportation funding as you are right in that this was just in the House at the current moment. On the Red Line to Burbank, I have noticed it is in the Long Range Plan as a Tier 2 project, which no East-West rail project in the valley is. There must be some support from somewhere to get it there -- no? However, I do realize that a Burbank to Union Station Light-Rail line is in the Tier 1 plan. I suppose there is an argument as to whether a Red Line extension to Burbank makes more sense than a whole new light rail line. I guess the real support is in Burbank to get some sort of rail connection and meet up with Metrolink so riders don't go all the way to Union Station and then come back north on the Red Line. On adding cars to the trains I hear you in that any changes can take forever and having to deal with the budget. Perhaps the trains are not packed and turning off customers. However, if they are and more people are paying fares and gas prices have skyrocketed since the budget was completed, I think it is a mistake not to add a car here and there if it is necessary (there needs to be some flexibility as this opportunity is better than any advertising Metro does as these are new riders coming into contact with the system so why turn them off). Even though fares, I realize, only make up a tiny portion of costs, there is some extra revenue coming in that wasn't in the budget. I'd think if it is necessary, the Metro staff would inform the board that overcrowding is becoming an issue with the huge increase in gas prices, and the Board could take some action at its next meeting. Anyway, it was just a question and I am not saying it should necessarily happen. During July and August many Angelinos go on vacation and traffic is noticebly lower and I imagine it will be difficult to hit these numbers for the next couple of months. It was just good to see us blow past the 300k weekday ridership amount.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 22, 2008 10:42:35 GMT -8
www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11037076Some want light rail for Orange Line By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer, Daily News Posted: 11/21/2008 12:00:00 AM PST It takes 40 minutes on the Orange Line bus, plus a 10-minute walk, to get to the Westfield Topanga mall from North Hollywood just 14 miles away - a time-wasting deal-breaker for Megan More. Seeing light-rail lines pop up around Los Angeles and plans for a subway to the sea, More wonders why other regions benefit from these fast-moving transit routes while the San Fernando Valley relies on a successful but stop-and-go busway as a major alternative to driving. "We need to drag the city kicking and screaming into the 21st century," said the 56-year-old former teacher from Sunland. More is not alone in her dream of ditching the bus for more modern and efficient mass transit across the Valley, wondering aloud why the Orange Line can't be a train. After Metro heralded explosive ridership on the busway this summer, when passengers in June took a whopping 26,596 daily trips, some blog writers to overheadwire.com - a Web site that advocates light rail and other electric transit - asked why that ridership was considered successful. "They really kicked themselves in the teeth by building something that is already at capacity and doesn't run on electricity," one blogger wrote, adding that had Metro made the Orange Line a train, it would get across the Valley in less than 30 minutes, similar to the Gold Line from downtown L.A. to Pasadena. There is no organized effort to transform the Orange Line into a train, but with its Advertisement ridership already breaking past the transit agency's expectations, some are calling for at least a discussion on improving the busway to something more efficient. Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, said the busway is unfair to Valley residents, who pay sales taxes for other areas to have light rail with fewer passengers. "The Orange Line should be upgraded to a light rail," he said. "It will attract more users because it's a better system. And ridership is such that we should have a light rail and not just a bus lane." The popularity of the Orange Line, projected to have 22,000 weekday riders by 2020, has taken transit officials by storm since the bus route began three years ago. In September, Metro reported a record-breaking 27,987 daily boardings, surpassing the 25,511 on the Gold Line. But the number of passengers declined 9 percent in October as gasoline prices dropped nearly $1 for a gallon of regular unleaded. There were 25,428 weekday boardings last month on the Orange Line busway, usually surpassing the number of commuters on the Gold Line light rail. The Pasadena-to-downtown rail line had 24,004 weekday boardings in October. But Metro officials said it's unfair to compare the two lines with ridership records. Next summer, Gold Line ridership is expected to eclipse the Orange Line because of an $898 million, six-mile extension from Union Station to East Los Angeles - one of the most transit-dependent communities in the county, said Marc Littman, Metro's spokesman. "There has been widespread community support for building and extending the Metro Gold Line in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley," he said. Metro officials could not estimate costs to convert the Orange Line to a rail system. But light rail costs at least $150 million a mile. Subways cost $330 million a mile to tunnel. The 14-mile busway, operating over an old Southern Pacific rail-line infrastructure, was developed because it was the technology that had the least opposition at the time and could be installed most quickly, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. Steps to boost speed Steps can be taken to boost speeds on the line without making it a rail, he noted, including adding express buses, making five stops instead of 13, and synchronizing lights so buses have the right of way at all times. But neither proposal has really gotten off the ground. The express idea came and went a few months ago, and city officials are concerned about creating cross-traffic backups by synchronizing the lights. "I don't have a problem taking on a controversial issue when there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow," Yaroslavsky said. "But I think there would be significant opposition to converting this to rail on the corridor and the marginal benefit of doing it would be questionable." Gerald Silver, president of the Homeowners of Encino Coalition, opposes rail and calls it a bad investment for Los Angeles and the Valley because it's expensive and inflexible once installed. But the Orange Line does not operate the way it was first presented to the public, Silver noted. "It's stopping at every intersection and was sold to the public as a rapid busway. But it takes 40 minutes," he said. "Forty minutes, you could do that in your car. In fact, you could beat that." Adding crossing gates at intersections - similar to those on the Gold and Blue light-rail lines, which go through neighborhoods - would boost speeds on the Orange Line and could pave the way for a train. Gates too costly But there are no plans for such a move, Littman said, because Metro would have to add gates at 33 intersections at a cost in the millions of dollars. Plus, gates "would make cross traffic a lot worse," he said. To be fair, Metro is setting aside $1 billion for a subway or light rail from Van Nuys to UCLA by 2038. The money would come from Measure R, which voters approved Nov. 4 to increase the county's sales tax by a half-percent to fund transportation projects. It's clinging to a thin lead with thousands of ballots still to be counted. Plus, a proposal for a $225million extension of the Orange Line four miles north along Canoga Avenue to the Chatsworth Metrolink station will head to Metro's board of directors in January with a final environmental impact report. Included in the extension plans is $28 million to build a 2,000-foot concrete bridge that can sustain a light-rail line over Lassen Street and Metrolink railroad tracks, said Walt Davis, Metro's transportation planning manager. "So if sometime down the road, they want to build a light rail, they can do it without tearing the bridge out," Davis said. Measure R also would set aside $150 million to kick-start the busway extension by three years, having it operating by 2013. Talk of a subway between North Hollywood and Warner Center was dashed 12 years ago during a financial crunch with Metro. One board member called the Valley's subway proposal unrealistic. At the time, Metro planners were completing an environmental study that laid down several options for an east-west line, including a 14-mile cross-Valley light-rail system, projected in 1996 to cost $1.1billion. Pam Lutzker, a homeowner on a street adjacent to the Orange Line, said the system works well and at least provides an alternative to the 101. "A rail might go faster, but rail is noisier," she said. "And once you put tracks across the street, it's tough on tires." Living since she was 5 on Cumpston Street, which runs behind the Orange Line, Tess Langianese, 23, said the busway does not provide enough alternatives to entice her to leave her car at home. She is moving to San Francisco, where fast-moving mass transit already exists. "It should become a rail. It's too slow," she said. "I always end up driving. But traffic is always an issue here." sue.doyle@dailynews.com 818-713-3746
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 22, 2008 12:31:21 GMT -8
"A rail might go faster, but rail is noisier," she said. "And once you put tracks across the street, it's tough on tires." um... thats why we should not have light rail, because of car tires? thats just retarded. the random bits of car scattered around the streets of los angeles pose more of a threat to your tires then some smooth rail tracks
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 22, 2008 16:42:11 GMT -8
If concerns about limited capacity on Metro buses warrants discussion of a conversion to rail, the SFV busway needs to stand in line. There are AT LEAST 5 evenly spaced corridors with higher ridership that need rail to relieve overcrowding, to say nothing of the need to address the capacity issues on the Blue Line like yesterday.
And of course light rail on the SFV busway would be a sad substitution, and completely inadequate to actually serve the SFV east-west corridor that really needs it: Ventura/101.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 22, 2008 17:59:26 GMT -8
If concerns about limited capacity on Metro buses warrants discussion of a conversion to rail, the SFV busway needs to stand in line. There are AT LEAST 5 evenly spaced corridors with higher ridership that need rail to relieve overcrowding, to say nothing of the need to address the capacity issues on the Blue Line like yesterday. And of course light rail on the SFV busway would be a sad substitution, and completely inadequate to actually serve the SFV east-west corridor that really needs it: Ventura/101. Ah, the endless anti-light-rail propaganda by Damien. I wonder where those five BRT lines are in LA that wait for the LRT/HRT conversion. I also wonder if the people of the Valley only want to ride on Ventura Blvd, why they are riding the Orange Line and asking for its LRT conversion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 22, 2008 18:27:52 GMT -8
In Istanbul, Turkey, they have recently taken out one lane in each direction on a major east - west freeway and built BRT. They are using Dutch-made Phileas futuristic-looking hybrid buses with four-wheel steering, run at very short headways. Guess the problem. The capacity of 500,000 passengers a day turned out to be insufficient for Istanbul, and riders are experiencing nightmare crowding problems. Sounds familiar around here? Many people knew this would happen, but the narrow-visioned local politicians in Istanbul couldn't see it coming. They thought they were saving a lot of money by not laying tracks and hanging wires but they had no clue that BRT would be much more expensive to run than LRT and has a serious capacity problem. My take on this: If you are going to build a bus line, build a bus line, not BRT; if you are going to build a rapid-transit system, build LRT or HRT, not BRT. In summary, at the risk of sounding like Damien, who is always against a certain mode of transit, don't build BRT. It's stupid. More imagesUnbearable crowd for fast transportISTANBUL - The Metrobus transport line in Istanbul, which began one year ago as an intergration of the underground metro and regular city bus systems, has had more passengers than expected. Operating every two minutes between Avcýlar-Zincirlikuyu, the system, which can carry around 500,000 passengers per day, has turned out to be inadequate. Metrobuses packed with passengers have to wait a long time at stops, especially in Yenibosna, Þirinevler and Cevizlibað. It is not only metrobuses that are overcrowded; stairways leading in and out of metro stops are also packed. Passengers getting on and off metrobuses have to use the same staircase, causing increasingly dangerous situations. Cengiz Öztürk, press liaison officer for the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, said demand had been greater than anticipated and stairwells could be expanded. "Offering rapid, easy transport, metrobuses have decreased the number of cars on the road significantly. Approximately 70,000 cars have been taken off the roads with the metrobus system," said Istanbul Mayor Kadir Topbaþ. According to Topbaþ, YTL 11.4 billion of a YTL 2.5 billion investment in Istanbul over the last 4.5 years has been spent on transport. The route of the metrobus will be extended to Kozyataðý on the Asian side of Istanbul and to Beylikdüzü on the European side. The total length of the line will be 54 kilometers and decrease average travel time between the two endpoints from over two hours to just 80 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 22, 2008 21:55:06 GMT -8
If you are going to build a bus line, build a bus line, not BRT; if you are going to build a rapid-transit system, build LRT or HRT, not BRT. In summary...don't build BRT. It's stupid.
I concur--major infrastructure should be only for LRT or HRT, not BRT. Every major BRT that has decent capacity sooner or later becomes something that everyone wishes had been built as LRT or HRT to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 23, 2008 0:40:36 GMT -8
the SFV busway needs to stand in line. Stand in line? That's exactly what the Valley has patiently been doing since 1980. Has it received any meaningful transportation solution yet? No. The Valley remains in line, waiting for what everyone else seems to be getting.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 23, 2008 5:45:13 GMT -8
And of course light rail on the SFV busway would be a sad substitution, and completely inadequate to actually serve the SFV east-west corridor that really needs it: Ventura/101. Not. Gonna. Happen. Neither Metro nor the city is going to push for a Ventura service when the right of way now used for the Orange Line already has a clear path across the Valley. There's not going to be money or even the ridership to sustain both services, especially two so close to each other. I'm even hesitant about converting Orange Line to rail, even with its high ridership. The $450 million or so spent to get the busway operational would be sunk into the conversion costs of rail. Plus, there's the matter of where to put all those boardings.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 23, 2008 9:20:20 GMT -8
Stand in line? That's exactly what the Valley has patiently been doing since 1980. Has it received any meaningful transportation solution yet? No. The Valley remains in line, waiting for what everyone else seems to be getting. Not exactly. It was valley residents who opposed the Orange Line being constructed as light rail. In response to resident's fears the state legistlature passed the 1991 Robins Bill which specifically excluded any at grade rail that was not a minimum of 25 feet below grade and that did no use deep bore technology. This effectively eliminated the potential use of light rail. transit-insider.org/master.html?http://transit-insider.org/chandler/page2.htmSecondly, when the Orange line was under construction as a Bus Way Valleyites sued during the middle of construction to keep it from being completed. Valley Orthodox Jews spoke out against pushing crossing buttons on the sabbath on nightly news and area residents complained about future noise, pollution and traffic the busway would cause. A judge ordered a temporary halt in Orange Line construction while the Metro did additional EIR work. The original EIR didn't study additional Rapid Lines. The delay cost tens of thousands of dollars. Third, Valleyites, along with the rest of the county, strongly supported Prop A., Zev's law, banning subway construction region wide. So, When someone says, the valley should stand in line. Well, The valley was at the front of the line when they started arguing with the chef because they didn't like anything on the menu. The chef insisted they had to eat something so they got a smaller portion. The Valley realized how good the food is and now that want more. Unfortunately, they have to get back in line. The good news is, with Prop R, we've hired more chefs so the line will move faster. Another thing to keep in mind is that many elements of the Orange line were designed with light rail conversion in mind; namely, crossings and bridges.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 23, 2008 11:47:53 GMT -8
Stand in line? That's exactly what the Valley has patiently been doing since 1980. Has it received any meaningful transportation solution yet? No. The Valley remains in line, waiting for what everyone else seems to be getting. Not exactly. It was valley residents who opposed the Orange Line being constructed as light rail. In response to resident's fears the state legistlature passed the 1991 Robins Bill which specifically excluded any at grade rail that was not a minimum of 25 feet below grade and that did no use deep bore technology. This effectively eliminated the potential use of light rail. transit-insider.org/master.html?http://transit-insider.org/chandler/page2.htmSecondly, when the Orange line was under construction as a Bus Way Valleyites sued during the middle of construction to keep it from being completed. Valley Orthodox Jews spoke out against pushing crossing buttons on the sabbath on nightly news and area residents complained about future noise, pollution and traffic the busway would cause. A judge ordered a temporary halt in Orange Line construction while the Metro did additional EIR work. The original EIR didn't study additional Rapid Lines. The delay cost tens of thousands of dollars. Third, Valleyites, along with the rest of the county, strongly support Prop A., Zev's law banning subway construction region wide. So When someone says, the valley should stand in line. Well, The valley was at the front of the line when they started arguing with the chef because they didn't like anything on the menu. The chef insisted they had to eat something so they got a smaller portion. The Valley realized how good the food is and now that want more. Unfortunately, they have to get back in line. The good news is, with Prop R, we've hired more chefs so the line will move faster. Another thing to keep in mind is that many elements of the Orange line were designed with light rail conversion in mind; namely, crossings and bridges. Well, Alan Robbins bill is complete bs and obviously a corrupt bill. In fact, Alan Robbins resigned shortly after this bill because of a corruption scandal. I don't know if this bill is still out there, or if it is, how difficult to overturn it. Cheviot Hills is full of Orthodox Jews and all sorts of other NIMBYs; yet, we are building Expo to Santa Monica. I think NIMBYism shouldn't determine the fate of a line. With the building of Expo Phase 2, Gold Line Phase 2, Crenshaw Line to LAX, Downtown Connector, and so on, our light-rail system may end up being very successful, and we may even see Orthodox Jews asking for a light-rail line in the Valley, and the Metro might have enough motivation to extend the light-rail system further, including the Valley. You can't hold the Valley responsible for their misfortune caused by a few NIMBYs. With these projects you mostly hear the opposition, especially the strong, radical NIMBY opposition. There are far more people wanting these projects, but they simply keep quiet, since, unlike the NIMBYs, they are full of life and have no time to to counter the NIMBYs' fight to keep their status quo, the status quo of their little, tiny, empty world, which they get no satisfaction out of but do get satisfaction by fighting for it. Only a few of us, like those of us in Friends 4 Expo, take the challenge of fighting their menace and injustice to the public.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 23, 2008 12:20:43 GMT -8
Not exactly. It was valley residents who opposed the Orange Line being constructed as light rail. These few small NIMBY groups have never represented the will of the Valley. The overwhelming majority of Valley residents who are aware of the Orange Line *HATE* that they got a busway while everyone else in the region gets rail. The end result: extremely few discretionary riders, which sorta is the point of major transit corridors. You can't hold the Valley responsible for their misfortune caused by a few NIMBYs. With these projects you mostly hear the opposition, especially the strong, radical NIMBY opposition. There are far more people wanting these projects, but they simply keep quiet, since, unlike the NIMBYs, they are full of life and have no time to to counter the NIMBYs' fight to keep their status quo, the status quo of their little, tiny, empty world, which they get no satisfaction out of but do get satisfaction by fighting for it. Only a few of us, like those of us in Friends 4 Expo, take the challenge of fighting their menace and injustice to the public. So true.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 23, 2008 12:40:55 GMT -8
You can't hold the Valley responsible for their misfortune caused by a few NIMBYs. You are right. I should be more specific. I don't hold the Valley as a whole responsible for the project they received. Nimbyism in the valley should be held up as an example of what is possible when it is not confronted. I am thankful that Friends 4 Expo has stood up as a positive advocate for light rail and a educating voice to counter that of the small but vocal nimby minority. Without F4E Expo would surely not exist in any mode.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 23, 2008 12:47:49 GMT -8
Without F4E Expo would surely not exist in any mode. It would be BRT like the Orange Line at best. Darrell (who happens to be from the Valley originally) knows about the early history of Friends 4 Expo and their fight to have it built as LRT instead of BRT, and he can tell about it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 23, 2008 15:18:29 GMT -8
It would be BRT like the Orange Line at best. ....... I think BRT would be opposed even more vehemently.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 23, 2008 19:15:50 GMT -8
It would be BRT like the Orange Line at best. ....... I think BRT would be opposed even more vehemently. I think so, too. That means the Orange Line wouldn't have more opposition to LRT than BRT, if they had decided to go with LRT. (By the way, the Venice/Sepulveda street diversion around Cheviot Hills was part of the Expo BRT plans.) So, Zev is a lot to blame on this, as well as some other politicians, who pioneered BRT at that time, after their trip to bus town of Curitaba, Brazil. He is tending more toward LRT nowadays but he and others won't go in this direction unless public will and funding becomes very strong. Bart knows the Orange Line fight very well and Ken and Darrell coud tell about their fight to build the Expo Line as LRT, instead of BRT. So, if you ask me, if the Valley pushes enough for LRT, they could get it. The first step would be to build the Orange Line extension as LRT, instead of BRT. Then, at one point, they could also rebuild the existing segment of the Orange Line as LRT. If they build the Orange Line extension as BRT, it will be more difficult to convert the whole thing to LRT in the future. Now, it is a good time for the Valley to wake up and ask Metro to study LRT as part of their Orange Line extension plans.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 23, 2008 21:38:45 GMT -8
The big variable in this whole equation is how this SFV/WLA-Sepulveda Pass corridor comes into play, since that is funded under Measure R.
If this is corridor is done as high capacity LRT like the Green Line or even a larger scale Regional Connector where multiple lines of various branches feed a main spine then the Orange Line will get converted to LRT or in even simply extend the current Red Line west to Van Nuys Blvd or 405/Sepulveda to relieve the capacity constriants.
|
|