Upgrade to Light Rail

[Dan Wentzel]

What would need to happen for the Orange Line to upgrade to light rail and possibly be extended east to hook into the Gold Line?

Or should it stay BRT at capacity and focus on an East-West line go down to Ventura Blvd. in the form of a streetcar in a transit only lane or potentially a subway (which would be decades away).

The San Fernando Valley doesn't get its share of attention as compared to the San Gabriel Valley getting two Gold Line extension in part because the elected officials who represent the southern San Fernando Valley such as Supervisor Yarsolavsky are obviously more focused on extending the Purple Line.

When the Sepulveda Pass project in Measure R comes around, and possibly eventually gets extended south to LAX and north to Metrolink, maybe even Sylmar Metrolink, I the ridership potential of an east-west Valley line will continue to increase.

I know that the Robbins bill that would require a subway for this corridor would have to be repealed first for any light-rail proposal to fly. Is this something VICA could get behind?

[trackman]

In your vision of the Orange Line converted to Light-Rail, and hooking up with the Gold Line - probably in the Pasadena area, does that line need to continue further east into the San Gabriel Valley or head south to South Pasadena and possibly downtown? Or, could it 'end' in Pasadena area and folks transfer?

Me, I am not so certain how such a line would work if it were to share the same tracks as the Gold Line. Too much service? Also, I see the Regional Connector coming along and combining the Gold and Blue together (as well as Expo to East LA).

[Dan Wentzel]

My vision of the Orange Line doesn't indicate how it would hook into the Gold Line in Pasadena, whether it was by transfer or heading or track sharing.

It could even hook into the "Yellow Line" concept.

My vision merely extends light-rail east-west across the San Fernando Valley to include Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena as well.

I'm delighted to add someone else's vision about what should happen in Pasadena.

[tobias087]

It seems to me here that there are several *obvious* ideas, and that they are all bad.

One strategy is the Yellow Line, by which I mean a train running from downtown (or possibly through it linking to the Santa Ana project) through Glendale, Burbank, and meeting the Orange Line and the Red line in North Hollywood. This is a problem because it completely misses the issue of riders going from the Burbank or the rest of the Valley to Pasadena. I doubt people will be willing to ride into Downtown to catch the Gold line, far out of the way.

Another is to extend the Orange line east through Burbank, Glendale, and to Pasadena (as rail). This then misses the commuters from Burbank and Glendale to Downtown, and raises the issue of what to do at the Gold line intersection.

If this extension absorbed the Gold line, and cut it where it is now, then the riders between Downtown and Pasadena, which is a well-established pattern, would have a forced transfer. If the extension joins the Gold line and heads toward the Foothills, then that will probably be far too much service for that area. If it headed off to downtown, then riders would miss Pasadena. If it simply ended, then there would be a forced transfer.

So perhaps what we need here is a more creative solution? I offer this one, although it's not that great, but mostly intended to spur discussion.

Build both rail links, between Downtown and Burbank/North Hollywood, and between North Hollywood and Pasadena, and run them as spurs of the Orange line. Then, in Pasadena, rather then cutting off the Gold line, double the service, but only through Pasadena (or whatever area of high demand studies determine reasonable) and either end trains there, or have them turn south. So for instance, a person would be able to pick up a train in North Hollywood headed for either Downtown (not the Red Line), or for, say, Sierra Madre Villa, but no further into the Foothills.

[Dan Wentzel]

My blog post for today is on this topic.

In particular, Kymberleigh Richards shared her thoughts on this issue:

Here are the problems that would be faced:

1. You would need to retrofit the busway without seriously disrupting existing service, otherwise what's the point? You wouldn't want to inconvenience the existing passengers by forcing them to a slower alternative during construction. The most likely way to proceed would be to close one segment at a time, one lane at a time, then cut grooves into the pavement down to the roadbed and install the rails so that they were flush with the pavement (like a grade crossing, only along the entire alignment) then reopen the lane to bus traffic. Service would continue to run with only a minor delay by using the remaining open lane to run both directions, with flagmen. Grade crossings would require a bit more logistics, especially the major arterials like Van NuysBlvd.

2. You would have to use a low floor light rail vehicle in order to avoid having to retrofit the existing station platforms. This means the existing light rail cars would not be compatible with the Orange Line. So there would be a third fleet of LRVs at Metro; heavy rail subway (Red/Purple), high floor/high platform light rail (Blue/Green/Gold/Expo/Crenshaw) and low floor/low platform light rail (Orange). So forget any Orange Line extensions that would interline with something else.

3. Because of the constraints of construction, the technology will have to be something other than overhead catenary for power. Installing that would require full busway closure for longer periods of time, which puts us back to inconveniencing passengers during construction. Third rail power, like the Red/Purple Line, is also out of the question because of the open-air operation (you can't have passengers in danger of making contact with the electric source). A DMU, like the San Diego system, is going to be far too expensive for this and brings constraints of its own to the process. So either you need a protectedthird rail (very costly; they are experimenting with this in some of the Middle Eastern countries, where cost is no object) or a self-contained, rechargeable on-board power source. Perhaps some type of storage battery that could plug in at the layovers?

4. The street running segment between Canoga Station and Warner Center would have to be negotiated with traffic engineers at LADOT. I doubt they'd give up traffic lanes for the light rail, and I don't savor the idea of running light rail in mixed-flow traffic.

And of course, you'd have to do an entire new scoping/AA/EIR/EIS and figure out where the funding is coming from. Just that last part (the $$$) pretty much means all the Measure R projects would have to be underway and near completion before you could start programming funds for an Orange Line upgrade.

No one has ever done a busway-to-light rail conversion. We'd be breaking new ground, which is why there's no hard research available on the subject.

[jdrcrasher]

Jun 23, 2010 14:02:30 GMT -8 tobias087 said:

One strategy is the Yellow Line, by which I mean a train running from downtown (or possibly through it linking to the Santa Ana project) through Glendale, Burbank, and meeting the Orange Line and the Red line in North Hollywood.

I wonder if connecting the Santa Ana Corridor with the Red Line from Union Station is on the table?

Another is to extend the Orange line east through Burbank, Glendale, and to Pasadena (as rail). This then misses the commuters from Burbank and Glendale to Downtown, and raises the issue of what to do at the Gold line intersection.

If this extension absorbed the Gold line, and cut it where it is now, then the riders between Downtown and Pasadena, which is a well-established pattern, would have a forced transfer. If the extension joins the Gold line and heads toward the Foothills, then that will probably be far too much service for that area. If it headed off to downtown, then riders would miss Pasadena. If it simply ended, then there would be a forced transfer

Why not do this:

Let the Orange Line continue to Downtown LA using the Yellow Line's route, for service from Chatsworth-Warner Center-NoHo-Burbank-Glendale-Silver Lake-Echo Park-Downtown LA. BTW, this idea assumes the Yellow Line abandoning the Metrolink ROW. The Metrolink, Freight, and (eventually) CHSR are all going to share the same ROW in the future, and I don't think adding LRT is possible without widening the ROW ITSELF, which would require some demolition.

Then, let the Blue Line (once the RC and the entire foothill extension are built) use the Gold Line's ROW for service from Long Beach-Downtown LA-Pasadena-Azusa-Montclair-Ontario Airport.

Finally, connect the Orange Line and Gold Line, creating service from Chatsworth-Warner Center-NoHo-Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena-Azusa-Montclair-Ontario Airport, in effect creating a new line. This may depend on whether the Eastside Extension Corridor and (once the RC is built) Expo Line adopt "Gold" as it's designation.

[spokker]

Does Metro still have to pay back the money used to construct the Orange Line if it is not converted to light rial by 2015? If that's true I assuming they are just planning to pay it back because there is no progress on this front.

[Dan Wentzel]

I spoke with Assemblymember Adrin Nazarin's office today. His bill to repeal to repeal the law that ban's light-rail in this corridor has passed the Assembly but is still pending in Committee in the State Senate.

[Philip]

As a North Hollywood resident who travels to Burbank frequently, this is a project that I would love to see happen some day.

I think Sam's (tobias087) suggestion is really the best option, however I would tweak it just a bit - the Downtown portion should run through Glendale to Downtown Burbank, and then follow the Metrolink ROW (for a connection to Burbank Airport), eventually connecting to Sherman Way and running there all the way out west to Chatsworth.

That way, you serve an entirely new corridor, rather than overloading the Orange Line with two branches.

[Dan Wentzel]

For what it is worth, AB577 repealing the Robbins' bill, which would reallow the possibility of an Orange Line update to light rail has passed both houses of the state legislature, and is now sitting on the Governor's desk for hopefully his signature.

Of course, there is no current funding for an upgrade, but the lobbying for that will begin within seconds of the bill's signature.

[Dan Wentzel]

The Governor has signed AB577.

Let the lobbying to upgrade the light-rail begin. And let the San Fernando Valley never again be condemned to having BRT only mass transit planning.

[masonite]

The tunnel for North Hollywood is just a pedestrian tunnel to connect to the Orange Line. It wouldn't help with light rail line connecting to the Red Line. I still believe Metro when they say the Orange Line is not at capacity. The Orange Line had less than 30k passengers last month. Wilshire Blvd had roughly 80k passengers. Vermont and Western have more than 50k each. They need to fix the signal timing before even considering something like this. LADOT needs to take care of this.

[LAofAnaheim]

Jul 12, 2014 22:23:09 GMT -8 masonite said:

The tunnel for North Hollywood is just a pedestrian tunnel to connect to the Orange Line. It wouldn't help with light rail line connecting to the Red Line. I still believe Metro when they say the Orange Line is not at capacity. The Orange Line had less than 30k passengers last month. Wilshire Blvd had roughly 80k passengers. Vermont and Western have more than 50k each. They need to fix the signal timing before even considering something like this. LADOT needs to take care of this.

I usually find a seat or have ample standing room when I board the Orange Line. Not so much when I board the Metro Rapid 720 on Wilshire Blvd. Now that is truly overcapacity.

[masonite]

Jul 13, 2014 16:32:46 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Jul 12, 2014 22:23:09 GMT -8 masonite said:

The tunnel for North Hollywood is just a pedestrian tunnel to connect to the Orange Line. It wouldn't help with light rail line connecting to the Red Line. I still believe Metro when they say the Orange Line is not at capacity. The Orange Line had less than 30k passengers last month. Wilshire Blvd had roughly 80k passengers. Vermont and Western have more than 50k each. They need to fix the signal timing before even considering something like this. LADOT needs to take care of this.

I usually find a seat or have ample standing room when I board the Orange Line. Not so much when I board the Metro Rapid 720 on Wilshire Blvd. Now that is truly overcapacity.

In June, the Orange Line barely hit 25k passengers. If people think it is overcrowded, then I am sure they are adjustments that can be made (signal timing, more buses with faster acceleration, etc..), but it is hard to believe that an 18 mile busway is overcrowded with just 25k passengers.

[bzcat]

If you recall a few years ago, Metro tried to add an express bus from North Hollywood via normal streets instead of the bus way to relieve the bus bunching. So there is some evidence that Orange line is reaching roadway capacity due to lack of signal priority (i.e. LADOT's antiquated measurement of number of cars moved on streets crossing Orange line). But we are probably not close to reaching the design capacity if signal priority (or even better - signal preemption) is implemented.

[Alexis Kasperavičius]

Looks like it's being officially studied—first step!

Motion asks for study of upgrading Orange Line and possibly connecting to Pasadena (link)

The Metro Board of Directors will consider this month the above motion that asks for study of a number of upgrades to the Orange Line, including better traffic signal synchronization by the city of Los Angeles, using more articulated buses, building grade separations, the possibility of extending or connecting the line to Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena and an assessment of converting the line to light rail.

The key word in the above paragraph: “study.” This is NOT a funded project, nor is it in Metro’s long-range plan. The motion comes on the heels of Gov. Jerry Brown signing a bill earlier this month lifting the restriction on building rail along the Orange Line right-of-way (which, ironically, was once a Southern Pacific rail corridor).

An amendment by Board Member Pam O’Connor asked a broader — and crucial — question: what kind of process could be created to evaluate new projects to see if they merit being added to the agency’s long-range plan?

The Board’s Planning Committee forwarded the motion and amendment without recommendation to the full Board of Directors to consider (the full Board meets next Thursday, July 24). As Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky said, the agency needs to figure out the best path forward for evaluating new transit projects so that the ones with the greatest impact are the ones that get built.

Metro CEO Art Leahy explained why that is important. Metro will soon be receiving a list of potential transportation projects from sub-regions in the county for inclusion in a possible ballot measure in 2016 to accelerate and/or build new transit projects by extending Measure R and/or some type of new tax (Measure R was a half-cent sales tax increase for 30 years and expires in mid-2039). Leahy said that it’s very likely that the list of projects will exceed what could be funded. And, thus, the list of projects will ultimately have to be narrowed.

In short, this motion is really about two things. The first is obviously seeking ways to improve the Orange Line, which has enjoyed very strong ridership since the first segment opened in 2005. The second is about the possible 2016 ballot measure and the Board trying to find a way to evaluate projects beyond a metric commonly used: political support.

[johanragle]

Yesterday the LA Times reported on the preliminary results of the study:

Converting the San Fernando Valley's dedicated busway to light rail would cost well over $1 billion, but may become necessary if ridership along the route continues to grow, according to a new analysis.

Building a light-rail line along the 18-mile Orange Line busway between Chatsworth and North Hollywood, including laying track and buying trains, would cost $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion and would take two to three years to complete, according to a report prepared for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and reviewed by The Times.

Metro's board of directors will review the analysis this month.

The Orange Line is the busiest bus route in the Valley, and it will soon be at capacity during morning and evening peak periods if demand continues to increase and the area's population grows, the report said. The route handles about 30,000 boardings per weekday.

The rough cost estimate is the latest step in a decades-long attempt to bring rail to the Valley. The effort gathered steam last year after Gov. Jerry Brown reversed a law that banned above-ground rail through North Hollywood and Van Nuys.

Some elected officials and advocates have said Los Angeles County's rail building boom has been unfair to the Valley, which is home to nearly 20% of county residents but has just two of Metro's 80 rail stations. None of the 37 miles of rail that Metro is building in the next decade will be north of the 101 Freeway.

A generation ago, officials envisioned a light-rail line along Chandler Avenue, using the right-of-way from a defunct Pacific Electric streetcar route. But after years of delays, protests from the Orthodox Jewish community and the passing of the so-called Robbins bill, Metro settled on a busway instead.

When the Orange Line was built, its bridges were built to someday accommodate trains. Having some of the infrastructure in place, as well as existing parking lots, drainage and bikeways, shaved about 25% off the cost of the project, the report said.

Instead of building a rail line, Metro could buy more buses, or larger buses, and build grade separations at the busiest intersections along the route, the report said. Buses operate in their own lanes, but still sometimes stop for traffic lights. That option would cost between $230 million and $350 million.

The report also examines the cost of extending the Orange Line from North Hollywood to Pasadena, which could include building bus ramps onto the 134 Freeway's carpool lanes and building new busway stations in Burbank and Glendale. That route could bring in 20,000 to 30,000 daily boardings, the report said.

How any of the construction would be funded is not clear: Funds for converting the Orange Line to rail were not included in Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects passed by Los Angeles County voters in 2008 that has paid for the bulk of the county's recent rail construction.

[RMoses]

2 rail stations?

[Gokhan]

Convert it to light-rail now!

[johanragle]

Apr 11, 2015 9:06:00 GMT -8 RMoses said:

2 rail stations?

Universal City / Studio City and North Hollywood, presumably. I doubt the Times is including Metrolink stations since, you know, that's not Metro.

[macross287]

Here is the link from the Metro Report discussing the issue

media.metro.net/board/Items/2015/04_april/20150416ssopitem39.pdf

I agree it should be converted to Light Rail as it would help prevent the disastrous BRT option they are considering for connecting North Hollywood to Pasadena

(Freeway Stations in the middle of the SR-134, when will you learn Metro)

[johanragle]

If they're going to connect NoHo to Pasadena with BRT, then Riverside and Colorado is the way to go - we should be connecting communities, not building a more costly version of the LADOT Commuter Express.

When it comes to rail in the Valley, the question I've found myself wondering - which resonates with the idea of relieving demand on the Orange Line - is if it would pencil out for Metro to re-use the right of way of the PE Owensmouth Line instead. The existing busway along Chandler to Valley College would need to be replaced with tracks, but the remainder of the busway could remain in service. The rail would then turn from Chandler onto Van Nuys, running through the heart of the civic center (and could serve as the core of the East SFV corridor) before turning off on Sherman Way and continuing west, likely ending in a loop around Warner Center (since I'm not sure the ridership for Chatsworth would pencil out).

Meanwhile, the busway would continue to connect Chatsworth, Warner Center and NoHo and provide a parallel route. It could either jump off on Oxnard at Valley College, or if placing embedded rails into the current busway is practical - and the safety issues of sharing guideway between buses and LRT or trams are workable - it could even continue to use the Chandler alignment into NoHo, run down Lankershim to Riverside, then Olive or Alameda through Burbank and eventually on Colorado the rest of the way to Pasadena.

... I'll have to sketch out the route to see what the cost might be given typical LRT and curbside bus lane per-mile costs, I guess.

[macross287]

Im thinking the Sherman Way Right Way would be better served by BRT actually since it would most likely be center running like the current Orange Line on Chandler Blvd or Expo Line on Exposition Blvd.

Rail should be left to the railroad right of way the Orange Line Currently runs outside of Chandler where higher speeds can be reached.

[johanragle]

Apr 13, 2015 19:09:49 GMT -8 macross287 said:

Im thinking the Sherman Way Right Way would be better served by BRT actually since it would most likely be center running like the current Orange Line on Chandler Blvd or Expo Line on Exposition Blvd.

Rail should be left to the railroad right of way the Orange Line Currently runs outside of Chandler where higher speeds can be reached.

That's an interesting thought, but it would make operations through Van Nuys that much more difficult if they decide to go with the LRT or tram options for the East SFV corridor. On the other hand, the existing configuration of Van Nuys Blvd at San Fernando is such that they would have to bore underground or run elevated due to insufficient turn radius on the surface... so perhaps leaving that corridor as full BRT would be the best option.

At least it would make extension over the pass easier, with the addition of ramps onto the 405 carpool lanes; no need for an expensive tunnel, but they *might* need to convert an existing traffic lane and toll the lanes to keep the speeds up.

[johanragle]

Metro released a staff report on ways to improve the Orange Line:

www.scribd.com/doc/262499460/Orange-Line-improvements-report

thesource.metro.net/2015/04/21/staff-report-making-the-orange-line-faster

[Philip]

I'm kind of amazed how many people still want the Orange Line converted at this point, especially considering the astronomical cost.

Give the Orange Line 100% signal priority, speed up the buses, and maybe grade separate a few crossings, but spending up to $1.6 billion? On an already-existing rapid transit route? When there are other parts of L.A. in dire need of rapid transit that have none?

I don't mean to sound negative; it would be great to have the Orange Line as a rail line, but I can think of probably a dozen projects that should be ahead of this. At least.

[masonite]

Apr 22, 2015 11:44:48 GMT -8 Philip said:

I'm kind of amazed how many people still want the Orange Line converted at this point, especially considering the astronomical cost.

Give the Orange Line 100% signal priority, speed up the buses, and maybe grade separate a few crossings, but spending up to $1.6 billion? On an already-existing rapid transit route? When there are other parts of L.A. in dire need of rapid transit that have none?

I don't mean to sound negative; it would be great to have the Orange Line as a rail line, but I can think of probably a dozen projects that should be ahead of this. At least.

I agree. People if asked in a vaccum will say they want light rail, but if it forces out other priorities, like say a Sepulveda Pass Line they might feel differently. Right now, the questions aren't being asked like that. The local Councils of Government have identified about $275B worth of projects for Measure R+. Probably can only have about 15% of that when said and done. Overall, the expectations are just too high and I believe Measure R+ will have a tough time passing, especially since this will be the 4th sales tax hike in effect for transit in LA County.

[culvercitylocke]

Measure r plus will pass measure j nearly passed with no political support and no new projects included

[bzcat]

Apr 22, 2015 13:29:31 GMT -8 masonite said:

Apr 22, 2015 11:44:48 GMT -8 Philip said:

I'm kind of amazed how many people still want the Orange Line converted at this point, especially considering the astronomical cost.

Give the Orange Line 100% signal priority, speed up the buses, and maybe grade separate a few crossings, but spending up to $1.6 billion? On an already-existing rapid transit route? When there are other parts of L.A. in dire need of rapid transit that have none?

I don't mean to sound negative; it would be great to have the Orange Line as a rail line, but I can think of probably a dozen projects that should be ahead of this. At least.

I agree. People if asked in a vaccum will say they want light rail, but if it forces out other priorities, like say a Sepulveda Pass Line they might feel differently. Right now, the questions aren't being asked like that. The local Councils of Government have identified about $275B worth of projects for Measure R+. Probably can only have about 15% of that when said and done. Overall, the expectations are just too high and I believe Measure R+ will have a tough time passing, especially since this will be the 4th sales tax hike in effect for transit in LA County.

Not a hike, just an extension of Measure R beyond the original 30 years. You weren't going to pay any more sales tax with Measure J, and you will not either with Measure R2. You'll pay for it for a longer period of time.

[masonite]

Apr 22, 2015 15:54:32 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Measure r plus will pass measure j nearly passed with no political support and no new projects included

Measure J had all the same politicians that supported Measure R. Granted they didn't exactly go to the same effort. Plenty of people will be upset when their pet project does not make the cut. 2/3 is a big hurdle.