Van Nuys Corridor Transit Options

[tobias087]

What is your preference for Van Nuys? The project would likely start at Van Nuys/Ventura, then head north. It will hook up with the 405 Line at Ventura, the Orange Line near Oxnard, Amtrak and Metrolink at the Van Nuys Train Station near Saticoy, and go by The Plant, the Panorama Mall, and various other retail outlets.

For more information:
thesource.metro.net/2010/12/21/fta-gives-metro-the-green-light-to-study-transit-alternatives-for-van-nuys-corridor/

[jdrcrasher]

Technology: Definitely LRT

HRT sounds great, but will be just too expensive to expand down to LAX. Will also be incompatible with the Crenshaw/South Bay Harbor Subdivision corridor. Another problem is that, this would almost certainly need to be grade-separated to, one, maintain higher speed, and, perhaps most importantly...appease the "what about the children" NIMBYs.

BRT is too slow and will likely need to climb the entire Sepulveda Pass (rather than tunnel under) to connect with the Sepulveda/Van Nuys corridor. Will also be incompatible with the Crenshaw/South Bay Harbor Subdivision corridor. BRT will also be more difficult to connect directly to stations because grade-seperation possibly involved will be less cost-effective than doing so with HRT and LRT.

As for the route: Should Metro have the brains to consider combining this and the sepulveda line into one single corridor, my idea is it to follow the old PE right-of-way west on Parthenia (after Panorama Mall), north on Sepulveda/Brand, and then NW on San Fernando to Sylmar Metrolink.

[tobias087]

Interesting, heavy rail? I almost did not even include that in the list because Metro is not studying it, and I've already heard people say that they don't think Van Nuys is fit for any rail at all. I'd be interested to hear why the backers of heavy rail think it's appropriate.

I'm personally in favor of Light-rail. Light rail can be done cheaper than Heavy-rail, and probably mostly at-grade. (This study seems to think that a median busway is feasible on Van Nuys, and I don't see what that conclusion can't be co-opted for light-rail:

clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2010/10-0460_RPT_DOT_03-15-10.pdf

And with the numerous grade-separations recommended in that study, I don't see how the cost of rail would be significantly more than the cost of the busway.)

From a regional perspective, Light rail can be extended south to hook with the Green/Crenshaw line while BRT and HRT can't interline as well.

Regardless, the 405 line and the Van Nuys mode should be the same, so that there isn't a forced transfer for people heading over the hill.

A LRT Van Nuys and 405 line could be very effective at drawing commuters from beyond just the area local to the stations, but that would be ruined if there were a forced-transfer.

[soundguise]

I voted for heavy rail. I agree that this project should be considered in terms of the Sepulveda Pass/405 project and I think that if there are only 2 N-S crossings of the mountains they should be as high capacity as possible and provide for the growth that will come. It seems that heavy rail might be justified to LAX and to the Orange Line. That may be all and studies might say that light rail is justified further north in the Valley than heavy rail could.

If, and this is a big if, the green line south and the 405 corridor and the Van Nuys projects can be studied as a fully built corridor only then should a final decision be made.

[adamv]

We're talking Heavy rail for the 405, sure, but the vast majority of the area we're discussing is mid-density suburb San Fernando valley. No effin' way anyone is building heavy rail up Van Nuys Blvd - period.

I voted light rail, so that the Valley is folded into the larger system for now and in the future.

Here's a question for the folks here with the hard-core knowledge - is there anything stopping a tunnel being built that would allow for both a 1) Heavy rail line that links to the purple line in Westwood and 2) light rail that could continue on Sepulveda/Whatnot to link up with everything else?

That would make the most sense for me.

[jdrcrasher]

^ You mean using the same tracks? Impossible. They are different technologies.

[adamv]

Jan 2, 2011 23:02:50 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

^ You mean using the same tracks? Impossible. They are different technologies.

No no - just a tunnel (or tunnels) that would incorporate both lines. I figure its just a budget issue, but if we're talking seriously about handling the daily Valley-to-Westside migration, putting in one line isn't going to handle our needs.

[tobias087]

I'm inclined to think that capacity is not that big of an issue. While yes, there will probably be a lot of demand for the 405 line, I don't think it will be above and beyond the constraints of Light rail as our system currently runs it, and if it is, shorter headways and 4-car trains are definitely an option. But light-rail beats heavy rail in terms of flexibility: an HRT line will not be able to effectively hook to the green line, and will almost certainly not be extended north up Van Nuys.

I can't stress enough how important it is not to have a forced transfer where the "Van Nuys project" ends and the "405 project" begins. If they are one continuous line, then any driver from the valley would do best by going to their closest rail station. If there's a forced transfer at Ventura or at the Orange line, it will be more efficient for valley residents who aren't within walking distance of a station on Van Nuys to drive to the forced transfer site, and if that drive is a long way for people, then it will probably just make more sense for them to drive all the way to their destination.

Because it's very very unlikely that heavy rail will get built north of the Orange line, I conclude that LRT or BRT are the way to go, preferably LRT for increased capacity and speed. But using HRT on the 405 line will almost certainly create a horrible forced transfer.

[K 22]

I voted light rail.

I think the intent should be to have a one-seat ride from the Valley to the Westside as well as to LAX. I also get the feeling the Valley would be more receptive to rail now - if for no other reason they don't feel left out of having rail.

[Dan Wentzel]

Light rail in hopes of a project linking LAX to Sylmar through the Sepulveda Pass and Van Nuys Blvd.

[James Fujita]

I voted for light rail.

This isn't my neck of the woods, but it's obvious to me that this is not a rail line which will exist in isolation. It really needs to link up with the 405 Line through Sepulveda Pass.

I suppose the 405 Line could be done as a 3rd rail subway if it linked up with the Purple Line in Westwood, but I do think that the LAX connection is a better choice. We already have the Red Line heading up into the Valley.

We shouldn't underestimate the capacity of light rail. The flexibility to handle both the Gold Line Eastside streetcar-ish mode and a Blue Line or a Green Line is extremely valuable.

[bzcat]

From the network and connectivity standpoint, we need to build on our dominant mode, which is light rail.

The goal should be a single light rail transit line from Sylmar Metrolink station to LAX (with option to extend it to Union Station via Harbor Subdivision operating as "LAX Connection"). The three phases of construction should be as follows:

The first phase construction will start with surface running light rail from Sylmar to Ventura Blvd, at which point it will go underground, first west to Sherman Oaks Gallaria, and then south to Sunset/Veteran (UCLA North) where presumably, we can use small parcel on UCLA campus for surface level station.

The second phase of construction begins at Sunset/Veteran and continues south underground to meet with Purple line at Wilshire and Expo line near Pico Blvd; and continue south under Overland to Culver City and surface just south of 405 freeway near Howard Hughes Center. It will then continue elevated to LAX station where it will meet up with Crenshaw and Green line. At this point, we can interline this complete "405" rail line with the Green line (or not).

The third and final phase of this line is optional but we could extend it from LAX to Union Station via Harbor Subdivision and then San Pedro St into Downtown LA. The first part of this segment would have already been constructed as part of the Crenshaw line. We can add a "by pass" track (the ROW is wide enough for 4 tracks) so that Crenshaw line will continue as "local" service to LAX while the new line operate as an "express". The line will turn north at Avalon (which turns into San Pedro) and dips underground just before Washington and meet up with Blue line. New stations in Downtown (Fashion Dist, Toy District) will function as the much talked about "2nd connection".


maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=200920330746408617074.000491e8933d8118cdde4&ll=34.135678,-118.314514&spn=0.366013,0.727158&z=11

[jdrcrasher]

There are a few problems I have with Phase 3, bzcat:

1. If the line is to get to LAX and Union Station via the Harbor Subdivision, it will need to backtrack after the Century/Aviation station, causing disruption to the Crenshaw Line.

2. I think the Fashion and Toy Districts can be better served with an expanded streetcar network.

3. There's only so much room on the Harbor Subdivision ROW, which, as you said, has enough room for 4 tracks. A Metrolink line using this ROW should be of great importance when it comes to rail service from Union Station to LAX. There should be 2 tracks for Metrolink service. That leaves just 2 tracks for LRT, which can be shared by the Crenshaw and 405 corridors. Building a "bypass" track might be impossible without widening the ROW.

[JerardWright]

Jan 3, 2011 15:42:47 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

I voted for light rail.

This isn't my neck of the woods, but it's obvious to me that this is not a rail line which will exist in isolation. It really needs to link up with the 405 Line through Sepulveda Pass.

I suppose the 405 Line could be done as a 3rd rail subway if it linked up with the Purple Line in Westwood, but I do think that the LAX connection is a better choice. We already have the Red Line heading up into the Valley.

We shouldn't underestimate the capacity of light rail. The flexibility to handle both the Gold Line Eastside streetcar-ish mode and a Blue Line or a Green Line is extremely valuable.

Exactly, the most flexible yet contains the most valuable capacity is LRT.

As something I've considered and suggested in other posts
Instead of the typical 3 car LRV train , we should go with a longer train capacity through the Pass to maybe 4 or 5 LRV's to a train so that we've increased capacity and gone from the upper limits of Light Rail Capacity to Heavy Rail capacity with very little effort.

[metrocenter]

I find it hard to believe that 3-car trains at minimum headways would be insufficient to handle demand in the Sepulveda Line tunnel.

Consider the Regional Connector. It is being designed for 3-car trains, and is expected to accommodate the equivalent of two Blue Lines (the Blue Line and the Expo Line). That translates to 160,000 boardings per weekday. Does anybody here seriously expect demand for the Sepulveda Line to exceed the Expo and Blue Lines combined?

I agree with most here, that the Sepulveda and Van Nuys Lines should be a single LRT line. And I think it will be very successful if gets 60,000 daily boardings. But such a line does not require high-capacity stations.

[tobias087]

I will say that one advantage the 405 line will have over the Blue line and Expo line is that it will always be a viable alternative to driving, even when there's no traffic. Google maps lists the driving time from Ventura/Van Nuys to Wilshire/Westwood as 14 minutes minimum, and we know that can be much much longer in traffic.

Meanwhile the estimate for the train travel time for the same distance assuming a light rail tunnel, given by Justin Walker, is something like 8 minutes, if I'm not mistaken? It will always be faster to make that commute by train, and during rush hour, substantially faster. And since there's a high demand for that commute, we should probably figure there will be a high demand for train capacity.

[jdrcrasher]

With the potential for transfer stations at the Purple Line, Orange Line, and possibly 2 Metrolink stations, the line is definitely going to attract a ton of ridership from commuters looking to transfer from point A to point B.

[LAofAnaheim]

Jan 4, 2011 22:19:14 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

With the potential for transfer stations at the Purple Line, Orange Line, and possibly 2 Metrolink stations, the line is definitely going to attract a ton of ridership from commuters looking to transfer from point A to point B.

I think we need to be reasonable from a cost perspective. A 3 car LRT train south of the Orange Line is reasonable. North of Orange Line...may not be reasonable. That should be studied as part of the alternatives, but can/should be heavily considered for BRT. We don't have the money to put LRT in low/medium density with really no well-known destinations along the line.

[masonite]

Jan 4, 2011 22:49:53 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Jan 4, 2011 22:19:14 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

With the potential for transfer stations at the Purple Line, Orange Line, and possibly 2 Metrolink stations, the line is definitely going to attract a ton of ridership from commuters looking to transfer from point A to point B.

I think we need to be reasonable from a cost perspective. A 3 car LRT train south of the Orange Line is reasonable. North of Orange Line...may not be reasonable. That should be studied as part of the alternatives, but can/should be heavily considered for BRT. We don't have the money to put LRT in low/medium density with really no well-known destinations along the line.

I agree. While there is about nothing more I'd like to see than a Sylmar to LAX (and beyond) light rail line and wish this was in Measure R rather than a couple of the more questionable lines, the fact is as of right now, there probably isn't even enough money to get from the Orange Line to the Purple Line.

Who knows some funds may come around though and it certainly doesn't hurt to build support for something like this. This would be a fantastic line and would build off Metrolink and the other East-West lines. This line should have support of the Valley, Westside and South Bay and seems strange that it hasn't garnered more support in the past.

If the line can actually go from Ventura Blvd. to UCLA in less than 10 minutes, I'd build for high ridership (not sure if that means higher than 3-car trains, but this will attract a huge amount of riders.

[tonyw79sfv]

Jan 4, 2011 22:49:53 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Jan 4, 2011 22:19:14 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

With the potential for transfer stations at the Purple Line, Orange Line, and possibly 2 Metrolink stations, the line is definitely going to attract a ton of ridership from commuters looking to transfer from point A to point B.

I think we need to be reasonable from a cost perspective. A 3 car LRT train south of the Orange Line is reasonable. North of Orange Line...may not be reasonable. That should be studied as part of the alternatives, but can/should be heavily considered for BRT. We don't have the money to put LRT in low/medium density with really no well-known destinations along the line.

Here's a decade old report on the SFV North South corridor study. Look at page 37 on the PDF regarding the bus stop usage. A 3 car LRT south of the Orange Line is reasonable if it's part of the I-405 Sepulveda Pass corridor, but just for Sherman Oaks (the very community that shot down LRT for the Orange Line) itself is not reasonable; however, north of the Orange Line, LRT is sorely needed. Unless we can say that the Orange Line is fine as BRT. It's not about the (lack of) destinations that the potential Van Nuys line will try to reach, it's serving the needs of the community that has overwhelmingly overtaxed the current Rapid bus line already in use; there is built-in ridership potential for Van Nuys that unlike other LRTs like the Gold Line where only the existence of rail will entice new riders - Van Nuys will have the existing ridership and garner more riders who would have otherwise not ride any bus. Now I understand about funding issues and would prefer to see other lines already in the books get constructed and not have Van Nuys siphon funding from those projects, but once that is said and done, then it's time to expand rail in the part of the SFV that I'm sure is open to at-grade rail.

[metrocenter]

Jan 4, 2011 23:25:47 GMT -8 tonyw79sfv said:

It's not about the (lack of) destinations that the potential Van Nuys line will try to reach, it's serving the needs of the community that has overwhelmingly overtaxed the current Rapid bus line already in use; there is built-in ridership potential for Van Nuys that unlike other LRTs like the Gold Line where only the existence of rail will entice new riders - Van Nuys will have the existing ridership and garner more riders who would have otherwise not ride any bus.

I agree. The northern part of the line doesn't need destinations. The main reason to continue the line north of the Orange Line as LRT is that this is where the transit riders live who are making their way south to the destinations.

The route passes directly through the middle-class neighborhoods of Sherman Oaks and Arleta, and the working-class neighborhoods of Van Nuys, Panorama City and Pacoima/San Fernando. All of these neighborhoods have moderate to high residential density (Panorama City being very dense). As shown by the very busy bus ridership along Van Nuys, there already exists plenty of existing transit riders along the route. Plus, all of these areas are heavily impacted by the congestion of the north-south freeways.

So I have no doubt there are plenty of potential riders for a fast north-south line through this corridor, especially if that line continues south into the L.A. basin. A continuous light-rail line from Pacoima to Sherman Oaks to Westwood would be very successful. Such a line would bring tens of thousands of people south in the morning, and bring them back north into the Valley in the evening.

[bzcat]

So let's get real...

The consensus here is that Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass corridors need to be combined in a single study so that Metro can find enough ridership and support for a single LRT line. However, this is not currently the way Metro do things. Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass are 2 different studies and I have a feeling that if Metro goes down this path, we will end up with 2 unconnected BRT corridors.

So what can we do realistically? We can't submit comment until the study is underway, by which time, Metro would have a defined scope of "study area". It might be too late at that point to ask Metro to combine the 2 studies. We will end up with the same situation we have now with 2 unrelated Crenshaw line and Harbor Subdivision studies (even though everyone can see this would operate as a single corridor). We got lucky with Crenshaw+Harbor Subdivision because of existing mode of LRT (i.e. Green line), which made both Crenshaw and Harbor Subdivision LRT make sense. The existing mode in Van Nuys is bus (or BRT if you will)... that means the Van Nuys corridor will probably favor BRT (due to Orange line). If Van Nuys is build as BRT, chances of "405" LRT to LAX is probably zero.

[metrocenter]

Jan 5, 2011 10:58:37 GMT -8 bzcat said:

So what can we do realistically? We can't submit comment until the study is underway, by which time, Metro would have a defined scope of "study area"...

I would say there are two approaches.

The first approach is to directly lobby the Metro Board for a redefinition of the projects. This would require drafting a board motion, and then convincing board members to sign on. This would not be effective without first convincing San Fernando Valley legislators and community groups to support a unified project. It would also require a legal opinion on whether combining the currently-separate projects is allowed under the terms of Measure R and under CEQA. Given all the hurdles involved, I just don't think this approach is realistic.

The second approach is to work with Metro staff and consultants during the scoping phase of both projects, as members of the public, to ensure that each project considers the mode choice and alignment other project. From my experience, very few people attend these meetings, so it is pretty easy to flood the scoping meetings with supporters.

[LAofAnaheim]

Jan 5, 2011 11:45:41 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

I would say there are two approaches.

The first approach is to directly lobby the Metro Board for a redefinition of the projects. This would require drafting a board motion, and then convincing board members to sign on. This would not be effective without first convincing San Fernando Valley legislators and community groups to support a unified project. It would also require a legal opinion on whether combining the currently-separate projects is allowed under the terms of Measure R and under CEQA. Given all the hurdles involved, I just don't think this approach is realistic.

The second approach is to work with Metro staff and consultants during the scoping phase of both projects, as members of the public, to ensure that each project considers the mode choice and alignment other project. From my experience, very few people attend these meetings, so it is pretty easy to flood the scoping meetings with supporters.

Or we could file a lawsuit like everybody else who does if things don't go their way.

I like the idea of a single corridor study. If we do Van Nuys only, it should be Orange Line like BRT (Metro Rapid is not true BRT...Orange Line is real BRT); but if we combine with Sepulveda, I could see the support for LRT between Westwood and the Valley and maybe further north into the Valley.

[regen]

Here's the link to the new board for this topic and the Sepulveda Pass Corridor:

transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=valleywestsiderailtunnel