|
|
Post by AnotherGuest on Apr 18, 2014 12:35:05 GMT -8
I think it's more likely the line is extended to Sylmar sooner than LAX. It's just so much cheaper. Well if you believe the reports they won't even begin to design the 'up to sylmar' leg until the HSR route is finalized. So it could be that despite the technical difficulty and expense, the 'down to airport' leg comes first! Instead of building out that southern end of the sepulveda line, could the sepulveda line somehow connect to and share the Crenshaw line tracks? |
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Apr 18, 2014 16:37:55 GMT -8
Crazy9000, that is great, thank you. Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the Orange Line with the Purple Line in the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor first?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Apr 18, 2014 17:37:53 GMT -8
Crazy9000, that is great, thank you. Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the Orange Line with the Purple Line in the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor first? I'm suggesting it might be possible to open a BRT from LAX to Sylmar along the Sepulveda/Van Nuys corridor around 2019, if it's built the same way as Wilshire. It would cross the current Orange Line BRT at Van Nuys & Oxnard. The Purple Line won't be completed to Westwood/VA until 2035 unless some extra funding comes along. The Sepulveda BRT would instead connect with the Wilshire BRT and the Expo Line. A BRT along the Sepulveda/Van Nuys corridor would also be able to provide service while the corridor is electrified. Once construction finishes, the routing could be changed to run along either the 405 or Sepulveda Blvd as a more direct route to Sylmar and the Santa Clarita Valley. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 18, 2014 23:51:52 GMT -8
 (Hope this isn't too large.) Someone on Reddit suggested I make a time-lapse of the line construction based on my previous map. I followed the existing plans to 2017, at which point I started adding possible (unplanned) BRT routes (based on Metro Rapid routes) alongside the current Measure R projects. The hypothetical R line was one of the last ones I added; everything else is either Measure R or on the 2009 LRTP. I love this map, is there anyway you could make one without the BRT lines. It gets so overwhelming at the end that even with the rail lines bolded and in color its hard to discern what's happening where. |
|
|
|
Post by GuyWhoTakesTheBus on May 13, 2014 19:37:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 16, 2014 13:26:42 GMT -8
Question: If Metro does choose LRT for Van Nuys Blvd (which they hopefully will), what do you think the project schedule looks like? They're supposed to choose the LPA this fall, and thus should also hopefully know if/how they tie it into the Sepulveda Pass project. So assuming they know that, and choose to build LRT from the Orange Line to Sylmar, are we looking at 2020 as a possible operational date? 2022? Their own materials say 2018 for the ESFV corridor, but that seems pretty impossible to accomplish.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on May 16, 2014 13:44:01 GMT -8
I think the projected timetable, and the funding allocated out of Measure R, shows where this project is likely headed... and unfortunately, I doubt that's LRT.
If LRT were to be selected, they would likely have to delay it heavily for later Measure R funds to come available and to seek more federal funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 16, 2014 14:32:39 GMT -8
Yes, if LRT becomes the chosen mode, expect this project to be delayed for some time, at least until additional funding is available.
Personally, I think a reasonable Phase 1 for this would be from the Van Nuys Metrolink to the Sherman Oaks galleria (with 6 stops at the Metrolink station, Sherman Way, the Orange Line, Magnolia Blvd., Ventura, and Sepulveda). It serves perhaps the busiest parts of Van Nuys and will connect three modes of transit (Metrolink, Orange Line, and the future Sepulveda Pass Line). There's no need for the line to all the way up to Sylmar (yet).
The cost would probably be around or just under $1 billion (assuming it's mostly at-grade).
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on May 17, 2014 18:52:12 GMT -8
All of the options being reviewed are hundreds of millions of Dollars short of full funding therefore delays seem inevitable. No mode has been selected and the meetings I went to were very lopsided in favor of LRT. Metro will have fight if LRT is not selected which would probably entail additional delays.
Metro seems to be in favor for pushing some sort of Measure R extension/enhancement in 2016 so the timetable for this project could be neatly interwoven with any new measure since the Politicos will want as big a push as possible to get it over the top of a 66.6% approval requirement for passage.
Since the Orange Line South to the Sherman Oaks Galleria is now the purview of the 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor, perhaps that alignment could be Phase 1 for that project.
It seems very easy to conjoin the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor or ESFVTC (bad name really) aka Van Nuys Blvd Transit Corridor and the 405/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor which I think only shows how a North/South LRT with a tunnel through the Pass and continuing through West LA is really needed. Sooner rather than latter. The Sylmar Station would be a relief valve for Metrolink commuters from the the Antelope Valley who want to get to West LA/West Side.
I really wish that Metro and the Elected officials that set policy would present a County master plan with the ESFVTC (yikes) as a real Phase one, The Sepulveda Pass Tunnel as Phase 2, and the West LA line as Phase 3. That would be a big deal. Some might argue that the Phase 3 I propose should be phase 1 but with the Purple line already planned and slowly getting started beginning this year and in the short term the completion of the Expo line, West LA is already getting a lot of love. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on May 17, 2014 19:25:22 GMT -8
I wanted to add that the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor LRT study stated that the line would have 37,500 boardings versus either 16,700 or 19,900 depending on the route for Eastside San Gabriel Valley Gold Line extension and, again depending on the route, cost between $1.2 - $1.7 Billion Dollars.
The ESFVTC study projected 37,500 boardings for $1.8 to 2.3 Billion Dollars. The Orange Line gets good numbers, the ESFVTC appears to get good numbers, but there are those that argue that the SF Valley doesn't deserve anything but a BRT.
|
|
|
|
Post by North LA on Jun 6, 2014 0:41:24 GMT -8
I wanted to add that the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor LRT study stated that the line would have 37,500 boardings versus either 16,700 or 19,900 depending on the route for Eastside San Gabriel Valley Gold Line extension and, again depending on the route, cost between $1.2 - $1.7 Billion Dollars. The ESFVTC study projected 37,500 boardings for $1.8 to 2.3 Billion Dollars. The Orange Line gets good numbers, the ESFVTC appears to get good numbers, but there are those that argue that the SF Valley doesn't deserve anything but a BRT. So very interesting how routes whose demand exceeds under construction rail lines are so heavily weighted for bus routes. Hopefully the next proposed transit tax has SFV funding in the law or it is voted down, just like Measure J did. The two billion Metro still "owes" the valley from Measure R could go a long way to building some needed and already pay for Valley transit. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jun 12, 2014 11:06:00 GMT -8
I wanted to add that the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor LRT study stated that the line would have 37,500 boardings versus either 16,700 or 19,900 depending on the route for Eastside San Gabriel Valley Gold Line extension and, again depending on the route, cost between $1.2 - $1.7 Billion Dollars. The ESFVTC study projected 37,500 boardings for $1.8 to 2.3 Billion Dollars. The Orange Line gets good numbers, the ESFVTC appears to get good numbers, but there are those that argue that the SF Valley doesn't deserve anything but a BRT. So very interesting how routes whose demand exceeds under construction rail lines are so heavily weighted for bus routes. Hopefully the next proposed transit tax has SFV funding in the law or it is voted down, just like Measure J did. The two billion Metro still "owes" the valley from Measure R could go a long way to building some needed and already pay for Valley transit. So true. I do not begrudge other areas getting rail, despite the cost or ridership numbers as compared to what the San Fernando Valley would do. Here is an article from yesterday about a San Fernando Valley business group advocating for rail link |
|
|
|
Post by KS on Jul 10, 2014 16:09:04 GMT -8
That big empty canyon in Bel Air is for sale again--over two miles--digging a trench in the bottom of it, or simply laying track at the bottom of it and covering it with some sort of roof to keep the canyon "natural" is the cheapest way to go. See the following link: www.redfin.com/CA/Bel-Air/0-BEL-AIR-Cyn-90077/home/49734160The map says Bel Air Road, but that is an error--if you look at the pictures carefully you'll see that it is Moraga Canyon--the canyon that lies between Sepulveda and Roscomare. It is a couple of miles long. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that alternative as it is most cost effective and right in best path. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 10, 2014 16:27:49 GMT -8
That big empty canyon in Bel Air is for sale again--over two miles--digging a trench in the bottom of it, or simply laying track at the bottom of it and covering it with some sort of roof to keep the canyon "natural" is the cheapest way to go. See the following link: www.redfin.com/CA/Bel-Air/0-BEL-AIR-Cyn-90077/home/49734160The map says Bel Air Road, but that is an error--if you look at the pictures carefully you'll see that it is Moraga Canyon--the canyon that lies between Sepulveda and Roscomare. It is a couple of miles long. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that alternative as it is most cost effective and right in best path. It really might not be any cheaper since the tunnel boring is all one big operation. How would you get construction materials, trucks, power systems in there? Also, you'd need to bore a tunnel on either end differently than just doing a straight shot tunnel through. This came up on Santa Monica Blvd. around Century City with the Purple Line. People wanted Metro to send the subway above ground in this ROW, but they stated that it was cheaper and easier just to tunnel straight through instead of bring it to the surface and then underground again. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 10, 2014 17:04:08 GMT -8
In addition, just imagine the fuss the neighbors would make if metro tried bringing a train aboveground in bel air. It'd probably make the BHHS nightmare look like a cakewalk.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 10, 2014 22:16:45 GMT -8
Not to mention you're likely to find earthquake faults on a canyon floor.
The tunneling under the pass is cheap. Look at the Alps tunnel recently built. Of course metro will probably find some way to make a couple mile long tunnel cost ten times as much as a thirty mile tunnel
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 11, 2014 11:46:01 GMT -8
So I have another question now. I got into a bit of a discussion over in the comments on The Source regarding low-floor vs high-floor LRVs along the East SFV corridor. My original opinion was favorable toward the proposal to use low-floor vehicles, since the entire alignment could be electrified that way from Sherman Oaks to Sylmar per the alternatives analysis. However, the same analysis concluded that high-floor LRVs like Metro currently uses would only be able to run for an 8 mile stretch from the Orange Line to San Fernando.  Since the only significant difference between a low-floor and a high-floor level boarding vehicle is the platform height, what's stopping Metro from running high-floor LRVs in mixed-flow mode on San Fernando Road to the Sylmar station? Traffic-wise there wouldn't be much difference - just run single-car articulated trainsets like you would with a tram. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 11, 2014 12:48:59 GMT -8
This could be totally wrong, but my impression, at least on the south end of things, is that the LRT option's south boundary is the orange line only because LRT south of the orange line technically falls under the purview of the sepulveda pass tunnel project, whereas a low-floor tram wouldn't directly connect to the sepulveda pass tunnel, allowing them to plan it down to ventura. not sure about the north side.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 11, 2014 14:10:56 GMT -8
On the North end of the route, Metro removed LRT from San Fernando Rd because of issues relating to High Speed Rail and track realignment at the Sylmar Metrolink Station but they would make a connection to the station once the issues are sorted out. With the very recent proposal to accelerate the Palmdale to Burbank portion of HSR, the alignment of tracks along San Fernando Rd could be sorted out in several years and maybe moot if, a big if, tunneling was used for HSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by KS on Jul 11, 2014 14:25:47 GMT -8
You guys are obviously the experts here with respect to what costs money. It is important to point out, however, that the floor of Moraga Cyn in that area has an elevation of about 800 feet, which is about 50 feet higher than the 750 elevation of Ventura Blvd in Sherman Oaks. What that means is that you could tunnel from the Ventura Blvd area straight south to about 1/2 mile south of Mulholland, where the tunnel would exit from the hillside and then run down a trench that can be dug in the canyon floor and then covered up with a roof. Once the construction was done, the neighbors would still look down the hill into a natural canyon. In fact, it is probably a better option for them than the housing development that would occur there as an alternative if a developer bought the land. As to how one could access it for construction--that is easy: Moraga Drive which deadends into the canyon in the North as well as the other Moraga drive which deadends into the canyon from the south. Any way to shave one or two billion dollars of the cost of the project should be considered--I would think that this would be a way to do it. OK--since I am a rookie on this board and don't know much about transportation, I'll now keep my mouth shut. I just thought I needed to point this out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 11, 2014 14:32:50 GMT -8
On the North end of the route, Metro removed LRT from San Fernando Rd because of issues relating to High Speed Rail and track realignment at the Sylmar Metrolink Station but they would make a connection to the station once the issues are sorted out. I understand that, but what I meant was, given the similarities between low floor LRVs and high floor LRVs, what's stopping Metro from running them temporarily in mixed flow until the alignment is sorted out? Obviously it would be better to grade separate it and operate alongside the HSR track than install track twice, but it was kind of a rhetorical question since Metro won't be doing anything on this project for a while anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 11, 2014 14:58:30 GMT -8
You guys are obviously the experts here with respect to what costs money. It is important to point out, however, that the floor of Moraga Cyn in that area has an elevation of about 800 feet, which is about 50 feet higher than the 750 elevation of Ventura Blvd in Sherman Oaks. What that means is that you could tunnel from the Ventura Blvd area straight south to about 1/2 mile south of Mulholland, where the tunnel would exit from the hillside and then run down a trench that can be dug in the canyon floor and then covered up with a roof. Once the construction was done, the neighbors would still look down the hill into a natural canyon. In fact, it is probably a better option for them than the housing development that would occur there as an alternative if a developer bought the land. As to how one could access it for construction--that is easy: Moraga Drive which deadends into the canyon in the North as well as the other Moraga drive which deadends into the canyon from the south. Any way to shave one or two billion dollars of the cost of the project should be considered--I would think that this would be a way to do it. OK--since I am a rookie on this board and don't know much about transportation, I'll now keep my mouth shut. I just thought I needed to point this out. To be honest, maybe it is worth asking the Metro team associated with this corridor about the possibilities to see what they say. I am no expert on it. I still think building a line in a wild canyon poses some pretty big problems and wonder how much you really save in boring mileage/costs if the canyon isn't exactly on the line that the full tunnel would be, but who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 11, 2014 21:25:27 GMT -8
The big question for Moraga is earthquake fault lines
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
|
Post by North LA on Jul 24, 2014 13:27:30 GMT -8
Best news I've heard out of Metro in a long time: "The most likely design for the first phase will be transit and toll lanes in one or more tunnels under the Sepulveda Pass. Ten miles of transit and highway tunnel with highway connections at each end would likely be in excess of $10 billion" It doesn't say that it will be rail, but I like to believe that if Metro was sticking with their Valley-gets-buses ideology, then they wouldn't be leaning towards a tunnel. media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/07_july/20140724rbmitem27.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 24, 2014 16:27:06 GMT -8
Let's just hope that the car-pandering madness will end before the project actually gets real funding. A car tunnel under the Santa Monica mountains is a disaster waiting to happen on so many levels. Even a PPP operated premium fare rail connector would be preferable to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 25, 2014 8:31:51 GMT -8
Instead of getting just to Wilshire, I would love to see southern end of the first leg get at least to the Expo Line. The transfers alone would make it worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2014 9:04:06 GMT -8
Let's just hope that the car-pandering madness will end before the project actually gets real funding. A car tunnel under the Santa Monica mountains is a disaster waiting to happen on so many levels. Even a PPP operated premium fare rail connector would be preferable to that. Unfortunately, there would be no interest from the private sector without the car tunnel. That is where the money is. The rail component would be at best break even with a premium fare. The car tunnel would be even more efficient because the traffic is all one direction so the tunnel would probably only be open to south bound cars in the morning and northbound in the evening. I imagine they could charge something like $8 - $10 a pop. With rail, you can't do that so you'd have to have a bunch of rail cars going empty north in the morning and south in the evening. I have my reservations about it too, especially because I expect there will be a lot of resistance on the Westside to allowing more cars from the Valley into an already congested area. Also, where would the tunnels resurface? Where ever that is will see a lot more traffic and that will be highly contentious. I think the only hope for a rail tunnel only is to convert the 405 in the Pass into a toll road. Maybe charge $5 in one direction, but allow 3+ carpools free. That would reduce traffic and raise a lot of money, but politically would be close to impossible to implement. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 25, 2014 11:05:37 GMT -8
I think the only hope for a rail tunnel only is to convert the 405 in the Pass into a toll road. Maybe charge $5 in one direction, but allow 3+ carpools free. That would reduce traffic and raise a lot of money, but politically would be close to impossible to implement. Masonite, Turning the 405 carpool lanes into HOT lanes is currently being studied by Metro. And that would be one of the funding sources for the tunnel. RT |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 25, 2014 11:36:46 GMT -8
I think the only hope for a rail tunnel only is to convert the 405 in the Pass into a toll road. Maybe charge $5 in one direction, but allow 3+ carpools free. That would reduce traffic and raise a lot of money, but politically would be close to impossible to implement. Masonite, Turning the 405 carpool lanes into HOT lanes is currently being studied by Metro. And that would be one of the funding sources for the tunnel. RT Problem is those carpool lanes are already at capacity during much of the day. They will likely need another general lane to make it possible and that will be controversial. I'd support it, but I doubt a majority would. |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 25, 2014 11:42:31 GMT -8
The biggest issue I see with the Sepulveda Pass is that in order to do anything to the 405, you need an alternative for the commuters who would otherwise use it.
I would prefer to see some of the regular traffic lanes eliminated in favor of HOT lanes, provided that it meant dedicated bus service was implemented a la the Silver Line.
I'm also starting to see why many have been arguing for elevated LRT instead of a subway. If we could build elevated LRT over the current HOV lanes, we could kill two birds and still connect rail from the Valley to the West Side.
However, I have a feeling it's going to take another 20 years for the Westside to realize just how hopeless the car situation they're in really is, and start talking seriously about alternatives.
|
|
