|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 4, 2012 17:04:08 GMT -8
I also recall seeing that they authorized a study of turning the HOV lane on the 405 into an HOT lane. Not sure when that study will be done, but I'm totally on board with the idea of using the tolls to help fund the rail line. The only drawback is that the tolls only would pull in about $20,000,000 per year if I recall correctly from the 110 analysis. Take a certain amount of that to run the system and you are looking at even less.
Even if the tolls generated say $100 million over 5 years, a rail tunnel and associated line would be $1 billion+. There would still need to be significant funds from elsewhere. Not sure how a PPP would change this scenario?
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 4, 2012 18:57:48 GMT -8
I also recall seeing that they authorized a study of turning the HOV lane on the 405 into an HOT lane. Not sure when that study will be done, but I'm totally on board with the idea of using the tolls to help fund the rail line. The only drawback is that the tolls only would pull in about $20,000,000 per year if I recall correctly from the 110 analysis. Take a certain amount of that to run the system and you are looking at even less. Even if the tolls generated say $100 million over 5 years, a rail tunnel and associated line would be $1 billion+. There would still need to be significant funds from elsewhere. Not sure how a PPP would change this scenario? RT This HOT lane may generate more than the 110 because of the congestion here, the lack if alternative routes, and the affluent drivers who traverse this route. Since there is already $1B from Measure R and potentially another $1B from New Starts, then $200M from tolling could be a difference maker to allow for a minimum operating segment. The full JEM will cost much more but this could be the start of the line. I'd like to see it initially go to Expo and then use the Expo Maintenance Facility since there doesn't't appear to be much of another spot for one here. Eventually there could be one up towards Sylmar I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 4, 2012 22:22:50 GMT -8
FYI, the latest on the Sepulveda Pass project is mentioned in passing in a Metro board report from March: Metro Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study
This month we initiated a systems planning study for the Sepulveda Pass project which will explore connecting the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles. Potential project modes could include rail, bus or a transit toll facility. Routes along both the I-405, Sepulveda Boulevard and any other potential alignment will be explored. Service as far south as LAX will also be examined. Depending on the path alternatives take to a LAX Transit Center, stations may be considered in the Westchester community. We are scheduled to bring our initial findings to the Board for consideration this summer. Given current financial conditions and the project magnitude, alternative project delivery mechanisms such as a Public-Private-Partnership could be used. Measure R provides $1 billion for the project which has an LRTP delivery date of FY 2039, with America Fast Forward accelerating this date to FY 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 5, 2012 0:16:21 GMT -8
FYI, the latest on the Sepulveda Pass project is mentioned in passing in a Metro board report from March: Metro Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study
This month we initiated a systems planning study for the Sepulveda Pass project which will explore connecting the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles. Potential project modes could include rail, bus or a transit toll facility. Routes along both the I-405, Sepulveda Boulevard and any other potential alignment will be explored. Service as far south as LAX will also be examined. Depending on the path alternatives take to a LAX Transit Center, stations may be considered in the Westchester community. We are scheduled to bring our initial findings to the Board for consideration this summer. Given current financial conditions and the project magnitude, alternative project delivery mechanisms such as a Public-Private-Partnership could be used. Measure R provides $1 billion for the project which has an LRTP delivery date of FY 2039, with America Fast Forward accelerating this date to FY 2020. It seems like the horrible purple line station at a 405 offramp, Art Leahy's comments about a public-private partnership for toll lanes, and the separation of planning for the 405 line and Van Nuys Blvd. all point to the line being bus on shared toll lanes. I really don't think they're going to build toll lanes and use the profits to fund rail. They're going to get a private company to contribute to the costs of the toll lane and in return give them a good chunk of the profits, which will no longer be available for transit. I have a really bad feeling about this one. Step 1: Van Nuys Blvd. is planned and bus is selected. Step 2: The alternatives analysis says that (probably above ground) rail is not cost efficient or that the grades are too steep or that providing adequate connections to the Purple line cause problems with infringing on the VA property. Bus gets points for connecting to the Van Nuys Blvd. busway. Step 3: Bus is selected, benefits such as connections all the way to LAX in the first phase are promoted. Step 4: A deal is awarded to a private company to expand the 405 (again!) and to take a big chunk (or all) of the profits. Measure R funds put into construction costs buy the buses access to the toll lanes. Step 5: LA is left with a comparatively mediocre transit experience on this corridor. 10 years from now when bus ridership is at 40k, we'll be writing about how great it would have been if it were light rail with 80k ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 5, 2012 14:21:25 GMT -8
It seems like the horrible purple line station at a 405 offramp, Art Leahy's comments about a public-private partnership for toll lanes, and the separation of planning for the 405 line and Van Nuys Blvd. all point to the line being bus on shared toll lanes. I really don't think they're going to build toll lanes and use the profits to fund rail. They're going to get a private company to contribute to the costs of the toll lane and in return give them a good chunk of the profits, which will no longer be available for transit. I have a really bad feeling about this one. Step 1: Van Nuys Blvd. is planned and bus is selected. Step 2: The alternatives analysis says that (probably above ground) rail is not cost efficient or that the grades are too steep or that providing adequate connections to the Purple line cause problems with infringing on the VA property. Bus gets points for connecting to the Van Nuys Blvd. busway. Step 3: Bus is selected, benefits such as connections all the way to LAX in the first phase are promoted. Step 4: A deal is awarded to a private company to expand the 405 (again!) and to take a big chunk (or all) of the profits. Measure R funds put into construction costs buy the buses access to the toll lanes. Step 5: LA is left with a comparatively mediocre transit experience on this corridor. 10 years from now when bus ridership is at 40k, we'll be writing about how great it would have been if it were light rail with 80k ridership. I warned people on my blog that Metro was going to dump two disconnected bus projects on them. I REALLY hope this doesn't come true. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 5, 2012 14:22:35 GMT -8
I also recall seeing that they authorized a study of turning the HOV lane on the 405 into an HOT lane. Not sure when that study will be done, but I'm totally on board with the idea of using the tolls to help fund the rail line. The only drawback is that the tolls only would pull in about $20,000,000 per year if I recall correctly from the 110 analysis. Take a certain amount of that to run the system and you are looking at even less. Even if the tolls generated say $100 million over 5 years, a rail tunnel and associated line would be $1 billion+. There would still need to be significant funds from elsewhere. Not sure how a PPP would change this scenario? RT This HOT lane may generate more than the 110 because of the congestion here, the lack if alternative routes, and the affluent drivers who traverse this route. Since there is already $1B from Measure R and potentially another $1B from New Starts, then $200M from tolling could be a difference maker to allow for a minimum operating segment. The full JEM will cost much more but this could be the start of the line. I'd like to see it initially go to Expo and then use the Expo Maintenance Facility since there doesn't appear to be much of another spot for one here. Eventually there could be one up towards Sylmar I suppose. Or one where the currently well under-utilized park-ride lot on the Sepulveda Orange Line station could be utilized for a Maintenance and storage facility. This shouldn't be too much of an issue as this is zoned light commercial and Industrial per the 2005 EIR findings. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 5, 2012 22:11:45 GMT -8
This HOT lane may generate more than the 110 because of the congestion here, the lack if alternative routes, and the affluent drivers who traverse this route. Since there is already $1B from Measure R and potentially another $1B from New Starts, then $200M from tolling could be a difference maker to allow for a minimum operating segment. The full JEM will cost much more but this could be the start of the line. I'd like to see it initially go to Expo and then use the Expo Maintenance Facility since there doesn't appear to be much of another spot for one here. Eventually there could be one up towards Sylmar I suppose. Or one where the currently well under-utilized park-ride lot on the Sepulveda Orange Line station could be utilized for a Maintenance and storage facility. This shouldn't be too much of an issue as this is zoned light commercial and Industrial per the 2005 EIR findings. San Fernando and Pacoima also contains industrial tracts; Pacoima once had available land where the old Price Pfister factory was at Paxton, northeast of San Fernando Road; it has since been developed into the Plaza Pacoima shopping center. It would have been enough land for a Division 22-sized rail yard if the JEM rail line is reality. The suggestion to use the Sepulveda Metro Orange Line park and ride lot for a rail yard is interesting, and not impossible considering the additional routing of the revamped Van Nuys Rapidway study, now called the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor (see map below), that includes Sepulveda Boulevard and the Metro Orange Line right-of-way between the Sepulveda and Van Nuys stations as part of the expanded study; but it bears repeating, both the Sepulveda Pass Corridor and the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor need to be studied together, and those park and ride stations will see more life if both projects are built together as rail (envisioned as the Transit Coalition's JEM Line). The Robbins Bill doesn't apply to that section of the Orange Line ROW so maybe some form of mixed BRT and LRT operation could possibly be in order.  |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 6, 2012 9:14:13 GMT -8
I warned people on my blog that Metro was going to dump two disconnected bus projects on them. I REALLY hope this doesn't come true. Dan, I just read your post, and I think it's great. I think it makes the most sense to combine the two studies, but I guess there's a political factor preventing that. I wonder if Metro thinks it too much to bite off in one go, or if there's concern over a potential tug-of-war between the valley and the westside over where the line will or won't go with limited funds. I wonder if the best thing is to try to find ways of advocating for a combined rail line, but having two environmental reviews. It seems risky either way.... |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 6, 2012 10:51:51 GMT -8
I warned people on my blog that Metro was going to dump two disconnected bus projects on them. I REALLY hope this doesn't come true. Dan, I just read your post, and I think it's great. I think it makes the most sense to combine the two studies, but I guess there's a political factor preventing that. I wonder if Metro thinks it too much to bite off in one go, or if there's concern over a potential tug-of-war between the valley and the westside over where the line will or won't go with limited funds. I wonder if the best thing is to try to find ways of advocating for a combined rail line, but having two environmental reviews. It seems risky either way.... While I want a rail corridor between Sylmar and LAX, I'm not too nervous about Van Nuys Blvd. project being a transit-only lane. That would not preclude rail later, just like Wilshire having a transit only lane in addition to the Purple Line. Vermont is another corridor also more likely to get a transit lane before getting a rail project south of the Purple Line. However, if these studies are not combined, the project I am REALLY concerned about is the Sepulveda Pass project. Having this as a rail project between Metrolink / Orange Line / Ventura Blvd. / UCLA / Purple Line (Wilshire) / Santa Monica Blvd. / and Expo Line (Pico) is an essential spine to the whole system. This initial seven stop segment can be extended in the future north to Sylmar and south to LAX. However, if the Sepulveda Pass project ends up as simply a measly bus project using hot lanes, as I fear it will, that will be a transit tragedy for the whole region. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 6, 2012 12:42:32 GMT -8
Dan, I just read your post, and I think it's great. I think it makes the most sense to combine the two studies, but I guess there's a political factor preventing that. I wonder if Metro thinks it too much to bite off in one go, or if there's concern over a potential tug-of-war between the valley and the westside over where the line will or won't go with limited funds. I wonder if the best thing is to try to find ways of advocating for a combined rail line, but having two environmental reviews. It seems risky either way.... While I want a rail corridor between Sylmar and LAX, I'm not too nervous about Van Nuys Blvd. project being a transit-only lane. That would not preclude rail later, just like Wilshire having a transit only lane in addition to the Purple Line. Vermont is another corridor also more likely to get a transit lane before getting a rail project south of the Purple Line. However, if these studies are not combined, the project I am REALLY concerned about is the Sepulveda Pass project. Having this as a rail project between Metrolink / Orange Line / Ventura Blvd. / UCLA / Purple Line (Wilshire) / Santa Monica Blvd. / and Expo Line (Pico) is an essential spine to the whole system. This initial seven stop segment can be extended in the future north to Sylmar and south to LAX. However, if the Sepulveda Pass project ends up as simply a measly bus project using hot lanes, as I fear it will, that will be a transit tragedy for the whole region. Call me crazy or naive, but I really think Metro is going to go for a rail tunnel here if possible. We'll find out this summer if it is in the Alternative Analysis, but they are going to get a lot of pressure to at least study this as an option. If not, where would they spend $1B on BRT? The 405 carpool lanes are already going in and you can't add stations to them a la 110 Harbor Transitway. People are going to be upset and say it is not in the spirit of Measure R to spend $1B and not have any new infrastructure. BRT doesn't add up here in my mind, although I think some of us have gotten a little pie in the sky expecting a full JEM line anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 6, 2012 15:27:19 GMT -8
Don't forget: Unless there's some radical remake of the federal government's role in financing transit in the next 20 years, a Sepulveda Pass rail project would probably apply for and be a good candidate for New Starts funding. So there's potentially more than $1 billion out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 6, 2012 23:38:29 GMT -8
Dan, I just read your post, and I think it's great. I think it makes the most sense to combine the two studies, but I guess there's a political factor preventing that. I wonder if Metro thinks it too much to bite off in one go, or if there's concern over a potential tug-of-war between the valley and the westside over where the line will or won't go with limited funds. I wonder if the best thing is to try to find ways of advocating for a combined rail line, but having two environmental reviews. It seems risky either way.... While I want a rail corridor between Sylmar and LAX, I'm not too nervous about Van Nuys Blvd. project being a transit-only lane. That would not preclude rail later, just like Wilshire having a transit only lane in addition to the Purple Line. Vermont is another corridor also more likely to get a transit lane before getting a rail project south of the Purple Line. However, if these studies are not combined, the project I am REALLY concerned about is the Sepulveda Pass project. Having this as a rail project between Metrolink / Orange Line / Ventura Blvd. / UCLA / Purple Line (Wilshire) / Santa Monica Blvd. / and Expo Line (Pico) is an essential spine to the whole system. This initial seven stop segment can be extended in the future north to Sylmar and south to LAX. However, if the Sepulveda Pass project ends up as simply a measly bus project using hot lanes, as I fear it will, that will be a transit tragedy for the whole region. We're in total agreement on the Sepulveda Pass project, but for Van Nuys, if it becomes a bus lane, how long would it be until it potentially would be converted to rail? When can we expect the Orange Line to be converted to rail? I'm guessing not for many decades to come. Still, I agree with you that the pass is the big prize, especially if they can have a stop at UCLA. We need to be doing everything we can to make UCLA and Westwood accessible to students and workers and to increase connections between comparatively affordable housing and economic centers. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 6, 2012 23:47:38 GMT -8
Call me crazy or naive, but I really think Metro is going to go for a rail tunnel here if possible. We'll find out this summer if it is in the Alternative Analysis, but they are going to get a lot of pressure to at least study this as an option. If not, where would they spend $1B on BRT? The 405 carpool lanes are already going in and you can't add stations to them a la 110 Harbor Transitway. People are going to be upset and say it is not in the spirit of Measure R to spend $1B and not have any new infrastructure. BRT doesn't add up here in my mind, although I think some of us have gotten a little pie in the sky expecting a full JEM line anytime soon. Every map I've seen (from Metro, not railfans) shows the line following the 405. Quoting from the Metro projects webpage: Planned to run along a 4-mile section of the I-405 Freeway, this bus corridor project will connect the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles. From the study page: As a part of this review, staff will examine a potential multimodal transit/express toll road concept for the corridor. Although they pay lip service to studying rail (as they're required to do), it seems pretty clear they've already decided to go with bus and a public-private partnership to run toll lanes. Art Leahy gave an interview a few days ago touting the concept. Combined with the über crappy VA station on the Purple line (which only makes sense as a transfer point with easy bus access from the 405), it all adds up. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 7, 2012 20:47:41 GMT -8
No no no... this CANNOT happen. Metro needs to be hammered with e-mails on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 9, 2012 1:46:12 GMT -8
No no no... this CANNOT happen. Metro needs to be hammered with e-mails on this. Yes, hammer them with emails, and participate in the planning process making sure your comments supporting rail get on record. The contact from the project webpage is: Renee Berlin Executive Officer, TDI berlinr@metro.net213.922.3035 Board presentations will be in June, with a report due to be released in September. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 9, 2012 10:13:16 GMT -8
I just sent an e-mail, but based on how the project wepage even phrases the discussion tells me the fix may already be in. What a disaster if this is true. Planned to run along a 4-mile section of the I-405 Freeway, this bus corridor project will connect the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles. The fact that this is even called a "bus corridor" project in the summary description tells us everything we needed to know. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 9, 2012 10:55:51 GMT -8
Planned to run along a 4-mile section of the I-405 Freeway, this bus corridor project will connect the San Fernando Valley with West Los Angeles. This is probably an editing error. But it will be hard for the SFV to overcome the disastrous errors of its past (Robbins bill). Metro has an easy out now: BRT is cheaper, and a major backbone already exists as BRT. At east the 405 connection should be rail. There is no reason for that line to be BRT. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 9, 2012 12:05:51 GMT -8
This is probably an editing error. If it's an editing error, they made a typo in their illustration of the project, too:  I hotlinked the image, so if it's taken down or changed later, it shows a metro bus being passed by a presumably faster single occupancy vehicle with a 405 shield visible at the side of the freeway. Their intentions couldn't be clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 9, 2012 12:25:41 GMT -8
This is probably an editing error. If it's an editing error, they made a typo in their illustration of the project, too: I hotlinked the image, so if it's taken down or changed later, it shows a metro bus being passed by a presumably faster single occupancy vehicle with a 405 shield visible at the side of the freeway. Their intentions couldn't be clearer. A single-occupancy vehicle on a miraculously near-empty 405 Freeway passing a slow-moving bus |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 9, 2012 13:13:05 GMT -8
Has anyone seen this? From the Van Nuys Corridor study page -
--------
You spoke, we listened!
We are pleased to announce that Metro has now incorporated your recommendations into an expanded and newly named “East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor” study. The Project Study Area has now been expanded to include Sepulveda Bl and the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station as a northern terminus/origination point.
The Van Nuys and Sepulveda Bl Corridors run through the heart of the eastern San Fernando Valley and connect diverse communities to their destinations every day. Both corridors are home to several destinations including schools, hospitals, large employers, the Van Nuys Civic Center, Auto Row, Sherman Oaks Galleria, and various shops and restaurants.
-------
Uh....do they not realize that people were advocating for the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Project to be studied with this and not for an alternate Sepulveda route through the valley (unless people were, but this would be the first time I heard of it). What is Metro thinking??
The page has an updated study map too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 9, 2012 14:36:22 GMT -8
Thank you, Phillip, for the heads up. Well, the most interesting thing to note is in the new corridor map. They are now discussing Van Nuys OR Sepulveda OR a hybrid corridor. The hybrid switches from one corridor to the other via the Orange Line busway on the map. Unless they want to use this tiny section of the Orange Line to begin upgrading the whole thing to light-rail, which I now doubt, it is a way of joining two bus projects together via the Orange Line. What is Metro thinking?? How to sell a bus project to a transit community that expected rail in this corridor? |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 9, 2012 14:46:45 GMT -8
What is Metro thinking?? How to sell a bus project to a transit community that expected rail in this corridor? Who expected rail in this corridor? Does it really justify rail compared to LA's Westside or downtown where there's density? Measure R only has hundreds of millions for 3 north-south rapid transit corridors in the Valley..................$1 billion was for the SFV to Westside link. The latter project some people do expect rail......why on the north-south corridors? The money allocated sounded like bus projects. Will people there allow dense development to justify rail? Too many suburban apartment buildings, high parking and huge roads. Those factors alone do not bode well for high rail ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 9, 2012 14:59:06 GMT -8
What is Metro thinking?? How to sell a bus project to a transit community that expected rail in this corridor? Who expected rail in this corridor? Does it really justify rail compared to LA's Westside or downtown where there's density? Measure R only has hundreds of millions for 3 north-south rapid transit corridors in the Valley..................$1 billion was for the SFV to Westside link. The latter project some people do expect rail......why on the north-south corridors? The money allocated sounded like bus projects. Will people there allow dense development to justify rail? Too many suburban apartment buildings, high parking and huge roads. Those factors alone do not bode well for high rail ridership. I agree. $168M is not going to build a rail line. I support a full JEM Line to Sylmar, but you can't just wish for a rail line. I do expect that the Sepulveda Line will be rail in the end, but we'll hash this out in the Alternative Analysis. I think something like a Measure R+ is the way for this Van Nuys corridor to be rail, which I agree would be wonderful. I disagree somewhat with LA of Anaheim in that there is enough density in the Van Nuys corridor to justify light rail and especially when you consider the connectivity with Metrolink and the Orange Line. There will be plenty of demand no problem. One solution may be to advocate for extending rail from the Sepulveda Pass Project to as far as the $168M will allow, which would combine the projects as people here want. However, that won't take it far and you'd have people in the North end of the Valley upset. |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Apr 9, 2012 15:38:03 GMT -8
When I attended the Van Nuys corridor meeting in Pacoima I recall having a conversation with someone discussing the potential use of the old PE ROW on Parthenia/Sepulveda/Brand as means to get a rail line from Panorama City to Sylmar with potentially less hassle than simply using Van Nuys all the way through. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the "Sepulveda" route and the Van Nuys/ Sepulveda Hybrid Option were included into the Study.
The Hybrid Option, I believe, does not necessarily dictate that Orange Line be used to switch between the two corridors. Any street perpendicular to those two routes could be included.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 9, 2012 17:53:05 GMT -8
When I attended the Van Nuys corridor meeting in Pacoima I recall having a conversation with someone discussing the potential use of the old PE ROW on Parthenia/Sepulveda/Brand as means to get a rail line from Panorama City to Sylmar with potentially less hassle than simply using Van Nuys all the way through. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the "Sepulveda" route and the Van Nuys/ Sepulveda Hybrid Option were included into the Study. The Hybrid Option, I believe, does not necessarily dictate that Orange Line be used to switch between the two corridors. Any street perpendicular to those two routes could be included. I mentioned this a while back as well. Sure Van Nuys/Nordhoff may be slightly higher density and bus ridership than Sepulveda/Nordhoff. But the latter avoids several problems, one being grade separation; Van Nuys north of Parthenia would almost certainly have to be a subway, as there's not enough of a median to maintain adequate traffic flow during AND after construction (GLEE anyone?), whereas Sepulveda widens enough to where you could build a cheaper elevated rail line on the median without permanently compromising existing traffic lanes (except for a few left-turn lanes of course). |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Apr 10, 2012 0:54:35 GMT -8
Here's what's going on:
Metro has been talking all along about an undefined "public private partnership" for the Sepulveda Pass transit project. The web diagrams for both projects have been buses for some time. Metro's website has listed the possibility of toll lanes as part of the Sepulveda Pass transit project for over a year.
None of that is new.
What is new is that Metro is moving the Van Nuys Boulevard transit project to Sepulveda Boulevard. They haven't formally announced it yet, other than showing this as an option, but that is clear thrust of everything they have been doing in the past week.
There are several reasons for this, the most crucial of which is that putting the Valley segment on Sepulveda makes it easier for Metro to place the Sepulveda Pass segment along the 405. This is most likely the lynchpin. Metro is using the huge amount of testimony in favor of combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass segments as a justification to move the whole project to Sepulveda, rather than to implement the Metro JEM Line.
Why? Because Metro's real goal, as outlined in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, is to convert LA County's carpool lanes to toll as a revenue source disguised as "congestion relief." Initially, Metro envisioned blowing the $1 billion for transit in the Sepulveda Pass on HOT lane ramps that buses could use, but after the Transit Coalition showed that a rail tunnel could make sense for the corridor, and then the Reason Foundation presented its toll lane tunnel concept as a response at the San Fernando Valley Council of Governments, now Metro is looking at a large, single-bore tunnel that could accommodate four motor vehicle toll lanes on one level and potentially a pair of rail tracks on another.
Why is this a problem? Toll lanes under the 405 Freeway would place the transit line along an alignment with low residential and job density, instead of the highest density corridors (Van Nuys Blvd. and Westwood Blvd.), and trade UCLA for the VA and the cemetery. The placement alone would significantly undermine the ridership of the line. In addition, by adding more freeway capacity, the ridership would be undermined even further, since driving times would become more favorable.
Instead of holding the transit alignment hostage to the placement of toll lanes, Metro should maximize the effectiveness of the transit line in terms of ridership and reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by car.
Here are a few more replies to questions raised above:
- Neighborhood councils along Van Nuys north of Parthenia, including Panorama City and Arleta, are firmly in favor of having the line on Van Nuys Blvd. These are communities with large numbers of transit-dependent people who need better access to the Westside for jobs and other activities.
- Combining the N-S line with the Orange Line between Van Nuys and Sepulveda would virtually guarantee that the result would be another busway, while impeding the performance of the Orange Line and making a future conversion to rail for either line less likely and more costly. Finally, it would significantly increase travel times on the N-S line.
- Some folks get fixated over the underutilized park-and-ride lot at the Orange Line Sepulveda Station. Think of it as a future rail yard for an Orange Line converted to rail, currently being held in place as parking. Or think of it as just ~1,000 spaces for a line that could carry 160,000+ if it mimics the Red Line--and the 405 carries a comparable number of cars to the 101.
- Park and ride is not going to be the primary mode of access; the sheer space and cost would be prohibitive. More likely, most riders will take buses to the JEM Line, just as they do with the Red Line, and more riders will walk than park at or near stations. For what parking would be needed, there are plenty of lots along Van Nuys Blvd. that languish part empty, as well as along feeder lines like Metrolink and the Orange Line as above.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 10, 2012 1:12:17 GMT -8
I think everything's lining up to make the whole thing bus. That's the only point of the ridiculous VA station design and location on the Purple line. The fix is in, and I think revenue from toll lanes have a lot to do with it. I feel like the LA transportation system is being partially sold out. It's a definite conflict of interest if Metro makes money off toll lanes as it reduces their incentive to provide competitive public transit. Villaraigosa seems concerned about his transit legacy. Maybe he's the only one we can get to intervene at this point. In terms of the transit coalition, it seems like the current push for the JEM line is great in terms of a long range vision. In the short term, however, I think there should be more of a push for something that's a bit closer to the current budget, but that could still be acceptable. Sepulveda and Van Nuys already have Metro Rapid, so maybe a focus could be on building rail as far north as possible (including a rail tunnel to UCLA and Westwood/Wilshire) and combining that with timed bus transfers in the valley. The current argument seems to assume we can get rail, and then spends much of the time explaining how at grade rail is infeasible. That at grade rail is infeasible seems to be the argument Metro will co-opt to justify the choice of a bus line, while dismissing a tunnel as too expensive. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Apr 10, 2012 9:15:12 GMT -8
At-grade is feasible in the Valley; the tunnel is necessary in the Sepulveda Pass. The concept of having a rail line from Sylmar to the Westside is important because that provides links to all the arterial buses and rail lines passing through the San Fernando Valley, minimizing the need for park and ride facilities. Moreover, by creating one line out of the two projects, the ridership would be high enough to justify federal funding. Given that the Crenshaw Line is project to have a ridership lower than buses on Van Nuys carry right now, and that the JEM Line is likely to have ridership comparable to the Red Line given the traffic on the 405 vs. 101, it should be considered for federal funding. The at-grade portion in the Valley would be a relatively small part of the cost of the whole project, although if built initially (e.g., not as 30/10), it would need to include the maintenance facilities for the whole line.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 10, 2012 10:12:57 GMT -8
Can someone explain to be what "JEM" stands for?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Burns on Apr 10, 2012 10:13:20 GMT -8
|
|
