|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 10, 2012 10:44:58 GMT -8
Can someone explain to be what "JEM" stands for? "JEM" = "Jobs, Education, Medical Services." This is a transit coalition marketing scheme. The point is really about having a unified rail line from the westside to Sylmar hitting some reasonable destinations on the way. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 10, 2012 19:21:29 GMT -8
The only caveat to this combined approach is that ensures that this will be BRT. Because the SFV North South are all BRT, the Orange Line is BRT. We combine this we will definitely get BRT. ...if you combine the studies what you'll more likely will get is the BRT solution because of the HOV lanes, bus lanes and ability to serve more of the Valley with the existing Measure R funds and the potential to go farther (via Exisiting HOV) to LAX/South Bay even farther into Palmdale, Lancaster and Santa Clarita. If we had let the EIR system play itself out, I believe this would have had a dedicated rail corridor run along the Sepulveda Pass from Expo to Orange Line, notice I didn't say tunnel. The Van Nuys Corridor push should have been to advocate for a Hybrid TSM apporach. Where the TSM is done in the short term to do simple improvements while banking the remaining money for the longer term goal for LRT. - 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. The hard sell push to combine the Van Nuys Rapidway and Sepulveda Pass corridor did more to that than anything else. If this had been done separately, this small extension would have enabled the Van Nuys Corridor to be connected to the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor initially as a TSM bus connection, then upgrading either to the east toward North Hollywood or to the North to Van Nuys/Panaroma City and beyond. This was played like a poker player going all in thinking it had a full house but suddenly realizing it only had two pairs. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Apr 10, 2012 22:20:15 GMT -8
This is what I had feared when the push from combining the studies first took place. If we had let the EIR system play itself out, I believe this would have had a dedicated rail corridor run along the Sepulveda Pass from Expo to Orange Line, notice I didn't say tunnel. The Van Nuys Corridor push should have been to advocate for a Hybrid TSM apporach. Where the TSM is done in the short term to do simple improvements while banking the remaining money for the longer term goal for LRT. - 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. The hard sell push to combine the Van Nuys Rapidway and Sepulveda Pass corridor did more to that than anything else. If this had been done separately, this small extension would have enabled the Van Nuys Corridor to be connected to the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor initially as a TSM bus connection, then upgrading either to the east toward North Hollywood or to the North to Van Nuys/Panaroma City and beyond. This was played like a poker player going all in thinking it had a full house but suddenly realizing it only had two pairs. Just as advocates successfully transformed initial proposals for BRT on Expo and Crenshaw, the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects can be joined together as rail. Keep in mind that Jerard's new employer, Move LA, featured at their February conference the idea of making the Sepulveda Pass project a "public-private partnership" that would combine Measure R dollars and private investment to create a large, single-bore tunnel under the 405 Freeway that would include both toll lanes and a transit line. THAT, and not the JEM Line concept, is why Metro is looking at moving the Van Nuys Corridor to Sepulveda Blvd., making co-location with the toll tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass much easier. Also, the "long term" project is 2039 without America Fast Forward. That's why the JEM Line concept always talks about the huge benefit of accelerating the project through upfront financing. Unfortunately, Metro and Move LA are flushing the hard work and good will built around this down the drain. Finally, Metro and SCAG depictions of the Sepulveda Pass transit project have shown buses, whether in drawings or maps. Without the "hard sell" for a contiguous rail line, the most likely outcome would have been two non-contiguous busways. In any event, Metro has not made any official decisions yet, so it is premature to declare inevitability. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2012 0:06:51 GMT -8
The hard sell push to combine the Van Nuys Rapidway and Sepulveda Pass corridor did more to that than anything else. If this had been done separately, this small extension would have enabled the Van Nuys Corridor to be connected to the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor initially as a TSM bus connection, then upgrading either to the east toward North Hollywood or to the North to Van Nuys/Panaroma City and beyond. This was played like a poker player going all in thinking it had a full house but suddenly realizing it only had two pairs. Just as advocates successfully transformed initial proposals for BRT on Expo and Crenshaw, the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects can be joined together as rail. Keep in mind that Jerard's new employer, Move LA, featured at their February conference the idea of making the Sepulveda Pass project a "public-private partnership" that would combine Measure R dollars and private investment to create a large, single-bore tunnel under the 405 Freeway that would include both toll lanes and a transit line. THAT, and not the JEM Line concept, is why Metro is looking at moving the Van Nuys Corridor to Sepulveda Blvd., making co-location with the toll tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass much easier. Also, the "long term" project is 2039 without America Fast Forward. That's why the JEM Line concept always talks about the huge benefit of accelerating the project through upfront financing. Unfortunately, Metro and Move LA are flushing the hard work and good will built around this down the drain. Finally, Metro and SCAG depictions of the Sepulveda Pass transit project have shown buses, whether in drawings or maps. Without the "hard sell" for a contiguous rail line, the most likely outcome would have been two non-contiguous busways. In any event, Metro has not made any official decisions yet, so it is premature to declare inevitability. Regen, don't try to smear me or Move LA on this sir, you just look silly. If everyone else wants context, there was a person on the Panel at the February conference, when discussing potential funding opportunities or means to fund projects looked at the potential of Public-Private partnerships. This guest Mike Schnieder from a firm opined a suggestion along the 405 for conversation purposes. However I stated a year ago March 2011 before working with MoveLA that this move would cause this result. Why? Because there's only so much money for this project and that BRT when combined with already existing and the larger regional context of not just Metro buses but Municipal carriers for Regional Express services such as Santa Clarita, AVTA and even LAWA Flyaway could take advantage of such a BRT concept. You're correct in assessing that Metro has not made an official decision however in your previous reply on this very thread you've implied that Metro along with SCAG has made this a done deal; "...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." |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 11, 2012 1:37:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 11, 2012 9:22:04 GMT -8
If we had let the EIR system play itself out, I believe this would have had a dedicated rail corridor run along the Sepulveda Pass from Expo to Orange Line, notice I didn't say tunnel. The Van Nuys Corridor push should have been to advocate for a Hybrid TSM apporach. Where the TSM is done in the short term to do simple improvements while banking the remaining money for the longer term goal for LRT. Sounds great to me. However, was this ever on the table really? The Metro website referring to the Sepulveda Pass as "bus corridor" along with that pic sort of indicates Metro's initial thinking. Jerard, what is your suggestion for moving forward? Is a rail project salvageable? As of yet, it is the Sepulveda Blvd. / Van Nuys Blvd. Blvd. projects that are officially merged, not necessarily the Sepulveda Pass project. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2012 10:12:27 GMT -8
If we had let the EIR system play itself out, I believe this would have had a dedicated rail corridor run along the Sepulveda Pass from Expo to Orange Line, notice I didn't say tunnel. The Van Nuys Corridor push should have been to advocate for a Hybrid TSM apporach. Where the TSM is done in the short term to do simple improvements while banking the remaining money for the longer term goal for LRT. Sounds great to me. However, was this ever on the table really? The Metro website referring to the Sepulveda Pass as "bus corridor" along with that pic sort of indicates Metro's initial thinking. Jerard, what is your suggestion for moving forward? Is a rail project salvageable? As of yet, it is the Sepulveda Blvd. / Van Nuys Blvd. Blvd. projects that are officially merged, not necessarily the Sepulveda Pass project. I think its salvageable -given that its early in the process- but the key thing is being realistic on funding. Don't assume Federal New Starts on this with 30-10 or America Fast Forward programs because those are committed to Purple Line to Westwood and Regional Connector projects at this time. If it shows that it has Federal New Starts potential, then that may delay the project delivery date as it will need to go through another cycle of New Starts. My thoughts are focus the bulk of the rail energy on the Sepulveda Pass corridor from Orange Line to Expo Line with or without the tunnel parallel to the pass, stretch that $1B+ to link up with as many activity centers as possible so that you can get some stronger ridership data. Use the Public-Private Partnership ideas on some of the station area planning/developments such as Sepulveda Orange Line station, Ventura Blvd (Sepulveda or Van Nuys), Sepulveda/Pico Expo Line station maybe even UCLA/Westwood Village station to bridge gaps in funding. So that more money goes towards the route infrastructure and less of it goes to the stations themselves. The key is, given that this can be LRT can this corridor take an initial San Diego trolley approach here a simple no-frills design and infrastructure? I don't know how much construction ROW or easements will be left after the 405 HOV widening project but I would suggest building shallow tunnels and trenches under these easements, if they can where the elevation shifts and differs. I wished Metro spent a little more $$$ on the 405 HOV project to go towards a future ROW for such a transit project as this would have saved money in the long run. The Van Nuys Corridor in the long term visioning should be rail, however any sort of infrastructure beyond a TSM would make it hard to get a future rail corridor. So the approach here should be pushing for TSM because it does the same things as the lanes at a lower cost then BRT and saves more of the money needed to push a rail transit corridor north following the intended vision. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 11, 2012 10:31:41 GMT -8
If they are talking about a toll tunnel for cars under the Santa Monica Mountains, then the key question would be where would that tunnel resurface and dump the cars both in the Valley but especially in West LA.
Wherever it is, it will be very controversial as local streets are already overwhelmed and nobody wants a freeway dumped onto their local street. The 405 is a raised freeway in West LA so I don't think you can resurface a tunnel into the freeway. Anyway, you would be talking about a lot of lawsuits and not just a few fringes like NFSR or the Crenshaw Subway Coalition. BTW, almost no one in West LA cares about going to the Valley and would oppose any more car traffic from the Valley coming in.
I don't see above ground rail over the pass either. There is no where to build it. The current carpool lane project is already carving up the mountain and they are having huge problems with that in stabilizing it and the project is delayed because of it. Not to mention the grade problems that others have stated on here with the steep mountains.
Will be interesting to see how they lay this out. Even if they have to wait to get New Starts that would be a much better course to take. I am all in favor of turning the new carpool lanes into HOT lanes as the toll aspect
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 11, 2012 13:46:52 GMT -8
If they are talking about a toll tunnel for cars under the Santa Monica Mountains, then the key question would be where would that tunnel resurface and dump the cars both in the Valley but especially in West LA. Wherever it is, it will be very controversial as local streets are already overwhelmed and nobody wants a freeway dumped onto their local street. The 405 is a raised freeway in West LA so I don't think you can resurface a tunnel into the freeway. Anyway, you would be talking about a lot of lawsuits and not just a few fringes like NFSR or the Crenshaw Subway Coalition. BTW, almost no one in West LA cares about going to the Valley and would oppose any more car traffic from the Valley coming in. I don't see above ground rail over the pass either. There is no where to build it. The current carpool lane project is already carving up the mountain and they are having huge problems with that in stabilizing it and the project is delayed because of it. Not to mention the grade problems that others have stated on here with the steep mountains. Will be interesting to see how they lay this out. Even if they have to wait to get New Starts that would be a much better course to take. I am all in favor of turning the new carpool lanes into HOT lanes as the toll aspect I don't mind turning the carpool lanes into HOT lanes if the explicit goal is to build a rail tunnel under UCLA to Wilshire and Westwood. I'm afraid Metro is going to spend the billion somehow only on freeway infrastructure (e.g. bus only ramps) and then have nothing left over for rail. Another possibility is they will want to spend that billion on extra lanes. Either way not very good, and their placement of the VA station seems to indicate they're on track to invest at least hundreds of millions of dollars on 405 oriented infrastructure that doesn't quite get you where you want to go on the Westside without a transfer. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Burns on Apr 11, 2012 20:44:36 GMT -8
A friend of mine at The Robert Group is working on the Downtown Regional Connector. She had a few suggestions for lobbying any new rail line. 1. Talk it up online. Tweet & Retweet on Twitter. 2. Attend the public meetings. 3. Email the Metro project manager Walt Davis at daviswa@metro.net. "If you really want to light a fire, call Walt directly at 213.922.3079." 4. Ask for future meetings to be held online. 5. Contact outreach manager Ann Kerman at KERMANA@metro.net. 6. Email your assembly, state senate, and congressional member, AND councilmember and supervisor..."telling them to be a part of the planning activities...this goes a long way." "It is almost like you'll need to draft the emails for your friends, give them the email addresses, and just tell them to copy and paste the email." "In my 10+ years of doing this...elected officials freak the f--- out if they start seeing 10 emails saying the same thing." My own two cents would be that we should all connect with Metro by "liking" any of their project pages on Facebook. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study is here: www.facebook.com/EastSFVTransitIt is definitely time for people like us to start making more noise!! |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Apr 11, 2012 21:43:45 GMT -8
A friend of mine at The Robert Group is working on the Downtown Regional Connector. She had a few suggestions for lobbying any new rail line. 1. Talk it up online. Tweet & Retweet on Twitter. 2. Attend the public meetings. 3. Email the Metro project manager Walt Davis at daviswa@metro.net. "If you really want to light a fire, call Walt directly at 213.922.3079." 4. Ask for future meetings to be held online. 5. Contact outreach manager Ann Kerman at KERMANA@metro.net. 6. Email your assembly, state senate, and congressional member, AND councilmember and supervisor..."telling them to be a part of the planning activities...this goes a long way." "It is almost like you'll need to draft the emails for your friends, give them the email addresses, and just tell them to copy and paste the email." "In my 10+ years of doing this...elected officials freak the f--- out if they start seeing 10 emails saying the same thing." My own two cents would be that we should all connect with Metro by "liking" any of their project pages on Facebook. The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study is here: www.facebook.com/EastSFVTransitIt is definitely time for people like us to start making more noise!! Good points, and here is the Transit Coalition's Facebook page for the Metro JEM Line--please *LIKE* it on Facebook!  www.facebook.com/pages/Valley-WestsideI-405-Rail/220362574667298 |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 12, 2012 8:04:09 GMT -8
If we had let the EIR system play itself out, I believe this would have had a dedicated rail corridor run along the Sepulveda Pass from Expo to Orange Line, notice I didn't say tunnel. The Van Nuys Corridor push should have been to advocate for a Hybrid TSM apporach. Where the TSM is done in the short term to do simple improvements while banking the remaining money for the longer term goal for LRT. Sounds great to me. However, was this ever on the table really? The Metro website referring to the Sepulveda Pass as "bus corridor" along with that pic sort of indicates Metro's initial thinking. Jerard, what is your suggestion for moving forward? Is a rail project salvageable? As of yet, it is the Sepulveda Blvd. / Van Nuys Blvd. Blvd. projects that are officially merged, not necessarily the Sepulveda Pass project. I think its salvageable -given that its early in the process- but the key thing is being realistic on funding. Don't assume Federal New Starts on this with 30-10 or America Fast Forward programs because those are committed to Purple Line to Westwood and Regional Connector projects at this time. If it shows that it has Federal New Starts potential, then that may delay the project delivery date as it will need to go through another cycle of New Starts. My thoughts are focus the bulk of the rail energy on the Sepulveda Pass corridor from Orange Line to Expo Line with or without the tunnel parallel to the pass, stretch that $1B+ to link up with as many activity centers as possible so that you can get some stronger ridership data. Use the Public-Private Partnership ideas on some of the station area planning/developments such as Sepulveda Orange Line station, Ventura Blvd (Sepulveda or Van Nuys), Sepulveda/Pico Expo Line station maybe even UCLA/Westwood Village station to bridge gaps in funding. So that more money goes towards the route infrastructure and less of it goes to the stations themselves. The key is, given that this can be LRT can this corridor take an initial San Diego trolley approach here a simple no-frills design and infrastructure? I don't know how much construction ROW or easements will be left after the 405 HOV widening project but I would suggest building shallow tunnels and trenches under these easements, if they can where the elevation shifts and differs. I wished Metro spent a little more $$$ on the 405 HOV project to go towards a future ROW for such a transit project as this would have saved money in the long run. The Van Nuys Corridor in the long term visioning should be rail, however any sort of infrastructure beyond a TSM would make it hard to get a future rail corridor. So the approach here should be pushing for TSM because it does the same things as the lanes at a lower cost then BRT and saves more of the money needed to push a rail transit corridor north following the intended vision. Jerard, may I quote this on my blog? Also, I am not as familiar with what exactly TSM is and how it differs from BRT. I do support a network of transit-only lanes around Los Angeles, as a supplement to Metrorail, just as there are in London, including our major corridors like Wilshire, Santa Monica/Sunset, Ventura, Pico, Fairfax, Hollywood, Venice and Van Nuys. If I wanted a transit-only lane on Van Nuys and a north/south rail project in the Valley, would TSM cover a transit-only lane? |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 12, 2012 8:06:00 GMT -8
Public comments are important and has weight in the scopings over forum and blog comments; despite that there seems to be support in line with the Transit Coalition's vision on the Internet. I'd be cautiously optimistic the JEM Line can be a reality, like West Hollywood's overwhelming support of the "Pink Line", reality sets in and not the most supportive alternative is selected, however one must not lose hope.
One SFV service council representative already submitted a proposal for express bus service in the Sepulveda Pass. Yesterday at the WS/C service council, Jody Litvak mentioned that the Westwood phase of the Purple Line would take into consideration connectivity to the Sepulveda Pass transit project at either Wilshire/Westwood or the VA station.
Some have voiced concern that Van Nuys Blvd north of Parthenia St is too narrow to support at-grade rail, however that section is about as wide as Van Nuys south of both Roscoe Blvd and Saticoy St where the same concern wasn't made, and unlike Van Nuys north of Parthenia, there is no available parking lane. The widest section of Sepulveda and Van Nuys Blvds are about 120 or more feet, the narrowest is at about 70. Rail would serve Nordhoff at either Sepulveda or Van Nuys well, but staying on Van Nuys would meet the transit needs of the community than Mission Hills IMO (save for serving the San Fernando Mission and Alemany HS).
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 12, 2012 10:17:00 GMT -8
I think its salvageable -given that its early in the process- but the key thing is being realistic on funding. Don't assume Federal New Starts on this with 30-10 or America Fast Forward programs because those are committed to Purple Line to Westwood and Regional Connector projects at this time. If it shows that it has Federal New Starts potential, then that may delay the project delivery date as it will need to go through another cycle of New Starts. My thoughts are focus the bulk of the rail energy on the Sepulveda Pass corridor from Orange Line to Expo Line with or without the tunnel parallel to the pass, stretch that $1B+ to link up with as many activity centers as possible so that you can get some stronger ridership data. Use the Public-Private Partnership ideas on some of the station area planning/developments such as Sepulveda Orange Line station, Ventura Blvd (Sepulveda or Van Nuys), Sepulveda/Pico Expo Line station maybe even UCLA/Westwood Village station to bridge gaps in funding. So that more money goes towards the route infrastructure and less of it goes to the stations themselves. The key is, given that this can be LRT can this corridor take an initial San Diego trolley approach here a simple no-frills design and infrastructure? I don't know how much construction ROW or easements will be left after the 405 HOV widening project but I would suggest building shallow tunnels and trenches under these easements, if they can where the elevation shifts and differs. I wished Metro spent a little more $$$ on the 405 HOV project to go towards a future ROW for such a transit project as this would have saved money in the long run. The Van Nuys Corridor in the long term visioning should be rail, however any sort of infrastructure beyond a TSM would make it hard to get a future rail corridor. So the approach here should be pushing for TSM because it does the same things as the lanes at a lower cost then BRT and saves more of the money needed to push a rail transit corridor north following the intended vision. Jerard, may I quote this on my blog? Also, I am not as familiar with what exactly TSM is and how it differs from BRT. I do support a network of transit-only lanes around Los Angeles, as a supplement to Metrorail, just as there are in London, including our major corridors like Wilshire, Santa Monica/Sunset, Ventura, Pico, Fairfax, Hollywood, Venice and Van Nuys. If I wanted a transit-only lane on Van Nuys and a north/south rail project in the Valley, would TSM cover a transit-only lane? TSM is an acroynm for Transportation Systems Management which looks at small fixes to solve the problem in lieu of the major capital project. In this case, the TSM could be in lieu of the segments of BRT lanes be improved transponders on the Van Nuys buses with better signal pre-emption on all the local and rapid buses on the corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 16, 2012 8:57:55 GMT -8
Just to add to the mix, someone posted on my blog why they believe bus is a better option for this corridor. I do not agree with this commenter's position, but it does express well what those who will be supporting the bus option will say: |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 16, 2012 11:01:42 GMT -8
It seems to boil down to two choices for this corridor:
1) A busway, which greater city coverage (Northern San Fernando Valley to LAX).
2) A rail line, but with less city coverage (Orange Line to the Purple Line).
I think rail is still the way to go. Vote TSM on Van Nuys/Sepulveda in the valley and save the northern/southern extensions for the future.
They will happen eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 16, 2012 16:55:44 GMT -8
I second that, rail is simply the best thing for this line(s). Anything less will be a let down.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Apr 17, 2012 21:35:59 GMT -8
Here is how we can make it work:
Phase 1: Sylmar to Orange Line. Start with $170 million from Measure R and state funds already allocated, add the residuals from the Orange Line Extension and the other north-south Valley corridors, then add federal matching funds = $400 million to go 9 1/2 miles at-grade, ~ $40 million/mile, which is the approximate cost of other Metro at-grade LRT segments. Part of what drove up Expo's cost were the elevated sections, in addition to the antics of Damien G. and NFSR.
Phase 2: Orange Line to UCLA/Westwood. Start with $1 billion from Measure R, add federal matching funds = $2 billion for 8 miles and 4 stations underground (Orange Line, Ventura, UCLA, Wilshire). Cost: ~ $200 million/mile for the tunnel + $150 million/station = $2.2 billion.
Phase 3: Westwood to LAX? Could be funded by Measure R+? Route TBD.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 18, 2012 6:18:16 GMT -8
Here is how we can make it work: Phase 1: Sylmar to Orange Line. Start with $170 million from Measure R and state funds already allocated, add the residuals from the Orange Line Extension and the other north-south Valley corridors, then add federal matching funds = $400 million to go 9 1/2 miles at-grade, ~ $40 million/mile, which is the approximate cost of other Metro at-grade LRT segments. Part of what drove up Expo's cost were the elevated sections, in addition to the antics of Damien G. and NFSR. Phase 2: Orange Line to UCLA/Westwood. Start with $1 billion from Measure R, add federal matching funds = $2 billion for 8 miles and 4 stations underground (Orange Line, Ventura, UCLA, Wilshire). Cost: ~ $200 million/mile for the tunnel + $150 million/station = $2.2 billion. Phase 3: Westwood to LAX? Could be funded by Measure R+? Route TBD. The problem is that "phase 1" might not have high enough ridership by itself to get built without "phase 2" already in place to connect to. It seems like the Orange Line to Wilshire/Westwood should be the first segment built, as that takes care of the primary choke point. Human Transit has a good article on why building transit through choke points first is an excellent strategy for improving transit usage throughout the entire network. Once the Orange-Purple gap is filled in, there should be much higher ridership for any extensions north and south, which will help to qualify for federal funding. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 18, 2012 10:04:56 GMT -8
I would hope we'd have Phase 1 as more than "Orange to Purple", but "Orange to Expo" as the Expo Line will be up and running before the Purple Line extension. The ability to transfer to/from Expo to this line will increase ridership numbers significantly I imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 18, 2012 11:13:14 GMT -8
I would hope we'd have Phase 1 as more than "Orange to Purple", but "Orange to Expo" as the Expo Line will be up and running before the Purple Line extension. The ability to transfer to/from Expo to this line will increase ridership numbers significantly I imagine. Yes, Orange to Expo would be fantastic, but I guess this one will take a while to get built. BTW, I caught up on your blog today. The last posts have been great and reflect a lot of the same concerns I have. Thanks for bringing these issues to a wider audience. |
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Apr 18, 2012 11:36:31 GMT -8
I would hope we'd have Phase 1 as more than "Orange to Purple", but "Orange to Expo" as the Expo Line will be up and running before the Purple Line extension. The ability to transfer to/from Expo to this line will increase ridership numbers significantly I imagine. Yes, Orange to Expo would be fantastic, but I guess this one will take a while to get built. BTW, I caught up on your blog today. The last posts have been great and reflect a lot of the same concerns I have. Thanks for bringing these issues to a wider audience. I count 7 potential stations from Orange to Expo (Orange -> Magnolia -> Ventura -> UCLA -> Purple -> SaMo/Sepulveda -> Expo/Sepulveda) and I don't see a single one of these NOT being below-grade. That's a lot of expensive digging. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 18, 2012 14:28:15 GMT -8
Here is how we can make it work: Phase 1: Sylmar to Orange Line. Start with $170 million from Measure R and state funds already allocated, add the residuals from the Orange Line Extension and the other north-south Valley corridors, then add federal matching funds = $400 million to go 9 1/2 miles at-grade, ~ $40 million/mile, which is the approximate cost of other Metro at-grade LRT segments. Part of what drove up Expo's cost were the elevated sections, in addition to the antics of Damien G. and NFSR. Phase 2: Orange Line to UCLA/Westwood. Start with $1 billion from Measure R, add federal matching funds = $2 billion for 8 miles and 4 stations underground (Orange Line, Ventura, UCLA, Wilshire). Cost: ~ $200 million/mile for the tunnel + $150 million/station = $2.2 billion. Phase 3: Westwood to LAX? Could be funded by Measure R+? Route TBD. I think you unfortunately are a little light on costs. What about rail cars, maintenance facilities and costs overall have been higher for our light rail lines and tunneling. On Phase II, I could see just two underground stations (Ventura and UCLA). Westwood will have already been built with the Purple Line, although it will need some modifications and expansion with this line. Does the Orange Line really need an underground station? In any case, in my guesstimate, I don't see enough money to get to Expo unless a bigger federal match comes about or some alternative funding. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2012 16:23:11 GMT -8
Agreed, masonite. Expo would be nice, but there just is no money for it and barring some type of federal aid, I don't see it being built that far.
These are the stations I envision:
--Van Nuys/Oxnard/Orange Line (at-grade or elevated)
--Van Nuys/Magnolia (at-grade or elevated)
--Van Nuys/Ventura (below-grade)
--UCLA (below-grade)
--Wilshire/Westwood/Purple Line (below-grade)
It's my opinion that we should focus on this segment alone if we are to have any hope of getting rail on this corridor. With $1 billion from Measure R, it should be just enough to complete this much (some additional funding will likely be necessary, but not much).
It's fine to plan/discuss future connections to Expo, LAX, Sylmar, etc., but we really have to look at this realistically. $1 billion is not going to get us rail from Sylmar to LAX.
By definition, the project is only meant to link the valley with the westside. Getting a line from the Orange Line to the Purple accomplishes this. It may not be the way we might all prefer, but it's our best hope for the present moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Burns on Apr 18, 2012 17:00:14 GMT -8
Two cents - While I understand the tendency to worry about funding for projects, I like to think that is the job of the people we have elected. It is OUR job to be visionaries, and demand a transit system that benefits our entire region. if the project is worthy, the funding will come.
In a discussion of the Measure R extension, someone on Curbed brought up the notion of a circle line to fix the current hub and spoke system the we currently have in place. Here is what I wrote:
"I went to last night's community meeting for the East SFV Corridor, where they're trying to decide if they should do something on Van Nuys or Sepulveda in the Valley. Everyone there was clamoring for rail. Which leads us to an historic opportunity in this city...
A North-South line from Sylmar to LAX. Extension to Long Beach, then East to Anaheim, and back North to connect with the Gold Line Foothill extension. Then, extend the Gold Line West back to the San Fernando Valley."
Does this sound plausible? Or completely ridiculous?
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Apr 18, 2012 18:03:26 GMT -8
I would like to give my own thoughts to this discussion as well.
While I think everyone is in agreement that getting rail from the orange line to the purple line should be a priority. There a very few opportunities,between those two points on van nuys, to build a maintenance facility which is highly needed for this line since it would not connect to existing rail infrastructure.
Further north there are more opportunities to build the facility with communities that may be less hostile to its existence since it would provide local jobs for these poorer communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2012 18:33:09 GMT -8
In a discussion of the Measure R extension, someone on Curbed brought up the notion of a circle line to fix the current hub and spoke system the we currently have in place. Here is what I wrote: "I went to last night's community meeting for the East SFV Corridor, where they're trying to decide if they should do something on Van Nuys or Sepulveda in the Valley. Everyone there was clamoring for rail. Which leads us to an historic opportunity in this city... A North-South line from Sylmar to LAX. Extension to Long Beach, then East to Anaheim, and back North to connect with the Gold Line Foothill extension. Then, extend the Gold Line West back to the San Fernando Valley." Interesting. Presumably when you mention a Gold Line extension West to the SFV, this would be the same as extending the Orange Line East to Pasadena, no? Also, I think running on Willow, and then heading up Rosemead/Lakewood to connect with the Gold Line (while the 405 Line continues SE to CSULB) makes the most sense because it would transfer with the most lines and hit some spots the "spokes" won't, like Long Beach Airport, Downey, Huntington Blvd, etc. Anaheim is practically it's own metro. Other than the Santa Ana Line, i don't see any rail line making it that far. When looking at a map, it might look ridiculous (probably even to some transit enthusiasts) just based on it's SHEER size. HOWEVER, we have to remember that, when you look at the distance in commuting patterns... you could make the case that Los Angeles is geographically the largest urban megalopolis on Earth (perhaps even larger than Tokyo). We might have to accept that building rail lines at record-crushing lengths for a metro our size could be normal, no matter how much we want Downtown to eventually surpass the Westside and be the "hub" (which i think it can even with this approach). And like Tokyo, LA is a multi-polycentric metropolis with many nodes. Having aving simply a hub and spoke system just won't cut it like it does with New York City and Chicago(somewhat). Besides, this is VERY common with freeways/highway networks, so why not rail lines? If i'm correct, Moscow has a "circle" line. I'm starting to think that if a "circle" line happens, this is what our rail system could eventually look like ("spokes", "wheel", and "stubs"):  |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2012 18:52:33 GMT -8
The concept of a "Circle" line has been brought up before (and if I'm not mistaken, it is the subject of a post over in the 'Dream' forum).
I think it's a wonderful idea, but not very practical considering the cost (which would be well into the tens of billions), plus disruption of existing infrastructure during construction of such a line (an example would be re-constructing the current Memorial Park or Del Mar Gold Line stations to accommodate an extension to the west).
There are only a few frustrating "Hub and Spoke" aspects to the current system; the Blue/Expo/Gold lines not connecting will be solved with the Downtown Connector. The LAX problem will be solved with the Green and Crenshaw Lines, and I do believe the Norwalk Metrolink Station will (someday) inevitably get its Green Line extension.
A complete 405 Line (from Foothill Blvd. to Long Beach) could potentially connect *all* the Metro Rail lines (assuming the Red Line is ever extended to Sylmar), also eliminating the need for a Circle Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2012 19:03:30 GMT -8
^ Yeah, i'm not necessarily advocating a "Circle" line (because as you said, it would disrupt operations A LOT), but I think if we make it so that if a person is willing to transfer at Long Beach, he could theoretically make a circle-like commute. Few would of course, but it could be technically possible. ]A complete 405 Line (from Foothill Blvd. to Long Beach) could potentially connect *all* the Metro Rail lines (assuming the Red Line is ever extended to Sylmar), also eliminating the need for a Circle Line. I think it makes more sense for the 405 Line to head to Sylmar instead of the Red Line, while the latter heads to BH Airport as planned in Metro's LRTP. An Orange Line extension to the airport - as i assume you advocate - would make an Orange Line extension east to Pasadena difficult, especially if it was eventually converted to light-rail (which i think it will be, given the news that the Chatsworth Extension bridges were designed to carry LRT vehicles). |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2012 19:22:29 GMT -8
The Orange Line should definitely go to Burbank and not Burbank Airport; the ROW on Chandler is very wide and ripe to become a multi-transit use road (for transit, bikes, and cars alike).
My problem with the Red Line going to Burbank Airport is that such an alignment makes it difficult to extend the line anyplace else. You can run it parallel to the Ventura County Line until it's back at Laurel Canyon and head north, but then it completely misses Valley Plaza. You can run it east, but any area east will already be served by the Orange Line (and in the future, the eventually Burbank/Glendale light-rail line).
Burbank Airport is also a weak terminus for the line if it cannot be extended elsewhere.
And - central to this thread - a Red Line to Sylmar can connect with the future northern extension of the 405 Line. It will be harder to accomplish this if it goes to Burbank Airport.
|
|
