|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 18, 2012 20:45:49 GMT -8
Could it do both? Meaning, could it head to Burbank Airport and then veer North on Hollywood Way and then Northwest on SF Road to Sylmar?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 18, 2012 21:11:30 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. I don't buy that Burbank Airport is not a good terminus. It is a destination and has connectivity to Metrolink, which is just as important. Sure, it wouldn't be a park and ride station, but NoHo and Universal City still fill that role. I don't see a whole lot of benefit to connecting the 405 Line with the Red Line at Sylmar. Is someone in NoHo going to take the Red Line to Sylmar and the transfer to the 405 Line to then take that line back down to Van Nuys. Easier to take the Orange Line |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 18, 2012 21:46:55 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. On Van Nuys, that is very true however if we look at Sepulveda from the Orange Line to Westwood area then a large currently well-under utilized park-ride facility that would work nicely as a small M&O shop for the trains and possibly a stronger station generator in Ventura/Sepulveda which would help in improving cost-effectiveness numbers in order to possibly obtain federal funding. True there's more opportunity for that to take place in the NE Valley, however the ability to obtain federal new starts funding is practically nil if you start a first phase with a Sylmar to Sherman Oaks alignment because you're not moving enough of the new riders that are travelling the longer distances you're simply shifting bus passengers on to rail. Strategically, a first phase that connects the Valley and Westside through the pass will get a lot of these riders in the first go. Similiar in effect when the subway reached North Hollywood in 2000, when that happended ridership doubled overnight as you're catching more of the long distance riders an alternative from driving through that topographic barrier called the Cauhenga Pass. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 19, 2012 6:17:03 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)... My thoughts on stations are: * Van Nuys Orange Line (at-grade) = run on Orange Line bike path with additional easments = * Sepulveda Orange Line (at-grade) === transition to tunnel === * Venutra/Sepulveda (below-grade) * UCLA - Westwood Village (below grade) * Westwood/Wilshire (below grade) === transition out of tunnel around Westwood Park === * Santa Monica-Cotner (above grade) * Pico/Sepulveda/Expo (above or below grade) |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Burns on Apr 19, 2012 9:55:46 GMT -8
In Mayor Villaraigosa's State of the City speech, he mentions the "Sepulveda Pass rail line" that "can now be completed in a little over a decade." Does that mean Metro is already studying this scenario? If so, why are they so publicly adamant that the East SFV Corridor is being studied separately from the Sepulveda Pass Corridor? One would think the city and Metro would gain a great deal more attention and support regionally if they were publicly discussing a 405 Line from the Valley to the Westside. blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/04/mayor_villaraigosa_sepulveda_p.php |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Apr 19, 2012 16:57:53 GMT -8
In Mayor Villaraigosa's State of the City speech, he mentions the "Sepulveda Pass rail line" that "can now be completed in a little over a decade." Does that mean Metro is already studying this scenario? If so, why are they so publicly adamant that the East SFV Corridor is being studied separately from the Sepulveda Pass Corridor? One would think the city and Metro would gain a great deal more attention and support regionally if they were publicly discussing a 405 Line from the Valley to the Westside. blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/04/mayor_villaraigosa_sepulveda_p.phpPretty sure he is just speaking on behalf of his own vision of the project. Still it doesn't hurt that hes on the board and rooting for rail, and also that hes getting people excited for rail. The more people expect rail, the less they will accept anything but rail. |
|
|
|
Post by calwatch on Apr 19, 2012 20:59:32 GMT -8
www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/04_April/20120418P&PItem15.pdfThe current concept suggested by the MTA consultant is sort of an "open canvas" to the private sector to do essentially whatever they want on the 405/Sepulveda corridor. I n light of the exceptionally strong demand for passenger travel between the Valley and
points north, and the Westside and points south, a new and potentially robust alternative
developed by Metro's PPP team for consideration has been recommended for business case
assessment. The proposed project for the Valley/Westside corridor envisions a multi-modal
project that integrates an advanced transit technology and a multi-lane toll highway, the
latter providing an express alternative to the interminably congested 1-405 Freeway, routed
through a tunnel between the Valley and the Westside.
I n light of the current state-of-the-art in deep-bore, large-diameter tunneling technology, an
integrated "transit/tollway" facility could be engineered t o fit in a 58' diameter tunnel. A
very similar tunneling program was recently awarded t o a construction consortium in
Washington State for replacement of the aged and seismically vulnerable Alaskan Way
Viaduct along the ocean front in Downtown Seattle.
. Preliminary concepts show that a single large diameter tunnel could be built in the
Valley/Westside corridor and accommodate a bi-directional transit system and 3-5 tolled
highway lanes, which could be reversible, similar the 1-595 program in Florida.
. As an alternative to proceeding with the normal federally-required, statutory, multi-decade
planning process, it is our contention that this project could be a world-class example of a
public-private partnership that would result in delivery of this project decades before
otherwise possible, without jeopardizing any of the projects currently in development as
part of the prescribed Measure R process. Indeed, using a P3 approach t o bring such a
project t o reality would add luster to Metro's America Fast Forward program. As part of the
ongoing Metro PPP program, a project concept and procurement process can be defined
and developed that would allow the private sector t o demonstrate its ability t o bring
efficiency, innovation, and cost-saving technology t o a much-needed transportation corridor
improvement program.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 20, 2012 8:04:06 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)... My thoughts on stations are: * Van Nuys Orange Line (at-grade) = run on Orange Line bike path with additional easments = * Sepulveda Orange Line (at-grade) === transition to tunnel === * Venutra/Sepulveda (below-grade) * UCLA - Westwood Village (below grade) * Westwood/Wilshire (below grade) === transition out of tunnel around Westwood Park === * Santa Monica-Cotner (above grade) * Pico/Sepulveda/Expo (above or below grade) Jerard, if I may ask, why do you favor running the line down Sepulveda instead of Van Nuys? |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 20, 2012 8:28:56 GMT -8
My thoughts on stations are: * Van Nuys Orange Line (at-grade) = run on Orange Line bike path with additional easments = * Sepulveda Orange Line (at-grade) === transition to tunnel === * Venutra/Sepulveda (below-grade) * UCLA - Westwood Village (below grade) * Westwood/Wilshire (below grade) === transition out of tunnel around Westwood Park === * Santa Monica-Cotner (above grade) * Pico/Sepulveda/Expo (above or below grade) Jerard, if I may ask, why do you favor running the line down Sepulveda instead of Van Nuys? The portion in question is easier to build for a first phase once it transitions from the Orange Line to head north then it can run on Van Nuys. I believe there's higher ridership potential - needed to gain federal funding- at Ventura/Sepulveda given the hi-rises and business clustered in that vicinity and it makes it easier to have an operating segment that has a Maintenance/yard facility which would be located at Sepulveda Orange Line Park-Ride. Also given that this is a tunnel that has a potential P3 Toll Road/Transit component routing this segment by Sepulveda is easier to do. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 20, 2012 12:47:01 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)... My thoughts on stations are: * Van Nuys Orange Line (at-grade) = run on Orange Line bike path with additional easments = * Sepulveda Orange Line (at-grade) === transition to tunnel === * Venutra/Sepulveda (below-grade) * UCLA - Westwood Village (below grade) * Westwood/Wilshire (below grade) === transition out of tunnel around Westwood Park === * Santa Monica-Cotner (above grade) * Pico/Sepulveda/Expo (above or below grade) I'd probably agree with that as well. Assuming this big bored tunnel that will have 3-5 lanes of traffic and train access is the real deal (I am still skeptical if this can get off the ground), where would you see the tunnels resurfacing on both the Valley and Westside. Maybe Sepulveda north of Wilshire? That is the part that I can't visualize or really see as realistic. Also, it would be a shame then if the train couldn't go on a separate tunnel for a small portion so it could go to UCLA and Westwood and follow the route you laid out. |
|
|
|
Post by KRS on Apr 22, 2012 16:57:38 GMT -8
There is an empty canyon called Moraga canyon that runs between Sepulveda canyon and Roscomare canyon (parallels them both, runs right between them) for at least a couple of miles. You can see it when you look down from Linda Flora in upper Bel Air. It is very deep and completely undeveloped, and runs for a couple of miles. A big chunk of it (260 acres of it) was sold a couple of years ago for about $50 million. The question is, can that land be eminent domained so that part of the valley/west side route could be at grade on the bottom of that canyon? Alternatively, in lieu of at grade, could it be built using a trench through the canyon which could then be covered as opposed to tunneling? Could save a tremendous amount of money.
I also have always thought that the route on the West Side should share a tunnel with the proposed subway to connect Westwood and Century City and then should travel down under Hillcrest Country Club to meet up with Expo around National, Robertson or La Cienega. Would it be cheaper to build portions under golf courses through trenches than full on tunneling?
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 23, 2012 14:45:21 GMT -8
There is an empty canyon called Moraga canyon that runs between Sepulveda canyon and Roscomare canyon (parallels them both, runs right between them) for at least a couple of miles. You can see it when you look down from Linda Flora in upper Bel Air. It is very deep and completely undeveloped, and runs for a couple of miles. A big chunk of it (260 acres of it) was sold a couple of years ago for about $50 million. The question is, can that land be eminent domained so that part of the valley/west side route could be at grade on the bottom of that canyon? Alternatively, in lieu of at grade, could it be built using a trench through the canyon which could then be covered as opposed to tunneling? Could save a tremendous amount of money. I took a look at that, this morning, its an interesting idea that could save a considerable amount of money in tunneling, however I'm curious how deep this canyon is for things such as Fire-Life Safety access in case of a fire and what are the soil conditions there, given its proximity to reservoir nearby. Hopefully this is something that could be looked at for consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 23, 2012 14:47:15 GMT -8
My thoughts on stations are: * Van Nuys Orange Line (at-grade) = run on Orange Line bike path with additional easments = * Sepulveda Orange Line (at-grade) === transition to tunnel === * Venutra/Sepulveda (below-grade) * UCLA - Westwood Village (below grade) * Westwood/Wilshire (below grade) === transition out of tunnel around Westwood Park === * Santa Monica-Cotner (above grade) * Pico/Sepulveda/Expo (above or below grade) I'd probably agree with that as well. Assuming this big bored tunnel that will have 3-5 lanes of traffic and train access is the real deal (I am still skeptical if this can get off the ground), where would you see the tunnels resurfacing on both the Valley and Westside. Maybe Sepulveda north of Wilshire? That is the part that I can't visualize or really see as realistic. Also, it would be a shame then if the train couldn't go on a separate tunnel for a small portion so it could go to UCLA and Westwood and follow the route you laid out. It could theoretically be done with that separate tunnel being paid from other funding and the core tunnel can be a percentage of the cost of this dual toll/transit tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 24, 2012 10:12:01 GMT -8
A central tunnel with rail and car, separate auxiliary tunnels/point of entries for each? I like that idea.
I assume in this case, the central tunnel will have to be near the 405 so that means the rail will have to enter the tunnel under Sepulveda (let say from the Orange line) in the Valley. Cars can either enter from Ventura Blvd or from the 405 itself.
In Westwood, the tunnel could split with the rail tunnel ending at Westwood/Wilshire and the car tunnel exiting at the VA grounds near Federal Ave and with an option to continue on the 405 south to LAX.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Apr 24, 2012 14:51:17 GMT -8
There is an empty canyon called Moraga canyon that runs between Sepulveda canyon and Roscomare canyon (parallels them both, runs right between them) for at least a couple of miles. You can see it when you look down from Linda Flora in upper Bel Air. It is very deep and completely undeveloped, and runs for a couple of miles. A big chunk of it (260 acres of it) was sold a couple of years ago for about $50 million. The question is, can that land be eminent domained so that part of the valley/west side route could be at grade on the bottom of that canyon? Alternatively, in lieu of at grade, could it be built using a trench through the canyon which could then be covered as opposed to tunneling? Could save a tremendous amount of money. Trenching maybe, but at grade does not seem worth it. Building over the floor of an undeveloped canyon seems a very high a price, no matter the savings. I'm almost afraid to ask, but who bought the land and what are their plans for it? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 25, 2012 17:27:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 25, 2012 13:59:40 GMT -8
The Source has Metro's preliminary concepts for Sepulveda Pass corridor: thesource.metro.net/2012/06/22/study-update-on-sepulveda-pass-transit-corridor-many-concepts-under-review/Maps galore at the linked PDF in the article. Concept 1 is a 'throw away' street level Rapid Bus 761 improvements Concept 2~4 is varying degree of grade separation for BRT Concept 5 is full light rail implementation for both ESFV (Van Nuys) and Sepulveda Corridors from Sylmar Metrolink to LAX Concept 6 is similar to my "center spine" tunnel concept above except cars and rail are in 2 completely far apart tunnels (which doesn't make any sense) |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 26, 2012 11:02:58 GMT -8
Does it have to be a tunnel? That area is not very densely developed; we can build a semi-elevated at-grade alignment that runs alongside the hills a la San Diego Trolley Green Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 26, 2012 13:47:45 GMT -8
I think the tunnel vs elevated/at grade point was debated before in these message boards and the consensus is that it would be cheaper and more efficient as a tunnel. The 405 has already reached the maximum width with latest widening and a big chunk of the $1.2 billion dollars actually went to stabilize the side of the hills which were carved out. There is basically no more room to widen the road surface over the Sepulveda Pass. So if you want to build a rail line, it cannot be surface. It will have to be elevated entirely over the pass. However, due to the angle of climb, you will have to construct some really tall bridges, which will be very expensive - way more than the $1.2 billion we are spending to add 1 carpool lane and new on ramps.
In contrast, the tunnel will be relatively simple to engineer, there is no steep grades to worry about, and the route will be more straight/faster. The most expensive part of any underground railroad is the stations. Since there won't be any stations between UCLA and Ventura Blvd, the actual cost of the tunnel is likely to be less than a complicated surface/elevated route over the Sepulveda Pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 26, 2012 14:20:59 GMT -8
The tunnel would be about, what, 8-9 miles? It would probably be the longest continuous stretch of between-station urban transit tunnel in the entire world...
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 26, 2012 14:37:26 GMT -8
More like 5.5 miles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 26, 2012 15:05:23 GMT -8
Hm...I know for sure it's about twice the length of the Cahuenga Pass tunnel, which takes 4 minutes from Hollywood/Highland to Universal City. So...give or take 8 minutes uninterrupted tunnelage. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jun 26, 2012 17:48:06 GMT -8
Assuming it's rail and a tunnel, I've long hoped that this project would include a station under UCLA campus. This would be a great complement to the Purple Line station at Wilshire/Westwood, where the two lines could meet. However after watching last month's meeting, it sounds like UCLA isn't really open to having a station under campus. Another logical option is Le Conte/Westwood. Although it's pretty close to Wilshire, it is a decent middle ground between campus and Wilshire and has good room for portals at the surface. But apparently constructing a subway station there would require near-catastrophic disruption of Westwood Village. Great discussion starting at 47:00 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ii1kimYpTwAnd thanks to the person who records and posts these! One of these days I'm actually going to come to a meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 26, 2012 21:34:31 GMT -8
The Source has Metro's preliminary concepts for Sepulveda Pass corridor: thesource.metro.net/2012/06/22/study-update-on-sepulveda-pass-transit-corridor-many-concepts-under-review/Maps galore at the linked PDF in the article. Concept 1 is a 'throw away' street level Rapid Bus 761 improvements Concept 2~4 is varying degree of grade separation for BRT Concept 5 is full light rail implementation for both ESFV (Van Nuys) and Sepulveda Corridors from Sylmar Metrolink to LAX Concept 6 is similar to my "center spine" tunnel concept above except cars and rail are in 2 completely far apart tunnels (which doesn't make any sense) The one thing that you didn't mention is that Concept 6 involves toll lanes, which could generate tremendous revenue given the demand for quick travel between the SFV and Westside and the incomes of those travelers. That toll revenue could be used to attract significant private investment, i.e. a private consortium that helps fund the cost of building the rail tunnel in exchange for the right to collect the toll revenue for some period of time. In other words: The oft-mentioned by rarely implemented (in the US anyways) public-private partnership. This strikes me as potentially a game-changer for a SFV-Westside rail line. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 26, 2012 22:43:11 GMT -8
However after watching last month's meeting, it sounds like UCLA isn't really open to having a station under campus. Another logical option is Le Conte/Westwood. Although it's pretty close to Wilshire, it is a decent middle ground between campus and Wilshire and has good room for portals at the surface. But apparently constructing a subway station there would require near-catastrophic disruption of Westwood Village. LOL stupid Bruins, I'm proud of USC and its THREE Metro Rail stations! Fight On!  |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 27, 2012 7:12:50 GMT -8
Hm...I know for sure it's about twice the length of the Cahuenga Pass tunnel, which takes 4 minutes from Hollywood/Highland to Universal City. So...give or take 8 minutes uninterrupted tunnelage. I guess that's about 50% longer than the transbay tube between Embarcadero and Oakland, but there's additional above ground track between the portal in Oakland and the first station. I don't think it's ridiculous to have a tunnel of that length if it can be built within a semi-reasonable budget. It will still be much faster than driving over the pass on the 405. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jun 27, 2012 17:50:18 GMT -8
However after watching last month's meeting, it sounds like UCLA isn't really open to having a station under campus. Another logical option is Le Conte/Westwood. Although it's pretty close to Wilshire, it is a decent middle ground between campus and Wilshire and has good room for portals at the surface. But apparently constructing a subway station there would require near-catastrophic disruption of Westwood Village. LOL stupid Bruins, I'm proud of USC and its THREE Metro Rail stations! Fight On! In the spirit of fairness, USC wasn't exactly warm to Expo in its current configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 27, 2012 21:49:21 GMT -8
LOL stupid Bruins, I'm proud of USC and its THREE Metro Rail stations! Fight On! In the spirit of fairness, USC wasn't exactly warm to Expo in its current configuration. And it's not like a few administrators can be said to reflect the entire Bruin community. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 28, 2012 13:26:19 GMT -8
I concur. The students almost certainly will support this, so the same should be with school officials.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 1, 2012 20:42:28 GMT -8
I concur. The students almost certainly will support this, so the same should be with school officials. The comment about UCLA administrators is regarding an east-west Purple Line alignment through campus. That is different from a north-south alignment for a Valley-Westside transit line. Having talked with UCLA administrators about the Transit Coalition's Metro JEM Line concept, they are definitely not opposed to it. |
|
