|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 18, 2011 19:08:24 GMT -8
Is down to the Expo Line within this limit? To be honest, I think the whole project should go down to LAX. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 18, 2011 20:20:35 GMT -8
More reasons for a Valley-Westside rail line? Thanks to Carter for identifying a few:
- Number of existing car trips
- Permanence of travel market,
- Connecting multiple transit lines
- Attractiveness of dramatic time savings
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 19, 2011 0:22:02 GMT -8
Re: time savings.
Our current light rail vehicles go 65 mph max on the Green Line. I expect there to be a station in the center of the UCLA campus, so the Ventura Blvd to UCLA tunnel (with no stations) will be about 5.7 miles long, and it will take less than 6 minutes. So, a trip from the Orange Line at Van Nuys, to Westwood at Wilshire will take under 10 minutes if it is grade-separated or given quad gates (due to the additional 2.5 miles, plus 3 more stations).
EMUs are available with 90 or 100 mph max speeds, which could save another minute. I'm not sure that would be worth the extra cost for the faster vehicles.
By comparison, Van Nuys and Oxnard to Wilshire and Westwood takes 20 minutes driving without traffic (at 4 am?), and usually 30 or 40 minutes with traffic. People transferring from the Orange line will make it to Westwood faster than driving for trips as far as Reseda on the West, or North Hollywood on the east. Yeah, even with the transfer from the BRT it will be better than Red line to Purple line to get to Westwood from North Hollywood.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 19, 2011 0:36:00 GMT -8
For routing north of Ventura, I suggest below-grade under Van Nuys, until Chandler. There the street becomes very wide (historically there was a Pacific Electric line in the median than turned north onto Van Nuys from Chandler), so the trains could come to grade and have a station at Burbank (since at-grade stations are 1/10th the cost of a subway station). To the north, the light rail line could follow the historic route up Van Nuys, west for 1 mile on Parthenia, and then north again on Sepulveda, before curving north-east on Brand, to central San Fernando (city).
This whole route is plenty wide. Perhaps it is even wide enough to make it an "exclusive right-of-way" for the trains, like on Expo west of Crenshaw, or the Blue Line north of Willow and south of Washington, with quad-gates at all crossings and 55 mph max speeds allowed. With stops every mile, trains could average 30 mph (similar to subway) reliably, and would only take 30 minutes from San Fernando to Westwood. But even if speeds are limited to 35 mph max for street-running, if there is signal PREEMPTION trains could average over 20 mph, taking 40 minutes from San Fernando to Westwood.
Considering that ideal driving time is 25 minutes (1 hour in traffic), even a "slow" median-running light rail line would be immensely popular, due to the straight, fast tunnel under the pass. A BRT to light rail transfer would also work, but there is no reason to force a transfer, if we can make a relatively affordable, at-grade rail line in a wide existing right-of-way.
The key would be to get this built without any grade separations or especially any unnecessary grade-separated stations north of the Orange Line. The main savings on BRT, like the Orange Line, has been the lack of grade-separation, which benefit cross-traffic, not the transit vehicle. Signal preemption, or preferably quad gates ("For safety"! But really for speed and reliability) are what is needed, not grade separations, to get reasonable speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 19, 2011 8:54:20 GMT -8
I love all of the discussion on this topic.
I keep hearing about this line going to Sylmar, but isn't the ending point being studied at the intersection of Foothill and the 210 freeway?
I'm not opposed to the line going to Sylmar, but I think Sylmar would be served better by an extension of the Red Line, either up Lankershim or Laurel Canyon (preferably Laurel Canyon). That way, both areas east and west of San Fernando have rail service.
Then again, the Sylmar Red Line extension may not be built in any of our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 19, 2011 14:16:55 GMT -8
Philip, The official proposal for which the money awarded by the FTA for the study is for just Van Nuys Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard to Sherman Oaks. What we're trying to do here is to tie the project with the unfunded Sepulveda Pass project (make it a single rail line), to align it to service the areas that would have high ridership potential (current Metro Rapid 761 corridor), and make the best connection - Sylmar/San Fernando station, which is already a terminus for a lot of local buses and formerly serviced by Santa Clarita Transit (I'm sure they'd reconsider bringing service back there if Metro Rail, either by San Fernando/Van Nuys or San Fernando/Lankershim, terminated in Sylmar). As for the Sylmar Red Line extension, it's not on Metro's radar, as is the Red Line extension to Bob Hope Airport. I remembered hearing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa suggesting the Sylmar Red Line extension a few years ago, although I would have loved that too as Van Nuys/San Fernando would only be two miles from me. I love all of the discussion on this topic. I keep hearing about this line going to Sylmar, but isn't the ending point being studied at the intersection of Foothill and the 210 freeway? I'm not opposed to the line going to Sylmar, but I think Sylmar would be served better by an extension of the Red Line, either up Lankershim or Laurel Canyon (preferably Laurel Canyon). That way, both areas east and west of San Fernando have rail service. Then again, the Sylmar Red Line extension may not be built in any of our lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 19, 2011 14:55:38 GMT -8
This isn't in the immiediate future, but Sylmar is also on the California bullet train station list.
Of course, the more immediate question is getting up and over Sepulveda Pass to the Westside and LAX, but Cal HSR is one other factor worth considering....
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 19, 2011 16:41:14 GMT -8
^ You're right, I forgot about that. Though the Sylmar station's value in the larger picture of the CHSR sytem is disputable, it's not as questionable as the Norwalk station. But that's another debate. I love all of the discussion on this topic. I keep hearing about this line going to Sylmar, but isn't the ending point being studied at the intersection of Foothill and the 210 freeway? I think that's for the all-Van Nuys route. This maps show the all-Sepulveda route ending in Sylmar (remember, this assumes they're both seperate corridors): www.metro.net/interactives/measurer_projectmap/farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4682965192_a3b73f5c93_z.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 21, 2011 21:11:01 GMT -8
Just wanted to add this link from the Federal Transit Administration. www.fta.dot.gov/news/news_events_12233.htmlAnd this news release dated 21 December 2010. This is their statement for the grant to study Van Nuys (and other regional transit projects): CALIFORNIA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Project: Van Nuys Corridor and Other Regional Transit Projects Grant Amount: $2,000,000 Van Nuys Boulevard between Ventura and Foothill Boulevards is the San Fernando Valley's most densely populated corridor. Significant proportions of low-income and zero-car households live within a half-mile of the corridor, and although bus ridership is among the highest in the county, service reliability suffers due to traffic congestion and overcrowding. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 22, 2011 10:32:42 GMT -8
I am still confused as to whom at Metro we lobby to get these two projects combined.
As long as they are separate there is a real danger they will just be bus projects.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 22, 2011 11:46:13 GMT -8
I am still confused as to whom at Metro we lobby to get these two projects combined. As long as they are separate there is a real danger they will just be bus projects. Elected officials on the Westside and in the Valley, particularly those on the Metro board. We will have targets for outreach; right now we are in the conceptual introduction phase. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 23, 2011 9:05:44 GMT -8
I am still confused as to whom at Metro we lobby to get these two projects combined. As long as they are separate there is a real danger they will just be bus projects. Elected officials on the Westside and in the Valley, particularly those on the Metro board. We will have targets for outreach; right now we are in the conceptual introduction phase. Well, because of our too large legislative districts in California, many Westside politicians also represent the south San Fernando Valley. The main person (but not the only) to probably convince to turning this into a rail project is Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky who represents the San Fernando Valley and the Westside in his ridiculously large district for the Board of Supervisors. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 23, 2011 10:26:47 GMT -8
Bart Reed's media outreach is starting to pay dividends. LAist has a nice feature today on Transit Coalition's proposal to combine the 2 corridors. Looks like the official position that Transit Coalition is taking is a surface alignment on Van Nuys via Metrolink right of way from Sylmar station to Van Nuys Blvd (similar to my proposal), tunnel through the hills, and to LAX via Sepulveda (similar to jdrcrasher's proposal). But the officially endorsed version goes even further by extending the line via the old PE right of way in South Bay to Redondo Beach and then head East on Sepulveda/PCH all the way to Cal State Long Beach. laist.com/2011/02/23/new_la_transit_plan_revealed_in_joi.php?gallery0Pic=6#gallery |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 23, 2011 15:57:22 GMT -8
Bart Reed's media outreach is starting to pay dividends. LAist has a nice feature today on Transit Coalition's proposal to combine the 2 corridors. Looks like the official position that Transit Coalition is taking is a surface alignment on Van Nuys via Metrolink right of way from Sylmar station to Van Nuys Blvd (similar to my proposal), tunnel through the hills, and to LAX via Sepulveda (similar to jdrcrasher's proposal). But the officially endorsed version goes even further by extending the line via the old PE right of way in South Bay to Redondo Beach and then head East on Sepulveda/PCH all the way to Cal State Long Beach. laist.com/2011/02/23/new_la_transit_plan_revealed_in_joi.php?gallery0Pic=6#galleryThis would be a fantastic line and really get support of the Valley and Westside. I especially like the connectivity to Metrolink/Amtrak/HSR, which I think we underappreciate now. I do question whether we have anywhere near enough money to do something like this. I know Measure R has $1B for a 405 line, but not sure how much for Van Nuys Blvd. north of the Orange Line. I fear we are way short of necessary funds to attempt this. |
|
|
|
Post by theconstantg on Feb 23, 2011 16:18:37 GMT -8
This line really should be towards the top of the agenda.
Is there any way to redraft the Measure R plan so that this line could be, say, second priority behind the Purple Line? If this could get built in the next 10/15 years, even a line from the Orange Line to the Expo Line, we would see A LOT of new transit riders and a huge improvement in congestion on the 405 through the pass... plus it would be GREAT PR for Metro and the investment in new housing and business around the line would be amazing for the local economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 23, 2011 17:59:37 GMT -8
I think that the Crenshaw line is waaay ahead of this one in planning. I like the connections to the valley that may bypass the need for the Red line extension to West Hollywood, at least for a while, since there will finally be a connection the the valley that serves the Westside. I think we will need another Measure R to pay for all of this at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 23, 2011 20:47:49 GMT -8
I think that the Crenshaw line is waaay ahead of this one in planning. I think you're right; the 405 Corridor is the last project on Measure R's timetable, if I remember correctly. West Hollywood? I thought the Pink Line subway "spur" was dead in favor of a Crenshaw route north via San Vincente? |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 24, 2011 8:04:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 24, 2011 10:33:56 GMT -8
I think that the Crenshaw line is waaay ahead of this one in planning. I like the connections to the valley that may bypass the need for the Red line extension to West Hollywood, at least for a while, since there will finally be a connection the the valley that serves the Westside. I think we will need another Measure R to pay for all of this at some point. Well, I think those of us who support extending the Crenshaw Line north through West Hollywood might dispute that. But I think Metro can walk and chew gum at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 24, 2011 12:45:10 GMT -8
Looking at TTC's presentation, I agree with nearly every stop in the valley with two exceptions/suggestions:
1) I think there needs to be at least one stop in between Van Nuys/Nordoff and Van Nuys/Laurel Canyon. That’s a two mile stretch that could be remedied with a stop at either Woodman (preferably) or Arieta.
2) I’m really iffy on a Van Nuys/Victory station. I think it’s certainly important, but it’s also very close to the Orange Line. One of these stations is likely to be eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 24, 2011 17:44:07 GMT -8
Yeah I know, it has been shelved and I do favor an extension of the Crenshaw line north. Anhyoo, the I-405 line is a great way to get back into the valley along a different and better route.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 24, 2011 17:45:39 GMT -8
Victory has a lot of future potential for urban development, while Laurel Canyon is built out. I vote for both stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 24, 2011 17:54:51 GMT -8
I think that the Crenshaw line is waaay ahead of this one in planning. I think you're right; the 405 Corridor is the last project on Measure R's timetable, if I remember correctly. West Hollywood? I thought the Pink Line subway "spur" was dead in favor of a Crenshaw route north via San Vincente? Not necessarily. Crenshaw north of Expo is no more of a project than the Pink Line at this point. In fact, at least the Pink Line has undergone real analysis. Crenshaw north of Expo has not. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 24, 2011 17:55:03 GMT -8
Victory has a lot of future potential for urban development, while Laurel Canyon is built out. I vote for both stops. I think we have to be reasonable in costs. Stations will be the most expensive portion of the line. I don't think distance matters as much as destinations on a line. Victory is close to the Orange Line, so I would say eliminate (it's like Crenshaw blvd on the Purple Line, is it really needed?). Also, with a distance of 2 miles, just like the Purple Line between Western and La Brea, there is no need just to stop because it's a 2 mile distance. If anything, a station can be built later as infill if needed. In order to make this line "pencil out", make it as most efficient as possible. Cut the wasted stops (Victory and Laurel Canyon) and only stop at destinations and/or transfer stations. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 24, 2011 18:05:05 GMT -8
I looked at the maps on "LAist" after seeing "Van Nuys/Laurel Canyon" thinking in terms of the south side of the San Fernando Valley and wondering what sort of Non-Euclidean geometry was at work. The map showed that they do meet way up near the Sylmar Metrolink station. Going the other way, the idea of following Pacific Coast Highway rail service (which appears to be the Tan Line :-)) would certainly make beach excursions less of a trial than driving through bumper-to-bumper traffic, assuming there will be shuttles to reach the actual seashore when toting beach gear. The PCH route would be cover some areas unserved by the legendary Red Car system, and others where service disappeared before World War II.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 24, 2011 18:32:47 GMT -8
The lower half of the route I have problems with.
Redondo Beach isn't likely to allow a train on the PE greenbelt ROW. It's now a park and is also used as a walking trail. Besides, why would you build another corridor with what will likely be the same technology when one not that far away is already planned to run parallel to it? It's probably much cheaper and politically better to build the route on the Green Line South Bay route and extend it to Long Beach that way. Also, extend the Red Line to San Pedro instead of the Green Line. Finally, let the Green Line LAX route run on Lincoln Blvd to Santa Monica.
As for Redondo Beach, why not build a streetcar instead?
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 24, 2011 19:31:13 GMT -8
You all are coming up with great ideas for future Questions of the Week!  In the meantime, feel free to check out the one that's going on right now--"Why Build 405 Line Rail Tunnel": transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=valleywestsiderailtunnel&action=display&thread=1004The lower half of the route I have problems with. Redondo Beach isn't likely to allow a train on the PE greenbelt ROW. It's now a park and is also used as a walking trail. Besides, why would you build another corridor with what will likely be the same technology when one not that far away is already planned to run parallel to it? It's probably much cheaper and politically better to build the route on the Green Line South Bay route and extend it to Long Beach that way. Also, extend the Red Line to San Pedro instead of the Green Line. Finally, let the Green Line LAX route run on Lincoln Blvd to Santa Monica. As for Redondo Beach, why not build a streetcar instead? The Metro Green Line alignment successfully avoids the densest areas of the beach cities. It does have value as a focal point for the future South Bay Galleria and Torrance transit centers, as well as a short cut between LAX and the harbor / Long Beach, but it does almost nothing to address the massive congestion of the PCH corridor. It is also well beyond walking distance from those dense neighborhoods. In other words, they are two separate markets, just like the Westside Subway and Expo. Are you sure you would extend the higher capacity service (Vermont subway?) to San Pedro and the lower capacity service (Green Line) to Long Beach, where it would connect with the Blue Line? At first glance that seems counterintuitive based on population and ridership. All that said, your observation about the difficult of getting any ROW in the South Bay is correct: that's why Metro went with the Harbor Subdivision, even though it's not particular well-tailored for the South Bay itself, but at least it provides a good northwest-southeast connection through it. The post-Measure R components are potentially modular: the harbor-Long Beach portion could be done initially as an extension of the Green Line, and only afterward turning to the Beach Cities segment, once locals have the interest to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 25, 2011 15:58:28 GMT -8
I guess we won't find out what route it will take south of LAX for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 7, 2011 20:16:29 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 7, 2011 20:46:00 GMT -8
^ Huh?
Why in the world would you go for a technology that requires you to get OVER the Sepulveda Pass, when you could get THROUGH it with LRT?
|
|
