|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 7, 2011 22:40:57 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? I'm not advocating for that, I'm saying that 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. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 8, 2011 0:52:50 GMT -8
Thank you for providing another angle of insight on this topic; that's exactly the kind of discussion we need here!
Studying the two segments together could have that effect--and it's good that Jerard is alerting us to it--but it could also bolster the case for an all-rail project due to the higher potential ridership of a service that is significantly faster, whether it is from Sepulveda or Van Nuys to Westwood.
Conversely, if we study each segment separately, with the Valley portion first, the Valley portion could wind up with BRT. The connection to the Westside will increase the ridership of the Valley segment as well, boosting the case for rail in the Valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 8, 2011 10:28:35 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? I'm not advocating for that, I'm saying that 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. That's the chance I'm willing to take. If the studies are separate, we are GUARANTEED 2 unconnected and incompatible corridors. If the studies are combined, we are at least guaranteed 1 continuous service mode (be it BRT or LRT). And clearly, with the Westside segment added, there is a compelling case to be made that ridership projection will tip in favor of rail. But even if it ends up as BRT, it is still better than 2 unconnected and incompatible corridors. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 9, 2011 2:16:50 GMT -8
I think part of Jerard's concern may be coming from how the "San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways" have been envisioned within Metro as BRT.
However, Measure R does not specify this project as BRT, and the announcement that Metro made for the Alternatives Analysis explicitly includes both LRT and streetcar as well as BRT and TSM, so it is not a foregone conclusion that even a stand-alone Valley segment would be BRT.
Thus, combining the Valley segment and the Sepulveda Pass segment does not guarantee that the Sepulveda Pass segment will be BRT due to the Valley segment; both still remain to be scoped and defined.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 9, 2011 7:03:39 GMT -8
I just want to say that if the line is built as BRT, the chances of it being converted to rail or slim in the future. I know many want an interconnected line but I would rather see LRT to BRT with a transfer than all BRT, no matter how illogical that seems. The light rail part can be connected to the northern spur of the green line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 21, 2011 19:26:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 21, 2011 21:02:19 GMT -8
Here's the same article that most likely originated from the the Contra Costa Times' sister publisher, LA Daily News. Didn't want to give the wrong impression that the East Bay wrote an article about Van Nuys Boulevard. www.dailynews.com/ci_17661125?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.comAnyways, I have not heard anything official from Metro regarding going with the busway, however, this is no surprise as the suggestion to tunnel a busway in the district of Van Nuys came up around this time last year. Metro only recently mentioned LRT and streetcars during the FTA grant announcement in December 2010, however, I had low hopes of rail happening in the Valley after what happened with the Orange Line. I hope that with the Van Nuys busway project, Metro can run certain trips mirroring the 902, but with Rapid spacing, and with Orange Line frequencies. It seems the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council is active with this project. I'm curious about their stance as the VNNC is proposing redeveloping the Van Nuys area to be "village-like". So if Van Nuys gets stuck with being a busway, can there be hope that the Sepulveda Pass project be HRT now? |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 21, 2011 23:31:18 GMT -8
Curbed also mentions about the project and quotes a source that LRT (or streetcar) is still an option, it's just the LA Daily News making no mention of it. I also reread the story on the LA Daily News regarding the VNNC's desire to transform Van Nuys Boulevard into a "village". I have a feeling that their stance of wanting transit to stay underground (out of sight of their proposed "village") would be detrimental to getting anything running through that part of the corridor if they force Metro to spend a large amount of money to pursue it and succumb to less attractive alternatives; no different than how the Robbins Bill (PUC CODE § 130265) prohibited any below, above, or at-grade guideways on the Orange Line ROW between Hazeltine and SR170 other than a subway. It makes me curious as to what demographic the VNNC comprises of - I'm pretty sure it's not the demographic that rides the 233, 761, or 902 (probably not even the Orange Line). Really, if the people who are tired of slogging on the 761 want rail, there needs to be advocacy from that group; because if that advocacy from East SFV Metro riders existed 10 years ago, the Orange Line may have been LRT, and the mode would not be prescribed by a certain selfish group of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 22, 2011 19:07:00 GMT -8
Anyways, I have not heard anything official from Metro regarding going with the busway, however, this is no surprise as the suggestion to tunnel a busway in the district of Van Nuys came up around this time last year. Metro only recently mentioned LRT and streetcars during the FTA grant announcement in December 2010, however, I had low hopes of rail happening in the Valley after what happened with the Orange Line. I hope that with the Van Nuys busway project, Metro can run certain trips mirroring the 902, but with Rapid spacing, and with Orange Line frequencies. It seems the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council is active with this project. I'm curious about their stance as the VNNC is proposing redeveloping the Van Nuys area to be "village-like". So you mean there isn't enough advocacy for light-rail? But how could that be? We just expressed to the public, as well as to Metro, our coalition's valid and solid reasons for supporting LRT. LRT is still the best option. The only purpose of having it HRT would be to connect with the Purple Line, and not heading further down to LAX and beyond. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 22, 2011 22:11:59 GMT -8
So you mean there isn't enough advocacy for light-rail? But how could that be? We just expressed to the public, as well as to Metro, our coalition's valid and solid reasons for supporting LRT. I can tell you that I never got active with public transit until fall 2005, coinciding with me starting my job in East Hollywood (using the Red Line) and the opening of the Orange Line. I've been a Valley resident all my life living at the northern edge of Panorama City. With that, I was never aware of the SFV East-West Rapidway project when scoping meetings were held, only to have to suffer in using the mode dictated indirectly by the opposition of the past. If I was in that position back then, imagine how many current Van Nuys Boulevard Metro riders are out of the loop regarding the goings on in Metro; let alone NextBus - I know the bus riders on Van Nuys are not aware of NextBus and I always see riders getting on the 233 north at Aetna not knowing the 761 is 4 minutes away. Anyways, what I'm getting at is that there isn't a lot of opposition in the Valley, it's just that the opposition is more vocal and those who would advocate for better transit are not being active, not keeping up with Metro news (outside of mass media), or have no time to do so because they are too busy making ends meet. I'm going for LRT also. Metro in one news release placed that option, along with a streetcar, in their consideration. However, we won't know if rail will be considered as part of the Alternatives Analysis until the scopings. The LA Daily News, reporting from a source outside of Metro, did not write anything about the rail option for Van Nuys. Also, we're still at the point to where Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass are separate projects; although a long shot, if Van Nuys can be chosen as LRT, it could leave a possibility of tying it with the Sepulveda Pass project. The LAUS - Pasadena and LAUS - East LA Gold Line projects originated as separate projects as the Blue Line extension and Red Line extension, respectively; only to become one unified Gold Line. That's a possibility we can hope for the two Valley projects even if they are studied separately. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 23, 2011 8:28:01 GMT -8
I would love to see a LRT between Sylmar and LAX, but there is real danger this will be BRT if the projects are combined.
It is odd that there just isn't the same transit advocacy for rail in the San Fernando Valley as there is in the San Gabriel Valley, where all of the elected officials are unified and they are likely to get 2 or 3 light rail extension.
The only way to overcome the NIMBYs in Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills and elsewhere is overwhelming public support for a project so that the elected officials believe they can safely carry the risk of angry NIMBYs.
It is very sad that the Robbins bill passed and that the Valley is stuck with a lesser BRT line. However, what candidates running for office in the Valley are even aware of the Robbins bill and are willing to pledge to repeal it?
Part of the problem with our too large legislative districts is that most of the elected officials representing the south San Fernando Valley are also representing the Westside where their base of support and voters are -- and they are all focused on the Purple Line and Expo Line extensions if they are focused on transit at all.
I don't want to see BRT instead of LRT through the Sepulveda Pass and if the there is a Van Nuys busway, there is still a possibility that the Sepulveda Pass project could be LRT at least up to the Orange Line and maybe Metrolink.
It's a tough call on how to proceed, whether combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects makes the Sepulveda Pass project more likely to be LRT or BRT, but I'm inclined to agree with Jerard.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 23, 2011 10:30:57 GMT -8
I totally agree that this line will be built as BRT in the valley as there seems to be no support for anything much at all (wasn't the valley opposed to the initial Orange line construction?) and the precedence has been set with the Orange line and its current expansion to Chatsworth. I think and/or hope that the 405 connection line, wherever it may go, will be at least LRT. But I have the feeling the whole lot will be BRT. It's sad but there you have it – it does appear to work and is cheap at least to build (not operate). Time will tell. There may be a future extension of the Red line in the Valley - someday. I would love to see a LRT between Sylmar and LAX, but there is real danger this will be BRT if the projects are combined. It is odd that there just isn't the same transit advocacy for rail in the San Fernando Valley as there is in the San Gabriel Valley, where all of the elected officials are unified and they are likely to get 2 or 3 light rail extension. The only way to overcome the NIMBYs in Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills and elsewhere is overwhelming public support for a project so that the elected officials believe they can safely carry the risk of angry NIMBYs. It is very sad that the Robbins bill passed and that the Valley is stuck with a lesser BRT line. However, what candidates running for office in the Valley are even aware of the Robbins bill and are willing to pledge to repeal it? Part of the problem with our too large legislative districts is that most of the elected officials representing the south San Fernando Valley are also representing the Westside where their base of support and voters are -- and they are all focused on the Purple Line and Expo Line extensions if they are focused on transit at all. I don't want to see BRT instead of LRT through the Sepulveda Pass and if the there is a Van Nuys busway, there is still a possibility that the Sepulveda Pass project could be LRT at least up to the Orange Line and maybe Metrolink. It's a tough call on how to proceed, whether combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass projects makes the Sepulveda Pass project more likely to be LRT or BRT, but I'm inclined to agree with Jerard. |
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 23, 2011 14:53:23 GMT -8
Well it seems like us transit advocates will need to walk and chew gum at the same time, by simultaneously advocating for LRT on Van Nuys, while still trying to get one contiguous project from Sylmar to Westwood and beyond.
Because if you can do the former, then it makes linking those projects so much easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 23, 2011 20:53:51 GMT -8
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that BRT is the inevitable outcome, should the Van Nuys and Sepulveda projects be combined. LRT just makes so much more sense on so many levels, from connectability, to speed, to efficiency, etc.
Could someone be able to set up a website advocating for such a project? You know, kind of along the lines of what was done for the Silver (LRT) and Pink lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 23, 2011 21:50:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 23, 2011 22:01:17 GMT -8
I thought I'd post an old video of the 761 bus from June 2008 showing the ridership at 6:40am. It may look somewhat light, but that's the Woodman stop; the next stop, Nordoff, is where the 761 gets packed. This was also at a time when morning southbound 761 runs had 7 minute headway (6 minute headway prior to June 2006 when NABI 60BRT articulated buses were placed into service), but since the December 2010 system-wide service trimmings, it's at 10 minute headway now. Remember, in the San Fernando Valley, outside of the Orange Line, only Van Nuys Boulevard has articulated buses for Local 233 and Rapid 761 (I even made that point in the Van Nuys Boulevard Wikipedia page). www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSoA-5goTwY |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 24, 2011 3:31:26 GMT -8
the Orange Line may have been LRT, and the mode would not be prescribed by a certain selfish group of people. The right of way would have remained fallow. The neighbors of the right of way saw to it. Zev, who was going through his Curitiba phase, was only going to go to bat for the now-Orange Line if it were a busway. Plus, the decision was made at the height of the secession question, and a big transit project was able to pacify the "fair share" crowd. The Valley was going to get a busway or nothing. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Mar 24, 2011 10:53:31 GMT -8
Why does Eric from Silver Lake thinks there's no hope for LRT in the Valley? Expo has taught us that defeat by NIMBYs is not inevitable. Using objective criteria, a consolidated I-405 Corridor LRT project would be very competitive. One of the most relevant factors here is level of traffic on the I-405. According to USDOT, the I-405 has the highest amount of traffic of any highway in America: www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tables/02.cfmUSDOT does not indicate where along the I-405 Freeway does this 374,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic level occurs, but with the 405-10 and 405-101 as two of the top freeway interchanges in the country in terms of traffic volume, clearly the Sepulveda Pass is either at or close to the level of traffic at the peak point measured by USDOT. The documented level of mobility demand along this corridor that would justify a high capacity transit service is clear. LRT can provide a comparable level of capacity to HRT if the number of cars per train is similar. Now hopefully everyone can see where the Questions of the Week have been building toward: policy makers and stakeholders need to understand the options here. In order to help them understand, this discussion board helps us develop our ideas and messaging. I totally agree that this line will be built as BRT in the valley as there seems to be no support for anything much at all (wasn't the valley opposed to the initial Orange line construction?) and the precedence has been set with the Orange line and its current expansion to Chatsworth. I think and/or hope that the 405 connection line, wherever it may go, will be at least LRT. But I have the feeling the whole lot will be BRT. It's sad but there you have it – it does appear to work and is cheap at least to build (not operate). Time will tell. There may be a future extension of the Red line in the Valley - someday. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 24, 2011 19:10:01 GMT -8
^ I agree. We should not allow SFV NIMBYs to turn this into another Orange Line. The Valley was going to get a busway or nothing. I'm still hoping that if/when the Yellow Line LRT is built (probably after Measure R's projects), politicians can take another look at the Robbins bill and scrap it. Doing this would allow the Orange Line to be converted to LRT so it can connect with the Yellow Line. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 3, 2011 15:56:55 GMT -8
I hope the Orange line gets converted to light rail (and I think it should have been built as light rail in the first place) I just don't see the valley doing much to make this happen, unlike the will and desire found in the San Gabriel valley.
Nothing is impossible though, as you say, look at Expo.
As for this Valley Westside connection, that i think could very well end up being light rail or heavy rail. I sure hope so. BRT should always be avoided at all costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 3, 2011 20:46:22 GMT -8
I wish the ridership can speak in lieu of advocating, particularly on the 761 weekend. I took a trip to Woodland Hills from Pacoima riding the 761 (which is 30 minute headway weekends, compounded with 15 minute headway local 233, paralleling the 761 in the Valley portion) and the Orange Line. The 761 from Roscoe to Victory was standing room only while the Orange Line had seats and elbow room (although I believe the bulk of the OL ridership is NoHo - Van Nuys). Going back, there was standing room only on the Orange Line from Reseda station and the 761 was already packed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 3, 2011 21:26:01 GMT -8
I wish the ridership can speak in lieu of advocating, particularly on the 761 weekend. I took a trip to Woodland Hills from Pacoima riding the 761 (which is 30 minute headway weekends, compounded with 15 minute headway local 233, paralleling the 761 in the Valley portion) and the Orange Line. The 761 from Roscoe to Victory was standing room only while the Orange Line had seats and elbow room (although I believe the bulk of the OL ridership is NoHo - Van Nuys). Going back, there was standing room only on the Orange Line from Reseda station and the 761 was already packed. Unfortunately, a bus that is "standing room only" may be considered to be only at 70% capacity, according to Metro, since another 20 people could cram on. The capacity of a bus in the number of seats plus a nearly equal number of standees. With light rail vehicles, the max capacity is often three times the number of seats, or more. |
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Apr 10, 2011 23:58:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 28, 2011 22:07:13 GMT -8
Van Nuys Boulevard north of Oxnard Street at the Van Nuys Metro Orange Line station. This what typically the evening rush of riders transferring off of the Orange Line to either the Local 233 or Rapid 761.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2011 11:46:01 GMT -8
On Metro's Measure R progress report, they mention something about exploring a public private partnership (PPP) for this line. Not sure how that would work exactly if it is a true PPP.
Too bad this project is not better defined. Its need will really show July 16-18 when the 405 is shut down. This would be a golden opportunity to get support behind this project. It looks like the 405 will have to be shut down again one more time for the other half of the Mulholland Bridge in the future so perhaps next time, it will work out better.
I've always like the idea of charging a small toll ($1) or so on the 405 from the Valley into the Westside. We could then fund an entire line from the North end of the Valley to LAX. However, I realize there would be a few problems with that and quite an outrage and is probably sheer fantasy....
|
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 19, 2011 19:02:34 GMT -8
On Metro's Measure R progress report, they mention something about exploring a public private partnership (PPP) for this line. Not sure how that would work exactly if it is a true PPP. Too bad this project is not better defined. Its need will really show July 16-18 when the 405 is shut down. This would be a golden opportunity to get support behind this project. It looks like the 405 will have to be shut down again one more time for the other half of the Mulholland Bridge in the future so perhaps next time, it will work out better. I've always like the idea of charging a small toll ($1) or so on the 405 from the Valley into the Westside. We could then fund an entire line from the North end of the Valley to LAX. However, I realize there would be a few problems with that and quite an outrage and is probably sheer fantasy.... Actually, Transit Coalition is gathering and moving certain elements of public opinion forward. We have a resolution of support that is being presented to various Neighborhood Councils for support and an actual Letter of Support is our deliverable we are working to obtain. If you would like to help make this project happen, we need Volunteers to work with NC's to bring the resolution through their system. Write, if you would like to volunteer to help. We have already gotten support from the Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 14, 2011 13:12:25 GMT -8
Does anyone know if the Maintenance Facility in Expo Phase II is going to be large enough to accomodate a line from Expo to the Valley? I am guessing not, as this Valley line could be very high capacity. If not, a separate maintenance facility will have to be built and that in itself is going to take most of the $1B.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 17, 2011 4:28:29 GMT -8
Does anyone know if the Maintenance Facility in Expo Phase II is going to be large enough to accomodate a line from Expo to the Valley? It seems Metro has to build a maintenance division for each line. That would likely hold for this line. I never thought it was a good idea -- anyone know if there's an operational rationale that sounds plausible in the real world? |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 17, 2011 6:54:37 GMT -8
Does anyone know if the Maintenance Facility in Expo Phase II is going to be large enough to accomodate a line from Expo to the Valley? It seems Metro has to build a maintenance division for each line. That would likely hold for this line. I never thought it was a good idea -- anyone know if there's an operational rationale that sounds plausible in the real world? I think that it just happened that way because the lines were built at different times. Had the lines been built concurrently (along with the downtown connector) there would likely be one main yard near downtown and maybe a yard for the green line. Remember the blue line yard was originally to be expanded to handle additional trains for Expo, but IIRC Metro couldn't buy the adjacent property and had to build a separate facility for Expo. And while a combined Expo/Crenshaw yard appears to make sense, it doesn't look like there will be a connection between the two lines. Also IIRC Metro did look at building a yard on the east side of the LA River that would replace the gold line yard and serve the Blue/Expo lines once the connector opened, but I guess that logistically they ended up needing the additional capacity sooner rather than later. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 4, 2012 16:15:35 GMT -8
On Metro's Measure R progress report, they mention something about exploring a public private partnership (PPP) for this line. Not sure how that would work exactly if it is a true PPP. Too bad this project is not better defined. Its need will really show July 16-18 when the 405 is shut down. This would be a golden opportunity to get support behind this project. It looks like the 405 will have to be shut down again one more time for the other half of the Mulholland Bridge in the future so perhaps next time, it will work out better. I've always like the idea of charging a small toll ($1) or so on the 405 from the Valley into the Westside. We could then fund an entire line from the North end of the Valley to LAX. However, I realize there would be a few problems with that and quite an outrage and is probably sheer fantasy.... It looks like Art Leahy mentioned in his talk to the Transit Coalition that the PPP aspect of this could include tolling. I assume he is talking about converting the new carpool lane to a HOT lane similar to the 10 and 110. Hopefully, Metro doesn't screw up the current project with their transponders (on the 10 and 110). This is a great way to fund transit and it would be perfect in this corridor as people have to get to the airport sometimes in a hurry and would be willing to spend the money to do so on this congested corridor where there are no real alternatives. Since this JEM or 405 Line is severly underfunded right now, this would be a great way to fund a functional line. It seems like this is a line that could get New Starts funds assuming New Starts actually exists by the time this line comes around. I really can't wait for the Alternative Analysis on this project. I believe the Purple Line team was going to largely do it and now with the EIR done for that project, hopefully they will start on the planning on this one soon. A Sylmar to LAX light rail line with connections to the Green, Crenshaw, Expo, Purple, Orange and multiple Metrolink lines will have huge ridership. Just having a Valley to UCLA/Westwood line that does the trip in 10 minutes or less will have huge ridership on its own. |
|
