|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Jul 1, 2012 21:04:18 GMT -8
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. You're right about the context of the discussion being the Purple Line Extension, but the points mentioned apply to proposals for this project too. From the meeting: "They couldn't find a place that was big enough to put a 600-1000 foot-long subway box on campus that wouldn't cost them a lot of damage. They (UCLA administrators) weren't supportive of putting a station up on the center of campus." UCLA has been very supportive of the Westside Subway Extension project, but still didn't want a station on campus. If they nixed a good idea on one worthwhile project, it stands to reason that they'll do the same for another worthwhile project ...unless you're talking about a far northern station (like Sunset and Westwood) that wouldn't have been considered as part of the WSE. In any case, I really hope you're right. Westwood/UCLA would be well served by the addition of a second transit station. |
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Jul 1, 2012 22:35:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 2, 2012 11:41:57 GMT -8
I can see why UCLA would be opposed to a station on south campus or near the medical center but I'm sure some sort of accommodation can be made in the north campus near the Anderson MBA complex. The athletic practice field which is above the underground parking garage would be an ideal place to put the subway station but the presence of parking garage would preclude an open cut and cover station construction.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 3, 2012 17:11:10 GMT -8
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 3, 2012 17:20:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Jul 3, 2012 17:53:12 GMT -8
Ah, completely forgot about that page, even though I have liked it as well. Got too much going on. Thanks for the reminder. Maybe the new page will have some sort of an alternative role akin to Gokhan's Hello Expo page. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 9, 2012 1:44:34 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. In the spirit of facts and actual reality, the USC Expo stations are all completed and in operation. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 16, 2012 10:35:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 17, 2012 22:16:39 GMT -8
Thanks for the link to the Daily News article. I heard a radio report on KNX, but couldn't find anything on the KNX website or in the LA Times. There was a Page 2 column in the Friday Times by a writer who's thankful that he doesn't have to use the 405 anymore. It was just about a year ago that Caltrans did a weekend outage that was dubbed "Carmageddon" but turned out to be what one of my musical friends would call a "Big Big Yeah".
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jul 19, 2012 22:23:03 GMT -8
I'm sure the demand was always there; one can't just go off of the ridership of Metro Rapid 761 bus to gauge demand as those that ride it don't have other choices (other than muni buses). I'm pretty sure some drivers on the I-405 freeway don't want to drive the Sepulveda Pass, but what other option do they got? A bus that takes a half hour (or more) in the Pass? For those that were already fed up, it looks like some are going from the Valley to the Westside via Downtown as evidenced by the Daily News report; although in general, I believe Expo Line riders come from all parts of SoCal, the Daily News simply is focusing on an unusual trend (and bringing light on the need for a more direct rail connection).
Besides, those rumors about SFV NIMBYism - if it's true, then how can Van Nuys Blvd end up being the top 10 Metro bus corridor? And the Metro Red Line, it didn't break the 100,000 daily boardings until reaching North Hollywood. The Orange Line - it quickly outgrew itself (that's 18 miles and nearly 30,000 boardings we can't factor into our Metro Rail stats). Now's the time to advocate for the North SFV - Westside Metro Rail (note my emphasis on North SFV).
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 20, 2012 12:59:37 GMT -8
In regards to planning this line, I think they need to make sure the stations on the tunnel can accomodate 5-6 car length trains, but then the problem is going to be extending to the North or South as it will be doubtful you could get anything longer than 3 car trains.
Also, a big problem with this line is that nearly everyone is going to be coming South to the City in the morning and then back to the Valley in the afternoon. Not very efficient operationally. Maybe they can attach additional cars in the first tunnel station or just run more frequent headways in the tunnel section. Something similar will likely have to be done with the Gold Line past Pasadena
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 22, 2012 23:04:18 GMT -8
In regards to planning this line, I think they need to make sure the stations on the tunnel can accomodate 5-6 car length trains, but then the problem is going to be extending to the North or South as it will be doubtful you could get anything longer than 3 car trains. Also, a big problem with this line is that nearly everyone is going to be coming South to the City in the morning and then back to the Valley in the afternoon. Not very efficient operationally. Maybe they can attach additional cars in the first tunnel station or just run more frequent headways in the tunnel section. Something similar will likely have to be done with the Gold Line past Pasadena By a combination of planning standards and sheer luck, north of the Orange Line there is room on at least one side of every likely Van Nuys Blvd. station (e.g., major arterial intersections) for a six-car platform. Since the Transit Coalition has been advocating for grade separation at the Orange Line, which could place the North SFV Valley-Westside line in a trench or tunnel, that would take care of the SFV ROW. South of Wilshire, the options depend both on the alignment and choices regarding grade separation. As for operation, perhaps Metro might decide to have a wye with stub tracks underground at the Orange Line to run short lines, which could boost peak frequency and also provide fully automated, low cost 24/7 service late at night when the line might not need to run at grade, using buses to handle lighter passenger loads on the street-running section. During the day, though, reverse commuting will account for some traffic; this line will channel students toward Mission College and employees to Metrolink and Santa Clarita Transit buses for jobs in the Santa Clarita Valley. If HSR builds a station in Sylmar/San Fernando, then this would be faster way for Westsiders to get there, another source of potential riders. In addition to the North Valley segment, the Sepulveda Pass segment would bring Westsiders much closer to the studios; shuttles from the Orange Line could bring employees to work. |
|
|
|
Post by AnthonyD on Aug 22, 2012 10:15:46 GMT -8
The Sepulveda Pass Project is a planned busway. I believe the continued plans and funding levels for BRT in the SFV is a result of the legal hurdle which prevented the Orange Line from being rail as originally planned, the Robbins Bill. If the Robbins Bill were repealed, it would be a concrete step in voicing our support for rail projects in the SFV.
The Robbins Bill may not be directly related to the Sepvuleda Pass or East SFV Projects, but the Robbins Bill was passed before measure R, before those projects were planned. It's hard to believe that no relationship exist when less dense areas continue to get transportation funding while the most heavily congested corridors in the county (and country) get less then even its population would warrant, let alone need.
[https://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ca-convert-the-orange-line-busway-to-rail?utm_campaign=petition_creator_email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition]Petition to Repeal the Robbins Bill[/url]
Please don't get bogged in the details of converting the Orange Line to rail. It will eventually happen, but not in our life times. This is about communicating our collective desire, through a strong message of passing/repealing a law, to have rail transit through the Sepulveda Pass. We can ensure we don't make the same mistakes in the future by fixing the ones of the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 22, 2012 19:22:08 GMT -8
Anthony, 10 years ago, anyone that would've proposed Measure R would've been considered nuts.
Saying we'll never see the Orange Line converted in our lifetimes (i'm almost 23, with some pretty good family gene history) is just simply ludicrous.
Also, the bridges that were designed on the Chatsworth Extension were reportedly designed to carry light-rail cars, so the long-term planning by Metro is already underway.
|
|
|
|
Post by AnthonyD on Aug 22, 2012 21:24:12 GMT -8
The Robbins Bill may not be directly related to the Sepvuleda Pass or East SFV Projects, but the Robbins Bill was passed before measure R, before those projects were planned. It's hard to believe that no relationship exist when less dense areas continue to get transportation funding while the most heavily congested corridors in the county (and country) get less then even its population would warrant, let alone need. And No longer is the objective to move people from the Valley to downtown. The goal now is to move transit-dependent people efficiently and cheaply around the Valley. "A train from Warner Center to the Music Center is not the solution to the Valley's transit problems,'' Fleming said. "We've got to get a working mother in Pacoima to a manufacturing plant in Chatsworth, and you're not going to do that with an east-west rail line.'' Let's not let a 20 year old mistake ruin our future; help repeal the Robbins Bill: Petition to Repeal the Robbins Bill |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Aug 22, 2012 22:29:20 GMT -8
I admit I could be misinformed, but a North/South railway on Van Nuys Blvd. would not violate any of the provisions of the Robbins bill:
SB 211, introduced by then-State Senator Alan Robbins in 1991, added Section 130265 to the Public Utilities Code, which placed specific restrictions on development of the Burbank-Chandler right-of-way for transit purposes. The three key subdivisions of §130265 are (emphasis in red mine):
In the area between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood Freeway, there may not be constructed any exclusive public mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway system that is covered and below grade.
In the area described in subdivision (c), no station may be constructed, other than a station where the main entrance is located on property that is currently part of the Los Angeles Valley College campus or on that portion of the existing railroad right-of-way located north of Burbank Boulevard and east of Fulton Avenue.
In the area below Tujunga Wash and at least one mile to the east and west of Tujunga Wash, there may not be constructed any exclusive mass transit rail guideway, rail rapid transit or light rail system, or other track, other than as a subway using boring technology as a deep bore subway located at least 25 feet below ground, measured from the existing ground level to the top of the tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Aug 23, 2012 8:56:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by KRS2 on Aug 31, 2012 21:49:53 GMT -8
Someone had asked about how deep Moraga canyon is. It is very deep which is actually a good thing with respect to not having a lot of grade issues. You would just have to tunnel from Sherman Oaks through the north side of the Santa Monicas. However, about a mile north of Mulholland the track would probably be able to punch out the canyon wall into the canyon itself (or buried beneath a shallow trench). As far as emergency vehicle access, it is also attractive. Although the canyon is probably too steep to access from the sides, there is good access from the north off of Mulholland behind Stephen S. Wise Temple and there is excellent access from below, as the very bottom of the canyon above Sunset has a dead-end road that goes up it. As to the other question about who purchased a big chunk of the canyon and what they plan to do with it, I don't know, but the attached link says that the $35 million sale was the largest privately owned parcel in Bel Air, over 260 acres in Moraga Canyon. The link is: www.drewandbrooke.com/about.phpAlso, curious about the thoughts on running it from Westwood to Century City to Robertson Expo line, after it enters the City. By the way, I signed on this time as KRS2, because the message board won't accept "KRS" as it still says that my KRS account is still awaiting approval from the moderator. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Sept 20, 2012 0:50:52 GMT -8
Here's some PowerPoint slides by Metro presented to both the San Fernando Valley and Westside/Central Service Councils. The concepts aren't new as they were mentioned in The Source not long ago; the ordering of the concepts are based on project costs, with the last concept being the most expensive. Note concept 5 ("fixed-guideway rail LRT or HRT transit" that goes from the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station to Century/Aviation Green/Crenshaw Line station, in the SFV via San Fernando Road and Van Nuys Boulevard); this is what we're advocating for, and in fact David Mieger even thanked the Transit Coalition for concept 5. Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update |
|
|
|
Post by KRS3 on Sept 23, 2012 15:27:20 GMT -8
Very interesting. It would be great to see them plan for the same type of train that the Expo line uses, and in fact connect onto the Expo line. Also, is it safe to assume that the folks who are studying this will be thinking through using a trench in Moraga canyon as a cost saving alternative? Do they have that kind of local knowledge of the topography in the Santa Monica mountains? I like to think that anything I can think of, they too would be thinking of. But I don't know if that is a safe assumption.
|
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 26, 2012 11:06:51 GMT -8
Hi All, I'm publishing a plan this week that would fully fund the JEM line/Alternative 5/San Fernando-LAX light rail link. Here's a quick summary, I wanted to get some feedback from this group before it goes public. Summary of The 405 Corridor Congestion Reduction and Transit Construction Plan: 1. Construct direct access ramps to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the 405; 2. When the direct access ramps are complete, transition the HOV lane and one general purpose lane in each direction to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes and add new express bus service through the corridor. 3. Use HOT revenues to fund a light rail link between San Fernando and LAX with a deep bore tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass. Here's a map. For those familiar with Metro’s Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study (conducted by InfraConsult), this is a hybrid between concepts #2 and #5 that uses toll revenues to bridge funding gaps. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 26, 2012 12:52:09 GMT -8
Hi All, I'm publishing a plan this week that would fully fund the JEM line/Alternative 5/San Fernando-LAX light rail link. Here's a quick summary, I wanted to get some feedback from this group before it goes public. Summary of The 405 Corridor Congestion Reduction and Transit Construction Plan: 1. Construct direct access ramps to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the 405; 2. When the direct access ramps are complete, transition the HOV lane and one general purpose lane in each direction to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes and add new express bus service through the corridor. 3. Use HOT revenues to fund a light rail link between San Fernando and LAX with a deep bore tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass. Here's a map. For those familiar with Metro’s Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study (conducted by InfraConsult), this is a hybrid between concepts #2 and #5 that uses toll revenues to bridge funding gaps. It is a good idea and I think Metro may be thinking along these lines as well. There are a couple of problems. The 405 carpool lanes are already pretty full with just carpools and they are pretty much considered too full to convert to HOT lanes. Also, light rail to from the Valley to LAX will cost many billions of dollars. The HOT lanes on the 10 and 110 are only expected to provide in the neighborhood of tens of millions per year, which is being used to operate a few more buses in the corridors. I think the MTA is considering letting a private contractor build a deep bore tunnel under the pass allowing several lanes of traffic to go one way in the morning and another in the evening. As part of this they may have to have room in the tunnel for rail service too. Of course, the contractor would be able to charge a toll for the road portion and it would likely be much higher than what would be charged on the 10 or 110 (with much greater capacity than those HOT lanes). The good points of this are that it would be a public private partnership and might actually get some Republican support in Congress, and it is probably the only way we can get rail in this corridor with the funds we have although that remains to be seen. This is still a mysterious project and I believe we'll have to wait until after Nov. to really see what they are planning here. The big question is where would the tunnel end and how would that traffic be handled on both sides of the SM Mountains. Either way, it would be highly controversial as everything in these areas is. Therefore, it remains to be seen how realistic this is. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 26, 2012 13:39:43 GMT -8
Hi Masonite,
The plan works with year 1 annual HOT revenues at $45 million per year or greater. And by the plan working, I mean that the private partner would earn a 10% return on investment and the project would generate at least $3.25 billion in new funding for the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor.
Even with a quarter of free flow traffic volume in the four HOT lanes (two in each direction) paying a per-mile toll ranging between 20 cents and $1.25 (comparable to I-10, I-110), the plan will generate $120 million per year in my preliminary model. I downloaded 2011 PEMS data for the 405 between I-105 and CA-118 and used that and a lot of assumptions as a basis for the analysis. At $120M/year, the lanes would provide somewhere in the range of the $16-$18B in additional transit funding. This is around the cost of the deep bore 20M tunnel proposal, which may or may not add transit. The hybrid PPP proposal would add light rail transit and leave money to spare.
Modeling traveler response to price changes is not something I can do in excel, so the revenue analysis will definitely require future study. But, because the preliminary revenue projections are more than twice what's required, it seems to warrant future study.
If Metro's truly only expecting $10 million per year from the combined I-10, I-110 implementation, then they may be assuming a higher rate of switching to carpools.
The full plan and a link to the spreadsheet will be available on Streetsblog within the next few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 26, 2012 13:48:38 GMT -8
Hi Masonite, The plan works with year 1 annual HOT revenues at $45 million per year or greater. And by the plan working, I mean that the private partner would earn a 10% return on investment and the project would generate at least $3.25 billion in new funding for the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor. Even with a quarter of free flow traffic volume in the four HOT lanes (two in each direction) paying a per-mile toll ranging between 20 cents and $1.25 (comparable to I-10, I-110), the plan will generate $120 million per year in my preliminary model. I downloaded 2011 PEMS data for the 405 between I-105 and CA-118 and used that and a lot of assumptions as a basis for the analysis. Modeling traveler response to price changes is not something I can do in excel, so the revenue analysis will definitely require future study. But, because the preliminary revenue projections are more than twice what's required, it seems to warrant future study. If Metro's truly only expecting $10 million per year from the combined I-10, I-110 implementation, then they may be assuming a higher rate of switching to carpools. The full plan and a link to the spreadsheet will be available on Streetsblog within the next few days. I want to say the 10/110 express lanes are expected to bring in $60M per year, but I can't remember where I saw that so take with a grain of salt. While I would have no problem converting two lanes in each direction to HOT lanes on the 405, there would be riots in the streets if that were proposed, especially in the Valley. Also, taking away a free lane would likely not be allowed by the feds since the 405 is an interstate. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 26, 2012 14:57:10 GMT -8
Do you think they'd still riot if the lane conversion funded the Orange Line conversion to light rail and the San Fernando-LAX light rail link?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 26, 2012 16:55:22 GMT -8
Do you think they'd still riot if the lane conversion funded the Orange Line conversion to light rail and the San Fernando-LAX light rail link? I'd be all for it. Just saying there are obstacles. Hopefully, the 110 and 10 HOT lanes go well. I've been a big fan of this project even though there are quite a few people of both political persuasions who are dead against it. Ironically, this was a Bush Admin program and this will probably be the sole transit project in LA County that we really got help with from the feds out of that Admin unless you count the Eastside Gold Line, which was really a remnant of the Eastside Red Line which secured funding under the Clinton Admin. One problem with the 110 and 10 project is the transponder roll out is a little awkward and also, it is really unclear as to where the proceeds from the tolls are going to go to. I know they are going to buy some buses, but is the Silver Line going to be improved, are there going to be additional routes or service. I follow transit and it is hard for me to tell, so that means the public has no idea of the benefits to public transit from the project, which is a major lost opportunity unless it changes. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Sept 26, 2012 16:59:12 GMT -8
Like the concept. Not sure how at-grade rail on Westwood Blvd south of Santa Monica would work logistically. Hi All, I'm publishing a plan this week that would fully fund the JEM line/Alternative 5/San Fernando-LAX light rail link. Here's a quick summary, I wanted to get some feedback from this group before it goes public. Summary of The 405 Corridor Congestion Reduction and Transit Construction Plan: 1. Construct direct access ramps to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the 405; 2. When the direct access ramps are complete, transition the HOV lane and one general purpose lane in each direction to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes and add new express bus service through the corridor. 3. Use HOT revenues to fund a light rail link between San Fernando and LAX with a deep bore tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass. Here's a map. For those familiar with Metro’s Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study (conducted by InfraConsult), this is a hybrid between concepts #2 and #5 that uses toll revenues to bridge funding gaps. |
|
juan
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by juan on Sept 26, 2012 17:17:15 GMT -8
Like the concept. Not sure how at-grade rail on Westwood Blvd south of Santa Monica would work logistically. Noted. That alignment is borrowed from the Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study. Any proposal at this stage is quite flexible. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Sept 26, 2012 20:19:01 GMT -8
The JEM line will cost upwards of $200 to $550 million per mile on average. The line is about 30 miles. So, the line would cost anywhere from $6 billion minimum to $16 billion.
Crenshaw will cost over $200 million per mile. The Westside is over $500 million per mile. Do the math.
$10 million per year return from tolls would take up to 1600 years to repay.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 27, 2012 0:38:38 GMT -8
At $120M/year, the lanes would provide somewhere in the range of the $16-$18B in additional transit funding. $16B/($120M/year) = 133 years. Something seems off here. The rest of your calculations seem to have similar timelines of over 100 years. |
|
