|
Post by John Ryan on Apr 18, 2011 13:40:49 GMT -8
Looking at the Valley portion, do you think it makes sense to have more closely spaced stations or farther apart? There are quite a few arterials with low density and low ridership (Burbank, Magnolia, Riverside); these might be easy to skip, giving a straight two mile sprint from the Orange Line to Ventura. The tougher nuts to crack are Victory and Vanowen, which are just half a mile from the Orange Line and Sherman Way, respectively: they have above-average density and ridership (high for the Valley), but then there would be six stations in just three miles, with Van Nuys Metrolink and Roscoe/Panorama City Mall to the north. Even without Victory and Vanowen, that's still four stations in three miles. The Transit Coalition's Vision ( maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=205603646852704430923.0004a137eb54b54ab6043&ll=34.185394,-118.404121&spn=0.072989,0.169086&t=h&z=13) includes stops at: - Van Nuys / Ventura
- Van Nuys / Magnolia
- Van Nuys / Orange Line
- Van Nuys / Victory
- Van Nuys / Sherman Way
- Van Nuys Amtrak Metrolink
- Van Nuys / Roscoe
- Van Nuys / Nordhoff
- Van Nuys / Laurel Canyon
- Van Nuys / San Fernando
- San Fernando / Brand
- Sylmar Metrolink/Future HSR
How do you view the trade-off between speed and cost vs. accessibility, especially when combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass Corridors? Perhaps BART-style station spacing to Sylmar (sorry, couldn't resist the pun!) may make sense, with closer spacing on the Westside and further apart in the Valley. For reference, LA County Metro Rail's average station spacing is 1.1 miles. The Transition Coalition I-405 Corridor Vision has an average station spacing of 1 miles (11 miles, 11 stops). What do you think? Closer or farther apart? What stations do or do not merit inclusion ?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2011 21:20:39 GMT -8
What do you mean by "closer"? Closer than 1 mile, or closer than "BART", which actually varies from 1/2 mile (downtown SF and Oakland) to 2 miles or more (suburbs, hills)?
I think 1 mile spacing makes sense in most of the valley. Generally I would prefer light rail to be spaced every 1/2 mile when it runs in a street (which limites max speed), but this route will be so long that it makes sense to have a relatively long spacing between stations. Anything longer than 1 mile will be too much, however. With 2 miles between stations, many people would have to walk 20 to 30 minutes just to get to the nearest station, and more importantly the average person would need to walk 15 minutes just to get to the nearest connecting bus route.
1 mile spacing fits well with the established pattern of bus service in the Valley. If the trains can get an exclusive right-of-way and gates at minor crossings, you could have 55 mph max speeds, and average speed over 25 mph, compared to 20 mph or so with 1/2 mile spacing and 35 mph max speed.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 19, 2011 0:19:31 GMT -8
There's about a 2.5 mile gap between Nordoff and Laurel Canyon that needs to be filled at Plummer, Woodman, or Arleta. Plummer connects with the 167 bus (although the 167 also meets Van Nuys at Chase and Roscoe), Woodman had a connection to the defunct 168 bus, and Arleta connects with the 158. Of the three streets, only the latter two are currently served by Rapid 761 and in my personal obervations, they have decent boardings, in most cases, even more than Keswick (Van Nuys Metrolink). If cost is a concern, then the stations can be skipped in North Panorama City/Arleta, but have space allocated for future station installation when funding can be secured. Regarding interval between stations, Metro Rail averages 1 mile spacing, but some are clustered less than a mile like the Red Line's Vermont/Sunset and Vermont/Santa Monica and Gold Line's Maravilla, East LA Civic Center, and Atlantic stations (3 stations within a mile). If closely spaced stations are possible on the Gold Line (GLEE), then we should pursue such for the densely populated Van Nuys district at Victory, Vanowen, and Sherman Way. I can't see the 165 bus riders being disenfranchised from a potential Metro Rail project unless Metro decides to reroute the 165 like they did with the 167 to connect to the Orange Line's Valley College Station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 19, 2011 13:21:54 GMT -8
I guess it depends on what mode we end up with. If we have BRT, then all the stops Transit Coalition outlined are good idea.
If you have light rail, I would probably skip Magnolia and Victory in the southern portion. I'm not too familiar with north SFV so I won't comment on which station to eliminate north of Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 19, 2011 14:16:06 GMT -8
Eliminate Van Nuys/Victory & Van Nuys/Laurel Canyon.
Then add Van Nuys/Woodman & Van Nuys/Arleta.
That solves the issue of distance between stations.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 19, 2011 19:36:07 GMT -8
Distance between stations can't be such a big deal. I mean look at the Gold Line through East LA. There are some sections between stations that are as little as 2,000 ft.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 21, 2011 9:19:31 GMT -8
I’m no expert on the east side, but my guess is that some of those areas are reasonably dense, hence the amount of stations close by in distance.
The valley, on the other hand, is much more spread out and therefore, stations spaced a bit farther apart or equidistant make sense.
I also happen to think that Woodman and Arleta would make for better locations.
A single station on Laurel Canyon isn’t bad, but would not go as far in terms of getting people out of cars. You could build a parking garage (if there’s space?), but I’d rather see the money go to another station.
A station on Victory is redundant because it would be serving the Van Nuys Civic Center, comprised of many areas basically already served by the Orange Line station. On the Crenshaw Line, having a station in Leimert Park makes sense (despite it’s 0.5 mile distance from MLK) because it’s serving a practically separate community that also happens to be very up-and-coming. This is not the case with Victory. If there’s money to build a Victory station, I’m for it. But if we have to cut corners, it’s worth sacrificing.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 21, 2011 15:13:48 GMT -8
I always find the speed (fewer stations) vs. accessibility (more stations) to be one of the trickier and more interesting debates.
My instinct is to say that 1 mile spacing in the SFV should be the minimum, with erring on the side of wider spacing with some park and rides, and great bike connectivity. Heck, for the cost of one station you could build like 50 miles of bike lanes and a boat load of bike lockers at stations.
Unless there is a dramatic/unprecedented densification of the corridor over the next couple decades, I think it's hard to justify the added cost of more stations and the time penalty.
And of course, you can always build it more cheaply with fewer stations, and then go back and add infill stations -- like BART and DC Metro has done recently -- if the local demand strongly justifies it.
|
|