|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 8, 2011 18:38:40 GMT -8
Metro had a presentation at the San Fernando Valley Service Council meeting this past Wednesday 5 October 2011 of the Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway project. This is the first official public presentation of the project that has been a part of the SFV north-south rapidway corridors outlined in the Measure R list; however, Van Nuys Boulevard will be studied separately from Reseda, Sepulveda, and Lankershim/San Fernando. There will be three meetings on the 24th to 26th of October; with the 26 October meeting occurring a few blocks from the Van Nuys Orange Line station. This is our chance to persuade Metro that this project should be rail and should be part of the I-405/Sepulveda Pass corridor project (which has yet to commence discussions). This is the Valley's second chance for LRT after what happened to the Orange Line. The project's website is www.metro.net/projects/van-nuys-bl-rapidway/ however it's returning a 404 error; also there's no official word yet on Metro's website regarding the meetings. The presentation handout can be viewed online in monochrome or in color with Adobe Reader.   Please like The Transit Coalition's vision for the Valley-Westside/I-405 Rail Facebook page to support the effort to urge Metro to combine the Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway with the Sepulveda Pass Corridor as a single project (which can be constructed in their respective phases) consisting of a LRT route from Sylmar/San Fernando to Westwood (and beyond). Here's a link to Metro's official Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway Facebook page. Attachments:
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 10, 2011 12:33:41 GMT -8
Hopefully, the Orange Line has made them yearn for rail that much more - especially since practically the rest of the county has rail and they don't.
That Lankershim/San Fernando corridor would be a pretty good candidate for a Red Line extension (if that's even possible).
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 10, 2011 16:43:38 GMT -8
Don't feel bad for the SFV, they did not want any rail. And, still they have 2 subway stops. I hope they finally see the errors of their old ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 10, 2011 17:00:29 GMT -8
Don't feel bad for the SFV, they did not want any rail. And, still they have 2 subway stops. I hope they finally see the errors of their old ways. They wanted a subway (underground rail is legally allowed), but they do not have the density to support this. Thus, they got stuck with a busway. I have no problem with the Orange Line busway, I really like it. It just needs more signal priority! |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 10, 2011 19:30:34 GMT -8
They wanted a subway (underground rail is legally allowed), but they do not have the density to support this. Thus, they got stuck with a busway. I have no problem with the Orange Line busway, I really like it. It just needs more signal priority! That's the Robbins Bill enacted two decades ago that made a stern demand for Red Line-style rail/guideway only; it's still in the books and pretty much threw out the cost effective at-grade LRT or even overground HRT Red Line extension options. The busway was a legal compromise that I'm sure 25k riders did not choose in the first place. Don't feel bad for the SFV, they did not want any rail. And, still they have 2 subway stops. I hope they finally see the errors of their old ways. It's not all of the SFV, like how we perceived Cheviot Hills to be opposing of rail, there are still proponents, who probably don't have the time and energy to fight off the NIMBYs. In the SFV, it was the short-sighted voices of affluent Valley Glen, Valley Village, and Sherman Oaks that denied high quality rail transit to the transit-dependent residents of Van Nuys, Panorama City, North Hills, and Pacoima (the highest amount of transfers on the Orange Line outside NoHo is at Van Nuys station to the 233/761 buses). Also the Red Line broke the 100k daily ridership barrier with the NoHo extension - so there is demand. Recently, more people are opening up to urban rail, but there are just a handful of stubborn people with too much time in their hands that will hinder progress. The Orange Line is a done deal for now and it's best we focus our efforts to giving Van Nuys Boulevard a possible rail line, which should be tied to the Sepulveda Pass rail tunnel to Westwood/UCLA/Purple Line, and hopefully farther to the Expo Line, Crenshaw/LAX, and Green Line. This would be The Transit Coalition's vision and proposal; and true congestion relief to the I-405 Sepulveda Pass. |
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Oct 10, 2011 23:15:31 GMT -8
Please LIKE the Valley-Westside Rail page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Valley-WestsideI-405-Rail/220362574667298Also, the staff presentation to the Metro San Fernando Valley Regional Service Council has now been posted online (the full version, in color, of the excerpts Tony placed above): www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/10_October/20111005OtherSectorSFVItem7.pdfThere are three public hearings coming up this month (all are 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM): Monday, October 24: Panorama High School, Van Nuys Blvd. Tuesday, October 25: Pacoima Neighborhood City Hall Wednesday, October 26: Marvin Braude Constituent Services Center, Van Nuys Blvd. & Sylvan These could be the *only* public hearings for the Alternatives Analysis phase. If the Metro board adopts the AA report upon completion of the study, the project would proceed to the Draft EIR/EIS. Right now, the top two priority talking points for transit advocates are 1. Metro needs to study the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass corridors together as one to maximize benefits and connectivity 2. For this corridor, rail is preferable to bus due to travel time, speed, acceleration, capacity, operating cost, pollution, reliability and ride comfort These factors will be crucial for the success of the project in terms of ridership and reduction in car trips. A transit line that is faster and more reliable than driving on the 405 Freeway has the potential for exceedingly high ridership--possibly even higher than the Red Line at over 100,000/day. However, if Metro only studies the Van Nuys segment in isolation, it is quite likely that an intra-Valley ridership would be only in the range of the Orange Line busway. Although busways can be appropriate for corridors with lower ridership potential, here it is already obvious that the Orange Line would have lower operating costs and less crowding if it had been built as rail. Here's the map of The Transit Coalition's vision: www.thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFFiles/TC-Maps-39b-2011-02-22.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 11, 2011 10:06:19 GMT -8
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Oct 23, 2011 18:32:15 GMT -8
The Daily News has published a front-page article in the Sunday paper today on this topic: "Van Nuys Blvd. congestion spurs new transit dreams" By Christina Villacorte, Daily News Staff Writer Posted: 10/23/2011 01:00:00 AM PDT www.dailynews.com/ci_19174896The public hearings are taking place this week: spread the word and come out to support combining the Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass segments, a Sylmar to Expo corridor! Mon., Oct. 24, 6 PM, Panorama High School, 8015 Van Nuys Bl., Panorama City Tue., Oct. 25, 6 PM, Pacoima Neighborhood City Hall, 13520 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite # 209, Pacoima Wed., Oct. 26, 6 PM, Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center, 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Room 1B, Van Nuys |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Oct 25, 2011 19:14:57 GMT -8
Just got back from attending the Pacoima Public Hearing. I have to say I was not expecting to see as many people as I did. There was a lot of people who attended that were generally very excited for this project with a lot of support for the Light Rail alternative. Perhaps the Valley learned its lesson and won't repeat another Orange Line or maybe its too early in the process and the NIMBY's have not caught whiff of the project yet, but i really hope its the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quixote on Oct 27, 2011 16:46:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Oct 27, 2011 21:07:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Oct 27, 2011 21:20:46 GMT -8
The blue/green/teal line does not connect to the purple line. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 28, 2011 5:53:35 GMT -8
That is amazing, only in Los Angeles...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2011 9:55:04 GMT -8
The Valley shouldn't be the step child of transit in Los Angeles having to settle for lesser busways only with no light-rail because of the actions of a corrupt State Senator and a bunch of NIMBYs 20 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2011 10:08:31 GMT -8
The Valley shouldn't be the step child of transit in Los Angeles having to settle for lesser busways only with no light-rail because of the actions of a corrupt State Senator and a bunch of NIMBYs 20 years ago. Overturn the Robbins bill. The Valley has to correct its own law.........it's not Metro's fault. Metro has to work under the legal parameters (i.e. no local funding for subways under Prop A) set by governments/propositions. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2011 10:15:09 GMT -8
The Valley shouldn't be the step child of transit in Los Angeles having to settle for lesser busways only with no light-rail because of the actions of a corrupt State Senator and a bunch of NIMBYs 20 years ago. Overturn the Robbins bill. The Valley has to correct its own law.........it's not Metro's fault. Metro has to work under the legal parameters (i.e. no local funding for subways under Prop A) set by governments/propositions. I totally agree. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 28, 2011 20:54:36 GMT -8
That is completely unacceptable...
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 29, 2011 5:57:59 GMT -8
I have a hard time feeling sorry for the SF Valley. They sued, and sued, and bitched and complained endlessly on every project. I hope that things have changed. When you get a group of people ( much like Beverly Hills) where nothing you do to help improve their transportation options, is appreciated or even considered rationally, and then are hit with a wall of endless resistance, it is hard to want to do anything more.
It is like a customer at a store that demands your attention, but does not know what they want, and when you make a suggestion it is immediatly dissmissed. You cannot help them.
Again, I hope things have changed. We shall see. I see the Valley Van Nuyes corridors as totally important for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Nov 1, 2011 10:10:06 GMT -8
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Nov 1, 2011 15:15:38 GMT -8
The Valley shouldn't be the step child of transit in Los Angeles having to settle for lesser busways only with no light-rail because of the actions of a corrupt State Senator and a bunch of NIMBYs 20 years ago. Overturn the Robbins bill. The Valley has to correct its own law.........it's not Metro's fault. Metro has to work under the legal parameters (i.e. no local funding for subways under Prop A) set by governments/propositions. While overturning the Robbins bill would be nice, it does not affect the mode of transportation on Van Nuys Boulevard or points west; rail can be built at-grade, underground, or elevated along this north-south corridor without any encumbrance from the Robbins bill. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 1, 2011 17:44:37 GMT -8
^ Wait, really? I didn't know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 1, 2011 18:28:15 GMT -8
^ Wait, really? I didn't know that. That is correct. The Robbins Bill only specifically prohibited the construction of any "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" "within the right-of-way of the Burbank Branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad" "between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood freeway." See CA Public Utilities Code Section 130265. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 1, 2011 21:30:39 GMT -8
That is correct. The Robbins Bill only specifically prohibited the construction of any "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" "within the right-of-way of the Burbank Branch line of the Southern Pacific Railroad" "between the western curb of Hazeltine Avenue and a line parallel to and 50 feet west of the western edge of the Hollywood freeway." See CA Public Utilities Code Section 130265. It's good that the Jewish community is now embracing rail, sadly the Orange Line will stay an LRT-ready busway for quite sometime unless they can help support repealing the Robbins Bill and when another version of Measure R passes with funding dedicated to such conversion. If the Metro Orange Line was to only be built from Chatsworth to Van Nuys, it can legally be an at-grade LRT; of course, being orphaned from the Red Line connection would not make sense. What's sad is the boundary defined in the Robbins Bill is the busiest section of the Orange Line as the largest amount of transfers outside of North Hollywood station is at Van Nuys station, and the Orange Line is a key route connecting the residents of Van Nuys, Panorama City, and North Hills. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 7, 2012 17:51:30 GMT -8
So with $180 million+ now available from the finished-under-budget Orange Line extension to Chatsworth, it appears the money could potentially go toward this project (the mayor has already committed to saying that the money will go to San Fernando Valley projects, though he did not say which).
The question is: how far would that money get us to making this a rail line? Probably not very far, but it would at least help pay for the various studies, plus combined with the money already allocated for the project, could make for a nice Phase 1 (Foothill Blvd. to maybe the Metrolink ROW, with a connection provided via a new station at Van Nuys/San Fernando?).
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 7, 2012 20:42:29 GMT -8
It depends on whether the full $100 million (state) and $68 million (Measure R) funds are available in addition to the $180 million. If the total is cumulative, roughly $350 million, and if light rail could be built at-grade for about $40 million/mile, then that would be a little under 9 miles in theory, or about the distance from Sylmar Metrolink to the Metro Orange Line. If federal matching funds are available, then we could tunnel from the Orange Line to Ventura Boulevard in order to avoid interference with the Orange Line and to go under the LA River and the 101 Freeway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 7, 2012 21:33:59 GMT -8
Something just crossed my mind here. The Orange Line has a 2015 deadline to repay the State of California $44 million (from Proposition 108) if it doesn't get converted to rail. In the event that doesn't get waived and Metro does end up paying, is it going to come out of that $180 million surplus gained from the Orange Line extension savings?
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 7, 2012 21:46:24 GMT -8
I am pretty sure it is only $45M under budget. The $180M is the amount of the project, not the amount under budget. $225M was the project budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Feb 8, 2012 1:03:30 GMT -8
In my opinion, if this project has to be split into phases, it makes much more sense to start in the southern, more densely populated, area of the Valley. Especially since that's where the 405 line will go. It would be unfortunate if there were two rail lines, a West LA to Orange line and a North Valley line, with a several mile gap in between.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 8, 2012 21:44:39 GMT -8
The densest area around Van Nuys Boulevard is from Nordhoff to the Orange Line. That said, any potential phasing within the Valley would depend in part on engineering issues, which Metro will have to study.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 9, 2012 5:26:10 GMT -8
The densest area around Van Nuys Boulevard is from Nordhoff to the Orange Line. That said, any potential phasing within the Valley would depend in part on engineering issues, which Metro will have to study. Right, if we follow the street grid approximately (no diagonal tunneling), it's about 2.8 miles from Van Nuys and the Orange line to Sepulveda and Ventura (approximately where one might meet some form of transit coming along the 405). That's more than a rounding error in terms of the cost of building a rail line. In all likelihood, though, I imagine Metro will likely choose bus over rail for both segments. In that case, the 405 line might be extended north to around Burbank or Oxnard, and it would have to be fought out whether there would be through service from the 405 corridor to Van Nuys Blvd. I of course would much prefer rail, but that would depend on Measure R++ being proposed, passing, and prioritizing a combined rail project on these corridors (they're considered to be two projects, and as a result are effectively two political bargaining chips). There are a lot of open hands in LA county, and while I think this is one of the more deserving projects, there will be a lot of politics involved. |
|
