|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 9, 2012 9:34:49 GMT -8
That Metro is probably preparing to dump two disconnected bus projects in this area is a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 9, 2012 11:00:53 GMT -8
That Metro is probably preparing to dump two disconnected bus projects in this area is a tragedy. But a tragedy we saw coming. I first raised the issue 2 years ago (the reason I signed up for this board) because I found it incomprehensible that Metro would do 2 independent corridor studies and ignore the other parts in each study. The only way this becomes a rail project is if they are combined. Metro's methodology greatly favors existing mode of transit, so anything that will connect with Orange line will favor bus. And in all honesty, if you only consider transit improvements within the Valley, BRT makes a lot of sense. But that is the flaw in Metro's limited scope study... what makes sense within SFV, doesn't make much sense when taken into account future extensions and transit beyond SFV. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Feb 9, 2012 17:16:22 GMT -8
Before we jump to conclusions about what Metro is or isn't planning, I think we should try to keep something in mind that we often overlook on this board, and elsewhere: the staff people who work at Metro are actual human beings, not study-generating machines.
In my experience, at least over the last 2 years I've been paying attention to this stuff, regardless of what happens on the political/economic end, or with the Metro board, the reports prepared by staff typically represent an extremely reasonable viewpoint on the issues.
And considering how obvious it is that this should be a rail corridor (and that I'm sure at least some of the staff reads this board, or Streetsblog etc., where we talk non-stop about why it's so obvious), I really doubt that the rail alternative is going to be just *overlooked* because of the faulty wording in the study initiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 9, 2012 18:10:39 GMT -8
Before we jump to conclusions about what Metro is or isn't planning, I think we should try to keep something in mind that we often overlook on this board, and elsewhere: the staff people who work at Metro are actual human beings, not study-generating machines. In my experience, at least over the last 2 years I've been paying attention to this stuff, regardless of what happens on the political/economic end, or with the Metro board, the reports prepared by staff typically represent an extremely reasonable viewpoint on the issues. And considering how obvious it is that this should be a rail corridor (and that I'm sure at least some of the staff reads this board, or Streetsblog etc., where we talk non-stop about why it's so obvious), I really doubt that the rail alternative is going to be just *overlooked* because of the faulty wording in the study initiation. I agree. The major issue as to why this may not be rail is first and foremost money. Right now, there isn't money to build a rail line from Sylmar to Expo. That is the major obstacle. People are delusion if they think the savings from the Orange Line is going to get this done. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Feb 10, 2012 2:38:29 GMT -8
I agree. The major issue as to why this may not be rail is first and foremost money. Right now, there isn't money to build a rail line from Sylmar to Expo. That is the major obstacle. People are delusion if they think the savings from the Orange Line is going to get this done. I never thought that Metro wouldn't provide rail because they were incompetent, but because of money. Sylmar to Expo would be great, of course, but I think that if an initial segment could be built from the Orange line to the Purple line at Westwood, that would have enormous impact, and might be able to get funding. That would be my vote, with future extensions north and south. Once you have that connection, any future extension in either direction benefits both the valley and the westside, especially connections south to Expo and LAX. I imagine a reasonable chance at that point that the valley could coalesce, much like communities along the Gold line foothill extension, to push for northward extensions along Van Nuys Blvd towards Sylmar. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 2, 2012 20:50:11 GMT -8
thesource.metro.net/2012/04/02/metro-to-hold-community-meetings-on-east-san-fernando-valley-transit-corridor/Looks like Metro is starting another round of meetings, this time broadening the scope beyond just Van Nuys Boulevard to include Sepulveda Boulevard (San Fernando Valley segment) and routing to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station; however there's no mention of tying this with the Sepulveda Pass corridor project as a single continous line. The same alternatives are presented. Please try to attend these upcoming meetings, all from 6pm to 8pm. Thursday, April 12, 2012, City of San Fernando Regional Pool Facility, Aquatic Center Multipurpose Room, 201 Park Avenue, San Fernando. *Accessible via Metro Local 94, 224 (1 block); 234 (2 blocks); Metro Rapid 734, 794 (3 blocks). Note the Sylmar San Fernando Metrolink station is a mile away with connections to Metro Local 230, 292 (there are other local lines that don't run late).Tuesday, April 17, 2012, Cathedral of St. Mary Byzantine Catholic Church Auditorium, 5329 Sepulveda Boulevard, Sherman Oaks. *Accessible via Metro Local 234 (1 block), Metro Local 183 and Metro Rapid 734 (2 blocks); the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda station is a mile away.Wednesday, April 18, 2012, Valley Presbyterian Hospital Auditorium, Jean & David Fleming Health Education Center, 15107 Vanowen Street, Van Nuys. *Accessible via Metro Local 234, 165 and Metro Rapid 734 (1 block); the Metro Orange Line Sepulveda station is a mile away.Metro also changed the project's URL to www.metro.net/EastSFVTransit which at this moment encounters a 404 error.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 4, 2012 13:36:33 GMT -8
www.metro.net/board/Items/2012/04_April/20120404OtherSectorSFVItem6.pdfProject manager Walt Davis will be giving an update around 6:30pm tonight at the Metro San Fernando Valley Service Council in the Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center (6262 Van Nuys Blvd. Van Nuys, CA 91401 located 3 blocks north of the Van Nuys Orange Line station). The project's name has been changed to the "East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor". The attached document shows additional routings on Sepulveda Boulevard, northern San Fernando Road, and even the Orange Line between the Sepulveda and Van Nuys stations as part of the alternatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 11, 2012 1:38:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 12, 2012 13:25:05 GMT -8
Metro's Projects page calls the East SFV and 405 Transit Corridor projects 'bus corridors.' I wonder how much of a cost saving they are expecting by using buses that will run on the same mountain pass as 300,000+ cars without opening it up again to add yet more lanes to the tune of over $1 billion.
Seems like at some point common sense will prevail when adding bus lanes and building a tunnel will cost around the same when involving the pass.
Metro will inch closer to this realization along with that the two projects are really and truly one. I'd rather see this project stalled until a tunnel for rail operations can be afforded than a half-ass or worse yet billion dollar busway from the valley through the pass...
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Apr 12, 2012 19:14:20 GMT -8
I just got back from the first community meeting of the expanded East SFV Transit Corridor
1. Metro engineers are not fond of the idea of connecting this corridor to the Sylmar Metrolink Station since they have been prohibited from using the Antelope Valley ROW, because of High Speed Rail and the planned bike way along the corridor, and San Fernando Road is not wide enough to support anything other than mixed flow BRT.
2. I believe one of the engineers told me that Sepulveda/Ventura is much more congested than Van Nuys/Ventura which makes any infrastructure at that intersection less palatable. This gives me hope that possibility of linking this projected to carpool lanes is out of the question.
3. Sometime this Summer Metro will be holding another round of meetings with possible Hybrid routes for this corridor aside from the All Van Nuys or All Sepulveda options.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 12, 2012 20:30:30 GMT -8
I just got back from the first community meeting of the expanded East SFV Transit Corridor 1. Metro engineers are not fond of the idea of connecting this corridor to the Sylmar Metrolink Station since they have been prohibited from using the Antelope Valley ROW, because of High Speed Rail and the planned bike way along the corridor, and San Fernando Road is not wide enough to support anything other than mixed flow BRT. 2. I believe one of the engineers told me that Sepulveda/Ventura is much more congested than Van Nuys/Ventura which makes any infrastructure at that intersection less palatable. This gives me hope that possibility of linking this projected to carpool lanes is out of the question. 3. Sometime this Summer Metro will be holding another round of meetings with possible Hybrid routes for this corridor aside from the All Van Nuys or All Sepulveda options. (Note to moderator if thread title needs to be changed due to the expanded scope on the East SFV project or merged with the Valley-Westside rail thread.) I was also at the meeting in San Fernando. They had a presentation slide that finally mentioned from public comment regarding connecting this project with the yet-to-be studied Sepulveda Pass transit corridor. Regarding the hybrid option where both Sepulveda Blvd and Van Nuys Blvd would be used (but not in parallel), the changeover could happen at any intermediate street, including Parthenia Street, even though the project map only shows the Orange Line ROW being the changeover route. I was glancing over the aerial maps where the public is invited to write their ideas in addition to the writing pads on easels, public thoughts written were: that bicycles need to be included in the study, continuous rail from Sylmar to Westwood was mentioned, however, as I expected from the Sepulveda/Brand Blvd alignment, someone or some people wrote about opposing running anything on Brand Blvd (in Mission Hills). Mission Hills, unlike North Hills, Pacoima, Panorama City, and Van Nuys has a different demographic, which also holds true in the fact that Metro Rapid 734 doesn't have a stop between Sepulveda/Devonshire and Brand/Laurel Canyon (a 2 mile gap), skipping the very area where opposition was voiced. I forgot to mention that a fourth meeting has been scheduled in addition to the three already announced: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 6-8pm Mission Community Police Station 11121 N. Sepulveda Bl Mission Hills, CA 91345 Served by Metro Local Lines 239 and 234 |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 16, 2012 0:09:43 GMT -8
1. Metro engineers are not fond of the idea of connecting this corridor to the Sylmar Metrolink Station since they have been prohibited from using the Antelope Valley ROW, because of High Speed Rail and the planned bike way along the corridor, and San Fernando Road is not wide enough to support anything other than mixed flow BRT. I'm actually glad this is the case. Yes, it lowers the scope of the initial phase of the project, but it also allows for 1) service along Van Nuys to Foothill Blvd., which is still needed and 2) a future extension of the Red Line to Sylmar (where it belongs). As nice as it sounds, I think a full line from Sylmar to Expo really was wishful thinking; in my opinion, we should re-focus our efforts on 1) making sure the Sepulveda pass corridor is rail that connects from the Orange Line at Van Nuys to the Purple Line at Westwood Blvd. and 2) getting TSM for Van Nuys Blvd., keeping the corridor open for further expansion of the Sepulveda Pass project. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on May 17, 2012 6:25:32 GMT -8
From agenda item 13 yesterday afternoon at the Planning and Programming Committee Meeting in the Metro Board Room: RECEIVE AND FILE the following on the East San Fernando Valley
North-South Rapidways: [HANDOUT]A. The Final Report on the Reseda, Sepulveda and Lankershim/San Fernando Rapidway Corridors; and B. Status Report on the Van Nuys/Sepulveda Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis. Note: Comment period closes tomorrow. They are continuing work on the alternative analyses. Another round of community meetings are scheduled late this summer. This will go to the Fall/Winter Metro Board. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 17, 2012 14:58:11 GMT -8
Well, the report claims that not much more can be squeezed out of buses on this corridor and any "improvements" would be a waste of money. I hope this means they can start focusing on rail on Van Nuys as a northward extension of a Sepulveda Pass rail line that stops at UCLA and Wilshire/Westwood.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 19, 2012 0:02:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 19, 2012 11:36:25 GMT -8
1. Metro engineers are not fond of the idea of connecting this corridor to the Sylmar Metrolink Station since they have been prohibited from using the Antelope Valley ROW, because of High Speed Rail and the planned bike way along the corridor, and San Fernando Road is not wide enough to support anything other than mixed flow BRT. I'm actually glad this is the case. Yes, it lowers the scope of the initial phase of the project, but it also allows for 1) service along Van Nuys to Foothill Blvd., which is still needed and 2) a future extension of the Red Line to Sylmar (where it belongs). As nice as it sounds, I think a full line from Sylmar to Expo really was wishful thinking; in my opinion, we should re-focus our efforts on 1) making sure the Sepulveda pass corridor is rail that connects from the Orange Line at Van Nuys to the Purple Line at Westwood Blvd. and 2) getting TSM for Van Nuys Blvd., keeping the corridor open for further expansion of the Sepulveda Pass project. Instead of getting to Sylmar in one swoop, I'd try for Van Nuys Metrolink if we can. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Sept 20, 2012 1:03:20 GMT -8
I'm actually glad this is the case. Yes, it lowers the scope of the initial phase of the project, but it also allows for 1) service along Van Nuys to Foothill Blvd., which is still needed and 2) a future extension of the Red Line to Sylmar (where it belongs). As nice as it sounds, I think a full line from Sylmar to Expo really was wishful thinking; in my opinion, we should re-focus our efforts on 1) making sure the Sepulveda pass corridor is rail that connects from the Orange Line at Van Nuys to the Purple Line at Westwood Blvd. and 2) getting TSM for Van Nuys Blvd., keeping the corridor open for further expansion of the Sepulveda Pass project. Instead of getting to Sylmar in one swoop, I'd try for Van Nuys Metrolink if we can. As a daily rider of the 233 & 761, I find Van Nuys/Nordhoff to be a better preliminary northern terminus as that is where a large part of Van Nuys Boulevard's ridership starts and ends; the Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak station actually sees little transfer activity between the 169/233/761 buses and Metrolink/Amtrak trains; way less than buses at major intersections between Nordhoff Street south to the Orange Line. BTW, here's info on the upcoming meetings: > Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2012, 6-8 p.m. at the Sepulveda Middle School, 15330 Plummer St. in North Hills, CA 91343. This location is served by Metro Rapid Line 734 and Metro Local Lines 234 and 167. > Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012, 6-8 p.m. at the San Fernando High School, 11133 O’Melveny Av in San Fernando, CA 91340. This location is served by Metro Rapid Lines 734 and 761 (local line 230 stops in front of this school, 234 stops close at Laurel Canyon and Brand). > Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. at the Panorama High School, 8015 Van Nuys Blvd. in Panorama City, CA 91402. This location is served by Metro Rapid Line 761 and Metro Local Lines 169, 233 and 656;DASH Route- Panorama City/Van Nuys. > Tuesday, Oct. 9, 2012, 3-5 p.m. at the Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center, 6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, CA 91401. This location is served by Metro Orange Line, Metro Local Lines 154, 156, 164, 233 and 237 and Metro Rapid Line 761; DASH Panorama City/Van Nuys and Van Nuys/Studio City. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Sept 20, 2012 6:50:03 GMT -8
As a daily rider of the 233 & 761, I find Van Nuys/Nordhoff to be a better preliminary northern terminus as that is where a large part of Van Nuys Boulevard's ridership starts and ends; the Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak station actually sees little transfer activity between the 169/233/761 buses and Metrolink/Amtrak trains; way less than buses at major intersections between Nordhoff Street south to the Orange Line. That's a reasonable point. One thing to consider, though, is whether additional ridership isn't present because there aren't currently better connections through to Westwood. The idea is that it might not make sense to have rail anywhere on Van Nuys if we consider it in isolation, but that having it be part of a Sepulveda Pass rail project would generate new ridership across the entire region. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Sept 20, 2012 9:17:12 GMT -8
As a daily rider of the 233 & 761, I find Van Nuys/Nordhoff to be a better preliminary northern terminus as that is where a large part of Van Nuys Boulevard's ridership starts and ends; the Van Nuys Metrolink/Amtrak station actually sees little transfer activity between the 169/233/761 buses and Metrolink/Amtrak trains; way less than buses at major intersections between Nordhoff Street south to the Orange Line. That's a reasonable point. One thing to consider, though, is whether additional ridership isn't present because there aren't currently better connections through to Westwood. The idea is that it might not make sense to have rail anywhere on Van Nuys if we consider it in isolation, but that having it be part of a Sepulveda Pass rail project would generate new ridership across the entire region. That's my thinking. I see Metrolink riders as more likely to be willing to transfer from rail to rail, than from rail to busway. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 14, 2013 14:54:49 GMT -8
Alternative analysis for the EIR is out... Only 1 LRT option remain vs. 3 BRT so I think the fix is in for buses. The good news is that all the BRT options remaining are median running instead of curb side running, which means the resulting BRT should be pretty high quality. It will also make the eventual upgrading to LRT easier to accomplish. The bad news is only 1 BRT option has a feasible connection point to Sepulveda Pass project (option 3) near Ventura Blvd. Conceivably, Metro could end the BRT well short of the Sepulveda Pass project and the two will not meet. thesource.metro.net/2013/01/14/alternatives-analysis-released-for-east-san-fernando-valley-transit-corridor-project-bus-rapid-transit-and-light-rail-on-van-nuys-boulevard-recommended-for-further-study/ Edit: for the lazy, here is the summary LRT option: Sylmar Metrolink Station to Ventura Blvd via Van Nuys Blvd - highest boarding potential and most community support BRT option1: Sylmar Metrolink Station to Orange Line Van Nuys Station via Van Nuys Blvd. Buses will run in mixed traffic (!!!) to Ventura Blvd - this is a pretty terrible option. BRT option2: Sylmar Metrolink Station to Orange Line Sepulveda Station via Van Nuys Blvd and Orange line - not much different than option 1 other than that buses will crowd onto the Orange line for 1 mile between Van Nuys and Sepulveda. BRT Option 3: Sylmar Metrolink Station to Ventura Blvd via Van Nuys Blvd, Orange Line, and Sepulveda Blvd - the best of the BRT option as it provides for dedicated bus lane all the way to Ventura Blvd with possible direct connection to the Sepulveda Pass project. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Jan 14, 2013 18:15:39 GMT -8
Like it. However, I prefer the long view.
This line should be the extension of a Sepulveda Pass project. And, as a high capacity subway line. Light rail in the street is lower capacity and more prone to disruptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Jan 14, 2013 19:14:27 GMT -8
My preferred choice would be LRT preferably in stages to help bring down the huge budget gap for the full alignment (this was mentioned in the AA report).
If Metro deems it unfeasible due to the financial constraints then my preferred BRT option would be number 1.
Im really not a fan of having the Line end at Sepulveda and Ventura on the basis that I REALLY don't like the massive Car/Rail Tunnel Idea that Metro has been floating around to fund the Sepulveda Pass Project and how ending the line there ties into that idea.. The Last thing this City needs is another massive car based piece of infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 15, 2013 16:15:37 GMT -8
My preferred choice would be LRT preferably in stages to help bring down the huge budget gap for the full alignment (this was mentioned in the AA report). If Metro deems it unfeasible due to the financial constraints then my preferred BRT option would be number 1. Im really not a fan of having the Line end at Sepulveda and Ventura on the basis that I REALLY don't like the massive Car/Rail Tunnel Idea that Metro has been floating around to fund the Sepulveda Pass Project and how ending the line there ties into that idea.. The Last thing this City needs is another massive car based piece of infrastructure. I really think Metro is going to go with BRT here. There just isn't the money for LRT. I think the best we can hope for is an outcry for rail, then a PPP to make two lanes of the 405 into HOT lanes (each way) with some of the proceeds to help fund rail through the Pass. Unfortunately, this still isn't enough. We'd need a post Measure R to get rail in here. This would be a really great line that ultimately would help get the Valley, the Westside and South Bay behind rail and should be a centerpiece behind a new Measure J campaign in 2016. The ridership would be crazy big here. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 15, 2013 17:47:09 GMT -8
I really want and believe the region needs a north-south rail line between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX.
That said, I expect Metro to pick BRT and of those, Option 3 is probably the best.
The San Fernando Valley really s*****d the pooch when they allowed NIMBY's to turn the Orange Line into a busway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest387 on Jan 15, 2013 20:24:15 GMT -8
I'd choose "do nothing" unless it was real.
But, how realistic is doing nothing... Until enough money is identified to pursue rail?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 16, 2013 8:14:01 GMT -8
I really want and believe the region needs a north-south rail line between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX. That said, I expect Metro to pick BRT and of those, Option 3 is probably the best. The San Fernando Valley really s*****d the pooch when they allowed NIMBY's to turn the Orange Line into a busway. My god, is repealing the Robbins bill really that difficult? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 16, 2013 9:03:55 GMT -8
Well, not one candidate running in the San Fernando Valley is proposing it or working on it.
This just doesn't seem to be a legislative priority of transit activists. Even if it is never built, we should seek legislative repeal in principle.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Jan 16, 2013 10:26:04 GMT -8
My god, is repealing the Robbins bill really that difficult? The Robbins law has nothing to do with this corridor. I doubt MTA would even be proposing light rail on this corridor if it was prohibited by this law without repealing it first. The language in the law only affects a portion of the Burbank/Chandler ROW, namely: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 16, 2013 14:48:30 GMT -8
I really want and believe the region needs a north-south rail line between Sylmar Metrolink and LAX. That said, I expect Metro to pick BRT and of those, Option 3 is probably the best. The San Fernando Valley really s*****d the pooch when they allowed NIMBY's to turn the Orange Line into a busway. My god, is repealing the Robbins bill really that difficult? Repeal is not the point. Dan is talking about Metro's EIR methodology that favors existing modes. BRT for Van Nuys is a foregone conclusion because it connects with another BRT. If Orange Line was LRT, the score for "existing modes" section of EIR alternative evaluation will favor LRT. Since Orange Line is the fact on the ground, BRT will always be favored whenever any future transit project is evaluated in SFV. It's the same reason why Crenshaw became LRT... because Expo exists, and that gave Crenshaw LRT a higher score than BRT on existing mode compatibility - the exact opposite outcome of Van Nuys. This despite the fact that Van Nuys corridor has higher ridership than Crenshaw. That's what Dan mean by "screwed the pooch". That one NIMBY decision years ago will forever haunt the Valley. If you go back to earlier in this thread (and also the Sepulveda Pass thread), I pointed out this exact bias in Metro's EIR methodology. And I said that the only way to overcome this is if Van Nuys and Sepulveda Pass were combined. Because that way, the existing mode becomes heavy rail (Purple line) and BRT (Orange), and perhaps even LRT (Expo, if the study corridor area is extended south to LAX); and the existing mode score will not heavily be biased towards BRT. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 16, 2013 14:59:11 GMT -8
My god, is repealing the Robbins bill really that difficult? The Robbins law has nothing to do with this corridor. I doubt MTA would even be proposing light rail on this corridor if it was prohibited by this law without repealing it first. The language in the law only affects a portion of the Burbank/Chandler ROW, namely: 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.Correct, by the fact that Orange line is a busway means all future transit projects in SFV will be preferences towards BRT. Whether or not Robbins law exists or not. |
|
