|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 16, 2013 15:11:23 GMT -8
My god, is repealing the Robbins bill really that difficult? Repeal is not the point. Dan is talking about Metro's 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 alternatives will favor LRT. Since Orange Line is the fact on the ground, BRT will always be favored whenever any future transit project is evaluated. It's the same reason why Crenshaw became LRT... because Expo exists. That's what Dan mean by "screwed the pooch". That one NIMBY decision years ago will forever haunt the Valley. It was a huge NIMBY overreaction, supported by a corrupt politician who was jailed later. They didn't want trains and ended up with BRT. Ironically, buses are louder and more frequent. They should really abolish that "Robbins The Corrupt" bill. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 3, 2013 19:14:58 GMT -8
Another round of meetings is scheduled this month for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. This news release is from the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study Facebook page: "Metro, in collaboration with the Federal Transit Administration, issued a Notice of Preparation/Intent that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) will be prepared for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project. This important milestone marks the beginning of the Public Scoping Period that will last until May 6, 2013. Public input is an important part of this process. You are invited to submit OFFICIAL FORMAL SCOPING COMMENTS through this Facebook Study Page. Click the Submit Scoping Comments Tab on the timeline above to submit your comments on the scope, focus and content for the EIS/EIR. Metro is pleased to announce that this is the first time that the agency will receive official formal comments via Facebook." Draft EIS/EIR meetings:Saturday, March 16, 2013, 10 am-12 pm Panorama High School 8015 Van Nuys Bl
Panorama City, CA 91402Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 & Metro Local Line 233; DASH Route - Panorama City/Van Nuys Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 6-8 pm The City of San Fernando Regional Pool Facility 208 Park Av
San Fernando, CA 91340Served by Metro Rapid Lines 794 and Metro Local Lines 224 and 234 Thursday, March 21, 2013, 6-8 pm Arleta High School 14200 Van Nuys Bl
Arleta, CA 91331 Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 and Metro Local Lines 158 and 233 Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 4-6 pm Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Bl
Van Nuys, CA 91401Validated Parking available at City Hall Parking Lot (Sylvan/Sylmar Av Entrance) Served by Metro Orange Line, Metro Rapid Line 761, Metro Local Lines 154, 156, 164, 233 and 237 and DASH Routes Panorama City/Van Nuys and Van Nuys/Studio City www.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/east_sfv_notice_Preparation.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Mar 11, 2013 20:59:36 GMT -8
Another round of meetings is scheduled this month for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. This news release is from the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study Facebook page: "Metro, in collaboration with the Federal Transit Administration, issued a Notice of Preparation/Intent that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) will be prepared for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project. This important milestone marks the beginning of the Public Scoping Period that will last until May 6, 2013. Public input is an important part of this process. You are invited to submit OFFICIAL FORMAL SCOPING COMMENTS through this Facebook Study Page. Click the Submit Scoping Comments Tab on the timeline above to submit your comments on the scope, focus and content for the EIS/EIR. Metro is pleased to announce that this is the first time that the agency will receive official formal comments via Facebook." Draft EIS/EIR meetings:Saturday, March 16, 2013, 10 am-12 pm Panorama High School 8015 Van Nuys Bl
Panorama City, CA 91402Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 & Metro Local Line 233; DASH Route - Panorama City/Van Nuys Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 6-8 pm The City of San Fernando Regional Pool Facility 208 Park Av
San Fernando, CA 91340Served by Metro Rapid Lines 794 and Metro Local Lines 224 and 234 Thursday, March 21, 2013, 6-8 pm Arleta High School 14200 Van Nuys Bl
Arleta, CA 91331 Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 and Metro Local Lines 158 and 233 Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 4-6 pm Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Bl
Van Nuys, CA 91401Validated Parking available at City Hall Parking Lot (Sylvan/Sylmar Av Entrance) Served by Metro Orange Line, Metro Rapid Line 761, Metro Local Lines 154, 156, 164, 233 and 237 and DASH Routes Panorama City/Van Nuys and Van Nuys/Studio City www.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/east_sfv_notice_Preparation.pdfDo remember to submit your comments in support of LRT and combining this with the Sepulveda Pass Corridor. You have until May 6th. We can not let this become another Orange Line. The people convinced metro to make Crenshaw LRT and we can do the same with Van Nuys. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 12, 2013 10:18:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Mar 12, 2013 12:33:53 GMT -8
Another round of meetings is scheduled this month for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. This news release is from the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study Facebook page: "Metro, in collaboration with the Federal Transit Administration, issued a Notice of Preparation/Intent that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) will be prepared for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project. This important milestone marks the beginning of the Public Scoping Period that will last until May 6, 2013. Public input is an important part of this process. You are invited to submit OFFICIAL FORMAL SCOPING COMMENTS through this Facebook Study Page. Click the Submit Scoping Comments Tab on the timeline above to submit your comments on the scope, focus and content for the EIS/EIR. Metro is pleased to announce that this is the first time that the agency will receive official formal comments via Facebook." Draft EIS/EIR meetings:Saturday, March 16, 2013, 10 am-12 pm Panorama High School 8015 Van Nuys Bl
Panorama City, CA 91402Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 & Metro Local Line 233; DASH Route - Panorama City/Van Nuys Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 6-8 pm The City of San Fernando Regional Pool Facility 208 Park Av
San Fernando, CA 91340Served by Metro Rapid Lines 794 and Metro Local Lines 224 and 234 Thursday, March 21, 2013, 6-8 pm Arleta High School 14200 Van Nuys Bl
Arleta, CA 91331 Served by Metro Rapid Line 761 and Metro Local Lines 158 and 233 Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 4-6 pm Marvin Braude Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Bl
Van Nuys, CA 91401Validated Parking available at City Hall Parking Lot (Sylvan/Sylmar Av Entrance) Served by Metro Orange Line, Metro Rapid Line 761, Metro Local Lines 154, 156, 164, 233 and 237 and DASH Routes Panorama City/Van Nuys and Van Nuys/Studio City www.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/east_sfv_notice_Preparation.pdfDo remember to submit your comments in support of LRT and combining this with the Sepulveda Pass Corridor. You have until May 6th. We can not let this become another Orange Line. The people convinced metro to make Crenshaw LRT and we can do the same with Van Nuys. It's going to be a tougher fight because the Orange Line is BRT. All the more reason that we need to get the communities surrounding this line need to be on board and vocal their preference for LRT. |
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Oct 12, 2013 6:48:04 GMT -8
Metro has issued an update for the Van Nuys Rapdiway Project. media.metro.net/board/Items/2013/10_october/20131016p&pitem21.pdfHere they describe that both the brt and light rail alternatives will focus on the segment north of the Orange Line and South of San Fernando Road. The segment South of the Orange Line has been delegated to be part Sepulveda Pass Project. The Northern Segment between Van Nuys / San Fernando Road and the Sylmar Metrolink Station is being place on hold, as far a dedicated planning lane planning is concerned, Until it is determine what is going to be done on the Antellope Valley ROW by HSR. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 12, 2013 16:32:55 GMT -8
Seems like Metro is pulling the rug out from under this project if, at this late stage, and after numerous public meetings, they are going to include an earlier, discarded, seemingly abandoned alternative (curb running BRT) and shorten the both the Northern and Southern endpoints of this project. This many changes at this point is going to suck the air out of this project.
I realize that there might be a good reason to shorten the project so that they can work with HSR, Metrolink, and the Sepulveda Pass project, but it seems that despite the requests that Metro have the planners of this project work with the Sepulveda Pass project, they are throwing in the towel. Where are Garceti and Yaroslavsky?
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Oct 13, 2013 8:17:59 GMT -8
I agree that some of these changes are not ideal.
Options 1-3 seem all terrible. Having stops every .25 mile seems excessive and would not make for a very rapid service and the comment about Option 1 fitting the budget has me concerned a bit.
The only positive thing that came from the study is the suggested underground portion between sherman way and roscoe which would make it cleaner to get the lrt trains to get a maintenance facility near the Van Nuys Metrolink Station. Plus the elimination of the Northern and Southern Portions from lrt study would bring the cost down by half from the previously reported 2 billion dollars for the full 11 mile alignment.
In any case the Sepulveda Pass Project really needs the facility from an LRT Van Nuys project in order for it to be rail as Metro has previously does not seem intent connect the Sepulveda Pass to the exist HRT network.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 13, 2013 15:04:53 GMT -8
Very troubling is that they are seemingly abandoning a Ventura Blvd connection for a future project that might not be attempted or completed until way into the 2030's.
That will have an impact on this current, revised, and much smaller project. (From approximately 12.5 miles to 6.7 miles)
Just a thought, but which came first to the Metro planners:
1. changing the boundaries of this project or
2. the idea that an abandoned alternative was actually a very good idea?
Public meetings should begin again considering the changes that have been made. Unless the politicos hear the outrage, the curb running BRT could be the future.
I had thought that they would have had to subway the Van Nuys Blvd portion of the line from Ventura Blvd to somewhere south of Burbank Blvd or so as a bridge over the 101 freeway would probably not have many proponents. Sepulveda Blvd, as an alternative to Van Nuys, to Ventura Blvd might have worked at grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Oct 13, 2013 18:24:39 GMT -8
Judging from the report they only brought back the curb sided alternative because of the public comments to accommodate bicyclist in the project and keep the street parking. The report clearly states that the curb sided alternative does not meet the projects purpose and need but the parking would be saved and a bike lane could be added. This alternative more than anything is being studied so metro can go back to the public and clearly state they studied an option that kept the on street parking and a bike lane.
If it were up to me I would rather get rid of the third general traffic lane in each direction to save the on street parking and leave room for a bike lane. But it seems unlikely that would happen.
The report ends stating a second round of community meetings will be held in the Winter of 2014. I'm hoping that's a typo and the meant 2013.
|
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 14, 2013 14:18:12 GMT -8
today- the source lists 4 different alternatives for the east San Fernando Valley transit corridor 1.curbside peak hour bus lanes 2. street median bus lanes 3. street median tram 4. street median light rail FULL STORY:http://thesource.metro.net/2013/10/14/metro-staff-report-refines-the-alternatives-for-east-san-fernando-valley-transit-corridor/      |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 15, 2013 11:47:21 GMT -8
Another reason the length of the project was probably shortened (in addition to the above) was to reduce the project’s budget. That way, if LRT were somehow chosen, the project would only cost hundreds of millions rather than billions.
A mostly street-running Van Nuys Blvd. rail line with eight stations (one underground at the Van Nuys Metrolink, no need for ten stations as the graphic indicates) should certainly be feasible for under $1 billion.
The problem, of course, is that it will become yet another L.A. rail line that stops curiously short of major destinations (Ventura Blvd. to the south, Metrolink to the north).
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 15, 2013 22:59:08 GMT -8
Why tram was considered for this corridor is mind boggling. It would be incompatible to rest of the Metro Rail LRT system, slow, and it would cost almost as much as full LRT to build.(Correctly anyway) Tram and Light Rail overlap in many areas anyway.
Philip makes a good point about it coming short of major destinations, however, while it wouldn't too useful initially but this would put pressure on Metro to give us a Sepulveda pass rail tunnel. Not to mention that this initial segment, as Philip also pointed out, would be relatively cheap because of the street-running and be easier to push on Metro.
Tram would give us a more complete corridor, but it would be a disservice for connectivity with the rest of the county.
"BRT" needs to just jump off a cliff and die already.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Oct 15, 2013 23:01:57 GMT -8
I think shortening the scope of the project is a good practical move. Nothing (besides funding, which could be rolled into the project) stops Metrolink from adding a stop at Van Nuys Blvd, and it will certainly be cheaper than extending the line northward along the ROW. South of the Orange Line (or at least Chandler) it makes sense for it to be underground, and that's really part of the Sepulveda Pass project---without the connection to the Westside, the boardings don't really merit that much capital investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Oct 16, 2013 1:07:47 GMT -8
I think shortening the scope of the project is a good practical move. Nothing (besides funding, which could be rolled into the project) stops Metrolink from adding a stop at Van Nuys Blvd, and it will certainly be cheaper than extending the line northward along the ROW. South of the Orange Line (or at least Chandler) it makes sense for it to be underground, and that's really part of the Sepulveda Pass project---without the connection to the Westside, the boardings don't really merit that much capital investment. Yeah, I agree. It actually seems to me like they're trying to push LRT, even. They mention that it's strongly preferred up front; the curbside BRT was introduced solely, it feels to me, to show that they are taking some action in response to concerns raised at meetings (Look! We studied it!); and then there's the key line at the end: "Per Board direction, the East SFV Corridor is being analyzed for Public Private Partnership delivery method in conjunction with the Sepulveda Pass project." They already know that A. LRT is strongly preferred, and B. they aren't getting that done with the current amount of money. Similarly, they know that there's basically no way we're funding a Sepulveda Pass LRT tunnel without a Public Private Partnership, which they've said numerous many times is seriously being looked into and all statements on it have seemed extremely optimistic. So, if the Sepulveda Pass tunnel is LRT, it would obviously make sense to connect it to this as part of the same line. It would make more sense simply to study them together, of course (which it seems they kind of are, just not officially) but maybe this gives them more flexibility in saying that they're responding to various community concerns by technically keeping certain options on the table for now that wouldn't be if the two were studied together? I dunno. But by shortening the study area, they're A. Making LRT seem more fiscally reasonable for the ESFV line and B. allowing the Sepulveda Pass project to take over the portion up to the Orange Line, which from an engineering standpoint could perhaps make more sense since there's a lot of variables on where a highway/rail tunnel would terminate, etc. In the end, it seems like they're setting everything up to be built as one LRT project under a single Public-Private Partnership, and maybe studying the ESFV corridor separately will allow them to get an early start on this section of the line with the money they already have (especially since its delivery is supposed to be 2018 anyway). So in that scenario, all we're really losing is the San Fernando Road portion in the first phase, which does make practical sense considering the CAHSR/Metrolink concerns that are beyond Metro's control. To me, this report actually seems like a positive thing. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 16, 2013 2:38:41 GMT -8
I think it is unreasonably optimistic to believe that Metro is trying to make a case for LRT. Metro had published a report and then publicly stated that the the curb running BRT was no longer being considered. The "tram" was also not one of the final recommended alternatives presented to the public media.metro.net/projects_studies/east_sfv/images/esfv_Recommended_Project_Alternatives.pdfIt is very disconcerting that a "Recommended Project Alternatives final" presented to the public is then changed with out any public input or explanation. The Metro report inaccurately compared the "tram" to the San Diego Trolley which is ridiculous since this Trolley is really more like an LRT/HRT system with dedicated right of way, aerial stations, and vehicles that are larger than what Metro uses on it's own LRT lines. San Diego Trolley has a low floor boarding, but, San Diego is upgrading their stations to have high floors so that they are ADA accessible. I am also a bit leary of Metro having to rely on a PPP partner since in Metro's report to the board it had noted that the fares on the line might be higher than on the rest of the Metro system. Lastly, if, or more likely when, Metro wants to go back to voters to pass a measure R extension to raise money, what is the San Fernando Valley going to receive as an incentive to vote for it? Metro's promise to use PPP to fund the 405/Sepulveda pass line and/or a complete line from Sylmar to LAX built in stages. Perhaps a curb running BRT? If Metro botches this line, the valley and it's many votes won't be happy. Metro should transfer money from the 405/Sepulveda Pass project and reassign it the the East San Fernando Valley Traffic Corridor. And then they can make a case for a Measure R extension to finish the ESFVTC with a complete line through the pass, West LA and to LAX. They need a big plan and then sell it. I think even Northern LA County voters could see the benefit of a Metrolink/Metro transfer to get to West LA, Santa Monica and LAX. Maybe Metro would be able to spend more of their own money in a PPP partnership so as to finish the project sooner and keep fares the same as the larger Metro system. Sorry to be negative, but based on my own reading of the report, it is a step forward and the three back. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 16, 2013 9:01:08 GMT -8
I don't really understand why the Sepulveda rail tunnel has to go underneath the 405. that seems pretty inefficient and a waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 16, 2013 9:48:55 GMT -8
I don't really understand why the Sepulveda rail tunnel has to go underneath the 405. that seems pretty inefficient and a waste. Because it could be a surface running bus... (no, I'm joking). Surface running "BRT" improvement is one of the options for Sepulveda Pass Project. But to answer your question, the line on the map shows current bus connection to Westwood, that's why it follows Ventura Blvd to I-405. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 16, 2013 11:50:52 GMT -8
Metro should do an Orange Line Chatsworth like extension for the Van Nuys blvd segment, instead of a tram. A tram in suburb makes little sense, the ridership would be abysmal and speed is too slow for a suburb where cars, and probably buses, can go as fast as 40 - 45 mph.
Either do a Chatsworth like extension on Van Nuys or abandon this separate project and move the funds to a Sepulveda Pass project and put it into building a tunnel between Wilshire/Westwood Purple Line station and Sepulveda Orange Line station. That would be a good "first phase" project. Second phase will go north of the Orange Line toward the Metrolink station; most likely as above ground light rail.
This is another project that should be added to the dream Measure R + plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 16, 2013 13:32:51 GMT -8
I like fissure's suggestion and can't believe it hasn't been brought up before - building a new Metrolink station at Van Nuys on the Antelope Valley Line.
That way, you still get the Metrolink connection, without the line going up to Sylmar.
Plus, I've always preferred the Van Nuys line going northeast to Foothill Blvd. Let Sylmar get the Red Line (via Laurel Canyon and San Fernando) when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 17, 2013 13:53:41 GMT -8
Van Nuys is the 6th busiest street in Metro's area. A street running BRT on Van Nuys will not be able to carry the volume of passengers needed. Metro's own estimates are that BRT ridership will be 33,500. Which is greater than the numbers currently on the Orange line, which many complain of being jammed. BRT will also be street running in areas and not have a fully dedicated right of way. Metro had ruled out running the line to Sylmar earlier in their analysis. Some people had advocated it but the numbers didn't pan out. Besides San Fernando is more central to West LA than Sylmar.
There is only a couple hundred million dollars in this project. A 405/Sepulveda Pass line will be at least 6 Billion dollars (more likely at least 10 Billion or more). Moving funds to the Sepulveda pass will not help in building the line or even be a band aid. Plus the over 2 million people of the Valley deserve more, especially in a future Measure R extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 17, 2013 14:22:56 GMT -8
I still cannot understand the Valleys opposition to rail on the Orange Line while it was being planned. They even fought the BRT as it was being built. And now we have the result of that bad decision; once a line is created, it is easier to extend the line the cheapest way possible. On Metro's presentation for rail or street car options - there is a DOUBLE TRANSFER. Who wants to make a double transfer (rail to bus to rail)? . Clearly they are going to build BRT, so making it the best BRT system as possible is the way to go— as much grade separated guideways as possible. The Valley residents should take a look at The SGV and the Gold line Foothill extension and push hard for what they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 17, 2013 19:26:22 GMT -8
The opposition to rail is well known story, as State Senator Alan Robbins inserted the language into a state law over 20 years ago to appease the locals in that area. Rest assured these days the tide has changed and it would not be that difficult for Metro to ask the current legislature to change the law. As an aside, he eventually was convicted of political corruption in 1992.
I am not sure what you refer to as a double transfer. At the public meetings that Metro held for this project, there was widespread support for LRT and a single ride through the valley and the Sepulveda Pass. There are always opposition with projects, not everyone supports LRT for this project. It is unfair to say that the valley opposes rail. Although the Robbins bill certainly blocked rail for the Orange line, I don't believe Metro ever had the money for rail. Supervisor Yaroslavsky has stated that the Orange line should become rail assuming ridership increases. One bus carries a maximum of 75 people, LRT 300 people. 4 buses=1 LRT train set.
|
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 18, 2013 10:49:57 GMT -8
I could imagine an LRT or heavy rail tunneled through the Sepulveda pass from Westwood / Purple Line and transitioning underground, northward to Van Nuys to meet up with the BRT (whether it's converted to LRT or not). Heavy rail from the Purple line and tunneling would offer much needed relief to the I-405.
Much progress has been achieved in rail planning and construction over the past 10-20 years. As congestion grows worse, eventually these costly ideas will be seriously considered. ...I only hope I'm still alive to see it!
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 18, 2013 16:58:20 GMT -8
I still cannot understand the Valleys opposition to rail on the Orange Line while it was being planned...On Metro's presentation for rail or street car options - there is a DOUBLE TRANSFER. Clearly they are going to build BRT, so making it the best BRT system as possible is the way to go— as much grade separated guideways as possible. The Valley residents should take a look at The SGV and the Gold line Foothill extension and push hard for what they want. The problem with that hypothesis is that, for either BRT option, the $170M is still not enough and they will have to get the funds from somewhere. I personally like that it ends at the Orange Line because if we get creative, this can and will become the starting point for some serious conversations of converting the Orange Line to Rail so that it could link up with the Van Nuys Corridor and thus start having a LRT system for the San Fernando Valley running both North-South via primarily down Van Nuys and east-west along the Orange Line ROW. I like fissure's suggestion and can't believe it hasn't been brought up before - building a new Metrolink station at Van Nuys on the Antelope Valley Line. That way, you still get the Metrolink connection, without the line going up to Sylmar. Plus, I've always preferred the Van Nuys line going northeast to Foothill Blvd. Let Sylmar get the Red Line (via Laurel Canyon and San Fernando) when the time comes. On what ROW to build the transfer station? If CAHSR takes on 2 more tracks and they have to grade separate this, where will station platforms even fit here to build the station there? |
|
|
|
Post by AD on Oct 18, 2013 23:30:56 GMT -8
The opposition to rail is well known story, as State Senator Alan Robbins inserted the language into a state law over 20 years ago to appease the locals in that area. Rest assured these days the tide has changed and it would not be that difficult for Metro to ask the current legislature to change the law. As an aside, he eventually was convicted of political corruption in 1992. I am not sure what you refer to as a double transfer. At the public meetings that Metro held for this project, there was widespread support for LRT and a single ride through the valley and the Sepulveda Pass. There are always opposition with projects, not everyone supports LRT for this project. It is unfair to say that the valley opposes rail. Although the Robbins bill certainly blocked rail for the Orange line, I don't believe Metro ever had the money for rail. Supervisor Yaroslavsky has stated that the Orange line should become rail assuming ridership increases. One bus carries a maximum of 75 people, LRT 300 people. 4 buses=1 LRT train set. Tell your city and state representatives that you support this. This may be the start to ending the embarrassment that is valley transit. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 19, 2013 0:07:34 GMT -8
I'm wondering if the cost of the project might be higher than anticipated.
According to the rendering, they're looking to go underground to connect with the Van Nuys Metrolink. On top of that, at least a few spots will need grade-separation (first that comes to mind is Sherman Way).
The route is 6.7 miles long. Assuming we get eight stations, with at least one underground and one or more elevated, we could be looking at almost $1 billion.
And after all that, it's still a line with few connections, aside from the Metrolink lines. Arguably, it misses the biggest destinations south of the Orange Line.
I hate to say it, but BRT may be the only option we have financially if we want to see this in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 19, 2013 12:10:18 GMT -8
The opposition to rail is well known story, as State Senator Alan Robbins inserted the language into a state law over 20 years ago to appease the locals in that area. Rest assured these days the tide has changed and it would not be that difficult for Metro to ask the current legislature to change the law. As an aside, he eventually was convicted of political corruption in 1992. I am not sure what you refer to as a double transfer. At the public meetings that Metro held for this project, there was widespread support for LRT and a single ride through the valley and the Sepulveda Pass. There are always opposition with projects, not everyone supports LRT for this project. It is unfair to say that the valley opposes rail. Although the Robbins bill certainly blocked rail for the Orange line, I don't believe Metro ever had the money for rail. Supervisor Yaroslavsky has stated that the Orange line should become rail assuming ridership increases. One bus carries a maximum of 75 people, LRT 300 people. 4 buses=1 LRT train set. Tell your city and state representatives that you support this. This may be the start to ending the embarrassment that is valley transit. I wasn't aware that local leaders were finally pursuing repealing the Robbins Bill; it looks to be a recent development that started in late spring of 2013, I'm glad that there's finally progress on getting rid of something that is not the will of the majority of the San Fernando Valley. There was also a petition that coincidentally started circulating around the spring of 2013 to gather support to repeal it. Here's my rant on the San Fernando Valley's present-day support and past opposition of Metro Rail: - Like any Metro project, there's always opposition, i.e. South Pasadena and the Gold Line, Cheviot Hills and the Expo Line, Beverly Hills and the Purple Line; the Orange Line had a few, vocal, NIMBYs with too much time on their hands in the Chandler Boulevard corridor that derailed prospects for affordable, efficient LRT. - The demographics of the Van Nuys Boulevard corridor (from Van Nuys to Pacoima) is vastly different than Sherman Oaks and Valley Village, it is majority Hispanic and transit-dependents, many of the retailers and eateries are similar to what you would find in East L.A. or South L.A. The only opposition to the Van Nuys LRT is from the car dealerships south of the Metro Orange Line. - When the Metro Red Line opened to North Hollywood in June 2000, ridership nearly doubled, from 60k to finally reaching six-digit daily ridership - still the only Metro Rail line to achieve that; parking at North Hollywood and Universal City were and are still hard to come by during the work/school week. - The Metro Orange Line ridership was higher than the Gold Line from December 2005 to June 2008 - the Gold Line opened 2 years and 4 months before the Orange Line. Orange Line from North Hollywood to Warner Center and Gold Line from Los Angeles Union Station to Sierra Madre Villa were both 14 miles long. I'm wondering if the cost of the project might be higher than anticipated. According to the rendering, they're looking to go underground to connect with the Van Nuys Metrolink. On top of that, at least a few spots will need grade-separation (first that comes to mind is Sherman Way). The route is 6.7 miles long. Assuming we get eight stations, with at least one underground and one or more elevated, we could be looking at almost $1 billion. And after all that, it's still a line with few connections, aside from the Metrolink lines. Arguably, it misses the biggest destinations south of the Orange Line. I hate to say it, but BRT may be the only option we have financially if we want to see this in our lifetimes. The stats of the revised East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor as light rail is similar to the Edward R. Roybal Gold Line Eastside extension. ESFVTC: 6.7 miles total length, 1.5 miles underground. GLEE: 6 miles total length, 1.8 miles underground. $898 million. It's safe to say that the revised ESFVTC LRT will be $1 billion, possibly more. Another comparison is the Crenshaw/LAX LRT, which is 8.5 miles long and costs $1.272 billion. Building a rapid transit line on Van Nuys Boulevard is not about getting to destinations on it, it's about finally building out to where the bulk of the San Fernando Valley's Metro ridership originates; ridership graphics (along with personal experience) shows the heaviest ridership on Van Nuys Boulevard is from Nordhoff Street to the Metro Orange Line, also the Van Nuys Metro Orange Line station is second to North Hollywood for transfer activity. If it was about getting to destinations within the Valley, Ventura Boulevard would be it, however, Metro Rapid 750 originally ran on weekends, but when the Metro Orange Line opened, ridership shifted to it because the riders wanted a quick cross-Valley ride and chose the Orange Line. That doesn't mean Ventura Boulevard doesn't have demand, which is why Metro Local 150 operates 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 19, 2013 17:51:10 GMT -8
Surely $700 million could be scuffed up somewhere. ANYTHING BUT BRT. I'll take a line half as long if it means LRT over BRT. It wouldn't be too useful at first, but it would at least force Metro to make any extensions/surrounding projects [cough]Sepulveda pass[/cough] light rail.
If this project becomes BRT just shoot me.
If the Orange Line is any indication, anything we put down first puts any significant mode upgrade at least 20-30 years off. If BRT gets put down on this corridor, Metro won't touch this corridor for 3 decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 19, 2013 21:19:49 GMT -8
Surely $700 million could be scuffed up somewhere. ANYTHING BUT BRT. I'll take a line half as long if it means LRT over BRT. It wouldn't be too useful at first, but it would at least force Metro to make any extensions/surrounding projects [cough]Sepulveda pass[/cough] light rail. If this project becomes BRT just shoot me. If the Orange Line is any indication, anything we put down first puts any significant mode upgrade at least 20-30 years off. If BRT gets put down on this corridor, Metro won't touch this corridor for 3 decades. Not sure where you are getting $700M from. They have $170M now and it will likely cost well over $1B. When comparing to the Eastside Gold Line, one needs to realize that was built years ago now. Inflation is going to add up. Also, the Eastside Gold Line has no maintenance facility separately built for it. Need to add quite a bit for that. The Crenshaw Line is now well over $2B now for reference and it is less than 2 miles longer than this line. |
|
