|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 19, 2013 22:05:05 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. You completely missed the point. Whether it's $700 million, or $2 Billion, if there is a strong will to make this line LRT, it can happen. Now, I'm not saying there is an endless money pit sitting somewhere. If it means a slower build or whatever it can be done. Also, a maintenance should only add an like 100-150 million to the project depending on size.(iirc) Crenshaw is not only 2 miles longer(Which means that's automatically an extra $300-$500 mil) but it also has FAR MORE grade separations. That quote was also after a Hindry station AND Leimert Park station(A SUBWAY station I might add) was added to the project. So yes, this project would be allot cheaper than a crenshaw line, and probably closer to GLEE. Inflation is there, but lets be real here, it's not going to turn $900 million project into a $5 Billion project. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2013 10:12:23 GMT -8
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. You completely missed the point. Whether it's $700 million, or $2 Billion, if there is a strong will to make this line LRT, it can happen. Now, I'm not saying there is an endless money pit sitting somewhere. If it means a slower build or whatever it can be done. Also, a maintenance should only add an like 100-150 million to the project depending on size.(iirc) Crenshaw is not only 2 miles longer(Which means that's automatically an extra $300-$500 mil) but it also has FAR MORE grade separations. That quote was also after a Hindry station AND Leimert Park station(A SUBWAY station I might add) was added to the project. So yes, this project would be allot cheaper than a crenshaw line, and probably closer to GLEE. Inflation is there, but lets be real here, it's not going to turn $900 million project into a $5 Billion project. Still looking at something closer to $1.5B. Also, construction buds ave been rising rapidly lately withtbe recovery in the economy. With just $170M in hand, that is just a massive hole to make up. Will need some sort of major funding like a new Measure J. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 20, 2013 10:51:06 GMT -8
They should take the 1 Billion dollars devoted to the 405/Sepulveda Pass line and transfer it to this line. Is there a chance for even a miniscule amount of funding from the Feds? Especially if presented as the first phase of line through the Pass, West LA and to LAX. If not, it's not the end of the world.
Whether or not the Sepulveda Pass line is built sooner rather than later, Metro still needs a way to fund a project that will be a (6-10+) Billion dollar project even with PPP and the 1 Billion dollars will probably not be enough for an initial investment. Sooner or latter Metro will have to pursue a Measure R extension and Metro should sell that this project as phase one of a much larger project to connect the Northern San Fernando Valley, Sepulveda Pass, West LA and LAX. Northern LA County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster would be able to connect via Metrolink and reach these destinations.
LRT can be built but it will mean looking at other sources of money. Crenshaw Line was supposed to be 1.7 Billion and now it is over 2 Billion and has an additional 2 stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 21, 2013 9:50:02 GMT -8
They should take the 1 Billion dollars devoted to the 405/Sepulveda Pass line and transfer it to this line. Is there a chance for even a miniscule amount of funding from the Feds? Especially if presented as the first phase of line through the Pass, West LA and to LAX. If not, it's not the end of the world. Whether or not the Sepulveda Pass line is built sooner rather than later, Metro still needs a way to fund a project that will be a (6-10+) Billion dollar project even with PPP and the 1 Billion dollars will probably not be enough for an initial investment. Sooner or latter Metro will have to pursue a Measure R extension and Metro should sell that this project as phase one of a much larger project to connect the Northern San Fernando Valley, Sepulveda Pass, West LA and LAX. Northern LA County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster would be able to connect via Metrolink and reach these destinations. LRT can be built but it will mean looking at other sources of money. Crenshaw Line was supposed to be 1.7 Billion and now it is over 2 Billion and has an additional 2 stations. Can't take the money for the Sepulveda Pass without a 2/3 vote and even then it would be very very unlikely since it would be overriding what the public voted for. Politicians are very loathe to do that and most everyone in SoCal knows the Sepulveda Pass is a major bottleneck. No one outside the Valley even knows where Van Nuys Blvd. is. To be honest I've lived just on the other side of the Hill for 17 years only 7-8 miles away and have never even been there. 95% of the people here would have no idea where it is either. Then you want people who are even farther away in the South Bay, Long Beach and the San Gabriel Valley to vote to change it. Sorry, just no way. You are all wrong on the PPP. They are going to charge expensive tolls to use the tunnel and they can switch the lanes so it is all Southbound in the morning and Northbound in the evening. People in the Valley will pay as they are constantly going over the pass to access jobs, UCLA, LAX, and so forth. You are talking about people saving up to 2 hours a day in some cases. Since the tunnel will be built for cars, it isn't all that much more to add train tracks. I think it will be controversial on where the tunnel ends in West LA though. The area can't absorb any more cars onto the surface streets and while the project will be popular in the Valley, people on the Westside really have few reasons to go to the Valley and certainly don't want anymore cars from there impacting local streets. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 21, 2013 10:36:00 GMT -8
I think the ultimate decision comes down to this:
BRT Pros:
1. Buses can merge on to Orange line thus offering 1 seat ride from Van Nuys Corridor/East SFV to North Hollywood Red Line station.
2. We will have it up and running sooner.
BRT Cons:
1. Probably eliminates easy transfer options to Sepulveda Pass project, which will likely be rail.
2. Likely slower transit time than LRT (because Metro will resist a true high quality BRT setup with off board payment, sterile fare/transfer zone etc).
LRT Pros:
1. Preserves the possibility of 1 seat ride from Van Nuys Corridor/East SFV to West LA.
2. Likely faster transit time than water down LA-style BRT.
LRT Cons:
1. Eliminates the possibility of 1 seat ride from Van Nuys Corridor/East SFV to North Hollywood Red Line station.
2. It will likely take much longer to secure funding and start construction.
So the way I see it (and the way Metro does its ridership study), this is greatly favoring BRT because the bulk of the ridership is currently transferring to Orange Line and on to the Red Line. Metro is not allowed to estimate ridership from Van Nuys Corridor that will transfer to the (currently non existing) Sepulveda Pass rail line so the LRT pro #1 I mentioned above is not even a factor in Metro's deliberations. This is why it was important to combined the ESFV and Sepulveda Pass project... but that train left the station 2 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 21, 2013 11:14:01 GMT -8
I am not sure what you refer to as a double transfer. I should have said that alternative 3(tram) and 4(LRT) would not be set up to directly link to the future Sepulveda corridor(when built) and would both require bus transfer(s). So if the Van Nuys line is rail, and the Sepulveda Pass is rail, they would be connected by a bus - which would mean a double transfer, at least until the lines are connected. That is how I read the map. If the Sepulveda Pass ends up BRT then there would obviously not be a transfer. Which is why the Van Nuys line must be rail, once we go down the road of BRT, all of it will end up BRT - including the Sepulveda Pass! That would really be the worst possible outcome. I read somewhere that there is a law of mass transit that states that once a line is created, it eventually gets expanded on. So the BRT is like a virus that is in danger of spreading to several new proposed rail lines. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 21, 2013 12:11:59 GMT -8
They should take the 1 Billion dollars devoted to the 405/Sepulveda Pass line and transfer it to this line. Is there a chance for even a miniscule amount of funding from the Feds? Especially if presented as the first phase of line through the Pass, West LA and to LAX. If not, it's not the end of the world. Whether or not the Sepulveda Pass line is built sooner rather than later, Metro still needs a way to fund a project that will be a (6-10+) Billion dollar project even with PPP and the 1 Billion dollars will probably not be enough for an initial investment. Sooner or latter Metro will have to pursue a Measure R extension and Metro should sell that this project as phase one of a much larger project to connect the Northern San Fernando Valley, Sepulveda Pass, West LA and LAX. Northern LA County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster would be able to connect via Metrolink and reach these destinations. LRT can be built but it will mean looking at other sources of money. Crenshaw Line was supposed to be 1.7 Billion and now it is over 2 Billion and has an additional 2 stations. Can't take the money for the Sepulveda Pass without a 2/3 vote and even then it would be very very unlikely since it would be overriding what the public voted for. Politicians are very loathe to do that and most everyone in SoCal knows the Sepulveda Pass is a major bottleneck. No one outside the Valley even knows where Van Nuys Blvd. is. To be honest I've lived just on the other side of the Hill for 17 years only 7-8 miles away and have never even been there. 95% of the people here would have no idea where it is either. Then you want people who are even farther away in the South Bay, Long Beach and the San Gabriel Valley to vote to change it. Sorry, just no way. You are all wrong on the PPP. They are going to charge expensive tolls to use the tunnel and they can switch the lanes so it is all Southbound in the morning and Northbound in the evening. People in the Valley will pay as they are constantly going over the pass to access jobs, UCLA, LAX, and so forth. You are talking about people saving up to 2 hours a day in some cases. Since the tunnel will be built for cars, it isn't all that much more to add train tracks. I think it will be controversial on where the tunnel ends in West LA though. The area can't absorb any more cars onto the surface streets and while the project will be popular in the Valley, people on the Westside really have few reasons to go to the Valley and certainly don't want anymore cars from there impacting local streets. I would never say that it would be easy to transfer funds from one project to another, but we are talking about two projects both within the City Limits of Los Angeles, concurrent to each other, and if Garcetti could obtain five more votes, it could be done. Besides, the PPP plan may not even happen and there are potential funds waiting that could be used for a project much closer to coming to fruition. Sorry, but I believe that you are confused about the PPP. Please note lametthesource.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/concepts2.jpg and thesource.metro.net/2012/06/22/study-update-on-sepulveda-pass-transit-corridor-many-concepts-under-review/Note that the 2 concepts (Concepts 4 and 6) using Tunnels state that there are 2 toll lanes in each direction. Concept 4 has a Single Bore Tunnel while the other, Concept 6, has 2 Single Bore Tunnels with a privately operated rail shuttle. That private rail line probably equals Metro operated but at much higher fares. Concept 5 is way to go. (Fixed guideway Rail-LRT) |
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 21, 2013 14:11:57 GMT -8
^ I agree concept 5, metro should try and get half federal funding like they are doing with the the regional.connector and Westside subway, and perhaps try for another measure j before making the decision, and if it passes they may have the money for the rail tunnel. It is important that LRT is chosen for the van nuys transit line, because this will help make the case for the 405 rail tunnel. Also, it should be worth mentioning that even yaroslavski has said that perhaps The orange line may one day be upgrade to LRT. (hopefully that happens before HRT is what is really needed), so rail in Van Nuys in the long term has more potential for connectivity in the long run than BRT.
Hopefully a rail tunnel will be chosen, and a highway tunnel will NOT be included. The highway tunnel will only REDUCE potential ridership. Yes, measure R and J set money aside for highway repairs, but the sepulveda pass was never specifically set as highway. Unfortunately, part of th reason these measures may have gotten a lot of votes, is because highway was included. If the pass is built with highway tunnel and a rail tunnel, so be it,but it should not be privately operated shuttle. Such a shuttle can offer little connectivity to the rest of the system. If the unfortunate choice of BRt is built, then the pass should be built as heavy rail connecting to the purple line in Westwood. But hopefully we can get a LRT line from San Fernando to at least the westside. My view is that metro should wait and see if the can get measure j round 2 passed in '16 and then decide what to do with the pass. For now, hopefully metro will decide to build LRT on Van Nuys.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 21, 2013 22:03:49 GMT -8
C'mon people..... this is a NO-BRAINER. The truth is, we could be looking at an LRT project that might end up being as important to LA's future as the Regional Connector or even the full Westside Extension to Santa Monica.
Metro cannot afford to screw this up. Missing out on this opportunity would be the biggest mistake they have EVER made... yes, worse than failing to bring the Green Line closer to LAX.
It doesn't matter how expensive. Metro needs to do WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN in order for this to be LRT.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrM on Oct 22, 2013 9:04:45 GMT -8
Since the Sepulved Pass corridor now includes the segment up to the Orange Line, I believe Metro should fundamentally rethink the Van Nuys corridor project. Imagine if the $170M was used to convert the Orange line from bus to rail, at least from where the Sepulveda pass LRT will terminate, through North Hollywood station and up to the Burbank Airport. Keep an open mind for a minute and hear me out on this. There are a few principal benefits to my proposed approach:
1) Conversion of the existing bus ROW to rail will not cost too much, since there are no utility lines to be relocated, stations already exist, and the ROW was engineered to support LRT weight.
2) No new maintenance yard would be required since the trains could use the same yard the Sepulved Pass LRT would use.
3) By terminating the line at Burbank Airport, metro would achieve the 'El Dorado' of a direct rail link to an airport
4) By terminating the line at Burbank Airport, the proposed line would connect to both the Metrolink Ventura County Line and the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line.
Drawbacks of course include the Robbins Bill, the upper part of Van Nuys Blvd being left in the lurch, and community resistance to any sort of change.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrM on Oct 22, 2013 9:07:55 GMT -8
5) Metro won't have to pay the state of CA back the $116M owed for building the Orange line as a bus instead of rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 22, 2013 9:34:36 GMT -8
Not to get off topic, but I for one, do not want to see the Orange Line converted to rail anytime soon.
It's really a situation where the valley had its shot and whiffed. Any proposal to convert the Orange Line to rail will cost north of $1 billion. For that same amount of money, you could extend the Orange Line probably as far as Glendale (perhaps even Eagle Rock), which would be a far better usage of such funds.
On top of that, there are far more higher-priority projects.
Will it be necessary someday? Definitely, especially if the line gets extended, as it will be over capacity. But for the immediate future, I don't see it happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2013 10:08:44 GMT -8
I agree with Philip. The goal for Orange line in the short to medium term should be to extend the BRT to beyond SFV to Pasadena.
Conversion to LRT should happen in the long run (after the BRT corridor is established thru Eagle Rock to Pasadena) and it should become a East-West rail line from Warner Center to Azusa, taking over SGV Foothill portion of the Gold line. This is what makes the most sense operationally and will connect SFV and SGV together.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrM on Oct 22, 2013 10:42:55 GMT -8
That's good feedback. My point wasn't to push a BRT-->LRT conversion to correct a past mistake. The concept is to convert the Orange Line between Van Nuys and North Hollywood to rail, then extending it out to Burbank to connect with two Metrolink lines. The Van Nuys end of the line would continue on to West LA through the Sepulveda Pass tunnel (assumed here to be built as light rail.) We would end up with a mass transit solution that folks from the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley, Simi Valley, and Ventura County can use to connect to West LA. Obstensibly this would fulfill the goal of the Van Nuys/Sepulveda pass transit project. After reading the latest Metro report on the truncated Van Nuys Transitway, can you honestly say any of the presented options will achieve the functional goals?
That being said, I hadn't realized that it would cost us 'north of 1B' to perform the conversion on a line that already has stations, already had the utility lines moved, and was advertised as being built to light rail specs. Is there a published report that explains why it is so expensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 22, 2013 13:15:57 GMT -8
just a question I would like to throw out there.As I understand it BRT was an alternative considered for both crenshaw and expo, but was there ever a serious chance that they would actually be built as BRT?
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 22, 2013 14:21:48 GMT -8
Phillip, how did the Valley get where the "valley had its shot and whiffed" exactly? Please explain.
If you are referring to a corrupt politician and a law he sponsored over 20 years ago, please explain how that is relevant today over twenty years since his incarceration in 1992, and in the future. Particularly a future where Metro is spending Billions of Dollars County wide, will need a Measure R extension from voters, and is responsible to the 2 million people in the San Fernando Valley today not yesteryear.
|
|
|
|
Post by North LA on Oct 22, 2013 22:52:51 GMT -8
Shocked that people want to see an expansion of an over capacity and slow bus route. Billions are being spent on areas with lower projected ridership and less congestion. The Valley didnt ruin their chance, corrupt Robbins and corrupt Zev did.
I have little hope that Metro will stop screwing the Valley. Breaking off the ESFVTC from the Sepulveda Pass project is a shame to begin with since it was done to artifically lower ridership on the line so busses would get approved. I also know that the next Measure J will fail without the support of the ~20% of the electorate who lives north of Muholland. Why would Valley residents approve a tax increase to subsidize other people's quality of live improvements while we get slow, standing room only, buses?
Sepulveda pass is the most congested road on this continent. No where in this country, starting with the ESFVTC, needs mass transit more. Busses dont count as mass transit when the mass is in the millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 23, 2013 7:26:07 GMT -8
I agree with Philip. The goal for Orange line in the short to medium term should be to extend the BRT to beyond SFV to Pasadena. Conversion to LRT should happen in the long run (after the BRT corridor is established thru Eagle Rock to Pasadena) and it should become a East-West rail line from Warner Center to Azusa, taking over SGV Foothill portion of the Gold line. This is what makes the most sense operationally and will connect SFV and SGV together. I completely disagree. Further extending BRT causes more harm than good. The more BRT gets added to the system, BRT only grows at an exponential rate. Van Nuys is a perfect example of this. Because that horrid Orange Line is BRT, BRT gets automatic bonus points when choosing the mode for the corridor. And if Van Nuys gets BRT, it will mean the Sepulveda Pass gets automatic BRT. Also, by extending it to Pasadena, you further entrench riders to be depended on the BRT, making it even harder to convince Metro to Upgrade. Metro will just say "we can't upgrade, what do with all those riders on the orange line?" which is what Metro already saying now. As with point one above, we can kiss any future new rail project even touching this corridor goodbye. Put the $1 Billion into more needed projects, but leave the Orange Line alone until it gets converted. |
|
|
|
Post by DrM on Oct 23, 2013 8:36:51 GMT -8
This is all a great discussion. For those of you who don't live in the Valley you have to appreciate how hard it is for Valley transit advocates to think of new transit projects without looking back at the Orange Bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 23, 2013 10:03:35 GMT -8
Phillip, how did the Valley get where the "valley had its shot and whiffed" exactly? Please explain. Simple. The local community (if they had any support for light rail) didn't make themselves heard. Instead, a vocal (however small) group of neighbors championed against light-rail transit and won. This was further compounded by Senator Robbins' corrupt bill, but that would have been irrelevant if the people who wanted light-rail stood up and supported it (as locals did in the case of the Expo and Crenshaw lines). And Zev was not corrupt. The "subway-ban" law needed to be passed because the costs of building subways were going through the roof and everyone wanted to put subways everywhere. Great idea, but not if there's no money for it (what made things worse was all the negative press coverage of the Red Line's then-construction problems). It was a necessary evil for the time. So with no subway option, Robbins' bill, and political pressure that the ROW had to be used for something, we got the Orange Line. I live in North Hollywood and have riden the Orange Line many times. It's fine. Could it be faster and less crowded? Sure. But to spend $1 billion+ on a rail-upgrade when other areas are in dire need of rapid transit that have none? Not a great plan. I completely disagree. Further extending BRT causes more harm than good. The more BRT gets added to the system, BRT only grows at an exponential rate. Van Nuys is a perfect example of this. Because that horrid Orange Line is BRT, BRT gets automatic bonus points when choosing the mode for the corridor. And if Van Nuys gets BRT, it will mean the Sepulveda Pass gets automatic BRT. Also, by extending it to Pasadena, you further entrench riders to be depended on the BRT, making it even harder to convince Metro to Upgrade. Metro will just say "we can't upgrade, what do with all those riders on the orange line?" which is what Metro already saying now. As with point one above, we can kiss any future new rail project even touching this corridor goodbye. Put the $1 Billion into more needed projects, but leave the Orange Line alone until it gets converted. The whole idea of making it "BRT Vs. LRT" is silly. Both have their place and can be valuable in Los Angeles. It would be great if the Orange Line could be made a rail line, but the reality is it's not and will not be without a massive (and expensive) overhaul, the cost of which could instead extend the line much farther than it already goes. I personally would rather have an Orange Line BRT to Pasadena in the short term rather than waiting 50+ years for a rail line in the long term. One could make the argument that it's short-sighted and selfish, but I would counter that it's rather practical and financially feasible. For the record, I support LRT on Van Nuys and the Sepulveda Pass, but the reality of it happening is still questionable, largely due to insufficient funds. Fortunately, locals are not making the same mistake with the Orange Line (i.e. they are demanding LRT). |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 23, 2013 14:03:24 GMT -8
Phillip, how did the Valley get where the "valley had its shot and whiffed" exactly? Please explain. Simple. The local community (if they had any support for light rail) didn't make themselves heard. Instead, a vocal (however small) group of neighbors championed against light-rail transit and won. This was further compounded by Senator Robbins' corrupt bill, but that would have been irrelevant if the people who wanted light-rail stood up and supported it (as locals did in the case of the Expo and Crenshaw lines). And Zev was not corrupt. The "subway-ban" law needed to be passed because the costs of building subways were going through the roof and everyone wanted to put subways everywhere. Great idea, but not if there's no money for it (what made things worse was all the negative press coverage of the Red Line's then-construction problems). It was a necessary evil for the time. So with no subway option, Robbins' bill, and political pressure that the ROW had to be used for something, we got the Orange Line. I live in North Hollywood and have riden the Orange Line many times. It's fine. Could it be faster and less crowded? Sure. But to spend $1 billion+ on a rail-upgrade when other areas are in dire need of rapid transit that have none? Not a great plan. Your argument seems to be that the Valley was "whiffed" over 20 years ago and therefore it's relevant today. Your argument also blends together opposition to different projects, the Purple Line extension along Wilshire Blvd ("subway-ban", is this in the valley?), the Robbins Bill, lack of funding, need of projects elsewhere, and stack them against the Valley. Obtaining financing for an LRT from the north of the San Fernando Valley, the Sepulveda Pass, and through West LA should not be a zero sum game. Rather, it is an opportunity for transit relief for the entire 405 freeway corridor and with benefits for those that are commuting from Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Lancaster. I believe that the topic has gotten off subject since the subject is supposed to be about the East San Fernando Valley Traffic Corridor (Van Nuys Blvd) and not the Orange line. But I believe your incorrect in that other areas are in more dire need of rapid transit and that therefore the Valley should throw in the white towel and get "whiffed" again. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 23, 2013 15:35:35 GMT -8
Your argument seems to be that the Valley was "whiffed" over 20 years ago and therefore it's relevant today. Your argument also blends together opposition to different projects, the Purple Line extension along Wilshire Blvd ("subway-ban", is this in the valley?), the Robbins Bill, lack of funding, need of projects elsewhere, and stack them against the Valley. Not sure how you read any of that into my feelings on the Van Nuys or Sepulveda projects today. I was talking about the Orange Line to answer your question, since you asked how the Valley whiffed 20 years ago. But I believe your incorrect in that other areas are in more dire need of rapid transit and that therefore the Valley should throw in the white towel and get "whiffed" again. I never said that about the Van Nuys/Sepulveda project. I was speaking in reference to the Orange Line and the priority of its conversion to rail. As I said initially, this is not something that was meant to spark off-topic discussions of the Orange Line. Let's get back to talking about the Van Nuys corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Oct 24, 2013 16:51:11 GMT -8
Your argument seems to be that the Valley was "whiffed" over 20 years ago and therefore it's relevant today. Your argument also blends together opposition to different projects, the Purple Line extension along Wilshire Blvd ("subway-ban", is this in the valley?), the Robbins Bill, lack of funding, need of projects elsewhere, and stack them against the Valley. Not sure how you read any of that into my feelings on the Van Nuys or Sepulveda projects today. I was talking about the Orange Line to answer your question, since you asked how the Valley whiffed 20 years ago. But I believe your incorrect in that other areas are in more dire need of rapid transit and that therefore the Valley should throw in the white towel and get "whiffed" again. I never said that about the Van Nuys/Sepulveda project. I was speaking in reference to the Orange Line and the priority of its conversion to rail. As I said initially, this is not something that was meant to spark off-topic discussions of the Orange Line. Let's get back to talking about the Van Nuys corridor. Your post obfuscates that were discussing your remarks, whether related to the Van Nuys Blvd project or the Orange line. No matter, case closed. |
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 28, 2013 10:55:05 GMT -8
I wouldn't mind BRT as much if it were high-quality BRT like foreign countries. Internationally, if a city goes the BRT route, they at least put extra money into the bus. They provide high-quality tram/light rail class BRT vehicles. They don't just take a standard artic bus, put it on a right of way with no signal preemption and call it BRT. With this project, "BRT" is simply a normal Rapid bus with a some bus lanes. No signal preemption, no level boarding, no off-board payment. BRT just give politicians an excuse to not pay for high quality infrastructure. And yes, this a BRT vs LRT debate because that is essentially the only main options for this corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 2, 2013 3:31:27 GMT -8
I am not sure what you refer to as a double transfer. I should have said that alternative 3(tram) and 4(LRT) would not be set up to directly link to the future Sepulveda corridor(when built) and would both require bus transfer(s). So if the Van Nuys line is rail, and the Sepulveda Pass is rail, they would be connected by a bus - which would mean a double transfer, at least until the lines are connected. That is how I read the map. If the Sepulveda Pass ends up BRT then there would obviously not be a transfer. Which is why the Van Nuys line must be rail, once we go down the road of BRT, all of it will end up BRT - including the Sepulveda Pass! That would really be the worst possible outcome. That depends on where the lines are connected, if the Sepulveda Pass Corridor is "extended" to the Orange Line then it makes it easier and cost effective to build a short 1.0+ mile rail link between the two corridors using a section of the Orange Line ROW to make it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 10, 2013 8:35:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Nov 19, 2013 17:15:28 GMT -8
Received an email from Metro with a link to the revised report to be given to the Metro board tomorrow, it is dated November 20, 2013 media.metro.net/board/Items/2013/11_november/20131120p&pitem25.pdfWording slightly revised in a few paragraphs. Don't understand Metro's desire to compare the new Tram concept to the San Diego Trolley, it's ridiculous. Here's the message: Metro Board Update regarding the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study View this email in your browser Prefiere email en español? Oprima aqui Metro Board Update Dear East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study Stakeholder: Tomorrow, the Metro Board of Directors Planning and Programming Committee is scheduled to receive an update on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study. The Committee agenda and the Board Report are both available online. The Committee meeting is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Metro Planning and Programming Committee Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 2:30 PM Board Room, Metro Headquarters One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Please note that Metro staff will not be making any recommendations at this time and the Board will not be making any decisions about the study. Metro staff will provide a progress update that the Board will receive and file. There are still additional studies to be completed along with future opportunities to provide input on this important study in 2014. We will post the presentation given to the Planning and Programming Committee after Wednesday’s meeting on the study website. Background The East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Project seeks to improve transit service between the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station and Ventura Bl, mostly along Van Nuys Bl (traveling north-south) from Ventura Bl to San Fernando Rd. Then, traveling east-west along San Fernando Rd from Van Nuys Bl to the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink Station. This corridor is the second busiest transit corridor in the San Fernando Valley behind the Metro Orange Line and the seventh busiest in the entire Metro system. Last winter, an Alternatives Analysis Report identified several alternatives to be studied in more detail as part of an Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R) that included Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit options (LRT). Since then, these alternatives have been further refined and the proposed refinements will be presented to the Metro Board of Directors. They include: •A Bus Lane in the center of Van Nuys Bl •A Bus Lane running along the curb of Van Nuys Bl •A low-floor tram in the center of Van Nuys Bl •A high-floor Light Rail Transit system in the center of Van Nuys Bl Along with these alternatives, a no-build alternative and a Transportation System Management alternative (e.g., lower cost capital improvements to enhance travel along the corridor such as lane restriping, signal synchronization/optimization, intersection widenings, etc.) are also being studied. Last month, a summary article on this project was posted on The Source that we also recommend you review. The article provides a thorough review of the alternatives and outlines the challenges and opportunities associated with the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Study. It also discusses a key refinement that will also be shared with the Metro Board of Directors: For the Van Nuys Bl center-running alternatives (BRT, Tram and LRT) exclusive lanes for these systems would only run between the Metro Orange Line and San Fernando Rd. This is due to the following three considerations: The majority of the transit ridership along Van Nuys Bl is concentrated in this stretch of the corridor. This study is coordinating with the future Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor study that is considering a number of alternatives that range from a bus lane along the I-405 to a possible rail or toll road under the Sepulveda Pass. Given the uncertainty of what ultimately will be selected for this project, it makes sense to include the segment between Ventura Bl to the Metro Orange Line as part of the Sepulveda Pass study. This will ensure that a cohesive system is built to connect the San Fernando Valley to the Westside of Los Angeles and beyond. San Fernando Rd is not wide enough to accommodate a bus-only or LRT system. Additionally, there may not be room to widen the street because of the pending California High Speed Rail project that could be built in this stretch of the corridor. NEXT STEPS: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report is being completed that is expected to be available for public review in 2014. Community meetings will be scheduled prior to the release of the Draft EIS/R and formal public hearings will be held when the document is available for review. In the meantime, for additional information, please contact us via: |
|
|
|
Post by North LA on Jan 22, 2014 2:48:21 GMT -8
Repeal Robbins Bill approved by CA Assembly subcommittee. Hearing scheduled for next week. i have no faith in Metro, as no one who lives in the Valley should, but at least getting rid of the legacy of corrupt Senator Robbins is one step in the right direction. Now for Supervisor Zev to leave and the ESFVTC may be more than just another color masked rapid bus route.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 22, 2014 11:10:49 GMT -8
Repeal Robbins Bill approved by CA Assembly subcommittee. Hearing scheduled for next week. i have no faith in Metro, as no one who lives in the Valley should, but at least getting rid of the legacy of corrupt Senator Robbins is one step in the right direction. Now for Supervisor Zev to leave and the ESFVTC may be more than just another color masked rapid bus route. This is great news! Robbins was nothing but a corrupt politician who was later jailed. I don't understand why this took so long but it's great news. Yes, the Orange Line needs to be converted to light-rail ASAP. It's already running over capacity and the conversion to light-rail could make it one of the busiest Metro Rail lines. I think the conversion should be cheap. They have already relocated the utilities. It will be primarily electrical work, track installation, station construction, and a few bridges. Most intersections could be gated-at-grade with full signal preemption -- no delay to the trains. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 22, 2014 13:43:55 GMT -8
Depends just how "cheap" we're talking about.
If it's in the hundreds of millions, I'm not sure a bus-to-rail conversion of the Orange Line is really worth it. Plus, we would need yet another rail maintenance facility somewhere in valley.
For the same amount of money, we could extend the Orange Line to Burbank and perhaps Glendale. I'd much rather have that.
On the other hand, doing so would skyrocket ridership, at a time in which the Orange Line is already running at high capacities.
Either way, the repeal of the Robbins' bill is great news.
|
|
