|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jan 22, 2014 20:12:56 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. Extending that ludicrous busway would be a waste. By extending the busway you are just further entrenching the valley to be reliant on the busway. Extend it now and the conversion will never happen. It needs to happen as soon as possible. Convert it now and we eventually get a proper crosstown LRT through Burbank, Glendale, and Eagle Rock. I'd much rather the full pie later than a half-baked busway now. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 23, 2014 11:28:50 GMT -8
What's the route for an Orange Line East Extension? Is there a right of way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 23, 2014 12:20:00 GMT -8
The most likely route would be continuing down Chandler Blvd. (a former ROW) to eventually connect with the Metrolink station in Burbank.
Beyond that, the busway could parallel the Metrolink ROW for a bit before veering left onto Colorado or Broadway to run through Glendale, then move to the 134 and run through Eagle Rock into Pasadena.
All the above is just a guess, though running a rapid bus through Glendale and Eagle Rock will be the hardest part since there's no private ROW in those areas (that I know of).
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 23, 2014 18:11:42 GMT -8
Would they be able to fit 2 more tracks alongside the Metrolink right-of-way with CAHSR already adding 2? What about down Glenoaks? It seems to have a wide median.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 24, 2014 11:01:14 GMT -8
The most likely route would be continuing down Chandler Blvd. (a former ROW) to eventually connect with the Metrolink station in Burbank. Beyond that, the busway could parallel the Metrolink ROW for a bit before veering left onto Colorado or Broadway to run through Glendale, then move to the 134 and run through Eagle Rock into Pasadena. All the above is just a guess, though running a rapid bus through Glendale and Eagle Rock will be the hardest part since there's no private ROW in those areas (that I know of). Would they be able to fit 2 more tracks alongside the Metrolink right-of-way with CAHSR already adding 2? What about down Glenoaks? It seems to have a wide median. It's almost like you guys seen my map before...  goo.gl/maps/wvEWC |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 4, 2014 16:04:22 GMT -8
Not directly related to this line, but the State Assembly has voted unanimously to repeal the Robbins Bill ban on running trains along the Orange line. This could, however remotely in the future it might be, affect the Van Nuys line and the 405/Sepulveda Pass transit tunnel.
buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/02/repeal-of-orange-line-rail-ban-clears.html link
The Building LA blog is pretty great BTW.
p.s. Is there an Admin who can clear my registration so I don't have to post as a "guest"  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2014 17:07:02 GMT -8
Same here, is there an admin who can clear my registration. User name is garrusvakarian. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 5, 2014 11:29:13 GMT -8
You guys should check the "spam" or "junk" folder of the email you used to sign up. That's where I found my activation link many moons ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Feb 5, 2014 15:03:16 GMT -8
You guys should check the "spam" or "junk" folder of the email you used to sign up. That's where I found my activation link many moons ago. It says pending staff approval after I sign in. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 5, 2014 15:36:27 GMT -8
Same here.
|
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe!! on Feb 5, 2014 15:57:16 GMT -8
Me too!!
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 10, 2014 17:24:47 GMT -8
Metro is proposing major changes to the SFV Rapid service. Two interesting proposals: 1. 588 Express Nordhoff to Westwood - with limited stops between Nordhoff and Orange line and express running between Orange line and Westwood - which is basically the combined route of proposed Van Nuys/Sepulveda BRT or Light Rail project. Think of it as the bus version of the future SFV-Westood line like the short-lived "super Rapid" 920 was the poor cousin of the Purple line extension. The express running should shave 20 minutes off the current run time of 761 Rapid from UCLA to Ventura Blvd by cutting out some pointless local running near UCLA, and avoiding a bunch of red lights and local stops on Sepulveda. 2. Combining 741 and 761 to create a "Valley U" line. Basically, 761 will no longer go down Sepulveda Pass to Westwood; and instead will continue on Ventura Blvd to Reseda Blvd where it will continue on the current 741 route - the combined new Rapid will have an "U" shape route. The idea is to add service on the busiest part of Ventura Blvd (between Van Nuys and Reseda) and improve both Van Nuys 761 and Reseda 741 rapid service so that people from north SFV going to places on Ventura Blvd and vice versa can ride just 1 Rapid bus and eliminate a transfer to/from 750 at either Van Nuys or Reseda Blvd. And Ventura Blvd between Van Nuys and Reseda (the busiest part) will have 2 Rapids instead of just 750. The part of 761 going south to Westwood via Sepulveda will be reassigned to 734, thus creating a true "Sepulveda" Rapid. I think these 2 ideas are pretty good and should enhance the reliability and coverage of the Rapid bus service in SFV. The 588 idea is especially interesting because it is basically a "proof of concept" demonstration run for what happens to ridership when you combine Van Nuys corridor (local running) with an express Sepulveda Pass service. thesource.metro.net/2014/02/10/a-look-at-proposed-bus-service-changes-that-would-better-connect-the-san-fernando-valley-and-the-westside/ |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 11, 2014 18:37:37 GMT -8
^ Smart. It's basically a pilot project to assess the ridership of the future 405/Van Nuys Corridor.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 11, 2014 23:21:44 GMT -8
Regarding the wide median in Glenoaks Blvd.: There a good reason for the wide median--there used to be an electric railway running along there. That's where the Pacific Electric Burbank line ran until 1955. It connected with the Glendale Line at Brand Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 14, 2014 10:20:00 GMT -8
Not directly related to this line, but the State Assembly has voted unanimously to repeal the Robbins Bill ban on running trains along the Orange line. This could, however remotely in the future it might be, affect the Van Nuys line and the 405/Sepulveda Pass transit tunnel.
buildinglosangeles.blogspot.com/2014/02/repeal-of-orange-line-rail-ban-clears.html link
The Building LA blog is pretty great BTW.
p.s. Is there an Admin who can clear my registration so I don't have to post as a "guest" Actually, this is directly related to this line because of the "precedent" mode of transit factor. If this could pass the State Senate and be signed by the Governor that would fantastic because it would at least end the presumption that the Valley is stuck with the Orange Line as inadequate BRT. Now getting funds to upgrate to light-rail is a wholly different matter. But at least that becomes theoretically possible. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 14, 2014 17:19:55 GMT -8
how would a conversion proceed? Would they direct fixation the track to the current concrete road bed at night and cover it with steel decking during the day to maintain service and be done in a year or two (what about OCS and utilities for the rail?) or would they rip out the road bed and build a rail bed and take four or five years with the Orange Line out of service the entire time?
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 14, 2014 19:35:26 GMT -8
Why not just divert the Orange line to another route and concentrate on building the line correctly as rail this time? It will take more than 5 years just to get through the planning , approvals and lawsuits. Whatever, it's worth it IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arborway-Guest on Feb 15, 2014 19:20:05 GMT -8
You guys should check the "spam" or "junk" folder of the email you used to sign up. That's where I found my activation link many moons ago. It says pending staff approval after I sign in. No new users have been approved since July of last year. Myself included... |
|
|
|
Post by Rem-Guest on Feb 15, 2014 23:55:34 GMT -8
Yeah, and especially since this forum has been occasionally linked to reddit.com/r/LosAngeles, it's been established as a sort of authority on what Metro's up to.
It looks like only the most recently created sub-boards can be posted to by guests, eg. Van Nuys and Sepulveda Projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Feb 28, 2014 12:04:13 GMT -8
The most likely route would be continuing down Chandler Blvd. (a former ROW) to eventually connect with the Metrolink station in Burbank. Beyond that, the busway could parallel the Metrolink ROW for a bit before veering left onto Colorado or Broadway to run through Glendale, then move to the 134 and run through Eagle Rock into Pasadena. All the above is just a guess, though running a rapid bus through Glendale and Eagle Rock will be the hardest part since there's no private ROW in those areas (that I know of). Would they be able to fit 2 more tracks alongside the Metrolink right-of-way with CAHSR already adding 2? What about down Glenoaks? It seems to have a wide median. It's almost like you guys seen my map before... goo.gl/maps/wvEWCI liked your map, but there were a few things about it that seemed off, so I wound up creating my own. mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zFurjmU9jKtU.klfUZ9aJqrTIMany of the lines on the Rail/BRT layer are either from the 2009 LRTP, Measure R, or from other agencies' current and long range plans. About half of the routes are either modified or completely hypothetical. Most of the lines in the streetcar layer are based on former PE, LARy, and other traction routes, with the rest added from conjecture. Regarding extending the Orange Line: If the Orange Line was to be extended, I would actually suggest turning it down Vineland (along the old PE ROW) and Riverside to run through Toluca Lake and Burbank. This serves both the Toluca Lake shopping district and the studio commuters. Add stops for the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station and the LA Zoo, then run it along the old Colorado Freeway route through Glendale and Eagle Rock. The old PE Burbank branch could then be tied in to the proposed East SFV corridor at Van Nuys to provide Sherman Oaks-Downtown Burbank service via the current Orange Line alignment and the Chandler Bike Path ROW. This depends entirely on the levels of NIMBYism in Burbank; I know the Chandler corridor in Burbank has many affluent residents who don't want to be disturbed, so running anything along that alignment may be problematic. Both of those options eliminate any possible encroachment of the Metrolink/HSR right of way. Other thoughts: As far as connecting Glendale/Burbank to LA, I've added a "Yellow Line" LRT alternative route that serves the Burbank RTC via Empire, short tunnel under I-5 ROW, and median running along Glenoaks and Brand to Atwater Village. From there it would follow the PE Glendale Branch ROW to Edendale before going into a short tunnel to Dodger Stadium, then running elevated and connecting to the current Gold Line tracks at LAUS. This would remove the issues associated with trying to do anything with the now unusable Belmont Tunnel, or the conflicts that approach presented with the Regional Connector. It would also provide direct rail access to Dodger Stadium. Diverting the Crenshaw Line via West Hollywood, I believe, would be counterproductive. Valley commuters are going to want a quick, direct connection to LAX from Hollywood/Highland, and going through WeHo is just going to increase the time by at least 15 minutes. Most of the WeHo destinations are shopping, bars and nightclubs, so a more local, friendly service (that's a little more dedicated and frequent than the buses) would probably be the most effective. I would suggest streetcar lines along Sunset, Melrose and Fairfax; those streets are already almost too congested to be usable as thoroughfares, so dedicating some lanes to streetcars isn't likely to make things much worse. Finally, going back to the original topic, I don't think that HRT is really viable along the Van Nuys corridor. Downtown Van Nuys, perhaps, but all the way to San Fernando? No. I think the low-floor LRT/Tram option that Metro put back on the planning board is the best use of the Van Nuys Boulevard median ROW, even though it would mean making a connection at Sherman Oaks. It also enables lines to branch off along old PE routes like Sherman Way, and would better serve local businesses with more stops than an HRT. Instead, what I would do is run HRT from the Northridge Metrolink down Reseda, then follow the densest portion of Ventura to Sherman Oaks before bending south to UCLA. At that point, it could go two ways: making a bend at the planned Purple Line Westwood extension and running to LAUS, or simply making a connection at the VA station and continuing to LAX directly via Sepulveda, as proposed in the NTC map. There's also no reason not to include BRT along the I-405 HOV at the same time with either route, since the BRT would serve more local destinations than the HRT including the Getty and Skirball centers. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 28, 2014 15:11:10 GMT -8
Finally, going back to the original topic, I don't think that HRT is really viable along the Van Nuys corridor. Downtown Van Nuys, perhaps, but all the way to San Fernando? No. I think the low-floor LRT/Tram option that Metro put back on the planning board is the best use of the Van Nuys Boulevard median ROW, even though it would mean making a connection at Sherman Oaks. It also enables lines to branch off along old PE routes like Sherman Way, and would better serve local businesses with more stops than an HRT. This is a major reason why I think LRT is the best choice for the Sepulveda Pass/Van Nuys Corridor. One, it allows cheaper, future connections to other parts of the valley. Two, over longer distances, it's WAY cheaper than HRT. If HRT was chosen, it would FOR SURE be decades before a one seat ride from Sylmar-LAX is even remotely possible, as the densities along the route need to increase substantially for that to become viable. As for the argument that grade separation makes LRT almost as costly as HRT, you only have to grade separate the line at the major thoroughfares. The rest can probably be at-grade. Like the Expo Line. Also, for increased capacity, design the new stations to accommodate 4, or even 5, vehicle train lengths. I agree that any future mass transit line running down Reseda Blvd (from CSU area) should veer East onto Ventura Blvd. I highly doubt it would be HRT, though. LRT is more likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Feb 28, 2014 15:53:02 GMT -8
This is a major reason why I think LRT is the best choice for the Sepulveda Pass/Van Nuys Corridor. One, it allows cheaper, future connections to other parts of the valley. Two, over longer distances, it's WAY cheaper than HRT. If HRT was chosen, it would FOR SURE be decades before a one seat ride from Sylmar-LAX is even remotely possible, as the densities along the route need to increase substantially for that to become viable. As for the argument that grade separation makes LRT almost as costly as HRT, you only have to grade separate the line at the major thoroughfares. The rest can probably be at-grade. Like the Expo Line. Also, for increased capacity, design the new stations to accommodate 4, or even 5, vehicle train lengths. I agree that any future mass transit line running down Reseda Blvd (from CSU area) should veer East onto Ventura Blvd. I highly doubt it would be HRT, though. LRT is more likely. Given the investment that's being sunk into the 405 right now, the best way to capitalize on the widening would be to convert the HOV lanes to a fully separated busway. They could get a Sepulveda Pass corridor to LAX up and running within a few years, and it could even be extended all the way up Sepulveda Boulevard to San Fernando if a single-seat connection there is desired. It won't be the best solution, but as the Orange Line has shown it could accommodate around 30,000 daily boardings. To go further they can increase the service frequency up to about 2 minute headways and add passing lanes, as done on Bogota's TransMilenio BRT. Ventura isn't wide enough for at-grade LRT operation. The Sepulveda Corridor could eventually be converted to LRT operation, but if a Ventura/Reseda alignment is desired it's going to have to go underground, and if that's the case you might as well go HRT (which can also run at-grade, provided all crossings are grade-separated). Anyway, there's no reason that BRT and HRT can't complement each other. Just look at the Wilshire BRT project, which parallels the Purple Line extension. The other advantage of starting with a well-designed BRT (i.e. private ROW with signal interruption/priority, better than we have on the Orange Line) and then adding HRT to the same corridor is that you're not disrupting the existing service in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 23, 2014 15:20:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Sept 24, 2014 11:16:42 GMT -8
Interesting! Conversion of the Orange Line from bus to LRT has been discussed here before. The idea of an LA-Glendale-Burbank-North Hollywood line that links to the Orange Line has been floated about. Even a Pasadena to Glendale et al. extension has been bandied about, but as a busway; we do have thread dedicated to that. What we don't have is an "Orange Line Conversion: Bus to LRT" thread. We'll probably need that if he wins and actually makes good on his rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Post by BeardFace on Sept 24, 2014 21:45:20 GMT -8
I like this guy! The valley is very underserved with rapid transit. Took the Orange line this week and they almost had to turn people away the bus was so packed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 25, 2014 10:48:09 GMT -8
Interesting! Conversion of the Orange Line from bus to LRT has been discussed here before. The idea of an LA-Glendale-Burbank-North Hollywood line that links to the Orange Line has been floated about. Even a Pasadena to Glendale et al. extension has been bandied about, but as a busway; we do have thread dedicated to that. What we don't have is an "Orange Line Conversion: Bus to LRT" thread. We'll probably need that if he wins and actually makes good on his rhetoric. We do have a dedicated thread for converting Orange line to light rail: transittalk.proboards.com/thread/911/upgrade-light-rail?page=1&scrollTo=16022I think long term, orange line should be converted and it's worth studying it. But there is a more immediate short term need to get signal preemption and gated crossing for the line. That will greatly improve on time performance and thus allow Metro to add more headways and increase capacity that way. Politicians all talk a good game when they want to be elected but I have not seen any elected politicians take on LADOT and confront them on their outdated "moving cars not moving people" methodology on traffic management. |
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Sept 25, 2014 14:49:21 GMT -8
Although the Orange Line is discussed by Shriver, he also states, to quote from the article,
"Shriver shares his vision for transit in the Valley at the 6:10 mark: “If you talk to people in general… people want the light rail on the Orange line…. That’s a priority. North-south connectors, they also want.”
At the 7:15 mark, Shriver talks about what he would do if he could instantly change one thing about L.A. County transit: “I’d have some sort of train facility in the Valley that zipped across the Valley.”
The Lines along Van Nuys Blvd and the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor are the obvious North/South lines. Metro recently stated that they would take a closer look at Grade separations along the Orange line based upon a staff report. Metro is also supposed to have public outreach meetings some time before the end of the year on the Van Nuys Blvd project.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 25, 2014 19:27:52 GMT -8
Since the orange line has fewer passengers than other street running bus lines, we really should be looking hard at the low hanging fruit that would allow the orange line to match the ridership of street running buses. Signal priority and gated crossings would be great.
What's more, if there is going to be an orange to gold connection through glendale, it could happen much easier if the orange line extension is still a bus. Politically they'd be forced to tunnel under glendale to get an orange line light rail extension through the city.
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Sept 25, 2014 21:43:00 GMT -8
What's more, if there is going to be an orange to gold connection through glendale, it could happen much easier if the orange line extension is still a bus. Politically they'd be forced to tunnel under glendale to get an orange line light rail extension through the city. Really? Crenshaw didn't get the tunnel they wanted, and Brand isn't much narrower. They'd have to remove the median and convert diagonal parking to parallel parking, but they wouldn't have to remove any traffic lanes to fit rail there. I guess it's similar to Van Nuys in that there's a ton of car dealerships along the route, who are for obvious reasons not rail-friendly. Burbank is the part that needs tunneling---there's no easy way to get from the end of Chandler to Glenoaks and Providencia. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 26, 2014 13:49:44 GMT -8
Since the orange line has fewer passengers than other street running bus lines, we really should be looking hard at the low hanging fruit that would allow the orange line to match the ridership of street running buses. Signal priority and gated crossings would be great. What's more, if there is going to be an orange to gold connection through glendale, it could happen much easier if the orange line extension is still a bus. Politically they'd be forced to tunnel under glendale to get an orange line light rail extension through the city. That's true or just upgrade an existing Express Bus Service between the two areas in the case of Commuter Express Line 549 it runs between SFV/Encino to North Hollywood through Burbank and Glendale to Pasadena. One note to be careful of is that if this is a direct bus extension, wouldn't we need to create the further constraint on the busway capacity as there will be more people traveling a longer distance. So its something to keep in mind when thinking of extensions of busy and constrained corridors. |
|
