|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 2, 2012 0:36:23 GMT -8
I was thinking, if Van Nuys Blvd is going to become part of a corridor from Sylmar to LAX, the Red Line should be extended to meet it to reduce the number of transfers (instead of 2 transfers via the Orange Line). From North Hollywood, the Red Line can continue as subway to Valley Plaza (Laurel Canyon & Victory), then via Laurel Canyon (subway) or the 170 (elevated) to the Metrolink/Amtrak ROW near Sherman Way, where it would go west along the ROW, with possible stops at Coldwater Canyon, Woodman, Van Nuys (main transfer point), Sepulveda, Woodley and Balboa. At Lindley, it could turn north, with a stop for CSUN at Lindley & Prairie/Matador Walk, then turn west at Plummer with a stop at Reseda. It would then turn south on Tampa with a stop near the Northridge Fashion Center entrance, then turning back east on the ROW (yes, I know it's a little loopy) to end up at the Northridge Metrolink Station. What do you all think of this routing?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 3, 2012 20:41:09 GMT -8
I would prefer it be extended to Bob Hope Airport, as there's currently no mass transit service there.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 3, 2012 23:46:55 GMT -8
The Orange Line could be extended to Bob Hope Airport instead...
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 4, 2012 4:27:28 GMT -8
I would prefer it be extended to Bob Hope Airport, as there's currently no mass transit service there. There's a good reason for that.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 4, 2012 6:26:27 GMT -8
The Orange Line could be extended to Bob Hope Airport instead... That wouldn't help reduce transfers to the Red Line for Orange Line riders heading Downtown... And, it would likely make Bob Hope Airport the terminus for the Orange Line and kill any cheap attempt at extending it to LA and/or Pasadena... And you're more likely to run into NIMBY opposition with an above ground Orange Line extension, while a Red Line extension would be underground... And, being underground, a Red Line extension would be a straighter, quicker route... I would prefer it be extended to Bob Hope Airport, as there's currently no mass transit service there. There's a good reason for that. What reason is that? NIMBYs? I thought we all agreed that things have changed DRASTICALLY in the last couple decades.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 4, 2012 7:28:39 GMT -8
I would prefer it be extended to Bob Hope Airport, as there's currently no mass transit service there. Metrolink?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 4, 2012 10:53:12 GMT -8
Fine then, Metro rail.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jan 4, 2012 17:01:22 GMT -8
I can't imagine a Red Line extension to Bob Hope Airport any time in the foreseeable future. You're talking about three miles of subway/elevated rail to get an airport with pretty meager usage. Compare Burbank's 5 million travelers per year ( source) to that of airports where a rail connection has happened recently or is going to relatively soon: LAX (60 million), San Francisco (40 million), Oakland (10 million) and Miami (36 million). At some point it's just not worth it to spend $1-2 billion just because it's nice to have a train to take you to and pick you up from an airport. For that kind of money, you could buy 25 buses and run them for half a century on dedicated transit-only lanes. It's not exactly glamorous, but the it's the cost effective thing to do, given that there are so many other projects around the region that could use that kind of money.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 4, 2012 17:24:52 GMT -8
I can't imagine a Red Line extension to Bob Hope Airport any time in the foreseeable future. You're talking about three miles of subway/elevated rail to get an airport with pretty meager usage. Compare Burbank's 5 million travelers per year ( source) to that of airports where a rail connection has happened recently or is going to relatively soon: LAX (60 million), San Francisco (40 million), Oakland (10 million) and Miami (36 million). At some point it's just not worth it to spend $1-2 billion just because it's nice to have a train to take you to and pick you up from an airport. For that kind of money, you could buy 25 buses and run them for half a century on dedicated transit-only lanes. It's not exactly glamorous, but the it's the cost effective thing to do, given that there are so many other projects around the region that could use that kind of money. I don't disagree per say, but the airport would be more popular with a link like this. Also, realize that reaching the airport is only one benefit here given that we'd now connect to Metrolink here so people going to Hollywood and Universal City via Metrolink wouldn't need to go all the way to Union Station and backtrack via subway. If we are going to spend money to somehow connect a dying airport in Ontario that is not even in LA County, then Burbank should be in the discussion. Granted, this won't happen until we have a post Measure R. In the meantime an Orange Line extension here would be a good solution.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 4, 2012 21:19:21 GMT -8
This makes an Orange Line extension to Pasadena/Downtown LA much more difficult, though.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 5, 2012 1:38:19 GMT -8
The Orange Line should definitely not go to the airport. Aside from the fact that it would not be very fast (almost all of it would likely be street running), it would completely ignore the Chandler ROW, where it could eventually hook up with Downtown Burbank (and eventually, Glendale, Eagle Rock, and Pasadena). The Orange Line should remain an east-west route.
Nor should the Red Line go to the airport. Yes, it would be convenient, but it would be a weak terminus and would ignore many other areas in much more need of rapid transit in the valley.
As it's been proposed before, the best choice for the Red Line is for it to be extended north (via Lankershim or Laurel Canyon) to Sylmar.
A new in-fill Metrolink station could be built near Sherman Way (where the Ventura County Metrolink meets Lankershim and Laurel Canyon roughly) along this route. There, transfers could be made to get to the airport.
Building these lines into the airport does not maximize the long-term potential for either line.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 5, 2012 3:56:09 GMT -8
What reason is that? NIMBYs? I thought we all agreed that things have changed DRASTICALLY in the last couple decades. The problem is not building the thing. It's that the demand is so low that rail service is not warranted. People aren't going to ride a train to an airport just because it's available.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 5, 2012 10:33:25 GMT -8
What reason is that? NIMBYs? I thought we all agreed that things have changed DRASTICALLY in the last couple decades. The problem is not building the thing. It's that the demand is so low that rail service is not warranted. People aren't going to ride a train to an airport just because it's available. I am certainly not an expert on the Valley as I rarely go there. Also, I think airports are often overstated in terms of their transit benefits. Nevertheless, there are certainly quite a few jobs there and there could be some transit activity from plane passengers and it seems like it is as much a job cluster and transit activity center as anywhere else in the Valley, save for Warner Center. Like I said before the connection to Metrolink is huge here. There are other places to do this. Someone said Sylmar, but that is quite a bit farther away and you are talking a much bigger project. I think Sylmar is a better destination for the Van Nuys 405 light rail line and not the Red Line. Overall, I could think of worse termini for the Red Line, even though I don't expect any Red Line extension in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 5, 2012 10:37:28 GMT -8
If we are going to extend the Red Line to Burbank at all, I'd rather see it go from North Hollywood to the downtown Burbank Metrolink station, which is transferable to both the Ventura and Antelope Valley commuter rail lines, and probably a High Speed rail station if and when that project ever gets built
I do agree that the San Fernando Valley needs an east-west Metrorail line between Pasadena and either Warner Center and/or CSUN. Metro has already determined that the bridges would hold light-rail cars should the Orange line ever be upgraded to light-rail, which I believe it should.
I also agree that more transit connections to the Burbank Airport is a good idea. For now, I'd be thrilled to see the 222 bus more frequently between Hollywood/Highland and the Burbank Airport.
But before we built a rail link to Burbank Airport, we should try a shuttle bus between the North Hollywood Red Line station, Burbank Airport and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station and see the ridership increase first.
However, for argument's sake about a Red Line extension west across the Valley, I see no reason why it would need to run underground assuming the Robbins Bill could be repealed. The heavy-rail subways in Manhattan all come above ground eventually when they go to the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jan 5, 2012 13:33:26 GMT -8
I believe that there is potential to increase ridership through greater frequency of existing services (Metrolink, Metro Bus Lines 165 & 222, and BurbankBus), and by initiating direct Burbank Airport-North Hollywood Station bus service. Last year, Burbank Airport started contracting with SuperShuttle to provide free trips to North Hollywood Station upon request. The ridership of a subway extension to Burbank Airport would be insufficient to meet federal cost-benefit criteria to receive the funding it would require. An Orange Line extension or branch would be more feasible, but taking the Orange Line to downtown Burbank and from there to Glendale would be shorter and would probably get at least as much ridership, if not more. Line 222 has tremendous potential, given its proximity to the studios, if it ran more frequently.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 5, 2012 16:14:25 GMT -8
I used Burbank Airport a lot when I went to college in Oregon, even though my family has always been in the South Bay. It was cheap and Alaska had good service in and out of there.
Obviously, when my family flies to Hawaii, Japan or Europe, Burbank isn't going to make sense. It has to be LAX.
However, I am well aware of the fact that LAX is the 500-pound gorilla clogging up traffic in the South Bay. The gorilla needs to go on a diet and it needs a makeover.
One of the obvious ways to reduce traffic at LAX and near LAX is to encourage more use of Burbank, Long Beach and Ontario. New York, London and Tokyo do not shove all international and domestic travelers into one airport (Narita/ Haneda, Gatwick/ Heathrow, JFK/ Newark) and neither should we.
Mass transit would be one way to encourage people to use Burbank and not head down to LAX all the time.
It doesn't have to be an extension of the Orange Line or the Red Line. It could easily be better service on Metrolink, or better bus service.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 5, 2012 17:32:08 GMT -8
Someone said Sylmar, but that is quite a bit farther away and you are talking a much bigger project. I think Sylmar is a better destination for the Van Nuys 405 light rail line and not the Red Line. No bigger than putting the 405 line there. In fact, it would be far cheaper, since it would require fewer stations.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 5, 2012 17:49:04 GMT -8
Everybody keeps getting upset about Metro scrapping the Metro Pink Line. It's not like they unjustly scrapped it. The fact was that Metro said it would be difficult to operate 3 HRT trains from Union Station to Wilshire/Vermont and then have to re-connect again and time perfectly the re-joining of the purple Line at La Cienega. If you think about it operationally............has this happened anywhere else in the world? Where one subway starts with 2 lines on a single track for 4 miles and then re-joins the existing track after being diverted for 8 miles? Think about it.
Is that really Metro just scrapping it just because...or operationally, it made no sense?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 5, 2012 18:00:42 GMT -8
Everybody keeps getting upset about Metro scrapping the Metro Pink Line. It's not like they unjustly scrapped it. The fact was that Metro said it would be difficult to operate 3 HRT trains from Union Station to Wilshire/Vermont and then have to re-connect again and time perfectly the re-joining of the purple Line at La Cienega. If you think about it operationally............has this happened anywhere else in the world? Where one subway starts with 2 lines on a single track for 4 miles and then re-joins the existing track after being diverted for 8 miles? Think about it. Is that really Metro just scrapping it just because...or operationally, it made no sense? I am pretty sure it wasn't so much of a problem of operations. The way I understood it was that the Pink Line would operate from Hollywood/Highland to the VA or Santa Monica or wherever the Purple Line ends. There would not be 3 trains at Wilshire/Vermont or anywhere else. The fact that the Pink Line could not continue to the Valley did hurt it a lot in my opinion. Too bad Hollywood and Highland was not built with another branch in mind. The biggest problem was that the ridership projections just weren't very good. The Purple Line stations blew them away even the ones in Santa Monica that aren't part of the current project that some people don't think are necessary with Expo showed much better ridership than the Pink Line stations. I was a little surprised and I don't always understand Metro's ridership model, but it does make some sense. Overall, I did like the project from the fact that it would connect two areas of the city that never had a freeway built that was designed for one (the never built Beverly Hills Freeway). I think the fact that with no freeway and very congested local roadways between these two areas that the ridership model may have underestimated demand because of these factors.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 5, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -8
Someone said Sylmar, but that is quite a bit farther away and you are talking a much bigger project. I think Sylmar is a better destination for the Van Nuys 405 light rail line and not the Red Line. No bigger than putting the 405 line there. In fact, it would be far cheaper, since it would require fewer stations. The difference being that the 405 Line will be light rail vs. heavy rail from the Red Line. We'll have to study the Van Nuys corridor to see exactly how this would run and how much could be at grade, but this could be a major cost difference vs. a Red Line extension.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 5, 2012 18:09:37 GMT -8
Yeah, maybe if there was express bus service between the NoHo station and the airport, it would be a lot more popular and could give insight on any need for rail there.
|
|