|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on May 28, 2014 8:39:22 GMT -8
I know this isn't the right forum to ask, but seriously, what does it take to get approved around here? I signed up months ago, filled out the Transit Coalition subscription form and put the same email address, even got the flyer in the mail, but my account still shows as pending.
Anyway, back to the subject. Looking at the Orange Line board threads on this topic, most here seem to agree that LRT along Chandler to downtown Burbank is the right way to go. I'm not so sure. Metro may own the ROW, but I fully expect Burbank residents to put up fierce opposition - and while it's the most direct route, I would only expect at most two stops between downtown Burbank and NoHo, at Hollywood Way and Buena Vista. Cahuenga and Victory are also possibilities.
However, that discussion leaves out the most important part: funding. Measure R has no room for converting the Orange Line to LRT. R+ probably won't either.
What about more BRT? It won't be the most popular option, but it doesn't have to be. It most certainly should not run along former rail ROW. It should simply be cost effective, serve a large ridership, and be fairly quick to build.
Which leaves the question of where to run it. Chandler is out, for obvious reasons. We want LRT later and it's going to be difficult to justify ripping up the path twice.
But what about the old Pacific Electric route? If the busway is extended to Vineland, that street is wide enough to accommodate both bus and bike lanes owing to the converted rail median. Buses could run to Riverside, turning to pass through Toluca Lake on their way to the Burbank Media District via Olive. Conveniently, the entrance to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station is on the Olive overpass.
From there it becomes a matter of finding a route to Glendale. Continuing along Glenoaks and Brand, via the former PE ROW, would be one way, and possibly the most direct. Alternately, the line could stop at the Grand media complex (Disney, Dreamworks etc) before bending back to the LA Zoo, then crossing to Colorado. I'm not entirely sure about this routing, but the Zoo is a big draw with no good transit options. It also hits the Americana and Galleria, but misses most of the Glendale financial district.
I think I still prefer the Colorado/Zoo alignment because it leaves Brand and Glenoaks open for future LRT to downtown.
No matter what, Colorado via Eagle Rock to Pasadena is a no brained. Bus lanes can either go straight through Old Town or divert around via Green/Union before ending at Sierra Madre Villa.
And of course, the best part is that this could be accomplished at a similar price tag and timeframe as the Wilshire Rapid improvements.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on May 28, 2014 11:10:47 GMT -8
Same here. I signed up about a year ago, filled out the subscription form and get the emails but still haven't gotten approved. My account still shows pending also.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 28, 2014 11:13:32 GMT -8
It should simply be cost effective, serve a large ridership, and be fairly quick to build. The Orange Line ended up costing almost as much or more than it could have as rail, and it does not serve as many people as a train would have. I think it failed on both accounts, it isn't cost effective and it's ridership suffers from smaller capacity. Thanks to the Robbins Bill, above ground rail on Chandler is banned (for now). Anyhow, I think that they want to build a park or trail on that part of the Chandler ROW, last I read. It makes no sense to me...
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 28, 2014 12:42:24 GMT -8
The Orange Line ended up costing almost as much or more than it could have as rail, and it does not serve as many people as a train would have. I think it failed on both accounts, it isn't cost effective and it's ridership suffers from smaller capacity. Thanks to the Robbins Bill, above ground rail on Chandler is banned (for now). Anyhow, I think that they want to build a park or trail on that part of the Chandler ROW, last I read. It makes no sense to me... It's not a complete failure if its ridership is beating expectations and the Orange Line is at or above capacity. A failure would be if ridership is dismal; and that's not the case with the Orange Line. Though, I agree it was a missed opportunity in making the Orange Line rail.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on May 28, 2014 13:45:21 GMT -8
I agree that the Orange Line, as built, would have been better off LRT. However, because of how they built it, there are now sunk costs involved.
Once the Robbins bill is repealed, Metro can start studying electrification of the busway. Until then, and that's going to take at least 10 years, I'm thinking we need a solution to connect the SGV to the SFV. Given how the buses can operate on streets, what makes the most sense to me is to extend it along surface streets - following a different path than future rail - so that while the Burbank Branch gets electrified, the busway service can continue.
Having said that, I would also rather see the Sherman Way right of way electrified from Van Nuys to Canoga. It would interline nicely with the Van Nuys corridor, and provide a trip from either Chatsworth or Warner Center to Burbank along Sherman Way, Van Nuys and Chandler.
That way, Metro could continue using the busway along Oxnard/Victory, and expand service to the dense housing and business clusters along Sherman Way.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 28, 2014 15:27:33 GMT -8
It should simply be cost effective, serve a large ridership, and be fairly quick to build. The Orange Line ended up costing almost as much or more than it could have as rail, and it does not serve as many people as a train would have. I think it failed on both accounts, it isn't cost effective and it's ridership suffers from smaller capacity. Thanks to the Robbins Bill, above ground rail on Chandler is banned (for now). Anyhow, I think that they want to build a park or trail on that part of the Chandler ROW, last I read. It makes no sense to me... Not an Orange Line fan, but no way could they have spent less than $300M to build rail here. Rail would have been much more expensive. I saw Streetsblog LA's comments on this and their examples of rail being cheap were not comparable at all. If they are going to use these poor examples as comparisons. we cannot forget, the Valley already does have extensive rail - it is called Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 28, 2014 16:53:17 GMT -8
Asm. Nazarian's bill to repeal the Robbins bill has passed the State Assembly. If it passes the State Senate and is signed by the Governor, no one in the Valley will be discussing inadequate BRT. They will be arguing for an LRT upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on May 28, 2014 22:00:35 GMT -8
... no one in the Valley will be discussing inadequate BRT. They will be arguing for an LRT upgrade. Well, see, here's the thing. I'm fully expecting the bill to pass, and I would love to see LRT in the Valley. But I don't think we're going to see it within the next ten years. Even if LA wins the 2024 Olympics bid, the accelerated Metro construction is going to focus on areas with Olympic venues and the Valley isn't on that list. So, keeping in mind the current constraints of Measure R and any possible future measures, BRT makes the most sense in the short term for the Valley. In the long term, a rail backbone connected with BRT-class buses is what we need. The problem is, if we ignore BRT entirely, then instead of having an adequate, if at-capacity, BRT service between SFV and SGV in a few years, we will continue to have a completely inadequate local service and "rapid" buses that are anything but. We really need to improve the Metro bus grid, and BRT is the only way to do it. It also can provide a stopgap measure until the rail network can be built out. So no, BRT is not "inadequate." It's not always the right tool, but it has its place.
|
|
|
Post by FinnTheSuperhuman on May 29, 2014 17:00:14 GMT -8
Metrolink does not count as "rail Service." First of all, it is not extensive; there are only 7 stations in an approximately 225-square-mile area. Frequency is also an issue, as trains do not even run every hour in each direction. This is because Metrolink is commuter rail, and the purpose of commuter rail is to take people from the outer suburbs to downtown and back again during rush hour. The Valley, being a part of the city of LA, needs transit that takes people from one part of the city to the next at any time, like our metro rail and BRT lines. That being said, the current ventura county line corridor is a good place to put a metro line..
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 30, 2014 9:04:57 GMT -8
Metrolink does not count as "rail Service." First of all, it is not extensive; there are only 7 stations in an approximately 225-square-mile area. Frequency is also an issue, as trains do not even run every hour in each direction. This is because Metrolink is commuter rail, and the purpose of commuter rail is to take people from the outer suburbs to downtown and back again during rush hour. The Valley, being a part of the city of LA, needs transit that takes people from one part of the city to the next at any time, like our metro rail and BRT lines. That being said, the current ventura county line corridor is a good place to put a metro line.. Yes, but that is the point. This type of light rail costs a lot to build so it isn't comparable to say that some diesel light rail line with 30+ minute headways costs only so much to build so rail isn't as expensive to build. Costs on the East Side Valley Transit Corridor are often understated too. Just the land for the maintenance facility is super expensive in Los Angeles. Rail would be great on these corridors, but we have to be realistic about the costs in order to ever see them actually built.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 30, 2014 19:36:56 GMT -8
However, if you build BRT and then covert it to rail, your paying for it twice. I've ridden the Orange line, and it seems ok, but still it is a huge mistake that the valley will take years to fix, IMHO. Anyway, at the Valleys loss, comes our gain of the Expo line and the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on May 30, 2014 20:43:26 GMT -8
However, if you build BRT and then covert it to rail, your paying for it twice. I've ridden the Orange line, and it seems ok, but still it is a huge mistake that the valley will take years to fix, IMHO. Anyway, at the Valleys loss, comes our gain of the Expo line and the Gold Line. That's exactly why I'm suggesting extending the Orange Line BRT along a route that isn't well-suited to rail. If we were going to build LRT to Pasadena, running it down the 134 would be the best option - but it would basically skip Eagle Rock and other communities along the way. A BRT alignment along Riverside, Olive, and Colorado would serve those communities and improve service for everyone in the near term. It also would also provide a more local complement to an eventual rail alignment, without requiring ripping existing infrastructure out like the current busway. That's another argument I would make for building an LRT alignment along Sherman Way from Van Nuys to Canoga - because we won't have to tear out that portion of the busway, only the Chandler portion. And leaving both options as public transit expands the service coverage.
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on May 31, 2014 15:05:29 GMT -8
Yeah, I think its very unlikely that we see the Orange Line converted any time soon.Based on the Long Range Plan, it looks like the valley will be the realm of BRT on multiple arms, which may make using the Chandler median for BRT more worthwhile. If you take the Chandler line for BRT, the connection to Burbank (and off to Pasadena) seems a little more direct.
As an aside, speaking of Metrolink, I think Metrolink in general is a huge missed opportunity. I know that freight movements rule a lot of their right of ways, but its frustrating seeing functioning right of ways directly through the Valley, as well as off into the eastern counties, and only getting 15 or less trains a weekday. I desperately hope R+ contains the funding to do the capital improvements necessary (double/triple tracking, electrification, rollingstock, everything) that would allow Metrolink to be as important as it should be. I mean the California Rail Plan only has service on the Ventura line increasing from 15 trains a day to 22 by 2030. Thats not going to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 1, 2014 23:25:24 GMT -8
wait, so all they need to do is change signal sync and they can run more frequent headways on the orange line?
And rail advocates want to rip it out and install rails when all they need to change is some traffic light programming?
That's profoundly stupid and wasteful. If we can increase capacity on the Orange Line by increasing headways then we should do that, not pay for Orange Line 2.0 just to satisfy a rail fetish.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Jun 1, 2014 23:41:00 GMT -8
wait, so all they need to do is change signal sync and they can run more frequent headways on the orange line? And rail advocates want to rip it out and install rails when all they need to change is some traffic light programming? That's profoundly stupid and wasteful. If we can increase capacity on the Orange Line by increasing headways then we should do that, not pay for Orange Line 2.0 just to satisfy a rail fetish. What is the increased headway frequency? How will that impact travel times since individual buses tail gating each other is dangerous? What is the new maximum ridership? if those answers equate to rail numbers along with private investment numbers that rail attracts, than we can conclude it is a fetish. Otherwise, why is every other part of the county building rail and not just more bus routes?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 2, 2014 9:37:06 GMT -8
One also has to look at operating costs in determining bus vs. rail. The biggest factor in the cost of service is the person driving the bus. A train holds a lot more people than a bus, and is cheaper to operate. Similarly, if you can run an automated system, it's *much* less expensive. In Paris, for example, the lines that are automated can have 3 minute headways even in off-peak hours due to very low marginal operating costs.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 2, 2014 9:38:26 GMT -8
Orange line needs both higher frequency headway during peak times, and higher capacity.
The first can be achieved with better signal priority. The second can be achieve if the State will grant an exemption on vehicle length. Instead of 60ft buses, imagine 80ft buses that can hold 300 people, similar to a light rail car.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jun 3, 2014 16:46:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 3, 2014 18:39:43 GMT -8
Switzerland actually does that. A standard 40 foot bus pulls an unmanned 40 foot trailer.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 1, 2014 15:00:38 GMT -8
AB577 has passed the state legislature and is sitting on the Governor's desk for his signature. Lobbying for an upgrade to light-rail will begin within minutes of signature.
This thread should move to a discussion about extending the Orange Line between North Hollywood and one of the Pasadena stations as a light-rail project.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 1, 2014 15:58:53 GMT -8
AB577 has passed the state legislature and is sitting on the Governor's desk for his signature. Lobbying for an upgrade to light-rail will begin within minutes of signature. This thread should move to a discussion about extending the Orange Line between North Hollywood and one of the Pasadena stations as a light-rail project. Well, I said it in the first post, but perhaps my wording was a little muddled. I do not believe the current Orange Line ROW, in its entirety, should be electrified. That doesn't mean I'm against electrifying the Orange Line. I just think that we would be better served by integrating the Chandler portion of the ROW into a Valley rail network, which would run E-W from North Hollywood Station (potentially even as far as downtown Burbank) via Chandler, N/S on Van Nuys, then E/W on Sherman Way. At Canoga the line would bend south to Warner Center, with a possible branch route running north to Chatsworth. Meanwhile, the current Orange Line would continue bus operations along the Oxnard-aligned portion of the ROW. Furthermore, this would allow buses to continue running during electrification by detouring them along Oxnard St. from Valley College to North Hollywood Station and minimizing service disruptions. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, a picture is worth a thousand words. LRT probably could be extended to Pasadena along SR-134, creating an E-W corridor branch from Montclair to Chatsworth or Warner Center. I just don't know if commuter ridership would justify a foothills-only alignment, when a busway along the former Colorado Freeway alignment would serve the local communities of Glendale and Eagle Rock much more effectively at lower cost.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 1, 2014 16:25:36 GMT -8
that would be a really cool rail map without all the Light Gray clutter.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 1, 2014 16:33:27 GMT -8
Yeah, I was trying to capture what a complete Metro system might be with prioritized bus lanes (basically Rapid+) alongside a fleshed-out rail grid. Given a little time I could clean up and produce a rail-only version.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 2, 2014 8:04:26 GMT -8
That rail map is amazing. Thank you for sharing it.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 2, 2014 11:30:12 GMT -8
Hmm, interesting that the metro spokesperson said that metro has no plans to study an LRT conversion... that almost certainly means they're not looking at it for the Measure R+ ballot measure, since they're on a supposed timetable to roll out a projects list for that by November. I sense a very public debate coming about that projects list this fall... (which probably would've happened no matter what)
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 2, 2014 14:33:57 GMT -8
So, here's an updated map including some of Metro's latest changes. I replaced the Artesia Blvd alignment of Line R with a Rosemead/Lakewood Blvd alignment to better serve the SGV, extended the Orange Line past Burbank and interlined it with the future Blue Line extension, removed the Harbor Subdivision line to LAX, and removed all BRT routes from the map to de-clutter it.
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 2, 2014 16:10:15 GMT -8
So, here's an updated map including some of Metro's latest changes. I replaced the Artesia Blvd alignment of Line R with a Rosemead/Lakewood Blvd alignment to better serve the SGV, extended the Orange Line past Burbank and interlined it with the future Blue Line extension, removed the Harbor Subdivision line to LAX, and removed all BRT routes from the map to de-clutter it. It seems that you have the Orange line and the potential Van Nuys Blvd line sharing stations from Riverside to Sherman Way. Or is this something else, like a rail line down Sherman Way like there used to be back in the 1950's? Sherman Way is more than large enough to handle modern LRT and would lead to a massive redevelopment of the street. I would rather see the Orange Line converted to rail. I think Ventura Blvd or Reseda Blvd would have much higher ridership but would need grade separation for LRT.
|
|
|
Post by Crayz9000_guest on Jul 2, 2014 16:50:03 GMT -8
As I mentioned before, my proposal is to electrify only the Chandler portion of the Orange Line/SP Burbank Branch ROW. The line would interline with the East SFV corridor at Van Nuys Boulevard between Chandler and Sherman Way, run in the Sherman Way median to Canoga, then turn south to Warner Center.
The beauty of doing it that way is you can continue to run 901 bus service during the electrification, using the existing busway from Warner Center to Woodman, then switching to Oxnard and Lankershim the rest of the way. It would provide BRT and LRT service along parallel corridors 2 miles apart.
2013 avg. weekday ridership numbers:
Line 750 (Ventura Blvd Rapid): 4,910 Line 163 (Sherman Way local): 10,667 Line 901 (Orange Line): 29,220
And just for comparison:
Line 212 (Hollywood-Burbank Airport): 15,079
From a seat of the pants guess, I'm going to say that Sherman Way would be the least expensive and serve the most as an electrification route for the Orange Line. Its local route has fairly high ridership already.
Some of the major intersections like Reseda should be fully grade-separated like the Expo Line, so even with the extra distance the line should take a lot of the riders off the busway and let Metro scale back the service there a bit. (It looks like Metro wants to do that anyway, since they're going to slowly phase out 60-foot buses).
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 10, 2014 15:29:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by North Valley on Jul 10, 2014 15:34:25 GMT -8
Since the article above states that Mayor Garcetti might be interested in studying a conversion of the Orange Line to rail, I wondered if any members, just for fun, would care to make an estimate on the cost of such a conversion.
|
|