|
Post by zoostation on May 11, 2007 22:19:50 GMT -8
I just took a bike ride down the Orange Line today and my lady friend from New Jersey asked me "why is this not a rail line." I told her that NIMBYs squashed it for, among other reasons, that the trains would be too loud. And then one of those Metro Liners came bounding by at enormous decibels.
There is NO way that trains would be louder or even as loud as those buses. Good job NIMBYs (and Zev).
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 11, 2007 23:40:29 GMT -8
The point about the Orange Line being a rail line is moot.
Zev never would have got off his ass if the project was not a busway. And making it a rail line would have left the right of way untouched for a long time.
Plus, unlike the ingrates along the Gold Line, the Valley is happy that it has a fast bus across town. The Orange Line gets the job done and is actually adding ridership. The Gold Line is a failure and ridership is stagnant. No other rail line had ridership stuck for three years.
And, $400 million is sunk in the Orange Line busway. Still advocating it to be a rail line adds the sunk costs to conversion, and all in all, it would be revanchist to push for rail.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 12, 2007 7:30:15 GMT -8
The problem with the Gold Line is that it's not really bypassing anything. Someone who wants to go from downtown to Pasadena can easily take the 110. However, with the downtown connector, we would get many more people who would want to go to Santa Monica and Long Beach. So the only way this can be successful is with a Foothill Extension which would bypass the traffic for people going from the SGV to Pasadena/Downtown.
Blue Line - Bypasses the 710. Red Line - Bypasses the 101. Purple Line - Bypasses the 10/Wilshire. Expo Line - Bypasses the 10/Wilshire/many other West Side Boulevards. Orange Line - Bypasses the 101. Gold Line - ?
There are advantages to every line except for the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 12, 2007 9:12:22 GMT -8
Hey you guys! I heard of Metro plan to convert Orange Line to rail, Metro wants to use 80 foot buses, but the problem is a state law prohibits the use of such long vehicles on the public highways. So now we(The TTC Fans) must begin to figure how will Metro reconstruct the Orange Line. TTC can save Metro a lots of money by devising htier own plan and have it ready for the day of engineering marvels.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 13, 2007 23:53:03 GMT -8
Phattonez, why do only drivers matter?
The area south of South Pasadena is poor. Why aren't the poor people in Northeast Los Angeles riding the Gold Line? Lines 81 and 83 are high-ridership lines.
That's an even bigger mystery.
My theory is what's killing Gold Line is not the speed, but Union Station being the southern terminal. Union Station is a terrible place to transfer, and riders know this. Lines 81 and 83 are both crosstown services, meaning they not only go into downtown, but beyond it. Line 81 runs on north and south Figueroa, and Line 83 buses continue as Line 28 or 328 on Olympic Bl. (making 28 the third-busiest line Metro runs). The buses cost the same and run as frequently, but they save one and possibly two transfers (because of the crosstown effect).
The Gold Line is good for Pasadena riders, since an under half-hour route from the eastern end of the city is still pretty good, to be on par with driving. However, the ridership should be heavier in Northeast L.A., but bus riders are sticking with the bus because they lose time by riding the train and transferring.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 14, 2007 4:28:10 GMT -8
Congrats, wad, now you're joining the growing number who've figured out that the Gold Line was never really completed! In 2009 and 2010, when the Eastside and Expo Lines start operating, and now there will be four lines that don't connect to each other, the understanding that connecting Union Station and Staples/Metro Center, and including a Downtown Light Rail Connector that has stops on Figueroa and Bunker Hill will be as pervasive as the understanding that the Green Line should have connected to LAX.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 14, 2007 15:24:55 GMT -8
Phattonez, why do only drivers matter? The area south of South Pasadena is poor. Why aren't the poor people in Northeast Los Angeles riding the Gold Line? Lines 81 and 83 are high-ridership lines. That's an even bigger mystery. My theory is what's killing Gold Line is not the speed, but Union Station being the southern terminal. Union Station is a terrible place to transfer, and riders know this. Lines 81 and 83 are both crosstown services, meaning they not only go into downtown, but beyond it. Line 81 runs on north and south Figueroa, and Line 83 buses continue as Line 28 or 328 on Olympic Bl. (making 28 the third-busiest line Metro runs). The buses cost the same and run as frequently, but they save one and possibly two transfers (because of the crosstown effect). The Gold Line is good for Pasadena riders, since an under half-hour route from the eastern end of the city is still pretty good, to be on par with driving. However, the ridership should be heavier in Northeast L.A., but bus riders are sticking with the bus because they lose time by riding the train and transferring. I'm not saying that only they matter, but even buses get stuck in traffic. Buses along all our other transit corridors move slowly. For the Gold Line, it's not too bad. Traffic effects everyone equally.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 16, 2007 23:49:13 GMT -8
Congrats, wad, now you're joining the growing number who've figured out that the Gold Line was never really completed! No, I disagree. If you look at forecasts, the Gold Line, as built, was supposed to be carrying around 35,000 right now, with what's available. It was not contingent upon extensions or the downtown connector. Not only is the Gold Line not even close to those projections, the ridership growth is stagnant, which is doubly troubling. None of the other rail lines have been this stubborn in getting riders. Blue and Green lines were pretty much complete and were able to grow. (I know the ends of the Blue Line came about a year after what initially opened, but the growth has occurred with the completed system.) The Blue Line quadrupled in 15 years. That's astonishing. The Green Line almost doubled, which is astonishing considering that it should be a failure. The Red Line was terribly expensive, but it was built right where people go and is doing about right for the passenger loads. Only the Harbor Transitway has stagnated as bad as the Gold Line. Metro has tried encouraging more riders onto the freeway, but that dog never hunted. East L.A. is likely to make the Gold Line look good, but the existing operating segment is a goner.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 17, 2007 5:49:47 GMT -8
Believe it or not, wad, you've proven my point, and it forebodes potential ill for the Expo and Eastside LRT projects. Neither the Gold Line nor the Harbor Transitway reached "Downtown", which is somewhere between Metro Center and Union Station.
As it stands, the Pasadena Gold Line is a stand-alone project that is poorly connected to the rest of the county transit network; same with the Harbor Transitway.
The Blue and Green Lines connect to each other, and therefore ridership went up greater than predicted.
The Expo and Eastside LRT projects will, I believe, do better than the Pasadena Gold Line, but if it becomes clear that the number of Downtown destinations for even these lines are limited than ridership will be adversely affected. Hence the need for the Downtown Light Rail Connector will be as great in the future as the Green Line/LAX connection is right now in order to allow for future ridership potential.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 17, 2007 8:57:28 GMT -8
Right now, most of the people riding LRT are those who were riding buses before LRT. These past 3 years ridership has hit the wall, or slightly decreased on every rail line, Red, Purple, Blue, Green, and Gold.
Therefore rail has become, for the most part, an alternative to the bus, not the car.
In order for ridership to grow, we must attract more people who before were commuting by car. That has failed to happen, and thus the low ridership numbers for public transit. Even at a whopping $3.65 a gallon, people still shun public transit, and choose to drive alone in the SUV. This needs to change drastically.
The Law of economics dictates that when demand for a commodity, outstrips the supply, the price will increase, and the so will the use of alternatives. Then the consumption of such a commodity will be reduced and become more efficient in the process.
This is just not happening. We are still wasting ludicrous amounts of fuel, while alternative transportation is left in the dust. Perhaps when it's $4.00 a gallon, $8.00 a gallon. Society knows has no solution for this thirst. And they won't ride light rail.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 17, 2007 23:20:54 GMT -8
Believe it or not, wad, you've proven my point, and it forebodes potential ill for the Expo and Eastside LRT projects. Neither the Gold Line nor the Harbor Transitway reached "Downtown", which is somewhere between Metro Center and Union Station. Incorrect, Ken. The Harbor Transitway buses go right through downtown. Look at a route map of Line 444, 445, 446 or 447. They all cut through the heart of downtown. One of the advantages of a busway is to allow series of buses to run to dispersed directions, thereby reducing the transfer penalty. And the 3,000 number is a combination of all Metro buses along the Harbor Transitway. Here's another phenomenon about the Harbor Transitway buses you'd have to see to believe. Those lines I mentioned, well they do OK on their local legs. Many of them get sitting loads. Then, when they get to the Artesia Transit Center, they disappear. This is also true of the Gardena and Torrance expresses, although they do not pick up or discharge passengers along the freeway. Riders avoid the freeway portion. Maybe they don't want to pay the express fares, or maybe they aren't making longer trips. This shows that the Harbor Transitway is a poor allocation of resources. The local express service should remain, but as local services within San Pedro. Maybe upgrading the Transitway from a collection of local expresses to an Orange Line-type BRT service might attract people onto the bus. I agree about the Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 18, 2007 4:25:18 GMT -8
The Transitway buses do go Downtown, but they go very slow when they leave the HOV lanes...and that's what I meant and that's why (in part) ridership has been hurt. Ultimately, though, the whole project was a real loser from the get-go.
Still, with the advent of an Expo Line in the years to come, and with the advent of a future Downtown Connector, it will be possible to utilize the Transitway as a more high profile entity to serve as a regional feeder line into the Expo Line. I suspect that, after Expo and the Crenshaw Corridor Project, which are in the Constrained Portion of the Metro Long Range Transportation Plan, we'll see this Connector prioritized.
For the past few years, I have repeatedly brought up the concept of having the Transitway serve as an Orange Line BRT-type feeder service to the future Expo Line to both local and Metro transit officials, and this idea has been well-received. The buses will access the Expo Line, and we'll see if bus routing and (even more importantly) a good promotion job will allow the Transitway to better serve its function.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 19, 2007 11:41:01 GMT -8
To whom it may concern: I went to the Expo-line meeting the other nite at USC, and I got a chance to talk to the top man at Expo. I told him how I was in San Diego and saw the light rail that went around the State College. Then I asked him about did you have a nimby problem in San Diego? Oh heavens --yes! was his answer and in Utah he said about 200 people came out in one meeting to bicker about the light rail there. But now they love thier train and have even voted for a tax increase for future rail in Utah. Then he told me that he was encouraged about reading in the blog sight that he saw letters running one complaint to six in support of light rail and it is the first time in 30 years that he has saw something like that! So we who want the the Expo-line are winning! Keep up the cards and letters come in folks, address all the Mayors affected and the MTA Board and every local official you can. Those pioneers at the Friends of the Expo have fought a good fight and refused to back down! ! Abraham Lincoln said "älways endeavor to preserve", Churchill said "Nëver give up, never give up, never,never, never, give up!
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 19, 2007 19:34:54 GMT -8
PROPERTY VALUES
Light rail near homes can actually increase property values.
Studies show mass transit can positively affect the value of your home. A 2001 report on the effect of light rail on property values found prices increased for both residential and commercial properties in close proximity to rail stations. The report compiled studies from Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; and Santa Clara County, CA. Values dropped for properties further from rail stations.
Price Point
Property values are dependent on travel times to major employment centers For low income neighborhoods, the benefit of accessibility to rail outweighs the nuisance of the rail Property values increase by 3% to 40% when accessible to rail Slight negative impacts of rail on property values are generally attributed to noise, visual intrusion, and the association of the rail right of way with industrial uses Sources: “Impacts Of Rail Transit On Property Values.” Roderick B. Diaz. Booz•Allen & Hamilton Inc. “THE EFFECT OF RAIL TRANSIT ON PROPERTY VALUES: A SUMMARY OF STUDIES.” NEORail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 19, 2007 23:44:12 GMT -8
The Transitway buses do go Downtown, but they go very slow when they leave the HOV lanes...and that's what I meant and that's why (in part) ridership has been hurt. Ultimately, though, the whole project was a real loser from the get-go. But Ken, I pointed out that the ridership doesn't even use the Harbor Transitway. These buses act as locals on the southern portion. Here, ridership is fine. But at around Artesia Transit Center, a bus of 30 people will thin out to 3 or 4 who continue on the freeway. They don't even make it downtown. This is also true of the Gardena and Torrance buses. The bulk of riders use the bus as a local service and do not even use the freeway portion. Gardena and Torrance run through the industrial parts of downtown, making their approaches faster. Also, they use the busway (Gardena in one direction only) but do not stop. However, the slow service theory does not pan out on the commuter-oriented services run by LADOT. These buses have full sitting loads and the slow approach through downtown (Figueroa and Flower streets) is not a deterrent. You know how I feel when I hear the f-word. I don't know if you're clear on the concept of feeders versus transfers. Generally, a feeder bus is a purpose-built line designed to operate out of a station for train riders and into a station for people just boarding a train. It makes sense for suburban train stations, but is duplicative and wasteful for urban L.A. A transfer connection does the same thing, and it's something riders are more comfortable doing. The lines operate independently and happen to intersect. This allows for train-bus connections as well as people who do not have to make the connection. What makes transit effective in L.A. is the grid orientation. People have at least two ways to make a single trip. This allows many more trips to be made than a trunk-feeder scheme. What I'm getting at is that if you kept the existing approach between the end of the Transitway and downtown L.A., you'd have an Expo Line and a Bronze Line, and both would connect. The Bronze Line would serve the 23rd Street, Grand, Pico and 7th Street Metro Center stations. In fact, the Bronze Line can act as the "emulator" for the future downtown connector.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 19, 2011 14:56:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jul 20, 2011 8:26:45 GMT -8
Well, I politely disagree with Wad in that I don't think the Orange Line is an adequate substitute for light-rail.
I do believe that the Valley will need and deserves an east-west light-rail line between Warner Center and the Gold Line in Pasadena.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jul 20, 2011 9:52:43 GMT -8
I hope the Orange Line is someday converted to LRT, however the Valley's got another shot at a possible Van Nuys Blvd./I-405 rail line. Let's focus our efforts on that and get the demand. 30,000 233/761 riders are in need of better mobility.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 20, 2011 11:16:11 GMT -8
Well, I politely disagree with Wad in that I don't think the Orange Line is an adequate substitute for light-rail. I do believe that the Valley will need and deserves an east-west light-rail line between Warner Center and the Gold Line in Pasadena. We can debate this all you want to; into a stalemate, but until the Robbins bill is reversed..it's just talk. Unlike other issues today which are more productive (i.e. Constellation v. Santa Monica; undergrounding the Crenshaw Line in Mesa Heights) those are impacting TODAY. To discuss the Valley rail means you have to change a law.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Jul 20, 2011 11:43:33 GMT -8
Well, I politely disagree with Wad in that I don't think the Orange Line is an adequate substitute for light-rail. I do believe that the Valley will need and deserves an east-west light-rail line between Warner Center and the Gold Line in Pasadena. We can debate this all you want to; into a stalemate, but until the Robbins bill is reversed..it's just talk. Unlike other issues today which are more productive (i.e. Constellation v. Santa Monica; undergrounding the Crenshaw Line in Mesa Heights) those are impacting TODAY. To discuss the Valley rail means you have to change a law. With the Orange Line declared a "success" via false ridership "expectations", and another billion dollars committed to continuing the misery, there won't be any movement to undo the damage. The valley is doomed. The Orange line should have NEVER been built, but ribbon-cutting ninnies who insisted something-must-be-done prevailed over the no-build crowd. The Orange Line does serve one purpose, it stands as the shining example of what you get when you don't stand on principle, when you're too impatient for your own good, and unwilling to wait to build the proper coalition to do things right. I would hope that future generations will see the value in a West Valley line elevated down Ventura, built as HRT, and tied into the Red Line, as well as a Northwest leg up Van Nuys towards Santa Clarita. But I think we need to see how much we actually get out of 30/10 before we forecast if any of those lines could ever be funded.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 20, 2011 13:15:46 GMT -8
With the Orange Line declared a "success" via false ridership "expectations", and another billion dollars committed to continuing the misery, there won't be any movement to undo the damage. The valley is doomed. The Orange line should have NEVER been built, but ribbon-cutting ninnies who insisted something-must-be-done prevailed over the no-build crowd. The Orange Line does serve one purpose, it stands as the shining example of what you get when you don't stand on principle, when you're too impatient for your own good, and unwilling to wait to build the proper coalition to do things right. I would hope that future generations will see the value in a West Valley line elevated down Ventura, built as HRT, and tied into the Red Line, as well as a Northwest leg up Van Nuys towards Santa Clarita. But I think we need to see how much we actually get out of 30/10 before we forecast if any of those lines could ever be funded. So you'd rather have current bus riders slog through on Ventura boulevard for 1 hour and 15 minutes to get between the Red Line and the Valley just because it wasn't "built right". the I-210 and I-710 were not "built right"....would life be better without those 2 freeways? (no connector). The Purple Line was not "built right"..but look at all those Metrolink commuters who take advantage to go between Union Station and Wilshire/Western. Should that have not been built? Nothing will ever be perfect. The Valley got the best it can. I'd rather have an Orange Line busway than putting extra reliance on a bus that is non - seperated in traffic like the 750 Rapid. The Orange Line is a much faster connection between Warner Center and the Red Line. If we did get light rail, then people will be screaming "why not a subway". It's just a vicious cycle to get perfection..when perfection can never be achieved. Note: I never rode the 750 Rapid all the way from Universal City to Warner Center due to speed..but I have taken the Orange Line many other times........
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 20, 2011 16:08:33 GMT -8
We can debate this all you want to; into a stalemate, but until the Robbins bill is reversed..it's just talk. Unlike other issues today which are more productive (i.e. Constellation v. Santa Monica; undergrounding the Crenshaw Line in Mesa Heights) those are impacting TODAY. To discuss the Valley rail means you have to change a law. With the Orange Line declared a "success" via false ridership "expectations", and another billion dollars committed to continuing the misery, there won't be any movement to undo the damage. The valley is doomed. The Orange line should have NEVER been built, but ribbon-cutting ninnies who insisted something-must-be-done prevailed over the no-build crowd. The Orange Line does serve one purpose, it stands as the shining example of what you get when you don't stand on principle, when you're too impatient for your own good, and unwilling to wait to build the proper coalition to do things right. I would hope that future generations will see the value in a West Valley line elevated down Ventura, built as HRT, and tied into the Red Line, as well as a Northwest leg up Van Nuys towards Santa Clarita. But I think we need to see how much we actually get out of 30/10 before we forecast if any of those lines could ever be funded. I think you overestimate the costs on the Orange Line. The current extension is around $215M and the original was about $330M. I'm no busway proponent over other modes, but I think overall this has been a pretty good cost-benefit project and would still be needed even if there were a line several miles south on Ventura. There wasn't going to be a subway anytime soon across the Valley. Comparing a $500-$600M project to one 8-10 times that when those funds weren't available isn't really comparing apples to apples. BTW, there is no right of way on Ventura, so I am not sure how you are proposing an elevated line. You would need at least a lane for the supports for elevated tracks, plus some more room for station access (stairs, elevators, escalators). Sure, I'd love subways on every street like Venice and Washington, but I'd be pretty bitter if I expected those any time in my lifetime. Busses are still going to be a part of the transit makeup here in Los Angeles for many many years.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jul 22, 2011 23:41:56 GMT -8
The Orange Line's problems: The cost/benefit analysis of the Orange Line for the Valley is excellent, however, it will remain problematic more so in the future for three reasons: #1: Limited passenger capacity #2: Limited bicycle capacity #3: No third lane for express service (an easy feat even for a single track railroad (MetroLink))
The systemic problem: From previously living in the valley I found the Orange Line to be great except for aforementioned problems, the frequency is great most of all, however, as a system transit in the valley ultimately falls apart because of how the intersecting bus service has such infrequent service. A multitude of busways, bus lanes, and generally more robust local service will be requisite for it to work better. Even if Orange Line were a railroad and the existing problems squashed, the valley's system would still be a problem, you're still stepping off rapid transit to a 40 minute wait for a bus.
Thoughts on a solution: The Orange Line busway plus, a railroad or busway on the length of Van Nuys, rail tunnel to the westside, in addition to lower on peak and off peak north-south bus headways the valley over is the real fix to SFV's transit problems. A link, or extension of the Orange Line to the Gold Line makes too much sense to ignore, and a second portal to North Hollywood Red Line Station on the side of the Orange Line busway too.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 23, 2011 7:46:32 GMT -8
The Orange Line's problems: #3: No third lane for express service (an easy feat even for a single track railroad (MetroLink)) Do note that all of the intermediate Orange Line stations (except for Laurel Canyon) have passing lanes to allow for overtaking buses. Metro was briefly considering implementing a express service on the Orange Line although that didn't seem to lead to anything.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 23, 2011 11:24:26 GMT -8
From what I read, the Orange line is bus because of a lack of foresight with the people trying to shut it down. They were able to get senator Alan Robbins to write that ridiculous piece of legislation restricting any rail but a "deep bore subway."
Zev Yaroslavsky countered by restricting tax money use for any subways with prop A, then proposed a busway, which technically wasn't rail - getting around the Robbins law.
By that time Robbins was in prison for accepting bribes, and the groups tried but failed to find anyone else to block the bus via legislation.
They did get Mayor Hahn to say he would throw himself in front of a bus if it ever got built, but he never did.
What's really strange is the actual reason for this whole problem seems to be primarily NIMBYism from an orthodox religious sect that the Orange line passes through.
Something to do with bells and lights not being used on the Sabbath. I don't know how much sway they had, but the end result is what we have.
There has been talk of making it a rail line at some point, and in fact it has to be done by 2015 or Metro has to pay the California Transportation Commission the cost of the Right of Way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2011 13:03:00 GMT -8
Ironically buses are far more noisier than light-rail, sounding like aircraft at times; they run more frequently, and they cause some pollution as well. Yet, light-rail was banned in the Valley, thanks to a corrupt politician (Alan Robbins) who got jailed later after being convicted on corruption.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 28, 2011 3:34:31 GMT -8
Ironically buses are far more noisier than light-rail, sounding like aircraft at times; they run more frequently, and they cause some pollution as well. Modern buses are quieter than ever, and the NABI artics make remarkably little noise for a bus of their size and power requirements. The loudest noises they make are the "dyu-dyu-dyu" of the gear shifts and the pneumatic doors opening.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 28, 2011 3:40:15 GMT -8
What's really strange is the actual reason for this whole problem seems to be primarily NIMBYism from an orthodox religious sect that the Orange line passes through. The intent of the Robbins Bill specifying a deep-bore subway was to prevent the right of way from being used for mass transit. NIMBYs were against anything that would convert the right of way from laying fallow. Requiring deep-bore subway was a ban by other means; it specifically permitted building a rail line that no one would fund because its cost-benefit would be blown out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jul 28, 2011 6:57:41 GMT -8
Occasionally, especially at nights and weekends, I'm noticing the bike racks filled up with bicycles along the route being passed up. Although this rarely happens, I was in a coach that already had two wheelchairs and the bus operator had to deny access for a wheelchair at Valley College Station; luckily, this was during the daytime at the tail end of rush hour. I could have just told those poor souls - blame the NIMBYs for your misfortune.
It wouldn't cost too much to repeal the Robbins Bill (just to get it off the books), however, there's no money in place to convert the Orange Line to LRT nor is there any official plan to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 28, 2011 7:46:09 GMT -8
It wouldn't cost too much to repeal the Robbins Bill (just to get it off the books), however, there's no money in place to convert the Orange Line to LRT nor is there any official plan to do so. It has to be done by 2015 or Metro will have to pay the State for the cost of the ROW - it was purchased using rail money. Does anyone know if either have been budgeted?
|
|