|
|
Post by tobias087 on Dec 21, 2010 14:36:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 14:47:48 GMT -8
It sure could. I know Van Nuys is the busiest street for transit in the Valley, and IIRC they are considering a tunnel on the southern end, near where it would tie into the Orange Line. But as you suggest, there are larger implications. The southern terminus of this project is in the same area as the northern terminus of a Sepulveda Pass Line. This points to the possibility of a single light-rail line, stretching from San Fernando/Pacoima in the north down to Van Nuys, UCLA, and points south. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 21, 2010 15:35:24 GMT -8
In my opinion, Metro should study the Van Nuys corridor together with 405 corridor because they are clearly tailored made as a single transportation corridor/rail line. If Metro studies the Valley portion separately from the Measure R 405 portion, they are missing the forest for the tree (same problem we have with Harbor Subdivision South Bay being a separate study from Crenshaw). We should push Metro to combine the 2 projects so the combined ridership warrants investment in rail as oppose to just BRT-lite.
|
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 21, 2010 17:30:45 GMT -8
Many thoughts.
I wonder what an extension through the mountains might do to existing Red Line usage?
Also, sounds interested, but, it seems these projects can only advance in smaller bite size chunks. Especially concerning the availability of funding.
I wonder if an extension of the Crenshaw Line via San Vicente to West Hollywood and through mountains to Van Nuys has logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 21, 2010 18:22:18 GMT -8
Many thoughts. I wonder what an extension through the mountains might do to existing Red Line usage? Also, sounds interested, but, it seems these projects can only advance in smaller bite size chunks. Especially concerning the availability of funding. I wonder if an extension of the Crenshaw Line via San Vicente to West Hollywood and through mountains to Van Nuys has logic? 1. Agreed that the project can only be build piecemeal. But that doesn't mean it can't be studied in its entirely. We have already went through this many times... Little Tokyo station is going to be demolished because Metro didn't consider future expansion options. Red line cannot be extended South @ Vermont because Metro didn't considered expansion options. These types of mistake happens because Metro studies each rail line in a vacuum rather than take a regional and holistic view of rail system. If The Van Nuys corridor is studied in isolation, one may reach the conclusion that BRT is preferred because existing mode (Orange) and ridership only supports more bus. But that ignores the very real possibility that we may one day extend light rail into the Valley. 2. From a ridership perspective, I think the Van Nuys corridor is better aligned with the 405 corridor than the Crenshaw/West Hollywood one. The Valley to Westside commute demand is huge and seriously needs some rail solution. The Valley already has rail connection with Hollywood (Red line) and when Crenshaw line reaches Hollywood/Highland, it will open up Mid City to Valley (via transfer to/from Red line). If we connect the Van Nuys line with Crenshaw, that really does nothing to solve the 405/Sepulveda Pass problem, with 2 duplicating Valley-Hollywood rail line. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 21, 2010 21:12:45 GMT -8
Many thoughts. I wonder what an extension through the mountains might do to existing Red Line usage? Also, sounds interested, but, it seems these projects can only advance in smaller bite size chunks. Especially concerning the availability of funding. I wonder if an extension of the Crenshaw Line via San Vicente to West Hollywood and through mountains to Van Nuys has logic? 1. Agreed that the project can only be build piecemeal. But that doesn't mean it can't be studied in its entirely. We have already went through this many times... Little Tokyo station is going to be demolished because Metro didn't consider future expansion options. Red line cannot be extended South @ Vermont because Metro didn't considered expansion options. These types of mistake happens because Metro studies each rail line in a vacuum rather than take a regional and holistic view of rail system. If The Van Nuys corridor is studied in isolation, one may reach the conclusion that BRT is preferred because existing mode (Orange) and ridership only supports more bus. But that ignores the very real possibility that we may one day extend light rail into the Valley. 2. From a ridership perspective, I think the Van Nuys corridor is better aligned with the 405 corridor than the Crenshaw/West Hollywood one. The Valley to Westside commute demand is huge and seriously needs some rail solution. The Valley already has rail connection with Hollywood (Red line) and when Crenshaw line reaches Hollywood/Highland, it will open up Mid City to Valley (via transfer to/from Red line). If we connect the Van Nuys line with Crenshaw, that really does nothing to solve the 405/Sepulveda Pass problem, with 2 duplicating Valley-Hollywood rail line. Well, I think it is a little early to "commit" a Van Nuys line to link-up with anything on the south side of the mountains. Tho, I would think it remains a possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 21, 2010 21:39:17 GMT -8
I don't know if there's really a lot of opportunity on Van Nuys past Parthenia Ave. That's why I think the Van Nuys corridor should turn on Parthenia and then turn on Sepulveda so it can connect to the Sylmar Metrolink station. Well, I think it is a little early to "commit" a Van Nuys line to link-up with anything on the south side of the mountains. Tho, I would think it remains a possibility. It HAS to be extended at least to LAX, though. Then maybe it can follow Crenshaw to the South Bay, and eventually, Long Beach. |
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 21, 2010 21:52:25 GMT -8
We're each entitled to an opinion. Just sayn
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 21, 2010 23:54:08 GMT -8
Here's a reply I posted on The Source regarding today's news on the FTA awarding Metro to study "premium transit" options for Van Nuys Boulevard, which was already defined in Measure R, but initially seemed to be only bus speed improvements. This is great news for Metro riders on Van Nuys Boulevard. I can’t tell you how many times Metro Rapid 761 becomes crowded between Nordhoff Street and the Metro Orange Line busway (with half of the riders taking the Orange Line to the Red Line); 902 has alleviated that issue a bit. Nice to see 2 of 3 options as rail, the other as BRT on dedicated lanes – although I feel that (being second from Wilshire with a similar BRT project) that it would only be rush hour bus lanes. However, this project, which I hope would be rail, would be built in conjunction with the 405 corridor (which I hope would also be rail), or if it’s separate, then the transit centers be at either the Orange Line Sepulveda or Van Nuys station. Seeing this as a separate project and considering the demographics of the residents along Van Nuys north of the Orange Line, I’m hoping for little to no opposition like what happened to the Orange Line, that was originally planned as the extension of the Red Line, then LRT, then the NIMBYs compromised it to a busway (read the story on the Robbins Bill). It’s nice to see Metro recognizing the importance of Van Nuys over the 3 other N-S corridors (Reseda, Sepulveda, and Lankershim – none of which have weekend Rapid service either). JDCrasher, I realize the logic of following the line via the old PE route you mentioned, but Van Nuys/Nordoff CANNOT be missed; I know it as I always past that stop and it’s where the bulk of the ridership starts going south; plus Panorama City is the most densest part of the SFV, even more than NoHo, and ridership on the 761 reflects that. I’ll be monitoring this project closely and would advocate for the rail modality, although all options are great for the corridor. |
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 22, 2010 9:23:57 GMT -8
It looks like folks in the SFV (from what I've seen on some blogs, etc.) are seeing that the Orange Line should've been rail from the get-go - and the fact that they feel left out from all the "rail expansion fun" going on in the rest of the county. So that may more than help in getting rail on Van Nuys Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 22, 2010 10:32:09 GMT -8
Much like what's been going on with Expo, the Orange Line too had NIMBYs. The Southern Pacific Burbank branch, which the Orange Line runs on, was slated to be rail in the early stages but opposition of a few and other circumstances back then compromised it to a busway. Most of the Orange Line riders transfer from Van Nuys; which is why it's the 2nd busiest station after NoHo. That's a testament to the ridership potential of a Van Nuys rail line. Right now it's too early to speculate on the mode, but if it is rail, this may further persuade the Orange Line's upgrade to LRT as there will be a capacity imbalance between a potential Van Nuys rail line and the Red Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 22, 2010 11:31:12 GMT -8
We're each entitled to an opinion. Just sayn I know, it's just that LAX is so big of a destination I think it would be a mistake not to extend it there. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 22, 2010 12:19:02 GMT -8
My own thought on this new new Van Nuys study. Firstly - is this really an extension of the Sepulveda pass project, which has $1 billion allocated from Measure R? I thought the Van Nuys project was just an extension of the Orange Line BRT a la Chatsworth extension. Refer to here: www.metro.net/projects/progress_tracker/byregion/11/Van Nuys is part of the $68.5M north-south rapidways (including Sepulveda, Reseda and Lankershim). It's not part of the $1 billion Sepulveda Pass project. So, in addition, does this subject really need to be discussed in the "Sepulveda Pass extension INTO the SFV"? Let's create a new topic thread for the Van Nuys corridor plan. Secondly, does Van Nuys truly deserve rail transit? I see a bus-only lane (a la Orange Line) perfectly fine for this corridor. It's got mostly 3 lanes on each side of the road. The congestion is not there like Wilshire or Santa Monica boulevard to deserve rail. Nor are the destinations. Where are the rail based destinations? There's nothing that makes the average Angeleno want to access Van Nuys unlike all of our other rail lines which hit large job centers. Van Nuys boulevard is full of strip malls. I've taken the 761, 902, and 233 there. Yes, it's a busy street, but not non-rush hour busy. It's just a sparse area with no real destinations. I think bus rapid transit, or at a minimum bus-only lanes with queue jumps at rush hour, is the way to go. I think there are more corridors deserving of rail than this. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2010 13:40:18 GMT -8
Firstly - is this really an extension of the Sepulveda pass project, which has $1 billion allocated from Measure R? This project is independent from the Sepulveda Pass project. But a quick glance at a map of the SFV shows that the two termini are fairly close together, suggesting that it might make sense to coordinate or combine these two projects. So, in addition, does this subject really need to be discussed in the "Sepulveda Pass extension INTO the SFV"? Let's create a new topic thread for the Van Nuys corridor plan. Actually, the San Fernando Valley deserves its own board. This could have topics ranging from the Sepulveda Pass line to the Orange Line, to the Rapidways projects. Secondly, does Van Nuys truly deserve rail transit? I see a bus-only lane (a la Orange Line) perfectly fine for this corridor. The first thing that always has to be asked, for any Metro project, is: what is the intended purpose of this line? In other words, what is the problem that this project is trying to solve? (Metro's standard process, guided by CEQA/NEPA requirements, is to pick a corridor, brainstorm alignments and modes, then narrow the set of options -- all prior to stating the purpose of the project. This is one of my biggest issues with project development at Metro.) If this corridor is intended primarily as a local feeder to the Orange Line, then yes I think bus is plenty. However, as a regional feeder to Metrolink and the Purple Line, it could make sense to make it a light-rail extension of the Sepulveda Pass line. Currently, daily ridership on that corridor is 27,000, which is comparable to the Orange Line's 23,500. But that number could go way up if it were to continue down into Westwood. Of course, the other side of the coin is cost. How much would it cost to build this extension? Could it be done primarily at-grade? And if it were, would it be too slow to be effective? |
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Dec 22, 2010 13:48:35 GMT -8
Secondly, does Van Nuys truly deserve rail transit? I see a bus-only lane (a la Orange Line) perfectly fine for this corridor. It's got mostly 3 lanes on each side of the road. The congestion is not there like Wilshire or Santa Monica boulevard to deserve rail. Nor are the destinations. Where are the rail based destinations? There's nothing that makes the average Angeleno want to access Van Nuys unlike all of our other rail lines which hit large job centers. Van Nuys boulevard is full of strip malls. I've taken the 761, 902, and 233 there. Yes, it's a busy street, but not non-rush hour busy. It's just a sparse area with no real destinations. Yes, but that's true of so so many areas of our rail network. Not everything can go to Hollywood & Highland. Foothill Extension? The Santa Ana ROW study? The question is also not just 'What can I walk to on Van Nuys Blvd' or 'How Congested is Van Nuys (which can get extremely congested, btw)". It's a question of how do we get North/South corridors of the Valley moving faster AND make it a part of a larger network of transit options. Don't just look at Van Nuys, look a half-mile over to the 405. It's not about rail destinations - the destinations are peoples homes. Right now, the Valley is this massive city unto itself with very limited options. If we make this another Orange line, we will have created a de fact segregation of Rail for the "Dense" Westside, East LA, Foothills corridor, South Bay and Crenshaw, and Buses for the Valley. The Valley needs to be connected to the rail network, and using this as a starting point for a line to the Westside would be a brilliant plan. |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Dec 22, 2010 13:58:07 GMT -8
Because of the low density nature of the SFV and the congestion on the Sepulveda pass, I think it's important to look at any metro line in the valley a little less locally than most rail lines.
As discussed on other threads on this board, a Sepulveda pass rail tunnel could make it from Ventura/Van Nuys to UCLA in as little as 7 minutes, because there would be no intermediate stops. Now that's competition for driving! Driving that distance takes at least 15 minutes in no traffic, and with the usual congestion, 30 minutes wouldn't be all the surprising. And considering how many people live in the valley and work on the westside, there will probably be a lot of people who will want to hop aboard the train.
So, consider an LRT Van Nuys corridor as an "extension" for the 405 line, and consider a BRT corridor as a "feeder" line. Now granted, the Van Nuys line would almost certainly not be as great of a substitute for driving as the Sepulveda pass segment, and the analogy here is to the Orange line, which is not a great alternative to driving either, for people who have a choice, and whose starting point and destination are not very close to the line.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the Orange line is a "feeder" for the Red line, not an "extension" and it suffers because of that. For example, imagine that you lived fairly close to the Laurel Canyon Orange line station, and have to commute to the Red line. When you factor in transfer time and waiting time, it will almost always be better to just drive to the Red line. I personally live about 3 miles north of the Balboa Orange line station, and it almost always turns out to be faster to just drive to the Red line then to take the Orange line. If the Orange line were an extension of the Red line, it would of course make the most sense to just hop on at Balboa!
Van Nuys as a "feeder" would also suffer in the same way. With waiting and transfer time, not many people who aren't using it for very local purposes have any incentive to ride it, and instead it would probably just be easier to drive to Ventura/Van Nuys or wherever the terminus of the 405 line is. But if it is an "extension" of the 405 line, even for someone living several miles away, the logical way to make the commute is to come to the nearest station on Van Nuys. (assuming plenty of parking)
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Dec 22, 2010 14:00:14 GMT -8
Ah, Metrocenter, you and I are thinking along similar lines ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2010 14:37:47 GMT -8
Van Nuys as a "feeder" would also suffer in the same way. With waiting and transfer time, not many people who aren't using it for very local purposes have any incentive to ride it, and instead it would probably just be easier to drive to Ventura/Van Nuys or wherever the terminus of the 405 line is. But if it is an "extension" of the 405 line, even for someone living several miles away, the logical way to make the commute is to come to the nearest station on Van Nuys. (assuming plenty of parking) I agree: the line would have more value as an extension of the 405 line, rather than a feeder. Here's another way to look at it. If you build just the 405 line to around Ventura Blvd., you will have most of the line's Valley-resident riders driving to that one station to take the train. However, if you extend the line north of Ventura Blvd, with multiple stops, the park-and-ride traffic will be distributed, and the congestion impacts would be reduced. (Before I get slammed for considering park-and-ride, the reality is that the San Fernando Valley is very suburban, and I think most of the riders of this line would be driving to a station.) Ah, Metrocenter, you and I are thinking along similar lines ;D Great minds do think alike!  |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 22, 2010 22:56:53 GMT -8
Could it be done primarily at-grade? It's possible. I think there's a greater chance of that happening if it used the route I suggested (Van Nuys, Parthenia, Sepulveda), which as tony pointed out, is an old PE ROW, and has plenty of room for much of the route to accommodate at-grade rail (and perhaps in some spots a bike lane). The benefit in this is that it not only hits the Orange Line, but two Metrolink stations. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 23, 2010 0:00:18 GMT -8
I believe that we'll need to split the Van Nuys study corridor into its own thread as this thread deals with the Sepulveda Pass corridor. Although wishful thinking wants both to be a single line, right now Metro considers the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor and the East San Fernando Valley North-South Transit Corridors projects to be separate, but possibly mutual. The Sepulveda Pass corridor has yet fund its study, its alternatives include LRT, HOV with dedicated ramps, and bus lanes; other than Van Nuys' streetcar option, LRT and BRT can be linked between the two projects, however I feel that the Pass would go with HRT due to the potential ridership it will gain if the current I-405 traffic is any indication. This would leave Van Nuys running a different modality, hopefully LRT, and the need for a transfer site like Sepulveda or Van Nuys Orange Line stations. Lets not forget about connectivity to the Sylmar Metrolink station not just for the current commuter rail service, but for a possible high speed rail station connection; by that statement, I still prefer the full-on Van Nuys alignment, but routed somehow to Sylmar station via San Fernando; the ridership potential is around Arleta/Pacoima not Mission Hills unless deemed unfeasible. Besides, some of the East SFV N-S elements have already came to fruition as outlined in this 2006 Metro archive document, on page 6 like the curb reconstruction at Van Nuys Metrolink station, Woodman median removal, and flood control bridge widening (SW of Arleta) have already happened in the past 6 years although the document anticipated BRT and not rail; if that bridge was not widened, it would only handle a max of 4 traffic lanes and no median. That bridge was widened 3 years ago with no increase in traffic capacity (and no parking allowed on the bridge either) so it had to be widened for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 23, 2010 11:21:26 GMT -8
I believe that we'll need to split the Van Nuys study corridor into its own thread as this thread deals with the Sepulveda Pass corridor. Although wishful thinking wants both to be a single line, right now Metro considers the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor and the East San Fernando Valley North-South Transit Corridors projects to be separate, but possibly mutual. The Sepulveda Pass corridor has yet fund its study, its alternatives include LRT, HOV with dedicated ramps, and bus lanes; other than Van Nuys' streetcar option, LRT and BRT can be linked between the two projects, however I feel that the Pass would go with HRT due to the potential ridership it will gain if the current I-405 traffic is any indication. This would leave Van Nuys running a different modality, hopefully LRT, and the need for a transfer site like Sepulveda or Van Nuys Orange Line stations. This is precisely why we (as transit advocates) needs to convince Metro to considered both as a single corridor when they make decisions on mode. If both segments end up being light rail, we just lucked ourselves into a single Valley-Westside rail line. But if either segments end up with different mode (highly likely if they are studied apart), we missed another opportunity to improve our transit network. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 23, 2010 13:13:36 GMT -8
What points of interest are on a potential rail or bus corridor north of the Orange Line on Van Nuys boulevard..outside of transfer stations (i.e. Metrolink or Amtrak stations)?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 23, 2010 15:52:20 GMT -8
^ None that I know of. If the purpose of this line is to hit points of interest on Van Nuys Boulevard, then I think there's little point in building it as light rail.
However, if the corridor is viewed functionally as an extension of the Sepulveda Pass (405) Line, then it is worth building as light rail because it will provide a convenient and fast transit route for Valley residents into the LA basin.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 24, 2010 17:37:19 GMT -8
What points of interest are on a potential rail or bus corridor north of the Orange Line on Van Nuys boulevard..outside of transfer stations (i.e. Metrolink or Amtrak stations)? Other than the Panorama Mall, nothing really. And even then, the mall is just south of where the ROW turns on Parthenia Ave, allowing a station that not only serves Roscoe Blvd and the mall, but the dense area of Panorama city in general. Here's Metro's 2030 density map. (Note that the dense pocket NE of Van Nuys Airport appears to include the Van Nuys/Roscoe intersection): farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3357514809_45ff61df99_b.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Dec 24, 2010 18:56:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 27, 2010 5:29:27 GMT -8
What points of interest are on a potential rail or bus corridor north of the Orange Line on Van Nuys boulevard..outside of transfer stations (i.e. Metrolink or Amtrak stations)? Other than the Panorama Mall, nothing really. The Plant, which is north of the train station. It's a more important shopping center than Panorama, which has seriously deteriorated. Plant also provides hundreds, if not thousands, of retail jobs throughout the service day. Plant also has a theater-plex operated by ... Mann! |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 27, 2010 12:08:46 GMT -8
Regarding points of interest, it'll depend on which alignment is preferred; I came across various comments on this project from other blogs and there seems to be 4 proposed by various commenters, all share the alignment from Ventura to Parthenia - that would serve the Ventura shops and restaurants, Sherman Oaks Hospital, Van Nuys auto row, Orange Line, Van Nuys government center, nearby YMCA at Vanowen, Metrolink/Amtrak, The Plant shopping center, and Panorama Mall and surrounding stores. It would also serve high schools near Vanowen and Roscoe.
Metro's proposed alignment is Van Nuys Blvd only from Foothill Blvd to Ventura Blvd - this would serve the bulk of the corridor ridership at Nordoff due to the immense amount of apartments in the area, DMV near Woodman, high school near Arleta, 1/2 mile to the new Plaza Pacoima shopping center on San Fernando and Paxton.
The second takes that route but heads NW on San Fernando Road to the Metrolink station - this would better serve Plaza Pacoima and would add the San Fernando courthouse and shopping in the area.
The third follows the old PE route on Van Nuys, Parthenia, Sepulveda, Brand, and San Fernando - this would service a skate park at Sepulveda/Parthenia, shooping centers there and at Devonshire, San Fernando Mission, and Alemany High School.
The fourth takes Sepulveda to Rinaldi then somehow finding its way to the Metrolink station - this would provide service to Alemany HS and Providence Holy Cross hospital.
The last two alignments serve Mission Hills and consists of a more affluent demographic than Arleta/Pacoima, so I would not know how receptive they would be to rail.
My preference is on any alignment that can serve Van Nuys/Nordoff because of the ridership observations on Metro Rapid 761.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 28, 2010 4:37:20 GMT -8
The Plant, which is north of the train station. It's a more important shopping center than Panorama, which has seriously deteriorated. Plant also provides hundreds, if not thousands, of retail jobs throughout the service day. Plant also has a theater-plex operated by ... Mann! Yeah but it's so close to the Metrolink station that I think both it and the Plant could be served at once. Maybe this can be done with a station next to the parking lot on the SE corner of Arminta, and then have a pedestrian overpass or underpass to the Metrolink station. My preference is on any alignment that can serve Van Nuys/Nordoff because of the ridership observations on Metro Rapid 761. If this happens, the line should still find a way to get to the Sylmar Metrolink station. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 28, 2010 6:23:14 GMT -8
My preference is on any alignment that can serve Van Nuys/Nordoff because of the ridership observations on Metro Rapid 761. If this happens, the line should still find a way to get to the Sylmar Metrolink station. That was the second suggestion (of four) from my list: Van Nuys Blvd all the way to San Fernando Road leading into the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station; that mimics Metro's old 561 route before it became the 761 and aligned only on Van Nuys. |
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 28, 2010 11:28:29 GMT -8
If this happens, the line should still find a way to get to the Sylmar Metrolink station. That was the second suggestion (of four) from my list: Van Nuys Blvd all the way to San Fernando Road leading into the Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink station; that mimics Metro's old 561 route before it became the 761 and aligned only on Van Nuys. -Ventura -Burbank -Orange Line -Victory -Sherman Way -Van Nuys Metrolink -Roscoe -Nordhoff -Woodman -Laurel Canyon -San Fernando/Van Nuys -San Fernando/Brand -Sylmar That seems to work. |
|
