|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 23, 2008 23:59:58 GMT -8
Jerard is right (and Wright!) on this, like he is on other issues.
Darrell and Bart and others like myself jumped onto the F4ET bandwagon, which was originally a small group of people but which mushroomed because of the Internet, and we came out as being FOR something. F4ET individuals (like Bart) are from all over, not just the Westside...but clearly, they support what the Westside is doing.
Despite their political leadership being so lousy, many of us admire with what the SGV is doing by fighting for its Foothill Gold Line. They're FOR something.
The Valley didn't ever do that, and still hasn't had a few folks to form a nucleus of Valley-based transit advocates. Jokingly, I came up with "Friends of the Orange Line", or FOOL, at a Transit Coalition meeting, because we wanted the Orange Line to be a LRT and presumed it would fail as a BRT.
Well, it didn't fail as a BRT and we now have a new-found respect for Zev and Metro and all those who fought for it. Maybe Valley residents can band together, come up with a different name and/or make "FOOL" as positive a term as "nerd" or "geek" can be in certain places. Either way, the Neighborhood Councils exist to form motions and other actions to redo the Orange Line right.
How long it will be is anyone's guess...but the absolute FIRST thing that must be done is kill the Robbins Bill. Until the Valley has the temerity to do that, all talk about LRT conversion of the Orange Line is a waste (just as ending the Waxman Bill was critical to reconstrucitng the Subway on Wilshire Blvd.).
As a Jew, I abhor the NIMBYism of that one little focus of Orthodox Jews who put a bad name on their community by pushing for the Robbins Bill. Yes, the Valley should call them out in the same way that those NIMBY's who prevented the Expo Line are being called out by the Westside and Mid-City regions who will benefit from the Expo Line.
Bart once went from Valley politician to Valley politician to try to reverse the Robbins Bill. After the passage of Proposition R, maybe Bart and/or other Valley residents can see what their efforts can now come up with.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 24, 2008 6:45:11 GMT -8
Stand in line? That's exactly what the Valley has patiently been doing since 1980. Has it received any meaningful transportation solution yet? No. The Valley remains in line, waiting for what everyone else seems to be getting. Well my entire quote was, "if concerns about limited capacity on Metro buses warrants discussion of a conversion to rail, the SFV busway needs to stand in line," and I fully stand by it. Again, if the standard is buses being over capacity = Metro begins considering a conversion to rail, then there's a slate of bus lines in South LA, East LA, and Central LA ahead of the SFV busway. No way should money be wasted converting the SFV busway to light rail, that still wouldn't bring about the ridership that currently exists today on bus corridors like Vermont, let alone the potential ridership that exists on the corridor if it were converted to rail. I know it's an uncomfortable discussion around here, but there is that whole issue of actually serving the people who need transit and are most likely to take transit on a daily basis, vs. just creating monuments to politicians and regions, that Becky and Johnny find cool because once a month they can get "the urban experience" on the way to the beach/opera/bar, etc. Honestly, some of the arguments you guys are using are near identical to the bickering and clueless politicians on the MTA board that you all berate. Here's what I think: just because the ROW exists doesn't mean it's a good candidate for rail, just because tracks are being laid doesn't mean you're actually doing something about improving traffic, and just because the capital costs are lower doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Gold Line was a cheap capital project and it's bleeding Metro operational dollars. In fact, the Gold Line is the only fixed guideway project in the Metro system that costs more per passenger mile to operate than the SFV busway. Heck, even if this is about "returning money to the Valley," the $600-700 million plus required for SFV busway light rail conversion, could be spent in much better ways in the Valley. And BRT likely has it's place in transportation systems around the world, maybe even in some parts of LA county - depending on how and where it's implemented. I'm just not of the belief that laying rail automatically means the BRT alternative was inferior, or a BRT line suddenly becomes successful with rail conversion. It's a lot more complicated than that. It maybe a case where neither is warranted or both are warranted. In fact, among the three technologies discussed, the one that least fits LA's poly-nuclear makeup is ironically the one some here so strongly support: at-grade LRT. And people make that point, when they list the cities that are primarily using this mode: Portland, Salt Lake, Phoenix, etc. Even in San Francisco, I don't think any MUNI route is the 15 mile Expo will be from Downtown LA to Santa Monica, let alone the 21 miles it will be when connecting connected to the Eastside Extension or the ~38 miles the Blue Line would be when connected to the Pasadena Gold.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 24, 2008 8:12:24 GMT -8
have to say, as much as i hate the orange line/ brt/ the reasons behind the mode, i do agree we have bigger fish to fry before this ever happens.
dont mind the conversation, actually i enjoy it [wish the silver line was being more discussed but, you guys are oblivious to that one.] i would only hope that with all this discussion we dont get all worked up about it and start a movement that would short change some other region with nothing.
so like i said, bigger fish to fry
|
|
|
Post by nickmatonak on Nov 24, 2008 11:18:12 GMT -8
my point still is that there are several corridors where buses don't make much sense due to capacity issues. All anyone has to due to the ride any 720 bus down Wilshire blvd with 95 other people and there would be not argument about getting higher capacity transit
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 24, 2008 13:10:46 GMT -8
What about Denver, San Diego and Dallas?
Portland and San Francisco, their stop spacing is a lot closer together (less than 1/2 mile apart) meaning it serves a different role and style for what's needed compared to LA, it also gives you a clue of their land-use patterns, which is a key factor later on in the post.
Your definition of why it least fits, without any source or guide that will let me know of your hypothesis. Who's the source, Robert Cervero? Tennyson? With such a spread out hiearchal polycentric region, a Multimodal hybrid approach fits bests for the area because by building a larger network of these lines feeding other strategic Rail and bus corridors, Why, it's the word in that last sentence.
Hierarchal.
There are some centers that with such closely spaced density or have a land mass/island affect that will require the justification of HRT first. Cauhenga Pass, Wilshire, Sepulveda Pass and Santa Monica between Hollywood and Westwood. That partially explains why in NYC everything centers and goes through Manhattan, it's an island! Same thing in San Francisco, it is in a pennisula!
Then there are lines that run on main arterial corridors with loads of ridership and moderate levels of activity centers that would feed these lines; Van Nuys Blvd, Vermont and Whittier, La Brea or Fairfax from Mid-City to Hollywood. This could be done as either HRT or LRT, or a combination of the two.
Then there are corridors that serve both a local and regional function however they don't need as much infrastructure to fill that role and over time with the building of more corridors their roles change, that is LRT or BRT. Expo, Gold and Blue Line and Green Line are perfect examples of this. The building of the Regional Connector is one microcosm of this by relieving the over crowding on the Red/Purple Lines between Union Station and 7th Metro and enable further expansion of the Purple Line west by having the combined Expo, Blue and Gold Lines serve as an extra trunk line to short hop trips within Downtown and improve a few local and regional riders to reach their destinations quicker. The Blue Line will witness a shift when they improve the Harbor Transitway service with more frequency and reliablity for those passengers in Downtown and at Slauson and Manchester stations who just need to get to the Green Line and transfer. That will reduce overcrowding on the Blue Line because the one of the key points of the line, the Green Line transfer will be served with another alternate from Downtown.
Then finally a hierarchal structure of the bus network to feed all of these together with Express, Limited Stop, Local, Shuttle/Circulators. Now a land-use and planning element needs to be discussed here as well and taking a page from BART, SF and Oakland are built up and out, however what do the outlying corridors look like? Oh yeah, large swaths of auto-oriented suburbia/exurbia in which in one direction the trains are notoriously empty and packed as sardines full in the other direction, this is the key of building transit is to improve the built environment and make better land-use decisions based off of mode and it's relationship to the density;
Heavy Rail = Heavier density and heavier activity centers/nodes, Light Rail = Light to Moderate density, moderate activity centers/nodes, Bus = fills in gaps of any density and activity center/node. Commuter/Regional Rail = feeds long distance gaps or connects outlying area to interurban HRT and LRT network.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 24, 2008 17:36:35 GMT -8
In the beginning, the people who were opposed to Orange Line light rail .... were actually opposed to building anything on the ROW. They wanted the money to be spent on widening the 101 freeway instead. They had NO sympathy for mass transit of any kind in the Valley. That is the intent of NIMBY groups like COST and the Save Cheviot Hills people. They wanted to burden Metro with so much litigation that such a project would be ultimately abandoned.
They DID NOT anticipate the Orange Line to be built, or even to succeed as it does. And now they complain it's capacity is too low ..... and doesn't divert enough traffic from the 101 to any effect. Someone please tell them ... the Orange Line was NOT meant to be a cure-all for the 101 freeway. Once we get that out of the way .... maybe a light rail line can be built.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 24, 2008 17:59:01 GMT -8
I will also be happy to go on record that--if the numbers encourage it, I strongly favor this upgraded Orange Line LRT to be above-grade at the right intersections.
If, as Steve Hymon describes, the 14 miles travelled requires 40 minutes then it's no bargain with either a BRT or LRT model.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 24, 2008 19:52:25 GMT -8
Your definition of why it least fits, without any source or guide that will let me know of your hypothesis. Jerard, In LA - a region with SEVERAL economic centers greatly dispersed from each other (lets even consider Warner Center an outlier and just focus on Torrance to Pasadena and Long Beach to Van Nuys), with each center generating at least half of its work time commutes from outside the region, and moderate residential density everywhere in between, which of the fundamental principles of transit engineering would not be violated/stretched with an at-grade LRT system: a) destinations must be within 1/4 mile of the station b) riders can't be expected to transfer any more than once c) service must be fast d) service must be frequent. Simply knowing the basic transit engineering principles explains why our transit share is only 12% and the overwhelming majority of Metro passengers are people who lack transportation alternatives. And building all of projects promised in Measure R won't change that by much. MTA goes at great lengths to deny the importance of fundamental transit engineering principles when planning projects. But that's in large part because they're allowed to operate without being required to meet any type of measurable goal like, double transit share of work commutes in 30 years. Additionally, existing and future density may mandate the number of stations in certain areas or even whether the platforms should be 270, 360 or 450 feet long, but residential density alone is not the overriding, let alone sole factor in determining HRT. Indeed, since you mentioned NYC, the 26 miles from the New York/Connecticut border to Grand Central Station, is nearly the same distance as Pasadena to Santa Monica (26 miles), and longer than the distance between Long Beach to Hollywood (30 miles), Willowbrook to Van Nuys (29 miles), and Downtown Glendale to El Segundo (27 miles). My point is that while we might not have the compact density of Manhattan that mandates HRT, we certainly have several other characteristics that eliminate at-grade LRT as a solution. And oh yea, one can travel that 26 miles between the NY/CT border to Grand Central Terminal on the Metro North New Haven line (commuter rail) in 41-45 minutes during rush hour. The equivalent in LA of the New Haven Line, which has 11 stops over 26 miles, and operates at 20 minute frequencies, would be express service on our urban rail network.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 24, 2008 22:18:53 GMT -8
Your definition of why it least fits, without any source or guide that will let me know of your hypothesis. Jerard, In LA - a region with SEVERAL economic centers greatly dispersed from each other (lets even consider Warner Center an outlier and just focus on Torrance to Pasadena and Long Beach to Van Nuys), with each center generating at least half of its work time commutes from outside the region, and moderate residential density everywhere in between, which of the fundamental principles of transit engineering would not be violated/stretched with an at-grade LRT system: a) destinations must be within 1/4 mile of the station b) riders can't be expected to transfer any more than once c) service must be fast d) service must be frequent. Damien, The central pieces that are faulty are "A " and "B" expecting to custom tailor every trip with only one transfer is not going to happen, nor does this happen in many other Metro networks, Making more than one transfer occur. Not only that trying to be within a 1/4 mile of every destination by rail, isn't going to cut it unless you have a lot of density in that area to support all those lines through. To disregard the role density have in relation to the how close these pieces are running makes little sense. But I will add one other to the list that many other Transit planning sources have used consistently and they put this near or at the top of their priority list and that's "e) service information must be clear and present" This is matrix prepared by Vukan Vuchic, an industry leader and planner on transit operations.To provide information on those transfer and provide services to the customers about those transfers so that if the wait is long, time can be made productively by running a quick shopping errand, grabbing a bite to eat even do some window shopping and meal planning. That is the biggest consideration in the time-wait game, how to make that time efficent and not wasted. This matrix shows that when you have short headway services, that makes no difference to the operations, however with longer headways these criteria need to be evaluated, notice it doesn't say grade separate the system it suggest to provide clear connection information and suggest timed transfer points. I know many riders here on this board can account missing that connecting bus or train and you don't know when the next one is coming. That relieves the anxiety and pacing back and forth. Something closer to home, the Next Train monitors on the Red/Purple Line has improved the usability of transit by 20% on a recent rider survey, why? Because riders know when the next trains are coming and in some cases they don't have to run to catch a train or time themselves just right to make the connections once they leave the stations. Another deterrent to transit is not during AM commuting but PM commuting. People run more errands during the PM time than the AM so they are more likely to make multiple trips to pick up dry cleaning, get groceries for dinner, pick-up kids from Day care or pick them up from school. This explains why traffic is heaviest during the PM rush hours. I'll use Curitiba, not because of how the buses are painted and those damn bus tubes, but because their land uses and transit connect together efficently. At major transfer centers, there are the information boards, locations for patrons to do quick shopping errands and be productive with one's time while waiting for the connecting buses. Ottawa's dedicated Bus transitway some of it's busier transfer stations are at shopping malls. At the shopping mall there are next bus information boards throughout the mall to relay when the next buses will arrive and their destinations so that at the mall, riders can complete all of their errands in a linear fashion on the way home. Notice these transit systems don't have a large grade separated system they are relying on their buses to make the most efficent use of them. These basic transit engineering principles come from what book/source? You're saying them but is this from your own experiences, a mix of academia? Please explain not to me but for others in the audience who may learn something from this. This should be a fundamental of all Metro agencies where ever they are. However even if we have this vast network of rail lines and the people still can't easily connect to them, via bus, bike or walking what good has this done? If people realize that they'll need to transfer from the bus to the rail and the information isn't clear to them, what good will that do? Again, the information gap at transfers is the central reason why folks won't use transit or get turned off to transit. It's not the overall speed of the trip but the when you leave that service and make a transfer and that transfer is cumbersome and cryptic this is where the battle is lost. Also the time that is be used when that wait occurs is also important. You're right it's the density of activity centers, job centers, destinations. Residential density and available right-of-way are tipping points to determine the one type of transit compared to another and whether one even merits a high capacity line or not. Even an at-grade LRT can have closely spaced stops much like HRT systems. Frequent service operation and fast average speeds are obtainable on LRT as well as HRT due to stop spacing. Both such systems can go over capacity, what happens when that occurs, we keep building more of it on parallel and perpendicular lines. So even when we build the vast fully grade separated system gets what happens, they'll still need to build more connecting pieces and systems. Munich built it's dense urban city subway but is now venturing into both this and building more of their long distance tramway lines to more modern exclusive median running LRT to help add more capacity to the system. The fundamental difference is how HRT/LRT/BRT are viewed. One could look at them for speed, another for capacity and all that still doesn't explain why at-grade LRT should be eliminated as a solution. I could argue that I can build a larger at-grade LRT network with stations farther apart to gain additional speed and operate longer vehicles for more capacity or do a combination of both to do the best of both worlds with dedicated lane BRT to fill in added gaps between stations. It is the same distance but how many people are travelling this full distance from Grand Central to the boarder compared to those travelling from Santa Monica to Pasadena or from Glendale to El Segundo. That is the key question. Random trip lengths doesn't explain the full condition, it just masks it. If we learn that 20% of the entire regions jobs occur in El Segundo or in Pasadena, that puts a different perspective as to how to build the service into that area. Or in the case of your example it starts a farther distance away from New Haven, CT that puts more context as to how the route operates and how often it operates. Considering that from there to New Haven it is shared with the Acela High Speed right-of-way and from Grand Central to the Bronx it is shared with two other long distance Metro North commuter lines forming a trunk corridor parallel to the busy 4/5/6 Lexington Lines. However even that example is flawed because it contradicts the second part of analysis of parts A & B, the bulk of those riders from Grand Central will transfer more than once to the 4/5/6, 7 and shuttle trains, much like at Penn Station if I were to come in off of a LIRR from Nassau County and I needed to get to the Lower East Side/Chinatown or even the Met or the Guggenheim. I need to transfer more than once and walk farther than 1/4 mile so by this rule, this line shouldn't be built because it doesn't fit that planning parameter A & B, right?The point is that the transfer - even if its done once, twice or three times- need to not appear as if it is a time waster. Most of what you need is next to and inside Penn Station/Grand Central there are shops and attractions that will make the transfer easy and not seem like a waste of time. Again, I repeat for the third or fourth time, how the transit relate to the land-uses and activities are key. If I had to transfer between two lines I hope the place I transfer from is a good location with amenities to make the trip pleasant and productive. Maybe that is another ask other than just faster trip times. This is what many other transit systems both large and small, with and without rail are going towards this approach. Oh yeah, we can simply use our version of Regional Rail line ala an improved Metrolink. For the Glendale to El Segundo example or Van Nuys to Willowbrook, utilizing the Harbor Subdivision for Metrolink style service will make that trip very fast within 40-50 minutes every day and operate safely on a 20 minute headway. This time can be improved further with the voters approving HSR which will electrify those corridors and in most cases in preparation for 120-150 mph HSR provide grade separations, closing off the very lightly used streets much like that New Haven Line you've used as an example along the Antelope Valley Corridor bam, with double deck coaches and 6-8 car train lengths and 20 minute headways we can move a large number of people on this route.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 1, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -8
I was looking at another website and this guy named Hugh said this: "It is a fact that Metro must convert the Orange Line to Rail by 2015. It was one of the conditions the state put on the money it gave Metro to construct the line. Otherwise, Metro would have to pay back hundreds of Millions of dollars back to the state in 2015 money" What do you guys know about this and how much of it is true? sincerely
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 1, 2008 15:37:13 GMT -8
I thought they were prohibited from building light rail in the Valley by some obscure law, so if they are required to convert it to rail it makes no sense. The SF valley did not want a subway, light rail, or BRT...they fought the Orange Line until till the day it opened. The SFV get's what they deserve IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 1, 2008 16:00:15 GMT -8
I was looking at another website and this guy named Hugh said this: "It is a fact that Metro must convert the Orange Line to Rail by 2015. It was one of the conditions the state put on the money it gave Metro to construct the line. Otherwise, Metro would have to pay back hundreds of Millions of dollars back to the state in 2015 money" That is correct. The Burbank-Chandler ROW was purchased from the Southern Pacific partly with $44.8M in state Prop 108 funds. These funds were available for rail projects and "and for capital improvements which directly support rail transportation, including exclusive busways which are converted within 10 years after completion of construction into rail lines." It appears there are three possible outcomes: 1) Metro converts the Orange Line to rail by 2015 2) Metro pays back $44.8M or 3)the CTC waives the repayment. I thought they were prohibited from building light rail in the Valley by some obscure law, so if they are required to convert it to rail it makes no sense. Light rail is not prohibited in the Valley. The Robbins bill merely prohibits non-subway rail on a 3-mile stretch of the Burbank-Chandler ROW through Valley Village. The SF valley did not want a subway, light rail, or BRT...they fought the Orange Line until till the day it opened. The SFV get's what they deserve IMHO. Again, I must stress that "the Valley" was NOT opposed to rail transit. A very small group of people in a small community in Valley Village was opposed. Most of the Valley has consistently wanted rapid transit and has been severely disappointed in Metro for delivering this crummy busway. It is now fairly typical for the Valley the get shortchanged. Remember the calls for Valley secession in 2002?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 1, 2008 17:58:54 GMT -8
The Chandler Corridor was purchased with state bond money intended for rail use. Accroding to then CEO White's response to the interviewer the debt could be forgiven. I am not aware that the state has done so. So yes, it is possible Metro could have to pay a huge chunk of money to the state. From Kim Richards site: www.transit-insider.org/I highlighted the relevant sentences. ____ The LACTC purchased the Burbank-Chandler right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company on March 12, 1991. $44.8 million of the purchase funding came from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in the form of Proposition 108 (the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act of 1990) funds. Proposition 108 provided for a bond issue to fund rail transit programs. It created a new section (2701) of the Streets and Highways Code covering the issuance of the bonds and the use of the funds created by those bond issues. Specifically, §2701.06 reads (again, emphasis mine): The money in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, shall be available, without regard to fiscal years, for acquisition of rights-of-way, capital expenditures, and acquisition of rolling stock for [glow=red,2,300]intercity rail, passenger rail, and urban rail transit and for capital improvements which directly support rail transportation, including exclusive busways which are converted within 10 years after completion of construction into rail lines[/glow], grade separations to enhance rail passenger service, and multimodal terminals. Among the corridors identified in §2701.07 is the "San Fernando Valley extension" of Metro Rail (separate from the segment from Wilshire/Alvarado to Lankershim/Chandler). The California Transportation Commission approved that funding as Resolution No. BFP-91-18, which was formally executed on April 10, 1992 to cover a portion of the funds LACTC had used to purchase the right-of-way from Southern Pacific. §2.4 of that resolution reads, in part: (The) CTC shall be entitled to a then-present value refund, or credit, at State's option, equivalent to the proportionate funding participation by the State and other public funds toward property acquisition and project construction in the event that the LACTC, or (Metrolink), or their constituent members, or successor public entities, cease to utilize this project for the intended public passenger rail purposes.This obligation was acknowledged by then-CEO Franklin White in his October 21, 1994 memo to the MTA board of directors in which he responded to questions raised at the October 13 Planning and Programming Committee meeting: Question: Does the MTA incur any financial loss if it does not build a rail project along this line? Response: MTA ... has an obligation to pay the State of California $44.8 million in the event that it does not proceed with a passenger rail project on the SP right-of-way, unless CTC agrees to waive such repayment.
In January, 2001, the CTC allocated $12.3 million in Traffic Congestion Relief Program funding for the San Fernando Valley East-West Bus Rapid Transit Project. However, the allocation documentation -- Resolution No. TA-01-01 -- did not waive the repayment of the Proposition 108 funds, and the EIR makes no provision for an upgrade to rail that would conform with the "Robbins Bill".
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 1, 2008 18:14:46 GMT -8
however much i hate to say it. i dont think metro will spend hundreds of millions to upgrade the orange line to rail, when they could simply pay off the 44.8 million and leave the pooh-pooh orange line in place
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 1, 2008 19:37:26 GMT -8
It will be more than $44.8 M, it is that value plus the inflation, It will probably be double that cost.
However one thing they could do that a fellow advocate has brainstormed is to begin preparing an EIR/EIS on the conversion with that comes alternative corridors and alignments that will keep the ball rolling.
This is probably less than the $44.8 to over $90M(est. inflated cost @ 3% interest compounded annually since 1990) for the purchase of the ROW and begin to answer the concern of over crowding on the busway.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 1, 2008 23:48:18 GMT -8
Jerard is absolutely on the mark here! The right political leadership could end the Robbins Bill (does that REALLY need much money to perform a legislative function?), and for $150-250,000 an EIR for a light rail (probably grade separated and meant to have faster and express-option trains) on the Orange Line to North Hollywood or even Burbank Airport could be pursued.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 2, 2008 19:47:16 GMT -8
Well now i heard that the Orange line was built in such a way that the line could easily be converted to rail, and looking at the stations the trains for the orange line could be the low floor, just like the train cars in Phoenix, AZ. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 2, 2008 21:31:19 GMT -8
Well, at the risk of sounding absurd, the $1 billion for the Valley-to-LAX line could always be converted to an Orange Line rail conversion if the powers that be so decide...especially if it's determined that a quality Valley-to-LAX line would cost a LOT more than $1 billion, forcing it to be converted to something else to help the Valley.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Dec 2, 2008 22:02:59 GMT -8
If the Orange Line has intentions to be converted to rail; why did they waste 8 weeks trying to repave it with "long life" asphalt? In fact, if they did tear up the pavement, they might as embed rails into it. As a Valley resident, I'd like to see the Orange Line upgraded to rail; the residents embraced it better than the initial 14 miles of the Gold Line rail; but the damage has been done, the true people had no voice and have been impacted by those who don't represent the whole Valley (at least the East SFV), the line's already built, so it's best to just make the best of it, improve signal timings, create lines that fan out of the Orange Line at highly used transfer stations like Van Nuys to save on alighting/boarding times. I don't want the OL to hold back other needed transit projects like Expo, Purple, or a potential 405 line. However, if a 405 line is to be built and terminated at Sepulveda station (utilizing the massive 1000+ park and ride lot); it would be nice to run it another mile east to Van Nuys station to add more parking and connect to a heavily used bus corridor (that is if the 761 gets shortened due to the I-405 line).
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 3, 2008 13:40:05 GMT -8
Referring to the "why did they--repave it with 'long life' asphalt?" question, back in 1963, when the last five LA streetcar lines were about to meet their doom, MTA crews were making track repairs as if the trams would be running indefinitely. Although the likelihood of the Orange Line being converted to light rail is in the "Chance Brothers, Slim and None" category right now, as the great jazz pianist, "Fats" Waller said, "One never knows, do one?"
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Aug 24, 2009 11:38:30 GMT -8
I think the times have changed and if Beverly Hills can change its attitude about a subway, I certainly think popular support can overcome the few NIMBYs who would object to an Orange Line upgrade.
The argument over how priority this should be is a different one than whether it should be planned as a possibility long-term.
I wonder if this can be made an issue in the State Legislative election in 2010.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 24, 2009 13:12:37 GMT -8
Undoubtedly, at some point it should be upgraded. The question is when. Why do you think it should be upgraded now instead of latter considering we have many other worthy projects competing for limited resources? Shouldn't we give other areas a chance at transportation infrastructure first?
Also, the Orange Line currently has an extension under construction. Should that extension be torn up and converted to LRT as soon as it is finished?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 24, 2009 16:08:24 GMT -8
Until the Robbins Bill is overturned, we can all forget about your otherwise awesome suggestions (I was one of those who opposed the Busway, and fought to the very end for a LRT, by the way). Furthermore, the Orange Line will need finishing...as you've mentioned.
Methinks that future Valley projects will be the Westside/Valley rail link, with the Orange Line showing that the Valley WILL enjoy and use mass transit...but should have been a rail.
An example, if you will, of what the Westside and the rest of the City/County should NOT do.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 24, 2009 17:45:35 GMT -8
Discretionary Metro riders would want the Orange Line converted to rail, but it seems the current line today is an "upgrade" to former 156 riders (Van Nuys station seems to have large numbers of alighting/boardings). Of course, those former 156 riders are probably quietly wishing for rail too. It's no coincidence the North Hollywood station parking lot is always full while Van Nuys and Sepulveda's lots languish in near emptyness; only the Balboa station lot seems to be well utilized mostly because it's shared with LADOT's Commuter Express service. The Orange Line's ridership trend is going the opposite of all other Metro Rail lines: ridership fell from 28k last year to 21k this year; yet the connecting Red Line surpassed the 150k point. A 405 line is way off in the distant future and the LRTP only calls for bus speed improvments in the near future. The only new rail line the SFV will ever get is the California HSR; I would just hope that Metrolink service would at least be electrified and frequencies increased in conjuntion with the HSR project.
|
|