|
Post by tobias087 on Feb 23, 2010 18:28:17 GMT -8
Hey everybody. My first post!
Does anybody know the current status on construction for the Chatsworth extension? The last update on the Metro webpage was in April. Surely something has happened since then?
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 23, 2010 23:49:56 GMT -8
The last time I drove by on Canoga Avenue from Metro division 8 on down to Vanowen, the ROW looked as it did like in past decades, nothing has changed yet and some of the ROW tenants were still occupying the space.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 24, 2010 16:45:35 GMT -8
Hey everybody. My first post! Does anybody know the current status on construction for the Chatsworth extension? The last update on the Metro webpage was in April. Surely something has happened since then? Welcome! For the most recent information on the extension, check out this update presentation from Feb. 3rd. Some of the highlights that I noticed: -The north (replacement) parking lot was finished in October. -Metrolink completed all the necessary track modifications at Lassen. -The Design-build contract was awarded this month. -The main construction on the busway and on the overpass should start in April-ish.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Feb 24, 2010 19:27:22 GMT -8
The last time I drove by on Canoga Avenue from Metro division 8 on down to Vanowen, the ROW looked as it did like in past decades, nothing has changed yet and some of the ROW tenants were still occupying the space. Perhaps we'll see another sob story in the papers when they are finally given the boot.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Feb 24, 2010 20:57:24 GMT -8
Thank you very much, Justin! It all looks very nice, and I'm delighted that Metro is extending the Orange Line bikeway, since I've had quite a few adventures on it.
I don't quite understand why they are creating 3 routes though. How is that an improvement over 1 end-to-end route? Is there less demand for trips that cross Warner Center?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Mar 1, 2010 4:51:41 GMT -8
I don't quite understand why they are creating 3 routes though. How is that an improvement over 1 end-to-end route? Is there less demand for trips that cross Warner Center? The 3 lines is because the Warner Center stop is the transit mall along Owensmouth Avenue, which is a considerable distance away from the last right of way stop at Canoga Avenue. There's a lot of street running involved. There are no good alternatives about the Warner Center problem. The Owensmouth Avenue stops are close to Warner Center's biggest office buildings and shopping centers. Canoga Avenue doesn't have as much around it. So relocating the transit hub isn't a good choice. A feeder shuttle wouldn't have much demand. Even DASH is planning to cancel its Warner Center route. The third option would be a single line and the existing Owensmouth stop, but it would mean a slow dogleg route for the Orange Line. Any speed advantage would be lost by the dogleg.
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Apr 24, 2010 18:08:20 GMT -8
I drove most of the Orange Line extension today. The ROW is beginning to be cleared out. The big rock/tile/stone place just north of Sherman Way is mostly gone. There is a nice new strip center north of that that is still almost fully occupied and the empty store had a "for lease" banner on it. Is the line going to go behind this strip center? It sure looks like it is smack dab in the middle of the ROW. I didn't make it as far as the Metrolink station.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 23, 2010 17:13:22 GMT -8
How about a fresh update?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 23, 2010 18:28:30 GMT -8
I have driven by the alignment a few times in the last week and here's what I've observed: - The Chatsworth station south parking lot has been completely consumed by construction activities.
- Most of the alignment seems to have been graded. All the original SP tracks are long gone.
- Forms for several of the columns for the Lassen Overpass are in place. I don't know if they have been poured yet. Forms for the north abutment are also in place.
- The old SP Los Angeles River bridge was also demolished within the last few weeks.
Metro is also taking a second look at the proposed design for the Canoga station. The original design called for four platforms: one for Warner Center bound-buses, one for Chatsworth-bound buses, and two for North Hollywood-bound buses. Under this design, passengers would be dependent on real-time message signs to determine at which North Hollywood-bound platform the next bus would arrive. Metro is now looking at an alternative three-platform station design, with one dedicated platform for each destination (Warner Center, Chatsworth, and North Hollywood). IMHO, this is by far a more logical configuration (and also one I requested staff consider way back in the Draft EIR phase...)
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Mar 16, 2011 17:25:47 GMT -8
Any new news on this at all? It's the extension that just doesn't seem to get any love.
And what about the opening? Is it gonna be summer 2012 as the project page suggests, or summer 2013 as the LRTP suggests?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 16, 2011 18:51:34 GMT -8
^ For some reason I think I saw some recent photos of bridge construction over the LA River. I'll try and see if I can find them.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Mar 16, 2011 19:22:40 GMT -8
Any new news on this at all? It's the extension that just doesn't seem to get any love. The latest info tends to be posted in these project presentations. I saw the project a few days ago. The columns and abutments for the Lassen overcrossing are completed. Falsework appears complete for the northernmost span and partially completed for the middle span. The rest of the project alignment, except for the Canoga station parking lot, has been cleared and partially graded. Yesterday, I also happened to see several Metro employees at the Canoga station with full-size cardboard prints of the bus information displays proposed for the station. They said they were figuring out the best place to put each of the displays. And what about the opening? Is it gonna be summer 2012 as the project page suggests, or summer 2013 as the LRTP suggests? The most recent project presentation indicates an estimated opening of summer 2012.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Mar 19, 2011 21:50:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 20, 2011 16:00:26 GMT -8
^ That's the one I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 10, 2011 20:05:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 13, 2011 10:26:26 GMT -8
Will it open before Expo Phase 1?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 21, 2011 0:16:53 GMT -8
Here's the latest: Design work is 95% complete and construction work is 51% complete (as of 9/30/11). On target for Summer-Fall 2012 opening. Major accomplishments to date: - Constructed North Parking Lot at Chatsworth Station - Complete Final Design, Required Approvals, and Initiated Construction on the Lassen Bridge - Los Angeles River and Santa Susana Wash Bridge Footings, Abutments, and Girder Placement - Constructed Privacy Walls/Fences Adjacent to Mobile Home Park - Completed All Real Estate Relocations and Acquired Easements from Union Pacific See presentation and report.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Feb 16, 2012 10:30:03 GMT -8
I think my biggest concern is how they are going to handle the ridership once the extension opens.
The Orange Line is already running near capacity, especially in the NoHo to Van Nuys segment. The extension is supposed to add another 9,000 estimated daily boardings.
And if we assume that Metro is underestimating this as they did with the Orange Line's original ridership projections, we could be looking at an average 35,000-40,000 riders a day.
Will adding more buses be enough to handle this?
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 16, 2012 21:54:41 GMT -8
I dont see why adding more buses wouldnt solve the problem. Whats the peak frequency? Unless buses are running every 60 seconds, theres more than enough room to add more without creating congestion.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 16, 2012 22:50:14 GMT -8
"Will adding more buses be enough to handle this?" Yes, but only if LADOT is willing to change the signal timing to keep all those buses flowing. In theory, you should be able to run a bus every 2 minutes with an exclusive right-of-way. With 60 foot buses, that's several thousand people per hour, per direction. However, this would impact cross-traffic. Is LADOT willing to give buses priority, even if they are coming every 2 or 3 minutes instead of every 5 minuts?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 17, 2012 11:09:20 GMT -8
The buses already bunch during peak hours due to traffic signals so adding more buses will probably create more backup at key crossing points.
The most obvious solution is bigger buses, not more frequencies. Unfortunately, 60ft is the longest allowed by law. Orange Line is really perfect for those 80ft bi-articulated buses used in Europe, Mexico and South America.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Feb 17, 2012 19:46:03 GMT -8
The buses already bunch during peak hours due to traffic signals so adding more buses will probably create more backup at key crossing points. The most obvious solution is bigger buses, not more frequencies. Unfortunately, 60ft is the longest allowed by law. Orange Line is really perfect for those 80ft bi-articulated buses used in Europe, Mexico and South America. What happened to the 65ft bus that Metro was testing awhile back? They had to get permission from Caltrans to use it. Did Metro not like how it performed? For those who forgot about this bus, here is a picture of it:
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 17, 2012 20:56:19 GMT -8
What happened to the 65ft bus that Metro was testing awhile back? They had to get permission from Caltrans to use it. Did Metro not like how it performed? For those who forgot about this bus, here is a picture of it: I haven't seen that bus (fleet# 9495) in a while. It's still the only 65 foot test vehicle and I've seen it a few times. There's a part of the route in Warner Center where the buses turn right from Canoga to Oxnard and I'm wondering if 9495 has difficulty navigating that turn due to the island median on Oxnard.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 17, 2012 21:30:25 GMT -8
The most obvious solution is bigger buses, not more frequencies. Unfortunately, 60ft is the longest allowed by law. . Not exactly. As pointed out, waivers are allowed. Theres also a movement to allow for longer trucks. If that passes, someone should ensure that it includes buses. Also, does anyone know if the current 60 foot "limit" is total length or that of an individual vehicle? If its the latter, LA can go the swiss route, and turn their buses into trains....simply attach a 40ft "trailer" behind the main bus. Magically, your bus is 2x longer with no additional labor costs.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 18, 2012 4:46:27 GMT -8
As a daily Orange Line rider I believe have the answer to the problems of headway bunching, a crappy vehicle for transporting a high quantity of bikes and disabled persons, overcrowding at peak hours and of course that pesky 60 ft.state law. The problem is that no one is thinking in the right direction. We need to go up not out. Double decker buses of course! ;D Think about it. The only overpasses on the entire route including the Chatsworth extension are the 170 and the 405. Id need to look at the EIR to see what the clearance is but it looks like there should be more than enough clearance for a double decker bus like this one they have in SLO. They are only 14 ft tall www.experiencingla.com/2011/01/bus-id-actually-like-to-ride.htmlThis guy seems to get it Give him the credit. I just identified the Orange line as a good corridor for it. Most of the first floor could be hollowed out like the ends of the Red Line cars for bikes snd wheelchairs to provide a great boost for multimodal trips in the Valley, my method and in my opinion the most effective way to get around that part of town considering the meager headways of hourly buses and relatively easy terrain ( though nearly always inclined ) for biking and increasing upgrades in bike infrastructure by the City of LA
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 18, 2012 10:49:35 GMT -8
Antonio has a creative idea, but as he points out, the 405 overpass may be too low; the 170 overpass probably does have sufficient clearance.
Lost in the midst of this discussion, however, are the physical limitations of buses on this corridor. If you want a longer natural gas bus, it will have even slower acceleration than the abysmal artics they have right now. If you want electric trolleybuses, then you need a lot of extra infrastructure--and since they are two-phase while light rail has three-phase conduit, not entirely applicable to rail conversion either.
In any event, the thread begins with a crucial mistake: to assume that the Extension will overperform its estimates just because the original Orange Line segment did is to ignore crucial differences between the two routes. The original Orange Line ends at the subway terminus, intersects three of the top four bus corridors, parallels existing bus service at nearly every stop, serves two colleges, and east of Van Nuys passes through some moderately dense areas. The Extension has none of these factors going for it, although it will provide connectivity to the original destinations. Many insiders believe the Extension is likely to significantly underperform ridership expectations, especially because there are (a) no destinations along it, (b) very little residential or commercial density along it, and (c) very meager connecting bus service crossing it.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Feb 18, 2012 13:08:04 GMT -8
Is the point of the extension to serve existing demand or to create demand by building up the corridor with dense housing and such?
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 18, 2012 14:30:02 GMT -8
The extension is part of the Southern Pacific railroad branch the LACTC (pre-Metro) purchased in the early 1990s with Proposition 108 funds (the current Orange Line operates on the east/west part of the SP branch; the extension will operate the north/south portion). This, in addition to Metro's initiative to provide the SFV with north/south rapid transit, is why the Orange Line is extended. It'll mark the first time a Metro colored line will connect to Metrolink outside Union Station. Also, the extension will have a special entrance just north of Nordoff Street at the Division 8 bus yard to allow non-revenue bus movements, primarily for the Orange Line. IMO, I feel that the project isn't accomplishing much in the SFV in terms of fulfilling the transit needs that the Van Nuys Rapidway, Sepulveda Pass corridor, Bob Hope Airport Red Line extension, or a line from North Hollywood to Pasadena would do. Anyone wanting a quick ride from Chatsworth to Downtown L.A. already has speedy (albiet pricier and less frequent) Metrolink and Amtrak trains.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 18, 2012 19:29:21 GMT -8
As a daily Orange Line rider I believe have the answer to the problems of headway bunching, a crappy vehicle for transporting a high quantity of bikes and disabled persons, overcrowding at peak hours and of course that pesky 60 ft.state law. The problem is that no one is thinking in the right direction. We need to go up not out. Double decker buses of course! ;D Think about it. The only overpasses on the entire route including the Chatsworth extension are the 170 and the 405. Id need to look at the EIR to see what the clearance is but it looks like there should be more than enough clearance for a double decker bus like this one they have in SLO. They are only 14 ft tall www.experiencingla.com/2011/01/bus-id-actually-like-to-ride.htmlThis guy seems to get it Give him the credit. I just identified the Orange line as a good corridor for it. Most of the first floor could be hollowed out like the ends of the Red Line cars for bikes snd wheelchairs to provide a great boost for multimodal trips in the Valley, my method and in my opinion the most effective way to get around that part of town considering the meager headways of hourly buses and relatively easy terrain ( though nearly always inclined ) for biking and increasing upgrades in bike infrastructure by the City of LA Antonio is on the right track. How about an articulated double decker? The clearance hight wise is not an issue, as the Freeway underpasses are standard hight, so a double decker has clearance. The real issue is loading and dwell time. And someone would have to develop such a transit bus. As for Part 2 of the Orange Line, Metro is about to learn that political ideas don't always work. Without increasing the local connecting service, increasing Metrolink frequency and adding the missing Saticoy stop, there isn't going to be any ridership surprise above expectations.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 20, 2012 2:58:04 GMT -8
I just identified the Orange line as a good corridor for it. Most of the first floor could be hollowed out like the ends of the Red Line cars for bikes snd wheelchairs to provide a great boost for multimodal trips in the Valley But then you'd have wasted that space on the ground for a very small addition in capacity. Also, with no doors on the second floor, or a balcony to handle entry and exit from the second floor to make first floor space useful, the line would slow. An alternative idea I had was to actually replace the 60' buses with 45' buses and make them run more frequently, and solve the transfer problem while we're at it. The Orange Line would run like the busway in Miami, where there would be several lines and they would fan out to provide local service off the right of way.
|
|