[Kingofthehill]

MTA unveils new timelines for transit projects
11:11 AM, January 6, 2009

Want to step aboard the subway extension to the Westside? Looks like you may have to wait until 2019 -- and even then you'll only be able to travel as far west as La Cienega Boulevard, according to a new staff report from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Sampling:


Subway to La Cienega -- 2019

Subway to Century City -- 2026

Subway to Westwood -- 2032

Expo Line light rail phase II, Culver City to Santa Monica -- 2015

Gold Line light rail extension -- 2017

Wilshire Boulevard bus lane in city of Los Angeles -- 2015

Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or bus rapid transit -- 2029

Green Line to LAX -- 2016 to 2018

Westside to San Fernando Valley transit project along the 405 Freeway -- 2038

Regional Connector downtown light rail -- 2018

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/mta-unveils-new.html

[Westsidelife]

^ I don't think that includes state and federal funding.

[Busy Bee]

Is this a joke?

[StethJeff]

wow, might as well wait for flying cars at that point.

[Wright Concept]

^ I don't think that includes state and federal funding.

For the most part it doesn't. It is assuming only Local with a few Federal matches because the State's budget is so screwed up.

[JDRCRASH]

^ I think "screwed up" is an understatement.

[Westsidelife]

'Subway to the Sea' Timetable Is Too Long for Villaraigosa (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-subway7-2009jan07,0,7864267.story?track=rss)

Transit officials overseeing Measure R say it may take until 2032 to extend tracks 10 miles to Westwood. An aide to the mayor says that is unacceptable.

By Steve Hymon
January 7, 2009

According to a timetable set by transportation officials overseeing Measure R, one of the most significant projects to speed travel on Los Angeles' Westside -- the "Subway to the Sea" -- is set to go very, very slowly.

The proposed rail line doesn't figure to pass engineering and environmental muster until 2013, just in time to see its biggest booster, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, leave office if elected to a second term. And it won't even reach Westwood until 2032, at which point Villaraigosa would be 78.

On Tuesday, a spokesman for the mayor said that was unacceptable and noted that Measure R "allows us to seek federal support and advance the timeline.

"We have for the first time an administration in Washington that intends to invest in public transportation," said Villaraigosa press secretary Matt Szabo. "When the mayor was running for office, the Subway to the Sea was mocked as a pipe dream. Now the question is not if it's going to be built, but when it's completed."

The timeline, issued last week, is part of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's long-range plan that probably will be considered for approval by the agency's board of directors later this month.

The board, currently chaired by Villaraigosa, has the power to alter the plan if it doesn't like it, although members typically don't offer wholesale changes to such reports.

Many of the construction dates have been known in general, but this blueprint is the most detailed to date.

Measure R is expected to raise $40 billion over its 30-year life span. But the list of highway and transit work that local officials promised to build is long, meaning that proceeds of the tax must be spread around the county.

That poses difficulty for the subway project, which is slated to get at least $4.1 billion but is expected to cost more than $6 billion, at least half of which officials hope to secure from the federal government.

The project is already the most expensive on the Measure R list and the largest beneficiary of the sales tax -- and the reason politicians in other parts of the county worry that it will become a black hole consuming time and money.

"If we want to see something in our lifetime, let's look at other alternatives," said Tony Bell, a spokesman for Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who also serves on the MTA board and would be 92 in 2032. "We don't have to have this tunnel vision."

If the timetable is unchanged, the subway extension to the Westside would reach La Cienega Boulevard in 2019, Century City in 2026 and Westwood by 2032. When and where the subway would reach the ocean in or near Santa Monica remains uncertain.

The Purple Line subway now ends near the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue, about 10 miles from Westwood.

Many decisions remain on where the rest of the westward route would fall.

A study completed by the MTA last year indicated that the subway probably would follow Wilshire Boulevard, swing south to Century City and then back north to Westwood. But many key issues remain unresolved, including the precise alignment and depth of the line and the exact location of stations.

The new Measure R timeline contains at least one new element.

The spending plan on the ballot told voters that a light-rail line or busway mostly along Crenshaw Boulevard and ending at Los Angeles International Airport would be ready by 2018. That plan has been pushed back a decade, with the MTA now calling the Green Line extension to LAX the first phase of the Crenshaw line.

The change had to do with money, said Carol Inge, the MTA's chief planning officer. She said the agency wants to first build projects that are likely to snare some federal funding because of higher ridership projections than the Crenshaw line.

"It's a wonderful project and we're committed to it, but as far as competitiveness for federal funding it's probably not going to be as competitive as the others," Inge said.

Damien Goodmon, a transit activist in South Los Angeles, said the Crenshaw line delay was a betrayal of residents in the community who overwhelmingly voted for Measure R, thinking the tax hike would get the project built more quickly.

If the MTA "had told us they were going to increase our sales tax so they could build projects in other more affluent communities before us, I don't think we would have voted for it and I don't think it would have passed," he said.

The MTA's long-range plan also includes dates for the completion of other much-anticipated projects. For example, the Expo Line light rail from downtown to Santa Monica would be completed in 2015, the Green Line extension to LAX by 2022, the Gold Line's Foothill extension to perhaps Azusa by 2017 and a downtown light-rail line to connect the Blue, Gold and Expo lines by 2025.

Among some of the more distant projects, an extension of the Gold Line from East Los Angeles to possibly Whittier could be up and running by 2037. And a to-be-determined transit project along the 405 Freeway between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside would be done the next year.

[OhioGuy]

Over two decades to get a subway built a measly 10 miles? We sent humans thousands of miles to the moon & back and all of that was accomplished in under a decade. Yet for some reason creating rapid transit just 10 miles will take over two decades. Pathetic.

(at least the Expo line will be extended to Santa Monica by 2015)

[StethJeff]

Over two decades to get a subway built a measly 10 miles? We sent humans thousands of miles to the moon & back and all of that was accomplished in under a decade. Yet for some reason creating rapid transit just 10 miles will take over two decades. Pathetic.

(at least the Expo line will be extended to Santa Monica by 2015)

Even that project's timeline seems ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[Westsidelife]

For the most part it doesn't. It is assuming only Local with Federal matches because the State's budget is so screwed up.

Are these federal matches dollar-for-dollar? If the Regional Connector is such an important project, and therefore has a greater chance of snagging federal dollars, then why will it be another 9 years before this 1.5 mile tunnel is completed? And since Crenshaw's funding has been reserved for another project, why will the Expo Line II be delayed another 2 years?

Even with California's budget woes, I can't seem to make any sense of this timeline.

[The Chemist]

Over two decades to get a subway built a measly 10 miles? We sent humans thousands of miles to the moon & back and all of that was accomplished in under a decade. Yet for some reason creating rapid transit just 10 miles will take over two decades. Pathetic.

(at least the Expo line will be extended to Santa Monica by 2015)

Pretty crazy. Shanghai will have gone from 0km of subway to over 500km of subway in the same number of years (1995-2012). I know the labour cost here is lower and environmental/NIMBY issues aren't the same here as they are in the States, but still - you'd think LA could do a LITTLE better than this.

[StethJeff]

People aren't as concerned right now because gas is still <$2.00. We'll see what happens when we're pushing $5.00 again.

[Kingofthehill]

Pretty crazy. Shanghai will have gone from 0km of subway to over 500km of subway in the same number of years (1995-2012). I know the labour cost here is lower and environmental/NIMBY issues aren't the same here as they are in the States, but still - you'd think LA could do a LITTLE better than this.

Here's a quote from the article's comment section:

BART, in the Bay Area was built in 8 years including the 38 mile Daly City to Concord line. BART to SFO was build in 6 years. It consisted of adding 8 miles and 4 new stations.

[JDRCRASH]

People aren't as concerned right now because gas is still <$2.00. We'll see what happens when we're pushing $5.00 again.

What about the dumbass NIMBIES that continued to complain about the Expo months ago?

[Wright Concept]

Are these federal matches dollar-for-dollar? If the Regional Connector is such an important project, and therefore has a greater chance of snagging federal dollars, then why will it be another 9 years before this 1.5 mile tunnel is completed? And since Crenshaw's funding has been reserved for another project, why will the Expo Line II be delayed another 2 years?

Even with California's budget woes, I can't seem to make any sense of this timeline.

1) The Final EIR aren't complete for Expo Phase 2 and the Regional Connector (RC). Expo is only a year away, RC about 2-3 years away. RC is currently near the end of Alternative Analysis and beginning Draft EIR.

2) That project isn't ready to build right this minute because that Final EIR/Design+Engineering Drawings hasn't been cleared.

3) The RC is mostly underground there's only one source of funding that can be obtained (Measure R, remember we still have a "Zev's law" in play which eliminates Prop A and C to go towards tunnel funding)

4) The State's budget woes coupled with the Governor wanting to raid transit funding will mean more of the available County Sales Tax for transit will go towards the basic operation of the existing system, more than anticipated. That reduces available cash from Prop A and C sales taxes along with Measure R for building (Call the Governator and tell him to stop raiding Transit funding)

5) Metro beancounters are wisely preparing for smaller projected sales tax receipts due to this recession, that also limits the agency's ability to bond because no one wants to purchase bonds for infrastructure projects unless there are some ironclad quick ROI, because of the global fiscal crisis.

So these timeline projections are based on Measure R as the only funding source to do them.

[Wright Concept]

Are these federal matches dollar-for-dollar?
They can be a direct match to the local funding if it falls under FTA's magical $23.99 or lower cost effectiveness value, because that is a Medium rated project which makes it eligible for Federal Funding.

Currently there's only a few projects that may be eligible for it under that criteria.
*Expo Phase 2 (On Right of Way ONLY)
*Regional Connector (underground alignment)
*Purple Line Extension (to Westwood)

[JDRCRASH]

3) The RC is mostly underground there's only one source of funding that can be obtained (Measure R, remember we still have a Zev's law in play which eliminates Prop A and C to go towards tunnel funding)


I'm surprised nobody has gone to the Supreme Court to overthrow that law.

[Wright Concept]

They can't overthrow it, because that law was a voter proposition with a 60+% voter approval. So overthrowing it would require a public vote not a law judge.

[JDRCRASH]

Do you think the voters would think differently now?

[aaron38]

This is where Obama needs to step in regarding the projects that are "shovel ready". Getting these subway lines built reduces oil demand, creates economic stimulus at the site of the new stations, and puts people to work.

National security, the environment, trade deficit, the economy and the workers all bennefit. We need to build all of these lines in the next 5 years. They'll pay for themselves in economic growth and we can't afford to sit around and wait any longer.

If we can't dig a 10 mile tunnel in less than 23 years, then let's face it, we're no longer a world superpower.

[Westsidelife]

Thank You, Obama! Metro to Hold Off on Setting Long Ass Timelines (http://laist.com/2009/01/08/thanks_you_obama_metro_to_hold_off.php)

By Zach Behrens
January 8, 2009

Metro's board was supposed to vote later this month on the long-range plan that would have set timetables for projects such as the "Subway to the Sea," and other projects. Community members and politicians such as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa were not to pleased to see opening dates for projects more than 20 years from now (a subway to Westwood/UCLA would open in 2032).

But today, Metro announced they will postpone that vote. "The board has decided to wait, hoping to see what money may become available for projects after President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20," wrote transit hound Steve Hymon, who broke the original timetable story, at the LA Times. "Obama has said he wants to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure projects to create new jobs and put some zip into the nation's economy."

[JDRCRASH]

^Thats just great news!!

I agree with Aaron38. Too long have we succumbed to long-term construction while other areas of the globe continue to drill away. Too long have we given in to the fact that this is a seismologially active area, when cities like Tokyo or even Mexico City build subways with ease. And too long have we let morons like Zev Yaroslavsky shit up our future by blocking sales tax use for subways. This is one of the most powerful cities on the planet. Surely we have some "connections" or can pull some "tricks" up our sleeves to try and finish these projects in at least half the time. I remember reading a article saying that to completely relieve car traffic in L.A. County, we would need over one hundred more miles worth of subways, reaching an estimated $250 Billlion. And thats just to accomodate today's growth.

[Westsidelife]

3) The RC is mostly underground there's only one source of funding that can be obtained (Measure R, remember we still have a "Zev's law" in play which eliminates Prop A and C to go towards tunnel funding)

Are we looking at eliminating that sales tax tunneling ban?

[Westsidelife]

They can be a direct match to the local funding if it falls under FTA's magical $23.99 or lower cost effectiveness value, because that is a Medium rated project which makes it eligible for Federal Funding.

Currently there's only a few projects that may be eligible for it under that criteria.
*Expo Phase 2 (On Right of Way ONLY)
*Regional Connector (underground alignment)
*Purple Line Extension (to Westwood)

I see you added Expo II to the list. It being eligible for 50% New Starts funding is huge.


A few questions...


1) Did Expo I get 50% New Starts funding? I know it had a good cost-effectiveness rating, but according to this (Page 20) it got 90.8% state funding: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/images/Section_5.pdf. This source (click on first item) shows 50% New Starts funding: http://search.google.dot.gov/FTA/FTASearchProcess.asp?sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&site=FTA_Pages&output=xml_no_dtd&client=FTA_frontend&lr=&proxystylesheet=FTA_frontend&oe=UTF-8&q=Los+Angeles+Mid-City&btnSearch.x=0&btnSearch.y=0.

2) The first link shows that Metro doesn't plan on getting 50% New Starts funding for Expo II, despite it being clearly eligible. What's up with that?

3) If a project doesn't have a favorable cost-effectiveness rating (less than Medium), can it still get New Starts funding?

4) What other projects have a good cost-effectiveness rating? If you look at the first link (Page 20), Metro plans on getting 62.2% of funds from the federal government, which leads me to believe that it's eligible for 50% New Starts funding.

[Wright Concept]

Are we looking at eliminating that sales tax tunneling ban?

Nope, because even if the ban were to be removed (it has to be removed by the voters) there's very little money that could go towards subway construction because those monies are committed to other projects under Measure R and general transit operations and some bond repayments.

[Wright Concept]

A few questions...


1) Did Expo I get 50% New Starts funding? I know it had a good cost-effectiveness rating, but according to this (Page 20) it got 90.8% state funding: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/images/Section_5.pdf. This source (click on first item) shows 50% New Starts funding: http://search.google.dot.gov/FTA/FTASearchProcess.asp?sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&site=FTA_Pages&output=xml_no_dtd&client=FTA_frontend&lr=&proxystylesheet=FTA_frontend&oe=UTF-8&q=Los+Angeles+Mid-City&btnSearch.x=0&btnSearch.y=0.


2) The first link shows that Metro doesn't plan on getting 50% New Starts funding for Expo II, despite it being clearly eligible. What's up with that?

3) If a project doesn't have a favorable cost-effectiveness rating (less than Medium), can it still get New Starts funding?

4) What other projects have a good cost-effectiveness rating? If you look at the first link (Page 20), Metro plans on getting 62.2% of funds from the federal government, which leads me to believe that it's eligible for 50% New Starts funding.

Answers to:
1) Expo was eligible for the funding BUT they would have had to wait until 2009 to collect the money because we also have a New Starts project in the area (East LA Gold Line) by that time the cost of the project would have gone up and it would have opened in 2012, two years after.

2) Originally they were looking to use mostly state and local funding to speed up the completion of the project by 1-2 years and use the New Starts for bigger project like Regional Connector or maybe the subway to Wilshire/Fairfax (if that segments falls under the New Starts criteria). Given the State's budget crisis and the current working of the new Transit 4 America bill (New Starts funding name) this maybe an opportunity to remove some rules such as only one project per region.

3) That is highly unlikely I can't think of any at the top of my head that recieved funding with a low or medium-low rating.

4) *Expo Phase 2 (On Right of Way ONLY), *Regional Connector (underground alignment), *Purple Line Extension (to Westwood)

Those are the only ones at the top of my head, Crenshaw may not be as cost-effective for Federal funding by itself, Eastside Phase 2 is dependent on which corridor they select, so I'm not sure about that one either.

There is a new Federal funding grant called "Small Starts" that gives funding to projects that are small in scope and are very cost-effective (mostly Bus Rapid Transit projects, Bus-Only Lanes) under that window, Wilshire Bus Only Lanes is a project that's eligible.

[edluva]

wow, that blows.

[Westsidelife]

1) Expo was eligible for the funding BUT they would have had to wait until 2009 to collect the money because we also have a New Starts project in the area (East LA Gold Line) by that time the cost of the project would have gone up and it would have opened in 2012, two years after.

So, only one project at a time can receive New Starts?


2) Originally they were looking to use mostly state and local funding to speed up the completion of the project by 1-2 years and use the New Starts for bigger project like Regional Connector or maybe the subway to Wilshire/Fairfax (if that segments falls under the New Starts criteria). Given the State's budget crisis and the current working of the new Transit 4 America bill (New Starts funding name) this maybe an opportunity to remove some rules such as only one project per region.

If only one project per region can receive New Starts, then I definitely think that money should go towards the Westside Extension. BTW, is the first segment to Fairfax or Westwood? If Westwood is eligible, then I think that should be the first phase, but with smaller segments opening as soon as possible.


4) *Expo Phase 2 (On Right of Way ONLY), *Regional Connector (underground alignment), *Purple Line Extension (to Westwood)

Those are the only ones at the top of my head, Crenshaw may not be as cost-effective for Federal funding by itself, Eastside Phase 2 is dependent on which corridor they select, so I'm not sure about that one either.

There is a new Federal funding grant called "Small Starts" that gives funding to projects that are small in scope and are very cost-effective (mostly Bus Rapid Transit projects, Bus-Only Lanes) under that window, Wilshire Bus Only Lanes is a project that's eligible.

Don't you think 405/Sepulveda and maybe Vermont would be eligible for New Starts? I know Measure R allocates money for an I-405 line, but the technology it would use is still up in the air. I think an HRT/LRT line would have a good cost-effectiveness value.

[Wright Concept]

Don't you think 405/Sepulveda and maybe Vermont would be eligible for New Starts? I know Measure R allocates money for an I-405 line, but the technology it would use is still up in the air. I think an HRT/LRT line would have a good cost-effectiveness value.

They are potential candidates once a few pieces are added to the system, like the Wilshire Subway to Westwood, Expo to Santa Monica, Regional Connector. Currently by themselves they would fall on the medium-low to borderline medium on my estimation due to their dependence on other lines/connections for high ridership.

* I-405 Corridor is dependent on Expo to Santa Monica and Wilshire subway to Westwood to link those connections to activity centers in Santa Monica, Watergarden, Bundy Drive, Westwood, Century City and Beverly Hills. I see this as a Heavy Rail using Light Rail vehicles to take advantage of existing facilities.

* Vermont Corridor is a great corridor to get started in planning and developing. Getting Expo to Santa Monica and Wilshire subway to at least Fairfax would provide a push for this line to link the Vermont Corridor riders to the jobs, the one thorny issue is where to build a rail facility that may require to build the line farther south, which ain't a bad thing.

[StethJeff]

Where does the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor fit into all of this? It's the only line that goes directly from LAX to Union Station - seems like those would be 2 important places to connect within the metro area.

[Westsidelife]

* I-405 Corridor is dependent on Expo to Santa Monica and Wilshire subway to Westwood to link those connections to activity centers in Santa Monica, Watergarden, Bundy Drive, Westwood, Century City and Beverly Hills. I see this as a Heavy Rail using Light Rail vehicles to take advantage of existing facilities.

What are some examples of HRT using LRVs?

So, basically, that won't be until 2020. Waiting that long is pointless. In that case, we should just use local money.


* Vermont Corridor is a great corridor to get started in planning and developing. Getting Expo to Santa Monica and Wilshire subway to at least Fairfax would provide a push for this line to link the Vermont Corridor riders to the jobs, the one thorny issue is where to build a rail facility that may require to build the line farther south, which ain't a bad thing.

So, that won't be until 2015 (at the earliest). If Wilshire/La Cienega to Westwood isn't eligible for New Starts, then this one should get the funding.

[Wright Concept]

What are some examples of HRT using LRVs?

The basic understanding of it is this, LA's LRT has a maximum length of 3 cars (or the shortest street block that can safely wait at a stop light without backing up the previous block) which given a frequency of 2 minutes will give you the good medium to high capacity. Add 1 or 2 extra cars and place strategic grade separations and we've doubled the capacity to high-end heavy rail because of moving more people while maximizing our flexibility of utilizing existing Light Rail tracks, structures and most importantly maintenance facilities.

An example of this in terms of capacity is in San Francisco in ONLY the Muni Metro subway under Market Street and the Boston Green Line in their Downtown Subway. Edmonton has this hybrid approach of being able to operate longer vehicle lengths, up to 5 cars, with their LRT. A soon to be operating example of this is in Seattle where they're planning to run 4 car LRV's. Here all we need to do is operate more LRV's on a train along the 405 corridor instead of running "heavy rail vehicles"

I'm going to add a capacity list showing the the different train configurations and their capacities

Comparison of LRT with HRT
Capacity:
221 (http://www.ansaldobreda.it/upload/allegati_prodotti/15_ITA_losangeles.pdf) passengers per LRV per 90' length
180 (http://www.ansaldobredainc.com/PDF/Los%20Angeles%20heavy%20rail.pdf) passengers per HRV per 75' length

3-LRV train (270' length) : 663 passengers
4-HRV train (300' length) : 720 passengers
4-LRV train (360' length) : 884 passengers
6-HRV train (450' length) : 1080 passengers
5-LRV train (450' length) : 1105 passengers

So, basically, that won't be until 2020. Waiting that long is pointless. In that case, we should just use local money.

We should however because of the recession the local money Measure R isn't as robust as it should be and we'd have to take out bonds. Bonding right now isn't going to work because not many investors are buying them if Metro were to take them out. And it's not just a Metro problem, some school districts are having problems selling the bonds they've just got approved.

So it's a two-fold problem. That we need every extra dime LA can get for it's transit infrastructure.

So, that won't be until 2015 (at the earliest). If Wilshire/La Cienega to Westwood isn't eligible for New Starts, then this one should get the funding.

A study needs to be done of it and get it to at least the Draft EIR phase to have it become eligible for New Starts so that it's ready to build. Chances are that Purple Line will need a few tweaks to the design and it's route operation to get it to the New Starts Medium threshold.

[JDRCRASH]

IMO, the Environmental Impact Reports waste alot of valuable time.

[Westsidelife]

^ :no:

[Westsidelife]

The basic understanding of it is this, LA's LRT has a maximum length of 3 cars (or the shortest street block that can safely wait at a stop light without backing up the previous block) which given a frequency of 2 minutes will give you the good medium to high capacity. Add 1 or 2 extra cars and place strategic grade separations and we've doubled the capacity to high-end heavy rail because of moving more people while maximizing our flexibility of utilizing existing Light Rail tracks, structures and most importantly maintenance facilities.

So, HRT is characterized more by grade-separations and high-capacity than the type of vehicles it uses?

Tell me, would this "heavy LRT" be considered HRT or LRT?


An example of this in terms of capacity is in San Francisco in ONLY the Muni Metro subway under Market Street and the Boston Green Line in their Downtown Subway.

How is that so? Both use 1-2 car configurations.


Here all we need to do is operate more LRV's on a train along the 405 corridor instead of running "heavy rail vehicles"

I understand the issue of compatibility, but what about extending the Red Line from NoHo into the SFV instead of converting the Orange Line to LRT? That would provide a one-seat ride between the SFV and Downtown, with multiple north-south BRT lines feeding into it.

[Wright Concept]

So, HRT is characterized more by grade-separations and high-capacity than the type of vehicles it uses?

Tell me, would this "heavy LRT" be considered HRT or LRT?

It would probably considered HRT because of the full grade separations and it's passenger per direction per hour capacity.

How is that so? Both use 1-2 car configurations.

By throughput, running a lot of smaller units on a high frequency. Those 1-2 car trains at rush hour come one every 90 seconds, giving you a high capacity of passengers per direction per hour (ppdph). Somewhere around 18-21,000 ppdph. Vancouver's Automated Skytrain and their under construction Canada Line works of this same idea. Smaller 150' long trains without operators running on short frequencies (as few as every 45 seconds) achieves a 20,000+ ppdph.

I understand the issue of compatibility, but what about extending the Red Line from NoHo into the SFV instead of converting the Orange Line to LRT? That would provide a one-seat ride between the SFV and Downtown, with multiple north-south BRT lines feeding into it.

That is another option, that can be considered, I think the farthest west in the Valley the line would go is the 405, any further west to Warner Center isn't worth the ridership unless you do it at-grade with crossings. A LRT option would be best to Warner Center even continuing on the Right-of-way to Burbank.