HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4961  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2018, 5:59 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by bzcat View Post
Many of us have already voiced our support for Concept 4. The branch design will allow Van Nuys to stay at 5 min head way and provide thru-service to transit users on the Van Nuys corridor. The 2nd branch heading west on Orange line ROW will connect West SFV to the Sepulveda Pass line and double up freuency from Orange line to purple line where the demand is highest. Win-win for the the whole SFV.
Can someone explain how the branched service would interface with the eventual orange line conversion? Would we have a east-west line running from Warner Center to NOHO, with the Supulveda branch terminating underground to create a transfer at Supulveda station? Or would this branch somehow link to the future Orange Line light rail?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4962  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2018, 9:28 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,732
The Orange Line will never interface with the Sepulveda Line. Later this year a bridge will be built over Van Nuys, grade separating The Orange Line from the street. The bridge is being designed with the Van Nuys light rail line in mind, where one can walk down from the bridge to the light rail station. Despite this, the two don't connect, and will never connect. One will never influence the other, and the Sepulveda line will not precipitate an Orange Line light rail conversion. The Orange Line should not be taken in to account when considering what option the Sepulveda Line should take.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4963  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2018, 1:27 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
The Orange Line will never interface with the Sepulveda Line. Later this year a bridge will be built over Van Nuys, grade separating The Orange Line from the street. The bridge is being designed with the Van Nuys light rail line in mind, where one can walk down from the bridge to the light rail station. Despite this, the two don't connect, and will never connect. One will never influence the other, and the Sepulveda line will not precipitate an Orange Line light rail conversion. The Orange Line should not be taken in to account when considering what option the Sepulveda Line should take.
Got it. So it sounds like the purpose of branching to Sepulveda would really just be to create a turnback, allowing for higher frequencies on the Supulveda line than the Van Nuys line. Is that right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4964  
Old Posted Aug 11, 2018, 2:59 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
The Orange Line will never interface with the Sepulveda Line. Later this year a bridge will be built over Van Nuys, grade separating The Orange Line from the street. The bridge is being designed with the Van Nuys light rail line in mind, where one can walk down from the bridge to the light rail station. Despite this, the two don't connect, and will never connect. One will never influence the other, and the Sepulveda line will not precipitate an Orange Line light rail conversion. The Orange Line should not be taken in to account when considering what option the Sepulveda Line should take.
Concept 4 envisions the Sepulveda Line with one branch continuing north on the Van Nuys Line and a second branch towards the Sepulveda Orange Line station (not connecting with the Van Nuys station) via an aerial alignment. It creates the opportunity for 2 North-South lines (Orange Line west of Sepulveda is both North-South and East-West) feeding into the Sepulveda Line. The conversion of the rest of the Orange Line could create a East-West Line from the Van Nuys station to Pasadena (or continue to Montclair).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Got it. So it sounds like the purpose of branching to Sepulveda would really just be to create a turnback, allowing for higher frequencies on the Supulveda line than the Van Nuys line. Is that right?
It’s really doubtful they would spend money on 1 mile of aerial alignment just for a turnback facility. Concept 3 says they can accomplish a turnback at Van Nuys station.

Last edited by numble; Aug 11, 2018 at 4:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4965  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2018, 3:15 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
It's almost like building a light-rail system that functions more like commuter rail directly next to an existing commuter rail line is a poor investment.
Not if it induces more riders and gets more people out of cars, which isn’t that what a lot of posters here want? If you don’t know by now, I’m pro car. But I do support transit options for people and it isn’t like this extension is an attempt to give the foothills the same transit options as you’d expect downtown. So I don’t see the problem. The commuter rail line, hopefully will eventually made HSR to San Bernardino.

There’s a lot of people in the foothills. I want to see the 210 expanded to double its current capacity. Realistically, that is not happening any time soon. Gold line extension helps give people an alternative to a freeway that is heavily congested and won’t see further expansion for the time being due to current political climate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4966  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2018, 3:19 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Do you actually believe that the density in the San Dimas-Claremont area produces enough sales tax to pay for the "investment" in a second rail corridor in this area? More so than in the heart of urban LA? Because that's just silly.
I believe they contribute to the sales tax and they deserve a bone thrown at them. That is more than just a new bus route or expanded bus frequency.

What rail corridor in DTLA pays for itself? Because if your only argument is that DTLA lines have higher ridership, than that’s just silly and no reason to expand rail out into the suburban areas which deserve an alternative other than commuter rail and freeways. You’re acting like giving them light rail will give them mass transit you’d expect in NYC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4967  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2018, 5:56 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
This will forever blow my mind. I don’t care WHAT the excuses are.

The state budget is what, $183B? How much would it cost to turn the Van Nuys line from LRT to HRT? $3B maybe? The state couldn’t throw in $1B or $2B for the next couple of years for a project that will transform the states flagship city? And that’s just the state, then the county and Metro itself could throw in money. Who knows what they could get in grants. And then what about private partnerships?

LRT from Sylmar to Ventura and then HRT from Ventura to LAX reeks of the kind of disorganized public transit planning that has made LA mass transit a joke. That’s a couple of lines that will be used but woefully under its potential, leading to billions in changes 10-20 years down the road.

Meanwhile a Heavy Rail line from Sylmar to UCLA, Expo, LAX and ending at Inglewood Stadium would be probably one of the most heavily used Subway lines in the world outside of Asia. It would be Efficient. It would be incredible. It would be world class.

(Hell, honestly if costs are so prohibitive - I sincerely think the valley would be better off with a HRT line that extends half of the original plan: Say maybe as far as the MetroLink station? and connects to the Sepulveda line to be one continuous line ... that’s a far better option that a LRT line that goes all the way to Sylmar but forces a transfer to a HRT line at Sepulveda

Get it together Los Angeles. The stubbornness, the narrow mindedness and pure idiocy of Metro is gonna rob LA of what could be a truly world class system.
Completely agree. Metro is setting this corridor up to fail if they aren’t careful which will have severe consequences going forward for future bond proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4968  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2018, 11:03 PM
hughfb3's Avatar
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
thehyrail.org
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
Completely agree. Metro is setting this corridor up to fail if they aren’t careful which will have severe consequences going forward for future bond proposals.
Metro has been doing great work delivering projects relatively on time and on budget while taking in what the citizens want and applying it. People of the valley wanted surface rail and even put a legal block on metro from building any heavy rail subway in its jurisdiction... hence the orange line. They are building the system that the citizens demanded in the 2000’s, but citizen demand is shifting quite rapidly.... Metro’s plans have yet to get ahead of this shift though.

This is happening with the West Santa Ana Branch corridor. Citizen demand is transforming this project into a 3/4 grade separated Light Rail as the people demand more and more sections be grade separated. The new estimated cost is now about $5 Billion. That’s now $1,000,000,000.00 OVER the BUDGET Metro has allocated to it from Measure M. We gotta get ahead of this otherwise we will have maxed out all our money and have a system not meeting the demands
__________________
HyRail Los Angeles
"HyRail for Housing"
Transforming transportation and affordable housing in LA
www.thehyrail.org
@thehyrail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4969  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2018, 4:46 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 101
Various notes from browsing through Metro documents.

The agenda for the Bus Operations Subcommittee gives a preview of upcoming board actions.
http://media.metro.net/about_us/comm..._2018-0717.pdf
Green Line moving to EIS/EIR phase
According to page 18, the draft Metro Planning and Programming agenda for July 2018 included an item to move the Green Line extension to the EIS/EIR phase, with Alternatives 1 & 3 to move forward (though they want to modify each alternative to remove a station).

Quote:
A RECEIVING AND FILING the Green Line Extension to Torrance Supplemental Alternative Analysis (SAA) Report.

AUTHORIZING staff to initiate the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Project and carry forward the following two build alternatives (modified):
a. Alternative 1: Metro Right-of-way (ROW) and Overcrossing, without a station at Manhattan/Inglewood
b. Alternative 3: Hawthorne to 1 90th Street, without a station at Hawthorne/166th Street.
Union Station - Above Grade Concourse Recommended for Run-Through Project
Quote:
APPROVE staff's recommendation on the CEQA "Proposed Project" in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Staff is recommending that Alternative 1 , the Multimodal Transit Alternative of up to 1 0 run-through tracks with shared tracks, and with the above-grade passenger concourse option, as the CEQA Proposed Project.
The quarterly report from the Office of Extraordinary Innovation also has some interesting items.
https://lametro.nextrequest.com/docu...42283/download

The WSAB and Sepulveda P3s seem to be moving along and their status is in the report. These other items caught my attention:

P3 Proposal for Vermont Ave advanced to Phase 2
The P3 proposal for the Vermont Transit Corridor project has advanced to a Phase 2 review:

Quote:
Vermont Avenue Transit Corridor: Metro has recommended advancement of an Unsolicited Proposal for innovative design and delivery of the Vermont Avenue Transit Corridor project to a Phase II evaluation, which was approved by the CEO. The proposal suggests a P3 structure to deliver a Bus Rapid Transit Line with next-generation technology enhancements to improve project performance and user experience, while minimizing cost and risk. OEI is working with the project team to better define the value proposition in the UP, develop an evaluation methodology, and compile a scope of additional required information for the Proposer to support the Phase II Detailed Evaluation process.
P3 Evaluation of East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor
Metro is evaluating the feasibility of delivering the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor as a P3:

Quote:
East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor: Based on an internal staff recommendation approved by the CEO, Metro has initiated a qualitative P3 assessment of the East San Fernando Valley Transit LRT project. Metro recently completed draft qualitative analysis, and is currently incorporating Project Team comments. Once the qualitative assessment is completed, the analysis will be presented to the CEO with a recommendation for next steps.
P3 Proposal for South Bay ExpressLanes
Metro has received a P3 proposal from ROADIS for the P3 delivery of a countywide ExpressLanes/Express Bus network:
Quote:
ROADIS:Metro is finalizing the evaluation of an Unsolicited Proposal for P3 delivery of a countywide network of joint High-Occupancy Toll/Express Bus Lanes running on major highways by ROADIS, an international company that participates in the development, operation and management of highway concessions, to a Phase II evaluation. The evaluation will consider the potential benefits of such a P3, alongside the extent to which the proposal could have an impact on the ExpressLanes system financing plan.
The summary of this proposal in the "Unsolicited Proposal Status Log" describes the proposal as "A triangle of bus and toll lanes in the South Bay."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4970  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2018, 4:52 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,732
Metro choosing the above grade concourse, widely considered to be the worst option? I'm shocked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4971  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2018, 5:28 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
Metro choosing the above grade concourse, widely considered to be the worst option? I'm shocked.
Everything always boils down to politics and cost savings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4972  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2018, 3:11 AM
numble numble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 101
Elon Musk's Boring Company has now proposed a "Dugout Loop", a tunnel between East Hollywood (with a branch to a Red Line station) and Dodger Stadium, tunneling under Sunset Blvd. They are also exploring building a tunnel between the Purple and Expo lines.
https://www.boringcompany.com/dugout



Quote:
Dugout Loop will begin at the Dodger Stadium property and will proceed under Vin Scully Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. The western terminus will be located on private property owned by The Boring Company and will be located within the vicinity of a Metro Red Line station.

There are three Metro Red Line stations located in the vicinity of the western terminus that will be evaluated in the review process for the proposed project: Vermont/Sunset Station, Vermont/Santa Monica Station, and Vermont/Beverly Station. See map below. Only one of the three station options will be selected.

...

As part of the CEQA process, the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Dugout Loop process will be available for public review from August 16, 2018 to September 17, 2018. A public scoping meeting will be held at Dodger Stadium, 1000 Vin Scully Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90012, on August 28, 2018 from 6:15 pm to 9:00 pm. Please visit LABOE’s website for more information on the location and availability of the IS for public review. For more information on the location and availability of the IS for public review, please visit LABOE’s website at: http://eng.lacity.org/dugout-loop.

...

Previously, The Boring Company proposed a test tunnel under Sepulveda as a proof of concept for tunneling in Los Angeles. However, this test tunnel proposal did not include passenger operations and included only one surface terminal (as opposed to two). The Boring Company has made technical progress much faster than expected and has decided to make its first tunnel in Los Angeles an operational one, hence Dugout Loop!

The Boring Company is excited to build useful public transportation tunnels in Los Angeles, including by Sepulveda, and is exploring concepts for potential future alignments. One initial conceptual idea is a tunnel connection between Metro’s Purple and Expo lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4973  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 6:34 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,708
I know people are skeptical and see it as total pie in the sky, but this is really our only chance of ever seeing some sort of express rapid transit (the proverbial 3rd and 4th tracks) built. The Dugout Loop concept is essentially a combo HRT/PRT localized high-speed rail, not a neighborhood-serving service. This isn’t a substitute for a Metro line down Santa Monica/Sunset.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4974  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 10:12 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
I know people are skeptical and see it as total pie in the sky, but this is really our only chance of ever seeing some sort of express rapid transit (the proverbial 3rd and 4th tracks) built. The Dugout Loop concept is essentially a combo HRT/PRT localized high-speed rail, not a neighborhood-serving service. This isn’t a substitute for a Metro line down Santa Monica/Sunset.
Anyone can draw lines on a map, actually getting stuff done is a whole other story.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:28 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.