HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4781  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2018, 4:53 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,648
Amen. Preach on!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4782  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2018, 7:31 PM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by numble View Post
It says a lot about them ditching the subway portion.
Reading this, it honestly seems like the Subway would not have been worth it. I'd personally be okay if this was separate from the Sepulveda line. There are plenty of cities that have lines that switch modal typologies once they reach less dense areas. Even China, the current king of metro construction, often does so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4783  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:57 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,642
More nonsense. Why does this 9-mile corridor need 14 stations (an average of one station every 0.64 miles) when 1-mile station spacing is the norm? Not even the Expo Line has that station density (an average of one station every 0.8 miles). And 31 minutes to get from San Fernando to the Orange Line?!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4784  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:19 AM
NSMP NSMP is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 504
Metro is predicting it will average under 18 mph and that’s before traffic on Van Nuys gets ahold of it. Lol.
__________________
https://redlinereader.wordpress.com/ - Covering Transit Issues in Los Angeles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4785  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:58 AM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Metro is predicting it will average under 18 mph and that’s before traffic on Van Nuys gets ahold of it. Lol.
My god.

Just let Sepulveda be HRT and instead of building this disastrous LRT line, use all of the money set aside for this to build just ONE or TWO stations on Van Nuys as a Sepulveda line extension - if you could get it as far as the ML station on Van Nuys I feel like that would be a success and a far more efficient and useful option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4786  
Old Posted Today, 6:10 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 300
Is there any way to get Metro to change it’s terrible decision here??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4787  
Old Posted Today, 7:16 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 94
I dont think the ESFV line should be connected to the Sepulveda Line.
Makes no sense and is very expensive. That money can be better spent on other areas where population density and employment is greatest and traffic is worse and where you can upzone and build vertically with little resistance. I dont view much of the SFV like this.

I think the terminus of the Sepulveda line should be at the Amtrak Metrolink station at Van Nuys.

What should be the focus is creating a denser core of LA of housing/high-rises, jobs and more walkable districts. This is better than trying to attract super commuters and rewarding them with expensive subway rail in very suburban areas. I'd rather they build that valley subway on Santa Monica Blvd to Union Station. Vermont Ave to Glendale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4788  
Old Posted Today, 7:54 AM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,251
Common sense rail doesn't exist in Metros mindset. They ignore what the people want, dismiss potential ridership numbers, let politics drive where future rail should go and give us BS EIRs that say the most ridiculous things and people say "Oh, well that must be right" when clearly it makes no sense what so ever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4789  
Old Posted Today, 5:59 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSMP View Post
Metro is predicting it will average under 18 mph and that’s before traffic on Van Nuys gets ahold of it. Lol.
It’s basically a streetcar. The fatal flaw was in deciding to study these two corridors separately, likely to make Sepulveda more attractive for a PPP and to be able to fluff the project count. Just look at how most projects under ‘28 by 28’ were scheduled for completion by 2028 anyway.

How long until riders complain about the speed and wonder why it wasn’t built as a subway? I do forsee this being built underground one day, perhaps when we’re all in our 80s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4790  
Old Posted Today, 8:14 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
It’s basically a streetcar. The fatal flaw was in deciding to study these two corridors separately, likely to make Sepulveda more attractive for a PPP and to be able to fluff the project count. Just look at how most projects under ‘28 by 28’ were scheduled for completion by 2028 anyway.

How long until riders complain about the speed and wonder why it wasn’t built as a subway? I do forsee this being built underground one day, perhaps when we’re all in our 80s.
One way to easily increase the speed AND lower the cost is to remove some stations. 14 stations for 9.2 miles is ridiculous, no other rail line in LA has that station density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4791  
Old Posted Today, 8:21 PM
LineDrive LineDrive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by saybanana View Post
I dont think the ESFV line should be connected to the Sepulveda Line.
Makes no sense and is very expensive. That money can be better spent on other areas where population density and employment is greatest and traffic is worse and where you can upzone and build vertically with little resistance. I dont view much of the SFV like this.

I think the terminus of the Sepulveda line should be at the Amtrak Metrolink station at Van Nuys.

What should be the focus is creating a denser core of LA of housing/high-rises, jobs and more walkable districts. This is better than trying to attract super commuters and rewarding them with expensive subway rail in very suburban areas. I'd rather they build that valley subway on Santa Monica Blvd to Union Station. Vermont Ave to Glendale.
That to me is the perfect scenario.

Save some money by not going all the way to Sylmar, and yet you give locals in the Valley access to rapid transit rail that takes you right into the west side.

And you’re absolutely right, develop a good urban core of lines/routes in Downtown, Hollywood, the West Side... then worry about extending into the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4792  
Old Posted Today, 8:46 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
One way to easily increase the speed AND lower the cost is to remove some stations. 14 stations for 9.2 miles is ridiculous, no other rail line in LA has that station density.
Agreed. This only needs 6-7 stations:

Victory or Vanowen
Van Nuys/San Fernando Metrolink
Parthenia
Plummer
Arleta or Laurel Canyon
Maclay
Sylmar/San Fernando Metrolink
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4793  
Old Posted Today, 9:04 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is online now
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by LineDrive View Post
And you’re absolutely right, develop a good urban core of lines/routes in Downtown, Hollywood, the West Side... then worry about extending into the suburbs.
Unfortunately, we’re stuck with the Measure R/M projects for the foreseeable future. And a few municipalities are already maxed out when it comes to local sales tax rate, so a fifth transit tax measure isn’t feasible. Under the current geopolitical framework, it’d be very watered down just like its predecessors.

The only recourse we have is to overturn the A/C tunneling ban. But those funds are also being used to accelerate the R/M projects.
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 9:24 PM.

     

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