LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Amen. Preach on!

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by numble

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.

[Quixote]

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?!?

[NSMP]

Metro is predicting it will average under 18 mph and that’s before traffic on Van Nuys gets ahold of it. Lol.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by NSMP

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.

[SoCalKid]

Is there any way to get Metro to change it’s terrible decision here??

[saybanana]

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.

[caligrad]

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.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by NSMP

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.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by saybanana

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.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

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

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

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.

[LineDrive]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

What it’s going to take is a Governor who funds these projects adequately.

A Democratic administration + Congress wouldn’t hurt.

[Quixote]

Good luck getting any help from the Feds. Their evaluation standards make it virtually impossible for any city to build an HRT line from scratch with the help of an FTA grant.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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

Why? Dwell time is a minor factor compared to all the traffic signals. If there’s any benefit of street running operations, it’s reduced station access time. Might as well take advantage of the cheap construction cost and squeeze some more stations in there. It’ll help make up for the passengers you’ll lose end to end running at grade by picking up some more shorter trips.

Also they really shouldn’t be building the San Fernando road segment at all.

[Quixote]

^ Then it becomes a glorified bus line. You might as well just take two center lanes and put k-rail around them.

[NSMP]

It *is* a glorified bus line.

[Quixote]

Dumb. They could just build 2-3 subway stations and have BRT serve first/last mile.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by NSMP

It *is* a glorified bus line.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this project. Do you agree with the selection of the LRT alternative?