Another Way to Provide Bus Rapid Transit to Cal State Northridge

Metro Los Angeles is currently studying a bus rapid transit (BRT) line for the North San Fernando Valley.  Here is what the current alternatives look like.

However, all is not well with this project.  Acccording to Numble on Twitter, Metro is considering caving into NIMBYs on this project.

This would be disastrous for transit riders in this area.  In particular, this would leave California State University, Northridge (CSUN) out of our growing mass transit system.  If this terrible-case scenario occurs, I've been thinking about how else to serve CSUN.

One idea that has long been discussed is to have branch services from the "Orange" Line (now the "G" Line) on other busy north-south corridors in the San Fernando Valley.  One of these proposed busy corridors is Reseda Blvd.  

My proposal would be to have a branch service of the G-Line going north-south on Reseda, east-west on Nordhoff, and CSUN along White Oak as seen below.  We'd have G1 service between North Hollywood Metrorail station and Chatsworth Metrolink/Amtrak Station, and G2 service between North Hollywood Metrorail station and CSUN.

But we can see from this map even though we would still serve CSUN, what a large east-west gap in mass transit we are leaving out of our system in the North San Fernando Valley.  I really hope NIMBYs do not prevail here.  We need BOTH the proposed North San Fernando Valley BRT and a Reseda Blvd. BRT.

Also, coming to the San Fernando Valley will be a "Sepulveda" Line (hopefully as heavy rail and not monorail) between the Valley and the Westside, as well as a planned BRT route connecting North Hollywood to Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena.

A note for the future.  Eventually, the G-Line may be upgraded to light-rail.  A further enhancement I would support for this new Reseda Blvd. BRT is to run it between Universal City station and CSUN via Ventura Blvd.  Somehow Ventura Blvd. keeps getting left out of our San Fernando Valley mass transit conversation, when we should already be installing bus lanes on it.

And, of course, we should be doubletracking and upgrading the Metrolink/Amtrak rail corridors as well.

What do you think?

What I Learned at the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Community Meeting

Transit advocates have been dreaming of a public transit rail line through the Sepulveda Pass connecting the San Fernando Valley to the Westside for a long time now, from as far north as Sylmar to as far south as LAX.  The Transit Coalition has supported this concept as its proposed "JEM Line" for years.

Metro has been moving forward on its version of this ideas as the Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project, and has been having community meetings to brief stakeholders and obtain feedback on where it is in the development process.  Please view the presentation we saw at the community meeting by clicking here.

Here is where we are at in the current round of the process.  It is best to think of this project in two basic segments -- (1) between the Valley and Westwood and (2) between Westwood and LAX.

Valley  to/from Westwood

The first thing you should know is that there is already an East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Light Rail Project that has been approved by Metro.  Therefore, whichever Valley to/from Westwood alignment Metro chooses will need to take this other rail project into account.

Here are the four proposals still in the running for the Valley to/from Westwood segment:

MRT means Monorail.  Many people who've been to Disneyland or Disneyworld ask, "why can't we just do a Monorail?".  As you can see it would be one of the lower ridership options.  Also, as a new type of vehicle for rail transit for Metro, monorail would require a new type of maintenance yard, and also a new classification of labor trained to maintain and operate it.  Therefore, I don't expect it to go much farther in the analysis process.

This leaves HRT1, HRT2 or HRT3.   While HRT3 is predicted to have the most ridership upon completion, the direction of travel pretty much ends this route eventually being extended up to Sylmar in the future.  Why do that when Metro is already building an East San Fernando Valley Light Rail?  As Metro Staff explained, the light rail project is meant to be a local service, while this Sepulveda Transit Corridor project is meant to a regional rail project, where stations will be farther apart.

Basic details about all these alignments may be found on the presentation delivered at the community meeting which you can find by clicking here.

Here are a couple of things I learned from at the community meeting.

• This project needs to go at least as far north as not only the Van Nuys Orange Line station, but the Van Nuys Metrolink station too, so it doesn't overcrowd the new East San Fernando Valley light rail.
• If you want this Sepulveda Corridor project to be eventually extended up north to Sylmar, than you probably want HRT1.
• An option of extending the Purple Line through the Sepulveda Pass was eliminated as it did not have the same ridership potential as a north-south line where passengers could transfer to the Purple Line, the Expo line and ride all the way down to LAX.
• A station on Santa Monica Blvd. was eliminated.  Metro staff informed me that there is a fault line that runs right through Santa Monica Blvd., and they couldn't safely build a station there.  I find that very disappointing.  It makes the need to complete the Crenshaw/LAX line northern extension to West Hollywood and Hollywood all the more necessary.

Westwood to/from LAX
What you need to know about this segment is that Metro is looking at an alignment near Sepulveda & the 405 Freeway or one closer to Centinela.

Here is the Sepulveda / 405 alignment.

For reasons I explained earlier, I don't expect Monorail to make the final round, so I'd pay attention to the one of the left.  Now here is the Centinela alignment:

The most interesting to notice here is that Metro is studying a Purple Line extension going SOUTH to LAX.  I have my doubts as it would reduce the available capacity to transport passengers from the Valley, but Metro is obliged to study everything.

When completed and online, this rail line will be a VERY busy, and one of the major arteries of our transit system.  Metro believes it can promise a 15 minutes time of travel between the Valley and the Westside that will be faster than most auto trips on the 405 Freeway.

There will be one more meeting on this round on February 5th at 6:00 PM, at the Proud Bird Restaurant, near LAX.  Further refinements will take place and there will be a new round of meetings as Metro moves toward its "Locally Preferred Alternative".

You can find more information about this project and share your feedback with Metro at metro.net/sepulvedacorridor and you can see the full presentation from the community meeting here.

What do you think?

Originally published February 4, 2019
  

Can we get higher capacity buses on the Orange Line?

As those of you who have read this blog know, I believe the Orange Line should have been built as and should be upgraded now as a light-rail line.

In the meantime, every time I ride the bus line everyone is stuffed like sardines into regular articulated buses.  Why not have tri-articulated buses as they have for other BRT systems in the world?

Here are two examples of what these type of buses look like.

Metro, can we purchase some of these so we can breathe again?

What about upgrading the Orange Line to Light Rail?

Let me preface this blog post by stating I think bus service is wonderful, and I support a county-wide network of transit only lanes and busways.

However, I do not subscribe to the belief that a seat on the bus is as "good" as a seat on a train, nor do I agree with the choice of Metro to brand busways with official colors like the "Orange Line" and the "Silver Line".

The San Fernando Valley seems to be left out of mass transit planning in Southern California. Meanwhile the entire San Gabriel Valley political structure is united and is eagerly anticipating two or more Gold Line extensions eventually on the northern prong to Montclair and even Ontario Airport and on the southern prong to possibly Whittier and/or Duarte. The reason for this is obvious. With our oversized, too populous, too few legislative districts at the national, state, county and municipal level, many of the politicos who represent the southern San Fernando Valley also represent and have their power bases in the Westside. All of their attention is going toward extending the Purple Line to the Westside, which of course is the most needed and highest profile transit project in planning.

Just how did this former rail corridor end up as a busway anyway?

From Wikipedia:

The majority of the Orange Line is built on part of the former Southern Pacific Railroad Burbank Branch right-of-way. This had passenger service from 1904 to 1920, with stations at several locations including North Hollywood and Van Nuys. It had Pacific Electric Red Car service fromNorth Hollywood to Van Nuys again from 1938 to 1952.

The right of way was purchased by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (now Metropolitan Transportation Authority) in 1991 along with several other rail road right of ways across the Southland for future use in transportation projects.

The California Legislature passed a law in 1991 introduced by Alan Robbins which prohibited the use of the corridor for any form of rail transit other than a "deep bore subway located at least 25 feet below ground". Later Los Angeles County passed Proposition A in 1998, promoted by supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, which prohibited Metro from using its county sales tax funding to build subways anywhere in the county.

With subway and light rail now off the table the only option left to develop the transit corridor was to build a busway.

The "Orange Line" busway is already at capacity and shows the limits of BRT. The San Fernando Valley deserves an east-west rail project that connects Warner Center with the Red Line (and could potentially be extended east through Burbank and Glendale to meet up with the Gold Line in Pasadena). Since the San Fernando Valley politicos are focused elsewhere, it is up to you and me to remind them that simply extending a busway north doesn't cut it. Perhaps some of you could lobby to get VICA (Valley Industry and Commerce Association) behind an east-west line and a north-south line for the San Fernando Valley. If the San Gabriel Valley is getting two light rail lines, the San Fernando Valley deserves no less.

In Measure R which was approved by voters in 2008, there is a project study for a north-south transit project connecting the Orange Line with Wilshire/Westwood through the Sepulveda Pass. If this were a rail project, many local transit advocates see it logically being extended south down to LAX and north up to Sylmar Metrolink. That would take care of a needed north-south rail line for the San Fernando Valley.

What about east-west rail travel? The most obvious solution is to upgrade the existing Orange Line to light rail.

I asked the incomparable Kymberleigh Richards (http://transit-insider.org), member of Metro's San Fernando Valley Governance Council, her thoughts on the issue and the possible challenges and here is what she had to say:

Here are the problems that would be faced:

1. You would need to retrofit the busway without seriously disrupting existing service, otherwise what's the point? You wouldn't want to inconvenience the existing passengers by forcing them to a slower alternative during construction. The most likely way to proceed would be to close one segment at a time, one lane at a time, then cut grooves into the pavement down to the roadbed and install the rails so that they were flush with the pavement (like a grade crossing, only along the entire alignment) then reopen the lane to bus traffic. Service would continue to run with only a minor delay by using the remaining open lane to run both directions, with flagmen. Grade crossings would require a bit more logistics, especially the major arterials like Van NuysBlvd.

2. You would have to use a low floor light rail vehicle in order to avoid having to retrofit the existing station platforms. This means the existing light rail cars would not be compatible with the Orange Line. So there would be a third fleet of LRVs at Metro; heavy rail subway (Red/Purple), high floor/high platform light rail (Blue/Green/Gold/Expo/Crenshaw) and low floor/low platform light rail (Orange). So forget any Orange Line extensions that would interline with something else.

3. Because of the constraints of construction, the technology will have to be something other than overhead catenary for power. Installing that would require full busway closure for longer periods of time, which puts us back to inconveniencing passengers during construction. Third rail power, like the Red/Purple Line, is also out of the question because of the open-air operation (you can't have passengers in danger of making contact with the electric source). A DMU, like the San Diego system, is going to be far too expensive for this and brings constraints of its own to the process. So either you need a protectedthird rail (very costly; they are experimenting with this in some of the Middle Eastern countries, where cost is no object) or a self-contained, rechargeable on-board power source. Perhaps some type of storage battery that could plug in at the layovers?

4. The street running segment between Canoga Station and Warner Center would have to be negotiated with traffic engineers at LADOT. I doubt they'd give up traffic lanes for the light rail, and I don't savor the idea of running light rail in mixed-flow traffic.

And of course, you'd have to do an entire new scoping/AA/EIR/EIS and figure out where the funding is coming from. Just that last part (the $$$) pretty much means all the Measure R projects would have to be underway and near completion before you could start programming funds for an Orange Line upgrade.

No one has ever done a busway-to-light rail conversion. We'd be breaking new ground, which is why there's no hard research available on the subject.

Hmm. Sounds problematic, doesn't it? However, why couldn't this be the first corridor to attempt a busway to light-rail conversion? I'm game.

In any event, the Robbins bill would have to be repealed for any light rail project, so start lobbying your state legislators if you want to see ANY rail service in this area, for a subway ain't coming to this corridor this century.

What about alternatives? Metrolink commuter rail is in the northern San Fernando Valley, but many people travelling to the San Fernando Valley are travelling to/from a destination on or near Ventura Blvd. in the southern part of the Valley.

1) San Fernando Valley transit advocates could lobby for a subway under Ventura Blvd. connecting Warner Center with the Universal City station. Yes, sounds great. Only there are easily 50 years of subway projects ahead in line, assuming those actually get full funding and constructed.

2) San Fernando Valley transit advocates could lobby for a transit-only lane on Ventura Blvd. that ran buses and modern streetcars. This would require taking away street parking on Ventura Blvd. and possibly losing a lane of traffic each way. I have no problem with this as I don't believe we can or should socially engineer our cities in favor of single-occupancy motorists anymore, but I suspect not a few single-occupancy motorists would object. However, a streetcar is much less expensive than a subway and could be up and running within a few years, while it will be decades before we would see a subway on Ventura Blvd. Here's a fun map I created for a Ventura Blvd. streetcar project to spur your imagination:

One challenge of doing some project on Ventura Blvd. means you need to find another way to connect Burbank and Glendale into Metrorail.

Your thoughts?

A tale of two Valleys

While I currently live on the Westside, I have lived in the San Fernando Valley previously and do care for the welfare of its transit future -- if for no other reason that getting to/from the Westside via transit is often as exercise in frustration and futility.

What struck me over the debate over Measure R (which the voters thankfully passed last November) is just how unified the San Gabriel Valley political establishment is over the construction of the Gold Line extensions. There may be differences of opinion about the routing of the southern leg, but there is unified support for it. (I hope these same politicians also recognized the importance of upgrading Metrolink Commuter Rail service and Foothill Transit bus service.)

Compare this to the San Fernando Valley. Where is the unified support of SFV pols for upgrades to transit in their areas? While they rave about the Orange Line busway, and there is great fanfare about extending on the western end up to Canoga Park, anyone who actually takes the darn thing knows it is already stuffed to capacity as it is. Most transit advocates realize the Orange Line will eventually need to be converted to light-rail. However, why aren't Congressmen Howard Berman and Brad Sherman working together for this with the same unity that Congressmembers David Dreier and Adam Schiff and the SGV state legislators are doing for the Gold Line? Will the local pols have the courage to face down North Hollywood NIMBYs when it is?

What about the issue of connecting the Burbank Airport to the North Hollywood Station? What about connecting the North Hollywood station to the Gold Line in Pasadena through Burbank and Glendale? What should be done on Ventura Blvd? light-rail? subway? streetcar? Perhaps bus-only lanes on Ventura and Van Nuys Blvds?

There is some money for a Sepulveda project. What about the vision of a rail line from Sylmar to LAX connecting two Metrolink Stations, the Orange Line and Ventura Blvd. to points south?

However, for argument's sake, since there are two Gold Lines connecting to Union Station, let's boil this down to just two proposed rails lines for the San Fernando Valley: (1) converting the Orange Line to light-rail and extending it east through Burbank and Glendale to the Gold Line in Pasadena; and (2) a Sepulveda north/south line from Sylmar to LAX -- I just find it so strange there is not the advocacy activity in the San Fernando Valley as there is in the San Gabriel Valley.

There are individual advocates of course, but not the sort of political coordination by elected officials to bring these two rail project to the SFV.

The only explanation that comes to mind is that with California's and Los Angeles County's "too large, too populous" legislative districts, many of the people representing the south San Fernando Valley have districts with most of the voters and political weight on the Westside.

As a Westsider, I benefit from this, and understand and appreciate that the Purple Line and Expo Lines, and perhaps even the Pink Line via Santa Monica Blvd. are considered higher priorities. However, the San Fernando Valley will probably be a poor relation to the San Gabriel Valley and Westside unless SFV specific transit advocates work together and a lot of people with automobile-entitlement decide having transit alternatives in the Valley is a good thing for themselves as well.