How can we best improve transit in the Valley and encourage greater transit use?

The Valley killed the Heavy Rail Red Line. The Valley killed the proposed Light Rail Line. The Valley fought visciously against the Orange Line as well. Let them take busses!!!!!

The Orange Line is a bus line.

From "Wad" at the Transit Coalition:

It was valley residents who opposed the Orange Line being constructed as light rail. In response to resident's fears the state legistlature passed the 1991 Robins Bill which specifically excluded any at grade rail that was not a minimum of 25 feet below grade and that did no use deep bore technology. This effectively eliminated the potential use of light rail.
http://transit-insider.org/master.html?h....ndler/page2.htm

Secondly, when the Orange line was under construction as a Bus Way Valleyites sued during the middle of construction to keep it from being completed. Valley Orthodox Jews spoke out against pushing crossing buttons on the sabbath on nightly news and area residents complained about future noise, pollution and traffic the busway would cause. A judge ordered a temporary halt in Orange Line construction while the Metro did additional EIR work. The original EIR didn't study additional Rapid Lines. The delay cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Third, Valleyites, along with the rest of the county, strongly support Prop A., Zev's law banning subway construction region wide.
So When someone says, the valley should stand in line. Well, The valley was at the front of the line when they started arguing with the chef because they didn't like anything on the menu. The chef insisted they had to eat something so they got a smaller portion. The Valley realized how good the food is and now that want more. Unfortunately, they have to get back in line.

The good news is, with Prop R, we've hired more chefs so the line will move faster.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many elements of the Orange line were designed with light rail conversion in mind; namely, crossings and bridges.

The Valley killed the Heavy Rail Red Line. The Valley killed the proposed Light Rail Line. The Valley fought visciously against the Orange Line as well. Let them take busses!!!!!

The Westside killed the subway extension. Does that mean they don't deserve anything more than light rail?

The Orange Line has already surpassed its 2020 projected ridership; clearly it should be converted to light rail. Its success can be attributed to its connection with the Red Line in North Hollywood. I think it's clear that if Valley residents had greater access to rail, they'd be more inclined to use it.

The difference is that the westside is one of the two major job concentration areas (along with downtown), and so a line there would serve residents from all over the area. A line in the valley would help, for sure, but it doesn't have the same urgency as the westside. If people started commuting from all over LA to the valley in huge numbers, maybe the comparison could be made.

The Wild Card in this this whole debate is how this SFV/WLA-Sepulveda Pass corridor comes into play, since that is funded under Measure R.

If this corridor is done as high capacity LRT like the Green Line or even thinking of it conceptually as a larger scale Regional Connector where multiple lines of various branches feed a main spine between Sherman Oaks and Westwood/West LA then the Orange Line will get converted to LRT or in even simply extend the current Red Line west to Van Nuys Blvd or 405/Sepulveda to relieve the capacity constriants.

http://i38.tinypic.com/35k761c.gif

The difference is that the westside is one of the two major job concentration areas (along with downtown), and so a line there would serve residents from all over the area. A line in the valley would help, for sure, but it doesn't have the same urgency as the westside. If people started commuting from all over LA to the valley in huge numbers, maybe the comparison could be made.

Exactly "dweeb"! Let's face it from Dwtwn LA on through the Westside to Santa Monica is LA's Manhattan. It has the jobs the cultural institutions, the tourist destinations and makes up some of the densest areas in the City of LA.......THERE IS NO COMPARISON WITH THE VALLEY. The Valley (using a NY reference) is like Queens or Jersey even. For them to kill HEAVY RAIL first then kill LIGHT RAIL second I say givem' busways until they shit them bloody. Now if a 405 line is deemed rail then we're going to have to revisit the Orange Line to ensure that it's compatible with the rest of the system. I mean you wouldn't want to transfer from the Sepulveda rail line onto BRT then onto the heavy rail Red Line, so some upgrading may be in store.

And at least with the Westside you can make the methane gas argument(eventhough that's weak). But with the Valley basically the Jews said that they don't want to have to push the crosswalk button on the Sabbath and the line was DOA. Quite frankly, fuck the Valley!

Mod Edit.

The Valley killed the Heavy Rail Red Line. The Valley killed the proposed Light Rail Line. The Valley fought visciously against the Orange Line as well. Let them take busses!!!!!


I have to agree with the Klamster! The Valley has been like that thorn in our rose bush for the longest time.

After all, they did try to secede from the rest of LA back in the 90's, and unfortunately they failed. They didn't want to be apart of this amazing, dynamic metropolis? So let them be left in the dust!! We're moving forward towards a more transit-friendly, urban LA.

The biggest NIMBY-ites hail from the SFV for some reason, but I must give them major props as well! If it weren't for "The Valley" there would've never been a movie like Fast Times at Ridgmont High made. That movie singlehandedly put Sean Penn on the Hollywood movie-making map. Sean Penn is GOD! *cough* :lol: :cheers:

the funny thing is if the valley seceded from LA, they would have to become dense and rezone a bunch of land so that they could build a tax base. LOL they would become.......LA, but without any rail, no future and no money. haha

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/buswaysfolife.jpg

Busways fo life!

When you have lots of space to build with, lots of ground to cover, and not much in terms of destinations, it's a perfect recipe for commuter rail.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=34.241608,-118.416824&spn=0.208036,0.30899&z=12&msid=100955506182745485749.00045d15f27179620cb77

The best transit solution for the Valley? As someone who lives in the Valley, let me say that there is no transit solution. Except for parts of Ventura Blvd, the Valley's hopeless.

The LRT and BRT options are close both in terms of cost and efficiency. However, BRT is slightly more compatible with the current infrastructure, because there are many freeways already in place where one aspect of BRT could be easily realized.

The LRT and BRT options are close both in terms of cost and efficiency. However, BRT is slightly more compatible with the current infrastructure, because there are many freeways already in place where one aspect of BRT could be easily realized.
It is not true:
- Costs of LRT are bigger, and LRT need more time for construction, but operating costs are lower (about 2 times)
- LRT is more atractive for people, and get more passengers (in countries wnere car is not luxury)
- LRT is more enviromental friendly, and spend lessen energy
- LRT can get high transit speed (80-120km/h) with high safety. Of course, if stop distances aren`t short
- LRT can use high capacity transport units, sometimes 100m long. That mean lessen number of employ.
- Railway systems have ability for more effective despeaching control then busses.
- Railway is better then busses in curves and tunnels by comfort and safety.
- LRT end station need lessen free space.

BRT is good for poor countries with wide bulevards, without respect for technical elite culture (or without technical elite culture), for countries with high risk for long term investitions, for countries with selfish polititions which want effect in them short mandate.
Sometimes, it is by technical reasons, to use highway lanes on bridges, which aren't made for railways. (Like in Istanbul, Bosphorous bridge)

BRT is good for poor countries with wide bulevards, without respect for technical elite culture (or without technical elite culture)

Sounds like the Valley.^^

Klam, since you brought up how the Orange Line has already surpassed its initial 2020 projected ridership in another thread, has your opinion changed?

Nope! .......let'em suck it!

^ Well, the majority of the voters agree that LRT is the best solution for the Valley. But, it's just a stupid poll. :lol:

Monorails from Warner to Pacoima http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-sexy-smileys-946.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Scared-Smileys/) yeah!

^ I can't decide if klam is the one who's giving or receiving?

You're about as bad as Ferns- get your mind outta the gutter!

From my knowledge of the Valley, I would think there is no chance that new surface rails would be permitted anywhere. The general belief is that tracks are associated with poor parts of town, and that is just what they moved to the Valley to escape, whether they came from the east, midwest or south.

So the solution is going to have to be subway, existing tracks, tracks in the middle of freeways, or buses.

That should extend down Ventura is my guess, but they've been talking about that for years.

From my knowledge of the Valley, I would think there is no chance that new surface rails would be permitted anywhere. The general belief is that tracks are associated with poor parts of town, and that is just what they moved to the Valley to escape, whether they came from the east, midwest or south.


the valley isn't supreme like they used to think they were. if exposed tracks are associated with crappy parts of town, then the valley fits the part.

http://www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_195.htm

New Metro Line 902 Pacoima <-> NoHo

For those on Van Nuys Boulevard that wants convenient connections to the Metro Red Line, the Orange Line hassle doesn't cut it. The original Metro Rail plans called for the Red Line to travel as surface with strategic elevated crossings over Sepulveda and Van Nuys Blvds, but we all knew those plans were politically scrapped. This would have made a trip from Van Nuys a one transfer ride, the Orange Line added an extra transfer. So now enter Metro Line 902; duplicating Metro 233, then express on Burbank with one stop at Valley College and destined to North Hollywood. So it's easier to just extend/modify the bus than the subway. It'd be interesting to see how the Orange Line's ridership numbers go if this line is successful (setup currently as peak hour only with full time service if approved for June 2010), considering Van Nuys Orange Line station is the second busiest Orange Line station. And don't count the park & riders, there aren't that many cars parked in Van Nuys' 776 spot lot unlike NoHo's perpetually full 803 free lots (298 paid lots).

In 20 years time as the rest of LA comes up to speed with rail and more and more places realize viibrant destinations like Hollywood and Vine in Hollywood and Wilshire/Western in Koreatown, the Valley will still be stuck with only "fast" buses.

^ Double standard much?

Do you two ever stop fighting?

^ I'm ready to reconcile when klam is ready to.

I'd say Light rail!!

From "Wad" at the Transit Coalition:

Valley Orthodox Jews spoke out against pushing crossing buttons on the sabbath on nightly news and area residents complained about future noise, pollution and traffic the busway would cause. [/I]

seriously, the best argument against transit ever :bash:

(i can say that cuz im jewish)

^ I'm ready to reconcile when klam is ready to.

I've held out an olive branch before and all I got back was a wet noodle.

Die Valley Die!

Die Valley Die!

:)

You're about as bad as Ferns- get your mind outta the gutter!

^^ :bleep:

What about adding double lane/elevated carpool lanes on the 134/101 between the 170 and pass Fallbrook Ave to alleviate some congestion on this corridor...

If Birmingham, Alabama can propose this for their downtown, I don't see why the Valley can't do something similar.

L0F-5c7Me3I

Hell..San Bernardino is proposing and construction a BRT.

oo9C3wWw7Gg

If the Valley doesn't want light rail, fine. Nothing wrong with a modern and efficient BRT.

If Birmingham, Alabama can propose this for their downtown, I don't see why the Valley can't do something similar.

L0F-5c7Me3I

Hell..San Bernardino is proposing and construction a BRT.

oo9C3wWw7Gg

If the Valley doesn't want light rail, fine. Nothing wrong with a modern and efficient BRT.

Buses kill our children, like light rail. Only private cars with one person driving [hours] from their [underwater mortgage] suburban home to their [meaningless] jobs are safe [not involving scary minorities or poor people].

Lamar: I understand the sarcasm and I sympathize with your feelings. But just to be clear: over half the SFV is hispanic and non-white, and if you include the poor whites, you have a substantial majority.

San Bernardino is also constructing L.R.T., but the decisions regarding each mode are dictated by existing rights of way, infrastructure, and topography.

The light rail uses old Pacific Electric tracks and a dedicated right of way while the B.R.T. corridors are positioned in the medians of key boulevards to create transit parkways.

The Orange Line really should never have been constructed as B.R.T. because the right of way was always intended exclusively for rail. Buses look strange traveling that route.

The major advantages of B.R.T. are the flexibility to move into mixed-flow traffic in certain places and the ability to negotiate steep grades. So, the mode or modes selected should depend on the particular alignments.