Refined Sepulveda Line Options | Public Comments Open
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2022
- Here's Metro's six refined options on the Sepulveda Line. You can submit public comments any time before February 11th. Please write in support of heavy rail! Links to comment-submitting methods below:
Mail:
Peter Carter, Project Manager
Metro
One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-6
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Email:
sepulvedatransit@metro.net
Online Comment Form:
metro.commentinput.com/?id=UKJgt
Phone:
213.922.7375
Virtual Scoping Meetings:
Meeting #1 (already happened)
Meeting #2
• Date: January 11, 2022Time: 6 - 8pmWebinar ID: 964 8792 4301Passcode: 550195Webinar link: bit.ly/SepulvedaJan11Call in: 669.900.6833
Meeting #3
• Date: January 22, 2022Time: 10am - noonWebinar ID: 999 3010 8496Passcode: 270559Webinar link: bit.ly/SepulvedaJan22Call in: 669.900.6833
If they design it right the legacy subway tech can do 40tph with the right signalling. Though a more modern automated line with all the works would be nice!
RMTransit commenting on a nandert video? Woot!
@@SSDConker2 doesn't looks surprising, it would actually make sense for a transit RUclipsr to comment on another transit video
For clarification about the difference between alternatives 4/5 and 6, 4 and 5 are automated heavy metro, whereas alternative 6 is the traditional "subway" rolling stock you see on Red and Purple lines that are driver operated.
There was a good turnout at the Scoping Meeting today, 1/11. The presentation was pretty lightweight and didn't get into specifics about capacity, ridership, frequency, or cost. The public comments were nearly unanimous against the monorail, as well as in favor of a UCLA on-campus stop. As expected, all the neighborhood council reps voiced "concern" about an elevated alignment, favoring alternatives 5 and 6. A lot of people preferred the alternative 6 alignment in the valley (down Van Nuys) but with automated metro instead of driver-operated metro, as well as an Expo line connection at Sepulveda (which will save a few minutes when transferring to the rest of the system by being a stop further inland). However a few folks toward the end who aren't on neighborhood committees and HOA boards towards the end expressed a preference for the elevated option in the valley, with reasons given such as spurring ToD, "self-advertisement" of the system, and providing shade. As expected there were a couple folks that expressed concern for "having enough parking", as well as a couple folks who were against yet more car infrastructure / parking.
Even if you leave spoken comments at the meeting, be sure to send in written comments as well. And if you couldn't make it, there's still one more meeting on the 22nd! The confusing thing about this stage of the process is that even though these alternatives were chosen for the Public Scoping period, in the Environmental Review phase following this, more alternatives that what are presented here can be studied based on input received from public comments during Scoping. So be sure to not limit your comments to simply choosing one or more of the alternatives, but also include what elements of the alternatives you want studied.
So Alternatives 1 and 2 would be utter madness? I take it they have a very good chance of being chosen then ...
Hopefully they go with option 3 or 6 with regional express trains doing thru service later
Personally, I think ALT #4 is most likely the winner, the less they dig, more money will be saved. The only downside being is people living within/aside the proposed stations. Other than that, I hope things with Metro will go smoothly.
As much I like alternative 5 I know that won't happen due to the price and the angry homeowners of that area. Alternative 4 seems the likley winner since it doesn't require to dig holes in the valley but hopefully this project starts as soon as possible, and hopefully no monorail because those will be insane to maintain
Option 4 would annoy Sherman Oaks' homeowners more, I think, as trains would run at street level. With option 5, it would be way more expensive, but it would run under Sepulveda Blvd. and so it wouldn't cause any "eyesores" to the residents
It is good to see an update for which action can be taken!
I am, however, disappointed by the lack of Beverly Hills Streetcar lines in the proposal. Could you comment on this? (/s)
It would be super intresting if they had an outside subway heavy rail station, kind of like new york, I would vote on a on-campus stop at UCLA, it would be a game changer for the students and for Westwood village visitors, such as myself :)
The heavy rail is the only option here because we need the speed to get to the Westwood area from the SFV faster. Also I wish they added a station by the Getty Center but that looks unlikely.
In the more detailed video he shares his thoughts on why a Getty station wouldn’t happen. To sum those: It would basically only serve the museum, so it wouldn’t justify the cost.
I'm so glad to have you back! Been fiending for some more LA Metro content
No way I’m letting monorail win here
Having the same thoughts man
Alternative 4 seems like the most logical.
Alas, I doubt public comment from someone living on the other side of the country whose never even been to LA will hold much weight, but I'll be sure to watch this saga unfold closely.
Lie and say ur from the area
No worries. With the high rent increasing, soon only the homeless will use the transit
You can argue either that your tax dollars are being used to fund the project or that as a transit user you would use this line when built for specific destinations (i.e. UCLA)
I submitted one even though I've never been to LA.
I submitted one and I live in New York
I prefer the heavyrail options Alt 4 and 5 would be perfect.
I hope a particular episode of a 1990s television programme recieves reruns in the Los Angeles soon
Thanks for the info about how to write in - I took a second to drop them a line. Hopefully other LA natives can do the same.
Return of the King
Yooo, I was literally looking at your Twitter today trying to find any updates on when the next video would be released. And then this, it's a blessing!
Thanks Nick Andert! Just sent my email to LA Metro in support of option 4. Now how can we get the Purple Line to Santa Monica? Once the Sepulveda Line reaches Expo, Expo Line likely be overcrowded between Santa Monica and Sepulveda. A Purple Line extension (With stops at Bundy, 15th, and Expo's Downtown Santa Monica Station) should fix this.
omgomgomgomg he's back
good to see you're still active!
I don't know what Sherman Oaks homeowners would be mad about. Whatever plan is chosen won't be completed until all of us have long been dead. Metro works in geologic time.
i was just watching your last video for like the 5th time
Sent them a comment, thanks for the video
LA is a great city
Did something happen with the audio on this one? The music is very screechy
Always a good day when you post! Keep up the great work!
The only reason the BYD proposals are being entertained is that US civil engineering firms (including Bechtel) are incapable of completing a project even close to budget or on schedule. (Proposal 6 makes the most sense.)
Great videos keep it up this is great never knew a bout this
option 5 is the best for the long run.
Its too expensive. Alt 4 is the clear winner. The Sherman Oaks homeowners are going to be losing the extremely valuable view of a large arterial street full of cars. I don't think that is worth a couple billion in additional costs.
@@connorspencer4283 also alt 4 allows for easy expansion of the Automated Light Metro (Bechtel’s new tech) system north towards Sylmar/Santa Clarita, west towards Northridge/West Valley, or east towards Burbank/Glendale as its easier to build a junction above ground than below
I agree with the heavy rail but some think it’s heavy rail or nothing and don’t agree with that.
Watching from the outside the US, the only proper solution is Sylmar to LAX heavy rail. Build it in stages, yes. But build it. Northern parts will have low ridership in the beginning, but with densification it will become sensible. Insisting on microoptimizations has cost your city more than what would be gained in economies of scale with building heavy rail.
My preference is totally option 4, but with Ventura station being moved underground since it's south of the 101 freeway and I don't see them building even higher than the 101 freeway that's already above the Sepulveda
If not because of cost and time, option 5 may be feasible too
🤔🤔🤔
Surprised you haven't done a video on the options that were refined for the SW Santa Ana (name pending) Line.
This is an exciting project and Angelinos need metro lines that transport them to their destinations safe, fast, and comfortably. I like alternative 6 but it will be very costly due to underground construction, but it will eliminate push back from home associations. I actually like to get more information and attend public hearings when it is available.
Great video, thanks for what you do, but do you need the background music?
Would you be able go lower the background music in your future videos? This one was very hard to hear your voice over it
Maybe I'm missing something but why create 2 lines along Van Nuys Blvd in the SFV instead of running the Sepulveda line all the way to San Fernando for a single transfer w Metrolink? The way they're proposing it, anyone from the desert going to WLA, or from the North SFV BRT line to WLA, will require 2 transfers. Why is 2 separate lines the best solution?
Most folks who use existing transit along the Van Nuys corridor in the valley dont use it to leave the valley. they use it to stay within. so the ESFV line is light rail with a lot of stations. and odds are the route they choose for Sepulveda will not be the Van Nuys route anyway. Sepulveda's role is more regional, hence why it needs a higher capacity service.
@@NelsonCWoodstock According to Metro’s Sepulveda Corridor Study, of trips over the pass, 25% come from Van Nuys/ Sherman Oaks and 21% come from the North Valley. Metro bus services over the Sepulveda Pass are at 16-30 min frequencies with an on-time rate less than 50%. Bus service over the pass is poor and unreliable. This would be a reason of why current transit use in the corridor over the pass is low and a poor indicator of potential subway usage.
In fact, the Sepulveda line was extended further north than originally planned because traffic to the subway from north of the Orange Line would overwhelm the little Van Nuys light rail line. Traffic on the Van Nuys light rail line triples with the existence of the Sepulveda Line. Ridership estimates are 56% of capacity at Sylmar and overwhelms the line at Nordhoff. The Sepulveda line was extended to the Metrolink station in Van Nuys to relieve the Van Nuys light rail line.
Now, since Metro has underestimated ridership on the Blue Line from Long Beach and on the Expo Line to Santa Monica, I have no reason to think that their projections are probably too low for the Van Nuys light rail line as well.
So, I still must ask why the subway isn’t planned to go into the North Valley is an almost equal number of commuters exist there as exist in the Van Nuys/ Sherman Oaks area. Why relegate them to a two-transfer trip using the slower and less capacity light rail service. This figures only enhance the argument for the subway to San Fernando in addition to the Van Nuys local light rail. If the Sepulveda line gets to LAX (probably not until after we’re all dead), this will push ridership even higher.
I love your videos but can you please lower the volume of the cacophonous background music in your future videos? The music competes with your voice and I can barely understand what you're saying. An example of this can be heard at around the 2:18 mark of this video.
Will any of us live long enough to see this completed?
I think I’ll be alive in 8-10 years
Yep. It’s only going to take roughly a decade to build
Nope.
Option 3 for the win unless you also want to run express trains via the tunnel from the suburban regional lines to Santa Clarita
3 and 4 are better
The music is too loud and overpowers the voice.
6!
It's like you didn't even watch the video
I’m going with 6, too!!! I’m aware with the challenges, but I want option six to be implemented.
@@TheManny717 it's not about the challenges, it's about the proposed technology. Bechtel's is far superior
Just put it along the 405. We already have the land. It’s the most heavily traveled freeway in America yet no rapid transit. Bury it as much as possible. Neighbors can’t complain. From LAX to Sherman oaks. Stations at HH Parkway, Culver City, blue line, Santa Monica Blvd., Wilshire-Westwood then
Sepulveda. OK I’ve just saved the taxpayers millions of dollars in the cost of a study and years in delays. 😊