There are individual advocates of course, but not the sort of political coordination by elected officials to bring a rail project to the SFV. Why aren't Brad Sherman and Howard Berman working together in the way that Adam Schiff and David Dreier are for the Gold Line. The state legislators in the SGV are firmly behind the Gold Line extensions as are Supervisors Molina and Antonovich.

The only explaination that comes to mind is that in California and Los Angeles County's "too large" legislative districts, many of the people representing the south SFV have most of the political weight of their districts on the Westside.

As a Westsider, I benefit from this, but as someone who used to live in North Hollywood for six years I find it curious.

My perferences for the San Fernando Valley would be to covert the Orange Line to light rail, and continue it to the east, eventually traversing to Glendale and Pasadena (where it would go underground to serve the Rose Bowl) and eventually link up with the Gold Line.

There would be a subway under Ventura Boulevard, which would start at Valley Circle Blvd. and end at Universal City.

The Red Line would get extended northward, with two branches: one to Burbank Airport and Burbank, and another one continuing up Lankershim, finally reaching Sun Valley, San Fernando and Sylmar.

Another subway down Van Nuys Blvd. from Pacoima, tunneling under the foothills and reaching UCLA, where it would end at the Purple Line at Wilshire.

And finally a north-south light rail in the middle of the 405 which would terminate at LAX.

Also, "VICA supports efforts to connect commuters with job centers and airports ranging from the Antelope Valley to the South Bay communities of L.A. County. These efforts can be facilitated by public transportation modes that include freeway median light rail, monorails and/or hydrobus lanes."

VICA has a PDF of their positions on transportation located here: http://www.vica.com/documents/Trans%20principles.pdf

It's my understanding that the Robbins Bill and Prop A are stopping the switch of the Orange Line from BRT to rail. The Robbins Bill requires it to be a subway until the 405, but Prop A prohibits local funding for new subway projects in the valley thus making it impossible to secure federal/state matching funds for a subway project.

So theoretically if either one of these laws were repealed, the Orange Line could be turned into a rail line. If Robbins were repealed it could be LRT, if Prop A were repealed it could be subway. Of course, LRT is more likely to happen due to the much lower cost to build and the fact that the right of way already exists - why bother putting it underground.

One solution to get around these laws would be to extend the Red Line to the 405 and then either connect to an Orange Line LRT or have the Red Line go above ground and replace the Orange Line. This would make for a very long Red Line but it would be better for ridership. Imagine going from Woodland Hills to Union Station on the same train. That's considerably less likely to happen than repealing Robbins and conversion of Orange to LRT, though it's a nice thought.

Anyways, enough dreaming - what would it take for us valley folks in support of Orange Line rail to become numerous and loud like those in SGV?

Who of the power brokers in the San Fernando Valley is lobbying for an Orange Line upgrade or a north/south project from Sylmar to LAX as much as the San Gabriel Valley pols are lobbying for the Gold Line?

What elected official would dare to repeal the Robbins bill to allow for light rail in North Hollywood?

Does VICA have a position on any of this?

I hear what you're saying. And it does make sense to drive to NoHo station when the parking lot isn't full and there are no fees. I've done that before when heading to Union Station to catch a surfliner.

I think the Orange Line in general was a compromise. Subway extension of the red line would have been ideal, but was too expensive for the ridership to justify it along that corridor. Surface light rail was blocked by NIMBYism, so MTA did the best they could, which was BRT. Since the ridership hit capacity within just a few months, I do hope that this will justify conversion to light rail, and I'd hope that by now the NIMBY's will reallize that a light rail isn't going to bother them or impact the neighborhood any more than the BRT already is. My worry is that, since the Orange Line is already there and operating, upgrading it will sink down the priority list behind other projects along corridors that are not yet developed. For instance, I think upgrading the Orange Line should be a higher priority than the Gold Line foothill extension, in terms of the potential ridership increases, since the valley is much more population dense than the area east of Pasadena. However, since the Orange line is at least operating and transporting people, while the Gold Line foothill extension doesn't yet exist, MTA will prioritize that because it would put new transit service somewhere it currently doesn't exist.

Finally, though a surface light rail would definitely have much higher capacity, addressing the "crowding" issue of the orange line, I don't expect it would be able to go much faster along the route than the orange line already does, mainly because despite the signal priority, the orange line is still streetrunning, and will sometimes have to stop at lights. Anyone who has ridden the blue line knows that streetrunning slows a light rail down immensely. So, though you might be able to justify upgrading to LRT by the capacity issue alone, I expect a light-rail orange line wouldn't improve the trip times significantly. We'd need more grade-separation for that, and I don't really see that happening.

The sad truth here is that the Orange Line is only slightly better than nothing. Many people want to take it but don't because it is slow. Some people are willing to put up with that, but don't take it because it is obscenely overcrowded (even at off-peak hours due to less frequent buses). The great free parking lot near my Orange Line station is rarely ever more than 1/4 full as that is really the largest amount of commuters Orange Line can feasibly get out of their cars.

The idea should be to create a faster, easier, cheaper alternative to driving. We should be creating a system that encourages those with cars to give them up, not just one to accommodate the existing car-less population. The Orange Line definitely has good intentions, but unfortunately that isn't good enough.

It does not show that the Orange bus line was at capacity within months of opening and additional service can not be added do to delaying cross traffic. It does not show all of the Orange bus line riders who returned to driving after their poor experience of overcrowding, a rough ride and long running time.

This film does not show what a real failure this line is compared to how good a line it could have been as a LRT or an extension of the Red Line.

This should work.

For others interested, here's the point in Burbank where the bike path ends and the old rail tracks begin:
Link to google map.

The portion of the old SP Burbank-Chandler ROW east of Lankershim was converted in 2004 to a rather nice bikeway linking North Hollywood and Burbank. It's a great asset to the region and allows for near-continuous bike path travel from Warner Center to Long Beach. I wish the right-of-way was large enough to accommodate both a transit line and a bike way.

I would say that most Orange Line riders have to make a connection to either a local bus line or the Red Line. When I have to go downtown I frequently just drive to North Hollywood station and get on the Red Line instead of taking the Orange Line and transferring due to the amount of time it takes - and I live only two blocks from my nearest Orange Line station.

I'd also like to see the Orange Line be developed into a proper light rail line due to the amount of riders (the buses are almost always packed when I ride it). Failing that I would at least like to see it converted to a quiet, zero-emissions electric trolleybus system and the existing CNG buses repurposed for other Local or Rapid lines. I've always wondered why a dedicated transit line would use anything other than electrified vehicles given the fact that they do not deviate from their specified course.

1.) Ventura Blvd is a strong thoroughfare, and a nice section of walkable neighborhood. That said, I don't think it's on the same scale as Wilshire Blvd, and I highly doubt a subway under Ventura would have the ridership to justify the expense, though grade-separated rail is always the "ideal" solution, in my opinion. Ventura is also much more narrow than Wilshire, so bus-only lanes would be really hard to implement, as certain sections of the blvd are only 2 lanes in each direction, and sometimes there are cars parked in the curbside lane. I think Ventura would be a great candidate for a street-car, but again you have the narrowness of the street to contend with, and any construction or street-car structure taking up some of the streetspace will result in enhanced car congestion on the parallel streets to the North.

All that said, I don't really think Ventura Blvd needs to be seen as the focus of an east-west transportation thoroughfare. The Orange Line is where we should focus efforts on rapid east-west transit in the Valley. Ventura is the type of street you might just want to leave alone. It's got the 750 and some other local bus lines along it, and people will want to park and walk along the street in certain sections. I'd rather efforts be made to improve, grade-separate, or convert to light rail the Orange line than invest in a new attempt at east-west transit improvement on Ventura.

2.) I would selfishly love it if there was some better rail/bus connection between the S.F. Valley and Pasadena, since that will become my commute in a few short months. At the moment, it looks like the best transit connection one can make is to get to the North Hollywood metro station and take a commuter express bus along the 134 into Pasadena. But that is a LONG rail line extension we'd be talking about. Still, there is still at least some right-of-way that I think is being unused, starting at NOHO and heading west. This is the rail right of way over which the orange line was built to the west of NOHO, but nothing was done with the part heading east. I think that extends into Burbank. A light rail connection might possible, but I bet that connection falls far down the list after projects like the wilshire subway, Expo, and the Sepulveda pass connection. So I'd guess we'd be talking 20+ years in the future.

Beyond those two, this brings up the following two pieces of the puzzle.

1) What is the best option for Ventura Blvd.? A bus-only lane? A streetcar? A subway?

2) What about connecting the North Hollywood station with the Gold Line in Pasadena via Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena?

-------------

I rode the Orange Line just yesterday it was jam-packed even on the weekend. If it were ever to be a upgraded, south Valley politicians would need to stand up to the NIMBYs who legislatively thwarted above ground rail via former State Senator Alan Robbins.