# LA Metro Orange Line Busway



## TinCan782 (Jul 26, 2014)

Should have done this in the first place!

Officials support turning Orange Line busway into light-rail system

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140725/officials-support-turning-orange-line-busway-into-light-rail-system


----------



## MattW (Jul 26, 2014)

I'll be watching this one very closely to see what the costs in "upgrading" from BRT to LRT turn out to me. One of the major Atlanta suburbs is planning a token BRT system, and the officials are saying that they can upgrade to LRT later. I've read that it really isn't all that easy and doesn't actually cost less, so it'll be interesting to see it put to practice.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 27, 2014)

You have to think LRT for curves, grades, cross section, clearances, spirals on curves structures, etc. at the beginning and then see if you need anything wider or different in cross section for the busway. If you do not design/build the system with LRT in mind from the beginning the conversion will not be so easy and the results not so good if/when you do make the conversion. IF, and that is a capital IF, you do the design in the beginning with LRT in mind the conversions may not be that expensive, but it will require a system shut down for a year or so to do so.

If all these things are done properly in the initial design it is entirely likely that when the construction contractor for the initial busway gets his hands on it, he will propose "value engineering" changes to eliminate that portions of the work that would have any additional cost beyond that applicable to the busway for a busway now and forever, amen. Thus, even with the best of intentions and initial designs you can still end up with a busway that is impractical or inordinately expensive to convert to a LRT line.


----------



## leemell (Jul 27, 2014)

A large portion of the Orange line busway was built on what used to be Southern Pacific heavy rail line. Second, if my memory serves me the rest was designed for conversion to light rail, Georges caveats apply.


----------



## sechs (Jul 27, 2014)

The design of the BRT line is irrelevant. It's going to be demolished. It only matters what right-of-way is available.


----------



## leemell (Jul 27, 2014)

Well, if they did it correctly (provide for LRT), it can make a big difference in time and cost. See George's post above.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 29, 2014)

To answer some of your questions... yes LA Metro did build things like bridges with enough strength to accommodate LRV's.

I blame the people in the San Fernando Valley for this... they passed a law that PROHIBITED LA Metro from building light rail in the corridor... now they are complaining they got BRT (arguably one of the best BRT systems in the nation).

I honestly don't agree that the Orange Line needs to be converted to light rail... yet. There are some stop-gap measures that Metro should try first:


The current buses are approaching 10 years old so it's almost time to replace them. I would like to see Metro invest in 80-foot double articulated buses (two bendy sections) with less seats, leaving more room for standing passengers. That should help increase capacity. Here's an example of a great new BRT vehicle (it's hard to believe that it's a bus!).
Drop the requirement that buses slow to 15 mph at crossings. I understand why the rule was instituted... but crashes are happening less frequently as the line matures. Having buses take the crossings at speed should help lower the travel time. Best of all, this is a free fix.
Install a signal on the traffic lights that indicates that the red light will turn green soon so operators know that they won't need to stop when they reach the intersection.
Doing some fixes like that would improve the Orange Line at a relatively low cost, increase capacity and shorten travel time... and it does it without closing the line for years to add tracks.


----------



## leemell (Jul 29, 2014)

First, the law was passed by the state legislature at the behest of Sen. Alan Robbins who was later convicted of major political shenanigans. The law was instituted by NIMBYs with pressure probably both legal and illegal to get it passed. We never got to vote on it. Second, the 80' double articulated buses are not legal on California streets, the max is 65'. These buses run on public street as well as the busway. You have not seen how full these buses are; at most hours of the day there standing people and many times they are jammed.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 29, 2014)

leemell said:


> First, the law was passed by the state legislature at the behest of Sen. Alan Robbins who was later convicted of major political shenanigans. The law was instituted by NIMBYs with pressure probably both legal and illegal to get it passed. We never got to vote on it. Second, the 80' double articulated buses are not legal on California streets, the max is 65'. These buses run on public street as well as the busway. You have not seen how full these buses are; at most hours of the day there standing people and many times they are jammed.


I was a resident of Los Angeles for years... including during the construction of the Orange Line (both the original segment and the extension to Chatsworth) and have been on the line many times (the last time was just a few months ago) so yes I have seen how full they are.
My point is that with less seats, there is room for more passengers (standing passengers take up less room). Also, 65 foot buses aren't legal on California streets, Metro had to get an exemption from Caltrans to operate the one prototype (that was eventually returned to NABI). An 80 foot bus would also need an exemption from Caltrans to operate on the one very short section off the exclusive right of way (between Warner Center and Canoga). The current buses seat 57 with room for just 27 standing passengers. The Exqui.City bus I linked to above has just 47 seats in a 80 foot bus... but has a lot of padded leaning areas for passengers who are standing. Plus the benefit of a bus like that is that the driver is separated from the passengers (making it easier to focus on operating the bus) and with wheel covers... it actually looks like a light rail vehicle (just paint it silver with a yellow nose on either end).

I think that Metro should focus on cheaper improvements (like to the vehicles). It's totally unfair to spend the Measure R money converting the Orange Line to light rail instead of giving it to other portions of the county that have no high-capicity transit. That being said if valley lawmakers can find money to convert the Orange Line into rail without tapping into Measure R... more power to them.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 29, 2014)

I think if they are going to convert it anyway, might as well extend the Red Line to Chatsworth instead. More capacity for the future. I don't think it's that hard to turn heavy rail, as seen in the Chicago Loop.


----------



## MattW (Jul 29, 2014)

Except they can't simply convert it since it has several at-grade crossings. A usually reliable source told me that the FTA basically denied funding when it was proposed for Heavy Rail to have at-grade revenue crossings (i.e. not service roads, in yards, etc.).


----------



## TinCan782 (Jul 29, 2014)

The "heavy" rail is long gone when it was converted to a busway. At that point it could have been made into light rail since everything had to be re-done anyway.

BTW that ROW was the SP "Burbank Branch" between Burbank Junction and Chatsworth.


----------



## leemell (Jul 29, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > First, the law was passed by the state legislature at the behest of Sen. Alan Robbins who was later convicted of major political shenanigans. The law was instituted by NIMBYs with pressure probably both legal and illegal to get it passed. We never got to vote on it. Second, the 80' double articulated buses are not legal on California streets, the max is 65'. These buses run on public street as well as the busway. You have not seen how full these buses are; at most hours of the day there standing people and many times they are jammed.
> ...


Caltrans has already looked at the 80' double articulated and basically said that is would not get an exemption. This is fair to the Valley. One third of LAs population is in the SFV and of the 90 stops in the MTA rail symmetry, it has exactly two. Now what is unfair?


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 29, 2014)

leemell said:


> Caltrans has already looked at the 80' double articulated and basically said that is would not get an exemption.


[citation needed]


leemell said:


> This is fair to the Valley. One third of LAs population is in the SFV and of the 90 stops in the MTA rail symmetry, it has exactly two. Now what is unfair?


I'm not saying that the Orange Line shouldn't have been built as light rail... but Metro did the best they could at the time. It's unfair to come back now and ask for it to be redone and make other neighborhoods wait longer for their projects (including the Valley's project in the Sepulveda Pass).


Swadian Hardcore said:


> I think if they are going to convert it anyway, might as well extend the Red Line to Chatsworth instead. More capacity for the future. I don't think it's that hard to turn heavy rail, as seen in the Chicago Loop.


The aforementioned lawmaker wrote the law so that Metro would be forced to build an underground extension of the Red Line... they found a loophole and that's why it's BRT.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 29, 2014)

How about extending the Red Line tunnel down Lankershim to the UP Coast Route (Metrolink Ventura County), come out to the suface, and then continue, paralleling the UP ROW, to Chatsworth?

Stops would be at Oxnard St, Victory Blvd, Sherman Way, Woodman, Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Van Nuys Airport/Roscoe, Lindley, Northridge, Winnetka Awe, Plummer St, and Chatsworth.

Then just keep the busway.

Or simply extend the tunnel to the UP ROW, make an extra Metrolink stop at Lankershim, and let passengers transfer to that.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 29, 2014)

Spend the money, build for the future. Your talking like somebody I knew from Texas who decided that it would be a good idea to make the busiest commuter rail line in New York single track with passing sidings. It saved money. Now we get to spend more money rebuilding the damned thing the right way!

Build it right, and build it for the future.

And dude, if you are going to use a bus, a double articulated Citaro beats a Van Hool to the ground.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 29, 2014)

GML, for once I have to agree that heavy rail is going to be better than messing with light rail.

By the way, nobody said anything about Van Hools.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 29, 2014)

Rickys photo was of a Van Hool.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 30, 2014)

Oh!

Anyway, I was thinking maybe it'd be a good idea to extend the Red Line to the Metrolink Ventura County Line along Lankershim, build a TC there, and then run another BRT or LRT route to Chatsworth, splitting the passengers, then another BRT line to Sylmar.

Lankershim & Sherman would be a great place for a new TC.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jul 30, 2014)

I don't particularly care who makes the bus... I just support the idea of a bi-articulated bus with more standing room.

There has been a lot of talk over the years about extending the Red Line to Burbank Airport. It's a natural traffic generator, they just finished building a new transportation center at the airport and there is access to Metrolink's Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines. Seems like a worthy plan to me, but it would have to be studied to make sure there would be sufficient traffic to support the expense.

Also it's worth mentioning that the Orange Line's total boardings in June 2014 was 675,901. Compare that to the Green Line (the train that goes "from nowhere to nowhere") that had a total of 1,037,992 boardings. Is that because buses are filled to capacity... or because there's not as much demand along the corridor? Both numbers include night and weekends when buses and trains aren't filled to capacity.

Another idea I've seen floated to improve capacity is running "bus platoons" (two buses operating back-to-back like a train). The platforms are long enough to accommodate this... but I'd rather see the buses just run on shorter frequencies.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 30, 2014)

Don't study it. Just build it. You can find quite a few years of dead loss operations for the cost of such studies.


----------



## leemell (Jul 30, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Caltrans has already looked at the 80' double articulated and basically said that is would not get an exemption.
> ...


Can't find the reference about the length of the buses, but it was part on MTA investigation on increasing Orange Line capacity about 2009 or 2010. As far as fairness, as I said the SFV is about 1/3 of LA's population, about 1.75 million and has a single mass transit line (red and orange) running across the valley. It has two rail stops. It is vastly under served. The Sepulveda project isn't. It is an idea on a list ideas and no real consideration yet. The Orange line has real engineering parameters and costs and an MTA engineering study is underway for current costs.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 30, 2014)

rickycourtney said:


> I don't particularly care who makes the bus... I just support the idea of a bi-articulated bus with more standing room.
> 
> There has been a lot of talk over the years about extending the Red Line to Burbank Airport. It's a natural traffic generator, they just finished building a new transportation center at the airport and there is access to Metrolink's Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines. Seems like a worthy plan to me, but it would have to be studied to make sure there would be sufficient traffic to support the expense.
> 
> ...


I agree it would be a great idea to extend the Red Line to Bob Hope Airport then funnel passengers through the Metrolink commuter rail, or built BRT/LRT to Chatsworth along the UP ROW.

I think further BRT should be constructed from North Hollywood to San Fernando along Lankershim and Webb, while BRT or LRT should be constructed along San Fernando Road to help that corridor which currently has the too-slow 794 Rapid bus. I like to stay in San Fernando when coming into LA because it's so much cheaper than the rest of the city and still quite safe, but transit is the problem.



leemell said:


> rickycourtney said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


Again, I believe it is better to split passengers and offer more options than to funnel everyone into the same corridor. Build LRT, sure, do that, but not directly along the Orange Line, build it along another route that will benefit more people in the long run.

How about this, extend Red Line to Burbank Airport, build a new LRT line along Roscoe and get to Chatsworth anyway? Hook around the airport on San Fernando Road. Then built LRT from Downtown LA to Burbank Airport along San Fernando Road, split off from the Gold Line, and BRT from Burbank to San Fernando followed by BRT from North Hollywood to San Fernando.

That way, the SFV would have a Red Line extension, two new LRT lines, and two new BRT lines, eventually crisscrossing the area.

BTW, you also extend the Orange Line to Burbank Downtown, and possible BRT along Sepulveda where LRT would be overkill. Hopefully, eventually there will also be BRT from Chatsworth to San Fernando.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 18, 2014)

A couple of interesting things from LA Metro's meeting this week...

Metro is already evaluating potential transportation projects around Los Angeles County to see which should be included in an update of Metro’s long-range plan. Now they will evaluate two more potential projects:


Converting the Orange Line to rail
Adding a bus rapid transit line (Orange Line extension) between North Hollywood, Bob Hope Airport and the Gold Line in Pasadena
Metro's staff also has some proposals on ways to improve the operations on Orange Line, immediately, in the short-term and the long-term, without converting the line to rail:


> _Immediate Proposals_
> 
> 
> Get bus operators to maintain a more consistent speed to get more green lights
> ...


You can read more on the report here.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 18, 2014)

They should add more seats and eliminate bike racks to accommodate more people.

Also, why can't they go 45 mph through intersections???


----------



## leemell (Sep 18, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> They should add more seats and eliminate bike racks to accommodate more people.
> 
> Also, why can't they go 45 mph through intersections???


Because when the Orange Line opened there a considerable number of accidents at intersections. Most of the sheep using these intersections just weren't aware that buses were now crossing them. The MTA then required the buses to slow their crossing speeds to 10 MPH, which they e\eventually raised to 15 MPH. That move to 45 MPH is loooong overdue.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 18, 2014)

Understand that the Orange Line is setup like a light rail line. The busway has grade crossings with other streets much like a train, except unlike a train it doesn't have the flashing red lights or crossing arms. That led to a considerable amount of accidents in the first few weeks of operation. That's when the speed limit at intersections was lowered from 25 mph down to 10 mph.

Now that drivers have more experience with interacting with the busway it seems like a good time to raise the speed limit back up to 25 mph (not 45 mph). I doubt Metro will ever go faster than that, it's just too dangerous (a bus hitting a car in a crossing is a much more violent crash than a train hitting a car).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 19, 2014)

Or perhaps they should use gates and/or a battering ran front end such as found on fire trucks.


----------



## rickycourtney (Sep 19, 2014)

I heard that LA Metro wanted to put crossing gates up, but it wasn't allowed since it was a busway crossing not a railway crossing.


----------

