Metro’s Board of Directors will soon vote on whether to begin environmental review of a planned bus rapid transit project in the Northern San Fernando Valley, but some Valley residents are set on blocking the bus-only lanes.
A group called Save the San Fernando Valley—which distributed a flier comparing the project’s Nordhoff Street segment to a rapid bus system in Delhi—has encouraged residents to contact Metro directors to urge them to “stop this madness.” It appears they got the message.
Director Ara Najarian on Wednesday begged those concerned about the project to stop calling his private law office, and director Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, who chairs Metro’s planning and programming committee, said boardmembers had received “hundreds of calls on both sides of the issue.”
Dozens of residents turned out to the committee’s meeting Wednesday to voice opposition to the project, arguing that removing lanes for cars would cause more traffic and disrupt the lives of those who live close by.
“I am not against public transportation, but I am against that route,” said Linda Allison, 37, of Northridge. “I think it would strongly ruin the value of our homes.”
Jay Beeber, a leader of Save the San Fernando Valley, told committee members that residents hadn’t been properly notified about the project. Metro staffers at the meeting said the agency had been holding community meetings on the project since last year.
The proposed project would run between the North Hollywood area and Chatsworth, passing through the communities of Sun Valley, Panorama City, and Northridge along the way.
The route route hasn’t yet been finalized; the easternmost stop could be at the North Hollywood subway station or further west at the intersection of Chandler and Laurel Canyon boulevards.
Either way, the bus line would provide key connections to a planned light rail line along Van Nuys Boulevard and the Orange Line, an existing rapid bus that travels in dedicated lanes to the south of the proposed North Valley route.
Several opponents said they would be more supportive of a bus route along Roscoe Boulevard, rather than Nordhoff Street. Right now, the eastern portion of the planned route runs along Roscoe, before turning north to Nordhoff around the 405 freeway.
Running the entire project along Roscoe, however, could mean bypassing California State University, Northridge. One alignment Metro has considered for the project would turn north from Roscoe onto Lindley Avenue, linking up with the school. Another would turn north at Resda Boulevard, arriving at Nordhoff west of the campus.
School officials have pushed hard for better transit options for students, and Metro staff estimates that ridership on the bus would be highest between the university and the forthcoming light rail line to the east.
“Our students are coming from all over the greater Los Angeles region,” said university representative Francesca Vega. “We want CSUN to become a transit hub.”
The rapid bus is one of the 28 projects that Metro aims to complete by the 2028 Olympics. According to Metro staff, the project is on track to open by 2025.
The agency’s Board of Directors will consider the project further at is monthly meeting next week.
Comments
The resident’s concerns are well-founded. First, Nordoff Street must already be too congested which is why they need a bus only lane – so that the buses are not stuck in that congestion. So they will remove two lanes of traffic causing gridlock. Second, before they do this, they need to install 4-way stop signs and Mt. Everest size speed bumps on all of the side streets within 1/2 mile in anticipation of cut through traffic. Once they remove the lanes on Nordoff causing gridlock, everyone will try to find cut-through routes through the residential neighborhoods. Sounds like a Mike Bonin size disaster in the works.
By LADude on 06.20.19 1:58pm
It’s funny how complaints to providing alternatives to car driving are framed in terms of nuisance (cut through cars on side streets!) which are…the exact nuisances caused by cars generally.
By disqusted on 06.20.19 2:21pm
Cut through traffic is generally not a nuisance. It becomes a nuisance when you unnecessarily remove lanes of traffic on major arterials. Especially when you remove lanes of traffic for cars and replace them with lanes for a form of transportation that very few people actually use.
By LADude on 06.20.19 3:10pm
This isn’t about cut through traffic or getting people from North Hollywood to Roscoe. The buses have transponders that can turn red lights green to speed up the flow of traffic. Ridership is way down anyway now that illegal aliens have driver’s licenses (imagine that, even struggling folks like them would rather drive). If the transponders didn’t work they could add a bus lane later, when needed.
No it’s about a few people telling the rest of us how to live our lives. Like I keep saying we are fighting a religion here. It’s also about developer interests along that corridor if the "mass transit" bus lane goes in. That’s why Orange Country announced this week they are removing bus lanes. Nice going Scott Wiener.
Normal people are on to their bullshit. The bus lane crowd amassed 200 e-mails and phone calls in support of their low-key six month campaign. Like with SB 50 they tried to keep it quiet. The neighborhood just found out and in one day had 300 phone calls into the attorney’s office, so many that the secretary threatened to quit.
At the hearing the people who spoke in favor of the bus lanes weren’t from the area. They were paid shills babbling socialist nonsense about how cars and single-family homes are evil.
Everyone needs to learn how to read past the headlines. This isn’t about bus traffic just like SB 50 wasn’t about affordable housing. No more cars, no more single-family homes and Wall Street developers are the sub headlines here. They want us to sacrifice our freedoms for the greater good, which looking at things in CA, appears to be filthy rich tech executives and homeless people.
The middle class better wise up fast and elect people who care more about you they do about their billionaire campaign contributors.
By calzada on 06.20.19 6:31pm
The proposed route goes through a lot of working-class areas of the Valley too. Rarely are folks like us able to make meetings like the one this week— being at 2pm on weekday. If 200 or so middle to upper income homeowners can stall a transit project that can benefit students and working class folks, who really loses out?
By LMutia on 06.20.19 7:59pm
I’m not against bus lanes per se, just suspicious of ulterior motives these days. Also, if it is a busy street, taking out a traffic lane may not be the best idea. If they do decide to put one in they need to allow electric cars too. Then, like you said, who really loses out?
As for the hearing being at 2pm on a weekday that’s why I said the young folks who spoke in favor of the bus lanes were paid shills. That or they expect us to listen to people who can’t find a job in one of the best economies ever.
By calzada on 06.20.19 8:27pm
I’m sorry to tell you but your techno-optimist future is never going to happen. Autonomous electric vehicles for everyone requires a lot of Congolese children to die in cobalt mines and even then there’s not enough of it. Do you think instead we might ask the most privileged and wealthy people in the history of the world to make the minuscule sacrifice of letting a bus go through their neighborhood?
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 9:23pm
They aren’t "for everyone", only for folks who can afford one. As I typed that it dawned on me why so many of you on Curbed are against the technology — it’s not about the tech itself, it’s about the exclusionary transportation. Mystery finally solved.
Also, you won’t need but one per household. One of benefits of ride hailing is that you no longer need a car of your own to get to work. We wouldn’t be replacing ICEs with EVs one for one.
By calzada on 06.20.19 10:07pm
AVs solve a problem that’s not actually a big problem except for Uber investors: labor costs. The real issue for the earth going forward if we have any hope of limiting warming to 2C will be energy, emissions, and materials scarcity. Unless a mode of transportation can solve those problems, it’s not actually useful.
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 10:21pm
AVs will be electric, buses will be electric and subway trains are electric. The only difference is that subways and buses run around all day mostly empty which wastes energy. The AVs will be "on demand" and have higher passenger density, which is something you usually like. The autonomous part will make them an adorable ride for everyone.
By calzada on 06.20.19 10:26pm
Trains (and buses powered by overhead wires) don’t require batteries, which create the majority of lifetime emissions for electric vehicles. And you actually have no idea what passenger density these vehicles will have. What if everyone just wants their own?
This is not an open question. Study after study reveals that dense urban environments have much lower per capita emissions.
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 10:42pm
"What if everyone just wants their own?"
Well then we won’t get anywhere. With ride sharing though AVs will cut the number of miles traveled per person in half and virtually eliminate traffic congestion.
As for battery lifetime emissions rest assured the smart tech in this state is working on new battery technology that is cleaner. Battery technology is constantly evolving as is the tech that will make hailing a ride on your phone a snap.
I thought I went over all of this with you before but maybe it was Sean in Los Feliz.
By calzada on 06.20.19 10:56pm
Yeah I heard your spiel, but "technology is always improving" is not a great pitch. Battery technology will get better and I welcome that, but batteries will always bear a considerable cost in emissions and rare metals. We can spend 40-50 years in R&D trying to green the suburb or we can do what we know already works.
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 11:03pm
If batteries turn out to be the stumbling block then the electric motors will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Think of hydrogen as a liquid battery.
By calzada on 06.20.19 11:06pm
https://qz.com/1641276/a-hydrogen-fueling-station-explodes-in-norways-baerum/
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 11:20pm
And in other news there were 1,000 car fires in the United States today. Like there are every day.
By calzada on 06.20.19 11:34pm
Try low double digits. And car fires don’t create pressure waves that necessitate the shutdown of multiple fueling sites.
Hydrogen fuel cells are good but there’s no magic bullet that’s going to allow you to stay in your car all the time without dooming the planet. Ride the bus.
By Partymuscles on 06.20.19 11:53pm
Meanwhile, I witnessed a huge propane-and-gasoline fire consume an RV and four cars at the Shell station, complete with Hollywood-esq explosions and fireballs, the Hydrogen pump 20 feet away was
unscathed.
All fuels run the potential for fire, as do batteries, especially lithium cells.
Some of the criticism of H2 are valid – we can debate the actual net energy and ecological efficiency, but it is well underway to becoming both a viable alternative motor "fuel" and potentially, a home energy storage vessel, with the bonus that it doesn’t require relations with Saudi, Iraq, Venezuela, or other Petroleum producers.
By smartalex on 06.21.19 9:10am
I’m not criticizing hydrogen to advocate for gas-powered cars. I’m just saying the fact that all energy sources have tradeoffs and damage the environment means it’s important to curb energy use and look for efficiencies.
By Partymuscles on 06.21.19 9:19am
"We can spend 40-50 years in R&D trying to green the suburb or we can do what we know already works." None of you tech sycophants can actually address the issue at hand. You just repeat things you don’t understand from Elon Musk.
By Julian Hanes on 06.24.19 10:02pm
vaporware
By corner soul on 06.21.19 7:53am
busses already go thru that neighborhood. What they are talking about is a project that will create a special lane for busses. it’s not that different or better than what’s already offered. Hence, it’s not worth doing.
By surfnspy on 06.21.19 8:34am
bus only lanes increase on time performance, increase ridership, and build buy in for public transit projects. trying to get people to ride a bus that’s stuck in traffic like everyone else isn’t a good plan.
By Partymuscles on 06.21.19 9:16am
What ulterior motives make you suspicious?
By freenachos on 06.23.19 9:32pm
Curbed didn’t mention the main reason for the pushback was fear that a new bus lane would trigger a "transit rich" designation for the area which would allow 6-story towers in the middle of the blocks. Those towers would obviously kill property values.
Curbed tried to make it sound like these people were busy-body NIMBYs looking to block progress. That does two things — it makes NIMBYs look bad, unfairly, and also hides from readers the real reason, which is that 6-story towers hurt property value. They do this because they support SB 50.
300 people (in one day!) wouldn’t have called in to protest their property values going up.
By calzada on 06.23.19 10:17pm