Metro’s Board of Directors will delay voting on a planned bus rapid transit project in the northern San Fernando Valley—for at least another month.
The board was set to decide Thursday whether to begin environmental review on the project, and which possible routes for the bus line to consider in the process. But the item is not on the agenda for the board’s upcoming meeting.
Dozens of Northridge residents have spoken out against the project. Opponents argue that dedicated bus lanes proposed along Nordhoff Street would snarl traffic and reduce property values. They’re encouraging Metro to consider an alternative route along Roscoe Boulevard.
Metro’s planning and programming committee members opted last week to send the item before the whole board so that San Fernando Valley representatives who serve as agency directors would have a chance to weigh in on the project.
Metro spokesperson Dave Sotero tells Curbed that some of those officials won’t be at Thursday’s meeting, so board chair Sheila Kuehl—who represents as a county supervisor most of the territory that would be served by the bus line—elected to hold off on discussing the item.
It’s been a year of ups and downs for Metro’s bus projects. Last week, agency staffers told the operations committee that a pilot bus-only lane installed on Flower Street at the beginning of the month has been successful so far—drawing “no complaints” from residents.
Agency officials also aimed to install a second bus-only lane before the end of the year, potentially speeding up service along one of Metro’s busiest bus routes. But after two Los Angeles city councilmembers objected to one of four routes under consideration, that item was also pulled from a board agenda.
Sotero told Curbed in May that the report on the project was cancelled “out of an abundance of caution.” The project now appears to be on hold indefinitely.
The bus rapid transit project in the northern San Fernando Valley would run between North Hollywood and Chatsworth, linking up with the existing Orange Line rapid bus and a planned light rail line along Van Nuys Boulevard.
Metro aims to have both the bus and rail projects finished in time for the 2028 Olympics, and the North Valley bus line should be done far in advance of then—it’s now scheduled to open in 2025. Metro staffers said last week that getting environmental review underway as soon as possible would be necessary to complete the project on time.
Comments
Why force it on them, then. Apply the money to the Crenshaw extension through Mid City/Weho. Thank you Northridge residents!!
By abcd12345 on 06.25.19 3:17pm
The problem with the Crenshaw line extension is that, because of SB 50, no one wants the route in their community for fear of upzoning. I believe there are four routes are being considered and all of them are facing stiff opposition where ordinarily people would be fighting to get the extension in their neighborhood.
It doesn’t help the folks trying to expand the Crenshaw line to hear from some of the YIMBYs they only want to live in places like Silver Lake so they can walk everywhere.
By calzada on 06.25.19 3:30pm
To say no one wants the Crenshaw extension is a generalization— I know WeHo gov’t has been clamoring for an extension to run through their area and even with concerns about SB50, the areas under consideration are criss-crossed with relatively frequent bus service which could qualify it for some upzoning albeit not as large as with a rail-line. Granted that’s one gov’t and that cannot speak for the thousands that live within the area.
By LMutia on 06.25.19 4:50pm
Yes of course WeHo wants it. The issue is with the neighborhoods that the extension has to go through, to get from Crenshaw to WeHo.
Ordinarily they would be fighting with each other to see who gets it but the way things are no one wants it because of SB 50.
One of the many reasons that 30 city councils in SoCal, like WeHo’s, have opposed the bill.
By calzada on 06.25.19 4:58pm
These areas already would be subject to SB50 upzoning because Metro runs frequent buses on the potential Crenshaw North corridors, and some are in the proximity of Expo, Purple and Red Line stations.
By numble on 06.26.19 3:07pm
My understanding is that the blocks within a 1/4 mile of the Crenshaw line extension would be eligible for another one or two stories of crackerbox under SB 50. The blocks within a 1/4 mile of the line would be allowed up to 6 stories, instead of the 5 for the rest of the neighborhood (it could be 5 instead of 4).
Simply said there is a density bonus that comes along with mass transit under SB 50. This is what I believe all the concern is about in the Valley over the proposed bus lane.
It’s amazing how uneducated people are about what’s going on but have the nerve to blame NIMBYs for not wanting traffic, like that’s the only thing this is about. It’s also about towers in residential neighborhoods, that kill property value, and don’t have to provide any parking so it all ends up on the streets.
Get rid of that ridiculous 1/4 mile requirement and the Valley bus lane and Crenshaw line extension could be decided in about a week.
By calzada on 06.26.19 3:43pm
So you are saying this additional catchment area is opposed because there could be 1-2 more stories on top of the upzoning that is already there from buses? What is the additional catchment area from the Crenshaw extension compared to the areas already covered by Purple Line, Red Line and Expo stations? It seems like it would be pretty small catchment area given that the extension bridges across 3 existing rail lines. Please quantify the area.
The concern by the Valley over the proposed bus lane over upzoning is misplaced as you can have a high-frequency bus without a bus lane or BRT. That’s why most of the Crenshaw North Corridor is already subject to upzoning due to the buses that run in normal traffic.
By numble on 06.26.19 4:19pm
For our audiences at home the word of the day is: "Catchment"
By calzada on 06.26.19 4:35pm
If you think opposition to transit started with SB50, let me introduce you to the 40 years before it was even a gleam in Scott Wiener’s eye.
By Partymuscles on 06.25.19 5:56pm
The opposition leader was on the John & Ken show last week and said the pushback was because of the socialists + developers in Sacramento telling us what to do. These people think owning a single-family home and car are evil.
Go to the KFI-640 website where you can listen to it or better yet just go to the opposition’s website.
I know you are busy peening, making reservations at Rossoblu and walking your three dogs but if you have a spare moment please check out their site.
https://savesfv.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Highrises-copy.jpg
By calzada on 06.25.19 6:24pm
I don’t know what "peening" is, not sure I want to. The point is, homeowners have opposed transit for a variety of reasons long before upzoning was ever a concern. Mostly it’s just nativism.
By Partymuscles on 06.25.19 6:43pm
Sorry I meant preening. Someone with the handle Partymuscles would be good at that
Peening sounds more fun though.
By calzada on 06.25.19 6:46pm
Cool, next time you dig through my comments, keep an eye out for any other restaurants I’ve been to once. Psycho.
By Partymuscles on 06.25.19 6:51pm
I’ve been through lots people’s comments, narcissist. One of which was ghettourchin who it turns out has the exact same feeling I do about AVs.
By calzada on 06.25.19 7:03pm
That’s not any less creepy.
By CaliSon on 06.26.19 9:30am
If you look through my old comments you will see I had no activity here except a random post every few months until the SB 50 shitshow started. I’d didn’t know everyone here like you do and was mixing people up like Partymuscle and Sean in Los Feliz. I mix you up with Corner Soul but he’s helped me out and agreed with me so I haven’t checked him out.
The whiny Millennials were all blending together and I couldn’t tell them apart. Who were the real socialists, that I could maybe reason with, and who were the paid shills working for the developers, the ones who come to all the hearings with their memorized speeches about how owning a home and car is evil. Who know the ones who talk about exclusionary zoning when they lose the argument.
It’s a good way to quickly find out about someone’s agenda and what I found were a lot of developers and people from out of state trying to dictate our housing and transportation policies.
Partymuscle is from NYC, likes expensive restaurants and complains a lot. Probably the typical entitled Millennial I wrote to Sean about this morning. disqusted has been railing about "Boomer NIMBYs" for years, is from Chicago and rents out ADUs. ghettourchin sounds like a real character and likes AVs. Transplant Trash is funny and usually right and was the one who tipped me off about going through the comments to see who the hypocrites are.
By calzada on 06.26.19 11:35am
You just make me sad. I’m going to stop engaging with you because you’re bumming me out.
By Partymuscles on 06.26.19 12:38pm
Thank you cry baby.
By calzada on 06.26.19 12:58pm
Please leave me out of your head. You do not know me, you cannot get to know me via a few internet comments. It’s issues and ideas, not personalities for me when I’m posting here…and that is it.
By LosFeliz$ean on 06.26.19 4:21pm
It’s issues and ideas with you, not personalities, and that’s why you came alllllllll the way over to the Long Beach thread, not to post about the water quality, but to ask me if I am "just commenting to comment" lol
By calzada on 06.26.19 4:37pm
Yes, I’d like to know if you know something about what removing the breakwater (you know, the issue) would practically entail before I waste any effort engaging you on the topic.
Don’t get me wrong, you can just comment to comment, all I ask is that you leave me out of your comments.
By LosFeliz$ean on 06.26.19 4:55pm
@Calzada, If SB50 is an issue you feel strongly about I’d encourage you to post less, but more tactically. You post so many comments that your arguments are getting watered down and repetitive.
I’ve been skipping most of your comments recently, especially when they account for almost 50% of a comment thread. It’s giving me flashbacks to Starchy, and that’s not a comparison you want anyone making.
By CaliSon on 06.27.19 2:02pm
Fair enough but I don’t know about the repetitive part. Is it not repetitive to be blaming everything on "Boomer NIMBYs", for years?
I feel strongly about SB 50 and in particular 6 issues that never get any press. I will always highlight something in the news that supports one of these points. I’m not a fan of the media and that’s probably why I like Trump so much.
1. The worth of historic housing stock. The point I made in "what’s available for $829k", on how everyone chooses the cute old house over condos every single time, was short, sweet and powerful. You’re right, tactical is good!
2. "Upzoning helps values in some neighborhoods but hurts them in others" is not something I’ve read anywhere else. I have beat that one to death.
3, Driverless cars are best transportation solution for LA. Ditto.
4. NIMBY charges are unfair. The best example of that is up on Wilshire where local communities have embraced a new 42-story tower.
5. Some regulations are necessary because of the greed out there. I’m convinced the fourplex by right idea would all go towards Airbnb. Will fight to kill it or make sure if it goes forward units are registered like for RSO. 6-story crackerboxes would be used for the same purpose in many places. Another original point.
6. Calling out hypocrites who support SB 50 and talk about "just zoning". Wiener would have a lot more credibility if he pushed for vacancy taxes and Airbnb restrictions, but he doesn’t because he’s in the pocket of developers. He also name calls NIMBY way too much and that’s another problem with his leadership.
As for Starchy I did not know he was disliked but now that I think about it he probably was because there were those fake Starchy posts. Remember those?
Well I’m off to watch Crazy Bernie and Sleepy Joe. Drink whenever Sanders says something crazy or Biden makes a gaffe and you’ll be drunk by 6:15. Cheers!
By calzada on 06.27.19 6:05pm
"The opposition leader was on the John & Ken show"… sorry, you lost me at John & Ken show.
AM talk radio is the absolute bottom of the barrel for political discourse in this country. Typically they don’t even have guests on who disagree with them (and if they do, they won’t even let them finish a sentence before cutting them off, changing the subject, and moving the goal post.)
By corner soul on 06.26.19 12:59pm
They are entertaining, it’s more of a comedy show and I don’t take what they say too seriously. I listen to KFI all day long when I’m in the car, in the morning it’s Bill Handel who is pretty liberal.
By calzada on 06.26.19 1:12pm