Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #25 on Aug 28, 2011, 4:16pm »
Just wanted to update this thread
SCAG has finalized the list of alternatives for study on the Santa Ana Branch ROW
The List of Alternatives are 1. No Build 2. TSM 3. BRT 4. Streetcar 5. Light Rail 6. Low Speed Maglev
DMU and High Speed Rail were dropped from the potential alternatives considered, and the maglev option was downgraded for lower speed operation. From summary of the last community outreach Light Rail seems to be the preferred mode for this corridor.
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #31 on Sept 2, 2011, 12:57pm »
well, in the streetcar's defense, it would have the same advantages that the downtown Los Angeles streetcar would have — hop-on, hop-off ability, lots of possible station stops without a station platform, low-floor boarding, a low profile (because of the lack of station infrastructure) but still more noticeable and more permanent than a shuttle bus.
also, I don't think that the streetcar was originally designed with the transfer specifically in mind.
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #32 on Dec 9, 2011, 7:33pm »
This thread seems to be a bit quiet, and naturally so. But I have noticed some work going on directly on this ROW in Cerritos/Norwalk, on the eastern side of Studebaker. I noticed it a couple of weeks ago, but can't make out what's going on. About a dozen guys all on the ROW w/ equipment.
Preliminary alignment options for the norther portion (page 2-25):
East Bank Alternative – This alignment alternative would operate north along the San Pedro Subdivision to travel over a Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) at-grade crossing and a corner of BNSF’s Hobart Intermodal Yard to where the ROW intersects with the Union Pacific (UP)- owned ROW used for freight, Metrolink, and Amtrak operations. It would share the UP ROW for a short distance to where the ROW, now owned by Metro and operated by Metrolink, turns north to run along the east bank of the Los Angeles River, and cross the river into Union Station.
West Bank 1 – Under this alignment alternative, the connection to Union Station would operate in its own ROW along the west bank of the Los Angeles River to just beyond the Redondo Junction where it would share the Metro-owned and Metrolink-operated ROW with Metrolink and Amtrak service.
West Bank 2 – This alignment alternative would turn west to operate in the median of Randolph Street, formerly a BNSF railroad ROW now owned by UP, through Huntington Park and then turn north to operate in the median of Pacific Boulevard, a former street car ROW until it intersects with the Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision. It would follow the Harbor Subdivision ROW in a bridge over the Redondo Junction, and then operate north along the west bank similar to West Bank option 1 to reach Union Station.
West Bank 3 – This alternative follows the same alignment as West Bank 2, but rather than turning to operate along the west bank of the Los Angeles River, it continues north along the Harbor Subdivision, and then under city streets and private property in a combination of aerial and underground configurations to daylight south of Metro Gold Line Eastside Little Tokyo Station where it utilizes the existing at-grade Metro Gold Line tracks to reach Union Station.
WB3 is the start of "2nd Downtown Connector" option that some people here have talked about for many years. It goes up to Union Station via Alameda.
I will add that if WB3 is the preferred route out of EIR process (and it happens soon enough), we may be able to preserve the current street level Gold line Little Tokyo station for this line (the Gold/Expo and Blue line will use the new underground station).
Joined: Jul 2009 Posts: 230 Location: North Hollywood, CA
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #34 on May 21, 2012, 11:28am »
WB3 is definitely the best option.
It's another reason why I hope Metro will not dismantle the at-grade Little Tokyo station (as it has been proposed).
Also, as I have stated elsewhere, I think this line should connect with the future Burbank/Glendale light-rail line, providing a complete transit alternative to the 5 freeway.
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #35 on May 21, 2012, 11:35am »
Preliminary alignment option for southern portion (page 2-27):
Harbor Boulevard/1st Street/SARTC – After leaving the Harbor Boulevard Station located on the former PE ROW, this option travels south on Harbor Boulevard, turns east on 1st Street, and then runs north on a realigned Santiago Street to a terminus at the SARTC where passengers would transfer to Street Car, Metrolink, and Amtrak services, and OCTA and international bus services.
Westminster Boulevard/17th Street/Main Street – After the Harbor Boulevard Station, this alignment would travel east on Westminster Boulevard/17th Street, south on Main Street, where the route would turn south to interface with the future Street Car Main Street Station. Street Car and LRT passengers would transfer to the Santa Ana Street Car system to reach the SARTC.
Santa Ana argued (and won) against using the PEROW all the way to Santa Ana Metrolink station. The 2 options on the table all involve torturous street running and tight turns. The Westminster option doesn't even connect to the Metrolink/CAHSR station.
Quote:
At the city’s request, the PEROW/WSAB Corridor project would leave the former PE ROW at Harbor Boulevard to operate on Santa Ana city streets along one of the two alternative routes illustrated in Figure 2.10.
Santa Ana argued (and won) against using the PEROW all the way to Santa Ana Metrolink station. The 2 options on the table all involve torturous street running and tight turns. The Westminster option doesn't even connect to the Metrolink/CAHSR station.
If the Center Line project had come into existence, OC would have something to use as a guide for 'what to do/what NOT to do' on this, other inter-county projects, and intra-OC projects. That being said, my biggest wish is that LRT is picked as the preferred technology. The route...we'll get to that. So long as it's not Mag-Lev!
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 387 Location: Vermont/Santa Monica Station
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #39 on May 24, 2012, 1:48am »
Actually, I want to see this line built as a heavy-rail extension of the Red/Purple lines, but this time going all-elevated, open cut below-grade or at-grade (wherever appropriate), a la BART in the Bay Area suburbs. If they're projecting 80,000 riders for this thing, they might as well.
Joined: Mar 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 203 Location: Bell Gardens
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #40 on May 24, 2012, 3:58pm »
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income.
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it?
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income.
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it?
Unfortunately, even the Blue Line does not pay for itself or even really come close. Our farebox recovery is at 28% and while that is brought down by some bus routes, it isn't all that much higher for the rail lines. This is going to be a major problem going forward as we add more lines, because we'll need additional subsidies to operate them with such a low farebox recovery.
I do agree we need well used lines as that minimizes the problem somewhat. However, they still need subsidies and ultimately our fares are going to have to rise. There has been a lot of talk of distance based fares on the Source and with the Connector they will certainly be necessary, but I believe the fares will have to rise to improve the farebox recovery.
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade.
Where did you hear this, and who is speaking on behalf of those cities? One of my friends is a councilmember of one of those cities. I haven't yet asked their thoughts on this line yet, but I can find out.
Joined: Mar 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 203 Location: Bell Gardens
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #43 on May 24, 2012, 7:34pm »
Elson: the RoadTrainer posted that information a while back. However, I went to the meeting today in Southgate about the PEROW/WSAB. I asked about that. The person I was speaking to did not directly say it, but I was lead to believe that the Mayor of Cerritos has a boner for Mag-Lev...and so do some powerful politicians. I didn't find out who, however, it's the reason Low Speed Mag-Lev is included as one of the six (6) technology alternatives. I was made to understand that there was a slight difference between High Speed and Low Speed Mag-Lev. I didn't see HRT, as a technology, listed in the materials they gave out, so I think it's no longer being considered (sorry Elson.)
LAC/Metro and OC/OCTA own the ROW respectively. The Orange Line project people are still pushing for Mag-Lev, but I was told LAC/OC have no interest in allowing them to construct anything on the ROW. Some cities along the ROW are in the middle of developing plans for TOD's. West Bank 3 is perceived as the best performing alternative. Cypress and La Palma want nothing to do with the project, so it's no mistake that there is no station in that area. The benefit of connecting the WSAB line to SARTC, using Harbor Bl./1st St., was definitely played up. There is already about $240(?) million from Measure R set aside for it. It's going to cost $3.0-$3.2 billion and the route is 30 miles long!
An older gentleman, I think it was the Mayor of Huntington Park, voiced his desire to run U.S. made LRV's and that the LRV's contain U.S. engineered electrical components and that their maintenance be conducted by Americans. Another older gentleman voiced his concern over the loudness of the LRVs' bells and whistles. He also noted that there was a stench from dead animals at the Blue Line Slauson Station.
This was my first time at one of these types of meetings. I probably didn't ask the right questions, but I'm still glad I went.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 2:01pm by gatewaygent »
80K daily riders? So this would be, more or less, matched up with Blue Line ridership. And like the Blue Line it would seemingly pay for itself and generate some needed income.
My understanding is that Bellflower and Cerritos are already expecting an elevated Mag-Lev line and that they're not interested in anything at-grade. What happens when L.A., Huntington Park, Southgate, Paramount, La Palma, Cypress, Garden Grove, etc. all vote in favor of LRT (or HRT)? Are they going to be good sports about it and go with everyone else or back out and kill it?
Simple Bellflower and Cerritos can pay for the cost of elevating the stations and the track through their communities.
Actually, I want to see this line built as a heavy-rail extension of the Red/Purple lines, but this time going all-elevated, open cut below-grade or at-grade (wherever appropriate), a la BART in the Bay Area suburbs. If they're projecting 80,000 riders for this thing, they might as well.
That's 80K for a 35-37 mile line route - Not cost effective for a HRT but decent for a LRT. If it ran from Downtown to County Line ridership would be close to 40K, if it ran from Green Line to Santa Ana ridership would be close to 40K. LRT is a good fit. However I wonder if it is possible to build an infill junction to enable current Green Line trains to branch off and serve the West Santa Ana ROW to the County Line or to an area of OC that's supportive of the line
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 8:26am by JerardWright »
How to connect within Orange County to Disneyland -- which is a MAJOR employer will be an interesting study.
Longer term, I think that three projects would form the basis of improved LA/OC connections:
This project Green Line to Metrolink (a lot cheaper to hook OC into LA Metro rail than this project would be) An East-West route that connects the future ARTIC station to Disney and the Santa Ana Branch line (with eventual connections further West to Long Beach and on to the South Bay extension of the Green line).
With these three connections in place, OC can fill in their transit network (or not) and there will be sufficient core connections between the two systems.
Joined: Mar 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 203 Location: Bell Gardens
Re: Santa Ana branch general discussion « Reply #49 on May 25, 2012, 1:47pm »
Thank you Masonite for the information. I looked at NYC's Subway fare system and it looks like a mish-mash of prices and distance steps. I know there's logic to it, but it's just so much! Do you know whether their system stays afloat with or without subsidies? We have a bargain single ride fare at $1.50 vs. NYC at $2.50. New Jersey's transit system has a different fare structure for each of it's light rail lines while Washington DC has a fare structure based on peak periods.
It's too bad. I thought the Blue Line, in the least, generated enough income to sustain itself. I wonder if raising the base fare an extra $0.50 would make a difference; and even if it did, would it necessarily send people back to their smog-producing clunkers? It would rile the Bus Rider's Union for sure.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif "[Reply]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[Quote]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif "[Quote]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i657.photobucket.com/albums/uu296/agentsmithone/2245349939_5ff1f797e6_t.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://chriscrash.com/images-home/crash_symbol.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/6356/trolleyt.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/bdowns/avatars/phillies_logo_p.gif "[avatar]"){kind=logo}
![[avatar]](http://www.elsongs.com/images/pics/go_expo.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i32.tinypic.com/fns30h.jpg "[avatar]")