|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 15, 2014 16:40:58 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right?
R2 will probably consist of: Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.) Eastside phase 2 Foothill phase 2 Crenshaw phase 2 Red line to the burbank airport Red line to the arts district Green line to norwalk Green line south bay extensions.
And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way.
I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 15, 2014 21:55:01 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right? R2 will probably consist of: Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.) Eastside phase 2 Foothill phase 2 Crenshaw phase 2 Red line to the burbank airport Red line to the arts district Green line to norwalk Green line south bay extensions. And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way. I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in. Isn't Eastside phase 2 and green line south bay extension already part of Measure R?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 16, 2014 9:57:27 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right? R2 will probably consist of: Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.) Eastside phase 2 Foothill phase 2 Crenshaw phase 2 Red line to the burbank airport Red line to the arts district Green line to norwalk Green line south bay extensions. And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way. I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in. Isn't Eastside phase 2 and green line south bay extension already part of Measure R? Eastside 2 and South Bay extension are part of original Measure R. So is the Santa Ana Branch he mentioned. All three are currently under EIR process. But obviously, not enough money from R to actually fund them all, hence the need for an extension.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 16, 2014 11:20:23 GMT -8
I wanna see an extension of the Purple/Red Line past the Arts District onto Whittier Blvd... not some half-a$$ed serpentine Gold Line that doesn't go where the real demand is (Whittier Blvd), only to simply put the former old proposal permanently on the political back-burner.
Much of the ROW still exists on Whittier Blvd for an Elevated HRT train.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on May 16, 2014 19:00:37 GMT -8
I wanna see an extension of the Purple/Red Line past the Arts District onto Whittier Blvd... not some half-a$$ed serpentine Gold Line that doesn't go where the real demand is (Whittier Blvd), only to simply put the former old proposal permanently on the political back-burner. Much of the ROW still exists on Whittier Blvd for an Elevated HRT train. What I can't figure out is why such crappy routes were chosen. It makes no logical sense. It's like the people who planned the Eastside Gold Line trying to AVOID anywhere that generates ridership. If the Orange Line is any indication, if we put down the Gold Line to Whittier as it is now we can kiss any Whittier Bl subway goodbye for at least half a century. The options are so bad I would rather they not build it at all, and that's coming from a transit fan.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 23, 2014 18:43:36 GMT -8
Metro has elicited the absolute worse alignments possible from each region by pitting them against each other (SGV vs. Gateway Cities). The reality is that each region has a community with transit needs that should be served with optimal alignments! A route along Gavey Av. to the El Monte Bus Station trumps the alignment along 60 frwy any day while a Purple Line extension along Whittier Bl. would accomplish what the Gold Line is falling short of doing. But whatever happens, I just hope this snakey embarrassment of an alignment does not come into existence. Nothing is better than this.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2020 14:29:21 GMT -8
Based on a draft of an item for Metro board review in February 2020, it seems Metro staff is recommending abandoning the SR-60 alignment. They recommend proceeding with the “Washington Alternative” and starting a new study for transit options for the San Gabriel Valley.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 14, 2020 18:40:41 GMT -8
I supposed that is the least bad option
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 14, 2020 19:45:45 GMT -8
No surprise there - I thought it was a foregone conclusion when the Citadel went in (with plenty of development $$$) with the Washington Blvd alignment. The neighborhood opposition to the 60 alignment was another dagger. Glad to see we have some movement forward.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 15, 2020 9:41:38 GMT -8
Wow, thank goodness Metro is finally building an expensive transit option to Greenwood Avenue in Montebello, which has so little pedestrian activity that no Metro bus currently serves that intersection. (If you build it...they will come!)
I never understood why Whittier Blvd was taken off the table so early. The argument: it's too narrow. That argument's BS: lots of Metro's ROWs are narrower. But Whittier Blvd is better known has a more dense collection of residential and retail than industrial Washington Blvd will ever have.
And, I still don't get why this line stops 3/4 of a mile short of Downtown Whittier. I guess Metro likes building lines to nowhere, and then getting laughed at about it. GAAAHHH!!!
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 16, 2020 23:22:16 GMT -8
Whittier Blvd is a state highway. Good luck getting Caltrans to give up capacity on anything narrower than Burton Way.
If only what is now the Whittier Greenway Trail had a wide ROW, so it weren't political suicide to use it for a train. Then we could have gone down Beverly to that and then turn on Hadley or Philadelphia to the college. Gives a great place for a combined Metrolink transfer and 605 park-and-ride, too.
Does this mean we can spend the 60 branch money on electrifying and double-tracking the San Bernardino Line? That is probably the best way to improve transit in the SGV, which doesn't have any good subway corridors.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 17, 2020 11:39:09 GMT -8
Whittier Blvd is a state highway. Good luck getting Caltrans to give up capacity on anything narrower than Burton Way. If only what is now the Whittier Greenway Trail had a wide ROW, so it weren't political suicide to use it for a train. Then we could have gone down Beverly to that and then turn on Hadley or Philadelphia to the college. Gives a great place for a combined Metrolink transfer and 605 park-and-ride, too. Does this mean we can spend the 60 branch money on electrifying and double-tracking the San Bernardino Line? That is probably the best way to improve transit in the SGV, which doesn't have any good subway corridors. One of the original proposals for the Gold Line to Whittier was to go down Beverly and end at Beverly/Norwalk ... but Montebello was opposed to running light rail down Beverly (which is actually fairly wide and has less traffic than Whittier Blvd). I do believe the unspoken plan is to avoid running anything on Whittier Blvd, or too close to it (Beverly Blvd), so that in the future, there will be no competing transit for a subway under Whittier Blvd. BTW, the end of the Washington Blvd line in Whittier is a hotspot for developers... Just about every lot between the hospital and Five Points (Whittier Blvd/Washington Blvd) looks empty and ready for bulldozing and redevelopment. Also, the 73 acre Nelles redevelopment that is happening now (~750 homes and apartments + more commercial) is quite close-by.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2020 11:53:34 GMT -8
I supposed in another 100 years, someone will eventually figure out how to get the Purple line across the river...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 17, 2020 12:34:24 GMT -8
BTW, the end of the Washington Blvd line in Whittier is a hotspot for developers... Just about every lot between the hospital and Five Points (Whittier Blvd/Washington Blvd) looks empty and ready for bulldozing and redevelopment. Also, the 73 acre Nelles redevelopment that is happening now (~750 homes and apartments + more commercial) is quite close-by. I'll give you that. Was down there a couple of weeks ago. Tons of construction. Hopefully it'll be zoned for density and laid out for walkability. (Unfortunately, put me down as skeptical.)
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 28, 2020 11:02:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 31, 2020 9:43:25 GMT -8
Crossing the old Monterey Park dump would be a problem, I suppose. Lots of nasty chemicals in the ground there.
It's funny that nobody cared when they built a freeway right down the middle of that same dump, back in the 70s. Different times, different standards, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 5, 2020 10:12:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 6, 2020 8:04:02 GMT -8
The incursion into the castaic lake flood plain is arguably one of the major geographic reasons the HSR isn’t using the Tejon pass direct to Bakersfield (believe it or not the grades are doable with only a couple miles of tunnels while also crossing both the San Andreas and Gorman faults at grade.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 9, 2020 1:41:19 GMT -8
OK, so the 60 frwy alignment is off the table. Thank God!
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 16, 2020 8:08:51 GMT -8
What Metro staff recommends for San Gabriel Valley now that the 60 freeway alignment is off the table. Conducting a new transit feasibility study, accelerating (with discount) 2050-2057 Measure M funds so there will be $635.5m in Measure M funds for project in 2022-2037.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 10, 2021 21:37:14 GMT -8
It looks like Metro is evaluating phasing options for this project, presumably due to lack of funding.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2021 1:59:53 GMT -8
It looks like Metro is evaluating phasing options for this project, presumably due to lack of funding. Not surprised by this at all once the Atlantic Subway section was needed that would torpedo the costs of the project. Their best bet is a Phase 1 to Citadel and then re-evaluate the entire corridor to include study of the UP ROW (which Metro never considered in the decade long study) to possibly achieve a better cost-effective project to Whittier utilizing railroad ROW to reduce the amount of costly subway station construction. Using the Railroad ROW will reduce some of the vertical/traffic issues specifically at Washington/Norwalk/605 Freeway where elevated columns will be 40 feet in height to clear the freeway next to homes. Plus in spots like Pico Rivera the ROW crosses Whittier Blvd at the commercial retail zone where there is a better chance at TOD for higher ridership. Transit - Eastside Phase 2 to Whittier Alt_April 2021 by Jerard Wright, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 11, 2021 9:53:07 GMT -8
There's a few disadvantages of going with the UP ROW route, too.
- Running along the SG River - the existing tracks there are single-track... and you're going to need two more for the LR. And you'd be involving all the water entities (SG MRC, RMC, maybe the Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) to get that addressed. Maybe UP would sell... but it still needs to be widened to double-track in a floodplain.
- It would poison the well for a future Whittier Blvd subway as ridership would be bled off.
- Looks like the ROW is narrow in PR near Whittier Blvd - would need property takes in the residential area.
- The redevelopment opportunities are larger along Washington, even in PR - there would be a station at Rosemead/Washington (where the huge shopping center with the Lowes is), for example.
- Your route looks to me like it crosses the 605 at the same location - Washington Blvd.. with the same 40 foot columns?
Using the Railroad ROW will reduce some of the vertical/traffic issues specifically at Washington/Norwalk/605 Freeway where elevated columns will be 40 feet in height to clear the freeway next to homes. Plus in spots like Pico Rivera the ROW crosses Whittier Blvd at the commercial retail zone where there is a better chance at TOD for higher ridership. Transit - Eastside Phase 2 to Whittier Alt_April 2021 by Jerard Wright, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2021 10:36:14 GMT -8
There's a few disadvantages of going with the UP ROW route, too.
- Running along the SG River - the existing tracks there are single-track... and you're going to need two more for the LR. And you'd be involving all the water entities (SG MRC, RMC, maybe the Army Corps of Engineers, etc.) to get that addressed. Maybe UP would sell... but it still needs to be widened to double-track in a floodplain. Yes the current ROW is single track but there are easements to make it wider for Metro to utilize that will be far cheaper to build compared to all the tunneling in fact the Citadel Station can be on the surface with pedestrian bridges and underpasses for passengers to reach the station compared to a subway which should save a lot of $$$$. However Metro will need to work with SGMRC, RMC and Army Corps to cross the SG River let alone run alongside of it, plus as a mitigation Metro could accelerate trail improvement along the SG River which can be a win-win and it may be cheaper than the current alignment. - Looks like the ROW is narrow in PR near Whittier Blvd - would need property takes in the residential area. - The redevelopment opportunities are larger along Washington, even in PR - there would be a station at Rosemead/Washington (where the huge shopping center with the Lowes is), for example. - It would poison the well for a future Whittier Blvd subway as ridership would be bled off. However this "poisoned" well for a Whittier Blvd HRT, I would be careful how you present it because do you really expect Whittier Blvd to stay in a subway over here, if your argument is that there's not much TOD opportunities compared to Washington Blvd then why would you justify spending money on Whittier HRT subway past Atlantic Avenue? I personally feel that this ship has sailed once Whittier/Atlantic was placed underground to help out the Washington Phase 2 alignment to where any future HRT down Whittier Blvd will more than likely end at Whittier/Atlantic. - Your route looks to me like it crosses the 605 at the same location - Washington Blvd.. with the same 40 foot columns? The ROW passes under Washington Blvd as an underpass, utilizing the same strategy like Expo does at Expo/Figueroa/110 Freeway would eliminate the need for 40' high columns where it come to grade at Norwalk Blvd before a station, this would be far easier to build compared to an elevated bridge and avoids the massive columns and ramp up to a 40' high elevated bridge with now an 3 to 4 story high station in this area.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 11, 2021 16:20:34 GMT -8
There certainly are benefits for running along the existing tracks, I see your point. With regards to Washington Blvd, I was talking about the turn on your route map from the SG River south to Washington Blvd east ... the tracks would cross the 605 on Washington. I'm not sure, offhand, if there enough vertical clearance on the Washington Blvd underpass below the 605 for light rail.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 11, 2021 17:37:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by brady12 on Apr 11, 2021 19:48:10 GMT -8
]- It would poison the well for a future Whittier Blvd subway as ridership would be bled off. The way Metro (disgustingly) prioritizes bargains over quality (I get they have a budget but build nothing and wait then. It’s better than spending 45% of a projects budget just for a half ass solution) I highly doubt that Whittier HRT is even an option anymore? Why would they spend money on that when there’s an extension of the gold line VERY close by on Washington? I think a good compromise for those wishing to see such a project would be if the East LA Atlantic to Washington project was made entirely Subway from Soto to Atlantic (3.5m) and then for the remainder of this project which could in theory be from Atlantic Station down Atlantic and onto Washington all the way to Whittier. Cause at that point you’d have a subway with sufficient capacity and at a great speed and especially when the Flower St area is fixed and converted into grade separated (and maybe subway you’ll have fast trains with no silly stops along the way from Whittier all the way to Downtown through Downtown and beyond It is unfortunate that this project really eliminates there being anywhere else for the Purple line to go. We all know the Red line could be made into a short line going down Vermont. And we all know the Putple can extend the other way to the beach - but on the East side there’s nowhere for it to go. I guess there are a lot more pressing issues. I say build this Gold line Subway
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 29, 2021 12:17:19 GMT -8
Latest updates. They plan on the Draft EIR being released in Spring/Summer of next year:
|
|