|
Post by Philip on Apr 9, 2010 10:39:48 GMT -8
From this Whittier Daily News article: Southeast-area cities group endorses Washington Boulevard light-rail routeBy Mike Sprague, Staff Writer Posted: 04/08/2010 05:51:11 PM PDT
WHITTIER - A coalition of 27 cities and numerous unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County on Wednesday unanimously endorsed a light-rail route extention along Washington Boulevard from East Los Angeles to Whittier.
Based on seven criteria, the Washington Boulevard route was considered better than an alternative alignment along the Pomona (60) Freeway, said Richard Powers, executive director of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments.
"In all seven, the Washington Boulevard alignment was superior," Powers said.
The Washington Boulevard route would go via Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard and end near Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital. The competing line would run along the Pomona (60) Freeway and end at Peck Road.
The seven criteria were travel time, length of the route, number of Southeast-area cities served, number of stations to be located in Gateway cities, alignments, cost per mile and projected average weekday ridership.
The Washington Boulevard route would take 17.5 minutes (it covers the same travel time per mile as the Pomona Freeway line), is 9.3 miles long, serves five cities, has four stations in Southeast area cities, costs $2.36 million per mile, and would serve 15,660 riders per weekday, according to a staff report by the City Managers Steering Committee.
The Pomona Freeway proposal would take 12.5 minutes, is 6.3 miles long, serves one Southeast-area city, has three stations in Southeast area-cities, costs $2.6 million per mile and has a projected ridership of 12,270 per day, the report stated.
In addition, the Washington Boulevard alignment splits the area between the Santa Ana (5) Freeway and Whittier and Beverly boulevard corridors, while the other route just follows the Pomona Freeway, it stated.
Montebello Mayor Bill Molinari, whose city supports the Pomona Freeway route, said he disagrees with the decision.
"There's not any clear indication that the (Washington Boulevard) route would be more beneficial," Molinari said.
Molinari said the Washington Boulevard route has a higher overall cost.
He also questioned the ridership study, saying it's flawed because Washington Boulevard goes through mostly industrial areas in Montebello.
Whittier Councilman Joe Vinatieri said the vote shows that the Washington Boulevard route has the support of the Southeast area of Los Angeles County.
"It shows that there is broad support from this whole end of the county based upon the facts," Vinatieri said. "It shows this is the most cost-efficient route there is and will have the most potential riders."
Whittier Councilman Owen Newcomer called the vote "wonderful."
"It greatly increases our chances," Newcomer said of the city's ability to persuade the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to support the Washington Boulevard route.
"Metro is very sensitive to what the various communities want and they know now they have a unanimous vote on the route that the Southeast cities wish," Newcomer said.
An environmental impact report on both routes is now being developed and expected to be released in the spring of 2011.
The fact that they are still considering this potential catastrophe of a line is nothing short of astounding. If they want to the throw $1 billion at a line, I'm fine with voting no-build for now and throwing that money to the I-405 Line (or scattering it among a few projects, like the Crenshaw Line and Green Line to LAX). It's a complete waste of money and as Art points out, more or less the kiss of death for usage of the Randolph ROW.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 9, 2010 18:08:55 GMT -8
I agree; this would a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. It has less potential than the SR-60 alignment, and would significantly slow the movement for a purple line extension.
We need to send Kimberly Yu and the rest of the MTA a message that this is a mistake and there are better options:
yuki@metro.net
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Apr 9, 2010 18:29:33 GMT -8
I could be wrong, but I've been getting the impression that this community wants this over the SR-60 alignment because of its proximity to Whittier Blvd. Maybe they just don't realize that if they hold off for now, they are more likely to get rail ON Whittier Blvd. (or rather, under)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 9, 2010 18:47:16 GMT -8
^ Yeah, just because it goes to Whittier doesn't mean it's better.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 9, 2010 19:55:56 GMT -8
In terms of the SR-60 esgl 2 cost: The cost is WAY more than it should be. If you follow the proposed alignment and grade you will notice the MTA has the route running elevated above an elevated freeway, which is redundant and unecessary. The train can very easilly run along the south edge of the 60 along the freeway (not in the middle, along the south edge) with small bridges to cross where the freeway passes over roads (gerhart, findlay, garfield offramp, garfield, wilcox, vail). The southern slope of the 60 would need to be widened about 20 feet, in the exact same fashion they did to widen the 10 freeway in El monte for carpool lanes a few years back. This simple route adjustment would create an alignment that is grade seperated but is similarly expensive as at-grade. When I first saw the MTA concept pics with an el running above an elevated freeway my jaw dropped, I was honestly floored by either the incompetence or lack of creativity this came from. I spoke to several engineers and MTA staff on the matter, all of them seemed to agree that the tthings I mentioned were feasible and pragmatic. The southern slope of the 60 is wide enough to fit in LRT tracks with a reinforced reatining wall to widen the freeway 2 dozen feet, how nobody thought to take advantage of this is beyond me. I had even told the CDM consultants the same thing at meetings years back, it still astounds me... Could it be because Caltrans wants to keep the ROW in case they would want to widen the freeway in the future?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 10, 2010 11:04:24 GMT -8
2.3 vs 2.6 million per mile? Those are clearly not construction cost estimates. Light rail costs 50 to 200 million per mile, depending on the number of grade separations, right-of-way costs, number of stations, and the like. I don't know why they think it would be cheaper to build along Washington Blvd than along 60. The ridership estimates are pretty sad for either line, but a glance at the current and planned job and residential density along these routes explains why: Job Density 2030 maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047c505152307d33fac&ll=34.005997,-118.046036&spn=0.270946,0.617294&t=p&z=11 Residential Density: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.00047bbd63b18dd455fce&ll=34.014534,-118.125687&spn=0.135459,0.308647&t=p&z=12 Even the high average speeds expected (30 mph? Pretty good for light rail!) can't make up for a lack of destinations along these two routes. A Whittier Blvd route would be significantly better, though still not nearly as busy as a line of equivalent length in the Westside, Downtown or Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 11:54:01 GMT -8
With the Federal Transportation Bill (which could include the 30/10 Initiative) coming out late this year, I think at this point it's a little too late for reviving the Whittier Blvd option for the GLEE II.
I actually think a Purple Line extension to Whittier has the potential to receive the most attention (and money) among projects not funded under Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 12, 2010 4:19:29 GMT -8
To be honest, Im ambivalent about any esgl extension while SO much is neede inthe urban core, but if it is gonna happen the SR60 option would be my choice ONLY if it was adjusted in the manner I noted. If any of you have the MTA's ear, please notify them of this easy fix. If you are ambivalent about it, support the "No Build" option. Then work on making sure the Eastside doesn't lose its place in line. Neither route has ridership that would sustain a bus line, let alone for the volumes required to build a rail line. The problem with the 60 Freeway route: It's too remote from people or their destinations. And the freeway, not the rail line, will dictate future development. The problem with the Washington route: It's industrial, and the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera and Whittier keep their industries near this area. In order to develop it into residential or retail, they'd have to kick out their industrial tenants or kill Whittier or Beverly Boulevard to transfer it to the rail line. These two Eastside extension options are like being offered a choice of an enema that is boiling hot or freezing cold.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 12, 2010 5:56:41 GMT -8
^ Given that GLEE II is included in 30/10, shouldn't we take advantage of that by at least choosing one?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 12, 2010 17:24:10 GMT -8
quote From this Whittier Daily News article: Southeast-area cities group endorses Washington Boulevard light-rail routeIt is Funny that the City of Pico Rivera has nothing to say in this article and yet the train will travel down Washington Blvd. from the Rio Hondo River all the way to the San Gabriel River. (That the main Streets of that city-Paramount Blvd., Washington Blvd. Passons Blvd.) And does Passons Blvd. have a planned stop? Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 13, 2010 4:06:02 GMT -8
^ Given that GLEE II is included in 30/10, shouldn't we take advantage of that by at least choosing one? The problem is not paying for it. The problem is that L.A. will be saddled with one of two useless lines because we have to spend the money.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 13, 2010 7:07:21 GMT -8
At least the SR-60 Alignment has more TOD potential, so perhaps that'll narrow the ridership gap it's projected to have with the Washington Blvd Alignment.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 14, 2010 3:44:24 GMT -8
At least the SR-60 Alignment has more TOD potential, so perhaps that'll narrow the ridership gap it's projected to have with the Washington Blvd Alignment. Are you familiar with SR-60? It's a mixture of giant auto-oriented shopping malls, hills and undeveloped valleys (in all likelihood because the Whittier Narrows area is a flood plain). Also, whatever development there is or will be around SR-60, it will be because of the freeway, not the rail line. That means you'll get out of the train and walk across a giant parking lot to the big box stores. Any token development is not going to offset the fact that the ridership will be so low it's not worth building. Ever since Metro took the Whittier and Beverly options off the table, it killed the whole point of an Eastside extension.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 14, 2010 5:12:04 GMT -8
Yeah, but there's big boxes along the Washington route, as well. And Whittier blvd itself isn't perfect, either. There aren't any freeways near them.
And does your assumption of SR-60 take into account residential development?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 14, 2010 8:03:09 GMT -8
Yeah, but there's big boxes along the Washington route, as well. And Whittier blvd itself isn't perfect, either. There aren't any freeways near them. And does your assumption of SR-60 take into account residential development? jdrcrasher...look at the development (or lack thereof) around the Green Line. There's proof itself. The Gold Line along the SR-60 will be a similar setup..outside of being in the median of the freeway, it would be very adjacent. Both options are bad and we should save the money for other worthy projects.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 14, 2010 12:10:07 GMT -8
Is there any way we could petition Metro to simply extend this south down Atlantic and have it go along the Randolph ROW instead?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 14, 2010 20:23:52 GMT -8
Is there any way we could change this to a (gasp!) BRT project on Whittier blvd from Downtown all the way east? Wilshire is getting exclusive bus lanes and becoming more a real "BRT" project, all the way to Santa Monica. If the Whittier portion of route 720 were also upgraded to exclusive bus lanes and improved bus stations, many riders would benefit from faster trips and much more reliable service. It would not be as comfortable as light rail, but the route would be much more direct for trips to Downtown Los Angeles, so might be just as fast as a Washington Blvd alignment.
The Riverside Metrolink line already parallels 60, and the Orange County Line is close to the southern alignment. If the Randolph right-of-way could be used for a Metrolink extension, Whittier and East La Mirada would end up with much faster service to downtown. Pico Rivera and West Whittier have Metrolink on both sides and just need stations added, while Montebello/Monravia has a station. With more frequent Metrolink service, and improved buses, we would get better transit without building either of the Gold Line extensions.
I hope Measure R is not interpreted as requiring a light rail extension in this area, when Metrolink and bus improvements would be a better use of the funds for these suburban cities.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 15, 2010 3:53:27 GMT -8
Is there any way we could change this to a (gasp!) BRT project on Whittier blvd from Downtown all the way east? Wilshire is getting exclusive bus lanes and becoming more a real "BRT" project, all the way to Santa Monica. For all of four hours a day. And try not to notice the gap when it reaches Beverly Hills and Santa Monica city limits. Apply this to Whittier and you'd get the bus lanes as far as Indiana, then mixed traffic to all of the Commerce Center. (Metro shaved off about 1.5 miles of the Rapid line as the route east of Commerce Center had low ridership).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2010 7:50:34 GMT -8
Wouldn't it be better to spend this money for several smaller Eastside Gold Line branches -- for instance, one branch that connects to Whittier/Atlantic, and another one that connects to East L.A. College -- that actually go where the actual destinations and population centers are? I really do feel like, for reaching the eastern suburbs, it is better to build more Metrolink: larger commuter rail with greater station spacing. This would allow a greater number of people to get to the actual job centers, much faster. LRT through Montebello and Rosemead is a quaint ride but not a very effective commute-buster. This is, IMHO, where the Eastside extensions should be built: Get people to the Community College. Get people to the shopping area. And build a 60 Freeway Metrolink to get people to Downtown jobs and to the subway.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2010 8:33:26 GMT -8
BTW, I am all in favor of "maintaining regional equity" (as Antonovich calls it, haha) and spending on the Eastside, including the San Gabriel Valley. I just think we shouldn't just throw money away on a route which, as one poster here put it, wouldn't even warrant a bus line, much less a rail line.
I for one will vote No-Build, if it is down to these options.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 15, 2010 15:47:09 GMT -8
IMHO the Atlantic Blvd. spur is a great idea, although I am not sure which way to go, I would rather go South, rather than both ways, but two branches could work I guess. Atlantic Blvd. to the Green line seems a better goal, but that is for another lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 15, 2010 18:53:03 GMT -8
If No-Build is chosen, the money should go towards studying a Purple Line Extension, not another Gold Line alternative.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Apr 18, 2010 20:11:13 GMT -8
At least the SR-60 Alignment has more TOD potential, so perhaps that'll narrow the ridership gap it's projected to have with the Washington Blvd Alignment. Are you familiar with SR-60? It's a mixture of giant auto-oriented shopping malls, hills and undeveloped valleys (in all likelihood because the Whittier Narrows area is a flood plain). Also, whatever development there is or will be around SR-60, it will be because of the freeway, not the rail line. That means you'll get out of the train and walk across a giant parking lot to the big box stores. Any token development is not going to offset the fact that the ridership will be so low it's not worth building. Ever since Metro took the Whittier and Beverly options off the table, it killed the whole point of an Eastside extension. I believe the topograhy the esgl enters in this area is why it would be worthwhile in the LRTP, IF the price was reduced by the simple design measures I noted. Let me explain: The problem with the esgl is that it is pretty slow, and only comparable to auto service during rush hour. The reason it is slow is because it runs at-grade through very dense areas with lots of grade crossings. The next portion of the proposed esgl sr60 route mitigates this issue, and if costs were reduced to a more palatable level, would be a fairly smart move in terms of rail service for the eastside. The esgl would able to pick up speed because of the sparse areas it would pass, ability to easilly grade seperate, and lengths between stations. This would compensate for the slowness of the at-grade areas in ela, and provide a fairly qucik trip from the east county into the city. Plus the communities of South El monte, Bassett, La Puente and Valinda are fairly dense with a large working class latino population which is public transit gold. The area around the Garfield station on the Montebello-Monterey Park border is also near dense concentrations of apartments as well. The Montebello towne center also has a lot of potential for mixed use development right against the station (the city had been thinking of redoing this area to begin with for a while), and a simple circulator trolley would create a good connection between that station and nearby south san gabriel which has a lot of PT dependant people as well. it is true that existing development is auto oriented, but the large lot against the Garfield station is already being courted for development. The MTC station could be redone in a more ped friendly manner quite easilly as well. Any future development would also probably be at the two stations noted, I doubt there would be a need for any Whittier narrows station, which would reduce travel time and cost. Like I said, Id bet the bar that if the price tag was reduced with the mitigations I noted it would pass FTA cost benefit analysis. Now that being said, i also am aware that many other more worhty corridors in the central basin should be prioritized. but in our political world, which also has limited PT resources, I would not balk at any rail extension in my neck of the woods unless it directly jeopardized another more logical option (for instance the esgl going down whittier blvd, which would have been the death blow for any purple line extension, or using the randolp st ROW for esgl phase 2 which would kill an extension down this ROW that would service the more dense areas west of montebello).
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Apr 18, 2010 20:15:47 GMT -8
Is there any way we could petition Metro to simply extend this south down Atlantic and have it go along the Randolph ROW instead? In the cotext of options for the esgl 2 in this area this makes sense. But, I dont like this idea because it would kill the chance of creating a seperate rail line along this right of way (ROW), that branches off the blue line just north of the slauson station. The most bang for your buck in terms of the randolph ROW is the communities west of Montebello (walnut park, huntington park, bell, cudahy, bell gardens), putting rail down the ROW for the esgl 2 kills any chance of servicing the most cost beneficial portion of the ROW. that was also why I was not supportive of the esgl 2 going down whittier blvd as well, because it would kill any chance of a whittier purple line which would service the most dense PT dependant areas on the boulevard which are west of atlantic.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Apr 18, 2010 20:27:32 GMT -8
Is there any way we could change this to a (gasp!) BRT project on Whittier blvd from Downtown all the way east? Wilshire is getting exclusive bus lanes and becoming more a real "BRT" project, all the way to Santa Monica. If the Whittier portion of route 720 were also upgraded to exclusive bus lanes and improved bus stations, many riders would benefit from faster trips and much more reliable service. It would not be as comfortable as light rail, but the route would be much more direct for trips to Downtown Los Angeles, so might be just as fast as a Washington Blvd alignment. The Riverside Metrolink line already parallels 60, and the Orange County Line is close to the southern alignment. If the Randolph right-of-way could be used for a Metrolink extension, Whittier and East La Mirada would end up with much faster service to downtown. Pico Rivera and West Whittier have Metrolink on both sides and just need stations added, while Montebello/Monravia has a station. With more frequent Metrolink service, and improved buses, we would get better transit without building either of the Gold Line extensions. I hope Measure R is not interpreted as requiring a light rail extension in this area, when Metrolink and bus improvements would be a better use of the funds for these suburban cities. Whittier Blvd is too narrow and dense for a bus only lane. Dick Riordan proposed that and it crashed and burned for those reasons. The riverside metrolink parallels the 60, but exclusively in industrial areas FAr from anything. That is why the montebello and commerce stations arent packed. Plus metrolink is too expensive for most working class residents in this area. And not to be rude, but can we PLEASE stop with the notion that metrolink can replicate LRT/HRT in the urban core? With the exception of industrial patches, density on the east and southeast side of town is well above 10k per mile. These areas are older trolley car suburbs, that have also been subdivided and dingbat apartmentized into fairly high density, and were built around rail stations originally. Metrolink rail is inadequate for these corridors, stations are too sparse and ill located, service is not frequent and most importantly it costs too much per ride to be reasonale for the local residents. I live along the metrolink san bernadino line and it does a horribel job of servicing the 10 corridor west of el monte for the reasons noted, the 76/70 busses are packed daily, despite being less than a mle from the metrolink and busway. Getting people from the far reaches of suburbia is not the priority of metrorail in this part of the county, servicing the communities the lines run through in an appropriate manner is. these areas are inner ring suburbs that deserve more than metrorail, that is to get people from the farther parts of the metropolis into the city center, and should never be mistaken for comparabble service in the urban core.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Apr 18, 2010 20:45:28 GMT -8
Wouldn't it be better to spend this money for several smaller Eastside Gold Line branches -- for instance, one branch that connects to Whittier/Atlantic, and another one that connects to East L.A. College -- that actually go where the actual destinations and population centers are? I really do feel like, for reaching the eastern suburbs, it is better to build more Metrolink: larger commuter rail with greater station spacing. This would allow a greater number of people to get to the actual job centers, much faster. LRT through Montebello and Rosemead is a quaint ride but not a very effective commute-buster. This is, IMHO, where the Eastside extensions should be built: Get people to the Community College. Get people to the shopping area. And build a 60 Freeway Metrolink to get people to Downtown jobs and to the subway. I ike this idea and think it very creative. but the problem is that the cost of either north or south on Atlantic would be comparable to the entire phase 2 segments now being proposed by the MTA. Plus it is virtually impossible for either way you propose garnering anything close to to over 10k riders, meaning these alignments would fail in FTA cost benefit analysis. Atlantic is classified as basically a mini highway by the CUPC, meaning you are constricted on what you can do down it and how much space or lanes you can take away (you definitely cannot put lrt at grade, that for sure, it is actually illegal). It is also fairly narrow and literally has no room for anything, even columns for an elevated alignment. Plus it is SUPER packed, specifically in this area, as it is the only on-offramp for the 60 east of the 710 which is a widfe and dense swath of area. I dont even know how and if the MTA can take the esgl across atlantic for their phase 2 plans without tearing down the current atl station and goin elevated across. And that is merely for the train to cross, for it to run down Atlantic either way is even more of a pandora's box. Subway is too expensive, and would be a crazy stretch to be able to physically accomplish given the current alignment' constraints in this area. Elevated is virtually impossible, going north it would have to elevated over the elevated 60 freeway, and Im not even sure columns could fit between the 60 and pomona blvd. South is also too narrow even for elevated columns, plus elevated would not be accepted by locals, it would block St Alphonsus church, a local landmark, as well as kennedy hall, which would not be politically acceptable. I also agree that metrolink is better for reaching eastern suburbs, which I by that I mean like east of the 605 suburbs. Anything west of that is fairly old and dense, and is worthy of urban rail, metrolink just cant replicate the service appropriate for this area. I apolgize if I am coming off dismissive, those are excellent points and thoughts man. I just gave this a TON of thought, and literally went through those ideas in urban planning classes as well as coversations with metro staff and consultants.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Apr 18, 2010 20:58:06 GMT -8
To be honest, Im ambivalent about any esgl extension while SO much is neede inthe urban core, but if it is gonna happen the SR60 option would be my choice ONLY if it was adjusted in the manner I noted. If any of you have the MTA's ear, please notify them of this easy fix. If you are ambivalent about it, support the "No Build" option. Then work on making sure the Eastside doesn't lose its place in line. Neither route has ridership that would sustain a bus line, let alone for the volumes required to build a rail line. The problem with the 60 Freeway route: It's too remote from people or their destinations. And the freeway, not the rail line, will dictate future development. The problem with the Washington route: It's industrial, and the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera and Whittier keep their industries near this area. In order to develop it into residential or retail, they'd have to kick out their industrial tenants or kill Whittier or Beverly Boulevard to transfer it to the rail line. These two Eastside extension options are like being offered a choice of an enema that is boiling hot or freezing cold. I actually have and am enacting a strategy on this. My goal is to meet and convince local politicans to support the most logical ideas for rail in this area. I have gotten Sup Molina less hostile to other area' rail project, and am trying to get the ball rolling on her supporting a purple line extension down whittier as a means of rail equity in light of the wilshire extension rather than getting mad and being for nothing. I wish I had more time (3 kids, full time job, grad school, consulting, run a nonprofit) to court local politicos from each town in the area, as well as more MTA folks. I have been going to planning meetings for the esgl and public transit in the area for almost 8 years now, many of the things I warned the MTA about on the esgl have now come to fruition. I dont want to take all the credit for it, but I noted better landscaping, multiple entrances and certain other small features now on the esgl back when nobody was talking about them, and hope I had a part in them being placed in the final design. I have sent over 2 dozen letters and made numerous calls to Metro staff regarding rail and PT service in this area, and in LA as a whole. I also spent a lot of time trying to get the word to Mayor V's people (jaime de la loza, etc) about some issues I had with their rail plans, and am confident that some of them were successful in reaching political ears. The mayor has changed the MTA's 30/10 plans for the wilshire corridor to have the purple line go up the 405 to the valley as priority over the santa monica pier area almost exactly around the time I was trying to convey that message to his people. Which was cool if I had anything to do with it. I like that enema quip, Im gonna use it.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 18, 2010 22:10:04 GMT -8
Art: Thanks for bringing up the fallacy of Metrolink being the answer for close-in areas. There's a coterie of railfans who've never forgiven LA Metro for making the former Santa Fe line from LA to Pasadena a "trolley line" instead of keeping the "real railroad", doing a few upgrades and running Metrolink trains on it. Being an electric railway fan who remembers Pacific Electric, I was overjoyed to see "trolley power" return to the San Gabriel Valley, and like being able to take the Gold Line to LA without having to wait more than ten or so minutes during the day, and even have service running until almost midnight--something that Metrolink can't do.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2010 23:12:10 GMT -8
Art and Bobdavis, I appreciate your work and experience on the Gold Line extensions, and I don't pretend to understand all the politics associated with Metrolink. But by suggesting upgrades to Metrolink routes, I am not offering these cities something inferior to electric light rail. Metrolink can and should be run like the Tokyo rail lines or the Paris RER, where very frequent electric trains run all day long, serving suburbs and the inner urban areas as well. The best local role model we have is Caltrain, which currently only runs every 30 minutes during the day and stops every 1 mile, but plans to electrify, grade-separate the line (along with HSR using the right-of-way) and improve service. If things work out, trains would run every 10 or 15 minutes all day, more frequently during rush hour, with multiple stops in every city between San Francisco and San Jose. Limited-stop and Express trains would provide fast commutes for long-distance riders, but local trains would provide Rapid Transit (BART / Metro) quality service, with even higher average trip speeds, due to 110 mph max speeds and good acceleration. If Metrolink had the political power and money to make that happen, we could have stops every 1 mile for local service, which would be just as fast and frequent as the Red Line, and still run limited-stop service to the current, widely-spaced stations, so commuters from San Bernardino and Riverside could get to LA quickly. With the new High Speed Rail plans potentially adding two new tracks to the LOSSAN corridor for passenger rail, there will be enough capacity to run trains very frequently, and the wires will be in place to run modern electric trains at up to 110 mph. I agree with the need for a Purple Line extension down Whittier in the long term, if the cities want it and will support zoning changes to make it successful (parking maximums rather than minimums, better sidewalks and bike infrastructure, higher density commercial and residential within 1/4 mile of stations). And if the cost is kept down I can see how the GLEE II down 60 would be useful. But right now Metrolink service is not useful as transit outside of commute hours. It could be much better, and the upgrades would be cheap. Certainly, upgrading Metrolink to light rail frequencies and acceleration would be better than building a new light rail line on Washington in these communities, no? In this map, I sketched out what 1 mile station spacing for metrolink would look like: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=102764232639575421873.0004807ba0fe451efdd65&ll=33.994327,-118.032646&spn=0.1446,0.308647&z=12 Limited stop station could be every 3 to 5 miles (Most likely at the existing stations), with high speed rail stations 10 to 20 miles apart according to current plans.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2010 23:14:44 GMT -8
Now, for Metrolink to do this, it may need a different political structure and some tax base. Metro has money as a county-wide, independent agency and gets great support from Measure R and earlier measures. If Metrolink had that sort of independence and funding, it could be much better. As long as it is left begging for money from each county, ticket prices will be high and frequencies low. I agree that the current service is no substitute for light rail. But that is not an argument against Regional Rail as a part of the transit solution for our area.
|
|