|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 11, 2013 21:52:39 GMT -8
Drove down Aviation Bl in EL Segundo this week 1/8/13. The line is cut just south of Imperial Hwy rails removed with a red sign between the rails.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Feb 19, 2013 18:37:48 GMT -8
Drove down Aviation Bl in EL Segundo this week 1/8/13. The line is cut just south of Imperial Hwy rails removed with a red sign between the rails. i too drove by the row along La Cienega Blvd.and i saw the line dug up-along the LAX landing strip. It was cut up in two small sections.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 9, 2013 8:07:15 GMT -8
I rode my bicycle down Crenshaw Blvd and saw some work removing the rails around Crenshaw/Florence, must be utility work for Crenshaw Line?
|
|
|
Post by skater on Dec 9, 2013 14:59:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 10, 2013 9:18:19 GMT -8
I don't know the area well, but isn't the Harbor Subdivision ROW wide enough to accomodate this and at least one track for a rail line? A single-tracked Metrolink line from Downtown to LAX (with proper fencing and grade separation) would still serve these areas well I think.
In any event, I doubt this project would go forward if it meant all rail alternatives were eliminated. Metro knows this is a key corridor for a future rail line, even if they lack the funds to do anything about it right now.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 10, 2013 11:20:43 GMT -8
This is too bad. What people don't realize is that even the transit-dependent people prefer trains to buses. Instead of gold-clad lines like Expo or triple-gold-clad lines like the Crenshaw Line, they could build entirely at-grade lines with some crossing gates or they could build Metrolink-like service. It could be done for a few hundred million dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 10, 2013 14:43:00 GMT -8
This is too bad. What people don't realize is that even the transit-dependent people prefer trains to buses. Instead of gold-clad lines like Expo or triple-gold-clad lines like the Crenshaw Line, they could build entirely at-grade lines with some crossing gates or they could build Metrolink-like service. It could be done for a few hundred million dollars. Gokhan, as much as I'm pro-at-grade rail in many areas, there are only certain parts of L.A. where it should exist (much like there are certain parts where only subways and elevateds should exist). If we're going to build a rapid transit system, speed has to be considered and a bunch of fully at-grade rail lines simply won't cut it. The Expo, Blue, and Gold lines, despite running fine at-grade in parts, suffer because of the areas where they should *not* be running at-grade.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Dec 10, 2013 17:11:12 GMT -8
^the harbor subdivision along Slauson is good for at grade because it is not street running but a private right of way. Definatly, if a line was built here, people would use it and of course prefer it to a bus. It is a shame if they waste it, when they can build a good park, when they can make a good park by removing any of those warehouses.
I wonder how would a harbor submission line reach downtown? aren't the tracks between Slauson and union station along the river still active?
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jan 9, 2014 9:35:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 9, 2014 11:32:40 GMT -8
Sure, the trails are good. However, few people use them. If they could built light-rail or commuter rail, tens of thousands of people a day would use it. Do the math: Light-rail costs $2b and 40k people a day use it. Bike trail costs $40 million and 200 people a day use it. Cost per person for light-rail: $50,000 Cost per person for bike trail: $200,000 The very nice old BNSF/ATSF right-of-way through Manhattan and Hermosa Beaches was also lost to a trail. Few people, perhaps a few dozen a day, use it. It would be a great Green Line extension there and then perhaps 40,000 people a day would use it. Besides, these days light-rail usually comes with a trail next to it. This seems to be a political move by Mark-Ridley Thomas and Gloria Molina to please local groups to gather votes more than anything else: Don't worry; we won't let them put rail in your backyard and we'll just put a trail that only a few will use.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 9, 2014 12:11:01 GMT -8
Sure, the trails are good. However, few people use them. If they could built light-rail or commuter rail, tens of thousands of people a day would use it. Do the math: Light-rail costs $2b and 40k people a day use it. Bike trail costs $40 million and 200 people a day use it. Cost per person for light-rail: $50,000 Cost per person for bike trail: $200,000 The very nice old BNSF/ATSF right-of-way through Manhattan and Hermosa Beaches was also lost to a trail. Few people, perhaps a few dozen a day, use it. It would be a great Green Line extension there and then perhaps 40,000 people a day would use it. Besides, these days light-rail usually comes with a trail next to it. This seems to be a political move by Mark-Ridley Thomas and Gloria Molina to please local groups to gather votes more than anything else: Don't worry; we won't let them put rail in your backyard and we'll just put a trail that only a few will use. I agree that our rail lines are too politicized and not enough of a regional approach is taken. This is why the Green Line doesn't connect to Metrolink, there will be no Harbor Sub Line, the SGV leaders push for the Gold Line when double tracking and electrifying the Metrolink SB Line is a better project and so forth. The Harbor Sub was never going to happen as a LAX to LAUS connection, because people in South LA just don't want it and this is where the line goes through. Sadly, this pretty much stops a line in many cases. The Purple Line under Beverly Hills is another test even though they have no rational reason to stop it. Instead we get the Gold Line to Montclair and the Crenshaw Line, which don't connect to any real destinations.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 9, 2014 13:15:46 GMT -8
Pretty spot-on, Masonite.
While I look forward to any expansion of the Metro system, the approach taken in today's current climate will still leave much to be desired for years to come.
It's amazing that even once the all the Measure R projects are finished, there will still be significant gaps in the system.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 24, 2018 15:15:01 GMT -8
Drove down Aviation BL near Imperial Hwy on 08/21/2018. Saw that dirt pile on ATSF ROW south of Imperial has been removed.
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jun 14, 2019 11:32:06 GMT -8
Today's Daily Breeze 06/14/2019 has a BNSF notice to abandon part of the Harbor sub. Mile post 2.0 to about 7.0
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 22, 2019 18:42:38 GMT -8
Today's Daily Breeze 06/14/2019 has a BNSF notice to abandon part of the Harbor sub. Mile post 2.0 to about 7.0 This is the section I believe where the rail to river project is being built, so BNSF would need to abandon it in order for the tracks o be removed. Active Transportation Rail to River Corridor
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Mar 13, 2020 13:30:18 GMT -8
Metro has announced that the dirt pile on the ATSF row along Aviation BL will be removed. Dump trucks will take two to three weeks to move the pile.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Apr 17, 2021 8:39:56 GMT -8
Metro’s board will be voting on leasing a section of the Harbor Subdivision to the City of LA for 30 years to build a business incubator and workforce resource center. This probably means it’s unlikely we’ll see the Slauson sections of the Harbor Subdivision used for a transit line, as was studied about a decade and a half ago.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 17, 2021 13:01:58 GMT -8
Metro’s board will be voting on leasing a section of the Harbor Subdivision to the City of LA for 30 years to build a business incubator and workforce resource center. This probably means it’s unlikely we’ll see the Slauson sections of the Harbor Subdivision used for a transit line, as was studied about a decade and a half ago. No, I don't think that's what's happening. You can see from Google Maps that this is just a wide portion of the ROW and they are leasing the portion that's wider than the rest. Most of the ROW is about 40' and there are a few bits where it's wider. This one is 81', so they are leasing the portion that they wouldn't need anyway. They pretty much state this in the document: The Property takes up the north-half of a wide parcel of ROW. Metro’s R2R project requires only the south-half of the parcel, and there is no other Metro project planned for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2022 21:41:55 GMT -8
Sure, the trails are good. However, few people use them. If they could built light-rail or commuter rail, tens of thousands of people a day would use it. Do the math: Light-rail costs $2b and 40k people a day use it. Bike trail costs $40 million and 200 people a day use it. Cost per person for light-rail: $50,000 Cost per person for bike trail: $200,000 The very nice old BNSF/ATSF right-of-way through Manhattan and Hermosa Beaches was also lost to a trail. Few people, perhaps a few dozen a day, use it. It would be a great Green Line extension there and then perhaps 40,000 people a day would use it. Besides, these days light-rail usually comes with a trail next to it. This seems to be a political move by Mark-Ridley Thomas and Gloria Molina to please local groups to gather votes more than anything else: Don't worry; we won't let them put rail in your backyard and we'll just put a trail that only a few will use. Revisiting Gokhan’s 2014 post on the expensive cost of the then $40m estimated cost for the Harbor Subdivision bike path. The project is finally proceeding to construction, with a budgeted cost of $116 million.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 15, 2022 11:28:00 GMT -8
Construction costs are rising, but this project doesn't have the infrastructure that would cause a three-fold increase. Maybe it includes utility relocation? If so, that might set it up well for future rail conversion.
And I think that Gokhan was way off. I think that thousands will use this new path both for commuting and exercise. Lots of new housing coming along this route and it makes sense to give all residents new and pleasant route options because traffic will be increasing a it's already a park poor area of the city.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2022 22:58:13 GMT -8
$116 million for 6 miles of bike trail... I hope it is paved with gold.
$116 million could have probably paid for at least 50 miles of protected bike lanes on some key commute routes.
|
|