Yellow Line deleted off wikipedia.

[tkjazzer]

"*The ''Yellow Line'' is a proposed light-rail line which would run from [[North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California|North Hollywood]] to Downtown L.A., serving the communities of [[Burbank, California|Burbank]], [[Glendale, California|Glendale]], [[Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California|Silver Lake]], and [[Echo Park, Los Angeles, California|Echo Park]] en route. Part of the proposed route, a former Southern Pacific railway alignment along Chandler Boulevard in Burbank, has recently been converted by the City of Burbank to a bicycle path and parkway, thus reducing the likelihood this line would come to fruition. The Yellow Line proposal also advocates use of the former Belmont tunnel built by the Pacific Electric system, not in use since 1955. The land adjacent to the tunnel exit near Second Street and Beverly Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles, long vacant, has recently been sold. An apartment complex is now being built on the site, making it much less likely this area could be used for a new rail line."

This was deleted off wikipedia in:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Metro_Rail&curid=1817879&diff=177122727&oldid=177121381

I do not know much about anything, but I thought I would post here in case anyone cares to protest the deletion.

[bluelineshawn]

It's not a realistic possibility so I agree with the deletion.

[nickv]

tkjazzer,

I wouldn't protest the removal of the Metro Yellow Line.

After reading the deleted article, I think the author of the proposed Yellow Line never included sources to a transit advocacy organization. That's probably why it was deleted. The proposed Silver Line that was in the same section of the Metro article is referrenced to the Transit Coalition; that's why that proposal was left untouched.

I don't know if So Cal Transit Advocates is advocating the Yellow Line or not, but I know that the Transit Coalition is advocating 30 minute Metrolink service for both the Antelope Valley Line and Ventura County Line (to Chatsworth) which will cover much of the proposed Metro Yellow Line corridor. I suggest visiting these sites for more information:

www.metrolinkmax.com/
www.thetransitcoalition.us/newsletterpaper/NL200710v11a.pdf

Speaking of which, does anybody agree to metioning the Metrolink Max project in Wikipedia's Metrolink article? The Transit Coalition is proposing this project; thus I find it appropriate to be mentioned in Wikipedia as the Harbor Subdivision corridor project is mentioned. I think it would expand public awareness of this project.

[tonyw79sfv]

Even still, the Yellow Line would be very low on the priorities list. There is already the Red Line going from North Hollywood to Downtown LA; Burbank and Glendale have Metrolink stations and as Nick eluded to, the proposed Metrolink Max all-day train service would serve those cities, although not to the degree that Metro Rail does, but that would be the best the San Fernando Valley gets in terms of rail service since the Orange Line was fought tooth and nail and became a bus route and the subway stopped at North Hollywood, which barely covers the Valley, with its 1k parking spaces is filled with people that don't bother with buses. Besides, we still got the issue of getting rail to the Westside first from DTLA and hopefully the Valley.

[bluelineshawn]

The entire citizens advocacy section should be deleted. It's misleading since none of those proposals have any political support.

[bluelineshawn]

Except for the Harbor line.

[gibiscus]

I made my own version of the Yellow Line which would would branch off of the Gold Line after it crosses the river, then follow the Metrolink line to Glendale station, connecting the Cornfield and Taylor Yard parks as well as the offices by Taylor Yard and the LACC extension in the old Van De Kamp's factory. From there, it would use Los Feliz and Brand to go to downtown Glendale, where it would turn west to the LA Zoo. From there it would turn north again to a stop between ABC 7 and Dreamworks and then either use the Metrolink line into Burbank station or use Glenoaks to get more into its downtown. After Burbank Metrolink, it would turn west to connect to the Red Line to North Hollywood and continue onto a converted Orange Line, but there should also be a branch to Bob Hope Airport. If there is ever a line from Pasadena through Eagle Rock, this line would take the branch to the airport (Glendale and Pasadena are co-owners along with Burbank) while the line from LA would connect to the Orange Line.

[fredmcain]

Group,

I was hoping I might be allowed to dust off this old thread on the "Yellow Line" and reopen it since I only recently heard about it and became interested in the subject. But I have to say that finding information on it has been extremely difficult and finding ACCURATE information on it impossible.

First of all, Wikipedia STILL makes mention of this so called "Yellow Line". They state that it is "Included as a Tier 2 strategic unfunded project in the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan."  Oh, really?  So, I Googled for this 2009 Long Range Plan and sure enough, I found this on page 31.  So, it IS there.  But, I sent an e-mail to Metro inquiring about the "Yellow Line" and was told that Metro had NO plan like that whatsoever.  So, I then asked "then what does this mean on page 31?".  No response, yet.  However, it is also true that no mention is made in the plan concerning the reopening of the Belmont Tunnel.  Only that there is a "Yellow Line" on in the Tier 2 unfunded project (i.e. "wish list")

The only other mention I have been able to find about a so-called "Yellow Line" is on this page: kurtrademaekers.com/park2parkla/030915/silveryellowline/silveryellowline.htm

If you scroll clear down to the bottom, you will see the mention of a Mr. George Vail who was evidently pushing this.  But all efforts to contact him have failed.  E-mails sent to him have come back as undeliverable.  So, has anyone on this forum ever heard of George Vail?  Who is he, anyway?  Is he per chance on this group?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

[Philip]

Welcome to the board, Fred!

I've never heard of Mr. Vail myself, but to comment a bit on the Yellow Line - not unlike the Silver Line LRT, it was a project that gained some early momentum, but quickly lost traction. This happened for a number of reasons (from my perspective, may anyone please feel free to correct me):

--Lack of local support - there simply wasn't enough demand from the local communities for the service. Unlike the Foothill Gold Line, locals around the proposed Yellow Line seem to not share the same enthusiasm for rail transit. That's not to say they were AGAINST it per se; there just didn't seem to be much demand.

--Low priority - at the current rate of funding, the Yellow Line would not be eligable to be built for probably another 30-40 years or so. Without a source of dedicated funds, the project is basically doomed to be a paper concept, especially with so many other projects ahead of it.

--Logistical/Construction Issues - part of the line proposed would use the former Pacific Electric Belmont tunnel to connect to the existing rail lines downtown. This tunnel was actually sealed years ago and any usage, though not impossible, would be difficult and costly to bring up to today's standards. This was considered as an option for the Downtown Regional Connector as well, but abandoned for the same reasons.

--Low Ridership? - This is pure speculation on my part, but much of the line essentially duplicates service on the current Metro 92 bus and while it can be a busy line, it's far from being one of Metro's stars.

I don't know why Metro would refrain from commenting on the project; they also never responded to my tweets asking about the Green/Crenshaw line leaving an opening for a future Green Line extension on Lincoln to Santa Monica. Maybe it's just their way to not discuss potential projects for fear of rumors getting started. Who knows.

[fredmcain]

Phillip,

Thanks for responding! My thinking was that the so-called "Yellow Line" when it was first conceived might not have made a whole lot of sense but now with the possibility emerging that the "Orange" bus route might one day be converted to rail, I think a "Yellow Line" makes sense. With the Orange Line light rail and connected to a possible Yellow line, this would provide for a one-seat ride downtown from "the Valley".  So, I wanted to get a hold of this guy George Vail to see what his thinking might be but I have been unable to find him.  Perhaps he is even no longer around, I don't know.

A guy on another list suggested that it would make more sense to replace the "Orange" bus route with an extended Red Line subway but unfortunately we'd be looking at some pretty big mega bucks to do that.

Whoever this guy Vail is, he might've just been struck with the same idea I had.  The disuse of the Belmont Tunnel & subway stands as a terrible waste of a resource. I too believe that is a fact but I fear that the time to save the tunnel passed many years ago.

In fact, it is a downright shame that not more of the Pacific Electric right of way was saved.  As early as the mid 1960s there was a growing perception and consensus that the Greater Los Angeles area would be requiring some kind of rail transit in the future.  At that time many of the right of ways were still in existence and it wouldn't have cost so much for the state or counties to have acquired them for possible future transit use.  They did not do that.  Two that survived and are getting utilized today (Blue & Expo lines) survived through a series of lucky quirks.

Along with the Belmont, another case in point is the extension of Light Rail from downtown L.A. to Santa Ana.  Much of the right of way between Watts and I-105 has been obliterated.  What a shame indeed !

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

[johanragle]

Hello all, and many thanks for (finally) getting my account approved. I've posted a few times before in the guest-accessible areas as Crayz9000_guest.

I've given quite a bit of thought to this proposal, and since the Belmont Tunnel was pretty much wrecked (by the Bonaventure Hotel) by the time the original Yellow Line proposal came to light (never mind how the Belmont Tunnel would be almost impossible to connect to the Regional Connector), it was obvious that another alternative would be required.

With that in mind, it seems as if it may be possible for Metro to build a spur off the Gold Line tracks in Chinatown and run elevated over Chinatown and the 110. This would allow a stop to be placed in Elysian Park/Echo Park, right in front of Dodger Stadium. The route could then run through a short tunnel from the stadium to the old right of way along Glendale Boulevard.

Another challenge would be figuring out a way to get the train back through the old cut now occupied by CA-2, but since Caltrans wants to remove the old flyover anyway, I figure the future re-configuration would be a perfect opportunity to add tracks to the median of the freeway. A bridge would have to be built to allow the train to pass over the southbound exit lanes and reconnect to the private right of way in Silverlake.

The last major hurdle would be rebuilding the old PE bridge over the LA River, which presents a challenge since a bike bridge is slated for construction there. No reason why both modes of transport couldn't be accomodated, however.

The modified route is on my fantasy map here: www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zFurjmU9jKtU.kbiCtawbTYCo

Having said that, I agree with Philip that funding is the biggest problem. While it would be very desirable to have frequent direct train service from Burbank/Glendale into downtown LA, I'm not sure how Metro would be able to allocate the funding for this next to the other high priority projects.

[Philip]

Another issue mentioned above is the fact that the Red Line already provides rapid service from the valley to Downtown. Burbank and Glendale are just close enough to both destinations (the Red Line and Downtown, respectively) that justifying the need for this service would be a tall order, especially with the lack of a Purple line that goes to the beach, or a Green Line that goes to the Norwalk Metrolink, or a Crenshaw Line that goes to Wilshire...and so on and so on.

We're also talking about very suburban, car-centric parts of town. Annoying as it is that bus service between these areas is so scarce, a short-term solution would perhaps be strengthening these services we have.

Having lived in Burbank for three years (and now NoHo for four), I would still be a huge proponent of such a line. There's just no political will or local interest it would seem.

[fredmcain]

Philip,

Yeah, well, maybe that's what this guy Vail discovered too.  Someone on another list (I can't remember where I saw it) said that he had a really good website on the "Yellow" and "Silver" lines and that it's really a shame that the site has been taken down.  Probably they got discouraged and gave up.

I think at the very bottom of it, there are some good ideas behind such a line but, as you say, the will is just not there.  Maybe that would change someday if it becomes easier to fund new lines.  I don't see that happening right away, though, but, hey!  The L.A. area is light years ahead of where it once was.  There's a guy I like to quote from another list who also writes for Railway Age who says that "This might not be 1947 anymore but it sure ain't 1974, either! "  How true that is!  We have much to be thankful for even if more could still be done.

Thanks for your info and input!

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

[johanragle]

Funding aside, the biggest problem I see with my Chinatown-to-Elysian Park route idea has to do with the grades. I don't have GIS software so it's difficult for me to estimate the maximum grades that the trains would have to climb and descend both between the Gold Line tracks and through the tunnel from Elysian Park to Glendale Boulevard.

Either way, between the tunnel and construction of elevated tracks, I think that would be the biggest investment in such a line. Sure, you could spare some expense by following the LA River as others have proposed, but that's going to run into right-of-way issues between Metrolink and eventually CA HSR. You also wouldn't get the ridership draw of providing nearly doorstep service to Dodger Stadium (which is something both the Gold Line and Expo Lines currently enjoy on game days to the Rose Bowl and Galen Center/Coliseum, respectively).

However, I will note that one of the biggest problems with assuming the Red Line provides sufficient Valley service is that the connecting bus service to Glendale and Burbank absolutely sucks. It takes far too long to get to/from North Hollywood; you can beat the buses if you use the Chandler Bike Path, but that just goes to highlight the absurdity of it. A direct run from Burbank and Glendale, particularly along the more densely populated Glenoaks/Brand corridors, does make a certain degree of sense.

I wonder how the 92 would perform as a Rapid "792" if bus lanes were added to its route, a la Wilshire BRT? Might be a good and inexpensive exercise to see if it's possible to draw better ridership along the route.

[Philip]

Feb 20, 2015 12:40:17 GMT -8 johanragle said:

However, I will note that one of the biggest problems with assuming the Red Line provides sufficient Valley service is that the connecting bus service to Glendale and Burbank absolutely sucks. It takes far too long to get to/from North Hollywood; you can beat the buses if you use the Chandler Bike Path, but that just goes to highlight the absurdity of it. A direct run from Burbank and Glendale, particularly along the more densely populated Glenoaks/Brand corridors, does make a certain degree of sense.

I wonder how the 92 would perform as a Rapid "792" if bus lanes were added to its route, a la Wilshire BRT? Might be a good and inexpensive exercise to see if it's possible to draw better ridership along the route.

A few years back, Metro proposed the idea of eliminating the 183 bus service west of Burbank and extending the 92 bus over its route to serve North Hollywood. While service would have still been seldom in later hours, it would at least exist (as opposed to the way the 183 shuts down between 8:00 and 10:00 at night). Unfortunately, this never came to pass.

It becomes one of those 'chicken or the egg' scenarios; if service was extended/enhanced, would more people ride? Or is the reason the service is so weak is because no one is riding? The Powers That Be tend to lean more towards the latter. It makes no sense to run a bunch of empty buses along a corridor when busier corridors could benefit from those buses (even though in a perfect scenario, the service should still exist no matter what).

Basically something like this would take a hybrid of what the Foothill Gold Line folks and the Downtown Streetcar folks have accompllished - public support from locals and politicians across the cities and some form of funding (like a sales tax) to get the ball rolling.