|
Post by JerardWright on May 4, 2008 18:51:42 GMT -8
Why'd you erase the last sentence you originally posted? No need to get smarmy or snippy, I am genuinely trying to figure out where you're coming from and little else. I thought we were friends yoda? Even though, it wasn't snippy. On second review, it appeared snippy which is precisely why I eliminated because saying one thing in person and typing it on a discussion board can take something that really has no meaning and unneccessarily elevate it. (pardon the pun)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 4, 2008 19:21:40 GMT -8
With all due respect to all parties concerned, it seems that there's a lot of confusion as to how an Eastside/East L.A. County network would best be arranged. As I've said before, there are plenty of maps for the Westside/Mid-City/Downtown area...and now we're seeing things come to fruition.
It strikes me that an Eastside LRT that utilizes the 60 freeway or an adjacent alignment is too darn far from the I-5 freeway, and perhaps part of the problem is that we're arguing/debating over which project should go first. The Expo Line was always supposed to go to Santa Monica, and that was agreed to when it was approved by Metro, but did we ever as a county agree to where the Eastside LRT needed to terminate? We've got this crazy Orange Line MagLev plan for the old PE ROW that perhaps should be considered for LRT, and it appears that many believe that this Eastside LRT project should be scrapped for much if any extension beyond Whittier Blvd. in favor of a revisitation of an Eastside extension of the Red or Purple Lines.
The Eastside ideas appear to be all over the place...and isn't that part of what hurt the finalization of an Eastside HRT years ago. Where's the map and the comprehensive and cohesive policy?
Should a cheaper and smaller Eastside LRT extension to Whittier Blvd. be evaluated as a project that could find cheaper and quicker funding (and screw the imps on the Montebello City Council if the whole region will suffer!)?
Should a cheaper and easier to plan Busway from the Eastside LRT to serve the 60 freeway corridor be pursued instead of a more expensive LRT that doesn't serve so much of the region to the south and east (my nurses in my Anaheim clinic, almost all of whom are Latina with very strong Eastside/East L.A. roots, all seemed to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally like this Eastside LRT extension idea to Whittier when I inquired to them about it and showed them the maps?).
What exactly should the route of an Eastside HRT be? Art, I hear your passion and I admire your moving up the ladder of success (it hasn't been easy, but I've followed your discussion pieces over the years and you've reeeeeeeeally come a long way, bro!), but I think it was a few key MAPS that allowed F4ET and FoGL and TTC to have their ideas capture the minds and hearts of the politicians, the press and the general public.
I have no doubt that folks like Art and Jerard understand this area more in their little finger than I do with my whole being, but I really need to see some maps to better illustrate your points. I'm even open to having some evening meetings to hammer things out and help come up with some compromise and debate (as long we keep it civil between us friends, it's OK, and I remind you all that those on the TTC Board have really had some big disagreements over the years, so it's OK to let things cut loose, within reason).
We need a map, folks. The Eastside LRT ain't going away, it ain't being deconstructed, and it will certainly be a different entity after the Downtown Connector is built. It's also safe to say that any Eastside LRT extension will be at the end of a very long line of projects to be built...so we've got some time.
We still need a map and a priority list (an Eastside LRTP priority list, of sorts) to guide the politicians and the urban planners. Metro listened to FoGL, F4ET and TTC, and they'll listen to the folks in the SGV, too (believe it or not).
Let's see some maps, folks.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 4, 2008 19:39:12 GMT -8
Atlantic is engineered like a mini highway and it still bottlenecks around here. Both side of the boulevard have street fronting retail for much of the stretch you are talking about, and bulldozing them seems illogical. And seriously, you are talking about bullldozing a stretch of this area's main N/S corridor, yet dismissing the 60 alignment because of the presence of a few gas stations? Makes no sense See this is where it doesn't make sense most of its my fault because I only mentioned the gas stations, but theres the Golf Course on Garfield and the very hilly open areas next to the freeway. The destruction you see on Atlantic, I don't see happening. Through this conversation I can throw one more possible branch to mitigate this and that's Arizona to Whittier Blvd, which would be closer to the shopping areas and provide the carrot to get that Whittier HRT. But the hub of this discussion is basing an alignment on developmental opportunities and seeing the sites in question which may impact how said development will function, be designed in conjunction with the LRT and how it improves upon the immediate area. This is where I'm having a hard time seeing the merits of the 60 corridor, because the developments in question will be designed to be too internal providing no opportunities for quality street life or oppotunities to improve pedestrian connections. These are things we really don't even need the transit line to do to make happen. Why, because of the 60 Freeway. Unless the development are all office space development which doesn't matter on soil conditions. When this project is over with. LOL Let's go out with tape measures one day and measure this all out. Visually I don't see the space in which you are going to BUILD and provide mitigation, unless the State allows us to use that entire stretch which looks to me to between 35 to 50 feet in some locations. I'm talking from an architectural perspective and training which is telling me I need more than one option on the table for this to work. You're looking from a planning perspective.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 4, 2008 19:42:56 GMT -8
Actually, jerard, my apologies. I think I am being snippy upon further review, my bad. You raise some good points and again, I am bowing down to yoda. Now show me how to make my spaceship levitate out of the water
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 4, 2008 19:44:50 GMT -8
Ken, page 3 post #37 I made a map. I'll get on illustrator when I have some time at work to make something less busy.
Jerard, when's the party?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 4, 2008 20:01:42 GMT -8
Jerard, when's the party? Give me a call and the party can be anytime! LOL
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 4, 2008 20:53:04 GMT -8
but did we ever as a county agree to where the Eastside LRT needed to terminate? The c. 2000 plan for Eastside light rail was intended to go to Whittier, likely along Whittier Blvd. Later in the process it abruptly got cut back to Atlantic. Here's an old population density (1990 Census) map I did of it: Blue = over 30,000 people/sq.mi. Pink = 20-30,000 Red = 10-20,000 Orange = 5-10,000 Yellow = 0-5,000
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 4, 2008 21:27:13 GMT -8
...so, love it or hate it, this is still roughly according to previous plans consistent with the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 4, 2008 21:30:29 GMT -8
By the way, Art, I see and like the maps, yet what I'd reeeeeeeally like to see is YOUR vision of what the Eastside rail system ought to be like in 2030-40. I presume that would include Downtown and Eastside connections to serve a comprehensive access to local bus and Metrolink connections.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 29, 2008 15:07:10 GMT -8
It's been awhile since I brought this up, and I'd rather it not devolve into a screamathon, but there's mutterings that Gloria Molina wants the Eastside LRT extended to/along the 60 freeway corridor.
I've heard folks like Art suggest that leaving nothing for the area between the Eastside and Whittier isn't such a bad thing, because an extension to Whittier isn't really serving the transit-dependent areas.
Should a two-pronged approach to the Eastside LRT be pursued (one branch to the 60 corridor and the other branch to Whittier), with the first phase being a central trunk for the entire region?
What are the three first-, second- and third-ranked projects that should be built to service the Eastside south of the Foothill Gold Line?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 30, 2008 7:16:23 GMT -8
It's been awhile since I brought this up, and I'd rather it not devolve into a screamathon, but there's mutterings that Gloria Molina wants the Eastside LRT extended to/along the 60 freeway corridor. thats disappointing...
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 30, 2008 10:23:05 GMT -8
It's been awhile since I brought this up, and I'd rather it not devolve into a screamathon, but there's mutterings that Gloria Molina wants the Eastside LRT extended to/along the 60 freeway corridor. What are the three first-, second- and third-ranked projects that should be built to service the East-side south of the Foothill Gold Line? I think along the 60 is a great idea, but they may have to go aerial on the s/s of the freeway. Then put a stop at the Montebello mall and then curve south to Whittier. This could be the Whittier Spur. But the NIMBY's number's in Whittier may not approve of the light rail because they have converted the old Union Pacific ROW in to a green way trail. Some folks want to follow the ROW along to Washington Bl. or even go all the way to the 605/ Green-line station. But judging at the amount of people who ride the Long Beach College bus from El Monte is next to Few and none. The train could go down to Slauson Ave. and continue to the ROW along Lambert road and out to the Orange County Boarder.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 30, 2008 23:35:29 GMT -8
but there's mutterings that Gloria Molina wants the Eastside LRT extended to/along the 60 freeway corridor. There are moments where I wish stupidity on this level were a felony in the state. Then again, Ms. Molina is getting on in years and maybe this is dementia setting in. No rail should go on SR-60 period. I could go for an express bus, though. If there was a way for the bus to run along the El Monte Busway to CSULA, then go south to the 60 freeway, it would be all good. (There's only a ramp to the North 710, which is used by Line 485, and it would be dumb to dogleg to Valley Boulevard and then head south.) The 60 freeway has a few destinations along it -- Montebello Town Center and Puente Hills Mall, to name two -- and the bus would have to exit the freeway to serve the stations. The pedestrian access is dreadful. This is a case where a bus is optimal. This is also a case where rail would be, at best, a catastrophe. I am also shocked and appalled by the city of Montebello's opposition to running a light rail line along Whittier or Beverly boulevards. There is something funny in Montebello's folly. See, we can kind of spot Gloria Molina for her stupidity. Not so for the Montebello City Council. See, the city council is actually responsible for running a bus system. ;D I was laughing for five minutes after I typed that. Let me explain the humor. Montebello runs two very busy, very productive bus lines: 10, along Whittier Boulevard, and 40, from downtown L.A. to north Whittier on East Fourth Street and East Beverly Boulevard. One really good indicator of rail ridership is ridership on parallel bus lines. In this case, it would be both Whittier and Beverly boulevards. The streets are only a half mile apart in Montebello. They are close enough together that light rail can treat 10 and 40 as a single line. Combine the ridership and you have a foundation for good light rail patronage. Whittier is the most ideal route, as it is the most important arterial in that area. Beverly Boulevard would be the second-best choice, as it would better serve north Whittier. I think the Montebello council was being mendacious. They are being anti-rail through equivocation. They'll let Metro build rail in an area where it will fail: Washington Boulevard. I've ridden Montebello 50 -- end to end -- and East Washington runs through the industrial sections of Commerce, Montebello and Pico Rivera. This is a horrible place to run a train. The bus is lucky to see what ridership it does have; a train would make San Jose look like the New York subways at 8 a.m. Also, promises of redeveloping Washington to be more transit-friendly should be dismissed. Whittier and Beverly can be left intact -- no redevelopment needed -- and produce good ridership. Redeveloping Washington would mean displacing the industrial business and replacing them with ... Redevelopment is a crap shoot, and considering that the businesses that would get the most upside from transit are already gravitating toward Whittier and Beverly, there's no guarantee the retailers would want to take over the industrial space on Washington.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Aug 5, 2008 19:07:45 GMT -8
The most dense, transit dependant portions of the Whittier Blvd corridor are west of Garfield Avenue (or even moreso west of Atlantic Blvd). It would be a shame to place a light rai line down the corrdior that skips the most important, ridership garnering, needy community serving portion of a line just to get something down there fast. Extending the current esgoldline to Whittier from its eastern terminus would be brushing off Boyle Heights and East LA for commuters in pico Rivera and Whitter, which would be a sahme.
Plus, the whittier corridor is very dense, has high ridership, and is quite a long distance from DTLA to Uptown whittier or beverly/whit. A street running light rail line would take A VERY LONG TIME to reach the end, not provide adequate scapacity (and speed) for such a dense corridor, and mos timportantly divert attention and money from a possible whittier boulevard purple line HRT extension into impossibility. Putting a the esgoldline to whittier would kill any political chance of money for heavy rail down whittier. Also, given the Sup.'s animosity over no eastside heavy rail (as shown in her tax vote), the purpleline extension which would run from 7th station through SE DTLA and then through Boyle hts and ELA would be the perfect solution, it would be the eastern compliment to the mayor's "subway to the sea" and garner the support of a lot more people and areas.
Given these realities, I support the 60 route, but dont care about it going beyond the Montebello center for now, with a stop at Garfield/Wilcox (which would serve a fairly dense cluster of apartments on both sides); anything east of that can wait behind other priority projects. This alignemnt can run onthe south edge of the 60 freeway, seperated from the freeway traffic on a dirt hill that provides pre-existing elevated alignment.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 5, 2008 20:16:36 GMT -8
when was it ever said that this line would be entirely at grade?
would not an elevated or submerged line suit your speed issues?
this would be the first time, well since the 1970s plan, that i have heard about a need for a subway to whittier.
granted, who would not prefer a subway, but when life give you lemons...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 5, 2008 21:36:38 GMT -8
Considering Sup. Molina's vote, I would argue that this project is the LAST project likely to ever see the light of day. It's not even that she tried to create a Purple Line extension to serve the Eastside, either--once she saw that the Eastside got only a LRT instead of HRT she appears committed to no one getting any project, whatsoever.
At this point, I'm not even certain why (if this project has no constituency, political or otherwise) this project study is even moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Aug 5, 2008 21:38:35 GMT -8
By the way, for the record, I still think the Eastside should have gotten some Red/Purple Line HRT...but I haven't seen Sup. Molina being for much of anything as of late, and fear that only term limits will allow the Eastside to find a more successful, community-galvanizing and effective advocate for Eastside transportation efforts.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Aug 6, 2008 11:53:53 GMT -8
when was it ever said that this line would be entirely at grade? The vast majority of the esgoldline from DTLA to its Pomona/Atlantic terminus is at-grade, creating a fairly long travel time (20 minutes to the edge of montebello is fairly long unless you are comparing it to a bus). The bulk of proposed routes call for it also to be at grade inthe phase 2 extension for most of the route, how freaken long will this trip to whittier/norwalk blvds end up being if that is the case.
would not an elevated or submerged line suit your speed issues?
An el or sub grade would be fine with me, but no matter what the train will still be inthe streets ont he portion ucrrently being built, adding alot more time from DTLA to anywhere trip. On top of that is the fact that HRT that creates a seamless connection to the existing red/purple line system (and also connects whittier-the busiest eastside corridor to wilshire-the busiest westside corridor for a real East-west trunk line) is a far superior form of rail connection to this corridor. Also, the cost of grade seperating a arail line makes LRT just as exepsive as HRT, and if you are going to have to spend the same amount of money why not go with the superior, higher capacity, quicker transit mode?
this would be the first time, well since the 1970s plan, that i have heard about a need for a subway to whittier.
The subway to whittier was on the table until the early 1990s when the issues with the initial redline segments made the feds rescind their committed funding to other subway lines in LA. All of the local eastside attention has been put into the goldline eextension, and I believe now (especially with the subway to the sea and phase 2 drama) is the best time to revisit this alignment as well as the connection to SE DTLA as the northern end of Boyle Hts and ELA are covered.
I also think the lemons analogy is great and is the perfect euphemism for what I am doing. People seem to confuse my pointing out the flaws of the Esgoldline in my argument on the necessity of a purple whittier blvd extension as somehow me not appreciating it or attacking it when in fact I am viewing the esgoldline's presence and inability to fully hand/connect to the whititer corridor as an opporunity to serve 2 dense portions of the SGV (and 3 huge corridors) from this issue. i will be riding the goldline to ELA once it gets built all the time, and in all honesty extending it to whititer would serve me better inthe moment as well, but int he larger picture of transportation serving the Eastsdie region of LA County the purple line extension is a far more logical, pragmatic option.
Take the goldline to the Montebello TC, get Molina on boards a purple line extension to whittier as the eastside comp;iment to the subway to the sea.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 5, 2009 12:52:58 GMT -8
From StreetsBlog LA today: January 5, 2009 Metro Considers 4 Alternatives for Gold Line Extensionby Damien Newton Metro is ready to hit the ground running in 2009. Staff is prepared to offer 4 alternatives to extending the Gold Line at this month's Metro Board meeting following the formal unveiling at next week's Planning and Programming Committee Meeting. Route selection for the extension has been somewhat controversial, and had been a point of debate during the battle over Measure R. However, with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement now completed, we are one step closer to seeing the Gold Line penetrate deeper into the Eastside than its current alignment. The four routes still being considered, hot off Metro's press release presses, are: - SR-60: This alignment generally follows the southern edge of the SR-60 Freeway within the existing right-of-way. It would terminate just west of the I-605/SR-60 interchange. This alternative would follow the slope of the freeway and become elevated over freeway ramps.
- Beverly: This alignment follows SR-60 for a short stretch before traveling south on Garfield Avenue to connect with Beverly Boulevard. On Beverly Boulevard, this alignment continues east, using the Whittier Greenway to terminate at Whittier Boulevard. This alternative is primarily at-grade (street level) with short elevated structures along Garfield Avenue and at the San Gabriel River.
- Beverly/Whittier: This alignment is the same as the Beverly alternative until reaching Montebello Boulevard where it heads south to Whittier Boulevard. Once on Whittier Boulevard, this alignment becomes elevated to cross two rivers and the I-605 freeway, ending at-grade in the city of Whittier.
- Washington: This alignment follows SR-60 to Garfield Avenue, traveling south to Washington Boulevard. From there, the alignment continues east to the city of Whittier. This alternative is elevated along parts of Garfield Avenue and all of Washington Boulevard to eliminate conflict with truck traffic in the Washington Boulevard corridor.
In addition to Los Angeles, the study also includes 11 municipalities and parts of unincorporated L.A. County.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jan 5, 2009 13:33:26 GMT -8
^^nice!
sounds like garvy is off the list!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 11, 2009 7:57:49 GMT -8
I've been thinking a lot about this project over the past few days. A lot. I've thought about Art's comments, and I've reviewed and re-reviewed the latest mailings and e-mailings on the project. Here are my current thoughts:
1) Both the Eastside and Crenshaw projects are being swept under the rug because they have lousy and inarticulate political representation, and woefully insufficient grassroots representation
2) Most of the political power bases in the Westside, South Bay, Downtown, SGV and SFV regions know nothing of the regions that the Eastside Gold Line and Crenshaw line north of LAX, and so I'm very, very glad that Metro figured out that the Green Line to LAX is what should be focused on first, and I'm also very, very glad that Metro doesn't have the second phase of the Eastside Gold Line on its highest level of priorities. So much planning and community input is needed, and we're doing so much on the words of so few people, for both the Crenshaw and Eastside light rail lines!
3) All of the light rail projects will be using SR-60 for at least a stop or two, but they will be using the side of the freeway and not the median--which is an entirely different setup than the Green/Pasadena Gold Line setup; the stations can have pedestrian portals away from the freeway but benefit from an elevated freeway ROW, allowing for reduced noise/pollution and for increased TOD
4) There is no consensus for where the Southeast county wants to densify, a critical consensus that would allow for developers to help pay for stations and for the line, and to work with county/city planners in order to ensure best ridership/cost-effectiveness of phase 2 of the line
5) The Expo Line will work best as an adjunct to the 10 Freeway, and will effectively widen and increase the commuting capacity of that freeway, so shouldn't the Eastside Light Rail be considered for a similar purpose?
6) Look at those adjacent Metrolink lines--what needs local service, and what needs commuter service, where are the gaps in both, and how should they best interact
My conclusion, at this immediate time: DESPITE MY THOROUGH LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN GLORIA MOLINA TO ARTICULATE ANY OF THESE IDEAS, AND MY THOROUGH LACK OF TRUST IN HER TO REPRESENT THE STAKEHOLDERS SHE REPRESENTS,
1) I FAVOR A SPEEDY ELEVATED LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERN SHOULDER OF SR-60 WITH DENSIFICATION ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, WITH THE LINE AND STATIONS PAID IN LARGE PART BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR/DEVELOPERS, AND
2) I RECOMMEND A THOROUGH REVIEW OF WHERE SOUTHEAST DOWNTOWN L.A. AND WHERE THE SOUTHEAST CITIES WANT TO CREATE JOBS AND HOUSING IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HAVE A SPEEDY SUBWAY OR OTHER, MOSTLY-GRADE-SEPARATED LINE SERVE THOSE COMMUTERS WHO WANT TO TRAVEL ONLY SHORT DISTANCES
3) I RECOMMEND MORE GRADE-SEPARATION/DOUBLE- OR TRIPLE-TRACKING OF METROLINK LINES FOR THOSE COMMUTERS WHO WANT TO TRAVEL LONG DISTANCES TO/FROM DOWNTOWN
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 11, 2009 12:03:01 GMT -8
I don't know where to recommend and haven't done the studying that you have, but I'm initially skeptical of a line next to the 60 fwy. The kind of density that you get next to suburban fwys is car-oriented density. Businesses that are right next to the fwy when you're driving are more like a quarter to half mile away which isn't convenient when walking. And then they often have large parking lots, etc.
Also the 60 fwy has lots of hills so I don't know how likely it is that many, maybe most, locations would densify to the point that it would benefit transit riders and pedestrians more so than cars. Freeways are built for cars and the interests of drivers and pedestrians don't always agree and are often are at odds.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 11, 2009 16:20:33 GMT -8
Here are three key maps from the new Alternatives Analysis (AA) Executive Summary (January 2009) (PDF) (but do read the original document). They suggest it's a choice between three different corridors:1. Along the Beverly/Whittier corridor, serving relatively-high population and employment density, ending in Whittier. This is the traditional corridor of this line. I've heard that many East L.A. residents travel east to shop along Whittier Blvd. 2. Along the more-southerly Washington corridor, serving different population and more industrial uses -- all elevated at significantly greater cost -- still ending in Whittier. 3. Along the quite different 60 freeway corridor, with less population and employment. The big Montebello Hills landfill (trash dump) and Whittier Narrows park limit new density largely to the existing mall site. And Whittier is entirely left out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 11, 2009 20:18:46 GMT -8
All good points, Bluelineshawn and Darrell, and I admit to preferring the Washington to the Beverly/Whittier routes, but there are just soooooooo many questions to be answered about what those cities want. Furthermore, how do these potential routes interact with the Metrolink routes already operating?
Stepping back a bit, is this supposed to be a long-distance commuter or a short-distance/TOD type of rail line? If this area is supposed to explode with population and densification over the next 20 years, shouldn't there be some planning here? Shouldn't there be some discussion of how the private sector should assist with the planning and funding in order to ensure proper ridership--I'm not too impressed with the ridership of ANY of the routes, currently.
Looking forward, I see further development along the I-210 and I-10 and SR-60 corridors, so that a rail line that helps mitigate traffic along the SR-60 corridor (but not down the doggone median like the Green and Gold Lines!) is my preference...but not an enthusiastic preference.
It's more out of default.
I suppose that a combined LRT extension down both the SR-60 and Washington Blvd. corridors to truly serve the entire area, but that's not on the table. Right now, the Eastside is being asked a question similar to the Westside being asked: "Do you want the Wilshire, the Santa Monica or the Expo Corridor rail lines?"
The Westside proclaimed they wanted all three, and they're leaning towards greater elevation/grade-separation for the Expo Line, and they want a subway for both the Wilshire and Santa Monica Lines.
I think that there are lots of questions to be answered, but if we REALLY want transit ridership in the short run we'd stare hard at those adjacent Metrolink lines and figure out how to increase ridership, speed and convenience for them. We'd also focus on a speedy but potentially high-ridership SR-60 route that can/should be partially paid for by developers who are already densifying, and with a light rail that will do for the traffic-jammed SR-60 what the Expo Line will do for the I-10 freeway.
Then, for the long-term, we'd focus on a SPEEDY and truly convenient rail line (perhaps a subway, perhaps an elevated line) for the other corridors of the Eastside.
I again prefer the Washington route over the Beverly/Whittier route, but for a rail line that even the planners suggest will be sloooooooooooow and with mediocre ridership, I choose the SR-60 route by default.
By default.
...and perhaps the bigger picture can be solved with someone who will (soon, I hope) replace Supervisor Molina. The whole region needs about $4-5 billion or more (just like the Westside), but Supervisor Molina has shown she's not the person to lead that effort.
Pity.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 12, 2009 6:16:24 GMT -8
I also need to add that all three proposed routes utilize the southern edge/shoulder of SR-60 which indicates the benefits of that ROW/corridor, and those sharp turns for the proposed Washington and Beverly/Whittier corridors really bother me.
The latest Metro presentation suggest that the planners don't like the SR-60 option because it misses the more dense areas, but the do acknowledge the speediness of that route. The planners like the other routes more, but are concerned about qualifying for federal funding because of the greater expense needed for speed (and therefore ridership) when grade separation is called for.
Sound familiar? This issue affects the Downtown Connector, Crenshaw and Expo Line efforts as well.
Which, of course, calls into question the need for the FTA to change its guidelines to allow for a more realistic cost per rider to allow for faster train routes to be built with proper grade separation and not just dump these more expensive (but better, faster and with higher ridership) projects on the states/counties/cities.
I still would like BOTH a Washington and a SR-60 project to occur, but it strikes me that if we conclude that the Eastside (like the Westside) needs more than one project to serve the needs of the area, then we shouldn't exclude the possibility of future projects.
The SR-60 route is the lowest hanging fruit on the tree, so to speak, so it is my contention that we should approach the Eastside as requiring a network, and with the SR-60 route being only the first part of that network. Westsiders who don't aqree with that network approach should ask themselves which ONE line THEY would be satisfied with, and recognize that the Eastside pays taxes and commutes, too.
It is also my contention that this Eastside network can be expedited by funding from the private sector, which stands to benefit from the developments to be created around these future lines.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 12, 2009 9:40:54 GMT -8
Ken, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the planning for this route needs to be in conjunction with a comprehensive discussion of land use plans for the area. This is one of the most frustrating things about Southern California: that there is so little planning that looks comprehensively at the bigger context. So much of this is related to the way the political structures are set up: it's not very surprising that politicians in SoCal only focus on their own little backyard, and therefore fail to look out for the common future of their regional neighbors.
I also agree with you that the question needs to be asked: is this a dense-corridor train, or a long-distance commuter train? In either case, you will have ridership. Even along SR-60, ridership will grow if for no other reason but the fact that the Pomona Freeway corridor will only continue to get more and more congested with time.
However, I think Whittier Boulevard has to have higher priority. This is a boulevard that is not only already dense now but has capacity for greater densification in the future. It will also have plenty of ridership.
A Pomona Freeway route, on the other hand, offers very little opportunity for densification. It is suburban over the entire route: there are so many impediments to densification that I don't think you'd ever get a good value from it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 12, 2009 9:43:42 GMT -8
BTW, I still think it's a shame the route can't be extended down Atlantic to Whittier. By heading east before dropping down to Whittier, you miss one of the most important Eastside destinations.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 12, 2009 11:19:13 GMT -8
The utilization of the SR-60 corridor to Garfield weirds me out in so many ways, metrocenter, and makes me wonder what's up with the Whittier Corridor over there.
I like the Whittier Corridor for its many potential destinations, but more grade separation and/or street-widening, as well as a lot more planning and developer involvement, is needed before a speedy, high-ridership train can be created there. Right now, the train is just too low and slow with respect to ridership along that corridor.
Lots of questions, very little answers--hence my favoring the Pomona Freeway route out of default...but with the understanding that such a route does NOT fulfill the needs of Eastside commuters, and that Metrolink and MetroRail planning and operations need to be in lockstep, and not competing with each other.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Jan 12, 2009 11:49:58 GMT -8
My notion that the SR-60 corridor is a better choice is not out of personal preference, but more logic and knowlegde of the corridors being discussed. On a personal level the beverly or whittier option would probably serve me better, al stops relevant to me will be built with phase 1 and I cant wait. My choice relies on the fact that the Whittier corridor is the most dense, congested and built up boulevard on the eastside (10-Garvey-Valley considered central SGV) and any choice of a sr-60 route should be concurrent with a push for a whittier HRT trunk extension. We just passed measure R, the Obama adm. is looking more favorably at urban areas like LA, the last one interelates with the push for stimulus via large public works projects, there is a lot of opportunity to get what the eastside deserves!! The eastside is the gateway to the southeast cities and county, the OC, the Inland Empire and rest of the nation.
There are just too many ifs about it going down whittier or beverly, and too many missed opportunities.
Like metrocenter noted, the biggest destination points, densest communities and highest ridership areas of the whittier boulevard corridor will be missed. With the exception of the small townish old downtown montebello area of whittier boulevard, this corridor is also fairly suburban in density and development. In Pico Rivera both Whittier and beverly are large strip malls with big box stores surrounded by generally single family residential tracts. If we put LRT down whittier we are killing any chance of any HRT extension.
The esgl phase one was placed in the least hospitable areas amongst corridor choices for cost effectiveness and speed/safety issues, and it seems logical to continue on with this foundation. Putting the LRT along the south edge of the 60 freeway gives you grade speration without most of the cost (although from looking at the alignment in the AAES it seems as if more of it can be at-grade, especially around the Montebello Town center and Whittier Narrows, with simple design features).
I also just cannot see how they will squeeze 2 LRT lanes into either the Beverly or Whittier corridor. Both have fairly narrow areas in them and are jam packed with cars half the day. Reading the AAES only affirmed how I felt.
Regarding the Obama adminsitration aspect. It is IMPERATIVE for the MTA to put together some kind of huge HRT-public works project, which will create tons of jobs for a few decades, to present for potential stimulus funding immediately. We dont need heavy rail beyond a few core corridors that basically radiate out from DTLA, and most of these corridors become less dense and can facilitate el or at-grade (ala LRRT) to reduce cost within a few miles outside of the central city. The Vermont corridor to the south bay, Wilshire, Whittier blvd-I5, westwood-405-VanNuys thru Valley, ElMonteBusway-I10 conversion and we have a BART like setup that comprehensively serves the major spine corridors of LA with the least costs. Each of these corridors is currently a traffic nightmare and have high busridership, are fairly dense and developed, and create a tangible rail service coverage for our city's bigest corridors.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 12, 2009 12:05:12 GMT -8
Well said, Art. I think that you've described the pros and cons of every corridor for LRT, and I hope that a future, more grassroots-oriented county supervisor can utilize your interests and insights on these issues.
|
|