|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 18, 2009 19:11:55 GMT -8
Cities compete for Gold Line route By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer Pasadena Star-News Posted: 01/17/2009 07:06:27 AM PST
Completion of the Gold Line Eastside Extension Phase II could be as much as 30 years away, but some local cities are already taking steps to ensure a spot on the route. The project would extend the line about 9 miles east from its present East Los Angeles terminus. But preliminary plans include four different proposed routes, with two very distinct destinations.
One proposed line would follow the Pomona (60) Freeway through Monterey Park, Rosemead and South El Monte, and out to the edge of Industry.
Three other proposals call for the line to veer south through Montebello and Whittier.
As might be expected, officials in cities along the different proposed routes make strong cases for why the extension should go their way.
"There is a lot of community support for the project here," said Monterey Park City Manager June Yotsuya. "And the cities want it...It will bring in development and a new tax base, which is attractive for any city."
On Thursday, the Monterey Park City Council voted to go on record supporting the 60 Freeway proposal - and to create a coalition with neighboring cities to more forcefully lobby the Metropolitan Transportation Agency to adopt the route.
But Whittier City Manager Steve Helvey can argue just as fervently for the more-southerly route.
"The lines here would have the highest ridership. We'd be able to pick up northern Orange County and connect it to our county transit," he said.
The three Whittier routes would also run along the 60 Freeway initially, but would then turn south on Garfield Avenue. From there, the proposed 8.9-mile Beverly Boulevard line would run to the Greenway Trail in Whittier.
A second option calls for an 8.9-mile route along Beverly Boulevard to Montebello Boulevard and then to Whittier Boulevard, while a third proposal would create a 9.3-mile line along Washington Boulevard. All three proposed routes would end up near the Five Points area in Whittier.
The 8.5-mile 60 Freeway route, meanwhile, would end just past the San Bernardino (605) Freeway in Industry.
The 60 Freeway route has some drawbacks - it has the most potential for environmental challenges, and it would have the lowest projected ridership numbers, said Kimberly Yu, project manager for the Gold Line extension.
The line would run through a federal Superfund site and also traverse through the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area.
But the proposed Whittier routes, which would run through heavily-populated neighborhoods - instead of just along the freeway - will probably churn up strong community opposition, Yu said.
"We have a lot of community support along the 60," said Yu. "You always want a consensus on the project along the local jurisdictions that are affected."
The Whittier routes also would also cost more to build, transit officials said.
But Helvey believes the routes - he favors a Washington Boulevard line - would generate strong support from residents. And unlike Monterey Park officials, he doesn't believe that showing up at MTA meetings to lobby for the project is productive.
"It's not a cheer-leading contest," he said. "Realistically, what MTA is going to do is assess the environmental challenges on each route and come up with the best one."
While there currently is no funding for two lines, there's always a remote chance that both a Whittier line and a 60 Freeway line could be built one day, Yu said.
She cited the debate over where to create a bus line or a light rail line from downtown Los Angeles to the Westside. The MTA started with the idea of doing one project but is now constructing a light-rail line along Exposition Boulevard while also looking at a bus-only lane along Wilshire Boulevard.
And as of right now, the Gold Line extension has no clear construction date, although the Long Range Transportation Plan puts the completion date of the project at 2037.
But the line does have guaranteed funding from the recently passed Measure R, leaving planners hopeful the route could be completed sooner.
It all depends on when the extension project begins receiving funding promised by Measure R, said Yu. If that happens by the early 2020s, the extension could be completed by 2027, she said.
dan.abendschein@sgvn.com
(626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2009 9:50:02 GMT -8
Half yes and half no. The 3rd Street corridor selection fits the parameters that were described, 1st Street was all part of the original Eastside Subway extension.
True, especially around Montebello Town Center it can now become a town center however the central issue in this study that the study doesn't even mention is the potential of the 60 corridor past the 605 to serve areas like La Puente, Industry, Walnut, Rowland Heights, Hacineda Heights, Valinda on potential ROW near or adjacent to Alameda Corridor East.
This would make it a clear win of a corridor because the 60 is not just a corridor to link developers to their vacant land in the guise of TOD's but it creates an transit alternative through a pass like condition between two regional areas like the Red Line through the Cahuenga Pass or a transit corridor through the Sepulveda Pass would do.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Feb 28, 2009 18:40:10 GMT -8
Half yes and half no. The 3rd Street corridor selection fits the parameters that were described, 1st Street was all part of the original Eastside Subway extension. You got me on that one, we need to hang out again yoda. ;D I was too lazy to elaborate on it, but yeah, the boyle and indiana stations were originally in the redline plan, although the use of TBM wouldve facilitated a Chavez/soto station rather than 1st/soto. I have been and am still bothered by the fact that TBMs were used for the esgoldline, yet the alignment didnt take advantage of the technological ability to veer a few blocks north of 1st for a short stretch to serve the Calle Brooklyn strip better. The 1st/Soto station does have the advantage of being closer to Roosevelt HS (although its still 3 blocks south), but Chavez is not an easy walk (3 blocks uphill thru a rough hood, and Im not squeamish on those issues). I AM happy though about the configuration of the indiana station, I thought a N/S station alignment that connected the mercadito, 3rd and calle primera was a good call.
True, especially around Montebello Town Center it can now become a town center however the central issue in this study that the study doesn't even mention is the potential of the 60 corridor past the 605 to serve areas like La Puente, Industry, Walnut, Rowland Heights, Hacineda Heights, Valinda on potential ROW near or adjacent to Alameda Corridor East.
That fact led me to support the SR60 route big time. This big empty area the alignment will traverse through (in terms of density) between the Mont Town Center and the 605 can be a time mitigation for the slower alignment areas that are at grade in ELA. The time accrued in East LA would be compensated for by the trains zooming through the whittier narrows rec area. I also dont understand why so much of the SR60 route would be elevated. East of Atlantic the alignment can take advatage of an already elevated hillside on the 60 freeway, with the only additional cost above at-grade being the small bridges to cross gerhart/findlay/garfield and wilcox. This entire section is estimated as a total el configuration, which isnt cost effective or pragmatic. Thru the Whit Narrows, the train can run at-grade on the south edge of the 60, curving a couple dozen feet south to cross intersection at-grade, further reducing HUGE portions of an SR60 alternative.
And yes, the areas along this potential alignment east of the 605 are dense , transit dependant communities, specifically bassett valinda and la puente.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Feb 28, 2009 20:36:55 GMT -8
I really prefer the extension going southeast into Whittier and eventually continuing on to Fullerton and maybe heading east or south from there. I can also see eventually the Green line meeting up with the Gold line if we did something like this, but I also think we'll need a north/south route essentially following Beach Blvd. (CA-39). Anyway my reasoning for all this is that there's a fantastic gap in that area when it come to freeways and so it really makes it hard to get in and out of that area.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 28, 2009 21:00:19 GMT -8
I really prefer the extension going southeast into Whittier and eventually continuing on to Fullerton and maybe heading east or south from there. I can also see eventually the Green line meeting up with the Gold line if we did something like this, but I also think we'll need a north/south route essentially following Beach Blvd. (CA-39). Both the Gold Line and the Green Line need to get to Norwalk somehow, not only to connect with each other, but also with Metrolink, maybe Amtrak someday, and the Norwalk high-speed rail stop.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Mar 1, 2009 15:26:28 GMT -8
Yeah, the green line really should go to Norwalk metrolink station to begin with so having the green line travel east towards a green/gold connection would really be something.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 1, 2009 21:19:58 GMT -8
I think it's a solid mistake for:
1) Us to presume that the Eastside needs only one rail line, while we plan to give the Westside both the Wilshire and Expo Corridor Rail Lines
2) Us to not link the MetroRail and Metrolink and HSR networks in a thoughtful, comprehensive approach
I believe that the 60 freeway corridor is the best route for the IMMEDIATE future out of default, but say so only with the understanding that it's the first of several for the Eastside.
I'm open to a southern link to Whittier...but looking at those Metrolink routes are we REALLY doing the right thing by creating a sloooooooooow train when a Metrolink/MetroRail alternative to the I-5 makes more sense.
Another option remains a fast subway link to connect the southern portion of the Eastside from either Metro Center or Union Station to the Whittier Corridor, or even a "double-barrelled" light rail line that has the first phase of the Eastside Gold Line fork out into a northerly route to serve the 60 freeway corridor and a southerly route to serve the I-5 Corridor.
I don't have all the answers, and we've not made up a comprehensive rail map for the Eastside for the 21st Century like we've pursued for the Westside. All I know is that the South Bay and Eastside have Metrolink options...so why aren't we taking advantage of that?
Lastly, for us to give the Eastside a single rail line while two or more for the Westside is classist, elitist and--dare I say it?--racist.
Anyone who wants to choose THIS route or THAT route when to begin with more than one route is needed to serve such a large area is being part of the problem, not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by bhowald on Mar 1, 2009 23:15:08 GMT -8
"Lastly, for us to give the Eastside a single rail line while two or more for the Westside is classist, elitist and--dare I say it?--racist."
Presumably, come June 19th, the Eastside will have one rail line and the Westside will have none. By this logic, the better-off white people on the Westside are the victims of classist and racial discrimination. Given that the transit in Los Angeles is very much in fluctuation, we shouldn't look at any specific point in time to make these statements, but rather over the long run.
Additionally, given that the two regions are large areas of potentially different densities, commute patterns, sizes, etc., to judge transit equality solely on the basis of how many rail lines there are seems like a poor decision.
While I agree with you that wealthier (and usually whiter) neighborhoods often get the best treatment when it comes to municipal services, but that is not always the case. Consider the Upper East Side of Manhattan. The wealthiest residents of New York have subway service of a lower quality than many other residents of the city. This is true even though a very large portion of wealthy Upper East Siders rely on public transportation.
This isn't meant to be critical of you, Ken. I just don't think that current situation regarding the city's transit reflects racist priorities as much as it does political expediency. I do agree with you, however, that the Eastside warrants another rail line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 2, 2009 6:31:03 GMT -8
Hey, Brian--long time no see! It's GREAT hearing from you!
You're right in that it's not just racism that is to blame for the Westside not get any rail lines--frankly, it's racism and classism and NIMBYism of the Westsiders themselves that cost them both an Expo Line and a Wilshire Subway (Lord knows you've been a victim of NIMBYism, starting at a very early age and having been cruelly criticized for wanting something better for the Westside neighborhood you grew up in). Some of it's also politics and lack of money.
It's in the long run that we need to look at the Eastside as a region that needs a comprehensive plan as much as the South Bay and Westside. The NIMBY's are becoming YIMBY's, and regions are standing up for themselves in ways we've not seen in generations with respect to rail and transportation/planning solutions.
Right now, in part because of Friends4Expo, Friends of the Green Line and The Transit Coalition, we now have a series of defined plans for the Westside and Mid-City, with the South Bay thrown in for good measures:
Expo Line, Wilshire Line Subway (throw in a Santa Monica link for good measure), Downtown Connector, Green Line/Crenshaw Line to connect the Green and Expo and Purple Lines to LAX, and Harbor Subdivision Line.
My point is that the Eastside plan is in its infancy, and that this Gold Line extension should be considered as only the first in a series of transportation projects to benefit the region. Throwing in an alternative of the 60 freeway corridor OR the Whittier Blvd. corridor to be served by a single line is both unrealistic and wrong, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 3, 2009 21:15:46 GMT -8
Lastly, for us to give the Eastside a single rail line while two or more for the Westside is classist, elitist and--dare I say it?--racist. I thought that you put the rail lines where the need is, where the ridership is. When you say that the Westside will have two rail lines while East LA will have one, what does that even mean? Does every region of the county have to have the same amount of track mileage? It sounds like it was decided that the density wasn't there to make East LA's rail line into the subway, while Wilshire Blvd. has the density and the estimated ridership to justify a subway route. I don't know if that's true or not, but I doubt routes were decided with the attitude of, "Screw those Mexicans in East LA." You have to choose THIS route or THAT route, though. What I keep getting told by longtime transit advocates is, "There's no money." There's never any money. There's money to build war planes we'll never use, but there's no money for transit. I think we have the resources to build all the rail lines on Damien Goodman's super duper Get LA Moving map. But when someone thinks big, they are told in so many words to shut up. The money is out there. It's just being spent on the wrong things.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 4, 2009 12:27:55 GMT -8
I think politics is always a part of it...which is unfortunate. But the Wilshire corridor does have the highest density in all of LA and probably in all of the western United States.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 4, 2009 14:50:23 GMT -8
I thought that you put the rail lines where the need is, where the ridership is. When you say that the Westside will have two rail lines while East LA will have one, what does that even mean? Does every region of the county have to have the same amount of track mileage? You do build it to where the greatest need and ridership, but unfortuntely when we've got Five County Supervisors fighting for their own crumbs for projects to appear as if they are doing something these are the headaches that come from it that has us moving backwards rather than forwards. Residential density and transit dependency in Boyle Heights is on par with Westlake/Mac Arthur Park and Koreatown as a key piece of ridership support for a subway. What it's lacking is the job density that Westlake and Koreatown has. That is why the original Eastside subway had a minimum segment to reach Lorena and hit the heart of Boyle Heights, before it could snake down to Whittier Blvd and give it time to allow the Whittier Blvd business owners time to calm their fears because this occured during the Hollywood Subway sinkholes and nightly lampooning of the "Money Pit" that LA is building. The 1998 Prop A ban on subway construction placed a dent on extending subways anywhere, the Regional Connector couldn't been a subway unless someone else funds it (State or Feds) however that is hard to get state and federal money for projects without local matches. I agree with that. Then there needs to be a strategy of how to find the funding AND then shift those funding pieces. Keep in mind when one union wants one thing and protect their interest and other donors want their stake protected it because a difficult balancing act to pass budgets. Passing Measure R is a step in the right direction. Will it give us everything we for our transit system right away? No, but it makes strong investments in them with the list of projects included. What is stopping us once a couple of these projects are completed and are moving forward that to have another tax increase or voter initiative to fund transit operations and building through parking fees or gas taxes, congestion pricing? Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 15, 2009 20:51:10 GMT -8
Just came back from an Eastside Light Rail Extension (Phase 2) meeting in Monterrey Park, where some of some very excited Eastside City politicians want to have this extended along the SR-60 Corridor on the side (NOT the median) of the freeway.
I'm torn between the Washington and SR-60 corridors, but still lean towards the latter by default because although I think that their both helpful but the SR-60 Corridor train will attract the most TOD and ridership. I also believe that increasing I-5 and other Metrolink lines might do the trick to meet the needs of that I-5 corridor.
The Eastside needs a network of transit lines, but if the political winds are more easily blowing to the SR-60 Corridor then we should settle on that as a first extension of this future network.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 16, 2009 3:54:52 GMT -8
I'm torn between the Washington and SR-60 corridors, but still lean towards the latter by default because although I think that their both helpful but the SR-60 Corridor train will attract the most TOD and ridership. Why do you favor the two with the worst ridership prospects? I say this because as unsexy as Beverly or Whittier boulevards may be, this is where we have established population centers and ridership, and we'd know it's much easier to prime ridership along either of these streets.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 16, 2009 5:08:43 GMT -8
That's a very good question, wad. To my understanding, the whole freakin' Eastside doesn't have a coherent long-term densification or commercial/residential plan, and without the first phase of the Eastside light rail in place the questions by far outnumber the answers. Everything is so darned tentative that it makes me want to put a hold on the entire project.
As for the ridership, I really don't find much accuracy or difference in the ridership of any of the four plans--but I do find political will (and the potential to build) along the SR-60 corridor/cities favoring that route...so again by DEFAULT I favor that route because that's where the most interest can be generated.
Furthermore, those two routes are by far the quickest and most likely to be utilized by locals...but when I see how close but yet how far the Metrolink and I-5 freeways are from Washington Blvd., it makes me wonder if we shouldn't rethink how to accommodate that corridor in the same way that we'll see the Foothill Gold Line interact with the I-210 and Metrolink system over there on that corridor.
The SR-60 route has the ability to attract riders and development with a speedy alternative to that freeway in the same way that the aforementioned Foothill Gold and Expo Lines will to their adjacent freeways.
Until I find out all the wonderful plans and business centers and trip generators are going to occur between the first phase of the Eastside Light Rail and the City of Whittier (which would clearly be disappointed by a SR-60 route but which appears to stand alone with respect to having the rail go down Beverly or Whittier), it strikes me that if ALL FOUR of the routes will utilize the shoulder of the SR-60 freeway to some extent, that we should spend our next $1-2 billion to the Eastside by:
1) Continuing the SR-60 route with a straight shot to the 605 freeway 2) Grade separating, widening and enhancing Metrolink service along the I-5 Corridor
With an anemic 13-15,000 riders projected for all four routes, it strikes me that unless there's some MAJOR plans for the Beverly/Whittier corridors that the LRT-2 and LRT-3 alternatives are as much a "train to nowhere" as anything I can think of. On the other hand, a two-pronged approach as detailed above can set the stage towards a more comprehensive approach to the I-5 corridor.
I do NOT think that the SR-60 and I-5 Corridors are fairly lumped together, and that the region needs to be treated better than to split the difference along Whittier or Beverly.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 16, 2009 8:01:53 GMT -8
It sounds like it was decided that the density wasn't there to make East LA's rail line into the subway, while Wilshire Blvd. has the density and the estimated ridership to justify a subway route. No, that isn't what happened. Metro intended to extend the Red Line (heavy rail) to the Eastside, but had to settle for light rail because in 1998 Zev Yaroslavsky passed legislation to ban the use of local funding to build tunnels. IMO, Whittier Blvd absolutely has the most critical need for a rail line. Second place: 60 corridor. The optimal solution depends on the prospects of a second Eastside line. If we believe the Eastside will ultimately get two lines, then I would extend the Gold Line along the 60, and build the second route along Whittier Blvd. If, on the other hand, the Eastside will only have the Gold Line, then it should be extended down to Whittier Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 14, 2009 14:05:46 GMT -8
Today's Metro Planning and Programming Committee agenda includes this item 8 (as well as the LRTP): AUTHORIZE the Chief Executive Officer to reduce the number of Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II build alternatives from four to two for further study in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report and Advanced Conceptual Engineering. The following alternatives are recommended for further study: 1. State Route 60 – Light Rail Transit (LRT) 2. Washington Boulevard – LRT Here's the PowerPoint PDF with maps and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 14, 2009 20:47:18 GMT -8
I truly, sincerely, believe that these are the two best alternatives. I also believe that they are not mutually exclusive from each other because they serve different corridors. I believe that the Washington route serves the I-5 corridor, and that the SR-60 route serves an entirely different corridor with a lot of similarities to the Foothill Gold Line. Where this will fit in with the Foothill Gold Line competition is beyond me, but I am much more bullish about this project than before. Someday either (preferably both) of these lines will, with a complementary Green Line link to Norwalk, serve the eastern half of the county after it, too, is maxed out of its freeway upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 15, 2009 3:52:46 GMT -8
I truly, sincerely, believe that these are the two best alternatives. I also believe that they are not mutually exclusive from each other because they serve different corridors. The best alternatives are 1. An unpopulated freeway median running through canyons and having limited opportunities for redevelopment. 2. An industrial corridor that has very limited redevelopment potential to make it suitable for ridership generation. Metro might as well run the train non-stop from Atlantic to Uptown Whittier. The best alternative is No Build. Metro screwed the pooch badly with this decision.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 15, 2009 7:52:46 GMT -8
I know these areas very well. And in my opinion, neither route - 60 Fwy and Washington Blvd. - makes *any* sense to me. The population in these corridors is very sparse, and jobs are spread out and auto-oriented. Even given the inevitable population growth, we're talking about moderate ridership at best.
Light rail should serve higher-density corridors. Whittier Blvd makes sense. Even Valley Blvd kind of makes sense. If 60 Fwy and Washington are the only two options, I vote No Build. It would be more cost-effective to expand Metrolink out the 60 Fwy.
Sometimes I wonder if Metro staff deliberately eliminates certain options - for example, here and on the Crenshaw project - in order to make a project unpalatable.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 15, 2009 11:06:40 GMT -8
Though not the perfect options....I would go with the Washington blvd segment. At least there would be a stop on Whittier Blvd, and I believe the train will get to Commerce Casino and the outlets (??). But, don't expect this to be a relief for commuters on the I-5 corridor. The chances of somebody parking at I-605 and Washington Blvd to go to downtown LA with a 40 minute train ride to LAUS is not a convenient option.
The I-60 freeway corridor shows very little development potential. Plus, haven't we learned the "development opportunities" from the Green Line stations on the I-105?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 15, 2009 21:10:49 GMT -8
This is NOT on the freeway median, but on the side of the freeway adjacent to the shoulder, which is very different from the Green Line!
Still, I'm not as bullish on this project as I am, say, with the Downtown Connector or the Wilshire Subway. Metrolink, it could be argued, is better than either of these two LRT plans--yet the canyons you describe, wad, lie to the east of this extension to the 605. I drive the 60 freeway rather often on my way to/from Riverside County and there will be and already is plenty of development to connect.
As for the Washington Blvd. routing, the industrial linkup is perfect for commuters who would be using this to get to work...but I couldn't argue that folks going all the way to Downtown would be much, much better served by jumping on board Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 15, 2009 21:12:23 GMT -8
I also need to stress that this is the LAST of all the new lines (except, perhaps, the Harbor Subdivision ROW line) that would be built--and that it would be so far out there that a new EIR and planning effort will be needed when it does get taken seriously.
You really think the Foothill Gold Line folks will let money for this project be spent before it reaches Azusa...or even Montclair?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 21, 2009 14:04:46 GMT -8
According to "The Source" (the new Metro blog featuring Steve Hymon and Fred Camino): thesource.metro.net/2009/10/21/eastside-gold-line-extension-down-to-two-possible-routes/Two routes are narrowed down for the Eastside extension, one is SR-60 and one is Garfield/Washington to Whittier. Is it possible to do both, not at the same time, of course? It seems both these corridors are underserved, particularly Whittier. One alternative for the route that is not chosen is to double track Metrolink and upgrade Foothill Transit as a feeder network.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 21, 2009 22:02:23 GMT -8
You raise some great points and alternatives, Dan:
1) Are the SR-60 and Washington Blvd. to Whittier routes really mutually exclusive? 2) Why isn't the opportunity to upgrade Metrolink an alternative?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 21, 2009 22:20:51 GMT -8
www.metro.net/board/Items/2009/10_October/20091014P%26PItem8.pdfThe Metro Staff Report explaining why these two options stayed in the game and the other two were eliminated makes for interesting reading. Double tracking the San Bernadino line is in Metrolink's LRTP and I still think running intra-county trains supplemented by Foothill Transit is an under appreciated. In fact, Metrolink upgrades are underappreciated in general
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 22, 2009 3:47:04 GMT -8
Double tracking the San Bernadino line is in Metrolink's LRTP and I still think running intra-county trains supplemented by Foothill Transit is an under appreciated. Well, there is the Silver Streak. I could tell you that, when riding the old line 480 (a local version of the Silver Streak), shaving off nearly 40 minutes from the travel time was a treat. I once missed a Metrolink in Montclair and had to take a 480 back to downtown L.A. It took more than 2 hours. The Silver Streak can make the same journey in about 1 hour, 20 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 22, 2009 3:59:17 GMT -8
The Metro Staff Report explaining why these two options stayed in the game and the other two were eliminated makes for interesting reading. The report makes the best case for No Build. The assumptions for Washington are ridiculous. If Metro thinks that the Washington alignment will generate the most ridership, why isn't the bus along there productive? At the beginning of the decade, Metro killed the line and let Montebello have it. Montebello did improve weekday service to every 30 minutes and restored hourly service on Saturday. Most of the line is industrial. The cities would need to all but deindustrialize and lose prime industrial land and replace it with low-wage service sector jobs (possibly big box stores in strip malls) to get the kind of ridership that would materialize according to the report.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 22, 2009 6:20:23 GMT -8
The report makes the best case for No Build. Well, politically the SGV will demand that something get built eventually. I actually liked the two options that were eliminated. I also like the idea of having more frequent stations on the Metrolink line that a local intracounty rail service provides at Metrorail rates, stations that are skipped by regular Metrolink. Then building up Foothill Transit to connect it all. Double tracking Metrolink should be seen as a major important transportation infrastructure investment.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 22, 2009 11:06:36 GMT -8
To suggest that Metrolink upgrading is underappreciated is a HUGE understatement!
Politically, however, would the powers that be allow for the No Build alternative?
Would the powers that be coalesce to $1 billion in Metrolink upgrades and operational enhancements?
|
|