|
Post by 11ball on Apr 20, 2010 11:17:08 GMT -8
I was at LAUS yesterday. Down at the back end where the bus depot is, there are racks of bus maps just under the escalator leading up to the buses. There was a new pamphlet announcing a series of local meetings called "Help us plan more transit in the South Bay." Looking at the map, I get the impression that the existing Mariposa and El Segundo stations get bypassed for the "new rail service on upgraded Harbor Subdivision railroad tracks from Century/Aviation boulevards to the proposed Torrance RTC." Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Has anyone else seen this pamphlet? Any comments?
DNS
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 20, 2010 12:08:46 GMT -8
I was at LAUS yesterday. Down at the back end where the bus depot is, there are racks of bus maps just under the escalator leading up to the buses. There was a new pamphlet announcing a series of local meetings called "Help us plan more transit in the South Bay." Looking at the map, I get the impression that the existing Mariposa and El Segundo stations get bypassed for the "new rail service on upgraded Harbor Subdivision railroad tracks from Century/Aviation boulevards to the proposed Torrance RTC." Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Has anyone else seen this pamphlet? Any comments? I'm holding a copy of the "Help us plan more transit in the South Bay: South Bay Metro Green Line Extension Project Scoping Meetings" pamphlet right now and it describes four basic alternatives that will be looked at in scoping: - Light Rail Alternative- An extension of the Metro Green Line from its current terminus at the Redondo Beach Station to the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center (RTC).
- Freight Track Alternative- New rail service on the upgraded Harbor Subdivision railroad tracks from Century/Aviation boulevards to the proposed Torrance RTC.
- No Build Alternative
- Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative
I think it is way too early in the planning process to say if Metro has a favorite among the alternatives, though.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2010 12:16:16 GMT -8
I looked on the Metro project page, but I don't see anything suggesting closure of any stations. I think Metro would need to get public input to do that, just as they have to do when they cut bus service.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 20, 2010 14:21:42 GMT -8
It wouldn't be closing stations. I think that it's referring to a Metrolink or EMU regional type service that would use the existing freight tracks and not the existing green line tracks so it wouldn't stop at all green line stations. See Justin's post.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 20, 2010 14:30:04 GMT -8
I see only one option, light rail. EMU would be a total waste and not much better than running a bus line to the same area. I know this is for the sake of the study, but it is either light rail or nothing at all in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 20, 2010 14:36:00 GMT -8
Why not have Metrolink run up to LAX?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 20, 2010 14:54:35 GMT -8
Why not have Metrolink run up to LAX? During the preparation of the recently-completed Harbor Subdivision AA Report, Metro looked at various transportation modes for implementation along the Harbor Subdivision, including light rail and commuter rail. Metro concluded that a Green Line extension to Torrance was the best-ranking Harbor Sub project and is now moving ahead to study it. (It also helps that this extension is a Measure R project.) Other projects, specifically commuter rail along the Harbor Sub and light rail from Crenshaw to the Blue Line, ranked well but not quite as well. These two projects were subsequently deemed "Priority II" projects. These projects also currently have no funding source. According to Metro, "implementation of Priority II ... projects may be considered when additional funding is available and infrastructure improvements as part of other projects, such as the California High Speed Train Project (CHSTP), are put into place." I agree that Metrolink along the Harbor Subdivision is needed but there's no money for it right now...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 20, 2010 18:24:03 GMT -8
Yes: for now, light-rail is the only rail option Metro is considering for the extension.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 21, 2010 20:28:12 GMT -8
Yeah metrolink should have a stop in Inglewood and LAX. But then only LRT should continue to Long Beach.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 28, 2010 20:34:36 GMT -8
Doesn't emu have potential to run in the Red/ Purple line? Metrolink service wouldn't be likely as the train moves fast AND the NIMBYS would defenitely oppose to that idea. There's also the Crenshaw Line thats going to be using the same tracks as the Harbor Subdivison so LRT and commuter can't really use the same tracks (unless they take homes away from the people in Crenshaw). It wouldn't be bad to have a commuter line going to through LA.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 29, 2010 11:43:50 GMT -8
Doesn't emu have potential to run in the Red/ Purple line? Metrolink service wouldn't be likely as the train moves fast AND the NIMBYS would defenitely oppose to that idea. There's also the Crenshaw Line thats going to be using the same tracks as the Harbor Subdivison so LRT and commuter can't really use the same tracks (unless they take homes away from the people in Crenshaw). It wouldn't be bad to have a commuter line going to through LA. A commuter line from Downtown to LAX makes tons of sense. But the Harbor Subdivision ROW was just studied by Metro staff, and using for that for commuter rail has been eliminated from consideration for now, due to lack of funding and the fact that there are higher priority projects to build.
|
|