|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2010 12:52:19 GMT -8
why on earth would you want to end at the el monte airport. nothing goes their but private cessnas. if you look closely, he's not aiming the rail line at El Monte Airport, he's aiming it at the El Monte Metrolink Station, which is just to the south of the airport. There aren't enough links between Metro Rail and Metrolink and a connection there would allow for better transfers
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 10, 2010 14:57:03 GMT -8
That part of the city is really not my area of expertise. I just combined a few suggestions I heard from other people to give the map more context. My real focus is on the Westside issues, but yes, I was aiming for the Metrolink station.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 10, 2010 15:29:53 GMT -8
One area that seems to be ignored on most maps, that happens to be a major job center, is Glendale-Burbank.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 10, 2010 17:48:58 GMT -8
if you look closely, he's not aiming the rail line at El Monte Airport, he's aiming it at the El Monte Metrolink Station, which is just to the south of the airport. There aren't enough links between Metro Rail and Metrolink and a connection there would allow for better transfers thats all well and good, but valley, mission or main would be far better and can still serve the metrolink stop. though honestly i dont see the end result point of that. how many people would go from points east, get off the metrolink [which takes mins to get from el monte to downtown] to board a subway train that would be running slower, ending up in the same destination, which is downtown. unless the point was to tear up the metrolink tracks... which is also an odd decision. still not touching on the fact that your blowing past the main destinations between cal state and elmonte. unless we want more rail in freeways...
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jun 10, 2010 20:41:10 GMT -8
The point isn't to provide a slower and more annoying link to Downtown, it's to provide a link to points between El Monte and Downtown that doesn't require backtracking. Which would make sense for a line down Valley Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 11, 2010 13:25:07 GMT -8
Crzwdjk has it exactly right.
Sooner or later, we have to stop thinking of Metrolink and Metro Rail as two separate and incompatible entities.
This is just a hunch, but eventually Metrolink needs to become more of a long-distance express rail service while Metro Rail serves as the local rail line. Inland Empire residents ought to be able to start their trip in Cucamonga or Fontana or whatever, and when they reach Montclair/Claremont, transfer to the Metro Gold Line for trips to Pasadena or the other Foothill extension stops.
Or, start way out in San Bernardino County somewhere and transfer at El Monte for destinations in San Gabriel or Monterey Park. The best route for a local rail line might not be the El Monte busway, but it is a possibility. I like the idea of a Valley Boulevard rail line, but obviously we ought to explore the options first.
Eric mentioned Burbank/Glendale, and that is another example of how Metrolink and Metro Rail can complement each other. Somebody coming in from the Antelope Valley or Santa Clarita might not want to ride all the way in to downtown, but might want to transfer to a streetcar or light rail line (or subway?) closer to their destination.
Or, look at plans for extending the Orange Line busway to Chatsworth. There's an excellent opportunity for a Ventura County Metrolink connection there. Same goes for Norwalk (huge missed opportunity for linking Green Line), LAX and the South Bay (Green Line, Crenshaw and Metrolink?) and should the impossible happen, light rail in OC.
It's a fallacy to assume that all Metrolink passengers are going to want to ride to downtown.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Jun 13, 2010 15:51:14 GMT -8
if you look closely, he's not aiming the rail line at El Monte Airport, he's aiming it at the El Monte Metrolink Station, which is just to the south of the airport. There aren't enough links between Metro Rail and Metrolink and a connection there would allow for better transfers thats all well and good, but valley, mission or main would be far better and can still serve the metrolink stop. though honestly i dont see the end result point of that. how many people would go from points east, get off the metrolink [which takes mins to get from el monte to downtown] to board a subway train that would be running slower, ending up in the same destination, which is downtown. unless the point was to tear up the metrolink tracks... which is also an odd decision. still not touching on the fact that your blowing past the main destinations between cal state and elmonte. unless we want more rail in freeways... Extending the redline down the I-10 corridor is the farthest thing from your typical notion of "putting rail in freeways", especially if done correctly. The only location where 12' of track width would fit and work would be against the metrolink ROW in the center of the freeway on both sides where the current HOV lane exists. The HOV lane could be placed in that extra buffer lane between HOV and normal traffic, and areas where stations would be placed (Atl-Gfld, DelMar-SGblv, Rosemead) would require removal of a couple hundred yards of emergency lane. Because the only rational space is in the center of the freeway, the stations would HAVE to be covered and have ped brides connecting it to the surrounding areas. The current on/off ramps are antiquated and soon to be replaced, this is also an excellent opportunity for development over the offramps and along the bridges. Because the only way to create a functional freeway rail line along the 10 would be in his manner (covered with ped bridges), it can hardly be considered the typical freeway rail line. Pedestrian bridges would diagonally cross the off-onramps on both sides of the station and the entrances would be at Hellman and Glendon. Beyond that, most freeways arent built on top of old PE trunk lines where the surrounding ped-centric communities are left intact, but that is exactly the case with the I-10. If you look at density maps the communities around old stations/major intersections are pretty dense and walkable. From the bridge entrances, the walk from both Valley andGarvey to the redline would be 1/2 mile. This line is the most logical way to service the 10 freeway as well as both Valley and Garvey corridors. Part of the poblem with rail along either valley or garvey is that if you choose one the other doesnt get service despite being equally deserving yet just far apart enough to not be within walking distance. Also, both streets are dense, congested and developed enough that it would basically require grade seperation the entire run, which is not economically feasible. The I-10 redline extension is WAY cheaper to build, would service both Garvey and Valley corridors, follows an old rail line surrounding comunities were buit to accomodate and would deliver service and comfort and access o any other rail line if executed correctly.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2010 12:42:56 GMT -8
edit: please delete
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2010 13:58:54 GMT -8
Realistically, we VERY much need to stick to the game plan that Metro already has of (roughly) the Green/Crenshaw Line forking at around Century Blvd., going west to about Airport (approx.), then north to 98th (approx.) and ending at Parking Lot C. The money is there for that in Measure R, and we need to stop trying to replace the LAX People Mover as a closer access to the LAX terminals than Century/Aviation. Wait, why can't we extend the Green Line to Century/Sepulveda and THEN head North? Will it be in the way of the People Mover? I thought the People Mover was going to use the existing elevated road structure? One area that seems to be ignored on most maps, that happens to be a major job center, is Glendale-Burbank. I believe the Yellow Line would do this. And speaking of which, it shouldn't use the Metrolink ROW north of LAX to get to Glendale-Burbank, because the CHSR is going to use it. We can't have Metrolink, CHSR, freight, AND and LRT on the same ROW. There's simply not enough room. Instead have it continue on Brand to the 134, 5, and head on Chandler from the Burbank Metrolink station. BTW, not to get too off-topic, but I believe there are plans for a trolley down Brand; however, it makes MUCH more sense to have it part of an LRT line from Regional Connector-Glendale-Burbank Metrolink-Lankershim Station. and, my god people, how many times do i have to tell you. el monte busway HRT would be a disaster and would completely bypass the dense residential areas in el sereno alhambra and san gabriel. Well the Silver Line might already cover those areas, so utilizing the busway might make some sense. thats all well and good, but valley, mission or main would be far better and can still serve the metrolink stop. Garvey isn't bad either and would connect better with the El Monte Busway, should the latter be converted to HRT. All that's really needed is an elevated structure crossing the Metrolink line and eastbound lanes, between Montezuma and the freeway pedestrian bridge. Obviously it could also cross as a subway, but i'm just going by what's bound to be cheaper. This gets a little off-topic, but how are the 10 HOV Carpool Lanes to Puente Ave (under-construction as we speak, though it's taking FOREVER) going to be built without providing enough room to double Metrolink tracks from 1 to 2? I know there's an unused westbound emergency lane alongside much of the freeway-adjacent section of the Metrolink, but i'm not sure if it's going to be utilized and it'd seem a waste not to.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2010 14:53:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 14, 2010 16:38:26 GMT -8
you can just think about what would be the cheapest options. if that were the case then wilshire would be getting a bus lane.
the areas around the 10 freeway are nothing more then single family homes. whereas valley or mission or main and to a lesser extent garvey, actually have some density around them..
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 14, 2010 19:36:58 GMT -8
let me put this a bit more eloquently...
re metrolink double track: while i do not have number to use as evidence, i can almost certainly assure you that between freemont and baldwin ave would not have enough space to build double tracking. the west bound lane however does have a lanes worth of hatch markings that could be used, but then your going and ripping up a lanes worth of freeway to build your rail line. i dont know how expensive that would be but it would be required.
re encapsulated heavy rail. with that idea your taking the "cheapest" route and complicating it infinitely. and that buffer lane now only exists on the west bound lanes. even they may not be there after HOT lanes run their coarse.
re on-off ramps: del mar is getting a new system for the ramps, but that intersections is a special case do to the hov off ramp. also, not much can be done with the layouts of those ramps without taking people homes... which wont go over very well.
i really cannot understand why you would push so hard for a freeway alignment that would require eating the HOV lanes, eating up metrolink tracks, and needing a huge investment in altering on and off ramps. while half-assing valley or garvey [this by the way, is the first time on this forum i have heard someone mention garvey as needing a rail line]
* continued in the silver line thread *
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 15, 2010 6:42:07 GMT -8
let me put this a bit more eloquently... re metrolink double track: while i do not have number to use as evidence, i can almost certainly assure you that between freemont and baldwin ave would not have enough space to build double tracking. the west bound lane however does have a lanes worth of hatch markings that could be used, but then your going and ripping up a lanes worth of freeway to build your rail line. i dont know how expensive that would be but it would be required. Can't we just move the existing HOV lanes into the emergency westbound lane, then tear up the old one to double the Metrolink track? The Red Line would use the freeway for less than half a mile before connecting to Garvey, though. And that's if it was elevated. Like I said, it doesn't have to be. On the populuation and employment density maps provided by me and Justin, Garvey Ave, between Atlantic and New Ave, as well as around Rosemead Blvd, ranks high, apparantly even higher than Valley.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 15, 2010 7:10:35 GMT -8
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Jun 17, 2010 9:50:25 GMT -8
re metrolink double track: while i do not have number to use as evidence, i can almost certainly assure you that between freemont and baldwin ave would not have enough space to build double tracking. the west bound lane however does have a lanes worth of hatch markings that could be used, but then your going and ripping up a lanes worth of freeway to build your rail line. i dont know how expensive that would be but it would be required.
The metrolink SanBerdoo line was built in the 90s, is fairly new, and is the most busy of all metrolink lines. It should stay as a single track metrolink route the way it is to serve as a fast long haul commuter line the way it is functioning now. The reason that metrolink should stay that way and not expand is because the I-10/Valley/Garvey corridor is the most congested east-west corridor east of downtown and in the SGV, and deserves heavy rail service. Metrolink and a redline extension at least to El Monte would compliment each other perfectly and the eastside/sgv would get comprehensive and diverse rail service for a major corridor like most global cities have.
re encapsulated heavy rail. with that idea your taking the "cheapest" route and complicating it infinitely. and that buffer lane now only exists on the west bound lanes. even they may not be there after HOT lanes run their coarse.
Finding the cheapest route should and is not the crux of why the 10 alignment is the best way to tackle this corridor (I-10, Garvey, Valley are all part of a larger east-west spine corridor), but it is a critical component of where and how we build our rail lines and must be considered heavilly. And it is not just as simple as going for the cheapest option, it is the fact that either Valley or Garvey would require elevated costs the entire route because they are both so dense and congested (and possibly subway in certain parts, specifically regarding CEQA traffic impacts) making the cost differential between the 10 alignment and either boulevard so extreme it requires serious consideration in the least.
Even being conservative and not assuming subway portions are necessary, the difference between elevated ($150 mil) and at-grade ($60 m) costs is $80-90 million a mile. Add up the 10 miles of the alignment length and tha tis $900 million dollars cost difference. First of all, almost a billion is a HUGE amount, secondly this corridor would only pass FTA cost benefit analysis as the at-grade I-10 route. So basically, this way is the only realistic way for us to get true urban rail service along this mega corridor given current and anticipated funding mechanisms.
Regarding the nonexistant buffer lane: it is gone on the eastbound lanes because more staging space was needed along the shoulder for construction. Just like the westbound lanes, the "buffer" between the fast lane and HOV will be repainted after construction is completed. The lane area is getting equipment for the toll lane installed below the buffer area.
re on-off ramps: del mar is getting a new system for the ramps, but that intersections is a special case do to the hov off ramp. also, not much can be done with the layouts of those ramps without taking people homes... which wont go over very well
In terms of the del mar ramps, this area (as well as the area around CSULA-710, Baldwin-RioHondo, and the area where the train will rise from sub to at-grade b/w union station and the old Macy st bridge) will require more heavy construction. The eastbound del mar hov offramp will have to be demolished and placed 15' farther south to enable enough room for all 3 tracks (metrolink and redline). The good thing is that on the south side there is at least 30-50' of extra area along the emergency slow lane that is just vegetation. By placing heavy rail for this corridor in this specific alignment, we basically mitigate the need for most heavy construction, property acquisition and even traffic disruption. The open alignment is ready to be built on, merely changing the paint on the freeway and taking out a couple dozen meters of emergency lanes at a few small chokepoints makes it even more efficient.
i really cannot understand why you would push so hard for a freeway alignment that would require eating the HOV lanes, eating up metrolink tracks, and needing a huge investment in altering on and off ramps. while half-assing valley or garvey [this by the way, is the first time on this forum i have heard someone mention garvey as needing a rail line]
For the 100th time, this concept DOES NOT TAKE AWAY any HOV or other lanes from the 10. At most, small chunks of emergency area will be used near Garfield and Del Mar offramps, THAT'S IT! THE HOV-HOT lanes will merely be placed in that bufer zone that currently sits between the fast lane and the HOV. That area is still being "studied" about what to do with it to be more efficient, making it the HOV/T lane so that we have room for a redline extension is the most efficient IMHO.
FYI, my senior thesis in college for urban planning was on converting this and the whittier boulevard corridors into HRT extensions. Ive spent the past 5-7 years studying, gathering evidence and formulating conclusions. If you look back on the old F4E discussion boards I used to argue against the 10 freeway concept as well, but years of careful analysis made me do an about face. This corridor NEEDS heavy rail service, it is dense (look at the density maps) and filled with PT dependant communities. It was built around the old PE lines and can facilitate pedestrian use very well. Both the Valley and Garvey busses are filled, with over 15k in ridership daily apiece. This SHOULD be the major east-west corridor in the SGV our politicos are rallying behind for rail. But it is mostly working-middle class minority communities with ass backwards bureacracies and visionaries, so it is not on the rada. Look at the corridors going out from LA through the Eastside-SGV and this is the most dense as well as the most congested. It is LA's main connection to the SGV, the IE, Socal and the rest of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 17, 2010 14:26:01 GMT -8
I think what some forget is that transit should not only be used primarily in dense areas, but also those with heavily congested roads and freeways, such as the 405, Wilshire, Whittier, etc. And like I said, the Red Line between the 710 and Garvey doesn't have to be elevated or at-grade. The distance is only a half-mile, so having it a subway in that section shouldn't increase the cost too much. The metrolink SanBerdoo line was built in the 90s, is fairly new, and is the most busy of all metrolink lines. It should stay as a single track metrolink route the way it is to serve as a fast long haul commuter line the way it is functioning now. Uhm, what? If it is the busiest of all the metrolink lines, I would think that merits doubling it's tracks to 2. Only good can come from that. LOL, "SanBerdoo". Yeah but isn't there enough room for 12 lanes (including 2 HOV Carpool) AND 2 Metrolink tracks when it joins the 10 freeway.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 21, 2010 9:35:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Jun 23, 2010 1:24:12 GMT -8
This was the map created by Justin Walker and presented at the Transit Coalition meeting earlier tonight. It includes many of the 30/10 projects, as well as a few that would be post-Measure R. I will also post this in the Crenshaw extension thread, as it is quite relevant to that. A larger size can be seen here: www.flickr.com/photos/48314275@N06/4724851423/sizes/l/
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 23, 2010 5:14:39 GMT -8
Why would you have the Green Line connect to the 405 corridor when it could use the Lincoln Line to Santa Monica? That doesn't make a lot of sense. I feel like it's trying to hit as many birds with one stone as possible. The problem with that is that it creates less opportunities for areas of future growth.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 23, 2010 8:34:31 GMT -8
This was the map created by Justin Walker and presented at the Transit Coalition meeting earlier tonight. It includes many of the 30/10 projects, as well as a few that would be post-Measure R. I will also post this in the Crenshaw extension thread, as it is quite relevant to that. Thanks for that map, but I believe the Crenshaw extension will meet Wilshire not at LaBrea, but farther west at Fairfax, LaCienega or SanVicente if the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment does not go forward for federal funding at this time. This map I find highly significant: I do agree that connecting the Green Line with the Sepulveda project is a higher priority than a Lincoln LRT. That 405/Sepulveda Line would have tremendous ridership.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 23, 2010 14:06:49 GMT -8
Thanks for that map, but I believe the Crenshaw extension will meet Wilshire not at LaBrea, but farther west at Fairfax, LaCienega or SanVicente if the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment does not go forward for federal funding at this time. Yeah, but if we end up building Measure R's projects with less money (which, according to a recent article I posted, is projected to happen), we'll be able to build more transit lines than planned. And I believe that, along with Santa Monica extension of the Purple Line, the West Hollywood spur will be front in line to get built. It's better if Crenshaw continued on La Brea. But it shouldn't be permanent, because once the Harbor Subdivision is built, the 405 can connect with it.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 23, 2010 14:20:17 GMT -8
Thanks for that map, but I believe the Crenshaw extension will meet Wilshire not at LaBrea, but farther west at Fairfax, LaCienega or SanVicente if the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment does not go forward for federal funding at this time. Yeah, but if we end up building Measure R's projects with less money (which, according to a recent article I posted, is projected to happen), we'll be able to build more transit lines than planned. And I believe that, along with Santa Monica extension of the Purple Line, the West Hollywood spur will be front in line to get built. It's better if Crenshaw continued on La Brea. I actually think there would be more ridership if the Crenshaw Line went north on Fairfax rather than LaBrea even if the West Hollywood Spur gets built. Then both the Beverly Center area AND the Grove area would be connected to the system. I'm not sure what a straight shot up LaBrea gets you.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jun 23, 2010 16:56:48 GMT -8
And I believe that, along with Santa Monica extension of the Purple Line, the West Hollywood spur will be front in line to get built. It's better if Crenshaw continued on La Brea. However, a lot of people, myself included, would prefer the Pink Line not be built, at least not in the near future. If it will not be integrated with the Red Line between Hollywood and North Hollywood ( as I have recommended), it is simply too short of a line to be useful in the grand scheme of our rail system. All the destinations that the Pink Line would serve, including West Hollywood, would be better served by an extension of the Crenshaw line. But it shouldn't be permanent, because once the Harbor Subdivision is built, the 405 can connect with it. And once again, I would appreciate it if you would clarify which Harbor Subdivision you are referring to. Pretty please?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 11, 2010 9:19:41 GMT -8
I am cross-posting this advertisement for Friday's rally on several threads: RALLY FOR 30/10 Los Angeles City Hall Friday August 13 at noon"Join us on August 13th as we rally to tell the federal government to support LA County's 30/10 Plan with New Start Grants, low-interest federal loans and interest rate subsidies. This will enable LA Metro to build the 12 Measure R public transit projects in 10 years rather than 30! Invite everyone you know!" See the Facebook page for more information.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 13, 2010 12:06:21 GMT -8
Well the rally is very large (thousands of people) and the tv news media is here. However, this isn't so much a 30/10 rally as a federal jobs rally. Tons of federal workers decked out in their union gear. All the big labor unions are here, including postal workers, teamsters, etc. I haven't heard anything about 30/10 yet, but I did get here late.
Also, looks like FixExpo, the BRU and communist groups were either not invited or decided not to come, because they are conspicuously absent.
UPDATE: Mayor Villaraigosa is speaking. After his initial comments, Villaraigosa said the number one way to create jobs in L.A. is to implement 30/10. Huge applause for the 100,000+ jobs this would create.
UPDATE 2: Barbara Boxer and Jane Harman also promised full support for 30/10.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 15, 2010 15:21:31 GMT -8
I saw the coverage that the AP gave the rally. It's a shame, but the AP writer sent to cover the event got sidetracked (or perhaps was told?) by the fact that the president of the AFL-CIO was there, and turned his story into a story about Bell, as if there hasn't already been enough stories about that. He almost completely ignored 30/10.
The photographer, on the other hand, seemed to get the story right, mentioning 30/10 by name (although not explaining what it would do) and photographing at least on union member with a "30/10" sign.
It's not unusual these days for photojournalists and reporters to work separately, and when my newspaper grabbed the story off "the wire", I made sure to add "mass transit construction proposal" to the story.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 15, 2010 16:34:56 GMT -8
The rally's theme was jobs, that's what got the people out there. Once the people were there, the two repeated topics were pushing for support for 30/10 and preserving the 6-day mail delivery week.
BTW a photo of the rally was on the cover of huffingtonpost.com yesterday, with the headline talking about the faltering recovery.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 15, 2010 19:10:21 GMT -8
I didn't go, but based on the news coverage it appeared that people were told that the rally was for ____________ (fill in the blank with whatever would get them there). I didn't get the impression that it had anything to do with 30 in 10 other than whatever 30 in 10 might contribute to job growth. It looked like a union rally, not a transit rally.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 16, 2010 11:56:57 GMT -8
in this economy, the offer of lots of construction jobs could be what it takes to win support for 30/10.
and in politics, no project is an island. everything is connected, and if you want to build a coalition, unions are a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 16, 2010 20:03:01 GMT -8
The simple news-bite theme was "jobs". The subthemes were federal jobs, 30/10, labor organizing, and Democratic political stumping.
The topic of 30/10 was repeated over and over at the rally. So although that message didn't make it through the media filter, it still was a good opportunity to rally the union faithful about 30/10 and confirm congressional support for it.
|
|