|
Post by trackman on Nov 24, 2010 15:49:34 GMT -8
I have a feeling we are going to need the full 30/10 Plan in place before they even study this and the 405 corridor. Right now, I just don't see a study advocating this for light rail given the money allocated. Something has to change. $240M??? What did they think they were going to do with $240M here? This is the problem I have with Measure R. It allocates a certain amount of money for a very specific route, but we have no idea as to how much a project will require. There needs to be some more flexibility. When everything is studied, maybe this project is more valuable than the Eastside Extension #2, but it seems like it would be chaos trying to reallocate things. My big worry is that at the end of the day, we are going to have a bunch of partially built projects (Crenshaw Gap from Expo to Purple, Subway not quite to the Sea) and some really bad ones (Eastside Extension #2). This isn't really the way to build a system. For better or worse, the root cause is the need for geographic equity, supported with Politics. Pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 24, 2010 17:26:04 GMT -8
^^^ Metrocenter, you're absolutely correct. Nothing has been settled. The SCAG study has yet to pick a mode, let along figure out how a specific mode would interface with the existing system. Though, if LRT, how they interface is a curriosity. In no way do I see an easy solution... with trains. There must also be consideration toward capacity of the systems - inside trains and atop tracks. You rightly pointed out the lack of track capacity in downtown LA in a scenario having Santa Ana trains hypothetically continue up the Blue Line. If this train goes to Downtown, it wouldn't use existing Blue/Expo track to Metro Center... there is simply not enough capacity. It will have to use the Harbor Subdivision track which goes to Union Station. The last 3 miles between Union Station and Slauson Ave will pass through the Vernon train yard and industrial warehouses... opportunity for fast express running. maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.008843,-118.195381&spn=0.176166,0.302124&z=12
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 24, 2010 19:39:58 GMT -8
If this train goes to Downtown, it wouldn't use existing Blue/Expo track to Metro Center... there is simply not enough capacity. It will have to use the Harbor Subdivision track which goes to Union Station. The last 3 miles between Union Station and Slauson Ave will pass through the Vernon train yard and industrial warehouses... opportunity for fast express running. Unless we build another Regional Connector: maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=115659391565603628794.000483ee5021cfb506ca0&ll=34.027139,-118.238849&spn=0.001507,0.002781&t=k&z=19
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 26, 2010 14:24:02 GMT -8
My dad worked in Cerritos for a while; Honda has a division down there. This wouldn't have helped him much, coming from San Pedro rather than downtown Los Angeles , but it might have helped some of his co-workers. And he might have used it for lunch at the very least, he knew a lot of Vietnamese and Chinese restaurants between Cerritos and Garden Grove. Or from work to LAX.... hmmm. I can totally see this as a light rail line (after more important lines get finished first, of course). At the very least, the section from Santa Ana up to the Green Line would be a winner. Don't know much about the communities north of there, seems like either an express route to Union Station or a local commuter train through Huntington Park would work. JDRCrasher's second connector might work, although I've always been iffy on Alameda south of Little Tokyo. Too much "nothing" down there for any stations. And the 4th/ Alameda station would be one block south of Little Tokyo's least interesting white elephant shopping center. Move the station one block north; give the Little Tokyo Galleria Mall a little transit-oriented boost.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 27, 2010 11:33:18 GMT -8
^^^ Metrocenter, you're absolutely correct. Nothing has been settled. The SCAG study has yet to pick a mode, let along figure out how a specific mode would interface with the existing system. Though, if LRT, how they interface is a curriosity. In no way do I see an easy solution... with trains. There must also be consideration toward capacity of the systems - inside trains and atop tracks. You rightly pointed out the lack of track capacity in downtown LA in a scenario having Santa Ana trains hypothetically continue up the Blue Line. If this train goes to Downtown, it wouldn't use existing Blue/Expo track to Metro Center... there is simply not enough capacity. It will have to use the Harbor Subdivision track which goes to Union Station. The last 3 miles between Union Station and Slauson Ave will pass through the Vernon train yard and industrial warehouses... opportunity for fast express running. maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.000492747cf29fbd56df1&ll=34.008843,-118.195381&spn=0.176166,0.302124&z=12 Let us not get ahead of ourselves because I don't think anybody knows that. None. Afterall, the people studying this are considering the appropriate mode right now, not where each mode would go. Correct?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 27, 2010 15:52:18 GMT -8
$240M??? What did they think they were going to do with $240M here? Perhaps this amount is rooted in the proposed Irvine-Palmdale Orangeline maglev line along this right-of-way, that supposedly would have its construction privately financed?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 28, 2010 4:46:04 GMT -8
Presumably Measure R funds would only pay to the Orange County border. I guess this line would be built in phases starting with the green line to OC border segment. Given OC's (lack of) commitment to transit, I expect their portion of the line will take a long time to build.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 28, 2010 12:51:20 GMT -8
I suppose it would be too much to hope that a light rail line leading right to the border of the Orange Curtain would be enough to get them to change their minds, or at least loosen their stance on light rail? For what it's worth, a light rail line to Cerritos would be worthwhile, but getting the train all the way into Santa Ana would be the obvious ultimate prize.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 29, 2010 15:34:36 GMT -8
JDRCrasher's second connector might work, although I've always been iffy on Alameda south of Little Tokyo. Too much "nothing" down there for any stations. And the 4th/ Alameda station would be one block south of Little Tokyo's least interesting white elephant shopping center. Move the station one block north; give the Little Tokyo Galleria Mall a little transit-oriented boost. Well it doesn't have to have stations. Although as the Arts district grows, so will the need for one.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 29, 2010 15:55:17 GMT -8
JDRCrasher's second connector might work, although I've always been iffy on Alameda south of Little Tokyo. Too much "nothing" down there for any stations. And the 4th/ Alameda station would be one block south of Little Tokyo's least interesting white elephant shopping center. Move the station one block north; give the Little Tokyo Galleria Mall a little transit-oriented boost. Well it doesn't have to have stations. Although as the Arts district grows, so will the need for one. It could be a straight shot, with the potential for infill stations at 6th and Olympic in the future. I understand there aren't really destinations there now, but that would be better spacing than further north, and would give plenty of room for downtown's residential communities / live-work spaces to grow.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 29, 2010 16:15:33 GMT -8
It could be a straight shot, with the potential for infill stations at 6th and Olympic in the future. I understand there aren't really destinations there now, but that would be better spacing than further north, and would give plenty of room for downtown's residential communities / live-work spaces to grow. A station at 7th/Alameda would connect with the Greyhound station, American Apparel, Metro bus operations, and homeless shelters. Also, to the northeast of 7th/Alameda is where the Biscuit Company Lofts and Toy Factory Lofts are located, with potential for much greater Arts/Warehouse District development. That would be a key infill station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 29, 2010 16:26:50 GMT -8
While it would be nice to have a 2nd Downtown connector, the cost will be a non-starter. If the goal is to get to Downtown, the only real option is Harbor Subdivision. It's not ideal because the route is pretty much all industrial but it's probably ok because there will be lots of riders from Cerritos and point beyond who are only interested in going to Union Station.
The Arts/Warehouse district - 2nd Downtown connector is really FAR FAR off the horizon. We are basically taking about building the first rail line in LA to induce TOD in an under utilized, under developed urban land at that point. All the existing and future rail and BRT lines on the drawing board are based on existing transit needs and/or existing right of way.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 29, 2010 16:28:16 GMT -8
The route should turn west in Huntington Park at Salt Lake/Randolph, and have a station at Pacific/Randolph. This way, Huntington Park's downtown area will get much needed service.
From here it can either follow a straight shot north to Downtown L.A. via Alameda, or connect to the Blue Line at Slauson. I don't have a strong preference at this point for either one. But I feel very strongly that a station at Pacific Avenue must be built.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 30, 2010 14:34:55 GMT -8
While it would be nice to have a 2nd Downtown connector, the cost will be a non-starter. If the goal is to get to Downtown, the only real option is Harbor Subdivision. It's not ideal because the route is pretty much all industrial but it's probably ok because there will be lots of riders from Cerritos and point beyond who are only interested in going to Union Station. On Measure R maps, the SATC is often shown sharing the Harbor Subdivsion ROW with the LRT/commuter rail to LAX route just north of the LA River, around the area where the Riverside and Orange County Metrolink lines merge. As for the 2nd Downtown Connector, it would be really helpful to the Blue Line instead of going through South Park and the Financial district to Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 30, 2010 14:47:23 GMT -8
As for the 2nd Downtown Connector, it would be really helpful to the Blue Line instead of going through South Park and the Financial district to Union Station. There are way more commuters who find going to 7th street station more useful than totally bypassing the heart of downtown LA and getting to Union Station quicker. Hence the problem with ridership on the Gold Line. You will see the Gold Line benefit significantly more with the connector than the Blue Line. Or, we can provide split service with 1 train going north/south on Alameda towards Union Station and another train following the same Blue Line route.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 1, 2010 8:33:52 GMT -8
Meeting tonight: Huntington Park December 1 (Wednesday), 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM Huntington Park Community Center, 6925 Salt Lake Street (map) This is meeting #3 in the current series of six alternatives-analysis meetings, which are being held to narrow the number of mode and alignment options prior to DEIR work.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Dec 1, 2010 12:13:47 GMT -8
Actually, the Alameda route makes sense as part of a downtown loop, Chicago-style. So some trains could run direct to Union Station then to 7th/Metro, and others could run to 7th/Metro then to Union Station. And all trains would hit both, because I just don't see a need to bypass downtown entirely, and serving 7th/Metro indirectly is still better than skipping it entirely.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 1, 2010 19:51:25 GMT -8
Regarding Alameda St.: Back in the ancient times, it had the Southern Pacific freight line running down the middle. Many of the customers had loading docks inside their buildings, so the local switcher was called the "Rathole Job". Would the proposed light rail be street level, subway (perhaps the design of the Downtown Connector 1st & Alameda junction should take this possibility into consideration) or noting the reference to Chicago, an elevated (or as they say in BARTspeak, "aerial") line? Surface is probably not a good idea considering the heavy truck traffic in the area (although by the time such a line would be built, that may change). Elevated would not have the NIMBY problem due to the industrial/commercial nature of the area, but there would be a problem crossing the Santa Monica Freeway. Just throwing out some thoughts here--for me this project is in the "I should live so long" category.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 2, 2010 6:20:57 GMT -8
At the meeting last night, there was general consensus that (1) this should be built, (2) light rail is the best option, and (3) it should have stops in Huntington Park.
As for the first point, I counted only one NIMBY in the room of around three dozen people. Now in fairness, many of the people attending (8-10) were local representatives of some sort, and they tended to listen more than contribute.
In terms of mode (the theme of the meeting), most people preferred light rail, because it is clean, proven technology for which we already have facilities and operational experience. There was also some support for DMU (or EMU, as someone at my table suggested), and very limited consideration of BRT.
Regarding the last point: of course people wanted stops in Huntington Park, since the meeting was located in Huntington Park. BTW, the rail alignments shown last night did not show the line merging with the Green Line. The maps showed the line continuing north near Garfield along the UP ROW, with a Green Line transfer station in Hollydale. From there the maps showed three options: (a) turn west in South Gate along Independence, (b) turn west in Huntington Park along Randolph, and (c) continue north into Vernon on the UP ROW. Both (a) and (b) would eventually turn north around Alameda. At this point, it is not very clear what would happen after that. Alignments will be considered in more detail in the next series of meetings, next year.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 3, 2010 2:17:49 GMT -8
I'm so sorry I missed this meeting; I had to attend The Wall Las Memorias that night. This would have been my opportunity to draw fantasy maps on CorelDraw (and possibly distribute) with alternatives leading to LAUS via the Gold Line by way of Soto. Others would have been via the Blue Line by way of connectors under San Pedro or Main.
I'm holding out for a secondary [fantasy] line that utilizes the old Whittier ROW to the city of Commerce, southeast into the median of Telegraph Rd. (Downey/Pico Rivera) and into the city of Santa Fe Springs and unincorporated South Whittier. La Mirada would be a difficult sell especially since they think they're OC--they're not! It would be like telling San Marino they're getting a LRT line on Huntington Drive with a spur on Oak Knoll and that it'll be good for them because they'll have ready access to the shops on Lake.
One step at a time....
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 8:10:39 GMT -8
I'm so sorry I missed this meeting; I had to attend The Wall Las Memorias that night. This would have been my opportunity to draw fantasy maps on CorelDraw (and possibly distribute) with alternatives leading to LAUS via the Gold Line by way of Soto. Others would have been via the Blue Line by way of connectors under San Pedro or Main. Well, if you have the time next week, there are still two more meetings: Cypress December 7 (Tuesday), 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM Cypress College, Complex Building, 4th Floor, Room 414, 9200 Valley View Street (map)
Stanton December 11 (Saturday), 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM Stanton Community Center, 7800 Katella Avenue (map)
Full info is here. At this point (alternatives analysis) all of the meetings are pretty much identical, with the purpose being to narrow the number of transit modes under consideration. The current list includes BRT, streetcar, LRT, DMU, EMU, conventional HSR and maglev HSR. The discussion is right now focused on the feasibility and the community benefits of each mode. Having said that, they do have some handouts and presentation boards showing lots of good information about the alignment and mode options.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 3, 2010 8:45:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 10:44:56 GMT -8
;DThere is alot of exciting news about the Santa Ana Corridor, but those people in Bellflower and Cerritos voted for a Meg-lev system only, have they changed their minds? That's funny: at the Huntington Park meeting the attendees were uniformly opposed to any HSR/maglev solution. This is partly because it would cost a fortune, but more importantly people at this meeting assumed they would not get a station, and thus they would see zero benefit. I imagine the people at the Bellflower and Cerritos meetings figured that they would get a maglev station, since they are near the middle of the ROW.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 3, 2010 16:16:58 GMT -8
I can't imagine how anybody would think that Maglev was the solution to this corridor.
Well, actually maybe I can: because it's gee-whiz cool and because they aren't actually paying for it; and also maybe because they completely misunderstand how maglev works. It's a horrible energy hog, and you would really need a non-stop Union Station to Santa Ana run to get up enough speed and keep it up to make it worthwhile.
none of the local theme parks would be on the station list, so you can't use the "tourists would think it's cool" trope, either.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 16:50:24 GMT -8
My biggest beef with Metro's planning process is, whenever a corridor is proposed for study, the purposes of the project (local, regional, airport access, gee-whiz tourist attraction) are not defined in advance. I mentioned this in the Huntington Park meeting. Any "alternatives analysis" that considers every transit mode from bus and streetcar to maglev HSR clearly does not have a well-defined purpose.
Really, the station spacing and overall length should dictate the modes to consider. Most people interpreted this project to be a line approximately 20 miles in length, with stops every 1-3 miles. Thus, the line would have to be LRT, DMU/EMU, or diesel commuter trains (Metrolink). BRT and streetcar are too poky, and HSR is too speedy and long-distance. To consider all of these options is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Dec 3, 2010 20:17:19 GMT -8
It is not Metro, it is SCAG that is doing the study. Here's a cropped screen capture from a SCAG presentation.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 3, 2010 23:59:42 GMT -8
Thank you Metrocenter. I'm going to try to attend. However, I feel OC is not going to respond well to this guide way. I can picture it already: someone sitting in the back, gasping and rolling their eyes, while impatiently tinkering with their smart phone, spewing "Just widen the freeway already...."
So the purpose of these meetings is to determine the route, decide on the technology, and then do station placement accordingly. Did Huntington Park, Bell, Maywood, Southgate, and Paramount collectively decide they didn't want stations in their respective cities? I can see now that I really have to get to the next meeting, regardless of what OC decides for their portion. I'm also curious: what is Gloria Molina's position on this guide way? And poor Cerritos and Belflower: the plans for the MagLev route that I last saw placed a station/bus hub squarely in the city of southgate, not Cerritos and definitely not Belflower.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 4, 2010 9:03:17 GMT -8
I always forget that this is a SCAG project. Makes sense in the sense that SCAG, a regional planning agency, should be able to cross jurisdictional boundaries which Metro might have trouble with. Unfortunately, it seems like SCAG has maglev on the brain. They were also pushing Ontario-to-LAX as a maglev route not so long ago.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 4, 2010 11:59:15 GMT -8
It is not Metro, it is SCAG that is doing the study. You're right, I forgot that when I criticized Metro above. But it still seems like they (in this case, SCAG) should start by identifying the intended function and purpose of the line, and then let that dictate the technology, rather than the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 4, 2010 14:46:46 GMT -8
It is not Metro, it is SCAG that is doing the study. You're right, I forgot that when I criticized Metro above. But it still seems like they (in this case, SCAG) should start by identifying the intended function and purpose of the line, and then let that dictate the technology, rather than the other way around. Metro, I haven't been keeping up to date on that corridor, but I do remember that a long time ago, SCAG was calling that the Orange Line project. They had planned on building a regional Maglev system. This was like 8 or more years ago. Well before even HSR was a semi-formal project. The reason why Maglev might still be mentioned is maybe because they never updated that old study, and are now re-doing it given the amount of time that has elapsed, combined with all the new light rail and HSR developments. Just thinking out loud here. I had been following that for a long time, and this discussion reminded me of it. RT
|
|