|
Post by Philip on Jun 11, 2012 11:00:23 GMT -8
So apparently Metro will soon be unveiling potential projects that would be funded if Measure R+ gets passed this fall.
I would imagine many of them will include projects in the "Tier 1" category from the 2009 LRTP, and one of those happens to be extending the Green Line to the Norwalk Metrolink Station.
Now, this has been talked about many times before. I hope that if it happens, that it will not just be a straight shot to the Metrolink station, but also hit some stops in between. I see three stations being included in this extension:
--Firestone/Imperial
--Norwalk Blvd./Imperial/Norwalk Civic Center
--Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink Transportation Center
The biggest question is whether the line will be underground or elevated like the rest of the Green Line. Now, I don't know the area terribly well, but after looking around on google maps, I think it's going to be really difficult to sell an 'el' (no pun intended) going down Imperial. It will likely have to be done underground. I know there's also been local opposition to the extension in the past; hopefully once the Green Line is extended to LAX and South Bay, that will become less of a problem.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Jun 11, 2012 12:10:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 11, 2012 22:19:51 GMT -8
And the project just sits there for 20 years with nothing happening. Those documents are pretty stale, so I wouldn't rule out any option at this point. I think this is an example of making transit planning in isolation instead of considering the network effect. Imagine the ridership that could be induced by vastly improved connections from Riverside and OC. That would be huge for regional connectivity. This is definitely something I'd like to see from a Measure R+, but I expect so much of the money will go towards bringing current underfunded Measure R projects forward and debt servicing that there won't be that many additional projects. It will take some political finesse to sell to the public after Metro promised massive connectivity with a pet project in most every region of the county last time.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 12, 2012 6:12:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 12, 2012 9:59:39 GMT -8
"Estimated 2004 cost for the Subway Alignment 1-S is $360 million and for the Aerial Alignment 1-A is $321 million." Interesting. However, this study was almost 20 years ago, so a whole new study would need to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 12, 2012 10:41:43 GMT -8
I would imagine the cost is a little more than triple that amount today.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 12, 2012 18:43:43 GMT -8
I don't really like the fact that Metro has to have a list of projects for Measure R+. It becomes horribly political and we end up with some questionable projects as in Measure R or at least we have less worthy projects vaulted to the top of the list. Besides this technically almost 30 years away. Priorities may change by then and we are going to be locked into a plan that may nit be smart.
On the Long Range Plan for Tier 1 projects which as someone said are likely to be in the Measure R+ project list, there is a light rail line from Union Station to Burbank and Glendale. Does anyone know anything about this line? Is there even a ROW? Why not just electrify the Metrolink route that goes the same places (not sure freight is still running on this portion). Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jun 12, 2012 19:17:29 GMT -8
According to the Tier 1 map, it appears it directly Parallels Metrolink to Burbank anyway. Kind of a disappointing, really. IMO, a burbank-Glendale LRT should be an extension of a converted Orange Line to Light Rail down Chandler(Where the ROW directly continues behind the NoHo station) to the Gold Line.
After that's built, then from Union station build Subway under Dodger stadium to Glendale Blvd in Echo Park and then up Brand to Meet the Crosstown Warner Center-Azusa Line.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 13, 2012 8:13:08 GMT -8
I don't really like the fact that Metro has to have a list of projects for Measure R+. It becomes horribly political and we end up with some questionable projects as in Measure R or at least we have less worthy projects vaulted to the top of the list. There is no other way to build support for 2/3 votes for a tax increase or extension. I for one will be campaigning to make sure that the "West Hollywood light-rail subway" referred to in the final report of the Westside Subway Extension study is included in the Measure R-plus list of projects. Anything not included in that Measure R-plus legislation will likely be in back of the line for decades. And "less worthy" is inherently a political discussion anyway. How does one measure "worth"? Speed? Access? Ridership? Cost? These are all political decisions. And one that every voter in Los Angeles County will be weighing should this measure make it to the ballot. I also don't think THAT much will change in 30 years as far as major transportation corridors go. Wilshire Blvd. was suitable for subway service 30 years ago, would still be suitable 30 years from now or one hundred years from now. Knowing a rail line will come within 30 years can help local communities plan effectively all kinds of decisions.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 13, 2012 8:47:53 GMT -8
I don't really like the fact that Metro has to have a list of projects for Measure R+. It becomes horribly political and we end up with some questionable projects as in Measure R or at least we have less worthy projects vaulted to the top of the list. There is no other way to build support for 2/3 votes for a tax increase or extension. I for one will be campaigning to make sure that the "West Hollywood light-rail subway" referred to in the final report of the Westside Subway Extension study is included in the Measure R-plus list of projects. Anything not included in that Measure R-plus legislation will likely be in back of the line for decades. And "less worthy" is inherently a political discussion anyway. How does one measure "worth"? Speed? Access? Ridership? Cost? These are all political decisions. And one that every voter in Los Angeles County will be weighing should this measure make it to the ballot. I also don't think THAT much will change in 30 years as far as major transportation corridors go. Wilshire Blvd. was suitable for subway service 30 years ago, would still be suitable 30 years from now or one hundred years from now. Knowing a rail line will come within 30 years can help local communities plan effectively all kinds of decisions. Well, it was one thing to have a set project list for Measure R, because Measure R only lasted 30 years, but Props A and C did not have such stringent lists as those taxes have no sunset same as Measure R+. Are we going to have a set list of projects for Measure R+ 50-60 years from now? Just think if there were no Measure R. We'd probably still be able to get Expo done with New Starts funding and what little Prop A and C money is left, but that would be about it. Any additional lines would need New Starts money and typically those are much more worthy (better cost vs. ridership) than other projects like the Eastside line which isn't cheap and has very few projected riders.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 13, 2012 9:35:30 GMT -8
Well, it was one thing to have a set project list for Measure R, because Measure R only lasted 30 years, but Props A and C did not have such stringent lists as those taxes have no sunset same as Measure R+. Are we going to have a set list of projects for Measure R+ 50-60 years from now? Just think if there were no Measure R. We'd probably still be able to get Expo done with New Starts funding and what little Prop A and C money is left, but that would be about it. Any additional lines would need New Starts money and typically those are much more worthy (better cost vs. ridership) than other projects like the Eastside line which isn't cheap and has very few projected riders. In 2008, we were forewarned that Metro only had $4 billion available over 30 years for transit projects, which would have only funded Expo Phase I and II and Crenshaw Line. Without Measure R, that's all the excitement we would have had over 30 years. It takes a visionary mayor to create progress, we need another Mayor as progressive as Antonio next year to continue this transit expansion!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 13, 2012 14:43:10 GMT -8
flexibility sounds good, but people want to know what they are buying.
and people want to know that "their" tax dollars are going to pay for projects in "their" part of Southern California. and if it looks like "their" money is only going to "somebody else's" transit lines, then their support will drop.
(that's why the "downtown" was knocked off the name of the Regional Connector, because otherwise people would have complained about that.)
the only way to make sure that a Measure R+ gets passed is to make sure that everybody gets something.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 14, 2012 8:09:53 GMT -8
Without new projects, Measure R+ is doomed to fail.
Too many people will say, "why should I pay this sales tax forever if I am not going to get anything out of it."
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jun 15, 2012 9:55:08 GMT -8
Besides this one, which other projects will be funded? Is it some or all of the Tier 1/Tier 2 projects in the 2009 LRTP? What about the projects listed in the 2009 LRTP Supplement #1?
Not that there is a problem with this project, in fact, I think it's worthwhile. But wasn't the city of Norwalk supposed to partially fund this? Is that still going to be the case? I can only imagine that Norwalk had wanted to partially fund it so they could have more say on routing, tunneling, work hours, etc. Regardless of whether or not Norwalk will still partially fund this, I hope they still favor it.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jun 15, 2012 14:34:21 GMT -8
Besides this one, which other projects will be funded? Is it some or all of the Tier 1/Tier 2 projects in the 2009 LRTP? What about the projects listed in the 2009 LRTP Supplement #1? Not that there is a problem with this project, in fact, I think it's worthwhile. But wasn't the city of Norwalk supposed to partially fund this? Is that still going to be the case? I can only imagine that Norwalk had wanted to partially fund it so they could have more say on routing, tunneling, work hours, etc. Regardless of whether or not Norwalk will still partially fund this, I hope they still favor it. The Crenshaw Line going north of Exposition toward West Hollywood and Hollywood/Highland Red Line station via Wilshire/LaBrea Purple Line station definitely registers with a just swath of LA County: A one seat ride from Hollywood/Highland to Torrance via West Hollywood, Mid City, and LAX! (assuming Green Line to South Bay keeps moving under Measure R 1.0) I support the Norwalk Metrolink station extension of the Green Line too for better regional connectivity and the dreamy one seat ride to LAX from Norwalk Metrolink station Westside to Valley transit connection would fall under Measure R 2.0. Of course I think it would be best a mode of rail
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 21, 2012 12:29:01 GMT -8
it will be an underground alignment if you have ever been to the norwalk grennline metro station the tracks that go east are below grade to the rest of the freeway when it reaches studebaker. '' This might potentially play out very well, as the ROW actually ends just before Pecos st. Metro could try and buy that Korean Church property (much of which is empty) adjacent to where the 105 ends at Studebaker, and there they could start digging and eventually launch the TBMs. Now that might not sit well with residents, but I guess Metro could offer to rebuild the church after rail construction is completed. This, of course, foolishly assumes there aren't any NO-SUBWAY-UNDER-CHURCH fanatics in the vicinity. Now on Imperial Hwy, i really don't see the issue of having it aerial-grade ("el"). Most single-story residential neighborhoods don't face the street, and those that do are separated by sidestreets. According to the Tier 1 map, it appears it directly Parallels Metrolink to Burbank anyway. Kind of a disappointing, really. IMO, a burbank-Glendale LRT should be an extension of a converted Orange Line to Light Rail down Chandler(Where the ROW directly continues behind the NoHo station) to the Gold Line. I agree with you and Masonite. Actually, I think this should be merged with the "Yellow Line", which would run down Brand/Glendale Blvd to the regional connector.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 11, 2016 20:22:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Jan 12, 2016 12:00:42 GMT -8
Green Line extension to Metrolink would be a huge enhancement for SE LA and OC folks to get to the airport car-free with minimal fuss considering the automated people mover at 96th St will be complete by the time this would presumably get built.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 12, 2016 15:39:33 GMT -8
Green Line extension to Metrolink would be a huge enhancement for SE LA and OC folks to get to the airport car-free with minimal fuss considering the automated people mover at 96th St will be complete by the time this would presumably get built. Agree. I think the Airport People Mover is going to put some much needed pressure to get this done. The Green Line will be very successful with these two bookends IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 6, 2017 21:35:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by coasterfreak18 on Jan 29, 2021 13:12:15 GMT -8
I'm almost thinking that someone/some people should start an advocacy campaign to push this issue as a priority. It is fairly straightforward, and could be done simultaneously with construction at the other end of the line. And it obviously would have so many benefits. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 29, 2021 13:48:06 GMT -8
I'm almost thinking that someone/some people should start an advocacy campaign to push this issue as a priority. It is fairly straightforward, and could be done simultaneously with construction at the other end of the line. And it obviously would have so many benefits. Thoughts? One of the issues is that Norwalk has constantly been fighting it, which is why its moved so slowly. SCAG started studying the extension in 2017, only for Norwalk to ask for it to be stopped, and it was never picked back up:
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 2, 2021 21:49:45 GMT -8
Norwalk doesn't want it even though it will be really useful for regional commuters. But that's par for the course in SoCal... small cities with insulate and opauge governments have been stopping transit progress for years so its nothing new.
The good news (if there is such a thing in this case) is that the missing connection won't become really vital until CAHSR starts the LA to San Diego service, which probably won't happen for another 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 16, 2021 13:39:07 GMT -8
Norwalk commissioned a “Visioning Plan” for its downtown. The study recommends placing the Norwalk extension station at Firestone/Woods and/or Firestone/San Antonio.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 19, 2021 11:11:46 GMT -8
Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, neither of the potential station locations appear to be along any obvious corridor where rail might be built. Unless they're imagining a very curvy line or rail being built above or below homes. The more obvious path, which doesn't meet their TOD goals, would be up Studebaker and straight down Imperial.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 19, 2021 13:19:00 GMT -8
Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, neither of the potential station locations appear to be along any obvious corridor where rail might be built. Unless they're imagining a very curvy line or rail being built above or below homes. The more obvious path, which doesn't meet their TOD goals, would be up Studebaker and straight down Imperial. If you look at the contractor's proposal for Metro's rail integration study, they mention that the preferred extension terminal station is further south of Imperial, at the former juvenile detention center. But they also imply that this is not ideal and would consider a "extended/colocated" station to make the Metrolink and future CAHSR transfer better.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jul 20, 2021 11:46:45 GMT -8
Interesting. Unless I'm missing something, neither of the potential station locations appear to be along any obvious corridor where rail might be built. Unless they're imagining a very curvy line or rail being built above or below homes. The more obvious path, which doesn't meet their TOD goals, would be up Studebaker and straight down Imperial. If you look at the contractor's proposal for Metro's rail integration study, they mention that the preferred extension terminal station is further south of Imperial, at the former juvenile detention center. But they also imply that this is not ideal and would consider a "extended/colocated" station to make the Metrolink and future CAHSR transfer better. The 1993 study of a Green Line extension had proposed to go straight down Imperial: libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/eirs/GreenLine/Green_Line_Easterly_Extension_Index_Page.htmI've read before that Norwalk had opposed it because they just saw it as cutting through their city without providing benefits to the city, just providing benefits to commuters. Maybe the way through that logjam is to do some kind of less straight line to provide Norwalk with something they see as benefiting their city more.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 20, 2021 14:30:33 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground. There is no easy way to get there unless you go below the residential neighborhood that separates end of Green/C line and the "Heart of Norwalk". The good news is that is a relative short and straight tunnel (just under 1 mile is my guess) so it shouldn't cost a fortune. Once the C line go past Vista Verde Park, it can resurface and either a street level or elevated station at Firestone/Woods will meet the development objective of Norwalk. From there, C line can continue on surface or elevated on Firestone to San Antonio Drive, crossing I-5 and then turn East on Civic Center to Norwalk Metrolink and CAHSR station. Or alternatively, go straight east from Firestone/Woods over I-5 and skip the detour on Firestone
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jul 24, 2021 10:03:32 GMT -8
The extension from 605 to Firestone/Woods will almost certainly be underground. There is no easy way to get there unless you go below the residential neighborhood that separates end of Green/C line and the "Heart of Norwalk". The good news is that is a relative short and straight tunnel (just under 1 mile is my guess) so it shouldn't cost a fortune. Once the C line go past Vista Verde Park, it can resurface and either a street level or elevated station at Firestone/Woods will meet the development objective of Norwalk. From there, C line can continue on surface or elevated on Firestone to San Antonio Drive, crossing I-5 and then turn East on Civic Center to Norwalk Metrolink and CAHSR station. Or alternatively, go straight east from Firestone/Woods over I-5 and skip the detour on Firestone Has metro ever tunneled under residential neighborhoods? Don't they need to purchase underground property rights? LA governments in general seem averse to using eminent domain.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 24, 2021 10:49:18 GMT -8
Right now, purple line phases 2 and 3 tunneling go under some residential neighborhoods.
|
|