|
Post by tramfan on Feb 29, 2016 14:38:21 GMT -8
The biggest problem with LA Metro rail lines is that they do not connect destinations. The red line ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank Airport? The Orange line (not a rail line yet) also ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank or Burbank metro link station? The Greenline ends on both ends nowhere; why not at the Norwalk Metrolink station or on the Westside near the (Manhattan) beach? The Blue line and Expo line (in May) are actually the only destination lines in the system. Transfer spots between the lines are in place but destinations would make it an even more viable system.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 29, 2016 21:27:57 GMT -8
The biggest problem with LA Metro rail lines is that they do not connect destinations. The red line ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank Airport? The Orange line (not a rail line yet) also ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank or Burbank metro link station? The Greenline ends on both ends nowhere; why not at the Norwalk Metrolink station or on the Westside near the (Manhattan) beach? The Blue line and Expo line (in May) are actually the only destination lines in the system. Transfer spots between the lines are in place but destinations would make it an even more viable system. The Red line has downtown, Hollywood, and Universal City. Seems like it's got destinations. I like all of your suggestions, and maybe they'll be built someday, but they also have issues: -- Burbank airport? Limited ridership for a huge expenditure; BART to SFO has decent usage (6,500/day), but SFO serves roughly *eleven* times as many passengers a day as Burbank. -- Orange line to Burbank? Possible... Burbank would have to push for the removal of the Chandler Bikeway as Metro has said it's not going to initiate tearing up street medians. -- Green line to Metrolink? It would probably have to an expensive subway or perhaps tall aerial as Imperial Hwy is extremely congested in that stretch, and the 5 freeway (on embankment) is in the way. Metrolink stops about twenty trains in the entire day, ending about 7pm, so ridership at the Metrolink station would be very limited. -- Green line to Manhattan Beach? Another street median (Valley/Ardmore) - See Orange line, above.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 29, 2016 22:04:56 GMT -8
The biggest problem with LA Metro rail lines is that they do not connect destinations. The red line ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank Airport? The Orange line (not a rail line yet) also ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank or Burbank metro link station? The Greenline ends on both ends nowhere; why not at the Norwalk Metrolink station or on the Westside near the (Manhattan) beach? The Blue line and Expo line (in May) are actually the only destination lines in the system. Transfer spots between the lines are in place but destinations would make it an even more viable system. The Red line has downtown, Hollywood, and Universal City. Seems like it's got destinations. I like all of your suggestions, and maybe they'll be built someday, but they also have issues: -- Burbank airport? Limited ridership for a huge expenditure; BART to SFO has decent usage (6,500/day), but SFO serves roughly *eleven* times as many passengers a day as Burbank. -- Orange line to Burbank? Possible... Burbank would have to push for the removal of the Chandler Bikeway as Metro has said it's not going to initiate tearing up street medians. -- Green line to Metrolink? It would probably have to an expensive subway or perhaps tall aerial as Imperial Hwy is extremely congested in that stretch, and the 5 freeway (on embankment) is in the way. Metrolink stops about twenty trains in the entire day, ending about 7pm, so ridership at the Metrolink station would be very limited. -- Green line to Manhattan Beach? Another street median (Valley/Ardmore) - See Orange line, above. You are forgetting that Burbank Airport has two Metrolink lines as well as the Pacific Surfliner. North Hollywood parking lot fills before 7:00 a.m from what I am told, which means there would already be pretty significant natural demand for any stations to the north. Same with the Green Line. Pacific Surfliner goes there too so it is a lot more than Metrolink trains and the Norwalk Green Line Station parking fills each morning as well so again natural demand from points East. For whatever reason, the Burbank Airport extension seems to have little support even though planners like it and have included it in previous long range plans. However the Green Line extension has picked up support and seems likely to make it into the new ballot measure. These projects benefit the region more than a local area, which is the main reason they lag. It is a lot more sexy for Valley pols to back the Orange Line Conversion than to legitimize the Metrolink system. The result is people will forever complain North Hollywood will never have enough parking.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 1, 2016 12:44:39 GMT -8
There always seems to be a need for transit, and you're right about the regional benefits rather than the local area. I think this can be seen clearly with the Norwalk Metro/Metrolink connection - it will benefit OC folks going to LAX immensely, but it is not as useful for LA County folks (who would foot the bill for the connector) - the Metrolink has poor frequency, it costs more, and it doesn't have stops at good destinations... even Disneyland is not convenient.
Now if OC stepped up and made Metrolink as convenient and cheap as the Green line, it would be much easier for Metro to consider constructing the connector.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 1, 2016 12:52:34 GMT -8
It's a fallacy that rail lines has to terminate in a "destination". It helps but it's not a requirement for success.
What matters is connectivity. People that say Red line ends in "no where" are willfully ignorant of the number of people that connects to North Hollywood station by bus.
Similarly, people that complains about Green line going from "no where to no where" are willfully ignorant of the fact that Green line connects to 4 of LA County's busiest N-S corridors (Blue line, Silver line/Vermont, Western, Hawthorne) and has easy bus connection to another busy N-S corridor (Sepulveda).
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 1, 2016 13:54:45 GMT -8
There always seems to be a need for transit, and you're right about the regional benefits rather than the local area. I think this can be seen clearly with the Norwalk Metro/Metrolink connection - it will benefit OC folks going to LAX immensely, but it is not as useful for LA County folks (who would foot the bill for the connector) - the Metrolink has poor frequency, it costs more, and it doesn't have stops at good destinations... even Disneyland is not convenient. Now if OC stepped up and made Metrolink as convenient and cheap as the Green line, it would be much easier for Metro to consider constructing the connector. There are plenty of LA County people who work in Orange County as well. Also, people who work in LA and drive in LA should be just as much served by transit as any other. They clog the roads, pay the sales taxes and so forth. We have many people in Los Angeles who have no legal right to be in Los Angeles, California, or the United States and we all pay tax dollars for transit for them so where one lives or is from is really inconsequential. Not every Metrolink station on the Orange County Line is in Orange County. Say you live one Metrolink station away from the Norwalk Station in Commerce. You could take Metrolink on a station to station fare of $2 and then transfer to the Green Line if it connected and go to LAX or job rich El Segundo. Now it is impossible. This person might drive to the Norwalk Green Line Station and when they find the lot full, they just keep on driving to El Segundo. Also, Pacific Surfliner should not be ignored. Say somebody lives in San Diego and has an international flight at LAX. With this connection, it is realistic. Without it, they are driving.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Mar 1, 2016 14:19:16 GMT -8
The biggest problem with LA Metro rail lines is that they do not connect destinations. The red line ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank Airport? The Orange line (not a rail line yet) also ends nowhere in North Hollywood; why not Burbank or Burbank metro link station? The Greenline ends on both ends nowhere; why not at the Norwalk Metrolink station or on the Westside near the (Manhattan) beach? The Blue line and Expo line (in May) are actually the only destination lines in the system. Transfer spots between the lines are in place but destinations would make it an even more viable system. North Hollywood Red/Orange Line station complex is in North Hollywood Arts District which is surrounded by dozens of cosmopolitan bars, restaurants, a movie theater, live performance theaters, at least two technical schools, thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of homes in apartment buildings (new ones) with plans for much more. It would be tone deaf to say that the Red/Orange Lines ending in North Hollywood is nowhere, it's one of the valley's densest and liveliest neighborhoods, enough to get its own CivLAvia outpost. Definitely a destination.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Mar 1, 2016 14:31:51 GMT -8
For the traveler to LAX, certainly they can just pay the $6-$8 and take UBER from Metrolink to Green Line. Car is waiting for you as you arrive and drops you off at the most convenient location. Ride-share services should not be ignored in the analysis.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 1, 2016 15:48:17 GMT -8
For the traveler to LAX, certainly they can just pay the $6-$8 and take UBER from Metrolink to Green Line. Car is waiting for you as you arrive and drops you off at the most convenient location. Ride-share services should not be ignored in the analysis. Yeah, I doubt you would like to have to need an Uber trip in the middle of your public transit journey. That is a deal killer for most everyone. Most people using this Green Line extension wouldn't be fliers. Many people work at LAX and many people work in El Segundo as well as other places along the Green Line as well as reverse commuters.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 1, 2016 17:33:27 GMT -8
There are plenty of LA County people who work in Orange County as well. Also, people who work in LA and drive in LA should be just as much served by transit as any other. They clog the roads, pay the sales taxes and so forth. We have many people in Los Angeles who have no legal right to be in Los Angeles, California, or the United States and we all pay tax dollars for transit for them so where one lives or is from is really inconsequential. Not every Metrolink station on the Orange County Line is in Orange County. Say you live one Metrolink station away from the Norwalk Station in Commerce. You could take Metrolink on a station to station fare of $2 and then transfer to the Green Line if it connected and go to LAX or job rich El Segundo. Now it is impossible. This person might drive to the Norwalk Green Line Station and when they find the lot full, they just keep on driving to El Segundo. Also, Pacific Surfliner should not be ignored. Say somebody lives in San Diego and has an international flight at LAX. With this connection, it is realistic. Without it, they are driving. Read more: transittalk.proboards.com/post/37757/quote/1359?page=3#ixzz41hclxzGCI agree that the connector should eventually be built; I don't think it should be a high priority, though. It's a lot of money, and the current schedule of what, 20-30 Metrolink + Amtrak trains a day (both ways) versus what, about 200 trains from Metro ... it's not a good match. A person going from the Green line to Metrolink Commerce at 9pm is SOL, for example.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 1, 2016 18:31:27 GMT -8
There are plenty of LA County people who work in Orange County as well. Also, people who work in LA and drive in LA should be just as much served by transit as any other. They clog the roads, pay the sales taxes and so forth. We have many people in Los Angeles who have no legal right to be in Los Angeles, California, or the United States and we all pay tax dollars for transit for them so where one lives or is from is really inconsequential. Not every Metrolink station on the Orange County Line is in Orange County. Say you live one Metrolink station away from the Norwalk Station in Commerce. You could take Metrolink on a station to station fare of $2 and then transfer to the Green Line if it connected and go to LAX or job rich El Segundo. Now it is impossible. This person might drive to the Norwalk Green Line Station and when they find the lot full, they just keep on driving to El Segundo. Also, Pacific Surfliner should not be ignored. Say somebody lives in San Diego and has an international flight at LAX. With this connection, it is realistic. Without it, they are driving. Read more: transittalk.proboards.com/post/37757/quote/1359?page=3#ixzz41hclxzGCI agree that the connector should eventually be built; I don't think it should be a high priority, though. It's a lot of money, and the current schedule of what, 20-30 Metrolink + Amtrak trains a day (both ways) versus what, about 200 trains from Metro ... it's not a good match. A person going from the Green line to Metrolink Commerce at 9pm is SOL, for example. I hear ya. There are Surfliners at that time but they currently don't stop at Norwalk. Pretty sure that would change if it had a connection though.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Mar 3, 2016 14:21:42 GMT -8
For the traveler to LAX, certainly they can just pay the $6-$8 and take UBER from Metrolink to Green Line. Car is waiting for you as you arrive and drops you off at the most convenient location. Ride-share services should not be ignored in the analysis. Uber isn't in google transit, adding $8 more than doubles the cost of many trips (not really viable for the daily commute, for example), doesn't help if there's traffic, and adds an extra transfer to your trip. I can't imagine myself ever adding that to one of my transit trips, and I'm pretty sure only a tiny fraction of potential riders would consider that to be a viable solution.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 7, 2017 17:46:27 GMT -8
So thanks to Measure M, Gold line East side extension is no longer a choice between going to Whittier or a Superfund garbage dump (I'm kidding... but only sort of). It is now BOTH! Hat tip to UrbanizeLA again for doing all the write up so I don't have to. urbanize.la/post/metro-studies-new-alignments-gold-line-extensionThe only real decision Metro has to make in the FEIR is which one to construct first, plus analysis on some minor route deviations/grade separations. Also on the table now, a new junction at Atlantic station so Metro can run trains in all 3 directions: Santa Monica - Garbage dumpSouth El Monte Santa Monica - Whittier Whittier - South El Monte
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 7, 2017 18:30:28 GMT -8
Bzcat, while I appreciate your humorous take on this debacle of a project, the Washington Blvd alignment to "Whittier" is an even bigger joke than the SR-60 alignment; at least the latter isn't beating around the bushes with how bad it is.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 7, 2017 18:43:15 GMT -8
I'm not a fan of either alignment.
I used to live in Montebello so I'm familiar with the area. This is the pick your poison kind of rail extension.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Feb 7, 2017 22:17:50 GMT -8
Is there enough density on either alignment to support light rail?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 7, 2017 23:58:30 GMT -8
I'm not a fan of either alignment. I used to live in Montebello so I'm familiar with the area. This is the pick your poison kind of rail extension. I agree, and I too am very familiar with the area. Remember..., either way eventually we're gonna HAVE to extend the Purple/Red line down Whittier Blvd at some point. Choosing the Washington Blvd only kicks that can down the road another 20-50 years.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 8, 2017 1:34:40 GMT -8
I'm not a fan of either alignment. I used to live in Montebello so I'm familiar with the area. This is the pick your poison kind of rail extension. I agree, and I too am very familiar with the area. Remember..., either way eventually we're gonna HAVE to extend the Purple/Red line down Whittier Blvd at some point. Choosing the Washington Blvd only kicks that can down the road another 20-50 years. Whittier Blvd doesn't have anywhere close to the density for a subway (or subway funding) yet. It'll happen, but it'll be 50 years at the earliest. For light rail, the Washington route has potential for upzoning. From a look on a map, the Montebello (Greenwood), Pico Rivera (Rosemead), and Whittier (Lambert) stations all have big chunks of industrial and commercial land around them. If they can get a station at the Citadel, that would be another plus.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 8, 2017 7:50:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 8, 2017 11:53:29 GMT -8
Every time this thread lights up, I get chills. The only extension that merited further consideration was the one along Garvey Av. thru Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, El Monte, and into the El Monte Bus Station. It's really a shame that it was eliminated. Since Metro is now going forward with both the Whittier and SGV alignments, I wonder if Metro would be willing to do some sort of comparative analysis for the SGV alignment: 60 frwy vs. the Garvey Av.? It just seems as though there would be so much more ridership along Garvey Av.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 8, 2017 12:31:35 GMT -8
I would say what happened at Little Tokyo is probably a very good precedent for Atlantic station.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Apr 20, 2017 17:45:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Apr 21, 2017 17:06:18 GMT -8
Seems like having the rail yard in Commerce would make the Whittier branch more likely... Can the Monrovia and LA yards can store all the cars w/o a new yard? The routes seem logical enough, although I can't think of a good reason for a station in such a terribly connected place as the Monterey Park Marketplace. I'm diggin' the subway thru the Citadel.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 22, 2017 15:07:05 GMT -8
Nice take down of Gold Line Eastside extensions and why it is doomed to fail: urbanize.la/post/eastside%E2%80%99s-six-billion-dollar-questionThe nonsensical line "C" is really terrible. Someone needs to start beating some sense into the SGV COG and advocate for something like this: Extend the Red or Purple line across the river to East LA through Boyle Heights. We probably only have enough money to get it to Indiana Station, which is fine for now. This should be doable on the same budget as the Gold Line extensions and will be much more useful. And you preserve the possibility of extending both the Purple and the Expo/Gold somewhere useful in the future.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 22, 2017 22:45:54 GMT -8
Putting the subway into East LA isn't even getting it into the SGV. I wouldn't expect the SGV cities to agree to that.
Rather than constructing a whole new underground station at Atlantic, Metro could move the Atlantic station a block west (by the park) and keep it above ground. Go with a level junction and use property on the triangle block with the McDonald's for the entrance to the southern tunnel. That ought to save a few bucks.
I don't see ridership on the C line, but I think Metro started withe the three way junction so it could use a single maintenance yard, and the C line just followed that.
I don't see any way of avoiding costly underground stations at Whittier Blvd or Metrolink/Citadel.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 26, 2017 8:13:15 GMT -8
Putting the subway into East LA isn't even getting it into the SGV. I wouldn't expect the SGV cities to agree to that. Rather than constructing a whole new underground station at Atlantic, Metro could move the Atlantic station a block west (by the park) and keep it above ground. Go with a level junction and use property on the triangle block with the McDonald's for the entrance to the southern tunnel. That ought to save a few bucks. I don't see ridership on the C line, but I think Metro started withe the three way junction so it could use a single maintenance yard, and the C line just followed that. I don't see any way of avoiding costly underground stations at Whittier Blvd or Metrolink/Citadel. There isn't a way to avoid it unless they build it as an elevated. However a bright side that members here can consider to be an idea to bring a solution and build both lines and that is to study having the extension run on the UP ROW which current has the Metrolink Riverside Line operate on. The Citadel station can now be a surface station on a mostly grade separated right of way. This will enable the ability to still split the lines to serve both South El Monte and Whittier and save a couple billion dollars and take advantage of Light Rail's strength which is utilizing rail rights of ways.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on May 26, 2017 12:53:47 GMT -8
Interesting.... for the "blue" Whittier line, there are a few issues. - Putting the line so close to Whittier Blvd would be competing with the ridership on the eventual subway extension. My guess is that this competition is what killed the Beverly Blvd proposal more than anything else.
- The ROW through Whittier has already long been built as the Greenway Trail, and Whittier is committed to it - they paid for a bridge replacement over Pickering for the original construction and have just bought an easement to extend it from Mills Ave to the far eastern city line. It's also quite narrow through Uptown, and crosses a bunch of small residential streets.
- The northern section is already being looked at for a Metrolink stop near Rio Hondo College.
What might be more workable is to zig-zag it on the surface along the UP right-of-way to Garfield to Washington Blvd. Surface station at the Citadel as you say. These are very busy streets with heavy truck traffic, so getting Commerce to OK it might be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 27, 2017 7:37:14 GMT -8
Interesting.... for the "blue" Whittier line, there are a few issues. - Putting the line so close to Whittier Blvd would be competing with the ridership on the eventual subway extension. My guess is that this competition is what killed the Beverly Blvd proposal more than anything else.
- The ROW through Whittier has already long been built as the Greenway Trail, and Whittier is committed to it - they paid for a bridge replacement over Pickering for the original construction and have just bought an easement to extend it from Mills Ave to the far eastern city line. It's also quite narrow through Uptown, and crosses a bunch of small residential streets.
- The northern section is already being looked at for a Metrolink stop near Rio Hondo College.
What might be more workable is to zig-zag it on the surface along the UP right-of-way to Garfield to Washington Blvd. Surface station at the Citadel as you say. These are very busy streets with heavy truck traffic, so getting Commerce to OK it might be an issue. And that is precisely why using the ROW is the best bet because past Atlantic the stop spacing can be placed farther apart now a joint Metrolink and Metro station at those two spots create a local-express set up that rail system needs to adapt to.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 31, 2017 11:02:31 GMT -8
Scott Frazier (who used to post here as well but not lately) had a very good "make lemonade with lemons" suggestions to improve the currently pathetic Gold Line Eastside extension proposal from Metro. See here: forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7820008&postcount=4124Basically: This is what it looks like on a map that I made: Some key highlights - Eliminates the branching/headway problem - 60 freeway and Washington Blvd are clearly different travel corridors so no reason to shutgun marry them together - Address the SGV vs. Gateway council funding issue - Atlantic line (the rose color line on the map - rose line to the Rose Bowl!) is actually useful vs. the idiotic "C" line that goes from El Monte to Whittier - The "Whittier/Washington" Line (the dark green line on the map below) terminates in Downtown LA but potentially can be extended further beyond to Mid City via Pico or Venice Blvd in the future - The "Atlantic" and "Whittier/Washington" line share tracks on Atlantic between Whittle and UP right of way near Citadel, so in theory they can share one train yard, no need for additional service tracks to other light rail lines. - Still leave room for future extension of Red (Whittier Blvd?) and Purple (Valley Blvd?) lines across the LA River vs. Metro's idiotic proposal
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jun 1, 2017 17:36:25 GMT -8
It looks to be more expensive to build a subway under Whittier Blvd from downtown thru East LA (all the way to Atlantic?) than just under Atlantic. Also, DTLA utility relocations cost a heck of a lot. I didn't see any guesstimates of cost in Scott's piece.
As far as the slowness is concerned, I agree with Scott that the GLEE is much slower than it should be (isn't that the case with most of our LR lines?). The time estimate for Line B from Atlantic to Whittier isn't too bad as Washington has pretty widely spaced traffic lights; the 60 should be very decent as it has a clear right-of-way. It's the poky-ness thru East LA where there are traffic lights close together and *there's little or no signal preemption*. Couldn't Metro just preempt like the GLFE... it's quite a dreamy ride there. Preemption is surely cheaper than building subways.
|
|