|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 17, 2007 19:39:35 GMT -8
So one day while walking along mission blvd in alhambra, near the alhambra trench. I though man.. there is a lot of space around these union pacific tracks. at chapel:at mission:at san gabriel:so i decided to map out a path for the silver line. it only goes from union station to el monte. because its easy to get there with the existing tracks. not sure how it would go west of union station. also i noticed a lot of under used land in the surrounding areas. so here is a google earth kmz for it. let me know what you guys think
|
|
kenny
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kenny on Dec 18, 2007 17:30:05 GMT -8
The only problem with using the existing line as you mapped out is to be so close to LAC+USC hospital without having a stop closer to the hospital, especially when it moves to the new hospital closer to the freeway. Yes there is a busway stop there, no metrolink stop.
I agree that the trench seems highly usable. Mostly freight trains are ran at night in the trench.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 19, 2007 12:05:42 GMT -8
what would you suggest?
there is an old rail row south of the hospital near the metrolink tracks which heads north at marengo to meet the up tracks. but getting there would require moving or removing metrolink lines.
also would add some redundancy in service with el monte busway. also would loose the stop at lincolin park.
could run street level from the union tracks by the 5. but metro and street level equal no good.
so a tunnel? going from the north of the rail yard under the 5 to the hospital but that would complicate, what i believe to be, a simple idea
|
|
kenny
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kenny on Dec 21, 2007 8:34:28 GMT -8
I don't know how to get the trains over to the hospital other than using the metrolink/busway area, but not without distrubing those systems. Of course, this wouldn't be such an issue if the subway continued down the busway, but that's not happening.
The hospital will just have to add the new rail stop to it's shuttle stops. I was looking at the map and don't see a great way to get closer with elevated rail, and subway is too expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 21, 2007 10:55:35 GMT -8
Any line for the San Gabriel Valley should go from Union Station on the Gold Line Tracks to Broadway, Huntington, Main St., then Las Tunas Dr, with a terminus at Rosemead. This would be about 11.5 miles, but it would require a lot of tunneling through Broadway and Las Tunas. There is some density along this route, but it's all business throughout, and it's the only the only route that makes sense for a light rail line for the SGV at this time.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 23, 2007 17:04:38 GMT -8
but that removes the point of the simplicity of this line. in order to run down huntington, main and las tunas you would have to rip up the road, build elevated above, or subway below. the point on this was to optimize the use of a very large row going threw a fairly densely populated area.
granted your comment has a higher commercial density but serving a larger residential density [u.p. tracks] would help alleviate freeway congestion on the 10 and 210. along with the gold line eastside helping out the 60. this could also free up some headachs on valley.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Dec 30, 2007 12:16:39 GMT -8
Tony, please dont tell me you work for the MTA, that would be sad. No offense, but if you do work for them, it says a lot about the agency. Folks in the org that deals with transit projects in LA should know much better than this. if you dont I apologize for sounding mean and appreciate your transit enthusiasm.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 16, 2008 16:30:01 GMT -8
so after speaking to a city representative who knows his fair share about the alameda corridor east, which the alhambra trench is part of. i think the future of the silver line is very bleak. even though it was on the metro draft long range plan. it appears that union pacific, who owns the row, is interested in double tracking its length. starting from were the current double tracking ends in the alhambra trench out past the scope area for the alameda corridor east. there is a possibility that metro will look into a green line type elevated rail line over the freight tracks. but given the financial situation this line may as well be dead again. active, inactive, active, inactive. this seems to be the fate of the silver line. make way for a sad sad san gabriel resident
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 16, 2008 18:17:41 GMT -8
Tony, please dont tell me you work for the MTA, that would be sad. No offense, but if you do work for them, it says a lot about the agency. Folks in the org that deals with transit projects in LA should know much better than this. if you dont I apologize for sounding mean and appreciate your transit enthusiasm. What was so bad about the idea except that it is expensive?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Feb 18, 2008 0:03:51 GMT -8
It's travel demand, right now with the 76 bus running up Valley Blvd, and a future grade separated bridge over the tracks at Eastern and Valley / Alhambra Rd. , the buses are meeting passenger demand so far. And the average bus speed is not bad (22 mph) comparable to a light rail line.
That grade separation over the Alameda corridor will speed traffic up alot. Then in 10 years when traffic gets severely worse, we'll bring up Silver Line again.
|
|
|
Post by roberto on Apr 2, 2008 17:30:39 GMT -8
I'm back! Thanks to everybody for all the comments, and keeping this topic alive.
After reading thru all the messages, I'll make a few general comments on what I've read on this board, the old board, as well as other forums I've seen lately. But first an update on who I am and where I've been, since I see many new names here that weren't around 5 years ago. When I was more actively involved with the Transit Coalition, it was at a time in my life when a combination of unfortunate circumstances caused me to be unemployed, bankrupt, and without a car ... and all this despite having a post-graduate education. Having lived in several other cities around the world for work or school without feeling the need to own a car (Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Lyon), I knew what Los Angeles could become. And since my parents both came to Los Angeles as children, they also told me what Los Angeles used to be (they both had fond Red Car memories). One of the things most lacking in L.A. compared to other world-class cities was some semblance of street life. I knew we could become a more dynamic and liveable city simply by making it more walkable ... and one of the best ways to do that is by building an effective mass-transit network. And since I was transit-dependent and had plenty of time on my hands, I decided to become an activist of sorts for mass transit in L.A.
I supported such projects as the Gold Line, Expo, and Green Line extensions, but since I basically saw that they were already in great hands and moving forward, I thought I could be more effective with projects that nobody seemed to be working on yet. I grew up in Hillside Village, right off of Valley Blvd, between Alhambra and Lincoln Heights. We used to play on the train tracks as kids, so that ROW was part of my life since the earliest days. I knew first hand the nightmares of getting between El Monte and Downtown on the 10 freeway and how much local support could be had for rail in that area. So I eventually put 2 and 2 together and saw there was already a ROW that went alot of places that people wanted to go, so why not add passenger rail there? I dubbed the project the "Silver Line", since "Silver comes after Gold" (the Gold Line was already under construction). I added a spur on the Western side of Downtown as well, since the demographics were similar and also because it would bring a Dodger Stadium stop into the fold, something I knew there was a great deal of public support for, at least amongst your average working class citizens with no connections to politics.
I started with outreach to all local representatives, and then built a website for the project and to my surprise, the idea started taking off. It was brought up at MTA board meetings, it somehow made its way onto the Long Range Plan, and a significant number of emails came in in support of the project. I did power point presentations for El Monte City Council and the Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council, and I also had dialogue with groups in Echo Park and Alhambra. (I had trouble getting anything going in San Gabriel, where were you 5 years ago?!?)
Then the MTA strike came and broke the momentum for a several months, and during that period I knew that I had to actually get a career started again (I didn't want to become homeless), so I disappeared for awhile waiting for the right moment to come back. It took much longer than I expected, but I think I should be able to devote at least a minimal amount of time again, though sometimes sporadically due to my heavy travel schedule for work. But don't hit me up with the donation requests quite yet, though I am now able to support myself, I am still carrying a huge debt load mostly from student loans and living costs during my period of unemployment that I am still unable to pay down. I am contemplating another career move perhaps this summer that should hopefully alleviate that burden.
Concerning the website ... the notion that I "refused" to let the Transit Coalition host it is a little strong a word for my taste, and also a bit misleading. I had been having technical problems with the metrosilverline.com website for quite some time which prevented me from updating the information regularly. The info displayed became embarrassingly out of date to anyone who knew anything about transit, and I started receiving emails about that. So my initial intent was to switch hosting companies, since I wanted to keep the metrosilverline URL instead of moving it to a secondary page on another website, where the info might be more difficult for people to find via search engines. Then eventually the MTA stole the Silver Line name for a bus route in the same area (certainly named after my project), so then I was contemplating changing the name of the project and the URL. Then life happened, and time passed and passed, and here we are today. There was never any hard "refusal" to work with the Transit Coalition, it just never materialized concerning the website, because I never had a chance to update the info, and also because I wanted to keep it on its own URL if possible. I may be able to put it back up again this summer.
I had been emailing Ken periodically to talk about coming back (and especially getting back up-to-date with the politics, I have a very shallow understanding of what's going on today, since I haven't been to transit meetings in awhlie), but what really got me motivated is printing out the 2008 Long Range Transportation plan the other day and still seeing the Silver Line listed there. I had assumed the project was inactive, but after seeing that I knew somebody obviously was still a big fan of the project, whether it was somebody at the MTA, or somebody else pushing them for it, I don't know. And then I came back to these boards to see that that topic is still being discussed ... to my delight.
OK, enough history, now on to answer a few questions, or clarify some misperceptions ...
It has been known from the very beginning that this rail line can only happen with a deal with the railroad. The original plan of attack was, since they were already planning to widen the ROW for the ACE project (Alameda Corridor East) and trench the remainder of the ROW all the way to El Monte, why not just go in on the project with them as a partner and make sure it can accommodate passenger rail as well, be it alongside the freight or above it? Then perhaps the 2 projects could share the cost of the widening/reconfiguration, making it cheaper for both entities. Also HSR was trying to strike the same kind of deal on that ROW, the only difference being that locals along the ROW would not benefit from the HSR line because there would be no stops. The Silver Line would have several stops along the way that would greatly benefit local residents and businesses. So there was also a sense of urgency to get in that trench before HSR did.
Tunneling under Las Tunas or Valley was actually studied by the MTA ages ago, but that plan was deemed too costly for the amount of passengers along that route. Yes, it's fairly dense, but it's still not Wilshire Blvd. and it would be hard to justify the cost for the projected ridership. Roughly following the existing ROW seems to be the only cost-effective way to do it. And it's not that bad a route actually ... no line can hit everything in the area, but the proposed route does get within walking distance of bustling Downtown Alhambra (Main St), and the San Gabriel Mission (which San Gabriel has had trouble for years trying to develop into a more popular destination), not far from certain parts of Las Tunas, and it also would have a Metrolink connection at El Monte, and be within walking distance of El Monte's Downtown area as well. And then with the LAC+USC Medical Center expansion that brings the facility all the way to Lincoln Park, a stop there could benefit both employees and the residential area just to the north.
Yes, the express bus is successful, but I see that just as an indication of how immensely successful a rail line could be, especially a completely grade-separated one with a few more stops along the way. Right now the express bus isn't of much use to people that live somewhere in the middle of the route.
The 2 wings of the line, one on each side of Downtown, actually don't have to be built together as one project, but they were put together to create a more cohesive plan. If for some reason, one side can't be built, Gold Line trains can actually be routed to service the one spur. But ideally we would get both.
If you go to other message boards that exist, the Dodger Stadium stop is still one of the top requests (after LAX) for rail service. People can't stand sitting in that huge traffic jam to get in, and they have to leave during the 6th or 7th inning to try to beat the traffic on the way out. And Echo Park residents have to deal with this gridlock every time there is a game. If we can get Dodger Stadium to support that Western edge of the line with an underground stop somewhere in the parking lot (station open only on game days, if they so desire), it could easily become reality. They could boost their attendance, get fans to stay longer, and the local area could benefit as well, as more people would be likely to drop by Olvera Street or Los Feliz Village for dinner or drinks before or after games, if it were all within easy access via rail from the stadium.
From Downtown to Sunset/Vermont is not a long distance, so the western end should be doable if there is not some complicated engineering challenge there. Connecting to the Red Line in Silver Lake / Los Feliz would be to allow people in Hollywood and the Valley to get to Dodger Stadium easily without having to go all the way to Union Station, plus it creates more circulation in the area, something our spine-like straight-line rail system so far lacks.
Yes, it was already discussed to take the Western end of the line all the way to West Hollywood for more support for the project as a whole, but the problem there was that it quadrupled the projected cost, since that would have to be all underground through areas already serviced by the Red Line or with mediocre demand for a subway. There are other groups in West Hollywood that want to use the Purple Line as a way to get service to their area ... by connecting the Red and Purple Line with a short 3-mile underground subway that would go from Wilshire/Fairfax to Farmers Market to the Beverly Center to Weho to Sunset Strip and eventually to Hollywood/Highland. In fact, that strategy may also benefit the Expo Line ... if the subway to the sea is deemed too expensive to do all at once, they could do a shorter Purple Line extension to Fairfax and the above-mentioned areas, connecting to the Red Line, then prioritize Expo to Santa Monica to be built since it is cheaper. And then when all that is running, demand should surely build for Westsiders to have more direct access to Sunset Strip, etc., without having to go all the way Downtown, and that would provide the momentum for the subway to make it to Santa Monica as well. Anyway, I digress.
Thanks again for the continuing discussion, and I promise to check back here regularly and hopefully get more involved in this project, and a couple of others that interest me as well.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 3, 2008 5:49:33 GMT -8
Way Back Machine preserved version of Metro Silver LineThanks for the input, Roberto. For those unfamiliar with Roberto, he's got more familiarity with the regions he's looked into than most of the Westsiders like myself will ever know. I hope you'll weigh in to the Eastside Gold Line proposals to be reviewed next week by Metro. After Gold comes Silver, but right now there's a growing clamor to extend both the Foothill and Eastside Gold Lines, and I believe you and other individuals familiar with the Eastside and SGV have a lot to offer the Metro and Gold Line Authority planners looking into these projects. The same Metro planners who pushed for Expo years ago also were drawn to the Silver Line Plan that Roberto singularly promoted, with his own website, I imagine they'd want to hear from you again, just like they always value what Darrell Clarke has to offer after he led the charge from Expo years ago. I imagine these crusades always take decades, and I know from my own 8 year experience how long a simple Green Line/LAX crusade can take. As to the color/naming issue, I remember asking the Metro planners who were hell-bent on coming up with color/names for the El Monte Busway (Silver Line) and Harbor Transitway (Bronze Line) about you and your Silver Line proposal. They knew, but felt it would still be the right way to encourage ridership by "branding" the Busway. Whatever. Glad to see you posting again, Roberto, and I look forward to your insights on this and any other issue you wish to weigh in on.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 3, 2008 8:32:11 GMT -8
Yes, it was already discussed to take the Western end of the line all the way to West Hollywood for more support for the project as a whole, but the problem there was that it quadrupled the projected cost, since that would have to be all underground through areas already serviced by the Red Line or with mediocre demand for a subway. There are other groups in West Hollywood that want to use the Purple Line as a way to get service to their area ... by connecting the Red and Purple Line with a short 3-mile underground subway that would go from Wilshire/Fairfax to Farmers Market to the Beverly Center to Weho to Sunset Strip and eventually to Hollywood/Highland. The City of WeHo wants rail on Santa Monica Blvd., which could have been a logical western extension of the Silver Line to Century City -- rail service to the Grove and to the Beverly Center is desirable, but that's not the same thing as serving the City of Weho, that's serving Miracle Mile, which is great too. Without interest from the "Silver Line" advocates for extending the project down Santa Monica Blvd., the "Pink Line" is an effort to bring Santa Monica Blvd. rail service on its own. A logical extension from the Purple Line to SanVicente/SantaMonica through LaBrea/Santa Monica would be to Sunset Junction and then to downtown and then potentially eastward to destinations on the Silver Line (see the thread in the DREAM forum). It's unfortunate that the line wasn't originally conceived as terminating at Century City. Despite the higher costs of the project, it would have brought a whole new constituency and level of interest to the project, not the least of which from the gay community commuting back and forth between West Hollywood and Silver Lake.
|
|
|
Post by roberto on Apr 3, 2008 10:44:22 GMT -8
Not necessarily against that, it's just that you've got to make the first phase of the project a small enough chunk for politicians to be able to swallow budgetwise. I had the same kind of pressure on the other end of the line, people wanted the original routing to go all the way deep into Pomona. But bringing a Santa Monica-to-Pomona line to the table is just too huge for anyone to take seriously all in one chunk. Look at the Purple Line extension from Western to Santa Monica Pier ... that's a much shorter route and they're having tons of trouble getting the funding for it. The Eastside Line took a manageable chunk to start with, and now they're working on the extensions. So you have to nibble away at it bit by bit.
Then once it looks like the first phase is going to be built, then you start on the next bit. West Hollywood and Pomona can't even have a chance to connect to the Silver or other lines until the center part of the route is built and operating anyway. That's why the Westside still doesn't have any rail service, despite pockets of immense support ... without service in the Mid-City, there's nothing to connect it to. So we have to be patient and go chunk by chunk ... the first phase really can't be more than 15 miles or so, or it becomes politically unmanageable, especially since not a single yard of track has been constructed yet. And as we have seen in the past, once a portion of a line is built, suddenly support for extensions surges.
But rest assured, my ultimate dream is of course a San Bernadino-to-the-beach line! Hopefully one day, we will be there.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 3, 2008 14:32:45 GMT -8
"But rest assured, my ultimate dream is of course a San Bernadino-to-the-beach line! Hopefully one day, we will be there." ------------------------ That's a beautiful dream. May we both live to ride it.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 11, 2008 11:04:24 GMT -8
while i know this is not exactly the silver line, but it does have to deal with the proposed lines right of way. www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_8882819posted again here, because i am unsure of how many of you scroll down to the other child forums on this site
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 11, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -8
what is the minimum width for a freight line next to a light rail line?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 10, 2008 16:28:38 GMT -8
with all the hub-bub union pacific is raising in regards to the california HSR, who here thinks they will continue to do this with inter-urban rail?
lots of proposed projects in the la region, not to mention the basis for the silver line, would require the sharing of right of ways. is this in jeopardy?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jun 10, 2008 17:51:02 GMT -8
with all the hub-bub union pacific is raising in regards to the california HSR, who here thinks they will continue to do this with inter-urban rail? lots of proposed projects in the la region, not to mention the basis for the silver line, would require the sharing of right of ways. is this in jeopardy? All the Urban Rail projects in Southern California over the next 25 years are on rights-of-way owned by Metro. The Silver Line proposal is not a project that Metro would even be able to look at until 2035-2055 at the present rate of funding. Even if the half penny sales tax gets on the ballot in November and we get the supermajority (67%) to say Yes, it only adds enough money to build projects such as the Pasadena to Citrus Gold Line, the Green Line to LAX, the Downtown Regional Connector, the Subway towards the Sea and some other worthy extensions on the upper tiers. The issue with Union Pacific was only the opening for them asking to get paid to allow High Speed Rail to share their right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2008 16:42:45 GMT -8
Alameda Corridor East trench is better for Metrolink service with stations in Alhambra and San Gabriel. That is the double track corridor that Metrolink needs to increase service on the busy San Bernadino line.
Then the replacement portion from Union Station to El Monte could be slated for LRT or even HRT in the median of the 10 Fwy.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 25, 2008 17:14:46 GMT -8
Alameda Corridor East trench is better for Metrolink service with stations in Alhambra and San Gabriel. That is the double track corridor that Metrolink needs to increase service on the busy San Bernadino line. Then the replacement portion from Union Station to El Monte could be slated for LRT or even HRT in the median of the 10 Fwy. why would you want to make a new rail line running in the middle of a freeway? have you now learned from the mistakes of the gold line and green? i dont mind metrolink in that area. provided it comes with better service hours i have not yet received an answer to my age old question about the width of freight + commuter tracks vs freight + light rail. i know specifically that the alhambra sub through san gabriel is a minimum 100 ft wide. if a new metrorail line were constructed in the 10 freeway, it would completely miss the commercial and housing cluster in the central sgv making for the same issue with the gold line. to close to the light density highlands and not nearing the dense flatlands. im glad someone else is thinking about this area, but i still believe valley blvd/alhambra sub/main st would be the 3 best routes
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 25, 2008 19:05:27 GMT -8
I think the 2 viable routes should be Valley Blvd and Garvey Ave. Stopping at Rosemead Blvd. or Peck Rd.
Eastside Goldline extension could extend along the 60 fwy and travel up Rosemead. Or it could turn left up Atlantic and turn east and run along Garvey.
That should shut up the El Monte City Council who opposed Measure R complaining that Metro never gave them anything.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2008 19:58:00 GMT -8
Alameda Corridor East trench is better for Metrolink service with stations in Alhambra and San Gabriel. That is the double track corridor that Metrolink needs to increase service on the busy San Bernadino line. Then the replacement portion from Union Station to El Monte could be slated for LRT or even HRT in the median of the 10 Fwy. why would you want to make a new rail line running in the middle of a freeway? have you now learned from the mistakes of the gold line and green? Yes, I have and in the case of this corridor we know how badly noise is at the freeway stations, so what I had in mind do to limited right-of-way is to have soundwalls at the stations and enclosed roof, like it is done at Washington Metro's Orange Line down the middle of the highway towards the town of Vienna. Given this is one of Metrolink's busier corridors this would be highly likely. The width of the trench is 75'. The width of the right-of-way, including the sidewalk and curb is 100'. Since most of this line is in residential chances are this will be challenging and the fact that this is a highly used freight corridor the replacement of space for segregated LRT and stations will be very difficult, making this idea a lot more expensive than it sounds. {Taken from the 1993 Study of the 10-60 Fwy Corridor where they looked at the Alameda Corridor East as a possible transit corridor}Actually the 10 will be equidistant from the dense flatlands since it is no where near the light density stuff. This is one of the rare freeway corridors that would actually work for transit because this used to be the Ramona Blvd Pacific Electric Right of Way and it is still pretty dense along the freeway corridor.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 25, 2008 21:28:39 GMT -8
Yes, I have and in the case of this corridor we know how badly noise is at the freeway stations, so what I had in mind do to limited right-of-way is to have soundwalls at the stations and enclosed roof, like it is done at Washington Metro's Orange Line down the middle of the highway towards the town of Vienna. if its going to have soundwalls the entire lenght, and encapsulated stations, why not opt for a valley blvd LRT or HRT? The width of the trench is 75'. The width of the right-of-way, including the sidewalk and curb is 100'. Since most of this line is in residential chances are this will be challenging and the fact that this is a highly used freight corridor the replacement of space for segregated LRT and stations will be very difficult, making this idea a lot more expensive than it sounds. no sidewalks along the alhambra trench and me thinks it will be the same for the san gabriel version as far as stations. the great thing about the alhambra subdivision run is there are alot of storage lots along the way, large enough to house stations, escalator/elevators, or diversion tracks. granted this line would not be as simple as the expo line. but it would be doable. {Taken from the 1993 Study of the 10-60 Fwy Corridor where they looked at the Alameda Corridor East as a possible transit corridor}great image by the way, have not seen that one up till now Actually the 10 will be equidistant from the dense flatlands since it is no where near the light density stuff. This is one of the rare freeway corridors that would actually work for transit because this used to be the Ramona Blvd Pacific Electric Right of Way and it is still pretty dense along the freeway corridor. ok, but the point i am trying to stress here is that lets say if the gold line ESX phase 2 does go along the 60, then lets say the silver line could be aligned along the 10, and the gold line proper is all the way to the north along the foothills. there is still a vast area of good density and good localized bus usage that would be completely passed over. i see a valley/alhambra sub/main alignment being ruffly 4 miles from the gold line to the north and 4 miles from the gold line ESX phase 2 to the south. if we use a 10 freeway/garvy alignment then the line would be 6 miles from the gold line and 2 miles from the ESX phase 2. so given the mostly blanket type density in the area. i would think any alignment evenly between the two existing modes would be preferable. but to each his own i suppose, or i could take the administrator's view and say its 40 years away so dont bother with it
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 25, 2008 22:27:20 GMT -8
if its going to have soundwalls the entire lenght, and encapsulated stations, why not opt for a valley blvd LRT or HRT? Because the most important and expensive part of the corridor, the Right of way is already there compared to Valley Blvd. Given the amount of work needed to rework the trench for LRT or HRT will make the cost of this project go through the roof and make a subway down Valley more cost-effective. Also the right of way can serve; LAC/USC, City Terrance, El Sereno and CSULA would be better served by such an alignment in the future. All of which will be missed with the Alameda Corridor East alignment. You're right except they are there on the South side of the trench from Fremont to 4th. (I worked in Alhambra for 3 1/2 years so I'm familiar with that section.) However, there are not there anywhere else. Problem is those storage lots are in locations that would make bad station locations, except for the one on Garfield which would be close to Downtown Alhambra. There's also the condition of this being an active freight corridor and some of the guys on the board remember the issues the Blue Line had when constructing that line WHILE Freight trains were in operation could will see why this will be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Huh? Having Metrolink along that corridor wouldn't add an additional route of service that the San Gabriel Valley could use to feed into the longer distance trips? It's only 4 miles away from either at only one point, San Gabriel. Either way, that would call for additional bus service to shift from the Express routes into local ones to do a better job to distribute and feed to the rail however spaced or far apart they are.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 25, 2008 22:46:40 GMT -8
Also the right of way can serve; LAC/USC, City Terrance, El Sereno and CSULA would be better served by such an alignment in the future. All of which will be missed with the Alameda Corridor East alignment. shot along the 710 from csula to the alhambra sub fixes that issue Huh? Having Metrolink along that corridor wouldn't add an additional route of service that the San Gabriel Valley could use to feed into the longer distance trips? sorry, keep forgetting your opting for moving metrolink aswell It's only 4 miles away from either at only one point, San Gabriel. true. but since the gold line and gold line extension [i60 route] are parallel east to west. anything east of the 710 is also 4 miles between
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Nov 26, 2008 18:53:51 GMT -8
I agree with Jerard that the best route for rail service in the central SGV is the 10 fwy/EM Busway alignment, and that an HRT extension of the redline from Union station is the most feasable and beneficial.
A rail line down Valley or Garvey would require grade seperation, as both are jam packed much of the day, which is so expensive that it would eliminate feasability of the line to begin with. Although an EM busway conversion does run down the middle of the freeway, building covered stations and walkways (as well as providing ample ped bridges on both ends of stations that connect to coordinated freeway side development and better ped sidewalks to Valley and Garvey) would mitigate freeway problems and costs far less than the grade seperations required on V & G blvds.
Another advantage of a 10 alignment is that it can serve BOTH dense corridors, rather than having to choose one or the either for service (each has their merits and runs thru density at various points). The 10 freeway is 3/4ths of a mile from either street at its farthest, which can be mitigated with ped upgrades and some denser ped complimenting development on a few major streets. Because HRT stations can be built much longer (as well as incorporation of diagonal ped bridges on either side to maximize access) than LRT, EM busway redline conversion stations can also hit 2 corridors per station (Atlantic and Garfield station, Del Mar and San Gabriel Bl station, Gen Hosp and Soto/Marengo, Eastern and CSULA station).
And, as mentioned by Jerard, the 10 freeway was previously a PE trolley line, and much of the neighborhoods surrounding it were built dense and oriented around the alignment, making them extremely dense (for the SGV at least). In fact, the neighborhoods along the 10 have a much more consistantly higher density than along the silverline route.
The EM busway conversion also creates huge development opportunities along the onramp/offramp land that is going to have to be re-engineered eventually anyways. I can see these developments (as well as develpment radiating down major roads from stations) tapping into Asian investors and a new Hong kong skyscraper cluster string where appropriate.
East of the EM station, the alignment can jump back down the center of the 10 out to Pomona (I see it reaching West Covina/Eastland for phase 2, Pomona Phase 3) and be combined with a HOV eastern extension down the 10 which is also in the works.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Nov 27, 2008 1:11:59 GMT -8
The problem is that the freeway is a horrible pedestrian environment, since anywhere you'd want to have a station (at a major cross street) is surrounded by a maze of ramps. And it really is too far from both Valley and Garvey to be able to walk effectively. By trying to kill two birds with one stone, you might end up hitting none of them. What I'd suggest in the medium term is putting as many tracks as will fit (3 or 4) along the Alhambra Sub, along with electrification and local stations for Metrolink. It would effectively bypass the bottleneck of the single-track I-10 corridor, and the SB line is already running 20 minute headways during rush hour, so it would not be that much worse than light rail. Plus, it would provide a corridor for HSR, and UP shouldn't complain too much, since they get at least one track at all times, and a whole three or four tracks at night. In the long term, perhaps a Red Line extension down Valley Blvd would be warranted, but that's way too far out to be thinking about seriously.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 27, 2008 9:42:20 GMT -8
The problem is that the freeway is a horrible pedestrian environment, since anywhere you'd want to have a station (at a major cross street) is surrounded by a maze of ramps. And it really is too far from both Valley and Garvey to be able to walk effectively. By trying to kill two birds with one stone, you might end up hitting none of them. What I'd suggest in the medium term is putting as many tracks as will fit (3 or 4) along the Alhambra Sub, along with electrification and local stations for Metrolink. It would effectively bypass the bottleneck of the single-track I-10 corridor, and the SB line is already running 20 minute headways during rush hour, so it would not be that much worse than light rail. Plus, it would provide a corridor for HSR, and UP shouldn't complain too much, since they get at least one track at all times, and a whole three or four tracks at night. In the long term, perhaps a Red Line extension down Valley Blvd would be warranted, but that's way too far out to be thinking about seriously. i concur. though i would like to see at least one station between el monte and csula
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 27, 2008 10:29:22 GMT -8
I'm in agreement with running Metrolink in A.C.E. as a short-mid term solution, however you would only be able to fit one additional track in the current trench configuration not 2 or 3, that is unless serious work is done in the trench to widen it.
Rail on the 10 Freeway corridor in the long term, it's only 1/2 mile from Valley, 3/4 mile from Garvey, with the grid of local buses (both by Metro and the Municipal operators) running through it this will be pretty easy and given the rail line there and that the cloverleafs that access the freeways are made for slower speed entrances it makes it easier for Pedestrians to cross and access the stations. This is the reason I mentioned in my post that this is the one freeway corridor that may actually work because of the density, proximity to the 10 freeway and how they're accessed. Valley and Garvey are suitable candidate corridors in it too east of the 710 because from Downtown to CSULA you'll need that ROW, but I'm leaning more towards the 10 because you will kill two birds with one stone.
|
|