reviving the silver line

[kenalpern]

What a shame that we don't have any studies or political efforts to move this forward, and that we only have Sup. Molina to represent us in this effort. Maybe Sup. Antonovich could jump in, here, or even Mayor Villaraigosa, but I doubt it because they're going to do nothing to get in the way of the Foothill Gold Line and Wilshire Subway.

It's times like this that I would welcome an EIR to study this project, something to be included in the ACE project to include pedestrian rail inclusion, and/or a redesignation of the funds for the future Whittier Gold Line project extension to another Eastside rail line.

A website devoted solely to Eastside rail and transportation projects could be as widely disseminated as this one, and the F4ET site, and the old Silver Line site. I truly respect Art's dilemma, and Roberto's dilemma, as they put their careers and families forward with all the effort and time they've got.

I can honestly and openly proclaim that my own Westside/South Bay efforts would have gone NOOOOOOOOOOWHERE were it not for the web-savvy folks like Bob Leabow, Bart Reed, Jerard Wright and others. I just don't have the time and the smarts. Maybe a CSULA student or professor with the time and interest could lead the way for a SoCATA, F4ET and FoGL type of effort for the Silver Line, the El Monte Busway and subway extension to Whittier Avenue.

I'd love for Sup. Molina to prove me wrong, but her constant "we've got no money!" prevented her from taking the blind leap of faith that Sup. Yaroslavsky (who used too say that all the time, too) from pursuing his Wilshire Subway. We'd have something good for the Eastside by now with respect to something better than the Gold Line extension to Whittier.

Molina, or some other Eastside politician, needs to focus on the huge number of Eastsiders that voted for mass transit with Prop. R, and start the consensus building NOW. We don't need the Wilshire Subway to go all the way to the ocean as much as we need for it to go through the megadense central/east portion of Downtown.

[bobdavis]

The trouble with using local buses to connect with the proposed San Berdoo Fwy rapid transit is that the typical local bus service ends fairly early in the evening. One of the arguments in favor of driving one's own car is that your "ride" is available 24/7. Unlike the bus (or taxi), which requires a paid driver no matter how many or how few passengers are riding, the personal car driver is an unpaid chauffeur. Of course, it may be a whole different world when we get to the time periods mentioned in these proposals--15 to 25 years away. There's a member of TrainOrders.com who cites authors predicting the end of petroleum-fueled transport, especially cheap airline and motorcar travel. He expects that vacations in places like Florida and Mexico (let along going to London or Paris) will be strictly for the very rich and that us normal folks will be forced back into the 19th and early 20th Centuries, when the other side of the country was like the other side of the moon. By his estimation, we should prepare for a time when riding the interurban to the county seat will be the limit of non-business travel.

[jejozwik]

on that point. i work in hollywood now. close enough to the red line. but i dont take it.

only because buses that take me from union station to home are not reliable enough after 6pm. i would much rather take the red line, but my non-9-5 job with varying hours keeps me from doing so.

that is why i am so interesting in the metrolink proposal, if there could be a mid el monte-csula station, with trains that dont stop running at 6 i would be very, very happy.

[JerardWright]

Nov 27, 2008 11:44:36 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

The trouble with using local buses to connect with the proposed San Berdoo Fwy rapid transit is that the typical local bus service ends fairly early in the evening. One of the arguments in favor of driving one's own car is that your "ride" is available 24/7. Unlike the bus (or taxi), which requires a paid driver no matter how many or how few passengers are riding, the personal car driver is an unpaid chauffeur. Of course, it may be a whole different world when we get to the time periods mentioned in these proposals--15 to 25 years away.

Very good points BobDavis.

That bus connection maybe a problem for any corridor in this part of the San Gabriel Valley, so it's not just one line but all of them will have this issue of bus/shuttle connectivity and keeping those routes running during non rush hour time. However the freeway corridor because it's parallel to Hellman Avenue may have opportunities for Park-Rides.

However, I think we'll start to see some adjustments for the Eastside Gold Line (especially near the end of the line) when this comes online Summer 2009.

[Dan Wentzel]

Could this be revised as a streetcar project west of Union Station -- perhaps a "Sunset Streetcar" from downtown to the Strip?

[jdrcrasher]

I really want this to happen.

[jejozwik]

yourgh! im frustrated here.

i would like to move the conversation away from 10/30 and back into this thread.

art is pushing for a el monte busway alignment. which i really think would be a colossal flop. as much as i have argued against a valley blvd alignment for the western sgv, i would so much favor that over a center running freeway alignment that would plop into the center of single family home turf and do little for the bus heavy main/las tunas of valley.

whats wrong with a little grade separation of a rail line when it could serve a hugely active area. since the freeway line would already be encased at its stations, why cant the stations be elevated at major intersections? minor roads between can, should, be at grade. they see little cross traffic as it is.

garvey is a busy road as well, but i hardly see the same activity on that road that i do on valley or main. as well as that, to the south of gavery is hill country without any supporting density. whereas north or south of main is quite dense. while being more centrally located.

forcing a reconfiguration and re-zoning of an entire sub-region so that a metro rail line can hook up with 1 metolink stop seems to me like an ill advised idea. with that kind of thinking the red line should have been re-routed through los feliz up along the 5 freeway so that it could hookup with the burbank metrolink. instead of serving an activity center.

[jejozwik]

Jun 15, 2010 6:42:07 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

Can't we just move the existing HOV lanes into the emergency westbound lane, then tear up the old one to double the Metrolink track?

what emergency lane? only west bound traffic still has the hatch marking between the hov lanes and mix flow lanes. im just trying to show that a freeway running wont simply be the "cheapest option." there is a lot of alterations to existing modes of transportation to circumvent having to run a line down the center of some truly massive boulevards

Jun 15, 2010 6:42:07 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

The Red Line would use the freeway for less than half a mile before connecting to Garvey, though. And that's if it was elevated. Like I said, it doesn't have to be.

thats not what the map said. the idea shown was a freeway running extension of the red line till el monte.

Jun 15, 2010 6:42:07 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

On the populuation and employment density maps provided by me and Justin, Garvey Ave, between Atlantic and New Ave, as well as around Rosemead Blvd, ranks high, apparantly even higher than Valley.

i guess that all depends on what the end goal for this line is, serving residents, serving shops, or serving jobs.

[jejozwik]

ruff options map


see for full size
www.flickr.com/photos/godblessbotox/4704760276/

[jejozwik]

art said:

The metrolink SanBerdoo line was built in the 90s, is fairly new, and is the most busy of all metrolink lines. It should stay as a single track metrolink route the way it is to serve as a fast long haul commuter line the way it is functioning now. The reason that metrolink should stay that way and not expand is because the I-10/Valley/Garvey corridor is the most congested east-west corridor east of downtown and in the SGV, and deserves heavy rail service. Metrolink and a redline extension at least to El Monte would compliment each other perfectly and the eastside/sgv would get comprehensive and diverse rail service for a major corridor like most global cities have.

wouldnt that be merit for more metrolink trains and track?

art said:

Finding the cheapest route should and is not the crux of why the 10 alignment is the best way to tackle this corridor (I-10, Garvey, Valley are all part of a larger east-west spine corridor), but it is a critical component of where and how we build our rail lines and must be considered heavilly. And it is not just as simple as going for the cheapest option, it is the fact that either Valley or Garvey would require elevated costs the entire route because they are both so dense and congested (and possibly subway in certain parts, specifically regarding CEQA traffic impacts) making the cost differential between the 10 alignment and either boulevard so extreme it requires serious consideration in the least.

sure it is congested and busy. but i hardly think that valley blvd would require elevated tracks its entire length. while the north/south intersections are VERY busy, fact is that most of valley blvd traffic is moving along east/west and rarely utilizing the smaller north/south streets.
that would make me think only the main intersections would need to be raised up.

cost, what i am saying here is that others have praised this alignment for being cheaper then anything else. while it would require a vast amount of alterations to metrolink, hov lanes, freeway ramps on top of building a subway line.

art said:

Even being conservative and not assuming subway portions are necessary, the difference between elevated ($150 mil) and at-grade ($60 m) costs is $80-90 million a mile. Add up the 10 miles of the alignment length and tha tis $900 million dollars cost difference. First of all, almost a billion is a HUGE amount, secondly this corridor would only pass FTA cost benefit analysis as the at-grade I-10 route. So basically, this way is the only realistic way for us to get true urban rail service along this mega corridor given current and anticipated funding mechanisms.

cool, find me figures for reconstructing 4 lanes of freeway, 2 lanes of hov, double tracking metrolink, and reconfigureing ramps, along with stations.

art said:

Regarding the nonexistant buffer lane: it is gone on the eastbound lanes because more staging space was needed along the shoulder for construction. Just like the westbound lanes, the "buffer" between the fast lane and HOV will be repainted after construction is completed. The lane area is getting equipment for the toll lane installed below the buffer area.

gotcha, i dont normally take the east bound mixed flow lanes, only over the weekend did i see how they are blocking up the shoulder.

art said:

In terms of the del mar ramps, will require more heavy construction. The eastbound del mar hov offramp will have to be demolished and placed 15' farther south to enable enough room for all 3 tracks (metrolink and redline).

so wait, your keeping single track metrolink or having a single track redline?

art said:

The good thing is that on the south side there is at least 30-50' of extra area along the emergency slow lane that is just vegetation. By placing heavy rail for this corridor in this specific alignment, we basically mitigate the need for most heavy construction, property acquisition and even traffic disruption. The open alignment is ready to be built on, merely changing the paint on the freeway and taking out a couple dozen meters of emergency lanes at a few small chokepoints makes it even more efficient.

yes there is room around del mar, i just do not know if it is enough for a station, metrolink tracks, and the del mar flyover

art said:

For the 100th time, this concept DOES NOT TAKE AWAY any HOV or other lanes from the 10. At most, small chunks of emergency area will be used near Garfield and Del Mar offramps, THAT'S IT! THE HOV-HOT lanes will merely be placed in that bufer zone that currently sits between the fast lane and the HOV. That area is still being "studied" about what to do with it to be more efficient, making it the HOV/T lane so that we have room for a redline extension is the most efficient IMHO.

wonder what the regulations are for no emergency lanes for a 12 lane freeway.

art said:

FYI, my senior thesis in college for urban planning was on converting this and the whittier boulevard corridors into HRT extensions. Ive spent the past 5-7 years studying, gathering evidence and formulating conclusions. If you look back on the old F4E discussion boards I used to argue against the 10 freeway concept as well, but years of careful analysis made me do an about face. This corridor NEEDS heavy rail service, it is dense (look at the density maps) and filled with PT dependant communities. It was built around the old PE lines and can facilitate pedestrian use very well. Both the Valley and Garvey busses are filled, with over 15k in ridership daily apiece. This SHOULD be the major east-west corridor in the SGV our politicos are rallying behind for rail. But it is mostly working-middle class minority communities with ass backwards bureacracies and visionaries, so it is not on the rada. Look at the corridors going out from LA through the Eastside-SGV and this is the most dense as well as the most congested. It is LA's main connection to the SGV, the IE, Socal and the rest of the nation.

yep, 100% agree. my only arguments are on the basis of alignments. by putting the line so far south the central western SGV remains unserved in terms of rail service. it would remain 3 miles away from any rail service.

garvey, with no 10-freeway rail service, would remain 3 miles away from an eastside gold line. however a vast majority of that area is mountain residental areas. while alhambra and san gabriel have there highest densities within this zone.

[James Fujita]

you know, as somebody who has never lived in the San Gabriel Valley, I'm looking at that map and thinking "well.... I know diddly-squat about most of those lines" except for the light blue one on Valley Boulevard.

The light blue one might as well be called the Dim Sum Line because of the Chinese restaurants, Chinese bakeries and Chinese/ Asian supermarkets along the line. That's enough for it to gain my vote ;D

But seriously, with every rail transit line that we build, we do need to think about end points vs. start points. Start points would be homes, and end points would be... well, just about everything else. Offices, businesses, shops, markets, attractions, places to go and things to do.
I'm inclined to prefer end points over start points because that's what people seem to complain the most about Metro Rail, "it doesn't go enough places"

by its very nature, Los Angeles is always going to have a large number of "choice" riders, and if you stop to think about it, a choice rider is somebody who can leave his primary vehicle behind at the train station... but won't have access to it at the other end.
as a result, start points can be wide and diverse, but end points really ought to have pinpoint accuracy. people are much more forgiving of a rail line which "starts" a mile from their house than they are of a rail line which ends a mile from their destination.

anyhoo... just some "food" for thought. carry on, boys....

[jejozwik]

Jun 21, 2010 10:14:53 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

you know, as somebody who has never lived in the San Gabriel Valley, I'm looking at that map and thinking "well.... I know diddly-squat about most of those lines" except for the light blue one on Valley Boulevard.
The light blue one might as well be called the Dim Sum Line because of the Chinese restaurants, Chinese bakeries and Chinese/ Asian supermarkets along the line. That's enough for it to gain my vote ;D
But seriously, with every rail transit line that we build, we do need to think about end points vs. start points. Start points would be homes, and end points would be... well, just about everything else. Offices, businesses, shops, markets, attractions, places to go and things to do.
I'm inclined to prefer end points over start points because that's what people seem to complain the most about Metro Rail, "it doesn't go enough places"
by its very nature, Los Angeles is always going to have a large number of "choice" riders, and if you stop to think about it, a choice rider is somebody who can leave his primary vehicle behind at the train station... but won't have access to it at the other end.
as a result, start points can be wide and diverse, but end points really ought to have pinpoint accuracy. people are much more forgiving of a rail line which "starts" a mile from their house than they are of a rail line which ends a mile from their destination.

yep, which is why im advocating for a line that is not on the 10 freeway. given that distance i would get in my car and drive to the station. and when i get there i will have a choice, hang out and wait for a train that will be slower then an hov lane jaunt. that will be the same choice for most of the people around me. my guess is they will choose their cars.

however, a valley blvd or main street alignment would not just be about commuting options, it would also serve the huge amount of restaurants and shops that make this area famous.

[jdrcrasher]

Jun 15, 2010 15:02:37 GMT -8 jejozwik said:

ruff options map

You forgot Huntington. ;D

wouldnt that be merit for more metrolink trains and track?

Well...yeah. I didn't understand that comment entirely; unless he was referring to traffic resulting from construction.

cost, what i am saying here is that others have praised this alignment for being cheaper then anything else. while it would require a vast amount of alterations to metrolink, hov lanes, freeway ramps on top of building a subway line.

so wait, your keeping single track metrolink or having a single track redline?

In the Garvey alignment, if the section between Cal State LA and Montezuma is a subway, you can easily double the Metrolink track above.

[/quote]yes there is room around del mar, i just do not know if it is enough for a station, metrolink tracks, and the del mar flyover[/quote]

In the garvey alignment, the crossover to garvey would happen WAY before Del Mar.

garvey, with no 10-freeway rail service, would remain 3 miles away from an eastside gold line. however a vast majority of that area is mountain residental areas. while alhambra and san gabriel have there highest densities within this zone.

Actually, portions along Garvey are JUST as dense in both population AND employment as those surrounding Valley and Main. I believe Justin and I recently posted Metro's density pop. and employment maps in the 30/10 thread.

And only the area between the 10 freeway (crossover for possible subway) and Atlantic are mountainous.

[jdrcrasher]

Jun 21, 2010 10:22:27 GMT -8 jejozwik said:

yep, which is why im advocating for a line that is not on the 10 freeway.

I agree. And another reason is that running an LRT along a freeway is one thing, but a subway is NOT gonna happen for a while.

[jejozwik]

Jun 21, 2010 14:44:58 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

In the Garvey alignment, if the section between Cal State LA and Montezuma is a subway, you can easily double the Metrolink track above.

In the garvey alignment, the crossover to garvey would happen WAY before Del Mar.

Actually, portions along Garvey are JUST as dense in both population AND employment as those surrounding Valley and Main. I believe Justin and I recently posted Metro's density pop. and employment maps in the 30/10 thread.

And only the area between the 10 freeway (crossover for possible subway) and Atlantic are mountainous.

you are forgetting your geography.
maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=34.036444,-118.091354&spn=0.223905,0.400314&t=p&z=12

its now obvious you are not talking about the same alignments as posted here
transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=907&page=1#15899
which stated this discussion for me.

[art]

wouldnt that be merit for more metrolink trains and track?

If you review original metrolink documents (at mtas libr), you will see the way they configured the alignment makes it extremely expensive and almost physically impossible to double track between csla and elmonte. On the other hand, using the area closest to the center of the 10 for other rail service is much easier and economically feasable. When I did my thesis I discussed this with several Caltrans engineers, which helped solidify my opinion.


sure it is congested and busy. but i hardly think that valley blvd would require elevated tracks its entire length. while the north/south intersections are VERY busy, fact is that most of valley blvd traffic is moving along east/west and rarely utilizing the smaller north/south streets.
that would make me think only the main intersections would need to be raised up.

Do you drive down Valley every day? I do, i also lived along various points of the boulevard where you are proposing putting rail. It will not fit! The boulevard is packed every day for several hours basically between Atlantic to at least Walnut Grove, putting in rail (even el would take a lane) would require it be grade seperated. Valley has the traffic thresholds and congestion rating that pretty much indicate it is at capacity or beyond for several lengthy stretches, discuss this issue with the public works or planning depts of any of the cities it runs through and see what I mean, I also spoke to these depts when i did my thesis and it helped solidify my position.

cost, what i am saying here is that others have praised this alignment for being cheaper then anything else. while it would require a vast amount of alterations to metrolink, hov lanes, freeway ramps on top of building a subway line.

Valley would require at least 3-5 miles of elevated (if not subway in certain parts) , at a cost of an additional $90 million a mile. thats not just "being cheaper", it shaves the entire cost by 1/3rd which can make or break its ability to fall within FTA cost benefit analysis guidelines that are considered a benchmark of a rail line's feasability as well as the most logical funding opportunity.

I dont know where you are getting it will require vast alterations to metrolink. Im pretty familiar with construction footprints and techniques, building a new rail line on the inside lanes of the I-10 wouldnt disturb metrolink in any way. In fact, it would mitigate 2 low ridership metrolink stops (csula and gen hosp) and speed up the line.

It wouldnt require any alteration of freeway ramps beyond putting in pylons to support the ped bridges taking riders from the station to Hellman or Glendon and their respective boulevards. I note the redvelopment opportunity only because i found out they have reached their lifespan and will be redesigned in the next few years and it presents a perfect opportunity to create more housing while complimenting a station and mitigating freeway impacts.

The one thing that would be affected would be the HOV lanes, but I dont see how it is that much of an effect or cost seeing as how they are currently moving the lanes around over and over again for much less expensive and important transit amenities than a heavy rail extension. Restriping a freeway costs a fraction of overall construction, if I recall correctly it was between 2-4 million for the whole endevour.

So the HOV lane would have to be moved and repainted 15 feet next to where they currently exist. Onto a lane that is now empty space and serves as an unecessary buffer that most carpools dont have or need. I dont see this as a big deal at all, and it seems a bit odd that you downplay putting in at-grade rail on the most congested boulevard in the SGV with no space yet consider activating an unused lane and restriping as major endevours.

cool, find me figures for reconstructing 4 lanes of freeway, 2 lanes of hov, double tracking metrolink, and reconfigureing ramps, along with stations.

There wont be 4 lanes reconstructed. the only area that will have to be rebuilt is the 2 lanes that will become the rail right of way. If they can tear up and rebuild 4 lanes to put in traffic sensors so the MTA gets a couple dozen million in FTA funds, then they can do half that to put in heavy rail in the most congested corridor in the SGV. I dont understand why people theoretically make these insane obstacles for a badly needed rail project when an even heavier footprint is being used as we speak for a much less important project.

Metrolink wont need to be double tracked. This is a dense urban corridor, and despite your comments, is surrounded by multifamily buildings along most of the way (as your map shows, the corridor with the most consistant density around it is the 10). It has major activity nodes and boulevards every mile, many built around the old PE rail line that the I-10 sits atop. it requires an urban rail system, not a $6 commuter rail line. No need for metrolink anything, nada, zilch.

I am not pulling my estimates from thin air. Like I said, i did my thesis on this concept, meaning I had to actually study expenses and constuction/design methods and cite them with credible resources. The average cost of elevated rail is $150 a mile, at-grade is @$65/mile (and thats in urban streets, not an empty freeway lane which is probably cheaper). I then documeted the physical environ and space on each right of way (valley, garvey, 10), created a matrix of possibilities and issues, and extensively discussed the subject with every planning department and several staff at caltrans and mta. I can find my thesis and share it or the citations, but most of them are easilly accessable from the MTA library, i often used cimilar construction projects for cost estimates.


gotcha, i dont normally take the east bound mixed flow lanes, only over the weekend did i see how they are blocking up the shoulder.

No worries, it confused the heck out of me too. I want to also let you know i appreciate this discussion. Thanks for the good convo!


so wait, your keeping single track metrolink or having a single track redline?

Single track metrolink, redline on either side on inside lane, HOV on buffer lane.

yes there is room around del mar, i just do not know if it is enough for a station, metrolink tracks, and the del mar flyover

there is, I google earthed it and spoke to caltrans about it. On the south side there is over 60 feet of extra room that has vegetation right now. The station wouild actually be placed east of DelMar between it and Sg blvd, so the bridge-space issue is seperate from the station space needs. In temrs of the station, there is also a lot of room on the south side to fit it in, like 40'.

wonder what the regulations are for no emergency lanes for a 12 lane freeway.

That was a big issue, and I have to thank Jerard(yoda) for pointing it out to me. BTW, you are a sharp cookie!

Less than a couple hundred yards of freeway emergency lane would be taken out for the entire 10 mile alignment at a few key choke spots. This kind of thing occurs often with freeway redesign situations, and after speaking to several Caltrans staff I was informed that it is perfectly acceptable and occurs often. Its even in part of the CEQA process because it is so ubiquitous. So it happens a lot for much less worthy projects, and is quite feasable.

yep, 100% agree. my only arguments are on the basis of alignments. by putting the line so far south the central western SGV remains unserved in terms of rail service. it would remain 3 miles away from any rail service.

Great minds think alike! But this is the most congested corridor in the area, and also sits next to the densest census tracts in the area. Once you pass the railroad tracks that run along mission it gets tonier (aka less ridership) very quickly. The I-10 corridor is generally surrounded by poor dense areas, excpet for a few smaller patches much less sizable than other locations along the other 2 alignments. but you make good points, and they are crucial to this discussion.

garvey, with no 10-freeway rail service, would remain 3 miles away from an eastside gold line. however a vast majority of that area is mountain residental areas. while alhambra and san gabriel have there highest densities within this zone.

The dense pockets in Alh and Sg are small areas near the old city centers. If you look at the density maps you posted, you will notice the denser tracts along the 10 are much larger because they represent a ubiquitous development pattern during a much more rapid period of development than the little city center's era.

The dense tracts along the 10 are also higher in pt dependant people and have a higher ratio of poverty and minority residents. That means higher ridership and more crucial need for service. Thats why bus ridership for the 76 (valley) and 70 (garvey) runs circles around the Huntington and Main-LasTunas busses.

[jejozwik]

Jun 24, 2010 19:46:17 GMT -8 art said:

If you review original metrolink documents (at mtas libr), you will see the way they configured the alignment makes it extremely expensive and almost physically impossible to double track between csla and elmonte. On the other hand, using the area closest to the center of the 10 for other rail service is much easier and economically feasable. When I did my thesis I discussed this with several Caltrans engineers, which helped solidify my opinion.

have not read. now mr thesis man, cite your sources! [ie: link to pdf?]

art said:

Do you drive down Valley every day? I do, i also lived along various points of the boulevard where you are proposing putting rail. It will not fit! The boulevard is packed every day for several hours basically between Atlantic to at least Walnut Grove, putting in rail (even el would take a lane) would require it be grade seperated. Valley has the traffic thresholds and congestion rating that pretty much indicate it is at capacity or beyond for several lengthy stretches, discuss this issue with the public works or planning depts of any of the cities it runs through and see what I mean, I also spoke to these depts when i did my thesis and it helped solidify my position.

yes. and i would not say its a solid mass of cars from atlantic to walnut. does however have hangups at all the major streets. 710 till freemont, atlantic, garfield, new, del mar, walnut and rosemead. which is why i had the thought about level running, then raising at major streets. and while yes, it would take up the center lane . but then again this whole block of road has parking on both sides. and what better way to make a ped traffic area more ped traffic then to add a rail line and rip up some street parking. also, got any links to traffic numbers for valley? hows about mission?

art said:

Valley would require at least 3-5 miles of elevated (if not subway in certain parts) , at a cost of an additional $90 million a mile. thats not just "being cheaper", it shaves the entire cost by 1/3rd which can make or break its ability to fall within FTA cost benefit analysis guidelines that are considered a benchmark of a rail line's feasability as well as the most logical funding opportunity.

"just being cheaper" was a crack at your alignment. not the others! im not a rail planer, but i am a citizen of this area and i would rather see a rail line going to the heart of major stretch of activity then to make due with a freeway line. which will not do anything for the river of cars that is valley. also, im an artist, not an accountant.

art said:

I dont know where you are getting it will require vast alterations to metrolink. Im pretty familiar with construction footprints and techniques, building a new rail line on the inside lanes of the I-10 wouldnt disturb metrolink in any way. In fact, it would mitigate 2 low ridership metrolink stops (csula and gen hosp) and speed up the line.

It wouldnt require any alteration of freeway ramps beyond putting in pylons to support the ped bridges taking riders from the station to Hellman or Glendon and their respective boulevards. I note the redvelopment opportunity only because i found out they have reached their lifespan and will be redesigned in the next few years and it presents a perfect opportunity to create more housing while complimenting a station and mitigating freeway impacts.

see this is where maps help. my understanding was you wanted to cram metro rail into the central trench and bloat out from there. just a side note those low ridership stops both fill and empty the buses going down the busway.

art said:

The one thing that would be affected would be the HOV lanes, but I dont see how it is that much of an effect or cost seeing as how they are currently moving the lanes around over and over again for much less expensive and important transit amenities than a heavy rail extension. Restriping a freeway costs a fraction of overall construction, if I recall correctly it was between 2-4 million for the whole endevour.

So the HOV lane would have to be moved and repainted 15 feet next to where they currently exist. Onto a lane that is now empty space and serves as an unecessary buffer that most carpools dont have or need. I dont see this as a big deal at all, and it seems a bit odd that you downplay putting in at-grade rail on the most congested boulevard in the SGV with no space yet consider activating an unused lane and restriping as major endevours.

There wont be 4 lanes reconstructed. the only area that will have to be rebuilt is the 2 lanes that will become the rail right of way. If they can tear up and rebuild 4 lanes to put in traffic sensors so the MTA gets a couple dozen million in FTA funds, then they can do half that to put in heavy rail in the most congested corridor in the SGV. I dont understand why people theoretically make these insane obstacles for a badly needed rail project when an even heavier footprint is being used as we speak for a much less important project.

re major endeavor part, see above confusion.
re hov lanes into rail, remember i have no precedent to go off of for metro ripping up one of their carpool lanes and replacing it with a heavy rail line. and i can just see the NIMBY's going nutso about government waste for this! [repaint / reconfiguring the el monte busway every 10 years or so.]

art said:

Metrolink wont need to be double tracked. This is a dense urban corridor, and despite your comments, is surrounded by multifamily buildings along most of the way (as your map shows, the corridor with the most consistant density around it is the 10). It has major activity nodes and boulevards every mile, many built around the old PE rail line that the I-10 sits atop. it requires an urban rail system, not a $6 commuter rail line. No need for metrolink anything, nada, zilch.

this is were i want some updated census maps. from what i see driving around here in my daily life is that .5 mile north or south of the 10 freeway is majority SFH [from now on this is short for single family homes].
only as you get closer to valley or garvey do the densities increase. which, by the way, is how the cities are also making their general plans. increasing hight around valley and garvey. along with mixing of zones.

art said:

I am not pulling my estimates from thin air. Like I said, i did my thesis on this concept, meaning I had to actually study expenses and constuction/design methods and cite them with credible resources. The average cost of elevated rail is $150 a mile, at-grade is @$65/mile (and thats in urban streets, not an empty freeway lane which is probably cheaper). I then documeted the physical environ and space on each right of way (valley, garvey, 10), created a matrix of possibilities and issues, and extensively discussed the subject with every planning department and several staff at caltrans and mta. I can find my thesis and share it or the citations, but most of them are easilly accessable from the MTA library, i often used cimilar construction projects for cost estimates.

i thought you said your thesis was on wilshire?
empty freeway lane is not an activity center like valley. lesser extent garvey. while garvey has the houses, valley has the attractions. and i, and my wife both see valley as a more useful alignment. and not just a commuters line out of the san gabriel valley.

art said:

No worries, it confused the heck out of me too. I want to also let you know i appreciate this discussion. Thanks for the good convo!

this is my backyard. i want to see a rail line here. i know its a far cry but i would rather see it made to work for valley then plopping down in the freeway.
[will also accept mission, up tracks, or main!]

art said:

Single track metrolink, redline on either side on inside lane, HOV on buffer lane.

should have drawn it.

art said:

there is, I google earthed it and spoke to caltrans about it. On the south side there is over 60 feet of extra room that has vegetation right now. The station wouild actually be placed east of DelMar between it and Sg blvd, so the bridge-space issue is seperate from the station space needs. In temrs of the station, there is also a lot of room on the south side to fit it in, like 40'.

how would you work around the del mar fly over? rebuild? your rail will be on the inside, with hov to the place outside that. something to think about.

art said:

Great minds think alike! But this is the most congested corridor in the area, and also sits next to the densest census tracts in the area. Once you pass the railroad tracks that run along mission it gets tonier (aka less ridership) very quickly. The I-10 corridor is generally surrounded by poor dense areas, excpet for a few smaller patches much less sizable than other locations along the other 2 alignments. but you make good points, and they are crucial to this discussion.

art said:

The dense pockets in Alh and Sg are small areas near the old city centers. If you look at the density maps you posted, you will notice the denser tracts along the 10 are much larger because they represent a ubiquitous development pattern during a much more rapid period of development than the little city center's era.

things change a lot in 10 years. especially with inflated real estate due to immigration. new maps are required. and, i want this line to be useful to more then just 9-5ers. valley or main are actual activity areas.

art said:

The dense tracts along the 10 are also higher in pt dependant people and have a higher ratio of poverty and minority residents. That means higher ridership and more crucial need for service. Thats why bus ridership for the 76 (valley) and 70 (garvey) runs circles around the Huntington and Main-LasTunas busses.

add some busway lanes to garvey, and ship the rail to valley! problem solved!
huntington was only placed on the map due to insane amounts of land.

really the 487, main/las tunas only real competitive bus, is completly useless past san gabriel city hall. traveling down town north of that simply takes too long. i sincerely believe that is why that buses ridership suffers. right now it functions as a symbolic link between the 10 and gold line. take a trip on it from san gabriel city hall to down town and watch the use double at every stop. complete opposite from down town. by the time you get past valley there are very few users. downtown to del mar, 10 min. del mar to san gabriel/las tunas add another 20, sometimes 30. thats a long time for 3 miles.
from there on north it starts running through san marino...

also, remember the 70 routes through residential areas its whole length. while the 76 turns industrial west of freemont.

[jejozwik]

map indicating at-grade and elevated sections. + routing and stations

www.umapper.com/maps/view/id/70013/
7.36 miles at-grade, 2.14 miles elevated, 2.13 transitional. 350 foot stations, 500-600 foot inclines.

441.6 at-grade, 321 elevated, 170 transitional, 940 mill. [per arts figures]

[art]

have not read. now mr thesis man, cite your sources! [ie: link to pdf?]

Bro, I have 3 kids, work full time, am in Graduate School and run a nonprofit organization. My senior thesis is archived at the CSUPomona College of Env library, and much of the sources are from either that library or the one at the MTA. I dont have a link to the pdf, and dont know how to post it like that, and to be honest that would be on a list of like 500 other things I havent taken care of. If you are either that interested or dont believe me then look it up at the locations I noted. Jerard, Ken Alpern and several other longtime members can vouch that im not BSing you. Otherwise, I barely have the time to write responses. Maybe if you want to PM me and I can find you a hard copy, but honestly, this isnt a pissing match to me and if you dont jive with my comments than so be it. Its not like the hard data or reports I cite will walk away.



yes. and i would not say its a solid mass of cars from atlantic to walnut. does however have hangups at all the major streets. 710 till freemont, atlantic, garfield, new, del mar, walnut and rosemead. which is why i had the thought about level running, then raising at major streets. and while yes, it would take up the center lane . but then again this whole block of road has parking on both sides. and what better way to make a ped traffic area more ped traffic then to add a rail line and rip up some street parking. also, got any links to traffic numbers for valley? hows about mission?

There are no long stretches of Valley between the 710 and Walnut Grove that are wide and sparse enough to accomodate at least 25' of railway. Plus, think about how long a street running train would take with the dozens of inteserctions it will have to traverse. And really about the street parking? Valley is a commercial spine of the central SGV and it has a fairly large amount of street fronting development and commercial uses dependant on the Valley parking. Thatll be as successful as taking the parking out of Wilshire for BRT lanes, meaning DOA. Also, the median gardens in alhambra take up a tiny portion of the legnth of Valley, for the most part it is turning for intersections and businesses. Train alignment also have a certain threshold of times they can rise and fall before the train takes on a roller coastery feel. That would occur on this line, as a major intersection is every mile or so at the least. It is discussed on these boards and I remember learning that in school, sorry no link if you dont belive me

Im not good with links and computer stuff, Im old fashioned. But like I said, its all in the MTA library.

"just being cheaper" was a crack at your alignment. not the others! im not a rail planer, but i am a citizen of this area and i would rather see a rail line going to the heart of major stretch of activity then to make due with a freeway line. which will not do anything for the river of cars that is valley. also, im an artist, not an accountant.

I am a trained planner who took several courses on public transit and urban design. I also have lived off of Valley Blvd for over 8 years, and grew up in the area often using public transit. I get what youre saying, but the cost of a Valley line is too expensive to be realistically feasable because it would REQUIRE grade seperation for most of the stretch. Like I said, I know because of bad precedence most people think freeway running rail doest work, but this is an exception where issues are easilly mitigated. Building the stations and ped bridges as enclosed structures (like they do in Europe, Asia and Latin America) mitigates the horror that is middle stations. Ped bridges on both sides of the station that diagonally extend to Hellman and Glendon would easilly take the rider from the platform onto pedestrian friendly neighborhoods and commercial boulevards. Valley and Garvey are both 1/3rd of a mile away, or a 5 minute walk.

Also, the argument that a rail line wont solve a congested corridor is a red herring because rail is built to provide an alternative to autos and an upgrade to existing PT, not take away traffic. That is why NYC has tons of heavy rail lines stuffed daily yet still also has exceptional traffic. The notion that a train will take enough cars off the road to decrease corridor congestion is just a catchy misconception politicos feed the public so they approve projects at such great expense. The redline is pretty stuffed during commute times and has daily ridership over 100k (sorry, no link, if you dont believe me) yet has done NOTHING to alleviate the traffic on the 101. BTW, im an artist too! www.elacamp.org


see this is where maps help. my understanding was you wanted to cram metro rail into the central trench and bloat out from there. just a side note those low ridership stops both fill and empty the buses going down the busway.

My apologies, because this is much easier to conceptualize with visual aides. I know i posted maps and some hand drawn illustrations on this board somewhere. Ill look for them when I can. Either way, an I-10 rail line would have heavy rail stations for both General Hospital and CSULA, so this would be a service upgrade for station patrons. My point was more about taking those stops off the Metrolink route to increase speed. They are now sparsely used and the whole trip is inconvenienced for them, HRT would provide these places with rail service while freeing up the faster commuter service.


re major endeavor part, see above confusion.
re hov lanes into rail, remember i have no precedent to go off of for metro ripping up one of their carpool lanes and replacing it with a heavy rail line. and i can just see the NIMBY's going nutso about government waste for this! [repaint / reconfiguring the el monte busway every 10 years or so.]

They are currently ripping up the 10 freeway, erasing and repainting lanes every few months, and taking the HOV lanes out of commission every weekend for a couple dozen million dollars of Federal transit money. This is for a toll lane that might hopefully speed up the HOV lane, a transit upgrade and amenity FAR LESS BENEFICIAL and useful than a heavy rail line that wil garner high ridership. Considering you see no problem spending a half billion dollars to put a train a 1/3rd mile north of the alignment Im talking about, I dont see how you can logically pose this as a valid argument. If you have no freeway rail building precedence to work off of, than no NIMBy response to lane restriping has also ever occurred also, so I dont see the logic in that point.

this is were i want some updated census maps. from what i see driving around here in my daily life is that .5 mile north or south of the 10 freeway is majority SFH [from now on this is short for single family homes].
only as you get closer to valley or garvey do the densities increase. which, by the way, is how the cities are also making their general plans. increasing hight around valley and garvey. along with mixing of zones.

Updated maps wont change the density of these areas, they do not change that dynamically. let me describe the neighborhoods around conceptual I-10 freeways stations:
General Hospital/Soto Station- dense multi unit residential on east side of Soto South of Marengo (Boyle Hts) and north of 10 (Hazard neighborhood)
CSULA/ Eastern Station-dense multi unit residential south of Eastern/10 (city terrace)as well as northwest of CSLA entrance at Eastern (Univ Hills)
Atlantic/Garfield- dense mixed multi and SFR neighborhood north and south of 10 freeway, SFR west of Ramona Convent and East of Garfield
DelMar/SanGabriel-dense mixed multi and SFR neighorhoods on both sides, more dense on south side.

i thought you said your thesis was on wilshire?
Youre right, Im making this up because this is a pissing contest for me and not a mature debate about transit where Im citing factual evidence. Sorry for misleading you, my actual thesis was on the whittier subway and valley redline conversion. My thesis proposal included the wilshire and vermont subways as well, it was narrowed down to 2 eastside corridors by my advisors.


empty freeway lane is not an activity center like valley. lesser extent garvey. while garvey has the houses, valley has the attractions. and i, and my wife both see valley as a more useful alignment. and not just a commuters line out of the san gabriel valley.

Im glad your wife agrees with you. My wife has no opinion on the matter and actually is annoyed by the topic because of the extensive time and hours I spent studying this corridor, translating my research into papers, and debating about it on transit websites. ;D

Another red herring argument. I-10 station patrons wont walk off the platform into the fast lane, which is what that comment implies. Like the redline stations now, they will walk up to a mezzanine area on either side of the station that connects them to a ped bridge radiating N/S from the station platform mezzanine entrances. This ped bridge will take them to their respective neighborhood or actvity node on either the north of south of the station. For example, someone heading to the northwest exit of the Atlantic/Garfield station would walk up the stairs from the west edge of the platform to the mezzanine, then turn and walk across the diagonal poed bridge that would place them at Glendon/Atlantic on the ped friendly edge of a residential neighborhood with a 4 minute walk to Valley down atlantic. The bulk of heavy rail ridership is not visitors to attractions (hence low goldline ridership) but to move local residents and commuters.

this is my backyard. i want to see a rail line here. i know its a far cry but i would rather see it made to work for valley then plopping down in the freeway.
[will also accept mission, up tracks, or main!]

Same here, and every day I drop off my youngest in El Monte and head back to downtown. I have doing the 10 commute treck for about 15 of my last 20 years, I also have ridden the busses in this corridor for over 2 decades consitantly. On top of that Im a trained planner who reviewed the options in a scientific manner exhaustively, and backed up my assertions with evidence. rail down valley, main or mission is not realistic for multiple reasons, this board is a treasure trove of those facts.


should have drawn it.



how would you work around the del mar fly over? rebuild? your rail will be on the inside, with hov to the place outside that. something to think about.

Yeah that was tricky. They really built this to screw up any chances of rail conversion, but the solution was simpler than I thought. They would demolish the East-North bridge on the south side of the Metrolink tracks. Then rebuild the bridge 15' south of the current one to fit all 3 railways between the on-offramp bridges. To make up for the loss of space just south of the metrolink tracks, the extra 60' of buffer on the south side of the freeway at this stretch would be thinned to make the freeway a bit wider on the south edge.

things change a lot in 10 years. especially with inflated real estate due to immigration. new maps are required. and, i want this line to be useful to more then just 9-5ers. valley or main are actual activity areas.
The emergence of valley and garvey was the result of an immigrant influx from asia. These trends continue and have not stopped despite our economic crisis, it is fair to assume they will further densify in the future. Are you basing the activity of these areas on if you or those you know use them? Are you a member of the Asian community, or frequent their activity nodes? The strip of valley between New and Del Mar has FAR more activity than main street or any other part of main. It is frequented by asians though, asian who are willing to walk a half mile from a train station. I see the 10 rail line as a perfect fit as it is an easy walk to both corridors.

add some busway lanes to garvey, and ship the rail to valley! problem solved!
Are you trying to win the debate or discuss this with an intended consensus and outcome? That comment has no place in a mature debate because it is not realistic. Yeah, it is impossible to fit 2 bus lanes down garvey or valley, if you dont beleive me talk the planning dept of monterey park, rosemead, alhambra or san gabriel.

really the 487, main/las tunas only real competitive bus, is completly useless past san gabriel city hall. traveling down town north of that simply takes too long. i sincerely believe that is why that buses ridership suffers. right now it functions as a symbolic link between the 10 and gold line. take a trip on it from san gabriel city hall to down town and watch the use double at every stop. complete opposite from down town. by the time you get past valley there are very few users. downtown to del mar, 10 min. del mar to san gabriel/las tunas add another 20, sometimes 30. thats a long time for 3 miles.
from there on north it starts running through san marino...

I used to live off the 487 at New and Valley and rode it both ways almost every day (worked downtown, attended pcc). I agree, but dont see how relevant it is to the discussion. My point is PT ridership is much higher on valley and garvey busses.

also, remember the 70 routes through residential areas its whole length. while the 76 turns industrial west of freemont

There are several busses i grew up on, the 68, 76, 70 and 18. The fact that Garvey and Valley both die off as dense corridors west of Fremont further justifies a 10 freeway conversion over valley or garvey.

Hope that was sufficient, and I didnt sound too rude.

[crzwdjk]

The main problem with the line down the freeway is that the areas around the potential stations are not just unfriendly to pedestrians, they're actively hostile. If you go with the cheap option of having the station entrances in the existing underpasses, you're forcing pedestrians to cross freeway ramps, which is unpleasant. And where are you going to have the bus stops? In the underpasses? You might want to take the time to walk around the station areas if you haven't done this already. Plus, it's a 10 minute walk to anywhere interesting. Suppose someone takes the train to visit an asian grocery store. Are they going to lug their groceries half a mile to the train station? Wait for a bus? It would take a passenger 13 minutes on a hypothetical I-10 rail line to get from Union Station to New Avenue. It would take just as long to get from there to Valley or Garvey. You've basically doubled their travel time, and travel time has a very significant effect on ridership when you're competing with cars.

As for Metrolink, sure it doesn't really serve the San Gabriel area, but the single track is THE major bottleneck on the San Bernardino Line, and the on that is most difficult to eliminate. That's what forces Metrolink to choose between having 20 minute peak headways and having reverse peak service. There was an estimate somewhere that fully double-tracking the segment from Pasadena Junction to El Monte would cost some $600 million, but ultimately they're going to have to do something about this line.

[art]

Aug 1, 2010 19:30:14 GMT -8 crzwdjk said:

The main problem with the line down the freeway is that the areas around the potential stations are not just unfriendly to pedestrians, they're actively hostile. If you go with the cheap option of having the station entrances in the existing underpasses, you're forcing pedestrians to cross freeway ramps, which is unpleasant. And where are you going to have the bus stops? In the underpasses? You might want to take the time to walk around the station areas if you haven't done this already. Plus, it's a 10 minute walk to anywhere interesting. Suppose someone takes the train to visit an asian grocery store. Are they going to lug their groceries half a mile to the train station? Wait for a bus? It would take a passenger 13 minutes on a hypothetical I-10 rail line to get from Union Station to New Avenue. It would take just as long to get from there to Valley or Garvey. You've basically doubled their travel time, and travel time has a very significant effect on ridership when you're competing with cars.

As for Metrolink, sure it doesn't really serve the San Gabriel area, but the single track is THE major bottleneck on the San Bernardino Line, and the on that is most difficult to eliminate. That's what forces Metrolink to choose between having 20 minute peak headways and having reverse peak service. There was an estimate somewhere that fully double-tracking the segment from Pasadena Junction to El Monte would cost some $600 million, but ultimately they're going to have to do something about this line.

Actually, I know the pedestrian environment around each offramp pretty well. Especially Atlantic, Garfield, Del Mar, San Gabriel and Rosemead. My current home is a short walk to the Atlantic offramps, which I cross with my 3 kids weekly.

Youre absolutely right, the pedestrian environment of the proposed stations' areas are appalling between Hellman and Glendon aves (the streets running adjacent to the freeway just beyond the off-onramps). Just past those intersections are pedestrian oriented neighborhoods consisting of mixed multi and single family residential that was built oriented around the old PE trolly line the 10 freeway was built on top of.

Each station would have an entrance on either side (for example, west station entrance on atlantic, east on garfield) and that entrance would connect to a north south running pedestrian bridge that would take them to the intersection just outside of the on-offramp complex (for example, to the corner of glendon and atlantic). This is hard to explain without illustrations. Either way, it mitigates the on offramp problem and creates a more viable pedestrian walkway also for those travelling north or south on the respective boulevard because it is a ped bridge that passes over the freeway.

[crzwdjk]

The arrangement with the overpasses is what I was expecting and now . But now you're building a pedestrian overpass which is at least a quarter mile long at each station. This also has to include 4 elevators per station (for ADA accessibility), and possibly some tricky work to build station access facilities above the freeway (and tracks.) This is getting complicated, and complicated means expensive, and the elevators and bridges require maintenance and security. This diminishes the cheapness of the freeway solution, which seems like the main reason for building there in the first place.

[jejozwik]

Aug 1, 2010 16:33:50 GMT -8 art said:

text text text

you can copy and paste all my responses you can copy and paste a link.

as well, i truly dont give a crap if your the head of the mta. a freeway centric line wont be doing much for anyone in this area.

bro...

[art]

Aug 3, 2010 23:35:31 GMT -8 crzwdjk said:

The arrangement with the overpasses is what I was expecting and now . But now you're building a pedestrian overpass which is at least a quarter mile long at each station. This also has to include 4 elevators per station (for ADA accessibility), and possibly some tricky work to build station access facilities above the freeway (and tracks.) This is getting complicated, and complicated means expensive, and the elevators and bridges require maintenance and security. This diminishes the cheapness of the freeway solution, which seems like the main reason for building there in the first place.

Actually, it would require 2 elevators per station like many double entranced metro subway stations in our system. Sloped ramps with a slight grade enables these bridges to mitigate the need for extra elevators while addressing the ped bridge length. I remember there are several BART and NYC Metro documents that discuss this issue and solution.

But yeah, either way, that would be a lot of bridges with a cost of $15 million apiece, with 2 per station for the 3 freeway median stations (atl-gfld, delmar-sg, rosemead). Thats an additional total of 90 million, bridge costs would add up to around $165 million with the other stations with less extensive bridges for the whole shabang. The cost difference between elevated and at grade is around 80-90 million per mile, and any Valley or Garvey route would require at least 5-6 miles of grade seperated rail (that not even considering if some stretches have no room for pylons, meaning it would require subway segments). 5 miles at a $80 million difference per mile totals a difference of $400 million, which is still a quarter billion if the cost of enclosed stations and bridges is taken out of the cost difference. That enough to make or break a rail line in temrs of FTA cost benefit analysis.

Also, another major factor not being considered is the huge amount of construction that would have to occur in the most congested stretches of the central SGV's biggest corridor. This strip is the commercial cash cow for every city it runs through, if the behavior of cities like whittier and montebello creates a precedence, then it is definitely a bad one. The most invasive construction of an I-10 line would be the reconstruction of the eastbound carpool offramp at delmar, the restriping of the freeway (pennies compared to actual hardscape construction), and moving of the HOV lane over 15'.

My apologies for no links on the subjects I discuss. I am not the most technologically saavy, dont have the time to find them, and almost all of my info on the subject is based off of hard copy research I did in college 3 or 4 years back. From books, which in school and the proffessional field are the only things considered credible resources acceptable for preparing documents on the subject. Website links also arent necessary rock solid bastions of credible information, as wikipedia has shown us.

[crzwdjk]

What about the huge amount of construction that would have to occur in the middle of I-10? You need to put the cranes and suchlike somewhere when you're building the stations and bridges and strengthening the freeway overpasses, so there will be some amount of disruption either way. And I don't know of any precedent of putting in a rail line with stations into a freeway that didn't have provisions for it.
My point is that the costs may be higher than you think, while the benefits lower. And remember, cost effectiveness is a ratio of costs to benefits.

[art]

Aug 5, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -8 crzwdjk said:

What about the huge amount of construction that would have to occur in the middle of I-10? You need to put the cranes and suchlike somewhere when you're building the stations and bridges and strengthening the freeway overpasses, so there will be some amount of disruption either way. And I don't know of any precedent of putting in a rail line with stations into a freeway that didn't have provisions for it.
My point is that the costs may be higher than you think, while the benefits lower. And remember, cost effectiveness is a ratio of costs to benefits.

I dont understand where this notion of a huge construction footprint comes from. They put the Metrolink line in 2 decades ago (the median had no vestiges of rail in it, so it was from scratch), and just recently tore open and redid the 2 fast lanes (HOV and buffer lane) and shoulders to put in toll traffic sensors. The I-10 freeway toll conversion's total budget is around $15-20 million. Somewhere in that budget is the tearing up of 3 lanes on each side of the freeway, restriping, and rebuilding overpass bridges; and that budget is still a FRACTION of anything close to rail cost.

The 10 freeway has ample room for the entire alignment between DTLA and El Monte for an extra 25' of track space plus stations that exists on no other nearby corridor. That is the main reason this line is the most realistic for receiving a rail upgrade. Valley or Garvey require way too much grade seperation to be economically feasable. Personally speaking, I think Valley would be my preference for a rail line as well. Heck, if you look up the old F4E forum I used to debate IN FAVOR of a line running down valley for rail service for the central SGV. But, several older forumers explained to me the plusses and negatives of the 3 potential routes, the realities and raw numbers in public transit funding, and the political realities along the corridor. When I chose to do my senior thesis on subject, my thesis proposal including using a scientific matrix calculating the positive and negs of each route and each aspect's importance. That's what made me reach my conclusion, it had nothing to do with what I liked or personal preference (as it went against mine), or whatnot. From that conclusion, I had to go against my personal preferences for Valley and deal with the fact is that realistically this is the only corridor eligible for funding via county state and fed funding guidelines. A major component of how we pay for rail in LA county.

The MTA also has several documents studying this corridor and laying out the conceptual el monte busway heavy rail upgrade. Thats a good indicator of a route's viability, if it was on some old rail plan (this one was part of several countywide plans that never materialized). No such document or planning exists for either Valley or Garvey (at least post 60s).

And in terms of construction footprints, precedence has shown us the traffic effects of major freeway construction projects (like the one going on now on the 10). Seems to me if they are willing to endure these effects for much smaller and less beneficial projects like a toll road conversion, that doing the same for a redline extension wouldnt be an issue. Plus, the construction effects and expenses are much more severe for a rail line on a busy boulevard like Valley or Garvey than on a freeway with extra space for most of its length. The freeway will be tangibly affected by slower commutes related to construction, but Valley or garvey wil have to endure a major disruption, and both there boulevards are the majority of the commerical tax base for the city.

Anyways, Im not here to ruffle anyone's feathers. It will be up to engineers and politicians to make those decisions, and a few public meetings. I think much of the discussion was excellent, as all point are valid and should reviewed meticulously so we have our shite together and can get something for out neck of the woods.Anyone andvocating rail in the Valley/I-10/Garvey supercorridor AT ALL is a great start. In the big scheme of things semantics about whether a rail line should be a mile north or south are petty, and the primary goal should be getting HRT or LRT in the central SGV where it would be the most beneficial for the deep east side.

[crzwdjk]

The huge construction is for the stations, which was not necessary for Metrolink. That's generally the most expensive part of any metro line, and definitely in this particular case. Anyway, all this is quite a few years in the future, and who knows what funding standards will be like then, or public opinion of expensive subway extensions for that matter. Besides, I bet a reasonably long Valley Boulevard subway won't be as expensive as that I-710 tunnel they're planning.

[bobdavis]

An historical correction if I may--the Metrolink San Bernardino line in the freeway median wasn't built from scratch. The Southern Pacific State St. line was upgraded for Metrolink service, but it was an active rail line tracing back to the Pacific Electric line to Covina which opened around 1910. In 1951, the PE connection to downtown LA was abandoned, but there was still a freight connection to the tracks on the east side of the LA River. Not sure when this was removed; during the 1960's what little freight traffic remained was handled by a switching job out of Baldwin Park. When the San Bernardino Busway was built, a new connection was made, going under Mission Rd. west of the former PE Macy St. Yard and the worn-out ex PE track was replaced by 119-lb welded rail. The track running through downtown El Monte and along Ramona Blvd. was abandoned and the Rio Hondo Connecting Ry. tied the State St. line to the original SP main. During the mid-70's, Amtrak started running the "Sunset" along this line, the first passenger service since the Red Car abandonment in 1950.

[gatewaygent]

One of the Gold Line extensions removed from consideration may have suited here. It was the extension that continued north on Atlantic Av. to east on Garvey Av. and north on Santa Anita Av. to the El Monte Bus Station. It's not the Silver Line as previously conceived, but close. It wouldn't serve South El Monte proper, but it would still serve the general area. Of course, this could easily be spun out of control as the "Silver Line extension of the Gold Line" and who needs that chaos and confusion.

[Philip]

While I love the idea of the Silver Line, I feel like it's going to be on the backburner for years to come because of one major problem - Union Station.

According to the old website, the line would have to branch off the current Gold Line station both north & south of Union Station, requiring not one, but two new junctions to accommodate both the Silver Line and the Gold/Blue Line.

After what we've went through with Expo recently, I see this being a seriously difficult hurdle - not to mention the fact that the junctions will be elevated this time!