Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Apr 30, 2007 19:01:03 GMT -8
soooo..... what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 30, 2007 20:48:53 GMT -8
I have to preface this with two disclaimers: A) I live near the Sierra Madre Villa terminal. B) I'm a native of the San Gabriel Valley who remembers the Pacific Electric. So from my point of view the Gold Line is a success, having brought electric railway transportation back to the Pasadena area after a 50+ year absence. Although I don't go "downtown" that often, I usually take the Gold line rather than pay the stiff parking fees in that area.
|
|
D
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by D on Apr 30, 2007 20:59:28 GMT -8
i think its a success. it connects to very Important parts of Los Angeles to each other as well as to the rest of the transportation system. When im going to Staples or other events Downtown, i park at 26th and take the train down. When i move to Downtown LA at the end of the year, i will use it often to get to Pasadena and South Pas.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Apr 30, 2007 21:03:14 GMT -8
For the communities that it serves, yes the Gold Line was actually a success.
Especially in Highland Park and maybe Chinatown, it has brought more pedestrian activity and tourism to the area. Local shops have more business and higher revenues thanks to Gold Line riders on the weekends. Property values have doubled around the stations. This has helped revitalize areas that were once poor and crime infested slums.
As for the commuter in general, I'd say it was at least better than a busway. Let's face it the Gold Line does not fit well into the mass transit picture of Metro.
1. It is poorly connected to bus routes and Union station.
2. It serves a relatively low density area (For now)
3. The speed is usually even slower than the 110 fwy in rush hour.
4. The lack of major destinations like a Dodger Stadium or Rose Bowl.
But from a local business stand point the Gold Line was everything as advertised.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on May 1, 2007 7:50:35 GMT -8
Yes, it has been a success, albeit a rather limited one until the Connector comes into being. And yes, it does crawl from Avenues 50 to 60, but the rest of trip seems pretty swift to me.
PS: on a recent trip from Irvine to Union Station via Amtrak, I ended up waiting nearly TWENTY minutes at the Gold Line platform until the damn thing finally started toward SW station (no doubt the ugliest station in the entire Metro system). I am writing a letter to MTA today bemoaning the delay. I see no reason for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 1, 2007 12:51:20 GMT -8
I don't know if it is a problem for anyone, but I have noticed that it is nowhere near as smooth as the Blue Line. It probably doesn't affect ridership (it doesn't really bother me), but it's just something to note.
Anyway, this line needs to go to at least Azusa (where the traffic on the 210 ends/begins) to gather all of the SGV riders. Right now, the people are stuck in traffic for 20 minutes to only get to Pasadena, they might as well stay on the whole time if they've already been driving for so long. The Eastside extension will gather many new people, and the Expo Line will take many from the Westside to Old Town Pasadena. The Expo Line just shows how much the whole system needs the downtown connector.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on May 1, 2007 16:32:03 GMT -8
Union Station is actually pretty beautiful, at least the inside. I wish they made it so that you can directly transfer to the red line, instead of going down, and walking to the Red line entrance.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 30, 2007 19:01:38 GMT -8
The new Metro ridership numbers are in for the month of April. www.metro.net/news_info/ridership_avg.htmEvery Rail line has seen lower ridership, than last year's April, EXCEPT for the Goldline which has 3,000 MORE weekday boardings than last year. Also the Metro Orangeline continues it's success with 23,000 weekday boardings. All this at a time when gas is over 40 cents higher than last year. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on May 30, 2007 19:48:00 GMT -8
The weekend numbers for the Gold Line are surprising from last year and beats the Orange Line (but not for weekdays). It shows the Gold Line is good for weekend outings while the Orange Line is geared towards commuters. Is there anything new in Pasadena in the last year that brought more Gold Line ridership?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on May 30, 2007 20:38:35 GMT -8
There have been several new Condo developments opening near the Goldline.
The Pueblo del Sol in Lincoln Heights, and the new Santa Fe Depot at Del Mar station in Pasadena.
I think these TOD's account for most of the increase in boardings on the Gold Line.
Also the "Choice Riders", middle class people who own cars tend to ride more on the weekends.
Because they have more time on the weekends and are in no hurry, so they don't mind the wait.
For a rush hour commute, most people won't take the Goldline. The service is slow, and the transfer times are long.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Jun 1, 2007 7:49:15 GMT -8
I also think the Farmer's Markets along the route help as well. I live near SW station and always take the train to the Highland Park (Ave 57) and So Pas markets (Mission Sta.). I see alot of other people with backpacks, stuffing provisions inside and hopping back on the train. The video store and Buster's ice cream/coffee shop has seen a sharp uptick in customers as well.
Say what you will about the Gold Line, but it DOES serve the neighborhoods well, if not the weekly commuters. Plus, it is a picturesque ride (for the most part).
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 1, 2007 8:06:52 GMT -8
Too bad the Metro board doesn't think the same way. They have proposed cutting back Gold Line service, even stopping service altogether to save some bucks.
Mayor Villaraigosa has proposed drastic cuts in all Metro Rail service. Apparently he doesn't know about the Blue Line or Red Line crowds. He probably thinks only busriders vote....
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 8, 2007 7:39:59 GMT -8
I also think the Farmer's Markets along the route help as well. I live near SW station and always take the train to the Highland Park (Ave 57) and So Pas markets (Mission Sta.). I see alot of other people with backpacks, stuffing provisions inside and hopping back on the train. The video store and Buster's ice cream/coffee shop has seen a sharp uptick in customers as well. Say what you will about the Gold Line, but it DOES serve the neighborhoods well, if not the weekly commuters. Plus, it is a picturesque ride (for the most part). I would say it's a success that hasn't reached it's full potential. And the full potential would come by the way of a certain little 1.5 mile connection between Little Tokyo and 7th Street Metro Center. I wonder that that project is called.... (Smiles) |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jun 8, 2007 16:38:24 GMT -8
The Gold Line is the first all-new rail line to open since the Green Line opened in 1995 (Blue in 1990, Red in 1993). Most people here have forgotten the low ridership numbers of those other lines in the first few years of their existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 8, 2007 20:08:14 GMT -8
The Gold Line is the first all-new rail line to open since the Green Line opened in 1995 (Blue in 1990, Red in 1993). Most people here have forgotten the low ridership numbers of those other lines in the first few years of their existence. True, but the Blue Line ridership soared when the red line and green line opened. The Green Line now has a respectable ridership, and I'd attribute a lot of that to a smooth very fast grade separated ride, which the Gold Line does not have. The Gold Line needs the Downtown Connector, otherwise it will experience gradual increases at best. The Eastside extension is a worthy project, but I don't see many people traveling between the two segments as it is a bit of a U. Most people will likely get off at Union Station and thus not increase ridership much on the current segment (I hope I am wrong). |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 9, 2007 19:05:05 GMT -8
whether the Gold Line is a success or not depends upon how you define "success."
in California's current political climate, where rail transit has to compete with buses, gadget-transit and cars; where we don't have a particularly large gas tax; where we can NIMBYs to the right of us and the BRU to the left of us; where we once had a massive rail transit system, tore it apart and are now trying to rebuild it under changed circumstances- no rail line which manages to get built at all should truly be called a failure. it's like finding water in the desert.
on the other hand, the Gold Line is clearly the "weakest link" in Los Angeles' Metro Rail; even with the downtown connector, I'm not sure than the L.A. to Pasadena end of the rail line will ever reach Blue Line ridership levels, but I would certainly expect it to increase in ridership.
I think the Eastside line will help immensely. I doubt anybody will use it to ride from East L.A. to Pasadena or beyond Pasadena to Azusa or whatever the end of the line ends up being, but there are possibilities for people using the train to get from East L.A. to Highland Park or from Little Tokyo to Chinatown or something. I don't think that you'll necessarily see the train empty out at Union Station and another set of riders get on to go south.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jun 9, 2007 21:08:19 GMT -8
The Orange Line is hardly grade separated (it's not except for the crossing under the 170 and 405 freeways and over the LA River and Tujunga Wash); with it being a slower busway, newer than the Gold Line, manages to see better weekday ridership. However, the Gold Line is doing better than anticipated during the weekend. I suspect those that rides the Orange Line on weekdays drives to the Red Line station on weekends because the lots are emptier at that time.
Another thing to note that a rail line has to bypass certain sections and provides amenities to increase ridership. The Red Line didn't see 100,000+ riders until it reached North Hollywood as it provided an alternative to going through the Cahuenga Pass. Taking the bus from the Valley to Hollywood/Vine prior to 24 June 2000 would be much slower than being stuck in 101 traffic.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 9, 2007 21:17:20 GMT -8
The way I see it, our light rail lines have all virtually been failures. Even with 200,000 users every day that is still a very small percentage of LA County commuters. The majority will still get in their cars for everything.
Not because of the Line itself, but because we don't invest in High Density - Urban - Affordable housing.
Our population is being pushed out into the exurbs inland because the cost of housing is so steep, home ownership will someday be zero.
No matter where your LRT goes, a very small fraction of the City will use it because there just isn't enough density to drive the mass transit demand. We need better planning in our City, not just for rail lines. Rail is only half the equation.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Jun 10, 2007 9:19:48 GMT -8
I think it is unfair to compare the orange and gold lines in terms of ridership, as the orangeline traverses across most of the entire SF valley, while the goldline stops at the edge of the SGV. If the orange line had been built to only Van Nuys (or if the goldline was built to Azusa) the comparison would be appropriate, as they would both follow/cover largely used commuter routes. Right now only the orange line comprehensively follows a traffic pattern widely used, the goldline follows only a short portion of the travel route used by most commuters in its area. Check out the 10/210/60 freeways and see where traffic is coming from, it's not Pasadena, its the inner SGV and IE. As I noted before, see how well ridership would be if they pushed the orange line merely to Van Nuys, making it cover only a portion of the commute valleyites endure.
The goldline does not fill enough of the SGV/IE commuter gap to make it viable/accessable to most people stuck on the 210 (whereas the orange line does in regards to the 101). Push the goldline out to Azusa and I will bet the barn ridership skyrockets, becuase" A) it will be "worth it" to get off the freeway and jump on the train into DTLA/Pas from a farther point like Azusa (which will gobble up A LOT more of one's commute than east Pasa) B) the line will also cover working class neighborhoods, hopefully in a better way than those poorly placed/designed stops in highland park/mt washington (which still gets whupped by the fig bus for a reason).
If Expo was not running thru a big chunk of rail-starved south LA, it would have a similar problem going only to culver city and not Santa Monica. Fortunately it will strike transit gold (which for some reason, MTA folks do not get or care about) in the form of poor people with no other option filling it up. Thats freaken sad, and why idiot concentrations like the BRU exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 10, 2007 13:21:08 GMT -8
In terms of being an Urban Area, the San Gabriel Valley is HUGE and so is the San Fernando Valley.
The Orange line might get 24,000 and Gold Line averages about 18,000. That is just a very fraction of commuters, and people who own cars, would not buy into such a small area of service.
If we were to really service the San Fernando Valley, we'll have to extend the Redline to Sylmar. Extend the Orange Line to East Burbank and Chatsworth. And build a North South Line along the 405 fwy through the pass.
If we want to serve the San Gabriel Valley, we'll have to extend the Gold Line to Pomona. Extend the Goldline Eastside to Puente Hills. Build a subway under Valley Blvd to Temple City.
Just having one or two rail lines to cover a huge area isn't going to make for an all encompassing transit plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2007 14:23:36 GMT -8
hey whitman- I get where you're coming from, and I often feel frustrated at how little change that the MTA has been able to produce with their rail lines. but, I also think you're being a tad harsh with your judgement. I mean, look. there are thousands of people who moved out to the suburbs precisely so they could get away from density or so they could have their own little "someplace that's green"- and there are many places in Los Angeles that cater to that lifestyle. quite frankly, the San Fernando Valley and the San Gabriel Valley are top offenders in that aspect. and they aren't going to give up that lifestyle easily. I mean, I've seen the cute little signs that they've put up in San Pedro "our neighborhoods are one, our neighborhoods R1" ironically, these NIMBYs say that traffic is the reason why they oppose denser development, but there's also property values and keeping THOSE PEOPLE out. I'm all in favor of greater density, but a lot of folks aren't. combine the NIMBY lifestyle with politicians who lack the guts to do the right thing and fund light rail either by gas tax increases or bond measures or congestion pricing or whatever- and it is going to take a lot of money to build what we need- and it is a wonder that the Gold Line got built at all. we'd have to canvass Los Angeles with light rail and subway lines from the South Bay to the Valley to the ocean, white with foam, in order to get the sort of ridership levels that you have in New York or Tokyo. now then...... where did I put that billion dollar bill? success is all relative. compare our situation today with 1986 or so and right now is looking pretty fan-freakin-tastic  |
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 10, 2007 16:37:25 GMT -8
It's not difficult to build high density near our current rail lines. Or, at least it's alot easier and more cost effective than to build rail lines to where the people are.
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of expanding our transit network. Giving an alternative to people who are already frustrated sick with traffic at this moment. We all deserve a rail line within accessible distance to our homes.
But rail lines are very expensive, and recover little or no money to pay for the capital investment.
I'm talking about building more affordable housing for those who can't afford the single family home. Instead of bringing the train to the people, bring some people to the train.
Nobody would oppose high density in Koreatown, or Exposition Park, if it created affordable housing for the neighborhood.
The high cost of housing is destroying families, forcing longer work hours and commutes. We need to change our housing model from single family homes to high rise, high density.
This investment pays for itself and also brings more riders to the train stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by kghia70 on Jun 10, 2007 17:52:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2007 18:41:08 GMT -8
obviously, we need some standards for "smart growth," just like we have regulations on what qualifies as "organic food"
whitman makes an excellent point- we need more affordable housing, especially near train stations, and especially developed in such a way that supermarkets, stores and other amenities would be within walking distance. "affordable" would be a key word here, a lot of those downtown apartments and condos are very unaffordable.
in any case, it's not just about living near a train station. it's being able to get to work by train, or go to the beach by train or visit LACMA or Dodger Stadium by train, or getting to LAX by train... otherwise, you're going to have people living next to stations who still end up getting into the car
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 10, 2007 21:38:27 GMT -8
"I'm talking about building more affordable housing for those who can't afford the single family home. Instead of bringing the train to the people, bring some people to the train."
Well put, Whitman, and what I like about the second phase of the Gold Line to the SGV is that it allows the SGV to focus on where it wants density and keep density away where it's not wanted. Art also make some great comments on the Foothill Gold Line meeting the needs of the SGV in ways that the Pasadena segment never could.
I disagree though, that $1 billion here or there for a piece of infrastructure is "expensive" if that lasts a century or more. In today's dollars, how much did the 405 or 10 freeways cost? We're spending $1 billion for a single HOV lane on the 405 freeway from the 10 to the 101 freeways, and yet $1 billion wasn't considered expensive there.
How much are we spending on school construction and health care? No, I'd say $1 billion is not expensive for the economic benefits it brings back, provided it's spent on a quality transportation project. Transportation projects are only "expensive" because we underfund the daylights out of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jun 10, 2007 22:00:08 GMT -8
How's this for an idea ??
Metro can give free monthly passes to residents of TOD's so that they would use the trains right at their doorstep. Brilliant... a lightbulb turns on.
Many developers won't build retail w/ high density housing. The parking requirements for retail are just ridiculous, and it takes away space from more profitable housing.
I like Duarte's plan for a TOD that turns the City of Hope Medical Center into a giant Biomed tech campus. I think someday we can do the same for the Jet Propulsion Lab, creating a concentration of jobs at a train station.
This way we can have job hubs (Pasadena, Duarte, Irwindale), shopping and recreation hubs (Arcadia and Old Town Pasadena), and use other stations for housing. The Goldline would the connector for daily living, provided they have frequent headways and more hours of service.
Sounds too utopian doesn't it??
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Aug 12, 2007 19:19:14 GMT -8
HMM. I wonder if it would be faster to take the bus up atlantic to pasedena, or if it would be faster to take the gold line express...
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 12, 2007 21:47:08 GMT -8
A southbound trip on Line 260 from Downtown Pasadena (Colorado Bl & Fair Oaks Av) to East LA takes 45 minutes during the morning rush hour per the schedule.
It takes a Gold Line Express train 17 minutes (20 minutes for other trains) to get from Downtown Pasadena (Del Mar Station) to LAUS. Since there's an additional 8 station stops between LAUS and East LA, I'm taking a guess of about a 40 minute ride for regular trains and about a 35 minute ride for express trains. That would mean riding the Gold Line rails would be faster than taking Line 260. I'm also guessing Line 260 may be a SRO ride too since the headways are very frequent all day long.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Aug 12, 2007 22:33:54 GMT -8
True... but the Gold Line was designed as more of an East - West mode of transportation.
Not really for North-South movement. There would be some redundancy in taking the Gold Line from Pasadena to East LA terminus because you are moving in a big U turn.
Instead of straight North to South.
Thus, more North / South bus route services need to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Aug 13, 2007 18:43:59 GMT -8
Suggest that to Metro if you haven't done so already. Limited stop trips or Metro Rapid service along the existing Line 260 corridor I think might be the best way to go since this line is already pretty direct.
I wouldn't worry too much of that though in relation to the Gold Line being productive; I think there's a strong east/west transit demand between East LA and Downtown. Notice there's 3 east/west bus lines through the East LA region near the Gold Line corridor which have very frequent headways all day long (Lines 68, 31, Montebello Line 40). Between that and the DT Connector, I think the Gold Line will be more productive in the days ahead.
|
|
