Gold Line or Red Line Extension

[Tony Fernandez]

Since this topic has very much derailed a Red Line thread, I figured it was time to start a thread on this subject in the proper forum.

So responding to Damien's post from here:
transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=521&page=9#6787

As I alluded to in my first post in response to you in this topic, attempting to argue that the Eastside Red Line extension that actually hits the major activity centers under Whittier would not justify the cost of subway is quite frankly, laughable to anyone that knows the area or the existing transit ridership and transit dependent population. Really, if I'm being blunt, anyone who does not understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that the Whittier Blvd destination centers could be served with a line down 3rd Street probably shouldn't be commenting on this topic.

The Gold Line extension follows roughly the same path as the Red Line extension would have and goes further. So how does the Red Line hit those activity centers but the Gold Line does not? The closest that the Red Line would have gotten to Whittier was 1st and Lorena. Are you going to argue that the Red Line would have hit those trip generators but the Gold Line will not be able to?

I've explained over multiple posts, provided examples, encouraged you to use the internet to read studies about modeling, and still you seem intent on arguing the point.

If I've misinterpreted your posts, please correct me. If you're not arguing that the routing under the Eastside either the initial one or one of those suggested that serves Whittier Blvd doesn't have the ridership to justify the cost of subway, then just what are you arguing?

The original proposed Red Line extension did not have the numbers to justify a subway mode. The original Red Line estimate assumes a ton of lines that will not be built in the near future and has no forced transfer. The Gold Line will not have that forced transfer once the downtown connector is built. Ridership on the Gold Line will go up once that downtown connector is built (much more than than it would have gone up if this was built as a subway).

I guess you can argue that a subway under Whittier may have been justified, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the original Red Line extension versus the Gold Line extension. There is clearly more advantage in having the Gold Line extension. If you want to propose a subway under Whittier, then that would be a different subject entirely and would probably be a better point to argue. However, that's not what the argument is about.

And no Metro's ridership projections for the 13-mile extension are in the 61.5K range, not 200K. Please just do basic research, go to the Metro website and look at slides 17 & 20 of the most recent presentation.

Those were just numbers that I heard. Nowhere did I say that those were the official ridership estimates. Btw, do you realize that the projection estimates then 4730 riders per day per mile? That's much more than the Gold Line extension.

If you want to argue a ridiculous point: that the Eastside line wouldn't justify the cost of subway based on ridership, but Wilshire could not handle LRT, we can go ahead and debate that.

It seems like a viable point to make. The eastside extension would get about 2700 riders per mile per day whereas the Purple Line extension would get about 4730 riders per mile per day. That's a huge difference. Then you have to consider that if you build the Purple Line extension as light-rail that there will never be a seamless connection downtown whereas with the eastside extension there will be.

MTA's recent numbers of a full Expo with Phase 2 is 15 miles at 62K riders, which equals 4.1K riders per mile.
Wilshire Extension without a transfer is 61.5K over 13 miles, which equals 4.7K riders per mile.

Not a whole lot of difference there is it?

Do those Expo Line estimate consider a completed Purple Line, or are those the estimates without the Purple Line?

Now consider:
1) With a required transfer from the Purple Line to LRT, the 61.5K ridership figure is expected to drop. (Just as ESGL requires a transfer from Red Line to Gold Line, and as we've all talked about ad nauseum.)

Consider a downtown connector where that issue will become almost irrelevant.

2) If the line were under Olympic or Pico it is sure to drop even more. (just as ESGL serves 3rd St instead of Whittier, and as we've all talked about ad nauseum)

The ridership would drop if the Purple Line were replaced by a light-rail extension on Olympic. However, this light-rail line would not mimic the service as well as the Gold Line extension mimics the route of the originally planned Red Line extension. It's not a valid comparison. If you want a valid comparison, you would need to compare light-rail on Wilshire vs. subway under Wilshire.

So to answer a ridiculous hypothetical, based on Metro's numbers, yes, the expected ridership from a Westside extension can be accommodated with LRT on Wilshire or Pico/Olympic.

No, because the light-rail on Olympic would not hit the same centers as a subway under Wilshire. You're trying to argue the eastside Gold Line extension vs. a subway under Wilshire but that is not what I'm arguing and it's not what anyone else is arguing.

For a person like yourself, who believes that increasing traffic in a poly-nucleic dispersed city with the worst traffic in the country, I understand why you wouldn't care or fathom how the Eastside extension will worsen overall traveling speeds in the area. You think that's a solution, not a problem. It's fine for you and others to think that. But you'd never be able to defend such a thesis in any academic setting in this world.

I argued this Gold Line vs. Red Line point purely from a ridership standpoint. I used no argument such as traffic calming or community redevelopment opportunities. You're making it sound like I did and you went into a huge straw man argument. This is about ridership and which mode can handle it best. The Gold Line was a better choice based on ridership and the length of the line.

Btw, completely unrelated but I really feel you completely miss the point of traffic calming with such blanket statements like that. There are many benefits to traffic calming and they are very viable when you provide people options. An auto-dominated city is not a good thing and changing our city from auto-dominance to a more level playing field between various modes of transportation would be great. But this has nothing to do with this argument and the personal attacks are not necessary.

[damiengoodmon]

Tony,

I'm not going to argue this point with you in part because you're intent on using factually incorrect statements like:

• "The Gold Line extension follows roughly the same path as the Red Line extension would have and goes further."
  
  
• "The original proposed Red Line extension did not have the numbers to justify a subway mode."
  

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I have better things to do than argue with people about facts.

[Tony Fernandez]

You can disagree about opinions, but I made plenty of other points that are also valid.

[darrell]

I have better things to do than argue with people about facts.

LOL! When the facts don't support your argument....

[art]

People, people, people. I posted my ES PurpleLine Extension concept to bring minds TOGETHER, not promote division!

My idea is [url=http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=eastside&action=display&thread=78&page=3
]here[/url].

It is basically a hybrid line that takes up the original Redline alignment in East LA (at around lorena) connecting to a new southeast DTLA route, to run down the whittier corridor. This concept fills in a major destination gap while providing an alternative to the ESGL whittier extension for several pragmatic reasons.

I believe this concept:

• - mitigates the slower ride a GL extension to Whittier (which will be quite lengthy given it will be 20 mins just to Atlantic) holds
  
• - connects a dense part of DTLA (S. B'way/Alleys,Skid Row/7th) and western Boyle Hts.(Soto/Olymp.) that otherwise will not have rail service but deserves it
  
• - creates a better connection to destinations in DTLA that will be prioritized by Whittier Blvd residents (Latinos who generally connect to points along the southern area of DTLA, herego why much of Highland Park still takes the Fig bus over the GL to get to south DTLA))
  
• - enables a faster, safer connection becuase it is entirely grade seperated.
  
• -enables a higher capacity mode of transit in a community with high transit ridership
  
• -directly connects the Eastside with the busiest corridor, the wilshire corridor
  
• -creates a genuine East-West rail spine for the county that uses the most productive transit option available
  
• -mitigates the need for an expensive and politically iffy solution that will be required to connect the current esgoldline terminus at Atlantic to the whittier corridor
  
• -mitigates the exclusion of Whittier Blvd's most dense, transit dependant neighborhoods (in BH and ELA) from rail service which WILL occur if the ESGL is connected to Whittier Blvd.
  
• -makes certain political factions happy, provides minimal/temporary disturbance that is less disruptive than LRT
  
• - can provide quality rail service with costs that are quite minimal given the grade schematic presented
  

The reasons being:

• -The whittier/I-5 corridor is different corridor than the 1st/3rd/SR-60 corridor, and are both congested enough to dictate 2 seperate lines. One corridor connects the Eastside to the SGV and IE. The other connects the Eastside to the Southeast Cities and NW Orange County, both are huge traffic jams much of the day and contain communities with dense transit dependant residents. East of the 710, these 2 corridors begin to spread apart, the whittier corridor travelling southeasterly. This "2 corridors" concept is similar to wilshire and the SM freeway being designated as seperate corridors, both East-west areas recieving similar traffic volumes daily.
  
  
• -Both corridors contain high density communities that have high transit ridership and it would be a shame to service the whittier corridor while leaving out its most dense and vibrant activity centers (soto, lorena, indiana, ford, arizona, atlantic)
  
• -The ESGL would then be freed up to service a much more suitable corridor: Pomona/SR-60, connect ELA with the Whittier Narrows Rec area, provide a large portion of space to "fly" through (whittier narrows) which helps connect eventual extensions into the eastern SGV much quicker to LA and make up for the time lost on the street level portions in ELA.BH. This speed will add to the enticement of MTA usage for SGV commuters, as a quick route is a good sales point. the DTLA to SGV length is quite long, and people already complain a lot aboput the time it takes to LB on the blue and to Sierra madre on the gold. I think it is time that we stop thinking about rail in LA in a "lets put down what we can" but more in a "lets use the best option for the best location" stance. We are now living in the effects of lackluster alternatives (Orange Line capacity, Blue Line and Gold line legnths and crashes) and I'd like to see more proactivity in rail planning.
  

I do not pose this as a naysayer of any ESGoldline extensions (and although I appreciate the reference Damien, I do not mean this as a tool to fight rail), but as a productive alternative that may help bring comprehensive and quality rail service to a community/corridor I know well, have analyzed and genuinely care about very much. I believe now is the time to present this as considerations for an extension are being taken in, and the political climate is becoming favorable to. Sup. Molina as this presents a positive thing to fight for (as the kind Dr. Alpern noted) which is a much better alternative to being angry about being shorted and fighting other projects. City of Montebello, Pico and whittier politicios are also already naysaying a ESGL extension for all the disruption the alignment will cause (and more importantly parking lost and aesthetic obstables created) on their sacred commercial cow, the largest commercial boulevard on the Eastside and SE cities.

But Dr. Ken is right. It is long overdue that folks in our working class communities begin to work proactively rather than naysaying what's on the table. Of course my concept somewhat contradicts the ESGL, but I propose it as a compliment that can also improve the ESGL alignment to serve a more suitable alignment. I do not pose this as an attack (which i have learned is much better strategically), but a possibility. Unfortunately, my starting out in my planning career, 2 young boys and nonprofit I run allow me little time to organize the grassroots effort needed to support this concept. We'll see.

PS Tony, much of your points are correct, but please check out the whittier corridor exhaustively to see what I mean, as well as the stop locations I note in my alignment. Although not full of skyscrapers like Wilshire, these areas are full of people and this proposed alignment basically hits the "spine" of Latino LA destinations. I do not feel the old MTA docs adequately estimate ridership because my alignment is different in several key locations (actually, it would be a different project in many ways and should be debated in such manner). but I do agree that if you compare the wilshire and whittier corridors it becomes apparent that they are the east/west compliments of each other.

[JerardWright]

Sept 19, 2008 20:13:23 GMT -8 art said:

People, people, people. I posted my ES PurpleLine Extension concept to bring minds TOGETHER, not promote division!

...Of course my concept somewhat contradicts the ESGL, but I propose it as a compliment that can also improve the ESGL alignment to serve a more suitable alignment. I do not pose this as an attack (which i have learned is much better strategically), but a possibility.

...but I do agree that if you compare the wilshire and whittier corridors it becomes apparent that they are the east/west compliments of each other.

I would agree with that Whittier and some other HRT corridors like Wilshire, Vermont and Van Nuys/405 that will double as needed capacity relievers to the parallel and connecting light rail and bus rapid transit corridors.

If and when ES Gold Line goes over capacity, Whittier HRT will be in place as a safety valve, to draw and stretch the capacity. The Whittier HRT doesn't contradict ES Gold Line at all, it compliments it and help to feed transit in that region. This is in the same breath that;
Wilshire will relieve some Expo trips,
Vermont will relieve both Crenshaw and Blue Line LRT.
405/Van Nuys will relieve Crenshaw, Lincoln and Sepulveda.

There's nothing wrong with that, in fact this train of thought in transit planning has been used all over the world to successfully build their networks whether it's LRT, HRT or a combination of both.

The key is working out these strategic corridors out now when there's momentum in planning extensions or improvements to the other LRT corridors.

[kenalpern]

Great ideas, Art! So you're recommending a HRT alternative from Metro Center towards Whittier Blvd., and recommending the ESGL go to serve the 60 freeway corridor instead?

Of note is that (as Art so eloquently references) we should be proactive about building high density commercial corridors to make both employers, developers and commuters happy.

...and, of course, the big question: how to develop a group with a website for the Eastside to enjoy the same grassroots organization as we see with F4ET?

There are lots of folks associated with F4ET, but once a key core of 5-15 people gets associated with an Eastside equivalent (and I believe there once WAS an Eastside equivalent), they can meet with each other and with Sup. Molina in private to articulate a master plan for the Eastside.

By the way, Art et al: once we get those MagLev folks kicked off the PE ROW, that might be yet another way (the best way?) to have a rail line serve the I-5 corridor.

The biggest mistake, as I see it, is to suggest that different corridors are treated as if they're mutually exclusive. Some will be best for HRT, others will be best for LRT, and yet others might even need to be included in an expanded (and funded, dammit!) Metrolink network.

[art]

So you're recommending a HRT alternative from Metro Center towards Whittier Blvd., and recommending the ESGL go to serve the 60 freeway corridor instead?

Yes, yes and more yes. Now that R has passed and I can stop holding my breath, it would be an excellent time to talk to Ms. Molina about finding something to support and rally behind rather than be cross about.

Of note is that (as Art so eloquently references) we should be proactive about building high density commercial corridors to make both employers, developers and commuters happy.

I think this is extremely important, AFTER building rail where there is already density. When I look at corridors in LA seriously in terms of rail viability, I tend to be pragmatic but also looked for multiple benefits. The beauty about the corridors I have concluded should be prioritized for HRt in LA county is that they contain areas with a combination of high transit dependant densities as well as strip malls and old industry with high development potential. I know the overall consensus is place ESGL down whittier, but that consensus has developed because the redline ext. is off the table and people are just desperate to get anything down that jammed corridor. IMHO, that is exactly why the best mode should be placed, HRT, because this is such a dense, important corridor in temrs of rail service in LA, it is the eastside compliment to the wilshire corridor and the ideal location toplace the trunk line serving the eastern/Southeastern county.

...and, of course, the big question: how to develop a group with a website for the Eastside to enjoy the same grassroots organization as we see with F4ET?

I have a few folks behind me on this one in the transportation world and am in the process of trying to convert CDM (who is handling the esgl phase 2 scoping) on the subject. Beyond 2 cancelled appointments with Sup Molina's tranp deputy, I have not had the time to do more, but should and plan to. The problem is resources Ken, you know my busy life. East LA CAMP is bigger now so I am running around 24/7. It would be nice to get some people to take up the cause, any takers?

There are lots of folks associated with F4ET, but once a key core of 5-15 people gets associated with an Eastside equivalent (and I believe there once WAS an Eastside equivalent), they can meet with each other and with Sup. Molina in private to articulate a master plan for the Eastside.


That would be great and I would love to be a part of it, I just do not have the resources to properly shoulder that right now.

[metrocenter]

I love the idea for extending the Purple as the primary Eastside line to Whittier. Personally, I would prefer to see the Broadway station at 7th/Broadway, to serve the center of the Historic Core and also to keep the line straight.

Also, I would expect to see a junction on the left side of the river, allowing a connection up to the line to the existing yard in the Arts District. This actually would create the potential for a loopback as well for trains heading up to Union Station.

The new Sixth Street Bridge is being looked at now, and design alternatives are currently being considered. It's a shame they can't integrate the Purple extension into the design.

[JerardWright]

I can see this extended past Union Station and utilize the LA River Yard. However I find it difficult (however not impossible, the consequence is having to re-open the street to connect new and old tunnels together and disrupting service) to tie this straight into the existing Red/Purple tunnels with a station at 7th/Broadway. Unless this new tunnel can get extended under the existing Red/Purple tunnels to Wilshire/Vermont and additional stations are added like the missed on in City West by Good Samaritan Hospital and La Fayette Park or even make that an express tunnel.

[kenalpern]

I welcome some maps to describe how this new HRT would access Whittier Blvd., and whether or not it would extend from Metro Center, from Union Station or some other point on the current Red/Purple Lines.

[jejozwik]

Nov 23, 2008 23:46:16 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

I welcome some maps to describe how this new HRT would access Whittier Blvd., and whether or not it would extend from Metro Center, from Union Station or some other point on the current Red/Purple Lines.

i would like to see any new line avoiding 7th and metro
so here is my jab at the idea.


HIGHLY recommend clicking on the image or go to the photo

leaving wilshire western the line would run south along vermont. taking a bite out of congestion with provisions for the full vermont line. would continue to pico turning east to connect to the convention center / south park / pico station.

this would not only add development to the area, but would lighten up the load on 7th and metro.

from there im not quite sure, the surface streets are very problematic for alignment following but i had a notion to go up broadway to 6th then on to whittier. but then the 6th street bridge tosses a wrench in the idea.

my main idea hear is avoiding 7th and metro. when expo connects that station will be a nightmare, even with the regional connector LOTS of people will still be transferring to the red line. so a connection at pico could halve the amount of congestion at that station

anyhow. just a thought

[bluelineshawn]

Interesting map. I also like the idea of avoiding 7th/metro although obviously Pico would be very busy with people looking to head towards most of downtown or Pasadena. It's something to think about anyway.

[art]

Nov 23, 2008 23:46:16 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

I welcome some maps to describe how this new HRT would access Whittier Blvd., and whether or not it would extend from Metro Center, from Union Station or some other point on the current Red/Purple Lines.

Regarding the purple line eastside extension alignment I discussed:



Explanation: (eastbound from 7th street metro center) southeastward toward Olympic with a station serving South Broadway/9th/Olympic(on the north west end) and fashion district/santee alleys (on the southeast end). Just east of the station it curves slightly south to head directly east towards the intersection of San Pedro and 7th, where it rises to an el on the southeastern lot of that intersection and proceeds down the center of 7th elevated. An elevated station placed between Alameda and Kohler services skid row and the greyhound terminal/fruit wholesale area. The train continues on eastward down the middle of 7th to the foot of the bridge at the LA River, where the alignment curves southward to run along the river bed for a short jog, and then curves eastward to an underground protal at the foot of the Olympic Blvd bridge in the DHE parking lot.

From here it remains underground through Boyle Heights and East LA. The train travels under Olympic for 1/4th mile to a station at Soto/Olympic which has existing dense surroundings and huge development potential (Sears, Wyvernwood). From this station the train again heads directly east to the station serving the intersection of Whittier and Lorena. From this point the alignment runs along Whittier blvd to at least Atlantic Blvd, where it can again rise to an elevated portion and even possibly occupy a train ROW that runs just north of Whittier Blvd basically to uptown. Stations would be placed at Indiana, Ford/Arizona, Atlantic/Hoefner, Garfield/Concourse, Montebello Bl, Rosemead Bl, Norwalk Bl and Uptown Whittier. Other stations remain possible, but I minimized their number to increase speed, which is one of the key objectives of placing this transit mode down whittier in lieu of goldline LRT.


Considerations of alignment:

Because of the presence of large dense activity centers within proximity to the alignment, almost every station will be built to lengths similar to BART station (1000'-1350' long) to maximize station access and community coverage. Multiple entrances will be placed on either end of lengthy stations to facilitate multiple nodes at stations. Examples include the indiana station serving both the whittier indiana activity center on the west end of the station as well as the East LA doctors hospital/ Little Valley community on the east end, or the Atlantic station having entrances at Atlantic/ whittier on the west end and the Commerce center/Goodrich on the east end.

In Downtown- the chosen route and grade attempt to service the most important activity nodes along this corridor while employing the most cost effective alignment grade possible given the surroundings. Because of dense development, the alignment must remain subway to at least San Pedro Ave (the closest possible portal to elevated, making the tunnel as short as possible), making the subway portion in DTLA a little less than 1.35 miles long. Because of the urban, industrial color of the community along 7th from skid row to the LA River (in hope of no NIMBYism), an elevated alignment would run for a little over 1.5 miles to reduce costs. the train would also be elevated from 7th to Omypic along the LA River for an additional .6 miles.

From the Olympic/ LA River portal eastward the alignment remains underground to at least Atlantic or even garfield (whittier is still pretty narrow until garfield). Because of the esgoldline flap with politicos from montebello and whittier regarding their commercial tax base golden goose, I would guess that an elevated alignment may not be viable until Pico rivera (at the rio hondo river the alignment can actually merge onto an existing ROW that parallels whittier bl just north of the road). I would assumptively guess some kind of controversy and initiative to find additional funding to make the purple line subway through Montebello (a la berkeley with BART) if the alignment was proposed to run elevated through the city. Or maybe an el can be proposed ina manner covincing to city officials, I am working on the notion of cost effectiveness as well as maximum service and aesthetci/political viability.

The reason a short jog to Olympic/Soto is more viable than a direct connection to Whittier is that this biggest activity node on near the whittier corridor west of Lorena, and the physical obstructions for such an alignment are viable.

Jerard also made a good point about using the existing heavy rail ROW at the service station (which ends at 6th st bridge) for the alignment. I am being optimistic and hoping we build this thing the right way off the bat, especially given the viability of funding resources and the importance of this corridor. But I also thought that no matter how the ball rops this alignment running along the LA River would also make a great Whittier-Union Station connection as well. I would like to see the DTLA portion being part of the initial alignment because it creates access to the major activity centers in southeast downtown. These centers are also the largest destination points for residents who now live along the Whittier Blvd corridor.

[Justin Walker]

Nov 24, 2008 8:49:57 GMT -8 jejozwik said:

i would like to see any new line avoiding 7th and metro
so here is my jab at the idea.

leaving wilshire western the line would run south along vermont. taking a bite out of congestion with provisions for the full vermont line.

jejozwik: On your diagram, the "Vermont" segment seems to follow Hoover rather than Vermont. Deliberate?

[art]

Nov 23, 2008 23:46:16 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

I welcome some maps to describe how this new HRT would access Whittier Blvd., and whether or not it would extend from Metro Center, from Union Station or some other point on the current Red/Purple Lines.

Here is a map of the alignment portion where the purpeline gets to Whittier Blvd. The whittier corridor does not get vibrant until the Lorena intersection area because of freeway obstruction and geography.

[kenalpern]

Art:

At the risk of sounding obnoxious--and strictly playing devil's advocate--when considering the straightening of the Expo Line route, and even the Wilshire Subway route (think about how the Farmer's Market and Beverly Center are even being missed to allow quicker speeds and increased ridership), does your line really need both the curve to the south to reach the Broadway/Fashion District East AND then curve to the elevated Skid Row station?

It strikes me that most planners are likely to consider and prefer as close to a "straight shot" from Union Station to Olympic as possible. I realize it's a total heartbreak to miss certain key destinations, but I just see too many curves there for such a relatively short distance.

I again ask you to consider the heartrendering but necessary decision of Metro to have the main trunk of the Wilshire Subway go past key destinations in order to achieve higher ridership models.

Do you think that the Broadway station and another one south of Skid Row (love that name, dude--not an attractive one, I'm afraid!), or a station north of Broadway and one at Skid Row, could achieve similar ridership...despite the desire to hit every key pedestrian destination?

[jejozwik]

Nov 24, 2008 20:31:08 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

jejozwik: On your diagram, the "Vermont" segment seems to follow Hoover rather than Vermont. Deliberate?

details shmetails...


i suppose the line could follow western till pico...

[jejozwik]

Nov 24, 2008 20:55:38 GMT -8 art said:

Nov 23, 2008 23:46:16 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

I welcome some maps to describe how this new HRT would access Whittier Blvd., and whether or not it would extend from Metro Center, from Union Station or some other point on the current Red/Purple Lines.

Here is a map of the alignment portion where the purpeline gets to Whittier Blvd. The whittier corridor does not get vibrant until the Lorena intersection area because of freeway obstruction and geography.

art, cannot read lime green text over satellite images

[art]

At the risk of sounding obnoxious--and strictly playing devil's advocate--when considering the straightening of the Expo Line route, and even the Wilshire Subway route (think about how the Farmer's Market and Beverly Center are even being missed to allow quicker speeds and increased ridership), does your line really need both the curve to the south to reach the Broadway/Fashion District East AND then curve to the elevated Skid Row station?

I think those are good questions. The portions where the alignment curves to reach S B'way/ Santee is just outside of station where the train would need to naturally slow down anyways. The portion where the alignment curves again is just outside of a station as well as before the train goes from subway to elevated, and is a portion where the train would need to slow down anyways as well. Also, 7th is too narrow for any kind of portal in center of the road, and the alignment being discussed allows for a more naturally placed portal that also takes advantage of train slowdown. But I think that this is something for engineers to figure out, as I also had concerns about the curviness of this section. One thing I did consider was that this kind of curve is possible for HRT, which it is.

I mentioned It strikes me that most planners are likely to consider and prefer as close to a "straight shot" from Union Station to Olympic as possible. I realize it's a total heartbreak to miss certain key destinations, but I just see too many curves there for such a relatively short distance.

I agree, but as a planner myself I have to say "who listens to planners"?

I think your "why not run it straight down 7th from metro center" holds some merit, and may be enough for the Union Station/LA River alignment mentioned by Jerard as the better option. Another thing I noticed is that the Purple line alignment along Wilshire between DTLA and Vermont also does not run directly down Wilshire but mid block just south of it (possibly for utilities, which would be a big possibility for 7th). This may be the best solution for this "7th or olympic/9th" dilemma. Actually, this section actually would run mid block between 9th and Olympic.

I again ask you to consider the heartrendering but necessary decision of Metro to have the main trunk of the Wilshire Subway go past key destinations in order to achieve higher ridership models.

I know I am passionate about proper transportation planning, but I do ONLY want this thing to materialize the right way, my personal feelings about the alignment should be thrown out the window if a more beneficial configuration has been concluded. In all honesty, the stretch between 7th MetroCenter and the LA river is only being discussed because such important trip generators as the 2 noted (S Bway, Alameda) stations exist along it; but otherwise an alignment running from Union station along the LA river on an already MTA owned ROW seems like the most practical alignment to connect the Red/Purple line to the Whittier Blvd corridor if we are going to slip stations which are the crux of this option.

Another thing is that such a curved alignment already exists at the Western/ Vermont station area, and was designed so in order to hit a crucial activity center with the subway. The South Broadway/Santee station is just as crucial and important of a destination (if not more than Vermont/Wilshire), especially so for the majority of patrons who live along the Whittier corridor (working class latinos). The need for a South DTLA connection (specifically South Bway and the Fashion District) for Latino MTA patrons is crucial if we want to make this line successful, as it is based on an established travel pattern for a large segment of LA that has existed for over half a century. The lack of connectivity to southeast DTLA is why the goldline ridership is not boosted tremendously by Highland Park residents (actually it still is the busiest station, but does not reach its ridership potential at all), because so many of them stay on the Fig bus solely based on the Latino community's need to connect with Southeast DTLA. Just some food for thought.


Do you think that the Broadway station and another one south of Skid Row (love that name, dude--not an attractive one, I'm afraid!), or a station north of Broadway and one at Skid Row, could achieve similar ridership...despite the desire to hit every key pedestrian destination?[/quote]

I think that the broadway station's ridership would diminish significantly if there is no connection to the Fashion district, but I also think that the curving of the alignment so much to serve one place may not be feasable as well. I would concede that some pedestrian upgrades/ station signage and trees could help facilitate the connectivity if the laignment was closer to 7th. One thing I do think though is that TBM tunnels are used so that there is freedom for the alignment to go where it needs to service destination point, and since this portion requires TBM why not use it for that benefit? But maybe this wouldnt pan out economically, maybe it will. Good questions Dr. Alpern.

[JerardWright]

You know, the pieces between MacArthur Park to the new Whittier line/LA River is a perfect candidate for a streetcar. Along with Broadway as an initial route (hopefully linking to Fashion District, if not DLANC will get an earful from me) that would make a good streetcar network to feed the Metro lines. Because it's a straight shot down 7th Street and the existing Dash E is their most productive route.

Even hitting up Fashion District can be done initially as a new grade separated tunnel to replace the at-grade Washington Blvd Blue Line portion between LA Live/Staples/Convention Center to the Right of Way (either via Olympic, 11th or 12th Street) with a stop or two in the Fashion District as shown in the sketch.



With the multiple LRT routes running to the area with the Regional Connector in place will help serve as an important connecting function. This will strengthen the link between FIDM, Fashion District and the Convention Center when they have Fashion Week. The main problem with this one is that unless a small leg is tied to the new Whittier corridor, the connection to Fashion District will be lost to this new Eastside HRT corridor.

Unless the currently under construction Eastside LRT corridor runs with the Blue Line in the Regional Connector and stops at Fashion District but that trip takes a long time to reach compared to a straight shot alignment.

[kenny]

I am just thinking way, way ahead, but if the Red line goes to Whittier, then it needs to end at a new transit mall area so that the Green line can one day be extended to the same location. This would provide a great Southern entrance into the Metro rail system beside connecting the Green line to the Norwalk Metrolink station.

[kenalpern]

Art, I hope you NEVER conclude that my questions should be interpreted as an opposition to an Eastside Subway. Far from it--better you hear about this from a friend than from a dismissive anti-Eastside nut. I think we'll need something below-grade to benefit and develop the undeveloped southeast portion of Downtown L.A. (although I will be the first to admit that I am a naive Westsider who doesn't really know what key destinations are out there to be developed). Are the areas east of the river so dense as to require underground rail...and is it realistic to ever suggest boring under the river as they've done in other cities?

Jerard--I think your streetcar idea is something that is a short-term idea that deserves some merit , and might even be needed long-term whether we have an Eastside Subway or not. I'm trying to figure out, though, whether it's a bizarre coincidence or you're "making a statement" when your map looks like a giant dollar sign...

Kenny, I entirely agree with you that an ultimate rail line between the Eastside and the Norwalk Green Line/Metrolink connection is indicated...but it will be amongst the lowest of priorities both locally and countywide. Heck, even the second phase of the Eastside Gold Line is probably the least-favored rail projects that the county is pursuing...

...and let me go on record when I suggest that a Metro Center IS an excellent idea for the Purple/Red Lines or some other subway to proceed to the Eastside. It could be part of the second Downtown Connector for the county for all those who wish to travel to southeast Downtown L.A. and the Eastside and who wish to bypass Little Tokyo and/or Union Station.

I also believe that a megahigh capacity requires such a Metro Center train to be a HRT...but another subway train that's LRT for lower capacities DOES have the ability for one-seat riding in the same way that our first Downtown Connector enjoys.

I also look forward to a day when we can have an Eastside county supervisor that encourages and champions such an effort as we're doing on this Board.

[art]

Art, I hope you NEVER conclude that my questions should be interpreted as an opposition to an Eastside Subway. Far from it--better you hear about this from a friend than from a dismissive anti-Eastside nut.

No sir, this is the best place and time to have this discussion and I appreciate your input. And I have always thought of you as pro-logical transit, and never got the dismissive vibe from you on the subject. And it is nice to have friends you can talk transit to, lord knows Jerard has had to smack me upside the head a few times.



I think we'll need something below-grade to benefit and develop the undeveloped southeast portion of Downtown L.A. (although I will be the first to admit that I am a naive Westsider who doesn't really know what key destinations are out there to be developed).

In terms of rail planning, the only thing I get annoyed about is people drawing lines on a map or dismissing good ideas without doing their homework, which is not your MO, Dr Alpern. I dont think that being from another area should necessarilly hinder the weight of ones comments (although on the flip side I do think it is important to have local advice from those familiar with the physio-social structure and travel patterns of an area). I say this because I probably know the Cheviot Hills portion of Expo and the area of vermont south of Wilshire better than most because of extensive research investigation and analysis of these areas for rail, despite living over a dozen miles away from either location. I dont like to just draw lines on a map, and I know Mr Alpern (and Mr. Jerard) are in the same boat with me, which is why the input is very much appreciated. Anyways, I really dont care if "my concept" alignment is what is actually built, I just want the Whittier corridor serviced and SERVICED PROPERLY.


Are the areas east of the river so dense as to require underground rail...and is it realistic to ever suggest boring under the river as they've done in other cities?

Yes. Recent GIS data I had to create for a consulting job indicated population densities around this planned alignment between 18 to 64 thousand people per square mile from Census data (that great map Darrel made is also a good resource, but a bit old and the desnisites have increased). This high density (without any tall development, which may confuse many not familiar with the extreme population density) is consistant in Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles clear to Garfield Avenue at Montebello city limits (this alignment also services the densest portions of Montebello, PR and Whittier as well). Roads are too narrow and packed to facilitate any kind of at grade rail service or even elevated structures until east of Atlantic (which would still be tricky until Garfield). The esgoldline will run along the least used, least developed portions of 1st/3rd specifically because densities in this area are so high.

Another issue is that this corridor holds a lot more ridership potential than expected because it is home to a demographic that is known to use PT much more when viable options exist. Right now the far majority of people on the 720/etc. are on it because there is no other option, putting a rail line creates a much better option that will attract a lot more people in this corridor than prior bus riders. This is not Pasadena and the community the train will go through does not have an aversion to public transit, just a lack of comprehensive service to manifest full ridership potential in the community. Not to push a stereotype, but right now thousands of uninsured cars are being used by folks who live along this corridor because there is no convenient alternative to the car, and the bus (despite being rapid) is not too quick. So yeah, the density is there; and no, anything less than subway (for 3.5 miles from Soto to Atlantic) is not feasable until densities drop east of Garfield. Of course, we are also dealing with the largest and most developed and congested commercial corridor on the eastside of LA as well, so it will need to be handled with care.


I also look forward to a day when we can have an Eastside county supervisor that encourages and champions such an effort as we're doing on this Board.

U and I both.

[jejozwik]

i would like to see a map indicating 64,ooo people per square mile.

[art]

I will look for them, they suprised me too. And in actuality, those numbers are actually lower as well. While working on some projects in various Southeast cities I began noticing a recurring theme of these areas dismissing census numers as too low. According to several sources a better way of gauging population, especially in areas with a lot of undocumented people, is to read water utility usage rates and estimate the count from that number. Using this method, cities like maywood, with a census population of 28,000 swell to over 50,000; can you imagine what the numbers would be like in East LA and Boyle Heights?

Anyways, jerjoz, off the top of my head I can say this about your map, there are several blocks along the alignment I noted that are the dark red (around Indiana as well as between the 710 and Atlantic), which kind of proves my overall point about density. Another thing is that the red portions that have the highest densities indicate a MINIMUM of 30k per square mile in order for them to be that dark a color. That means the density is at least 30,000 per mile and could be much higher, note that McArthur Park/Westlake is also in the 30k color designation but many areas in those communities have over 90,000 residents per square mile.

But are you honestly thinking this corridor does not have the density to support HRT? This is the densest corridor on the Eastside as well as the major connection between DTLA and the OC/ Southeast gateway cities. It is extremely dense and congested and I'd advise anyone who does not believ me to spend some time down there. Anyways, I'll try to find the GIS maps on the subject, I think nkca has a web based GIS tool that is accessable too.

[jejozwik]

never said that east la does not have the population.

just the thought that we need HRT all the way out to whittier does seem a bit excessive.

also, if we are now counting undocumented residents alhambra san gabriel and montery park will have a large spike in populations as well

[art]

never said that east la does not have the population.

Okay, but I will try to find the maps I made now that you got my gears turning. I think those are good points you made and I am not dismissing them, I have thought about those exact same points though which is why I have responded to you and a few others.

just the thought that we need HRT all the way out to whittier does seem a bit excessive.

Really? Once we hit Atlantic/Whittier the line can be elevated, where it will travel for about 3 more miles thru ELA and Montebello before it hits the Rio Hondo river, at the Rio Hondo the alignment can then run on a ROW that is basically grade seperated all the way to Uptown Whittier. This means the cost would be minimal. HRT and LRT roughly cost the same, the grade is what makes it expensive. Since HRT usually needs to be grade seperated it is associated with costliness, but in urban areas like LA where even LRT needs to be grade seperated the costs often become similar between the 2 modes. As you noted, whittier is "a ways out" and the fastest mode available would be optimal, as well as the practicality of a one seat ride into DTLA and the Wilshire corridor.

also, if we are now counting undocumented residents alhambra san gabriel and montery park will have a large spike in populations as well

I agree, if you look at the post where I originally discussed this concept in the Eastside subforum my larger map shows a El Monte Busway redline conversion. I think if proper pedestrian bridges and upgrades were to take place along this alignment down the 10 we can service both Valley and Garvey corridors. The whittier and EM busway HRT extensions are basically the most feasable and cost effective rail projects to address the 2 major corridors on the eastside, the I-10 and Whittier/I-5 corridors.

[jejozwik]

more maps!


via social explorer

[jejozwik]

so are we talking about gold line eastside extension + whittier HRT or a replacement of the eastside extension?

if its combining the two... i think the middle SGV is being short changed [along with most of the county]