Your Ideas to Improve the Gold Line (Pasadena Segm

[Jason Saunders]

I know many of you have posted your ideas for improving the Gold Line L.A. to Pasadena segment on different threads but I thought this might make a convenient thread to encapsulate those ideas and discuss the pro's and cons of potential improvements that you as patrons and daydreamers of public transit in Los Angeles envision. Perhaps you feel a certain segment should be grade separated. How would you do it? Exactly where would you do it? Is there a useless stop? Would you like to see more greenery? Could there be a better Dodger Stadium connection?

Where? How? Why? Is is feasible? Do you you have a comment on why someone's idea wouldn't work or why you think it's great?

Lets' hear them?

[Tony Fernandez]

1. Downtown Connector
2. Enticing more development with less of an emphasis on parking around rail stations.

[jejozwik]

Nov 16, 2008 0:11:41 GMT -8 Tony Fernandez said:

2. Enticing more development with less of an emphasis on parking around rail stations.

granted having more development would be a plus, but in the case of the gold line and the san gabriel valley i really think parking is still a necessity.

over in hollywood with the red line you dont need any parking because the bus service in that area is numerous and frequent.

but in much of the sgv that is not the case, so unless your willing to take the hit on overall ridership parking must be included. or a drastic increase in the number of buses and the hours they operate is needed.

[JerardWright]

I think the on top of the Regional Connector, they need to improve the bus connections to the Gold Line to make it worth anyone's while. Actually they are adding a parking structure at the Fillmore Station.

[Tony Fernandez]

Nov 16, 2008 9:13:04 GMT -8 jejozwik said:

Nov 16, 2008 0:11:41 GMT -8 Tony Fernandez said:

2. Enticing more development with less of an emphasis on parking around rail stations.

granted having more development would be a plus, but in the case of the gold line and the san gabriel valley i really think parking is still a necessity.

over in hollywood with the red line you dont need any parking because the bus service in that area is numerous and frequent.

but in much of the sgv that is not the case, so unless your willing to take the hit on overall ridership parking must be included. or a drastic increase in the number of buses and the hours they operate is needed.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't referring to the parking around the stations. I really think those are still necessary for now. I meant the development around the stations shouldn't have too big of an emphasis on parking. If we get an apartment building, what good does it do if the parking structure is just as big as that apartment building? Do you really think that any of those people would take the Gold Line? It would almost be a negligible number.

Also, something I was just thinking about; most of the complaints about the Gold Line come because of Marimon way (although I think they are unfounded, it's just the perception that turns people off). I don't know if this is possible, but what if the sidewalk was eliminated and the street was repaved for both cars and pedestrian travel. You could put buttresses along the tracks with the extra space so that the trains could move faster and really not endanger any pedestrians.

Lastly, the Sierra Madre Villa Station needs a connection to the street, not just to the parking structure. It is kind of annoying if you want to go south of the freeway and instead are stuck going north to the sea of parking lots instead of being able to go straight to the houses and businesses on Colorado.

[bluelineshawn]

Nov 16, 2008 10:28:24 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

I think the on top of the Regional Connector, they need to improve the bus connections to the Gold Line to make it worth anyone's while. Actually they are adding a parking structure at the Fillmore Station.

The Fillmore parking lot opened a couple of weeks ago, however most of it is paid parking. There is free parking for Metro riders but it's so complicated that they had to come up with parking procedures (see Metro service alerts). I think those slots are all the way at the top of the structure as well. The Del Mar and Mission parking is no longer free either.

[bluelineshawn]

Improvements already in the works at one stage or another are the eastside and foothill extensions, the regional connector, and more frequent headways. One thing not being discussed is adding a clear sound wall of some sort next to the platforms on the freeway stations. The green line could use those as well. I'm not a big fan of freeway stations as I've mentioned many times.

[antonio]

As a daily Gold Line rider for 3 years when I lived in LA, there are so many ideas I don't even know where to start. The soundwalls that bluelineshawn mentioned would be a great start but if Metro only wants to do one to test them out for all the freeway stations in the system then it should be Lake. The track level there is under the level of the freeway so your ears are like right at the loudest noise on the freeway, which is a shame because Lake could be a very well used station.

There are a couple of useless stations and they are my two local stations, Heritage Square and Southwest Museum, however I have ideas to fix them and make them better. The main reason they have horrible ridership compared to the rest of the line is because there is literally nothing at the Arroyo station except a few houses and because the Southwest Museum is closed for renovations for an indefinite time. The problem stems from not having an overpass at Fig instead of an underpass which precludes a Figueroa station, which would have great ridership by connecting to two bus lines and serving the main street of the Northeast area. Instead we get the Heritage Square station placed further south on Pasadena Ave. at the start of the decline, which used to be a few warehouses but they tore one down to build the parking lot so now there is just one. What needs to be done is to create mixed use development around the station so something actually exists for the station to serve. Now this wouldn't be like Metro's Red Line and Pasadena development, but rather it would involve tearing down the other wearhouse across the street and building a 4 story apartment complex with ground floor retail, like they did at Hollywood/Western, all affordable housing. Then put a cap over the 110 freeway and connect to the empty plot of land just on the other side and build pretty much the same thing, mixed use with an underground parking structure where the parking lot is, just one story deep though and not too much parking, if you know the lot it is small, but its always full these days in the weekday mornings, presumably commuters from Mt. Washington, which you almost have to drive from even though its close because its so steep to walk up and down. It's a great workout but not exactly ped friendly.

As for Southwest, reopening the Musuem would help make the station a relevant destination. The next thing to do is to add a southern entrance to the station which would involve a walkway and pedestrian bridge to better connect it to Ave 45 and Figueroa. Where the entrance meets Fig right now is a dead stretch of Fig next to a convalescent home and a park as well as a few apartment buildings, which is fine but its not somewhere I would walk at night, it needs better lighting along Fig and more destinations north of 45, which is hard because of the huge parking lot for the Superior Discount Super Market, which is a great place to shop, however there is a random building and parking lot just north of there where the pedestrian bridge would cross the tracks and bring people down to Fig. This lot could be transformed into a mini-shopping area, narrow ala Chinatown, very pedestrian oriented. There is room between the tracks here for a walkway to the ped bridge, two catenary poles just need to become side catenary poles (i think thats doable), on the other side the ped bridge would connect to Marmion Way near Ave. 45 which is easier to walk to for people on the lower less steep side of Mt. Washington, which is much more mixed race and mixed income than the majority of the neighborhood.

I'll post more suggestions later

[whitmanlam]

The problem with the Goldline is not the slow speed. The line is actually built for speed, with a relatively straight alignment, crossing gates, and stations spaced at least 1 mile. Except for the at grade section of Highland Park, the Goldline moves very fast.

The ridership is low because of a lack of destinations and Transit Oriented development around the stations. This can be easily fixed if land developers see opportunity in TOD. There should be shopping malls, condos, mixed income apartments, and offices. Instead all they have is vacant lots, scrapyards, and warehouses.
Not the kind of place that attracts pedestrians. This will change over time with development.

The big problem for ridership, is that there are no train stations on major streets. The stations are close, half a block away from Figueroa, a block away from Colorado ..... but never actually on those streets.

I can imagine, and I believe, that if the train tracks ran down the median of Colorado Blvd, Fair Oaks Ave, and Figueroa Blvd .... ridership would be 2X what it is now. It would have made it more pedestrian oriented, instead or park-and-ride oriented. Never mind the slower speeds.

Unfortunately it's too late to change the configuration of stations. But it can be helped with better bus connections.

One time I got off the Goldline station at Lincoln Heights .... to transfer by bus to Glendale. The Rapid bus does have a stop at the station and heads to County USC hospital .... but traveling North the Rapid bus route terminates in Glassell park. A dead end. To actually get to Glendale, I had to walk 3 blocks north to connect to a bus that travels along San Fernando Rd. Very poor bus route planning.

And something that would cost hundreds of riders each day.

[kenny]

When I worked in Downtown LA, I would DRIVE to Lincoln Heights and take the GL to US and the Red line to Downtown because of 2 reasons:

1, there was free parking at Lincoln Heights
2, the bus from Alhambra to Mission Station was infrequent and started too late in the mornings.

If either the bus ran earlier or there was parking available at Mission I wouldn't have had to drive so far to use the trains. I'm sure this is a often told story of the SGV.

[jejozwik]

Nov 25, 2008 2:15:03 GMT -8 kenny said:

When I worked in Downtown LA, I would DRIVE to Lincoln Heights and take the GL to US and the Red line to Downtown because of 2 reasons:

1, there was free parking at Lincoln Heights
2, the bus from Alhambra to Mission Station was infrequent and started too late in the mornings.

If either the bus ran earlier or there was parking available at Mission I wouldn't have had to drive so far to use the trains. I'm sure this is a often told story of the SGV.

indeed it is, my hope is that when atlantic station opens, it will take less time to drive there then the mission station

[oh, and there is lots of parking... just not at the station]

[nicksantangelo]

Antonio, you make some pretty astute points about the Mt Washington area stations. I live 5 houses from the SWM station and I am frankly surprised there is as much foot traffic to and from the station as there is. The Autry's plans to basically gut the museum collection and move it to a proposed Griffith Park structure will effectively remove the 'museum' component of the Mt Wash facility. By extension, few if any commuters will visit. The Mayor's silence on this theft puzzles me as he is always promoting transit, yet he abandons the station namesake for a freeway destination next to a Zoo!

I agree the Figueroa approach to the SWM station is sub-par to say the least. It basically creeps up an alley, then up a winding ramp to the platform. Out of sight, out of mind to the thousands who drive down Fig. The lack of high-profile access/visibility to nearly all the Gold Line Stations (with the possible exception of the Mission Station) is deplorable, and does little to let Angelenos know there is a train and it is easy to find and use.

[antonio]

This is months late, but the Gold Line is the one I anxiously awaited when I was a kid in Mt. Washington so I always check the boards every once in a while to contribute more to the Gold Line section. After todays meeting, I was talking to Jerard and the subject of horrible Gold Line planning came up again. The good thing is that we can change the lack of visibility and access by redeveloping the area around the stations (esp Heritage Square where there are empty lots, a parking lot, and boarded up houses waiting to be developed. See my post earlier in this thread). In terms of visibilty off of Fig, the SW Museum station is steps from Fig, there just isn't a whole lot to work with on that part of Fig. Unfortunately there is a convalescent home right by the station and a change in grade which kind of kills the pedestrian vibe around there. Better signage would help in the short term but so would better uses of the land closest to the station (other than that home, you can't kick out seniors). To be fair to the people who planned the Gold Line even if they put the station near Ave. 43 or 45 they would have a similar problem but it wouldn't be as bad because there are better land uses (ironic that a strip mall could be considered a good land use but it works well in that little area)

I may have said this somewhere else on the board but not in this thread, however I feel that an infill station at Ave. 50 would boost ridership as it in a dense area and enhances connectivity to other parts of the Northeast along Ave. 50. It would be on the ROW between Ave. 50 and 51. but it would be just outside the street running. There is enough room for a three car platform there and nothing need to be changed if you just throw in some side platforms. This would also make the Marmion Way slowdown less of an issue. As a general note about improving the Gold Line, the lack of connectivity need to be seriously addressed. Due to the unique street grid (if it can be called a grid) of NE LA, DASH would actually work well to circulate and collect riders to the four NELA stations since there are random pockets of density that are fairly disparate. I grew up in the Northeast so I have a lot more ideas for the Gold Line in that area that I'll post here from time to time

As for the Museum, it's supposed to re-open in 2010.........

[wad]

Feb 24, 2009 23:28:08 GMT -8 antonio said:

Due to the unique street grid (if it can be called a grid) of NE LA, DASH would actually work well to circulate and collect riders to the four NELA stations since there are random pockets of density that are fairly disparate.

I proposed some of these for the Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal. Although, admittedly, these would be mostly taking over low-productivity lines like 256.

In this part of L.A., some of the services could be taken over by DASH outright.

[antonio]

Yah I saw that and I like those ideas a lot esp. without 256, which was always trying to do too much anyway (and too infrequent). I used to live in Hermon and would sometimes just walk 20 mins to the Highland Park station because the 256 hardly came (but when it did it was really nice 'cause it dropped me half a block from my house)

[wad]

Mar 1, 2009 0:15:31 GMT -8 antonio said:

Yah I saw that and I like those ideas a lot esp. without 256, which was always trying to do too much anyway (and too infrequent). I used to live in Hermon and would sometimes just walk 20 mins to the Highland Park station because the 256 hardly came (but when it did it was really nice 'cause it dropped me half a block from my house)

It is a very long line, runs hourly and is contract-operated. That is a recipe for poor service. My ideas are to preserve some semblance of 256 service.

Logically, it is quicker to take the Gold Line between East L.A. and Northeast L.A. or Pasadena, so it does not need to be this long. I also figured that Pasadena has its own bus system, and LADOT can take the L.A. parts of the line, which would allow for more Gateway Cities connectivity by focusing Line 256 solely on Eastern.

[rajacobs]

1. Timely (not 2013) completion of the pedestrian bridge to Colorado.
2. Resolution of Breda air-conditioner noise problems (hopefully before they're introduced to the Expo Line.

[darrell]

I saw multiple 3-car trains, both Siemens and Breda (not mixed), on the Pasadena Gold Line today (Saturday). Anyone know why?

[rubbertoe]

Yeah, I saw them too. A lot of them were quite full too. Not sure if this is a regular thing or not, I would probably have noticed if it were a regular thing. Saturday boardings are 25k versus 32k weekday, and they don't generally run 3 car trains on weekdays so it must have been a special event or something.

RT

[trackman]

There was a special event downtown on Saturday... the Tour of California.

[bobdavis]

So much for the rumors that the traction power supply system for the Gold Line wouldn't support 3-car trains.

[trackman]

May 23, 2010 22:03:39 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

So much for the rumors that the traction power supply system for the Gold Line wouldn't support 3-car trains.

Well, it a saturday, so fewer trains running may be a factor? But this is the first I have heard of not being able to run longer trians, where did that come from?

[bobdavis]

There were reports when the Gold Line opened that the "traction power system" had been done "on the cheap" and could not power 3-car trains reliably. I had observed that there are at least ten substations along the route, and that the Pacific Electric Monrovia-Glendora line of my childhood ran three-car trains of heavy interurbans at rush hours and for big races at Santa Anita with subs at only Arcadia and Azusa. I haven't checked out Tournament of Roses service on New Years Day lately, but someone mentioned 3-car trains for that event. I suspect that there were those who would use any excuse to "bad mouth" the Gold Line, including one coterie of railfans who probably still think of light rail as "Toonerville Trolleys" and would have preferred that the old Santa Fe track had been used for Metrolink diesel-powered service.

[crzwdjk]

Keep in mind that one Gold Line car is really the equivalent of one and half to two interurban cars, and that the newer cars have more powerful motors as well as air conditioning. The key capacity constraint on the electrical system is peak current draw, which is proportional to train length, because peak current draw for a train happens when it's starting, and a pair of trains is not likely to have both starting at once, while with a 2-car train, it's guaranteed that both cars will be drawing peak current at once. But if there are really 10 substations along the line, and they're reasonably sized, I don't think 3 car trains will be a problem.

[bluelineshawn]

IINM the gold line has been running 3-car trains on NYE and day for about 3 years now.

And the bike race downtown was nowhere near the gold line. Why would they run extra service for the gold line and not the blue/red/purple which were right on the course?

[rubbertoe]

Here ya go: The distance from the Chinatown Station to home plate at Dodger Stadium is 1.07 kilometers. In London, they are building an aerial tram that goes 1.1 kilometers. Cost is $68 million, 2,500 per hour capacity with 10 people per car every 15 seconds for a quick 5 minute ride...

www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/04/18/london.olympics.cable.car/index.html?hpt=C2

[jeisenbe]

I actually think Dodgers Stadium is a perfect place for Gondola (ski-lift) style transit. It's been used in several places in Latin America to connect communities on hills to the city below (where hills are too steep for good bus service), and of course every ski resort uses theses things and makes a profit.

However, Dodger Stadium is not on such a high hill. It should actually be possible to run good bus service up there, if and only if the owners allow buses to have their own right-of-way, perhaps on the east side of the stadium, to bypass all the car traffic. This would be the cheap, immediate solution.

[masonite]

Apr 19, 2011 17:57:43 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

I actually think Dodgers Stadium is a perfect place for Gondola (ski-lift) style transit. It's been used in several places in Latin America to connect communities on hills to the city below (where hills are too steep for good bus service), and of course every ski resort uses theses things and makes a profit.

However, Dodger Stadium is not on such a high hill. It should actually be possible to run good bus service up there, if and only if the owners allow buses to have their own right-of-way, perhaps on the east side of the stadium, to bypass all the car traffic. This would be the cheap, immediate solution.

A gondola would be a great addition here for both the Dodgers and Chinatown and LA overall. Not only is the Stadium up a steep hill from Chinatown, there are no direct roads between the two areas. Walking between Chinatown and Dodger Stadium would be a harrowing unpleasant endeavor even if you were in great shape.

The Dodgers would need to make a commitment to get this going and that won't happen with current ownership. I could also see Chinatown businesses raising money for this as well.

Sorry but bus lanes are not realistic here. They are really no direct main roads between the areas. Also, are we going to create a bus lane just on Dodger game days? The residential communities around here would not be in favor of this.

[matthewb]

A gondola could become a self sustaining tourist attraction. Tourists could pay a few dollars get views of downtown when there aren't games going on.

[carter]

Apr 20, 2011 2:09:29 GMT -8 matthewb said:

A gondola could become a self sustaining tourist attraction. Tourists could pay a few dollars get views of downtown when there aren't games going on.

There's already an Angels Flight. Time for a Dodgers Flight!