|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 18, 2010 23:38:00 GMT -8
"Whittier Blvd is too narrow and dense for a bus only lane. Dick Riordan proposed that and it crashed and burned for those reasons."
I thought Whittier was 7 lanes (including parking and turn lanes), like Wilshire, but I was wrong. I see now that it only has 5 lanes in certain areas of East LA and Whittier. Some areas in between have 7 or 8 lanes but not for long. No wonder the traffic is bad. Perhaps one day in the future we will think it reasonable to have 3 lanes for cars and 2 for transit; not today.
Is there enough demand for Transit along Beverly Blvd or Olympic to justify bus-only lanes? Both those streets are as wide as Wilshire, but neither has a Rapid or limited-stop route, currently.
With real BRT not an option for Whittier Blvd, this strengthens the argument in favor of a Red/Purple line subway extension or other improvements in the area.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 19, 2010 18:07:01 GMT -8
I actually have and am enacting a strategy on this. My goal is to meet and convince local politicans to support the most logical ideas for rail in this area. I have gotten Sup Molina less hostile to other area' rail project, and am trying to get the ball rolling on her supporting a purple line extension down whittier as a means of rail equity in light of the wilshire extension rather than getting mad and being for nothing. Hopefully she listens. Remember though, we need to think long-term, when connecting the 405 corridor with the Harbor Subdivision will be more viable. There are LRT vehicles available that can go almost just as fast as HRT vehicles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Rail#Typical_rolling_stock
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 19, 2010 20:30:10 GMT -8
"Interurbans" post today at www.topix.net/forum/source/whittier-daily-news/TPP8LGGGENGA7S9KS/post4 is worth adding to this conversation: Extending the Gold Line any further east either along the 60 or along Beverly Blvd to Whittier makes no sense except to the MTA in their infinite wisdom. The trip to Atlantic Blvd. now takes over 35 minutes and is agonizingly slow. The proposed extension will be in the center of the street as it is along 1st and 4th street so the service can not be much faster. The PUC does not permit speeds of above 35 mph when in the street with out gates and horns. The population and work places along this route are very light and probably can not meet the Federal requirements for any kind of matching funding. So who is going to ride this line when the Whittier Blvd METRO BRT line is much faster? This is a project looking for a need that is not there. The route along the 60 is not much better since it does not serve any residential or business along the line and a freeway alignment is the worst place for a transit line with the noise and long walks through a very unfriendly environment to reach any kind of a populated area. There is not even a destination at the end of line near South El Monte. The ridership on the Gold Line East “has not reached expiations” and will take a long time to build any kind of ridership do to its very slow street running and no signal preemption. I am very surprised the MTA seriously looking at this Whittier route or is doing any kind of research on this line with so little potential. This route would be much better as a bus route.
The better LRT route to Whittier would be to have an East West corridor from LAX / South Bay along the Authority owned right of way adjacent to Slauson Ave and the PE/UP Whittier, La Habra, Yorba Linda, Brea, Stern Line which still runs to East of the 605 in Brea. There could be a connection at Randolph / Slauson and the Blue Line for direct LA Whittier service. The right of way is from 100 to 200 feet wide east of Huntington Park. The line can be elevated through Huntington Park until the right of way widens. There would also need to be elevated sections to cross the UP and other railroad crossings. In Whittier the line runs along Lambert from Planter East a quarter of a mile south of Whittier Blvd. The area is much denser residential and industry wise compared to the proposed Gold Line extension. The line would also be able to run much faster and serve a much larger riding public than the propose Gold Line East Extension.
You can follow the route in Google satellite view.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 19, 2010 21:00:56 GMT -8
^ I've seen that before. There are couple problems with that idea, though. There would have to be a transfer station at the Blue Line. Also, while the old PE ROW does go through dense residential areas, it's a relatively long walking distance from Whittier Blvd.
On top of that, I believe the bikeway is planned to be extended down the ROW to as far as Brea. You know the NIMBYs would eat this idea alive.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 8, 2010 8:57:01 GMT -8
I actually have and am enacting a strategy on this. My goal is to meet and convince local politicans to support the most logical ideas for rail in this area. I have gotten Sup Molina less hostile to other area' rail project, and am trying to get the ball rolling on her supporting a purple line extension down whittier as a means of rail equity in light of the wilshire extension rather than getting mad and being for nothing. Hopefully she listens. Remember though, we need to think long-term, when connecting the 405 corridor with the Harbor Subdivision will be more viable. There are LRT vehicles available that can go almost just as fast as HRT vehicles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Rail#Typical_rolling_stockIm still waiting on you to rationally explain why the harbor subdivision being connected to the more northerly 405 line should be prioritized over the valley being connected to the 405/purple line. Im not asking for hyperbolic catchphrases (no offense, but I went to school and dont really care for terms unless they are applied to reality and explained in a manner that is understandable), no vague comments about polycentricity or long terms planning unless you expalin why this concept is more beneficial to both concepts when applied to the LA area. My point is it is WAY more important to use the 405 as a connection between the SF valley and the 405/purpleline than to connect it to the harbor subdivision in the industrial sparsely populated south bay. Even in a century the 405-valley route I note will serve more dense activity centers and better reflect commute patterns of a large amount of Angelinos. The purple line valley extension also facilitates LA's multinodal reality because it connects the largest concetration of office space and our transit hub with our largest commercial spine, our largest cluster of highraises outside of downtown with the largest commercial corridor running north/south thru the valley. If that lines benefit isnt an example of properly serving polycentric LA then I dont know what is. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but sometimes I fail to see your logic. And it is downright frustrating sometimes, Ill chop it up to my impatience about transit and your cognitive issues you noted prior. Either way, again, I appreciate your enthusiam, we need SOMEONE from Westco interested in PT!
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 8, 2010 9:01:56 GMT -8
^ I've seen that before. There are couple problems with that idea, though. There would have to be a transfer station at the Blue Line. Also, while the old PE ROW does go through dense residential areas, it's a relatively long walking distance from Whittier Blvd. On top of that, I believe the bikeway is planned to be extended down the ROW to as far as Brea. You know the NIMBYs would eat this idea alive. Those are good observations! From my understanding, this alignment wouldnt require a transfer because a "T" shaped rail connection would be built just north of slauson station to connect the alignment to the blue line. So rail cars would merely jump onto the blue line and run into downtown. The biggest issue seems to be construction and crush loads on the flower street portion of the blue line. I also think the ROW we are discussing should only be mentioned in terms of the esgl2 in the context of why an el down Washington Blvd is ridiculous (as there is an MTA owned ROW a quarted mile south), or a competely seperate southeast cities LRT line.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 8, 2010 10:41:21 GMT -8
^^^ Although interesting, this stuff is in the wrong thread/string. I have followed the Westside Subway Extension project, and this morning revisited the web page hosted by Metro. I have also attended two community meetings. In neither was there ever anything forwarded by Metro staff or presentations about a connection to the north over the 405. In fact, wasn't the idea killed after or during the Alternatives Analysis done in 2008? As of now, the project area map for the Westside project does not include the 405, and, the current project goes as far as Westwood and the VA Hospital. Meaning, it's too far west to make a right turn and go over the 405. To make that 405 line a possibility, the physical ability to make that would need to occur before the line is designed and constructed, not after. And, the mayor does not have the power to act alone in his decision to say the Purple Line will go over the 405, that is a MTA Board decision to make. However, sometimes dictators do good things. Go here for the latest. www.metro.net/projects/westside/ In my opinion, a strictly north-south line with a transfer station in the Westwood area makes more sense. The north end would be in the SFV and the south end could be at LAX or Long Beach, or some place in Orange County. <--- thinking outside a box and funding contraints.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 8, 2010 12:36:59 GMT -8
Trackman is correct; the Purple Line swinging north into the valley has been off the table now for some time. Why the recent 30/10 map shows it going this way is a mystery, but we can at least rest comfortably knowing that they're THINKING about some kind of rail on the corridor (as opposed to the busway that's been proposed before).
Getting back on topic...
I'm not sure what else to say that hasn't already been said. I think we're all in agreement that neither of the alignments make any sense, from a ridership perspective, to funding, right down to just plain logic. Sure, the 60 Freeway is better than Washington, but that doesn't automatically make it good. It's still a waste of a perfectly good rail line.
If going down Atlantic and utilizing the ROW on Randolph is too expensive/complicated, then my perspective is the following:
1) Vote "No-Build" on both alignments proposed by the MTA, and
2) Begin a grass-roots campaign for a Purple Line HRT extension down Whittier Blvd.
I'm not saying the Gold line should never be extended, but push it back and revive it when there's more money and maybe once the East side has a better idea of what they want in terms of LRT. In the meantime, the Purple Line under Whittier Blvd. would serve the East side well. And, unlike the proposed alignments, it would not be a huge waste of money. Everyone wins.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 8, 2010 15:15:38 GMT -8
I would favor either or both of the following:
(1) Blue Line branch out Slauson/Randolph to serve Huntington Park, Bell, and beyond. (2) Purple Line down Whittier Boulevard.
Both of these would serve major population centers where bus ridership is already huge. (For instance, Metro Rapid lines 711, 720 and 760, which serve Florence, Whittier, and Vernon/Pacific). In other words, there is an existing demonstrated need for rail transit along those routes.
I cannot and will not support an extension of the Gold Line eastward along Route 60. That is just building for the sake of building. I'm not a huge fan of the Gold Line Foothill Extension, but at least it would stop at some neighborhood focal points and connect regional destinations. Route 60 would be an unused line and a waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 8, 2010 15:46:18 GMT -8
As for the Blue Line branch down Slauson being not feasible because of Flower Street's limitations: I think that's no reason to not build the line. Just put the terminus somewhere south of Flower/Washington. Same thing with the Crenshaw Line. In fact, the two lines could connect at some point south of Washington. If riders of those lines want to go into Downtown (not all of them will), they can transfer at any number of stations along the way.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 8, 2010 19:00:48 GMT -8
Without regard to the communities which that would pass through, since I don't know too much about them, that would be very difficult from an operation standpoint. The overlapped portions of the Blue line and the Expo line will end up with twice the frequencies of the rest of those lines, ie. the same headways as the Downtown Connector. Also, if Crenshaw is built out north towards the Purple line (and Hollywood and Highland? ) then the segment of Crenshaw south of Expo would also be running Downtown Connector headways all the way to the South Bay unless some of the trains turned back early. I doubt that every part of that system would need 2-3 minute headways, even at peak hours.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 8, 2010 20:17:10 GMT -8
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but sometimes I fail to see your logic. And it is downright frustrating sometimes, Ill chop it up to my impatience about transit and your cognitive issues you noted prior. Either way, again, I appreciate your enthusiam, we need SOMEONE from Westco interested in PT! I definitely understand. Often times I can be pushy on my theories, and I don't mean to do that. I guess i'm just very passionate about LA becoming more dense and transit-oriented. It will never be New York, but it can avoid being Houston. We're in the process of transforming into a new kind of beast: A "Hybrid". PS: I'd love to try and explain thoroughly my position on this line, but according to a recent comment, the 405 option is all but dead.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 8, 2010 21:25:36 GMT -8
Metrocenter, if riders on the Slauson/Randolph trains need to transfer to get to Downtown, it make more sense to have the trains continue west. The Harbor Subdivision goes down Slauson west of the Blue Line. The line could overlap with the Crenshaw route just from Slauson to LAX, which would be more manageable than sharing tracks with the Blue or Expo lines. Passengers could also choose to take the Silver Line (Harbor Transitway) to Downtown or San Pedro, or the Crenshaw line to Wilshire and eventually West Hollywood. The other option that has been proposed is to send trains north along the Harbor Subdivision to the LA River, or along the rail line that follows Downey Road thru Maywood to the LA River. This would work best for trains that could share the Metrolink tracks to Union Station along the river. Some plans have suggested the Santa Ana Branch could use this route. See the options here: maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&cd=1&ei=MzjmS8yIIIWmjgOEjviUDQ&sig2=TEpHMHjNs-kXRypjodxoEQ&ie=UTF8&view=map&ved=0CCQQpQY&msa=0&ll=33.954182,-118.174438&spn=0.268263,0.438766&z=11&msid=102764232639575421873.0004862212a37e920d27c (How did you make that map, Metrocenter? It's nice) I would like to use the far eastern portion of the right-of-way (east of Whittier) for Metrolink in the far future. For now, the most useful part of this right-of-way is west of the LA River, in the densely populated neighborhoods of Maywood, Bell and Huntington Park. Connected with the Harbor Subdivision, we could have a 55 mph surface light rail line along an exclusive right-of-way, with gated crossings already existing. Between the Green Line and Expo / Eastside Gold Line, this is the best option for an east-west rail route. It should definitely be in the 2nd or 3rd tier of projects after 10-30.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 9, 2010 12:49:01 GMT -8
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but sometimes I fail to see your logic. And it is downright frustrating sometimes, Ill chop it up to my impatience about transit and your cognitive issues you noted prior. Either way, again, I appreciate your enthusiam, we need SOMEONE from Westco interested in PT! I definitely understand. Often times I can be pushy on my theories, and I don't mean to do that. I guess i'm just very passionate about LA becoming more dense and transit-oriented. It will never be New York, but it can avoid being Houston. We're in the process of transforming into a new kind of beast: A "Hybrid". PS: I'd love to try and explain thoroughly my position on this line, but according to a recent comment, the 405 option is all but dead. Actually, the concept of pushing the purple line up the 405 is not dead, because it was never on the table. The MOS phase scoping meetings and options never got that far west, and a 405 connector was presented as a portion of an option (rather than an entire option) that wasnt chose. That does not mean that the 405 extension into the valley has not been killed, I would say that the only way to confirm this algnment not being on the table would be to get word from a project manager/director explicitely noting that. I say that because i have gotten info from several metro staff that this section and alignment are far beyond their planning for the corridor right now (getting it to westwood is), and no decision has been made. One sure decision is that even if the purple line veers northbound up the 405 jst past westwood, here would be a stub running westward along wilshire to at least Barrington and would eventually be built to the sea. I think one of the best opportunities that comes from pushing the line north along the 405 is that a westwood/wilshire station can be positioned in a northwestward angle so its south entrance hits wilshire and it north entrance hits the souith end of UCLA's campus in one single (and lengthy) station. I also think putting HRT down the sepulveda pass is the best catalystfor an entire 405 line, although w differ on rail technology.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on May 9, 2010 14:00:11 GMT -8
I definitely understand. Often times I can be pushy on my theories, and I don't mean to do that. I guess i'm just very passionate about LA becoming more dense and transit-oriented. It will never be New York, but it can avoid being Houston. We're in the process of transforming into a new kind of beast: A "Hybrid". PS: I'd love to try and explain thoroughly my position on this line, but according to a recent comment, the 405 option is all but dead. Actually, the concept of pushing the purple line up the 405 is not dead, because it was never on the table. The MOS phase scoping meetings and options never got that far west, and a 405 connector was presented as a portion of an option (rather than an entire option) that wasnt chose. That does not mean that the 405 extension into the valley has not been killed, I would say that the only way to confirm this algnment not being on the table would be to get word from a project manager/director explicitely noting that. I say that because i have gotten info from several metro staff that this section and alignment are far beyond their planning for the corridor right now (getting it to westwood is), and no decision has been made. One sure decision is that even if the purple line veers northbound up the 405 jst past westwood, here would be a stub running westward along wilshire to at least Barrington and would eventually be built to the sea. I think one of the best opportunities that comes from pushing the line north along the 405 is that a westwood/wilshire station can be positioned in a northwestward angle so its south entrance hits wilshire and it north entrance hits the souith end of UCLA's campus in one single (and lengthy) station. I also think putting HRT down the sepulveda pass is the best catalystfor an entire 405 line, although w differ on rail technology. After reviewing the MTA web-page for the Westside project I see no indication that a connection to a 405 line over the pass is considered; either as a connection or as an independant line having a transfer. Yet, if there is to ever be a line, especially a connection, planning for this would need to occur now because waiting for a time after construction would be too late - unless a strong right turn and-a-half is made immediately after where Measure R funding ends the line at Westwood. Here is the page: www.metro.net/projects/westside/
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 9, 2010 14:12:05 GMT -8
(How did you make that map, Metrocenter? It's nice) Thanks. Copied Google and pasted into Paint.NET (free software). Turned the map b/w, and then added two layers for lines and stations.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 9, 2010 14:35:21 GMT -8
I'm of the opinion that the Purple line should not turn north and head to the valley. We have (or will have) 3 very strong E/W rail lines with Expo, Purple, and Green, and it seems almost silly to not have a N/S route on the Westside to tie them all together, and if we're going to have a Sepulveda Pass rail, that might as well be it. Not everybody coming from the Valley is going along Wilshire: there are strong ridership draws all throughout West LA, Santa Monica, and Culver City, and if the congestion on the 10/405 interchange is an indicator, then a 405 line-Expo transfer station will also be quite busy.
As for the Green line, even though it might not be as big of a draw from the valley as Expo, it's still very important in the interest of connectivity, and having the 405 line go to LAX seems quite logical. But once you're at LAX, there's all this existing Green line infrastructure, and so there's a choice to through-track the line. (What I'm advocating for on that one is having an Expo to South Bay line via Crenshaw, and Valley to Norwalk service via 405/Green).
If there is going to be through-service at LAX, which would be nice to avoid having to switch modes at the end of a line (E-BART style), and to keep transferers from crowding LAX, then the 405 line will have to be LRT, which means the Purple Line CANNOT head north to take the route. It will certainly be inconvenient in the early days of this line to have it end and have to transfer after two stations, but in the long run LRT is the way to go.
(Also, it seems to me that running this as a stub line would be quite difficult, since everybody seems to be expecting the 405 line to be running very close to capacity from day 1. It won't be able to share tracks with anything else.)
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 9, 2010 15:48:54 GMT -8
I agree that a 405 route should connect to LAX, as well as with the Purple, Orange, and Expo line. The trouble would be that there is no ROW to easily connect the 405 to LAX, so the cost for light rail would be almost the same as heavy rail. But light rail would connect to more of our rail system.
It is interesting to note that the Green line to nowhere may eventually be LA's most important connector.
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on May 9, 2010 17:30:47 GMT -8
Is there any chance that a separate thread could be started for the 405 line somewhere? This is not the first discussion about it to be completely misfiled.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 11, 2010 15:47:00 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study: MEASURE R PROJECT DELIVERY COMMITTEE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE November 18, 2010
SUBJECT: UNIFIED COST MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND POLICY FOR MEASURE R TRANSIT PROJECTS AND STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS CONSISTENT WlTH BOTH THE LRTP AND 30/10 INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve a unified process and policy for the management and minimization of project costs of the Measure R transit projects, including a requirement for the prompt development and consideration of lower-cost project alternatives that address the cost-control policy actions of the Board of Directors to date, including, but not limited to, all of those listed in Attachment A to this report; ...
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 15:56:32 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study: MEASURE R PROJECT DELIVERY COMMITTEE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE November 18, 2010
SUBJECT: UNIFIED COST MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND POLICY FOR MEASURE R TRANSIT PROJECTS AND STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS CONSISTENT WlTH BOTH THE LRTP AND 30/10 INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve a unified process and policy for the management and minimization of project costs of the Measure R transit projects, including a requirement for the prompt development and consideration of lower-cost project alternatives that address the cost-control policy actions of the Board of Directors to date, including, but not limited to, all of those listed in Attachment A to this report; ... Oh no...a way to institute more at-grade rail it sounds like to me.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 16:27:03 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study The policy could apply to a lot of projects, but particularly to this one. I think there is an assumption that all of the projects listed in Measure R are destined to be built. And not just built, but built in a way that uses up as much of the allocated money as possible. Of course this conflicts with the reality that not all of the projects may warrant the cost of a light-rail line, much less a heavy-rail line. High mitigation costs and low projected ridership are good reasons to not build a rail line. Such a project, were it to be built, would be a waste of money. So the question is: how should Metro deal with projects that are guaranteed funding but not worth the cost? I think the process described in this item gives Metro a good way to "back out" of a potential boondoggle.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 16:39:41 GMT -8
As I said before: "I just don't see the usefulness of a superlong extension of the Eastside Line that stretches deep into suburbia, via either low density rolling hills (SR60) or low density industrial tracts (Whittier Blvd)." The two options for Eastside Phase 2 -- SR-60 and Washington -- have ridiculously low cost effectiveness numbers ($110 and $83, respectively). In the past I said I would vote "No Build", but actually TSM (enhanced bus service) makes more sense. But I can't support this project as a rail line, not at the cost estimates given by Metro staff.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 16:56:08 GMT -8
If they have to build something....build a northern terminus to East LA College and a southern terminus to Atlantic/Whittier and call it a day.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 11, 2010 18:31:55 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study The policy could apply to a lot of projects, but particularly to this one. I think there is an assumption that all of the projects listed in Measure R are destined to be built. And not just built, but built in a way that uses up as much of the allocated money as possible. Of course this conflicts with the reality that not all of the projects may warrant the cost of a light-rail line, much less a heavy-rail line. High mitigation costs and low projected ridership are good reasons to not build a rail line. Such a project, were it to be built, would be a waste of money. So the question is: how should Metro deal with projects that are guaranteed funding but not worth the cost? I think the process described in this item gives Metro a good way to "back out" of a potential boondoggle. Not only that it is a supportive measure to the Original Measure R when listing the projects subregion. If the project doesn't go as planned or if the cost are under budget that monies are recycled back into that subregion within approval by the State Assembly about a year after that change (The late Oropeza rule)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 11, 2010 18:42:24 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study: MEASURE R PROJECT DELIVERY COMMITTEE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE November 18, 2010
SUBJECT: UNIFIED COST MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND POLICY FOR MEASURE R TRANSIT PROJECTS AND STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS CONSISTENT WlTH BOTH THE LRTP AND 30/10 INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve a unified process and policy for the management and minimization of project costs of the Measure R transit projects, including a requirement for the prompt development and consideration of lower-cost project alternatives that address the cost-control policy actions of the Board of Directors to date, including, but not limited to, all of those listed in Attachment A to this report; ... Oh no...a way to institute more at-grade rail it sounds like to me. Or a means of stepping back and asking objectively ask, Was this study done correctly? The problem with Eastside Phase 2 is that you have two of the worst options on the table serving two different ridership demographics. There was no understanding of what the end of this line would actually go in the end. With Expo, the objective is to get the line to Santa Monica, with Foothill Gold Line -with Metro Money- the line's objective is Azusa. Eastside Phase 2 never had a destination as its goal and thus we have these almost never-ending line(s) that is sprawling to nowhere or sprawled to the point where it cant serve its main intention and they do a poor job serving whats there. I would go for a "No-Build" for this corridor and consider them study using the Right-of-way that is currently being operated by UP and the Metrolink Riverside Line currently uses. The line would come down Atlantic or Arizona to tie into this right of way. The right-of-way is wide enough in key sections to have two LRT tracks, key busy crossings have provisions for additional bridges because they're grade separated. Here, the objective can still be obtained albeit in two different opportunites one continuing in a Local fashion to Whittier and another in a regional fashion towards the Bedroom Communities like Walnut, LaPuente, Diamond Bar, etc while actually serving destinations along the way such as The Citadel, Montebello, Rio Hondo College. Imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 11, 2010 19:54:41 GMT -8
This item before two Metro board committees next week is very relevant to the current Eastside phase 2 study: MEASURE R PROJECT DELIVERY COMMITTEE CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE November 18, 2010
SUBJECT: UNIFIED COST MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND POLICY FOR MEASURE R TRANSIT PROJECTS AND STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT PROJECTS CONSISTENT WlTH BOTH THE LRTP AND 30/10 INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve a unified process and policy for the management and minimization of project costs of the Measure R transit projects, including a requirement for the prompt development and consideration of lower-cost project alternatives that address the cost-control policy actions of the Board of Directors to date, including, but not limited to, all of those listed in Attachment A to this report; ... It has nothing to do with gold line eastside phase 2 or any other specific project. It's a policy document that is laying the groundwork for how projects will be managed. It's defining the project milestones that will initiate specific actions to bring any projects that are over budget back in line. It also sets guidelines for how 30/10 money might be used if awarded. What they are trying to avoid is having one or more projects go way over budget and then having to cancel or abbreviate other projects that are still within budget. It's saying that all Measure R projects are equally important and they don't want a project scheduled for 20 years from now to not be built due to earlier projects going over budget.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 11, 2010 19:55:40 GMT -8
It is a dog of a line, where-ever it goes.
Didn't County Supervisor Gloria Molina saying something along the lines of it eventually being extended to Ontario Airport. Right?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 8:26:50 GMT -8
It is a dog of a line, where-ever it goes. Didn't County Supervisor Gloria Molina saying something along the lines of it eventually being extended to Ontario Airport. Right? They are looking into extending the other end of the Gold Line (the Pasadena/Foothill branch) as far as Ontario Airport. "They" being the Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Nov 13, 2010 23:41:45 GMT -8
I think phase II should consist of a station to station extensions. Phase IIa would be to Garfield/60 frwy. If/when projected ridership is reached, phase IIb to Garfield/Whittier would be pursued. If/when projected ridership is reached, phase IIc to Greenwood/Washington would be pursued. Etc. I'm probably wrong, but isn't this, in part, how the BART system has been extended?
|
|