|
Post by trackman on Nov 14, 2010 9:03:25 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. Yes, the Foothill Authority is going beyond their mission and somehow looking at an additional extension - one that connects with Ontario Airport. Tho... I recall reading an article in the PasadenaStar, or another newspaper, that had Supervisor Gloria Molina saying that the Gold Line Eastside Extension was to look at further extension to Ontario Airport (and perhaps the City of Industruy proposed football stadium?). I believe it was Molina's way of supporting the SR60 alignment? Perhap I am mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 14, 2010 11:08:39 GMT -8
As much as I believe that transit should be built in city centers, I also think that there is a place for rail transit in the Inland Empire. It's a metropolitan area of 5 million people with a very high growth rate. Those additional people will either be housed in sprawling single family homes and drive a hundred miles a day, or we will invest in adequate infrastructure there as well, providing economic forces for densification. Additional infrastructure around Ontario airport will also help to develop the business district there, which will help to correct the work-housing imbalance that characterizes the Inland Empire. Every job created there is one less car parked in LA or Orange County every day, and thousands of vehicle miles every year (with resultant congestion and smog) eliminated. In this case, it probably makes sense to extend the gold line rather than create an independent light rail line that is not connected to the LA network. It's probably quite a way off before this would get built, and by that time the gap between Montclair and the Ontario Airport/High Speed Rail station might look a lot like the gap between the green line and Norwalk Metrolink does today.
It's easy to argue that if we had proper zoning regulations and transportation infrastructure in Los Angeles that the Inland Empire wouldn't be such a sprawling mess, but Los Angeles didn't have such rules and infrastructure over the past 3 decades when most of the growth took place. It's too late now to expect that sprawl to just go away. We need to promote smart growth in all of Southern California's population centers, and a gold line extension to Ontario would help to do that, just as the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor will bring the Metro rail network to Orange County.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 14, 2010 12:57:00 GMT -8
Every job created there is one less car parked in LA or Orange County every day, and thousands of vehicle miles every year (with resultant congestion and smog) eliminated. Over the last 60 years, it's been proven that any jobs created in Santa Clarita, Orange County, Riverside, et al, does not eliminate jobs in LA. It's just a natural progression of growth. You will never eliminate cars/people commuting to LA/OC no matter how many jobs are created in Riverside. Riverside is a growing metropolis, but it will not reduce any congestion going into/out of LA as people will just extend their commutes. I know people who live in Temecula and drive to OC to work and vice versa. It's fine to create job centers that are miles away from the center of the nation's 2nd largest metropolis, Los Angeles. But to think it will eliminate cars coming into/out of LA, that will never happen. In the end, Los Angeles is the cultural center of the southland and OC has some fine beaches and great industries. And both centers, along with Riverside will continue to blow up and have more people commuting around our great Southland. Rail enhances growth, it never eliminates traffic/cars. Proven in every city in the world. It provides alternatives..............
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 14, 2010 15:01:10 GMT -8
Neighboring counties need to fund their share of capital and operating costs of those lines - assuming they are connected to Metro's system.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 2:02:57 GMT -8
Tho... I recall reading an article in the PasadenaStar, or another newspaper, that had Supervisor Gloria Molina saying that the Gold Line Eastside Extension was to look at further extension to Ontario Airport (and perhaps the City of Industruy proposed football stadium?). I believe it was Molina's way of supporting the SR60 alignment? Perhap I am mistaken? I'm not sure if it was Molina. For some reason I think it was Joseph Gonzalez. Anyway, after hiting the stadium site, it could head north on Grand to Mt. SAC, the largest Community College in California.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 2:09:27 GMT -8
Over the last 60 years, it's been proven that any jobs created in Santa Clarita, Orange County, Riverside, et al, does not eliminate jobs in LA. It's just a natural progression of growth. You will never eliminate cars/people commuting to LA/OC no matter how many jobs are created in Riverside. Riverside is a growing metropolis, but it will not reduce any congestion going into/out of LA as people will just extend their commutes. I know people who live in Temecula and drive to OC to work and vice versa. It's fine to create job centers that are miles away from the center of the nation's 2nd largest metropolis, Los Angeles. But to think it will eliminate cars coming into/out of LA, that will never happen. In the end, Los Angeles is the cultural center of the southland and OC has some fine beaches and great industries. And both centers, along with Riverside will continue to blow up and have more people commuting around our great Southland. Perhaps not Riverside, but commuting between LA and San Bernardino WILL drop if the latter contintues to grow and densify. Just look at the thread PragmaticIdealist has on it on SSP. Dude, you made this point OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.................
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 15, 2010 7:07:49 GMT -8
Dude, you made this point OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN................. Yes, and people keep saying the whole "traffic will drop" arguement every time we try to build a rail ine. Wrong. It never does. That's a big reason there was an outcry by the public when they found out the westside subway does not reduce traffic. Imagine, you've been told that when we build this rail line, the roads will clear up as there will be less traffic. That's what people were generally sold on Measure R. Reality is true. We need to explain to people, it's an alternatives method, not a traffic reduction thing. Growth will always occur to keep traffic at optimal levels. By the way, same arguement, San Bernandino/Riverside traffic, will not decrease again...however, only if we had the gas price shock of 2006 (oh, that was awesome!)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 15, 2010 10:28:02 GMT -8
I think the I-10/Valley Blvd. corridor makes way more sense for a rail corridor than the 60 Fwy or Washington Blvd. Valley Blvd is way more dense than the other two corridors. And the El Monte Bus Station is supposedly the busiest bus station west of Chicago, served by the Silver Line (BRT) and several major SGV bus lines (like Foothill Transit), with Metrolink stopping nearby as well.
Just a bit off-topic: the El Monte Bus Station (now being rebuilt) represents a major missed opportunity in terms of making transit work. It is less than a mile from the El Monte Metrolink station -- just far enough to make it bad for transfers. The train even goes right by the bus station, but does not stop there. Somebody Metrolink should relocate their stop to the bus station, if at all possible.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 15, 2010 11:16:00 GMT -8
Just a bit off-topic: the El Monte Bus Station (now being rebuilt) represents a major missed opportunity in terms of making transit work. It is less than a mile from the El Monte Metrolink station -- just far enough to make it bad for transfers. The train even goes right by the bus station, but does not stop there. Somebody Metrolink should relocate their stop to the bus station, if at all possible. Agreed, just like the missed opportunity of a Metrolink station near the Ontario airport. It would be closer than our current Aviation/LAX connection station. A short tram would take people to the terminals.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2010 11:27:06 GMT -8
But, if we have multiple transit stops, there will be more parking spaces and you can just drive to whatever transit is closer!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 15, 2010 12:43:45 GMT -8
But, if we have multiple transit stops, there will be more parking spaces and you can just drive to whatever transit is closer! What about bus riders? I think transit should be planned with optimum bus transfers to effectively build on the hub-and-spoke system. Since El Monte transit center is the busiest bus station west of Chicago, it would be natural if the Metrolink connected here. I volunteer at Union Station and there are significantly more people who want to go to El Monte bus station than the El Monte Metrolink station. I think bus connections play a significant part in that. It's definitely a huge missed opportunity....
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 15, 2010 13:18:22 GMT -8
This morning I wrote to El Monte city planning, asking why the Metrolink is not located at the bus station. The response (emphases added by me): In regards to the multi-modal connection, your observation is right on, the connection is better at the Bus Station, especially, since they intersect. I don’t have the answer to your question but, I suspect that safety, design, engineering, land availability, and construction cost may all have been part of the decision for locating the Metrolink Station where it is today. For your information, as you may already know, currently there is a local shuttle connector that is operated by the City connecting the two stations.
We here at the City also share your vision and as part of the vision of the El Monte Gateway project, the City is working with Metro and the Rail Authority to put to the forefront the idea of making the connection. We are currently pushing a concept to bring commuter rail (Metrolink), Bus (Metro), and the proposed High Speed Rail together on this site. The design will be challenging and our team is working hard with various agencies and funding sources to trying and bring the components together.
This is would definitely make the El Monte Gateway Project a true multi-model hub.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 14:10:26 GMT -8
Yes, and people keep saying the whole "traffic will drop" arguement every time we try to build a rail ine. Wrong. It never does. That's a big reason there was an outcry by the public when they found out the westside subway does not reduce traffic. Imagine, you've been told that when we build this rail line, the roads will clear up as there will be less traffic. That's what people were generally sold on Measure R. Reality is true. We need to explain to people, it's an alternatives method, not a traffic reduction thing. Growth will always occur to keep traffic at optimal levels. Do you really think the same amount of people supporting mass transit will stay the same if they find out that it doesn't actually reduce traffic? If growth patterns changes in the Inland Empire, traffic between LA and San Bernardino will change. This is already happening in Orange County. A couple years back I remember hearing on the news that the ratio of LA-OC commuters to OC-LA is already beginning to shrink.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 15, 2010 14:44:16 GMT -8
Do you really think the same amount of people supporting mass transit will stay the same if they find out that it doesn't actually reduce traffic? Why do people support mass transit in urban centers all over the world? It provides growth and alternative modes of transportation. Any freeway expansion you've seen reduce traffic? Unfortunately, to get the layperson to sometimes vote on a sales tax increase is to use cute talking points like "traffic reduction". A very popular group just did it in the elections (hint: see Tea Party claims of fear over the last year...can't wait to see the abolishment of social security!!!!..haha)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 15:28:22 GMT -8
I think the I-10/Valley Blvd. corridor makes way more sense for a rail corridor than the 60 Fwy or Washington Blvd. Valley Blvd is way more dense than the other two corridors. And the El Monte Bus Station is supposedly the busiest bus station west of Chicago, served by the Silver Line (BRT) and several major SGV bus lines (like Foothill Transit), with Metrolink stopping nearby as well. Garvey isn't bad at all either. In fact, it appears to go through denser areas: farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3357514809_45ff61df99_b.jpgPlus if the El Monte Busway is converted to HRT (presumably as a Red Line extension), a transit line can easily connect to Garvey because they eventually run parallel to each other at around Warwick street.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2010 15:30:16 GMT -8
But, if we have multiple transit stops, there will be more parking spaces and you can just drive to whatever transit is closer! What about bus riders? I think transit should be planned with optimum bus transfers to effectively build on the hub-and-spoke system. Since El Monte transit center is the busiest bus station west of Chicago, it would be natural if the Metrolink connected here. I volunteer at Union Station and there are significantly more people who want to go to El Monte bus station than the El Monte Metrolink station. I think bus connections play a significant part in that. It's definitely a huge missed opportunity.... I totally agree, the comment about parking was meant to be sarcastic. I'm completely for moving the El Monte Metrolink stop to the bus station, for electrifying the San Bernardino line, and for creating a Metrolink station at Ontario Airport with frequent enough service that people leave their cars at home (with a big airplane logo on the Metrolink map). Poor gold line, we're totally abusing its thread.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 15, 2010 15:34:11 GMT -8
Poor gold line, we're totally abusing its thread. Part of it is that things are going so slow (MTA chooses the exact route in November 2011, I think) there's really nothing else to talk about.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2010 15:40:29 GMT -8
Poor gold line, we're totally abusing its thread. Part of it is that things are going so slow (MTA chooses the exact route in November 2011, I think) there's really nothing else to talk about. Well, in that case, let's continue the El Monte rant. What's up with El Monte? The people at El Monte city planning seem on the ball (at least with regards to their response above) In regards to the multi-modal connection, your observation is right on, the connection is better at the Bus Station, especially, since they intersect. I don’t have the answer to your question but, I suspect that safety, design, engineering, land availability, and construction cost may all have been part of the decision for locating the Metrolink Station where it is today. For your information, as you may already know, currently there is a local shuttle connector that is operated by the City connecting the two stations.
We here at the City also share your vision and as part of the vision of the El Monte Gateway project, the City is working with Metro and the Rail Authority to put to the forefront the idea of making the connection. We are currently pushing a concept to bring commuter rail (Metrolink), Bus (Metro), and the proposed High Speed Rail together on this site. The design will be challenging and our team is working hard with various agencies and funding sources to trying and bring the components together.
This is would definitely make the El Monte Gateway Project a true multi-model hub. However, when you actually look at what's happening around the station, it's some of the worst urban planning I've ever seen, especially in an area that could immediately have massive foot traffic due to the large number of passengers passing through.
|
|
|
Post by gibiscus on Jan 7, 2012 17:35:07 GMT -8
From Pomona/Atlantic, it could follow the 60 to Via Campo/Wilcox, then turn south on Wilcox to Beverly, east on Beverly through Montebello (stations at Montebello City Hall and Montebello Blvd), then south on Paramount to Whittier Blvd. The Montebello Metrolink station can be replaced with a new one where Paramount crosses the train tracks for better connectivity. From there, the Gold Line can continue on Whittier Blvd until Hadley (station at corner), then east on Hadley, south on Greenleaf through Uptown Whittier (stations at Greenleaf/Hadley and the Historic Whittier Depot), then back onto Whittier Blvd with stations at the Quad at Whittier, Colima Rd and Whitwood Mall.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 7, 2012 21:28:40 GMT -8
^ Unfortunately, I think such suggestions are too little, too late.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Nov 12, 2013 13:40:41 GMT -8
the East side extension 2 needs to be shelved i this is what im proposing Pico Rivera, Whittier and Santafe Springs are the ones clamoring for the line. My understanding is Montebello doesnt want it because it affects their bus service. the loser here is my Hometown Pico Rivera. Have Pico Rivera Build a Metrolink Station near the new grade seperation at Slauson and Passons an build a nice multimodal station that can connect some metro lines and the montebello busline 60. i Posted an image not to long ago about a possible location. (not light rail but its the second best thing next to light rail. As for Whittier and Santa fe Springs. Why not Extent the green Line east to metrolink (subway alignment) but turn it north on Bloomfield Stick a station there on that empty lot the corner of bloom field and imperial. THen have riders connect to Metrolink via an underground tunnel. Take the line north and go at grade in the center of bloomfield (wide street) have a station at Telegraph near the new housing developments then have the line continue and end at the five points in an elevated station similar to Santa Monica You essentially Connect Torrance to Whittier this way And provide what i think is quicker ride accross the LA basin its an S shaped line sort of. link below to image the red triangle is the area in pico rivera that could get a metrolink station
Green Line Alternative
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 12, 2013 15:52:17 GMT -8
the loser here is my Hometown Pico Rivera. Have Pico Rivera Build a Metrolink Station near the new grade seperation at Slauson and Passons an build a nice multimodal station that can connect some metro lines and the montebello busline 60. i Posted an image not to long ago about a possible location. (not light rail but its the second best thing next to light rail. Dude you say your from Pico? Did you know that there was passenger service at Serapis and Santa Fe the right of Way until Amtrak took over but the emphasis for passenger service was transferred to the Imperial Highway station. .
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Nov 12, 2013 17:23:13 GMT -8
the loser here is my Hometown Pico Rivera. Have Pico Rivera Build a Metrolink Station near the new grade seperation at Slauson and Passons an build a nice multimodal station that can connect some metro lines and the montebello busline 60. i Posted an image not to long ago about a possible location. (not light rail but its the second best thing next to light rail. Dude you say your from Pico? Did you know that there was passenger service at Serapis and Santa Fe the right of Way until Amtrak took over but the emphasis for passenger service was transferred to the Imperial Highway station. . is time to rebuild!!! If i do move back i think i might take up the whole livable streets movement and do a presentation at a council meeting Serapis has now been closed ever since the grade seperation at passons was completed. would you happen to have any links to what the old station looked like?
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Nov 13, 2013 14:09:07 GMT -8
Oh gawd, I almost fainted when I saw this threat become active again! I know Santa Fe Springs had been clamoring for LRT for some time now; I don't know if that's still true though. The demise of the old PE Whittier Line speaks volumes, but that aside, I'm just glad someone else is thinking of the Gateway Cities region. It's sad to say, but I really think Whittier, Pico Rivera, and Montebello will be better off when the idea of extending the Red/Purple Line east is revisited and gains momentum. This will be of little consolation, but hopefully the success of the PEROW/WSAB (future Santa Ana Line) will help establish that there is a need to better serve the communities of Montebello, Pico Rivera, Whittier, and Santa Fe Springs.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 13, 2013 16:39:48 GMT -8
It's sad to say, but I really think Whittier, Pico Rivera, and Montebello will be better off when the idea of extending the Red/Purple Line east is revisited and gains momentum. I think the likely Arts District station behind One Sante Fe on the Red Line will help plant that seed too. I just had the thought that if the 6th street viaduct redesign had happened with that eventuality in mind, it could've possibly been built with Red Line tracks at a different grade to get that extension started. But oh well.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Nov 14, 2013 9:37:21 GMT -8
It's sad to say, but I really think Whittier, Pico Rivera, and Montebello will be better off when the idea of extending the Red/Purple Line east is revisited and gains momentum. I think the likely Arts District station behind One Sante Fe on the Red Line will help plant that seed too. I just had the thought that if the 6th street viaduct redesign had happened with that eventuality in mind, it could've possibly been built with Red Line tracks at a different grade to get that extension started. But oh well. I hope the LRT extension doesn't undermine the possibility of extending the purple line under whittier boulevard. I hope that one day it will be possible to have the entire route of the 720 replaced with the purple line subway. I don't know if the ridership is their beyond that region, for HRT though.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 15, 2014 11:38:00 GMT -8
Metro outlines light rail extension plansLooks like both the SR-60 and Washington routes are still being pursued and even fought for. SR-60: 16,700 riders, $1.2 to $1.3 billion. Washington: 19,900 riders, $1.4 billion to $1.7 billion. *gag*
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 15, 2014 13:28:00 GMT -8
No EIR til the summer it looks like. Being reminded of the current 2035 operation year was deflating as well.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 15, 2014 14:57:59 GMT -8
I'm salivating over the prospect of intra-SGV fight for another Gold line extension. This time, they can't make a boogieman out of the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by andert on May 15, 2014 15:10:04 GMT -8
I think the project list for the new ballot measure is supposed to come out around november. Maybe it'll include the one not chosen for Measure R and appease them... though considering the ridership numbers, I sort of doubt it.
|
|