|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 15, 2014 16:40:58 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right?
R2 will probably consist of:
Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.)
Eastside phase 2
Foothill phase 2
Crenshaw phase 2
Red line to the burbank airport
Red line to the arts district
Green line to norwalk
Green line south bay extensions.
And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way.
I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 15, 2014 21:55:01 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right? R2 will probably consist of: Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.) Eastside phase 2 Foothill phase 2 Crenshaw phase 2 Red line to the burbank airport Red line to the arts district Green line to norwalk Green line south bay extensions. And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way. I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in. Isn't Eastside phase 2 and green line south bay extension already part of Measure R? |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 16, 2014 9:57:27 GMT -8
I'm sure that pumping up one of these two options as a shovel ready project that could start now (rather than in 2035) will be a necessary part of measure R2, as will Foothill Phase 2. 19,000 is about what each of the two Gold lines currently get separately, right? R2 will probably consist of: Subway to the sea (Metro's signature mantra, and number one priority, all the WWII, Korean and Vietnam vets will be dead by the time it opens anyways so it needs to go somewhere more useful to future generations.) Eastside phase 2 Foothill phase 2 Crenshaw phase 2 Red line to the burbank airport Red line to the arts district Green line to norwalk Green line south bay extensions. And probably someone wants one of those caddy corner lines down through south east LA heading towards the OC that always winds up on dream maps because of some old right of way. I doubt we'd get a sepulveda line (too expensive) or a burbank todowntown line. but maybe an orange line to pasadena line would make it in. Isn't Eastside phase 2 and green line south bay extension already part of Measure R? Eastside 2 and South Bay extension are part of original Measure R. So is the Santa Ana Branch he mentioned. All three are currently under EIR process. But obviously, not enough money from R to actually fund them all, hence the need for an extension. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 16, 2014 11:20:23 GMT -8
I wanna see an extension of the Purple/Red Line past the Arts District onto Whittier Blvd... not some half-a$$ed serpentine Gold Line that doesn't go where the real demand is (Whittier Blvd), only to simply put the former old proposal permanently on the political back-burner.
Much of the ROW still exists on Whittier Blvd for an Elevated HRT train.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on May 16, 2014 19:00:37 GMT -8
I wanna see an extension of the Purple/Red Line past the Arts District onto Whittier Blvd... not some half-a$$ed serpentine Gold Line that doesn't go where the real demand is (Whittier Blvd), only to simply put the former old proposal permanently on the political back-burner. Much of the ROW still exists on Whittier Blvd for an Elevated HRT train. What I can't figure out is why such crappy routes were chosen. It makes no logical sense. It's like the people who planned the Eastside Gold Line trying to AVOID anywhere that generates ridership. If the Orange Line is any indication, if we put down the Gold Line to Whittier as it is now we can kiss any Whittier Bl subway goodbye for at least half a century. The options are so bad I would rather they not build it at all, and that's coming from a transit fan. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on May 23, 2014 18:43:36 GMT -8
Metro has elicited the absolute worse alignments possible from each region by pitting them against each other (SGV vs. Gateway Cities). The reality is that each region has a community with transit needs that should be served with optimal alignments! A route along Gavey Av. to the El Monte Bus Station trumps the alignment along 60 frwy any day while a Purple Line extension along Whittier Bl. would accomplish what the Gold Line is falling short of doing. But whatever happens, I just hope this snakey embarrassment of an alignment does not come into existence. Nothing is better than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2020 14:29:21 GMT -8
Based on a draft of an item for Metro board review in February 2020, it seems Metro staff is recommending abandoning the SR-60 alignment. They recommend proceeding with the “Washington Alternative” and starting a new study for transit options for the San Gabriel Valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 14, 2020 18:40:41 GMT -8
I supposed that is the least bad option
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 14, 2020 19:45:45 GMT -8
No surprise there - I thought it was a foregone conclusion when the Citadel went in (with plenty of development $$$) with the Washington Blvd alignment. The neighborhood opposition to the 60 alignment was another dagger. Glad to see we have some movement forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 15, 2020 9:41:38 GMT -8
Wow, thank goodness Metro is finally building an expensive transit option to Greenwood Avenue in Montebello, which has so little pedestrian activity that no Metro bus currently serves that intersection. (If you build it...they will come!)
I never understood why Whittier Blvd was taken off the table so early. The argument: it's too narrow. That argument's BS: lots of Metro's ROWs are narrower. But Whittier Blvd is better known has a more dense collection of residential and retail than industrial Washington Blvd will ever have.
And, I still don't get why this line stops 3/4 of a mile short of Downtown Whittier. I guess Metro likes building lines to nowhere, and then getting laughed at about it. GAAAHHH!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Jan 16, 2020 23:22:16 GMT -8
Whittier Blvd is a state highway. Good luck getting Caltrans to give up capacity on anything narrower than Burton Way.
If only what is now the Whittier Greenway Trail had a wide ROW, so it weren't political suicide to use it for a train. Then we could have gone down Beverly to that and then turn on Hadley or Philadelphia to the college. Gives a great place for a combined Metrolink transfer and 605 park-and-ride, too.
Does this mean we can spend the 60 branch money on electrifying and double-tracking the San Bernardino Line? That is probably the best way to improve transit in the SGV, which doesn't have any good subway corridors.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jan 17, 2020 11:39:09 GMT -8
Whittier Blvd is a state highway. Good luck getting Caltrans to give up capacity on anything narrower than Burton Way. If only what is now the Whittier Greenway Trail had a wide ROW, so it weren't political suicide to use it for a train. Then we could have gone down Beverly to that and then turn on Hadley or Philadelphia to the college. Gives a great place for a combined Metrolink transfer and 605 park-and-ride, too. Does this mean we can spend the 60 branch money on electrifying and double-tracking the San Bernardino Line? That is probably the best way to improve transit in the SGV, which doesn't have any good subway corridors. One of the original proposals for the Gold Line to Whittier was to go down Beverly and end at Beverly/Norwalk ... but Montebello was opposed to running light rail down Beverly (which is actually fairly wide and has less traffic than Whittier Blvd). I do believe the unspoken plan is to avoid running anything on Whittier Blvd, or too close to it (Beverly Blvd), so that in the future, there will be no competing transit for a subway under Whittier Blvd. BTW, the end of the Washington Blvd line in Whittier is a hotspot for developers... Just about every lot between the hospital and Five Points (Whittier Blvd/Washington Blvd) looks empty and ready for bulldozing and redevelopment. Also, the 73 acre Nelles redevelopment that is happening now (~750 homes and apartments + more commercial) is quite close-by. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2020 11:53:34 GMT -8
I supposed in another 100 years, someone will eventually figure out how to get the Purple line across the river...
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 17, 2020 12:34:24 GMT -8
BTW, the end of the Washington Blvd line in Whittier is a hotspot for developers... Just about every lot between the hospital and Five Points (Whittier Blvd/Washington Blvd) looks empty and ready for bulldozing and redevelopment. Also, the 73 acre Nelles redevelopment that is happening now (~750 homes and apartments + more commercial) is quite close-by. I'll give you that. Was down there a couple of weeks ago. Tons of construction. Hopefully it'll be zoned for density and laid out for walkability. (Unfortunately, put me down as skeptical.) |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 28, 2020 11:02:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 31, 2020 9:43:25 GMT -8
Crossing the old Monterey Park dump would be a problem, I suppose. Lots of nasty chemicals in the ground there.
It's funny that nobody cared when they built a freeway right down the middle of that same dump, back in the 70s. Different times, different standards, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Feb 5, 2020 10:12:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Feb 6, 2020 8:04:02 GMT -8
The incursion into the castaic lake flood plain is arguably one of the major geographic reasons the HSR isn’t using the Tejon pass direct to Bakersfield (believe it or not the grades are doable with only a couple miles of tunnels while also crossing both the San Andreas and Gorman faults at grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 9, 2020 1:41:19 GMT -8
OK, so the 60 frwy alignment is off the table. Thank God!
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on May 16, 2020 8:08:51 GMT -8
What Metro staff recommends for San Gabriel Valley now that the 60 freeway alignment is off the table. Conducting a new transit feasibility study, accelerating (with discount) 2050-2057 Measure M funds so there will be $635.5m in Measure M funds for project in 2022-2037.
|
|
