Extension to Whittier study corridor

[roadtrainer]

unico said:

an east side extension should run down Atlantic from Pomona and all to all the way past bell. it can eventually connect with a blue line extension that should run down Randolph from the slauson junction. and possible connect to the green line. this makes most sens. not just because i live in the area but because it is the most densely populated area of the county outside of the MacArthur park, pico union area. light rail is needed south of east LA and east of south LA. south east LA. rail line existed in the past, and an actual line that ended in Whittier ran from the slauson junction thru HP, MWD and Bell all the way to Whittier. it existed in the 1920's the 1950's (last train was in 1938) and it should be the next big "eastside" project. this area is more densely populated than east la proper, Pasadena, Whittier, Monticello, and it is very park poor. i imagine and orange line type of route, but with light rail. the space and tracks exist to have rail and bike paths connecting to the river bike paths and other areas. makes sense to me. am i alone?

;D You know that the late LACTC nixed the idea of an extension from the Blue Line to La Harbra back in the Early 1990"s. But anyone could see and those who lived in the area know that the ROW would have been excellent. But alas it was not in that funny looking map that was on the ballot when Los Angeles County voted for a mass transit system. The earlier attempts (for Mass Transit) were defeated by The anti-crowd- who enjoyed gasoline at prices running from $.18 cents a gallon to $.65 cents a gallon. It was only after the gas rationing of 1974 and the climbing gas prices of the 1980's that the need for mass transit prevailed, and Los Angeles County voted for Prop. "Ä" and Prop. B.

Now when I drove for the Metro I was on the 260 line and it is a busy traveled line. It might be a very good idea for a rail line between the E.L.A. Gold Line and the Metro Green Line. Best yet if it can't follow the Atlantic Ave. it could follow the 710. It is because there is alot of wide open space that runs along side of the 710. Therefore the less business and homeowner land lost the better. (The less NIMBY'S the better!!!). But to run down Atlantic is a pretty good idea---Have you seen the people the 260 picks up from South Gate to Whittier Blvd.? And vise versa?
Sincerely The Road trainer GO USC BOO UCLA!

[Mac]

A Atlantic line was been brought up before, but I don't think it should be a branch of the gold line though. Also, the 710 from East LA up to Alhambra isn't really a good route, since it goes through neither the city centers of Monterey Park nor Alhambra. But from East LA south, I can't speak for that, since I'm not so familiar with that area.

[Mac]

BTW, if we were to align the Line with the 60, now would be the time to do it, since they are widening the freeway for carpool lakes. But then again, from the Montebello Town Center to Puente Hills Mall, Theres really nothing but open land, Fry's Electronics, and the Crossroads area, which means little ridership.

[JerardWright]

The 60 freeway corridor is a path of least resistance but also one of least ridership and the TOD developments next to the freeway will have to combat against the ashtma, CO2 and other wonderful air particles living next to a freeway provides not to mention the environmental clearences to even start building those homes.

It may be the path of least resistence on the surface and provides access to park space but there's a lot more to it. Hell the existing East LA Gold Line will have at least 4 parks right next to the line! Sure we can connect some folks to the park but there's not much there nor in the future and the issues of bad air right next to the freeway pose serious health dangers to the future developments which going by the Green Line standards will be nothing more than strip malls with thick toxic moats of asphalt.

It's like building the Wilshire Subway down the 10 freeway sure there's a busy freeway there but it doesn't mean it's the right corridor to tie residents throughout the region to. Beverly or Whittier Blvd is the better corridor. It is not as big as Wilshire but it still provides a strong spine for the Northern Gateway cities area better than the 60 corridor.

[art]

I think the MTA is getting a little overambitious and excited about getting a rail spur down into the eastside. Ambitious and excited to the point where their anxiousness is now clouding their goals for comprehensive Eastside service that is competent enough to serve this high ridership area (and half dozen high congestion corridors). It makes me wonder if any ELA locals are working in this MTA dept. as well as if anyone there has a extensive knowledge of the community, travel patterns, and how the regional traffic plays into the area's congestion daily. We forget that the ES of DTLA directly connects the city center to the largest population corridors in the Metro area, the SGV and IE as well as Southeast corridor cities and partially the OC. That's a lot of people ,and it is no wonder tha this area has many of the highest ridership bus lines (and the bulk of the non central LA heavilly used lines) and traffic congestion that rivals the 101 and 405 easilly. Anyways, back to my initial comment, the MTa seems to be overly anxious to just stick anything down that area that's even remotely feasable, even if it does a poor job of moving people or serving the community. I sucked it up with the ES goldline missing numerous destinations and taking an alignment that is less than efficient because of fiscal reasons, but we should not be throwing money in more half arsed projects (there I said it, look at the goldline to Pasa, the ROW and trip time problems will arise in the ES extension, but with higher ridership becuase poor Latinos have few options). the MTA SHOULD NOT push the ES goldline down to Whittier Boulevard, let me list why:

-As noted by numerous people, this area has numerous corridors of high density and ridership to demand more than one LRT line that is poorly aligned, runs at grade in dense areas, and makes several intersection turns.

-Like the expo/redline issue, the alignment the ES goldline runs down is a seperate corridor than Whittier Blvd, it follows the 1st/3rd Streets-Pomona fwy corridor which runs eastward into the Southern SGV. This corridor is already congested, dense (save whittier narrows) and will generate a lot of ridership. the 68 bus runs from where the current ES goldline will terminate to the Montebello Town center and gets good ridership, add a better transit mode and the ridership will jump because the communities it'll serve are full of people more disposed to take PT if a better service was available.

-The communities on the Eastside the goldline would run through also hold a lot more people willing to take Public transit if it was better. Undocumented citizens, folks with no license, the elderly, teenagers, folks with no insurance, and minorities predisposed to taking PT at higher rates than norm. Growing up in the area I cannot count how many people I know/knew who drive without proper documentation, I have been hit twice inthe last 2 years in the area both by guys with no papers or license/insurance. The area even has a vibrant industry that makes fake insurance cards since it is so prevalent. To put it bluntly as well: illegals and others unable to drive are the most scared of jail/deportation and are more than willing to drop breaking the law in favor of PT if a viable option was available. Right now it takes 30-45 minutes to get into DTLA from there, in a car it takes 8-10.

-The high density and transit ridership dictates a better mode of transit than LRT eventually, the goldline should not be expected to overtake several high ridership corridors all in one single alignment. that is covering too much with too little. Right now I applaud anything going into ELA, but for future long term movement a HRT down Whittier Blvd is more appropriate.

-Pushing the goldine down to Whittier misses most of the destination points on the corridor, East of garfield is busy and dense but still does not compare to the areas west of garfield in terms of ridership potential.

-Pushing the Goldline down whittier kills any chance of a eventual Whittier Blvd subway, which is eventually needed in this corridor, i would say it is needed now from DTLA to at Least Atlantic or Garfield to make a serious impact on travelling in the area and pull the high ridership it will get.

-if the ESgoldline was aligned to go south down Atlantic to Whittier Blvd, it would have to be totally subway for several miles (at least 2.5-4), because atlantic is way to dense and narrow for anything else. This cost is quite high, and for more bang for your buck a short subway through SE DTLA, that transitons to elevated when appropriate, can be built for almost the same price providing better quicker service to this area as well as allowing another dense PT-dependant area to get the ESgoldine LRT extension.

-Beyond expensive an Atlantic to whittier blvd ESgoldline extension is either physically impossible (atlantic GL station is right against Atlantic intersection and cannot turn southward in such a small space) or will require the trains to skip the Atlantic station, which is an important location. Either way is inefficient in terms of expense and ridership, why not expand our transit efficiency inthe area with a whittier blvd subway instead?

-The MTA has already done some studying on the whittier subway, and it is definitely in the mind of camp Sup. Molina, which means it is politically viable to a degree.

-LRT and HRT costs are almost identical, the major HRT costs derive from the need for grade seperation. This area is so dense that grade seperation is necessarry until at least the east end of Montebello (because any talk of sending the line down to the metrolink ROW basically kills the major tenant of PT, to get ridership and hit destination points, which would be a shame for ELA). At the Sg river, the HRT redline extension can meet a rail ROW that travels thru north Pico Rivera and into uptown whittier, cutting costs and passing almost all major intersection by grade seperation already there, quad gates and LIRR-esque measures can mitigate having HRT generally at-grade.

-This whittier subway allows for us to create a genuine East/West trunk line for Los Angeles.


I can go on and on, I actually have several dozen resons why a whittier blvd purple line extension is much more efficient and resourceful than a ES goldline extension to whittier.


Let me quickly (I got to run) explain this route. I made a pretty good map of it but am inept at putting it on the net, Yoda please call me so for some help. So here's the explanation:

the alignment would go southeast from 7th St Metro station (curving abit southward to hit the alleys and s. b'way), then running down 7th elevated east of San Pedro, curving a bit south along the LA river and then directly east at the Olympic Bridge's north side (hitting an Olympic Soto station, that area has so much dev. potential it makes me drool). From olympic/Soto the alignment travels due east (with a cost cutting measure I wont elaborate on now) via deep bore (total Deep bore should be 1.5 miles in DTLA and 1.25 miles from Olympic/soto to Whittier/Lorena, from there on it should be C&C down whittier as noted inthe origianl MTA EIR for the corridor) to the next station at Indiana/Ditman/Whittier. From East of Lorena the alignment basically travels down Whittier Blvd, with an optional cost saver in East Montebello. the alignment should rise to elevated east of Atlantic Blvd as well.

Give me your thoughts or questions.

[antonio]

I couldn't agree with you more, art. I wrote basically the same thing earlier on this thread, based on what you've been saying for years. MTA cannot expect to cover the ES just by extending the Gold Line. It wouldn't be effective in serving Whittier like a Red Line extension down Whittier Blvd. would. Let the ES Gold Line follow the 60 corridor and use the open space to compensate for the slow street running

[Mac]

Well the only problem with the 60 route, is that does it have the population around to to sustain a line? Once you ahead east from Montebello Town Center, there is basically nothing, with no people there.

[art]

[ftp]
[/ftp]


An extension if the redline down the el Monte Busway is also pictured, it was for a senior project. I'll post a better pic later, but this gives a better iidea of my alignment idea.

[art]

Here's a better image of the alignment in DTLA, it shows a route which hits major DT destinations and manages to do it on the cheap, by using an elevated alignment wherever possible.

[art]

mac said:

Well the only problem with the 60 route, is that does it have the population around to to sustain a line? Once you ahead east from Montebello Town Center, there is basically nothing, with no people there.

That is a good observation my friend. After the MTC, the ES goldline alignment travels thru Whittier narrows rec area for several miles. Although this area is not populated (or because it is not) the ROW will be easy to obtain and build on, will have minimal crossing, will make up for the mid-street slow down thru ELA, and will allow for faster service to dense transit rider filled areas of Bassett, La Puente and beyond.

And to be honest, if such ridiculous alignments are on the table for serious discussion (I hate to say it but, anything trying to connect the ES goldline to whittier blvd via any route east of Atlantic is absurd and inefficient as it passes the most dense areas and activity nodes on the entire corridor without servicing much beyond suburban areas) then I see the ES goldline 60 option as quite rational.

Other logisitic plusses include that after the atlantic station the alignment has a free elevated ROW on the south side of the 60 freeway all the way to the Montebello town Center with fairly built up areas surrounding a Garfield station.

[kenalpern]

I dunno. I don't live in the Eastside, but my nurses (mostly Latina and who have relatives in the Eastside) who live and hang out in that region all saw Whittier as the logical route for an extension, and they seemed to feel that a subway or other grade-separated route would be used by a whole lotta people, including themselves (speaking frankly, Latinos throughout the region, native-born and foreign-born, seem to mostly have no problem with quality transit whatsoever...good for them).

I did make the recommendation to Metro to convert the El Monte Busway to a HRT extension of the Red Line, and I'll be happy to repeat earlier statements I've made in years past that suggest that the Eastside extension of the Red Line Subway should have been included with or even preceded the Valley Red Line Subway extension.

That said, I'm aware of arguments that claimed the Eastside Red Line supporters had all kinds of routing ideas which took it all over the place, and that this prevented consensus from being achieved...and it's gonna be consensus that allows Metro and FTA approval and funding.

I rarely if ever disagree with Art and Antonio, but I hope I'm misreading you when I question the logic of not building new lines just because no one line can reach all of the Eastside. The time has come to raise the bar for the Eastside just as we see the Westside and Mid-City and even Valley talk about local transit grids. Yes, the Valley chose busways over LRT, but they're still talking about networks.

In other words, DON'T presume any one line is mutually exclusive from any others. Yes, we might only be able to build one line at a time, which leads to a lot of teeth-gnashing and frustration, but why not build more than one line in the long run?

What is wrong with a Whittier routing that encourages and focuses development there while equally pushing for either an El Monte Busway/Red Line conversion or 60 freeway line?

The Westside and Mid-City regions are talking about Expo, Crenshaw, LAX/Green Line, Lincoln and Wilshire lines, to say nothing of the Harbor Subdivision and Downtown Connector Lines.

Shouldn't regions east of Downtown L.A. get the same consideration? Would a three-pronged approach of rail lines from Whittier, the 60 freeway and El Monte all connecting to Union Station (or something like it) benefit the region as a whole?

Speaking only for myself, I am very glad that this Eastside Extension project is being explored...and just as the Expo Construction Authority is raising issues of future projects along Venice and Lincoln Blvd. but leaning toward the ROW, I think that Whittier Blvd. is an excellent start...so long as it's only the start!

[damiengoodmon]

The problem is that we have politicians who AT BEST see primarily at-grade light rail being implemented in much smaller metro areas across the country that have completely different and less intense traffic/urban planning challenges. So they think that's the solution here. It's not. It doesn't work for this region. There are very few, if any, ROWs left in this county that light rail at-grade can be implemented meeting minimum safety standards and deliver people with the type of speed necessary to lead to a mode transfer.

Until more politicians come out and start talking about the money, we're just building rail for the sake of building rail and not actually building rail to improve this city. Building a system that only has the capacity to remove 5-10% of the cars off the 405 is not wise use of tax dollars. 15,000 or 20,000 additional trips sounds like a lot but when you compare it to the amount of people on the freeways, we're talking about spending billions to reduce seconds from people's travel times.

I'm part of that crop of transit advocates that believes that building 5 miles of good rail is better than building 8 miles of bad rail. You can always find more money to build those 3 new miles, and it's cheaper than trying to fix those 8 miles in the future.

Regarding elevated vs. subway, elevated is now cost competitive with subway. And it's 1/10th the headache when it comes to construction and EIRs, unless you're trying to bore under tarpits or something. :-)

Regarding light rail subways, there is some cost savings compared to heavy rail subways. The turning radius doesn't have to be as large and the platforms don't have to be as long. This may be as small as 15-25% of solely construction costs (not total capital cost), but it is something. Build the stations to handle 4-car trains or in ways that expansion for 4-car trains is feasible if found necessary 20 years from now, and you solve most of the problems. We'll see how big the gap is when the final cost of the Eastside stations comes in, but there will be even more savings that can be found that won't be reflected in those numbers. Shallower stations and eliminating the deep platforms/mezzanine level are all things we need to be looking into.

Regarding the 60 freeway route, wouldn't it be better to just electrify the Riverside Metrolink, add a couple of stations, grade separate some of the more challenging crossings on the line, and run the trains more frequently? ACE is already set up and I believe has EIR clearance (or would only require slight modification) for most of this. Just throw them some extra bones ($200-400 mil) in a public-private partnership and we can get this thing rolling probably by the 2012. Seems cheaper, more easily funded, kills a lot of birds with one stone, and can serve as the impetus of several initiatives that have been dormant for for too long, specifically Metrolink/Alameda Corridor electrification and ACE grade separations.

Let the Whittier Blvd route, be as it was intended: an extension of the Wilshire subway heavy rail line.

[joequality]

art said:

An extension if the redline down the el Monte Busway is also pictured, it was for a senior project. I'll post a better pic later, but this gives a better iidea of my alignment idea.

Just out of curiousity, what school/class?

[JerardWright]

mac said:

Well the only problem with the 60 route, is that does it have the population around to to sustain a line? Once you ahead east from Montebello Town Center, there is basically nothing, with no people there.

That is my problem with it too. Sure there's a possible right of way there but because of the proximity to the 60 freeway, whatever development a developer tries to build will be harder than hell to get cleared because of the air quality problems with living next to freeways.

In addition, there's one other added environmental impact that is understated with Whittier Narrows Park. Sure it's a large regional park but do we really think it'll be wise to build something in an area that has no support and possibly routing through the shooting range zone that's there.

The 68 bus ridership drops off considerably after Atlantic that's why they've added more shortlines to East LA College. Montebello Town Center would probably be the farthest east an extension should go.

Any farther east is $$$ and time wasted that could be better implemented towards getting a high capacity corridor down Whittier Blvd which is that region's version of Wilshire Boulevard and as other's have mentioned a gateway to the LA region.

The only suggestions I made in my letter was that they should extend the current route to an underground stop at Whittier/Atlantic and revive a new subway down Whittier Boulevard from the current Red/Purple line at Union Station through the yard or study extending the current Boyle Heights tunnel west into the Downtown Connector and east down Whittier Boulevard.

[JerardWright]

damiengoodmon said:

Regarding light rail subways, there is some cost savings compared to heavy rail subways. The turning radius doesn't have to be as large and the platforms don't have to be as long. This may be as small as 15-25% of solely construction costs (not total capital cost), but it is something.

Build the stations to handle 4-car trains or in ways that expansion for 4-car trains is feasible if found necessary 20 years from now, and you solve most of the problems. We'll see how big the gap is when the final cost of the Eastside stations comes in, but there will be even more savings that can be found that won't be reflected in those numbers. Shallower stations and eliminating the deep platforms/mezzanine level are all things we need to be looking into.

Makes you wonder how going with the honor based system and not having faregates would help in this endevor? Where you could eliminate large mezzanines

[gibiscus]

art: I would rename the "Skid Row/Alameda" station to "Terminal Market" and the "Olympic/Soto" station to "Sears". I would also add a station at Mill St for the Greyhound Station and the lofts a block north.

[art]

Ken,
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for whatever is eventually gets built. You'll see me there riding the train with my kids a lot no matter where the route goes through the eastside, and if push comes to shove in terms of bickering to get our priorities straight, I will stand with whatever gets built.

But I might as well make suggestions while the discussion is to be had , that's all. There is some consensus about the 60 route (which I agree with for the aforementioned reasons), and a lot of consensus about a whittier route. In my opinion, people may be possibly jumping the gun and being excited about having anything come down this area, and with whittier being the naturally largest and most ridership potential corridor down the eastside portion of the LA basin it is natural to want it served first (but realistically, anything beyond phase 1 is going to take another decade, so I speak this way now). You guys know I use rationale before all else, I will never go NIMBY in terms of rail to the Eastside.

Anyways, I see this HRT purple line extension (as well as a possible LA river HRT extension southbound from Union Station) as being something that should be more connected to the Metro Red and Purple Lines (meaning larger rail package stuff) in terms of funding or political viability, and to not be in competition with any future extension of the built ES goldline in the coming. In my little eastside cave I have conjured up some little beliefs that eventually (and it seems quite soon if things continue the way they are going) there will be enough consensus to gather political support and $$$ for a regional rail/public transit investment, specifically involving red/purple line extensions throughout LA and the county (I'm talking N/S, E/S and radiating HRT lines grade seperated;whether sub, el or LIRR style at-grade). I would bet that if this will and voice developed and gained traction, it would be able to gather the resources necessary to gain federal state and local $$$ from non competitive sources with any goldline extensions. Wouldnt that be freaken wonderful if that was developed and materialized, and then there would be no choice between the 2 projects.

Like I said, this was conjured up in my planning cave, after licking subway seats and bus boarding steps, smelling the wind between South Broadway and Bunker Hill, and chewing on dirt in both watts and hancock park in the very same night (BTW, Yoda, we need to get lonche). You could see it in the tint of FIDM girls' hair and the reflection in Highland Park hipster sunglasses bravely admiring the graffiti down figueroa; as well as the pedestrian traffic flow down Santee 's south end or the scent given off after a clean #1 fade anywhere south of the Santa Monica. OK, enough of my chessiness.

I just got these notions that this might materialize. Maybe I'll aid that materialization, maybe I'll sit on my lazy arse, have lunch with Jerard every few months, get my masters and develop my planning career, have another kid and keep painting murals in central LA for fun and goodwill. Maybe I won't. let's see if this stuff I'm presenting helps. Just imagine how great it be when administrations change if we get better reception in DC for transit, and we get something going. Red/purple line extension down whittier (as I noted), the Em busway HRT conversion, Vermont to the South bay, Crenshaw to LAX, of course Wilshire to at least UCLA, a trench/el valley orange line HRT upgrade, a Van Nuys Blvd line, and whatever gets the support and fills the critical congestion and PT needs. We do after all have the worst traffic in the nation, push 40% of all freight rhu our ports roads and railways, are the gateway to asia, have had 2 decades since the redline corruption/overcost fiasco and have built a piecemeal network with minimal resources, are the 2nd largest city in a country that prides itself in attending to the needs of its citizenry, etc, etc.......



Cal it hopeful naivete.

[art]

Thanks for the station name reccomendations, gibiscus, I was wrestling with putting "skid row" in a station name. I actually had connecting that area in mind with my "Terminal Market/SE DTLA" station, the designs would incorporate longer BART-esque stations implemented to connect distant areas and form these fragmented urban LA environments into a more cohesive composition. A 1200' long station (similar to DT oakland and a few others) with several ped entrances on either end would reach both the east edge of skid row on 7th (near ceres or gladys) and the Alameda/7th intersection.

To answer another question, I did a design senior project for my undergrad at Cal Poly pomona. I initially used these alignments (the whittier one I just mapped and EM busway) for my SP proposal, but at the advice of my review commitee changed it more towards ped friendly and env. considerate station design for these hypothetical stations in real life locations. I used a lot of calthorpe, alan jacobs, lynch, lang, and BART TOD guidelines in my lit review and created some sketches and 2 sketchup models for my final product. maybe someone here would like to looksy, let me know.

And to repeat, I am not against any rail extension into ELA or the eastside.

[antonio]

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't build an extension of the ELA Gold Line I just don't think it should go down Whittier because it would preclude a Whittier subway and that would be a shame since Whittier's equivalence to Wilshire is most evident between DTLA and Garfield. After Garfield the density drops of fairly significantly and from its current location the ELA gold line wouldnt reach Whittier until just about Garfield (I always wondered why they ended at Pomona/Atlantic rather than Beverly/Atlantic. I wouldn't mind and prefer just as much as a Rt. 60 alignment an alignment down Beverly all the way to Whitter but I stress that those who want light rail (and you know MTA is thinking at grade if at all possible) down Whittier Blvd. would be doing a disservice to those on the corridor who deserve heavy rail. I don't care that Beverly is very close to Whittier, it is still a distinct corridor and even though I'm sure the MTA would think "we already have rail to Whittier" but a few years after it opens they'll see how crowded it will get and it will be the impetus to build the Red/Purple extension down Whittier Blvd. itself. However if the rail itself is already on Whiitter, they would never get the Red Line (and be stuck with slow street running service to DTLA on the current ELA line). 60 or Beverly I don't care but Beverly wil be more of an engineering nightmare (since they ended on Pomona) and going down to Whittier (more engineering troubles) doesn't make as much sense as you would think.

[kenalpern]

By the way, when I talk about a Whittier alignment I do so with the understanding that it might be virtually entirely underground if that's what's needed.

Also, I found it somewhat peculiar to have a station named "Skid Row". I don't know if "Hell's Kitchen" has any stations, but I can't imagine either site being too popular a destination for commuters... )

[LAofAnaheim]

I took a drive down Whittier blvd this afternoon....is it really the "Wilshire" of East LA (or east of downtown)? I couldn't recall any bldg over 5 stories, much less a handful over 3 stories. It's Pasadena's Old Town, with no above-ground residences. Does Whittier REALLY deserve a subway? It seems like a waste from what I saw today. An underground light rail station for the 3 miles where you have the historic downtown & beginning of Montebello may be justified (i.e. eastside gold line's underground portion), but a complete subway down the whole corridor seems unnecessary. I drove from the east LA interchange to Pico Rivera on Whittier blvd, and really, the street resembled more like Main Street in El Segundo than anything remotely near a Wilshire-like street.

[antonio]

Me too. My argument is that by the time you get the current ELA in tunnel from its current location you can't use Atlantic as a street to get down to Whittier and the next street under which you could move enough utlities would be Garfield. Of course, you can cut across a bunch of homes but the subway would have to be sufficiently deep that it would not disrupt them. Say the ELA line entered a subway immediately after it crossed Atlantic. It would have a traveled a good distance to get to probably about 75 feet deep and now imagine it made a 90 degree turn to go due south to Whittier Blvd. It would probably be about halfway between Atlantic and Garfield when it got there at which point it would make another 90 degree turn onto Whittier and then proceed. That would nearly be the exact point at which the 720 currently ends at the "Commerce" stop which is like the "Redondo Beach" stop on the Green Line that literally stops on the boundary line of a city whose core is somewhere else, but I digress. From this point on Whittier is serviced by the Montebello 10 line while Beverly is service by the Montebello 40 line and the 342 Express Line. Id say the ridership from the Commerce stop to Norwalk Blvd. is (yes, this is an assumption) about the same as that of Beverly so why not just route it down Beverly (which requires similar but not as severe engineering from current Atlantic terminus). The 10 line only goes to Whitter during peak hours otherwise it stops short of the 605. Beverly is in a better position to utilize the abandoned right of way than Wilshire and so in this "lull area" between Pico Rivera and Uptown Whittier the train would make maybe one stop while utlizing the fast right of way ala Pasadena Gold Line. I'm just saying that west of Garfield (vast majority of the line) Beverly makes as much or more sense than Whittier without precluding a line down Whittier in the future (which at Pico Rivera could veer south to Santa Fe Springs to avoid duplication with the Beverly line to Uptown Whittier). The Beverly Line would be subway until right before beverly runs over the rio hondo. It would stay at grade (no cross streets) and rise to elevated at Paramount at which it would stay until just after crossing the SG river where the ROW begins

[antonio]

oh and LA of Anaheim, Whittier would be like Wilshire in terms of ridership as opposed to density.

[art]

LA of Anaheim: In terms of development, Whittier is very much different than Wilshire, whittier blvd runs through a historically neglected ethnic enclave that seems much less dense from a windshield survey. Unfortunately our private developers and corporate world in general are shy at investing in these communities, but don't let that fool you in temr sof ridership potential. Despite not looking too dense, this area has a high population density (12-30k/mile) and extremely high transit ridership, and is the largest throughfare/spine of the southeast LA county (I-5) corridor. I would advise you to take the whittier blvd bus to get a better idea of the transportation issues, along the route.

Like many mentioned here, ridership and density drop east of Atlantic as well as Garfield. Becuase of this I think the line should initially end at garfield for now. If providing better transit to those who need it is a priority (and sure as heck better be in the MTA by now) then it is much more important to move busriders in East LA than the much less numerous commuters from Whittier or Pico Rivera. Like I said earlier, the amount of folks driving illegally or are just much more willing to use PT daily if it was better than it is today, would create high ridership off the bat. It is no mystery why the blue line outperforms the goldline, you invewst in where the ridership is at, poor minorities in the LA basin.

[art]

kenalpern said:

By the way, when I talk about a Whittier alignment I do so with the understanding that it might be virtually entirely underground if that's what's needed.

Ken, the Whittier blvd extension I am mentioning would not be all subway. From the map of the alignment in DTLA I posted in page 3 of this thread you can see that the bulk of that section is elevated, with a minor tunnel from 7th station to San pedro st. that is exactly 1.4 miles in length. The alignment is elevated all the way past the LA river to the foot of the Olympic bridge, where it then becomes subway again at the edge of Boyle heights. From here the line goes directly east to then run down Whittier Blvd from Lorena eastward. The alignment should then become elevated again as soon as possible, which is just east of Atlantic Blvd. The 2nd tunnel portion between Soto/Olymp and Whit/ Atlantic is about 2.5 miles long, minus a portion along the wyvenwood/Estrada courts PJs which could incorporate a redevelopment opportunity with creating a cheaper ROW.

[jejozwik]

anyone else notice that metro has taken this site off line. along with something else, honestly can't remember what it was

[Transit Coalition]

All that was here was the Outreach Meeting Announcements.

For this particular study, Metro has not posted any background or details. If you'd like Metro to post some pages about this particular study, I suggest you contact Metro Planning at 213-922-6000 and ask that information be posted about this study.

[bluelineshawn]

Well it also has a project map with the different alternatives. It's still there. It's just not linked on the projects page anymore.

Google cached page.

Eastside Transit Corridor-Phase 2

[JerardWright]

MTA looks eastward
Officials studying light-rail extension
By Mike Sprague, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/05/2008 09:47:39 PM PDT



EASTBOUND?: MTA light-rail construction continues on Third Street in East Los Angeles on Friday. The transit agency is considering building a light-rail line from East Los Angeles to Whittier. (LEO JARZOMB / Staff photographer)

• PDF: Alternate routes for Metro Gold Line extension

Rapid transit in the form of light-rail could be coming to El Monte, Rosemead or Whittier - but probably not anytime soon.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is holding a second series of meetings beginning Wednesday in Whittier to get reactions to 17 alternatives for a line that would go east from East Los Angeles.
Still, MTA officials concede they have no money to build a line. In addition, this 80-square-mile area that includes 13 cities, is in competition with three other sectors of Los Angeles County for a light-rail project.
And a number of the 17 alternatives, especially the ones that would travel on congested arterials like Whittier and Beverly boulevards and Garvey Avenue, already are getting opposition from local officials. MTA officials say they are beginning the study in case money should become available.

"We want to make sure there are planning documents when the money starts flowing, so we're not scrambling around starting the planning and studying. Then we could miss the boat," said Kimberly Yu, MTA project manager.
The goal of the meetings is to get a consensus in favor of one route, Yu said. "We wanted to really engage with the community. We hear loud and clear some of the traffic or transportation problems they're facing."
But this area needs to come together on one proposal or money may go to other parts of the county, Yu warned.
Yu said MTA staff is expected to go to its board in August with a final recommendation.

Fourteen of the 17 alternatives end in Whittier. Of the other three, one ends in El Monte and two end in Industry.
Once the MTA decides on a favored alternative, an environmental impact report would be done, Yu said.
El Monte Mayor Ernie Gutierrez said he favors a light-rail line coming to his city, but, like others, he wants to make sure there are no negative impacts.
"Until I see an environmental impact report, it's premature to say it's not going to (affect) El Monte," Gutierrez said. "I like the idea, but I want more information."
Rosemead Councilwoman Margaret Clark said she opposes any line on Garvey Avenue.
"I don't think that would work because we're congested with traffic," Clark said. "I have concerns about traffic. We just redid Garvey with nice medians."

In Whittier, the consensus appears to be in favor of a light-rail line as long as it comes via Santa Fe Springs on Washington Boulevard to the Uptown area. "I would like to have it providing it didn't tear up a lot of the city and cause great inconvenience," Councilman Bob Henderson said. "Just the availability of some type of mass transit would be a great benefit.
"We used to drive over to Westwood, have a dinner and see a movie. The last time we did that it took two hours."
Henderson said such a system could be beneficial to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, which already has a shuttle to the Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station for 10 employees.
But Henderson and others say they are opposed to a system coming along Beverly or Whittier boulevards.
Beverly Boulevard is a residential street with large trees and Whittier Boulevard is a congested thoroughfare.
Councilman Joe Vinatieri agrees with Henderson. "The one that makes the most sense is Washington Boulevard because it's so wide," Vinatieri said. Businessmen disagree on the affect light-rail could have.
Bill Downey, owner of the West Whittier Paint Co., 11408 Whittier Blvd., said such a line won't help him.
"I don't think there are many people who would drive out on the train to buy paint," Downey said. "They probably wouldn't be allowed to carry it back anyway." Downey said Whittier Boulevard already is too congested and he fears what the addition of a light-rail line would mean for the street. "I think Whittier Boulevard has enough traffic problems," said Downey, who endorsed a Washington Boulevard approach.
Robert Ruiz, president of the Whittier Uptown Association, said a light-rail line could attract more urban professionals to Whittier. "By bringing more people with disposable incomes, it helps businesses," Ruiz said. Santa Fe Springs officials say they are willing to consider a light-rail line along Washington Boulevard. "It's something we'd have to look at," said Councilman Joe Serrano. "(But) we'd have to make sure it makes sense."

Officials from other cities are also concerned about the impacts of a rail line.
Montebello Mayor Bill Molinari said he would be opposed to any line going down Beverly, Washington or Whittier boulevards through his city. "Our preference would be the 60 Freeway corridor," Molinari said. "It would be less disruptive for the business infrastructure, a more practical route and would bring people past the (Montebello) regional shopping center."

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority will conduct four public meetings to update communities on the agency's study of a light-rail line.
The study area includes the cities of Bell, Commerce, Downey, El Monte, Industry, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, South El Monte, South San Gabriel, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.
For information, visit metro.net/eastsidephase2 or call [phone].
Meetings will be held in:

• Whittier: 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Uptown Senior Center, 13225 Walnut St.
  
• South El Monte: 10 a.m. to noon Saturday at the South El Monte Senior Center, 1556 Central Ave.
  
• Montebello: 6:30 to 8 p.m. April 14 at the Senior Center at City Park, 115 S. Taylor Ave.
  
• Pico Rivera: 6:30 to 8:30p.m. April 17 at North Park Middle School cafeteria, 4450 Durfee Ave.

- Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority

[phone], Ext. 3022

[Mac]

I just have a feeling its gonna be hard to find a route that would please a majority of the people.