|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 7, 2008 5:28:16 GMT -8
I agree, Mac, and fortunately this project is gonna be many, many years away (behind Expo, Crenshaw, Downtown Connector, Subway to the Sea and probably a Foothill Gold Line, and maybe even some Green Line extensions).
As for those who don't want it down Whittier because of too much traffic--isn't this supposed to be an alternative because of traffic? Of course, as a Westsider I have no feel for the local layout of the land...I just want to provide an alternative to the 5 and/or 60 freeways and encourage the local economy and the associated mobility needed for it.
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Apr 7, 2008 7:42:04 GMT -8
Ken,
I have driven down Whittier Boulevard as an alternative to the 5 when the 5 has been a disaster (closed for whatever reason, like with the truck stoppage).
I would love to see rail down Whittier Boulevard but the plain fact is that there is simply no real estate. It's a four-lane road through the heart of East LA, then it expands to 5, only to become 4 again through Pico Rivera and Whittier. While you might be able to grab some land between, say, Atlantic Blvd. and Pico Rivera by eminent domain, the remainder is so totally hemmed in by buildings that you'd be displacing a thousand businesses (literally) with a route from Ford Blvd. to Beach Blvd. or Colima Rd.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Apr 7, 2008 13:15:03 GMT -8
The Bus Bench opposes Gold Line Extension to WhittierThe Bus Bench has a column today in opposition to a Whittier Gold Line Extension, stating that it should be an Eastside extension of the Purple Line. I don't know enough about the Eastside to have an informed position. He did say that once you start digging, the costs of heavy and light rail are not as vast. Is that true?
|
|
|
Post by roberto on Apr 7, 2008 15:29:56 GMT -8
I agree that it is going to be very difficult to find a route that pleases a majority, especially with so many options. But without doing a great deal of study on each alternative, the one that jumps out at me is number 10 ... mainly because I think a station at Whittier/Atlantic is crucial, and also because Whittier Blvd is the most direct and useful route to Whittier, though there will definitely be engineering challenges putting it in mixed traffic. Also, Montebello will probably come out against that routing (the mayor, not the local residents), since he wants service to the shopping center off the 60, and they don't want to disrupt their local bus network.
I can't make any of the meetings (I'll be out of town), so if anyone goes to one, please let us know how it went.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 7, 2008 20:15:45 GMT -8
Forgive my cluelessness, but I still don't have a problem with a Whittier Blvd. routing...IF THAT'S WHERE THE CONGESTION IS!!! I also don't have a problem putting the whole darn thing underground if that's what's called for. Surface and elevated rail might be impossible if it's so megadense...so isn't a tunnelled route down Whittier Blvd. exactly what's needed here? What little I know about the area is that, as Roberto described, Atlantic/Whittier is a key station location. I am also "game" for a future back-tracking of an underground/grade-separated light rail line or heavy rail line that connects Downtown with Atlantic/Whittier or somewhere thereabouts. I think that the Westside needs BOTH a Purple and an Expo Line...and maybe a Silver Line...and it's probably not too far a stretch to suggest that the Eastside needs several lines radiating out like spokes from Downtown as well... I think that Art is right that if we have 3 freeways linking the Eastside we'll need about 3 rail lines as well. I also think that Roberto is right in that Montebello has some clownsmanship amongst its leaders, and that we need to do the right thing for the majority of the residents in the region. Does this preclude a future rail line to serve the 60 freeway corridor? Hardly. Does this preclude a potential upgrade of the El Monte Busway to a heavier capacity rail line? Hardly. The one thing that this clueless Westsider just doesn't understand is to have this routed along Washington because there's too much traffic on Whittier Blvd.! I mean, SAY WHAT? ??
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Apr 8, 2008 3:12:26 GMT -8
Well that's exactly why it needs it underground but were getting too far ahead of ourselves. Like Damien always says better to build 8 miles of good rail than 16 miles of low quality rail. Thus we should be spending this money to design a line from Union Station to Whitter/Garfield using a different routing through East LA since thats where the megadensity is. That way we can just extend it to Whitter when we have more money. It still needs to go there but its not as much of a priority as serving Whitter WEST of Atlantic/Garfield. For those who argue that Eastside residents already have the Gold Line on 1st/3rd would you say that Wilshire had rail if you built it on Beverly?. Tearing up Whitter to put at grade is too disruptive and like you said, if its underground it might as well be heavy rail (higher capacity/full grade separation it deserves/direct to Wilshire without further clogging our future DTC for which the MTA will probably pick a horrible at-grade option). The current Gold Line can become a 60 line but not after the money is spent to put heavy rail on Whittier
Edit: I meant WEST not EAST
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 8, 2008 16:51:43 GMT -8
;D There was a Pacific Electric Red Car that went from Long Beach Ave. through the cities of Huntington Park, Commerce and Pico Rivera. It ran along Slauson (Mulberry Ave.) to a point just past Norwalk Blvd. and then it went north and crossed Whittier Blvd. Maybe this could be the route, but there is some housing on the Right-of-Way just north of Washington Blvd., so there would be those no-good NIMBYs fighting that idea...unless you curve at Washington Blvd. But what a rail line! From the 605 and the Pomona freeway south to Slauson Ave. and then going Northward to Whitter Downs (Santa Fe Springs--bet you didn't know about Whittier Downs!)and curving eastward on Washington Blvd. to 5 points in Whittier, Nah! that is a waste of time and money, as all the NIMBYs will scream! But the fine people of this web site will not be turned aside in their dreams for a good lite rail system. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Apr 8, 2008 20:46:53 GMT -8
Forgive my cluelessness, but I still don't have a problem with a Whittier Blvd. routing...IF THAT'S WHERE THE CONGESTION IS!!! I also don't have a problem putting the whole darn thing underground if that's what's called for. Surface and elevated rail might be impossible if it's so megadense...so isn't a tunnelled route down Whittier Blvd. exactly what's needed here? What little I know about the area is that, as Roberto described, Atlantic/Whittier is a key station location. I am also "game" for a future back-tracking of an underground/grade-separated light rail line or heavy rail line that connects Downtown with Atlantic/Whittier or somewhere thereabouts. I think that the Westside needs BOTH a Purple and an Expo Line...and maybe a Silver Line...and it's probably not too far a stretch to suggest that the Eastside needs several lines radiating out like spokes from Downtown as well... I think that Art is right that if we have 3 freeways linking the Eastside we'll need about 3 rail lines as well. I also think that Roberto is right in that Montebello has some clownsmanship amongst its leaders, and that we need to do the right thing for the majority of the residents in the region. Does this preclude a future rail line to serve the 60 freeway corridor? Hardly. Does this preclude a potential upgrade of the El Monte Busway to a heavier capacity rail line? Hardly. The one thing that this clueless Westsider just doesn't understand is to have this routed along Washington because there's too much traffic on Whittier Blvd.! I mean, SAY WHAT? ?? I'm just not sure how it would work. I agree -- Whittier Boulevard desperately needs it. But how are you going to deal with it? I suppose you could dig -- but while you're digging you are going to absolutely kill the businesses nearby, not to mention that traffic on Washington Blvd. and Telegraph Rd., which is already mind-bogglingly bad, will increase. I suppose aerial is possible, or one-block remove like they did in Vegas, but that's really castles in the air. Is it worth the 5-10 years it would take, once funding is approved? Or would it be better to route down Washington, which has more room? I'll say this -- in my dream world, any Whittier Blvd. extension would extend either to Norwalk Metrolink, Norwalk Green Line, or best of all (ha!) Norwalk Green Line AT Norwalk Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 10, 2008 5:56:53 GMT -8
Something tells me that a Gold Line extension to Whittier would be followed up by a connection with the Green Line to Norwalk.
Alternatives 11 (elevated down Whittier Blvd.) and 13 (along Washington Blvd.) are among the four refined alternatives making the cut, the other two being a straight shot along the 60 freeway and a route to Whittier along Beverly. I favored alternative 11, with 13 as a possible second choice, but I also:
1) Recommended some sort of busway or LRT (Alternative 2) for the 60 corridor, because one project alone couldn't possibly serve the entire region.
2) Recommended a future study of an eastern Purple Line extension from Union Station to serve neighbors not served by the Eastside LRT project.
The Eastside, like the Westside, needs more than one line to serve the whole area in the same way that the Eastside has several freeways to serve the area.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 11, 2008 15:06:26 GMT -8
WHITTIER DAILY NEWS Light-rail plans scaled backThree routes would come to WhittierBy Mike Sprague, Staff Writer Article Launched: 04/10/2008 10:02:22 PM PDT • PDF: Proposed light rail routes WHITTIER - Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials have pared a list of 17 alternative light-rail routes on the eastern area of Los Angeles County to five, including three that would come to Whittier. All would start in East Los Angeles and three would come to Whittier along Beverly, Washington or Whittier boulevards. A fourth would go along the Pomona (60) Freeway to the San Gabriel River (605) Freeway. A fifth wouldn't be a light-rail line, but instead a busway along the Pomona Freeway. However, MTA planners eliminated a proposed route along Garvey Avenue through Rosemead leading to El Monte. "It's very important what the team has accomplished in going from 17 to five," said Diego Cardoso, executive officer of the MTA Planning Department on Thursday following a public meeting held the night before at the Whittier Historic Depot that drew about 60 people. "Now we can discuss it in a little more detail," Cardoso said. "The next step is to come up with one or two plans and take it to the MTA board in July, where members would either get permission to begin doing environmental analysis or told to stop the process," Cardoso said. "Criteria to narrow the alternatives even further will include travel time, safety, cost effectiveness, financial feasibility and support of land-use objectives," said Tham Nguyen, deputy project manager for MTA. Wednesday's meeting was the second held in the last six months in Whittier to discuss light-rail transit to extend the Gold Line from East Los Angeles. And again, residents and officials told the MTA they want a line to come to Whittier. "It's all about the future," Councilman Joe Vinatieri said of a light-rail line. "It fits in well with the Uptown Specific Plan. It fits in with the Nelles development. This is very strategic for us." Vinatieri said a line down the Pomona Freeway would not help the city at all. Jodi Chen of Whittier said a light-rail line could help her reach downtown Los Angeles where most of the jobs are. "Traffic is my pet peeve," Chen said. "It takes me two to four hours if I go by (bus)," she said. "If I go by car, it takes two hours. It's very difficult because a lot of the jobs are in Los Angeles or Pasadena." While some have complained a light-rail line would cause disruptions, Chris Schaefer of Whittier said he's not as concerned. "The short-term impacts are overshadowed by the long-term impacts," Schaefer said. "This is a good thing. This project has to happen." The proposed light-rail lines would either be on the street level - sometimes mixed in the traffic - or above ground. All three routes to Whittier would start along the Pomona Freeway and head to Garfield and then south to various streets. The Beverly Boulevard route would enter Whittier via the Greenway Trail. It is possible there is room for a light-rail lane and the pedestrian/bicycle trail that is nearly finished, said Brent Ogden, vice president of DMJM Harris, a consultant for MTA. "Extensive landscaping and a refit would be needed," Ogden said. The MTA will hold three more meetings in surrounding areas: 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. Monday 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. (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Apr 11, 2008 20:14:09 GMT -8
WHITTIER DAILY NEWS Light-rail plans scaled backThree routes would come to WhittierBy Mike Sprague, Staff Writer Article Launched: 04/10/2008 10:02:22 PM PDT • PDF: Proposed light rail routes WHITTIER - Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials have pared a list of 17 alternative light-rail routes on the eastern area of Los Angeles County to five, including three that would come to Whittier. All would start in East Los Angeles and three would come to Whittier along Beverly, Washington or Whittier boulevards. A fourth would go along the Pomona (60) Freeway to the San Gabriel River (605) Freeway. A fifth wouldn't be a light-rail line, but instead a busway along the Pomona Freeway. However, MTA planners eliminated a proposed route along Garvey Avenue through Rosemead leading to El Monte. "It's very important what the team has accomplished in going from 17 to five," said Diego Cardoso, executive officer of the MTA Planning Department on Thursday following a public meeting held the night before at the Whittier Historic Depot that drew about 60 people. "Now we can discuss it in a little more detail," Cardoso said. "The next step is to come up with one or two plans and take it to the MTA board in July, where members would either get permission to begin doing environmental analysis or told to stop the process," Cardoso said. "Criteria to narrow the alternatives even further will include travel time, safety, cost effectiveness, financial feasibility and support of land-use objectives," said Tham Nguyen, deputy project manager for MTA. Wednesday's meeting was the second held in the last six months in Whittier to discuss light-rail transit to extend the Gold Line from East Los Angeles. And again, residents and officials told the MTA they want a line to come to Whittier. "It's all about the future," Councilman Joe Vinatieri said of a light-rail line. "It fits in well with the Uptown Specific Plan. It fits in with the Nelles development. This is very strategic for us." Vinatieri said a line down the Pomona Freeway would not help the city at all. Jodi Chen of Whittier said a light-rail line could help her reach downtown Los Angeles where most of the jobs are. "Traffic is my pet peeve," Chen said. "It takes me two to four hours if I go by (bus)," she said. "If I go by car, it takes two hours. It's very difficult because a lot of the jobs are in Los Angeles or Pasadena." While some have complained a light-rail line would cause disruptions, Chris Schaefer of Whittier said he's not as concerned. "The short-term impacts are overshadowed by the long-term impacts," Schaefer said. "This is a good thing. This project has to happen." The proposed light-rail lines would either be on the street level - sometimes mixed in the traffic - or above ground. All three routes to Whittier would start along the Pomona Freeway and head to Garfield and then south to various streets. The Beverly Boulevard route would enter Whittier via the Greenway Trail. It is possible there is room for a light-rail lane and the pedestrian/bicycle trail that is nearly finished, said Brent Ogden, vice president of DMJM Harris, a consultant for MTA. "Extensive landscaping and a refit would be needed," Ogden said. The MTA will hold three more meetings in surrounding areas: 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. Monday 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. (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3022 Can u re-post the link because its not working...
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 28, 2008 9:27:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 28, 2008 14:19:35 GMT -8
I think that a 60 freeway alignment is much, much less likely than a route to Whittier. Perhaps a Busway is more appropriate at this immediate time, but a greater debate is that if this is so far down the road for funding, does this really need to be dealt with at all?
At this time, I favor a light rail to Whittier, and perhaps someday to link up at the Norwalk Metrolink station along with the Green Line, and a Busway to El Monte, as well as a revisitation of the Red or Purple Lines to serve non-served regions near Downtown, as Art has described in the past.
I also think that the Montebello leadership should be as promptly and totally ignored as we possibly can do so.
|
|
unico
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by unico on May 1, 2008 16:18:46 GMT -8
THIS IS so disheartening. the south east LA area has been neglected for tooooo long. cities that border south central and east los angeles share the same demographic/problems but not the same power/rank. HP, maywood and the surrounding cities are denser than any other area outside of pico-union/macarthur. they are heavily PT dependant and park poor.
why this area has not been a priority baffles me. the MTA placates this area with rapid buses and in the meantimes tries to put another jewel in their crown by extending into the "east side".
why havent they thought of using all the rails that bisect much of south east LA as PT lines?
when prioritizing these lines i think they should seriously consider
density and ridership
not how "nice" it would be to have a rail go to uptown or old town or wherever.
the south east is getting jilted just like the east side did when they chose to first do the pasadena section of the gold line. the big difference here is that there is no guarantee for the poor, bus riding population of the south east cities. Bh and east los only had to wait 5 years for the gold line, how long with the south east wait?
whittier and pico and those sities on the "east side" are not as dense or PT dependant. why should they get it first?
i still beleive that light rail needs to start at the core of the city (DT) and work outwards filling in those high density, max ridership areas.
i am begining to feel that MTA wants rails as a novelty, something to add to the "disney" feel of it all. are they really thinking about the poor people who depend on PT in LA? not to be a danny depreso to everyone who thinks the "east side" extension is the bees knees, but man this stinks!!!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 1, 2008 16:51:52 GMT -8
Unico, I think that your sentiments are shared by many familiar with the Eastside, either because they live or once lived in what should be a region bustling with multiple rail lines and with people who won't be NIMBY about them. I suspect that we will see an Eastside network someday that includes:
1) A LRT Extension to Whittier 2) A Busway from El Monte to either Union Station or the current eastern Eastside Gold Line LRT terminus 3) A Subway through the denser portions of southeast L.A. near Downtown that might or might not be an eastern extension of the Red or Purple Lines
The current and future Eastside and Pasadena Gold Line LRT projects are, for better or for worse, the most likely projects to be planned and constructed as the best ways to extend rail to large regions of underserved eastern L.A. County. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but rather what I see as our current reality.
Do I think that there's a lack of planners and intelligence amongst the Eastside? No.
Do I sense a lack of leadership and cohesion amongst those who live, work and care about the Eastside? Yes, at both the political and local levels, it's been up to Sup. Molina alone to really get anything, and I really sympathize and admire her efforts despite the dreadful, inexcusable failure to get the Red Line to the Eastside. Similarly, a lack of political/grassroots leadership in the San Fernando Valley, South Bay and Southeast L.A. County cities has left Supervisors Yaroslavsky and Knabe to lead and fight as best as they can...alone.
There are no shortage of mapmakers, visionaries and grassroots leaders from the Westside, Mid-City and San Gabriel Valley regions of L.A. County, and hence they're getting what they want (and that's probably the way it should be). I've no doubt that the Expo, Green/Crenshaw, Downtown Connector, Foothill Gold Line and Wilshire Subway will be on the top of the list of projects to be completed for the next 1-2 decades. I even sense a Vermont Subway as moving its way up the list.
Is this right? No. Is this our current reality? Yes.
We're in a new century--a new era, if you will, and I think that Eastside/Asian/Latino muscle is long-overdue for flexing. Will there ever be a new ERA (Eastside Rail Advocates) willing to be led by a passionate but patient person (probably an Eastsider who really has the smarts to know the players and powers of that region) willing to meet at some place for a few years to hammer out the past and future ideas that are bad and good for the Eastside?
Will there be someone willing to hammer out and maintain a website and make themselves a leading voice (don't worry, any leader will find others willing to support them if he/she is willing to stick his neck out and be heard) for Eastside county, city, state and federal politicians to meet with on a regular basis? Will that someone temper their own passion while successfully employing the passions of others and diplomatically forge some degree of consensus (in other words, finding common ground while urging opposing thoughtleaders to remain civil and agreeing to disagree?).
Where would this group meet? Little Tokyo in a transit-adjacent restaurant? Union Station or the confines nearby? The Eastside near a future rail station after it opens in 2009?
Individual homes served to galvanize the grassroots support of the Expo Line and even upended the plans of two county supervisors and the then-Mayor of L.A.
A Boston Market restaurant served to allow a venue for Friends of the Green Line to help start the long process of what (might) be a long-overdue Green Line/LAX extension.
The transportation needs of the Eastside are being grossly underserved, but to remedy that the efforts must start with ordinary grassroots individuals, with family and job and time commitments like the rest of us but who still do what needs to be done--meet at least once a month and build an e-mail tree to link all those who await a voice to unite them.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on May 1, 2008 17:28:48 GMT -8
I'm not a really going to support the many cites (Monterey Park, Rosemead) that are supporting the 60 freeway route. Other than the Montebello Town Center, and the future Monterey Park Cascades Marketplace ( 209.247.187.57/home/index.asp?page=280 ), there is basically nothing else until you past the 605. And even the area around the 605-60 interchange has low density. To the south is Rose Hills and some industry, right off the freeway is Fry's, and a few miles north is Sima and Pacific Palms, and some more industry. Its not until you go a few more miles east that you will reach some activity (Hacienda Heights). In total, its about 10 miles of nothing from Monterey Park/Montebello to Hacienda Heights/Industry, which is why it might be a bit pointless going this route.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 1, 2008 21:10:59 GMT -8
If the 60 corridor is the main route, this will be the rare time I will personally write to support a No-Build/TSM. Even if there was development opportunity -which I don't see any along this corridor- I wouldn't support it.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on May 2, 2008 20:24:46 GMT -8
If the 60 corridor is the main route, this will be the rare time I will personally write to support a No-Build/TSM. Even if there was development opportunity -which I don't see any along this corridor- I wouldn't support it. I would probably agree with you and do the same.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 3, 2008 7:37:17 GMT -8
Right now the whittier alignment is politically unfeasable, and although the motives are far from logical, it is a good thing that this rail line does not extend to Whittier in the "lets put whatever we can in that area" fervor.
Unless we have a funding windfall, I also see no point in extending the line east of the Mont Town Center. But I can see the good of pushing the line eastward to the town center, especially if it kills the ridiculous notion of taking the goldline to the Whittier Blvd corridor. The 3 mile distance between the current Atlantic terminus and the MTCenter passes through a dense activity center for both Montebello (lots of apartments just south) and Monterey Park around the Garfield/Wilcox area, and the space the ROW would run along on the south edge of the 60 freeway provides an elevated rail segment for extremely cheap (which would be built by augmenting the freeway hillside easement on the south side of the 60 fwy). Because of the minimal cost to take the line to the MTC, it's ability to stop the whittier LRT madness, the dense apartment concentrations next to both a Garfield and MTC station, the potential to build a lot more housing on and around the MTC complex, and snowballing political support; the 60 corridor alignment is the most rational for anyone who is familiar with the area as well as the most cost effective, politically/economically feasable and corridor suitable. In would invite anyone to address and explain to me why alignment is not what I say it is (noting that I agree with all the naysaying east of the montebello town center through whittier narrows, my pointis about the 3 mile stretch btween atl. and the mtc).
Let me note till Im blue in the face that I feel the whittier blvd corridor SHOULD NOT be serviced by the esgoldline. Although the whittier blvd corridor is denser and has higher transit potential, providing rail service to the blvd anywhere east of atlantic blvd skips the most dense transit dependant portions of the corridor, which is essentially the point of putting rail down whittier (unless the MTA is only concerned about commuters from whittier and montebello, and if so there are still some serious problems with the agency). There are a half dozen very dense activity nodes surrounded by very PT dependant communities which the esgoldline extension to whittier would skip. In essence, this esgoldline alignment would postpone any much more logical and appropriate rail possibilities (a whittier blvd purple line extension, which is what is needed for the corridor, and I have noted in prior pages), skip the densest most pt using communities and have the major purpose of servicing commuters farther down the corridor in low density communities where the rail stations would be surrounded by wide strip malls, I do not agree with this at all.
The point of providing rail service to the whittier/I-5 corridor is to service the dense locations, not to facilitate commuters while skipping the REAL EXISTING ridership opportunities. A simple breakdown of where the whittier blvd rapid bus (720) picks up the bulk of its ridership illustrates the absurdity of an esgoldline extension to whittier, heck, the rapid bus actually doesnt even service the corridor east of Atlantic/Gerhart because ridership decreases significantly, so why in the world would we support rail to service this area (which would also kill any chance of providing rail service to the areas of this corridor that deserve it the most).
Jerard, it is like building a Vermont rail line that only services the corridor south of the 105 fwy, which would bypass the largest ridership enclaves and be a travesty to transit planning.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 3, 2008 9:56:21 GMT -8
Unless we have a funding windfall, I also see no point in extending the line east of the Mont Town Center. But I can see the good of pushing the line eastward to the town center, especially if it kills the ridiculous notion of taking the goldline to the Whittier Blvd corridor. I would argue from an abstract analytical standpoint that it would be better for the ES Gold Line to serve both Montebello Mall and Whittier/Atlantic or Garfield (for future HRT connections) if we really want to improve connectivity within that region. What would be really nice if they made the Pomona/Atlantic station elevated and they looked at building a short 0.4 mile segment to Chavez/Atlantic, taking that whole strip mall on the SW corner where Tower Records used to be and create a transit depot, where the commercial element would be along Atlantic, the elevated LRT and bus transit center would be in the center and along Collegian would be apartments for local students at ELA College. The only reason I thought about that lot despite the Chevron station was that a year or two ago they closed the gas station for a short time to do gas tank clean up and abated the soil. But C'est le vie, we have what we have. Art, there's not much space between the freeway and homes there. That landscaping is the very sound mitigation that the residents directly abutting the freeway needs. Unless we have very close station spacing, the LRV's will go 55mph in right next to a noisy freeway - in some spots there are sound walls that will bounce the sound right into the neighborhood - which makes a bad thing worse in terms of livability and the ability to build the type of residential development density needed, unless we're zoning for a gated and sound walled community which will be needed to mitigate the noise which is the exact opposite of what should be desired here. Now there is opposite end of the spectrum on the Phase 2 portion of Expo, where there are dense apartments directly facing the right of way and freeway. The difference is a 100' distance between the front doors and the tracks and 10' more between the tracks and the freeway allowing plenty of room for landscaping elements that would soften the nearby noises. 3.5 miles but who's really counting? (Smiles) If Montebello Town Center were 2 miles closer I would agree with extending the line to Montebello. But that distance between Atlantic and Montebello is what is detering me from even considering it. I agree with you regarding not extending the line down Whittier Blvd. The fact that a lot of these important corner lots are gas stations which because of it's close proximity to the freeway on/off ramps to build the dense mixed-use development on an old gas station lot I don't think that will pencil out for developers who would have to spend significant $$$ for soil abatement due to the gas tanks being underground and by that point they'll have to create ultra luxury condos in an area next to a freeway to even get a small return on investment. Isn't this exactly what we are trying to do with the 60 corridor? Correct me if I'm wrong. That can still be provided via a Heavy Rail corridor, it just depends on how far east it would go. My personal preference now is to have the Whittier HRT run in two branches after Atlantic or Garfield with the ES Gold Line branch connecting at that point, one down to Whittier via Whittier Blvd, the other to Norwalk via Bell Gardens and Downey. But again, my reasoning for going with a No-build, there's no Whittier HRT option or at least thinking of the possibility of one. Art, that very argument may be the very basis for doing the east of Atlantic segment as LRT and the Whittier segment west of Atlantic as a heavy rail subway. The same logic can be used to do a breakdown of the #68 bus to show that ridership drops off significantly after ELA College and then there's 20-30 minute service to Montebello Town Center, which isn't being fully utilized despite providing closer direct one-seat trip connections.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on May 3, 2008 12:56:31 GMT -8
Download link to Monterey Park Mixed Use map: www.ci.monterey-park.ca.us/docs/mixed_use_map.pdfJust throwing some resources on the table. That commercial use section on the south-east is going the be the future Monterey Park Cascades Market Place (I believe).
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 3, 2008 19:11:41 GMT -8
I would argue from an abstract analytical standpoint that it would be better for the ES Gold Line to serve both Montebello Mall and Whittier/Atlantic or Garfield (for future HRT connections) if we really want to improve connectivity within that region.
What would be really nice if they made the Pomona/Atlantic station elevated and they looked at building a short 0.4 mile segment to Chavez/Atlantic, taking that whole strip mall on the SW corner where Tower Records used to be and create a transit depot, where the commercial element would be along Atlantic, the elevated LRT and bus transit center would be in the center and along Collegian would be apartments for local students at ELA College. The only reason I thought about that lot despite the Chevron station was that a year or two ago they closed the gas station for a short time to do gas tank clean up and abated the soil. Great minds thinlk alike yoda, I had the same idea for quite some time now. Art, there's not much space between the freeway and homes thereActually, there is between 60-85 feet between the soundwall and the sidewalk on the south side of Via Campo. In a best case scenario, the soundwall would actually be taken down and rebuilt 25' closer to the edge of the freeway allowing for the continued mitigation of the freeway and the LRT noise/vibrations. Give the MTA's demolition of historic buildings and newer stuff for the esgoldline, I see this as totally feasable. That landscaping is the very sound mitigation that the residents directly abutting the freeway needs. Unless we have very close station spacing, the LRV's will go 55mph in right next to a noisy freeway - in some spots there are sound walls that will bounce the sound right into the neighborhood - which makes a bad thing worse in terms of livability and the ability to build the type of residential development density needed, unless we're zoning for a gated and sound walled community which will be needed to mitigate the noise which is the exact opposite of what should be desired here. Good point, the neighborhood fought for the wall, and I agree that the LRT alignment should be on the freeway side of the sound wall rather than the neighborhood side. Another thing too is that even if the southern edge of the freeway is widened, there will still be some of the dirt hillside left to plant trees to further mitigate noise, pollution and vibrations. Look at how the 10 freeway was widened thru el monte for an example. Either way it is totally feasable and much more logistically doable than any attempt to turn the LRT line southward at the pomona/atlantic intersection. 3.5 miles but who's really counting? Jdogg, you know I am a transit nerd, I am counting. Especially considering the finite funding resources we have. If Montebello Town Center were 2 miles closer I would agree with extending the line to Montebello. But that distance between Atlantic and Montebello is what is detering me from even considering it. I dont get you, how so? We would be able to have 2 miles of elevated rail with costs not much higher than at-grade construction, I call that a win-win situation. And the fact that a lot of these important corner lots are gas stations which because of it's close proximity to the freeway on/off ramps to build the dense mixed-use development on an old gas station lot I don't think that will pencil out for developers who would have to spend significant $$$ for soil abatement due to the gas tanks being underground and by that point they'll have to create ultra luxury condos in an area next to a freeway to even get a small return on investment. Actually, there would be only 2 more stations; a Garfield/Wilcox and Montebello Town Center/ Paramount Blvd. station. At the Garfield station there is a lot of potential to build a mixed use complex on the long block between Wilcox and the retail strip fronting Garfield (which I would save). Considering the lackluster property development around non redline MTA station surrounding properties, i dont know why we all of a sudden need to create such high standards for what surrounds the stations. All 3 gas stations around the conceptual Garfield/Wilcox station are physically isolated from the station entrances by wide boulevards anyways. Also, in all 3 situations the lots are so small that building any TOD there seems illogical, the development opportunity lies on the large parking lots connecting both stations to the apartment clusters on Neil Armstrong (near the MTC) and south of the Garfield station. None of the properties abutting the stations with the most TOD potential contain gas stations actually, and I see them staying if the market does not naturally eliminate them. Isn't this exactly what we are trying to do with the 60 corridor? Correct me if I'm wrong.I do not support anything going past the MTC along the 60 until a whittier blvd purple line and about a dozen other rail lines are built to be honest. The 60 route gives us grade seperated rail for much cheaper than el or subway costs, connects to dense apartments clusters in both Montebello and Monterey Park, is a short distance and provides excellent development opportunities in communities where a lot of people walk despite lackluster pedestrian environments. Like I said, any esgoldline extension that skips the western whittier blvd activity nodes in ELA and Boyle Hts to service commuters from Whitter and Pico Rivera does not fit well with me. That can still be provided via a Heavy Rail corridor, it just depends on how far east it would go. My personal preference now is to have the Whittier HRT run in two branches after Atlantic or Garfield with the ES Gold Line branch connecting at that point, one down to Whittier via Whittier Blvd, the other to Norwalk via Bell Gardens and Downey. I agree to a degree. the difference is this proposal I am talking about is much cheaper and politically feasable (which is tantamount when talking about working class minority communities as it seems). I actually have some support from a few politicos on this one as well, but I wont name drop as the support is informal. Art, that very argument may be the very basis for doing the east of Atlantic segment as LRT and the Whittier segment west of Atlantic as a heavy rail subway.Oooooh, I get ya. That is a very good point, no wonder I call you yoda! My point is that when we begin to discuss service farther east, the main draw would be the quickest trip possible, which grade seperated HRT wins quite easilly, especially considering the logistical nightmare the esgoldline seems to create in terms of a quick stopless trip. But that very valid point has made me rethink my adamant stance and take a less dogmatic position, although I do think if they connect to the corridor with LRT east of atlantic it will be a fat chance of getting funding for the HRT west of atlantic which is my main concern. Another issue that is important is political support and feasability. I see a deep bore HRT tunnel or even elevated segment being much more business (i.e. politico) friendly, which seems to be the main concern of both montebello and whittier. I would hope the sting of the western/hollywood sink debacle has worn off as weel and the construction is done right. Brief chats with folks in both cities and the county have also reaffirmed my confidence in the HRT being the best choice, especially for quicker trip times and a seamless connection to DTLA and the wilshire corridor (which is where most of the Latino patrons would go, and since the DTConnector is at least a decade away I dont see the esgoldline conecting to where the whittier blvd locals want to go, ala the pasa goldline and all the highland parque folks who still take the 80/81 on fig. Jerard, PLEASE tell me you are thinking of working at the MTA, PLEEEEZ! The same logic can be used to do a breakdown of the #68 bus to show that ridership drops off significantly after ELA College and then there's 20-30 minute service to Montebello Town Center, which isn't being fully utilized despite providing closer direct one-seat trip connections.I agree and feel that this segment of the 68 would be more utilized if tansit service in general was better in LA and not viewed in such a negative manner. I spent 45 minutes at the EM transit center the other day waiting for a bus with 20 minute headways (76), which has occured about 2/3rds of the time I use the bus. This is what stops transit ridership, and this is why so many people drive with no license or insurance in LA despite the penalties. I ticket for a couple hundred dollars is still not as harsh as sacrificing 1/3rd of ones day to the bus for many people, which is why I often commend you for your faithfulnes with the Rough Tough and Dangerous. PS, I got your email but was running out the door. I actually was in vegas for the Planning conference they had out there (what a joke location, although I did use the monorail as I stayed at the $20 a night Sahara and the conference was at the $150 a night Paris/Ballys). We should meet up soon, but I dont know when. PM me about your week's shcedule, hope to hear from you and thanks for the transit nerd talk.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 3, 2008 19:30:24 GMT -8
BTW, my concept map is on post #37 of this topic on page 3 if anyone missed it. And Mac, thanks for the info on that Monterey Park development, but I think it died a while back.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on May 3, 2008 19:46:39 GMT -8
silver line . mixed use I's are under or very close to being under construction. atlantic times square is the mixed I on atlantic. and the one on garifeild is as i understand, close to starting. that commercial project could be served but my honest hope is that this line stay south of the 60.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 3, 2008 20:21:17 GMT -8
Actually, there is between 60-85 feet between the soundwall and the sidewalk on the south side of Via Campo. In a best case scenario, the soundwall would actually be taken down and rebuilt 25' closer to the edge of the freeway allowing for the continued mitigation of the freeway and the LRT noise/vibrations. Give the MTA's demolition of historic buildings and newer stuff for the esgoldline, I see this as totally feasable. Now what happens to the stations? Will passengers be waiting on the edge of the freeway? Also if the street width is 60' that is only 35' including sidewalks, and the existing lanes. I still don't get why they can't create a track fork and have some trains take Beverly and turn onto Atlantic there. How many riders are we expecting? Take the estimated cost and divide that by the quotient of # of proposed riders by extension length. It's not a matter of creating a high standard per say, it's trying to get a developer to build something there without asking for public subsidy. Which proposal? No, I'm enjoying working from home.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 4, 2008 11:23:53 GMT -8
Now what happens to the stations? Will passengers be waiting on the edge of the freeway? Also if the street width is 60' that is only 35' including sidewalks, and the existing lanes.The portion of the freeway with the soundwall we are talking about is not where stations will be located (east of sadler, west of Findlay). The Garfield station area (between Garfield and Wilcox) has no soundwall and abuts commercial properties next to apartments. Although the platforms will be located at the same grade as the freeway, a simple plexiglass sound wall (like they should have on the green line stations but still dont) can mitigate the unpleasantness of freeway noise, and has been done in a lot of stations in other cities such as with BART in the bay area. On the subject of road width, go down there and check it out and you will see there is plenty of room to extend the freeway width by 25' for tracks. If you are not sure about the logistics of widening the edge of a freeway check out how they did it for the 10 through El Monte, which is actually what made me realize this is totally feasable and has a precedence. Beyond the size of the road (via campo), there is at least 35-50 feet of hillside between the road and the freeway soundwall, I know because I have played in there before, which still leaves room for landscaping to mitigate freeway impacts. I still don't get why they can't create a track fork and have some trains take Beverly and turn onto Atlantic there.They can, but it would create a situation where one of the alignment skips a major station (Atlantic), or another station for the Beverly portion would need to be built. Since the MTA is not swimming in money and economic efficiency is a major issue, why spend more money when a cheaper alternative is available? In terms of the Atlantic/ Pomona intersection, there is no possible way to have the LRT turn north or south without taking several large properties and seriously retooling a very congested, narrow and built up corner where traffic already bottlenecks into nightmarish levels for several hours a day. Beyond that, there is no room to fit 2 LRT tracks on Atlantic anywhere near there without demolishing a lot of stuff. Plus, since the area is extremely congested already, I would be afraid to think of what an Lightrail train thrown in the mix would create. How many riders are we expecting? Take the estimated cost and divide that by the quotient of # of proposed riders by extension length.I'm really wondering your point now Jerard, do you honestly expect me to know this info ? I previously explained the positives of this alignment (which you have not responded to), and you seem to be more interested in throwing things at me than discusing the positives and negatives of the alignment. Please explain to me the specific negatives of extending the line to the MTC rather than Whittier blvd (as I have done in reverse) and leave the ridership modelling to engineers. Why do you think it would be better to connect this corridor through LRT than a purple line HRT extension? What would be better about putting an extension of a meandering, street running train somewhere into the whittier corridor at least a dozen miles southeast of the city center rather than a quciker, higher capacity HRT line which the area deserves? Come on dude, I know you'd be saying the same thing if they wanted to solely put a busway down Vermont, which is the transit option does not match the corridor. It's not a matter of creating a high standard per say, it's trying to get a developer to build something there without asking for public subsidy.I do consulting for a commercial real estate company in the area which is highly interested in acquiring the properties I speak of to build a mixed use complex irregardless of any LRT coming through there. Like I said, my point is to discuss the positives and negatives of both alignment options and figure out which is the most beneficial (which is where I came to my conclusion), not to win the argument. I also sent this info to the MTA and CDM and they both noted these are very good points which totally changed their perspectives on the matter (thank goodness now than when actual money is spent looking into this) and require further analysis. I actually went down to the location with a few of these folks and they noted (in verbatum) "you're right, we need to look into this before our next step". I still do not understand your adamance in proving me wrong. Which proposal? The one we're discussing at this moment. I have been throwing this idea/concept/proposal out so that it may stick in some policymaker's head and create the best outcome in terms of rail service for this community. No, I'm enjoying working from home.When's the party?
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on May 4, 2008 12:09:11 GMT -8
Is this line going to be built before the silver line? If we build the silver line first, then there is no point in having gold line extend using using the 60 corridor route terminating in Industry/La Puente, since that is where the proposed silver line terminates. Then again, we could change the route...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 4, 2008 13:29:33 GMT -8
Now what happens to the stations? Will passengers be waiting on the edge of the freeway? Also if the street width is 60' that is only 35' including sidewalks, and the existing lanes.The portion of the freeway with the soundwall we are talking about is not where stations will be located (east of sadler, west of Findlay). The Garfield station area (between Garfield and Wilcox) has no soundwall and abuts commercial properties next to apartments. Although the platforms will be located at the same grade as the freeway, a simple plexiglass sound wall (like they should have on the green line stations but still dont) can mitigate the unpleasantness of freeway noise, and has been done in a lot of stations in other cities such as with BART in the bay area I was thinking about that last night when I was down at the Harbor Freeway station at PCH how that might work. Road widening precedence to a fit transit corridor. That's a great idea, but who has to approve of that space Metro or the State of California? (Just as a side so I can take a look at it, what area(s) of El Monte did this take place?) If the state doesn't have the blessing on this, then there's no project at all. Not saying it that to be negative or to come up with some agenda (which personally I'm pissed that it was even considered in this conversation) but to understand there's a lot more than meets the eye. If it is going to run on Atlantic for a short distance wouldn't that be negated? How come taking out used car lots and turning those to municipal parking lots to mitigate the street parking can't be considered? Agreed, there's a difference between going only to Whittier Blvd and City of Whittier. Throwing things at you? Winning an argument? Wait one minute, are we having a discussion or am I suppose to say yes Art, you're right 100% of the time? The point is I have a hard time understanding that this will work and how it will be built through based upon the site conditions and my analysis based on that. Most of those concerns centered around the 60 freeway, I've been very consistent on that point. Again that's why I said if Montebello Town Center was a lot closer than it would be a lot easier to understand. I have a hard time with a Washington LRT alignment, Whittier LRT is iffy at best with me right now. And the results through the press releases aren't helping to explain it not because of good positive planning but because of the appearance that Mayor of Montebello only wants it to serve his city. I'm having a hard time with the entire planning process for this corridor right now because it doesn't fully address the needs of the ENTIRE Eastside Corridor. Why isn't Whittier HRT on the discussion? Specific negatives? What do you define as a negative? Personally my "negative" or drawback is how the construction will take place, if it is feasible to build, how the residents directly abutting said alignment will respond to the alignment and construction of it, which will require mitigation. Actually I havent, so you're making an assumption that doesn't exist right now for Vermont. And I'm not suggesting a Whittier Blvd busway now aren't I? Secondly, I have stated many times why the only thing that really needs to be built is a small extension to Whittier BLVD. Not Whittier, but Whittier BLVD so that realisitically that Heavy Rail extension will have a connection point the existing LRT, improving the likelyhood that this will get built in our bloody lifetimes because it's a political carrot that understands hey there's a need for this Whittier HRT corridor! When it's a short extension and of only one route (less than a mile) at-grade to potentially link it to a major transit corridor (Whittier Heavy Rail) that will be built and when it works for the entire system because you have that connectivity and depending on which corridor is used, Atlantic or Garfield there's potential (with the Garfield portion) to link that to the Metrolink service that would further improve mobility and create a regional system. Congratulations.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 4, 2008 18:15:18 GMT -8
Road widening precedence to a fit transit corridor.From a purely logistical standpoint at least. That's a great idea, but who has to approve of that space Metro or the State of California? (Just as a side so I can take a look at it, what area(s) of El Monte did this take place?) Both sides of the 10 freeway between Santa Anita and Tyler, as well as between Durfee and Cogswell on the north side. If the state doesn't have the blessing on this, then there's no project at all. Not saying it that to be negative or to come up with some agenda (which personally I'm pissed that it was even considered in this conversation) but to understand there's a lot more than meets the eye.No need to get pissed. I genuinely do not understand your motivation on this one. I answered the logistical concerns and you respond about ridership/cost analysis and the presence of nearby gas stations (which exist at many MTA stations now), sorry if I took it personally and I apologize for ruffling your feathers, but the response dont seem relative to a discussion on alignment aesthetic at the current time. If it is going to run on Atlantic for a short distance wouldn't that be negated? How come taking out used car lots and turning those to municipal parking lots to mitigate the street parking can't be considered? Atlantci is engineered like a mini highway and it still bottlenecks around here. Both side of the boulevard have street fronting retail for much of the stretch you are talking about, and bulldozing them seems illogical. And seriously, you are talking about bullldozing a stretch of this area's main N/S corridor, yet dismissing the 60 alignment because of the presence of a few gas stations? Makes no sense Agreed, there's a difference between going only to Whittier Blvd and City of Whittier.Well, we agree on something ;D Throwing things at you? Winning an argument? Wait one minute, are we having a discussion or am I suppose to say yes Art, you're right 100% of the time?
The point is I have a hard time understanding that this will work and how it will be built through based upon the site conditions and my analysis based on that. Most of those concerns centered around the 60 freeway, I've been very consistent on that point.
Again that's why I said if Montebello Town Center was a lot closer than it would be a lot easier to understand. I have a hard time with a Washington LRT alignment, Whittier LRT is iffy at best with me right now. And the results through the press releases aren't helping to explain it not because of good positive planning but because of the appearance that Mayor of Montebello only wants it to serve his city. I laid my case out and you're response dont add up in my book, and their irrelevance throws me off as being either over critical or the basis for why I am questioning your motives. Nothing personal yoda. Like I said, MTA and CDM engineers didnt even bring this up after walking the stretch with them. I'm having a hard time with the entire planning process for this corridor right now because it doesn't fully address the needs of the ENTIRE Eastside Corridor. Why isn't Whittier HRT on the discussion? Totally agreed. When are we starting a transportation consulting firm? Specific negatives? What do you define as a negative? Personally my "negative" or drawback is how the construction will take place, if it is feasible to build, how the residents directly abutting said alignment will respond to the alignment and construction of it, which will require mitigation. I noted specific mitigation and how the alignment wil be physically placed in response to your concerns. The problem now is that your concerns seem to be irreelvant to the discussion, which leads me to question your motives. Again nothign personal, just curious about where this is coming from. Actually I havent, so you're making an assumption that doesn't exist right now for Vermont. And I'm not suggesting a Whittier Blvd busway now aren't I? You know what I mean, jerard. I am not being literal. This mode is not the best fit to address the transit needs of the area (the area I grew up in and know well), and I would assume yu would do so with places you are familiar with your whole life. Secondly, I have stated many times why the only thing that really needs to be built is a small extension to Whittier BLVD. Not Whittier, but Whittier BLVD so that realisitically that Heavy Rail extension will have a connection point the existing LRT, improving the likelyhood that this will get built in our bloody lifetimes because it's a political carrot that understands hey there's a need for this Whittier HRT corridor! I agree, you are right on this one and have changed my stance because it makes sense. When it's a short extension and of only one route (less than a mile) at-grade to potentially link it to a major transit corridor (Whittier Heavy Rail) that will be built and when it works for the entire system because you have that connectivity and depending on which corridor is used, Atlantic or Garfield there's potential (with the Garfield portion) to link that to the Metrolink service that would further improve mobility and create a regional system. I also agree, good points.
Congratulations. [/quote][/i] Why'd you erase the last sentence you originally posted? No need to get smarmy or snippy, I am genuinely trying to figure out where you're coming from and little else. I thought we were friends yoda?
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 4, 2008 18:18:42 GMT -8
this seems to be hubris driven now, so unless we want to discuss the physical definites of the alignment in the area the conversation has gone down in flames. Plus you're my friend and I do not want to fight with you (which it is starting to seem like).
BTW Mac, the silverline will not get built for various reasons. I am truly saddened that the MTA put on their LRTP, they seem not to be doing their homework onthis one. Jerard put onto why it wont get built a while back and I totally agree. That silverline alignment is planned for a lot of other thing already in the construction phases.
|
|