|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 22, 2009 13:32:44 GMT -8
Of course not, Ken. Did you hear Gloria Molina's filibuster today about how short changed the Eastside has been? She has a good point to make although I couldn't disagree more with her seeming desire to obstruct the Westside subway out of "revenge".
I'm curious. Does anyone know what the original proposed alignment for the heavy-rail Eastside subway extension was? How far could it go east and still have the sufficient density for heavy rail?
Could the silver lining in having light rail instead mean the eastside extension could be extended out further than it would have been as heavy rail?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 22, 2009 13:40:02 GMT -8
Could the silver lining in having light rail instead mean the eastside extension could be extended out further than it would have been as heavy rail? I think your right about Linea Oro being easier to extend as light rail, but I don't think G. Molina will see it as anything but a shortchange for the Eastside. Wasn't it really Zev that put the halt to the Eastside rail by banning local funding for subways?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 22, 2009 15:29:15 GMT -8
I am both sympathetic and antipathetic to Supervisor Molina's views. I think she did get shortchanged, but she has never really backed a specific project with a specific routing like the Expo, Foothill Gold or Green Line to South Bay Galleria lines.
Never...so she has nothing despite the fact that the Eastside WAS short changed.
She has the option of lionizing the Eastside LRT extension to SR-60/605, or to Whittier, or even to revisit and start an Eastside HRT to the southeast portions of Downtown as a revitalization measure to that blighted region.
It's very easy to complain, but a whole lot tougher to be FOR something.
Fortunately, there's term limits.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 23, 2009 8:53:31 GMT -8
As currently conceived, this project is not worth the money. Better to upgrade Metrolink, or pursue HRT under Whittier. The ridership along either of the proposed routes would be very low, I think. At any rate, I'd rather see LRT serving dense corridors. For instance, a branch serving the Florence/Firestone corridor, which has tons of existing ridership, plus density of population and destinations.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 23, 2009 11:15:35 GMT -8
Does anyone know what the original proposed alignment for the heavy-rail Eastside subway extension was? How far could it go east and still have the sufficient density for heavy rail? It would have gone only to Atlantic and Whittier, in two phases. The first phase would have been pretty close to the tunnel that was built, but with more winding around; the second phase would have served Whittier Blvd. rather than 3rd Street. Here's a map:
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 23, 2009 15:17:57 GMT -8
well..... it's true that the Red Line would have been faster and underground, and underground is always good... but it also would have been more expensive. Ultimately, we might end up with more lines to more places (yes, I believe in regional rail) with the cheaper light rail solutions than with what the Red Line was becoming. And the GLEE gives the Eastside the Pico-Aliso station, not to mention the much better location for the Little Tokyo station (Santa Fe/Fourth hardly even deserves the name "Little Tokyo") which also coincidentally gives the Downtown Regional Connector a "foot in the door" I do hope that the San Gabriel Valley gets more than just the Gold Line to Azusa... not sure if Gold Line to Ontario is the answer... I've been reading the transit-related blogs on Curbed, and it bugs me how arrogant some of the Westsider comments can be... I do know "nothing but subway" is NOT the answer...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 23, 2009 15:33:32 GMT -8
I don't know if this has been suggested yet, but wouldn't it be possible to just make the rest of the Eastside Gold Line underground along the same lines as in the red line map above (and a la the Blue Line at 7th St. Metro Center)?
I'm not saying the other routes shouldn't be built (they should), but even though it would be more expensive, the increased ridership would surely pay for itself eventually wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 23, 2009 16:48:06 GMT -8
I don't know if they'll have increased ridership, Philip.
I'll again go on record as preferring a "start over" for the Eastside, but I do find it more than a bit interesting (and I'm not a fan of Sup. Molina, right now) that the cities along the 60 freeway are as clamoring for a LRT to proceed along the shoulder of that freeway (with pedestrian portal access away from the freeway, unlike median stations).
I'm pretty sure that most on this board don't see these rail lines like I do, but I envision most of the successful ones to be in part successful because of their opportunity to provide alternatives and mitigation to our freeways.
The Expo Line does so for the I-10, the Blue for the I-710 and I-110, the Red for the 101 freeway, and the Gold Line will have quite a few freeway alternatives (I-710, I-10, SR-60 and I-210). So is the SR-60 route (please separate my idea from your feelings about Molina, please) really that bad an idea?
I could very, very easily see a consortium of cities wanting the Eastside Gold Line to do for the SR-60 what the Foothill Gold Line will do for the I-210.
...that said, I'd still like either better Metrolink enhancements, a HRT to proceed underground from Union Station or Metro Center to the southeast end of Downtown and the I-5 freeway.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 24, 2009 4:26:09 GMT -8
Fortunately, there's term limits. The one upside we could see is to run the clock on options for this line and wait for Molina's career to come to an ignominous end. Then work with her successor. The problem is that the Gold Line has the Eastside boxed in. Metro is not even going to build a parallel Whittier subway until the Gold Line is persistently crowded like the Blue Line. And the two options Metro has for extending the Gold Line are awful.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 24, 2009 6:54:01 GMT -8
...you forget that the No Build Option still exists.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 24, 2009 7:40:44 GMT -8
Does anybody really believe that Metro would go for the "no build" option and get away with it?
Metrolink and Foothill Transit upgrades may be the way to go objectively, but if you think Molina gave an award-winning, bravura performance two days ago, just wait until we hear, "We were cheated out of a subway, and now we are being cheated out of light rail. Woe is us, poor downtrodden, discriminated against us." And even when Molina is termed out her successor is sure to do the same.
There is quality transit planning and then there is politically viable transit planning.
If the "no build" option was chosen, it could only be sold in a way that says, we are deciding not to go forward with either of these two options and are altering the study to look at a Whittier subway.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 24, 2009 16:27:38 GMT -8
Wasn't it really Zev that put the halt to the Eastside rail by banning local funding for subways? Does anyone know the answer to this? I wasn't around when the the Eastside extension was going to be an extension of the Red Line, but looking back it seems that after the subway tunneling ban the option was to either wait with the Westside for a subway or open light rail much, much sooner. Objectively speaking, did East LA conditions warrant heavy rail? The corridor that's there now isn't exactly Wilshire Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 24, 2009 16:52:07 GMT -8
Wasn't it really Zev that put the halt to the Eastside rail by banning local funding for subways? Does anyone know the answer to this? I wasn't around when the the Eastside extension was going to be an extension of the Red Line, but looking back it seems that after the subway tunneling ban the option was to either wait with the Westside for a subway or open light rail much, much sooner. Objectively speaking, did East LA conditions warrant heavy rail? The corridor that's there now isn't exactly Wilshire Blvd. Here you go: A L.A. Times story that was produced before Zev's Law was law. articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/24/local/me-6708
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 24, 2009 20:20:06 GMT -8
On one hand, Zev was damned sneaky, getting the Subway to the Valley and then killing further construction elsewhere. On the other hand, pols were suggesting Subways go all over the place and some of these ideas were pretty windy and poorly-thought out.
Zev waited until the studies and consensus was there, and got the Wilshire Subway on track. Meanwhile, the Westside said, "NO!" to a cheaper Busway on Expo.
Had Ms. Molina held out and planned and achieved consensus for a quality Eastside Subway, I think she would have gotten it.
Some folks bitch and whine, others recognize consensus and pull FOR something. Ms. Molina did the former, and Mr. Yaroslavsky did the latter.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2009 9:44:05 GMT -8
I'd like to see the Purple Line extended east from Metro Center, out Seventh Street and then Whittier Blvd. With a stops at Broadway, Central, Soto, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 25, 2009 11:54:33 GMT -8
...and, someday, we'll see something like that...but with a different "leader" than Ms. Molina, who unfortunately was no leader at all.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 25, 2009 23:49:34 GMT -8
I'd like to see the Purple Line extended east from Metro Center, out Seventh Street and then Whittier Blvd. With a stops at Broadway, Central, Soto, etc. I think this is the best option for a subway to the east side. I did mention above about the Gold Line going underground after Atlantic, but that of course leaves out the areas you mention. Also, after thinking it over, I'm supporting the SR-60 route. As Mr. Alpern acutely noted, alleviating traffic on the freeway is key and something that would definitely attract more people to the train (and hopefully surpass the low ridership predictions). But consider this: Following the completion of the Eastside II & the Foothill Extension to Montclair, imagine a North/South Extension (including Ontario Airport) linking Montclair to either Beck or Durfee or whatever the terminus of the Eastside II line is. If done correctly, this would mean the Eastside would have its very own "circle" line. Is this something that could become reality?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 26, 2009 3:45:37 GMT -8
On one hand, Zev was damned sneaky, getting the Subway to the Valley and then killing further construction elsewhere. Well, the construction work was fully apace in the Valley by the time Zev's Law was drafted. Even Zev wouldn't be as craven as to halt a half-billion dollar's worth of work and leave a giant hole in the ground. No, that would be for the extreme anti-transit left and right factions.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 26, 2009 5:27:49 GMT -8
You're right, wad, but Supervisor Molina always did and does have the ability to correct the past with a blueprint for the future. Inasmuch as the Westside needed Expo AND Crenshaw AND Wilshire rail lines, do you realize that Philip and metrocenter have done more in the past day or so to constructively start an Eastside rail network than Ms. Molina has done in the past ten years?
Can someone please draw up a map (I'm pretty lousy at those, but I love to promote them to illustrate a point) that shows:
1) An Eastside LRT on the SR-60 route 2) An Eastside HRT proceeding southeast underground to Whittier Blvd (perhaps with a connection to the I-5 freeway...or not) 3) Another Eastside HRT that upgrades/replaces the El Monte Busway 4) A potential north-south Foothill Gold-to- Eastside Gold Line that creates a "circle line" (any unused rail ROW's? or major commercial thoroughfares) to serve the eastern end of Los Angeles County
My next CityWatch article will, among other things, show that we can do better than endlessly whine the way Supervisor Molina did--and that the grassroots and planning types can offer advice for the next Eastside Supervisor for future generations to benefit.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 26, 2009 11:54:36 GMT -8
You're right, wad, but Supervisor Molina always did and does have the ability to correct the past with a blueprint for the future. Inasmuch as the Westside needed Expo AND Crenshaw AND Wilshire rail lines, do you realize that Philip and metrocenter have done more in the past day or so to constructively start an Eastside rail network than Ms. Molina has done in the past ten years? Can someone please draw up a map (I'm pretty lousy at those, but I love to promote them to illustrate a point) that shows: 1) An Eastside LRT on the SR-60 route 2) An Eastside HRT proceeding southeast underground to Whittier Blvd (perhaps with a connection to the I-5 freeway...or not) 3) Another Eastside HRT that upgrades/replaces the El Monte Busway 4) A potential north-south Foothill Gold-to- Eastside Gold Line that creates a "circle line" (any unused rail ROW's? or major commercial thoroughfares) to serve the eastern end of Los Angeles County My next CityWatch article will, among other things, show that we can do better than endlessly whine the way Supervisor Molina did--and that the grassroots and planning types can offer advice for the next Eastside Supervisor for future generations to benefit. ill be glad to draw up that map when i get off work tonight. unless time is of the essence.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 26, 2009 16:57:55 GMT -8
No, just relax and "get 'er done" at a time when it suits you best--and thanks a heap for doing this!!!
I just want TTC to be able to throw out a potential roadmap for the Eastside when it wants to get serious about mass transit. They're serious in the SGV, but the southerly portion of the Eastside needs a vision, and we sure ain't seeing it from the top.
Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas used our input to help build grassroots consensus, and perhaps we can help convince Molina's successor (and the Eastside grassroots) with a map or two that their mass transit future can be just as bright as the Westside.
Thanx again, Jeremy, for doing this. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 26, 2009 20:34:28 GMT -8
click all sizes for the 1800x? version
|
|
|
Post by wad on Oct 27, 2009 4:25:05 GMT -8
Can someone please draw up a map (I'm pretty lousy at those, but I love to promote them to illustrate a point) that shows: Ken, have you tried the tools on Google Maps? You can draw lines and boxes over actual street maps. You don't need to be an Illustrator wiz.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 27, 2009 5:59:09 GMT -8
I know, but I think that others on this Board know the Eastside way, way, WAY better than I ever could. Jeremy, I think this is a great start. I don't know if Rosemead is the "right" north-south connector for these east-west transit lines, and I don't know if the El Monte Busway is doomed to remain a Busway because of the Congestion Pricing plan, but it's still a great start.
At least for visioning. For example, while I think that it makes sense for the El Monte Busway to connect to Union Station, the "hump" of the Red Line going north and then south to Whittier might be better changed to having the Red Line stop at Union Station and having the Purple Line from Metro Center bypass Union Station and proceed through the currently underserved portion of downtown to Whittier Blvd.
The Downtown Connector doesn't appear on Jeremy's map, and the question of whether or not the Purple Line might perhaps proceed to Little Tokyo (and a connection to Union Station via the Gold Line) before going to Whittier Blvd. might ALSO be a good way to go.
Again, this is just a start--and a pretty good one, thanks to Jeremy. Whether it's laziness on my part, or a recognition that others can do this job waaaaaaaaaay better than I could with respect to ideas and mapmaking, I'd rather this be a group thing based on our collective knowledge and insights.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 27, 2009 7:36:32 GMT -8
I know, but I think that others on this Board know the Eastside way, way, WAY better than I ever could. Jeremy, I think this is a great start. I don't know if Rosemead is the "right" north-south connector for these east-west transit lines, and I don't know if the El Monte Busway is doomed to remain a Busway because of the Congestion Pricing plan, but it's still a great start. no problem. just an excuse for me to make some more maps. i like maps.... some times too much... rosemead was my first though, its a big road and most of its length there is a large median for use. as far as i know there are no ROWs going north south that have not been built out. unless you want to run down high tension power wires. el monte busway was a just literal interpretation of "3) Another Eastside HRT that upgrades/replaces the El Monte Busway" At least for visioning. For example, while I think that it makes sense for the El Monte Busway to connect to Union Station, the "hump" of the Red Line going north and then south to Whittier might be better changed to having the Red Line stop at Union Station and having the Purple Line from Metro Center bypass Union Station and proceed through the currently underserved portion of downtown to Whittier Blvd. gotcha, will adjust The Downtown Connector doesn't appear on Jeremy's map, and the question of whether or not the Purple Line might perhaps proceed to Little Tokyo (and a connection to Union Station via the Gold Line) before going to Whittier Blvd. might ALSO be a good way to go. DC, well thats because it does not exist yet! ha, nah ill add it. what route do you want shown? Again, this is just a start--and a pretty good one, thanks to Jeremy. Whether it's laziness on my part, or a recognition that others can do this job waaaaaaaaaay better than I could with respect to ideas and mapmaking, I'd rather this be a group thing based on our collective knowledge and insights. no biggy, like i sad before i have an unholy lust for maps.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 27, 2009 8:07:20 GMT -8
Me too! DC, well thats because it does not exist yet! ha, nah ill add it. what route do you want shown? I'd do the most likely option, the Flower-2nd subway that comes up to grade from 2nd & Central to 1st & Alameda: And don't forget the Expo Line!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 27, 2009 22:44:18 GMT -8
I think that Darrell's idea is a great one (i.e., the subway) and the El Monte Busway being a HRT and the Rosemead alignment being a connecting LRT are also great ideas.
Thanks again, Jeremy and Darrell and the others, for weighing in on this.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Oct 28, 2009 7:54:28 GMT -8
anything else you would like to see? i can generate another version tonight. if you want anything else changed let me know!
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2009 12:55:31 GMT -8
This may be pie in the sky, but are you suggesting it would therefore be better to have the light rail extension by the SR-60 choice and instead of a Washington Blvd. branch of the Gold LRT have an eastbound extension of the HRT Red Line to Whittier via Whittier Blvd?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 28, 2009 16:33:31 GMT -8
In short, yes, Dan and Jeremy and everyone else. I'm not so much lionizing the SR-60 route as much as I am trying to get two rail lines to serve two different corridors and create a more comprehensive rail network.
As always, I could be wrong...but I just don't think that the LRT will do it all, and I'd like a nice do-over for the Eastside with a HRT to renovate and redevelop Downtown...while also highlighting the best aspects of the Eastside LRT.
|
|