|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 27, 2010 8:21:09 GMT -8
Once the Downtown Connector is built and Phase 2 of Expo is completed, wouldn't it be possible to still expand the Expo line farther east to serve another corridor?
As we've seen in the "Extension to Whittier" topic on the Eastside Gold Line board, the east side has the potential to develop a major transit network (thanks to the current east side extension, the future Foothill extensions, a proposed north/south line, the future east side SR-60/Washington Blvd. routes, and potential HRT to Whittier). So where could Expo fit in?
In theory, Expo could be expanded south and go under Whittier Blvd. towards Whittier, though this is a route I know most would like to see the Purple or Red line make instead.
There's the proposal on Damien's map, which has the Expo line go Northeast to serve El Monte and Baldwin Park (with connections at their Metrolink stops).
Another option would be to have Expo travel on the Eastside extension and build Expo going down the SR-60 corridor, which would then narrow down the choice for the Gold line to take the Washington Blvd. route, thus allowing the underground Whittier route to still belong to one of the HRT lines (this of course, all depends on the connector being built).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 27, 2010 8:47:32 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that what the lines that we currently call "Expo" and the "Gold Line East LA extension" will be combined into one service. Any extension east would likely involve what is already under consideration for the Eastside. The second most likely option is that Expo would serve both East LA and the San Gabriel Valley by alternating trains. The problem with either of those is that it leave LAUS with only 5 minute headways at rush hour since trains would alternate between East LA and the SGV.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2010 9:35:06 GMT -8
Once the Downtown Connector is built, the Expo Line will effectively have direct linkage with the Eastside Gold Line. The only other project that MIGHT be built in decades to come involves a potential second Downtown Connector to link the southeast portion of Downtown with both Metro Center and Union Station. This concept, which is entirely visionary and may not be needed within our lifetimes, has been discussed previously on this board.
I think that there will be future calls to have the streetrunning Blue and Expo Lines underground, but probably as part of a Blue Line upgrade that is pursued because of Blue Line overcapacity...and which might be better served either by enhancing/promoting better Harbor Transitway service and/or a Vermont Blvd. subway project.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 27, 2010 12:58:57 GMT -8
I don't know if that will happen, but IIRC Metro does discuss the potential for the Harbor Subdivision to connect with the blue line at Slauson and then split off down Alameda to the Little Tokyo Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 29, 2010 4:41:01 GMT -8
I don't know if that will happen, but IIRC Metro does discuss the potential for the Harbor Subdivision to connect with the blue line at Slauson and then split off down Alameda to the Little Tokyo Station. Metro should go east to Huntington Park. Good ridership potential there. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 21, 2010 3:58:26 GMT -8
In looking over the Google maps part, it seems like the Eastern portion of the Exposition right of way is pretty much clear from Figueroa all the way to the Blue line tracks.
That whole area looks like manufacturing, and storage - not very active. I wonder, did Expo ever consider using that area for the storage and inspection facilities they are having such trouble with?
It just seems like a natural fit as it could be used by both the Blue line and Expo line, the property is a hell of a lot cheaper there than in Santa Monica, and it would give them a bypass route to be used. They already own the property too!
Unfortunately, with the building of the trench on Figueroa, I don't know if that would make it difficult to tie that portion back in with the line at some future point.
I don't know, it just seems like an opportunity for Metro to have a centrally located rail storage and maintenance facility at a good price and without the headaches of building in quasi-residential areas of the Westside.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 21, 2010 11:31:07 GMT -8
In looking over the Google maps part, it seems like the Eastern portion of the Exposition right of way is pretty much clear from Figueroa all the way to the Blue line tracks. That whole area looks like manufacturing, and storage - not very active. I wonder, did Expo ever consider using that area for the storage and inspection facilities they are having such trouble with? It just seems like a natural fit as it could be used by both the Blue line and Expo line, the property is a hell of a lot cheaper there than in Santa Monica, and it would give them a bypass route to be used. They already own the property too! Unfortunately, with the building of the trench on Figueroa, I don't know if that would make it difficult to tie that portion back in with the line at some future point. I don't know, it just seems like an opportunity for Metro to have a centrally located rail storage and maintenance facility at a good price and without the headaches of building in quasi-residential areas of the Westside. Yes, and it became quite controversial a decade or so ago by activists representing the Latino residents nearby (sound familiar?). Referred to as the "non-revenue connector", it was considered when Expo was planned to go down Hill Street, as a way for Expo trains to get to the Blue Line maintenance facility. Its drawbacks are it is narrow, has frequent grade crossings, and now is inaccessable with the Flower-Figueroa underpass. It's eastern part was temporarily considered for the Expo phase 1 maintenance facility, before that was moved up to Washington (no houses nearby) and then downscaled. Here's a photo of palm trees temporarily stored on part of it:  |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 21, 2010 21:18:01 GMT -8
Darrell summarizes the history of this non-revenue connector rather well. I think that it will forever be looked at by mapwatchers for a lot of things, but it'll only be useful as a storage site for Metro...or perhaps Metro will sell it for some other land use purpose and/or developer.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 21, 2010 23:18:58 GMT -8
Metro should go east to Huntington Park. Good ridership potential there. As someone who grew up in HP, I fully agree. I'd really like to see light-rail -- either a Blue Line branch or a crosstown train -- that uses the Randolph Avenue tracks to connect to Huntington Park, and then the Union Pacific ROW along Salt Lake and Firestone to head southeast. It would probably have stops at Pacific/Randolph, State/Randolph, Florence/Salt Lake Ave, Atlantic near Firestone, Garfield/Firestone, etc. I can almost guarantee this would be very successful line in light-rail terms. Bus ridership and traffic are very much impacted in Huntington Park and on the east-west streets (Florence, Firestone, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 22, 2010 12:20:02 GMT -8
I would have loved for the eastern segment of the Santa Monica Exposition Line, between Flower St and the Blue Line, to be utilized. But, unfortunately, people who own homes think they own the city and they rised against it and they were well-supported by Jan Perry, who killed the nonrevenue connector. It would be a good connector, revenue or nonrevenue. And, as Darrell said, the trench makes a future connection very difficult unless they let the trains run in mixed traffic (share lanes with automobiles) on Exposition. But LACMTA values these rights-of-way greatly and they will never give them away under any circumstances. Even in Beverly Hills the old Pacific Electric right-of-way is fenced and protected and no one can touch it.
This segment is 2.23-mile-long and it has 14 grade crossings. Some of them can be eliminated by closing the street; so, you would be looking at about 10. This is about 4.5 crossings per mile or 50% more grade crossing than Expo Phase 1, which has 25 crossings / 8.7 miles = 2.9 crossings per mile. Expo Phase 2 will have 17 crossings / 6.6 miles = 2.6 crossings per mile, but 6 of these crossings are in the final mile on Colorado.
Basically, closer to Downton LA or Downtown Santa Monica you get, more grade crossings there are, as these are early settlements established in late 19th Century, and the rest of the Los Angeles metropolitan area is all quasisuburban so that you have few streets or coarser street grids and therefore few crossings. For example Fix Expo always made the argument that Culver City didn't get grade crossings because they are affluent and powerful, but in reality this area near Ballona Creek was all vacant land until 1960s and they didn't even have National Boulevard until recently and the line has never had grade crossings in this area as a result.
I was also shocked how they killed the Crenshaw Line maintenance facility by Rosecrans and Sepulveda at the intersection of the BNSF branch and the abandoned BNFS branch there. That's because Mayor of El Segundo opposed to it. Currently it's an industrial wasteland. I was also shocked how Ridley-Thomas took a hardcore stand against at-grade light-rail in general.
With such mentality of our local politicians, it will always be very, very difficult to build rail transit in Los Angeles. They want to live in the 1950s - 1980s past and they live in the past where people worshipped cars and cars ruled. So, it's against their religion to have visible tracks or trains. As the Old Egyptians buried themselves with their cats that they worshipped, they should bury these people with their cars after they die. So that the train demons can't get them in their graves.
|
|
|
|
Post by tobias087 on Mar 22, 2010 12:42:14 GMT -8
Even if the train demons can't reach graves, they will still be stealing Cheviot Hills' television sets.
Also, I would question the need for having the HRT Whittier route AND the SR-60 route AND the Washington route.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 22, 2010 13:24:24 GMT -8
I was also shocked how Ridley-Thomas took a hardcore stand against at-grade light-rail in general.. Ridley-Thomas (in my opinion) is opposed to at-grade light rail simply because he wants his pet project - the Crenshaw Line to be fully grade-separated. While it is true that Crenshaw line will be better with added grade-separations, Metro will be the ones paying for it unless it comes from the Feds. Politics as usual in Los Angeles. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 22, 2010 14:58:25 GMT -8
I think use of this ROW east of USC for a non-revenue connector would have provided no value to locals, at all.
The people living along this ROW are not wealthy homeowners: this is a very blighted industrial-residential area with a very low rate of homeownership. The houses range from very modest worker housing down to little shacks huddled in clusters next to factories.
If the ROW were used to provide revenue service, people might feel differently. But as proposed (non-revenue), this would be all cost and no benefit. I can't imagine any locals would support reactivation of the ROW just so trains could pass through on their way to the maintenance facility.
|
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Aug 21, 2010 10:58:00 GMT -8
|
|
