|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 22, 2010 18:49:44 GMT -8
I'll be trying to go to as many of those as possible. But I can't go to the one in Lawndale because I have class.
Lawndale has a loud opposition to the line and I'd appreciate anyone who can come and support it. We need this line in the South Bay to improve mobility and allow for existing services to become more useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 1, 2010 10:26:20 GMT -8
Shoot, when I crossposted (spammed) the October transit meeting calendar yesterday, I forgot to include these meetings. Four public meetings for the South Bay Harbor Sub DEIR have been scheduled between October 20 and October 26. See the project page for details. Anybody interested in the future of this corridor ( jdrcrasher, I'm talking to you  ) should plan to attend at least one of these meetings. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2010 12:53:51 GMT -8
Reminder: two meetings left in the current series related to the South Bay Green Line Extension. Monday, October 25, 2010, 6-8 PM
North Redondo Senior Center, Perry Park
2308 Rockefeller Lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Served by Metro Line 130 and Torrance Transit Line 8.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6-8 PM
Flight Path Learning Center
6661 West Imperial Highway
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Served by Beach City Transit Line 109. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 25, 2010 14:50:45 GMT -8
What is the optimal way to extend this further to San Pedro or to meet up with the Blue Line in Long Beach?
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 26, 2010 1:15:57 GMT -8
San Pedro ...
Harbor Sub -> Normandie Ave -> Gaffey St -> Right of way that starts around Gaffey St at Westmont Dr
Harbor Sub -> I-110 -> Right of way on Pacific Ave.
It has been made clear that the destination for Long Beach would have to be Willow Station.. right now the Harbor Subdivision ends at the Alameda Corridor... so how you get up to Sepulveda Blvd (later turns into Willow St) could happen a few ways..
Harbor Sub -> Avalon Blvd -> Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St -> Willow Station
Harbor Sub -> Wilmington Ave -> Sepulveda Blvd / Willow St -> Willow Station
It's a bit hard with the right of way hitting the large industrial area.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 26, 2010 10:27:18 GMT -8
What is the optimal way to extend this further to San Pedro or to meet up with the Blue Line in Long Beach? Long Beach option: - Harbor Subdivision right of way to Alameda St - Switch over to a street alignment on Sepulveda @ Sepulveda/Alameda - Sepulveda turns into Willow once it goes past I-710. - The Pink line can then terminates at Willow Station in the short run; In the long run, it needs to continue for another 2 miles to LGB. San Pedro option: There isn't a lot of good options because all the streets run thru some low density housing or industrial areas between Sepulveda and heart of San Pedro. Western Ave is probably the best option from ridership perspective but Normandie is probably cheaper due to existing right of way. - Harbor Subdivision to Western Ave - Turn South on street alignment on Western - Turn east on 1st street to Harbor Blvd - Turn south on Harbor Blvd and follow the shore line to Water Front Terminal or - Harbor Subdivision to Normandie Ave - Turn South on street alignment on Normandie - Rail right of way right before Anaheim St - Water Front Terminal Map! |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 26, 2010 14:26:52 GMT -8
^ Woah, I support extending it to the Blue Line (i'd rather have the Red Line handle San Pedro), but I would much rather have it turn on Lakewood (and someday link with a Rosemead/Lakewood LRT) than going through a golf course to get to LB Airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 27, 2010 7:20:08 GMT -8
(crossposted on Harbor Sub) Last night, I went to meeting 4/4 of the latest set of South Bay Extension meetings. I want to clarify some of my previous statements on the current state of this project. There are four options for this project: - No Build
- TSM (enhanced bus service)
- 4.6-mile light rail extension from the Green Line terminus to Torrance RTC
- 8.6-mile "freight track" line from Century/Aviation (LAX) to Torrance RTC, using Metrolink or Self-Propelled vehicles.
At yesterday's small meeting (~40 people), most support was for the Green Line extension (LRT), although there was also support for keeping the freight track open to allow future Metrolink service. There was also quite a bit of concern from people owning homes near the tracks that their property values would drop. One guy was very angry and demanded dollar-for-dollar compensation for the drop in his home value (which staff politely told him would not happen). The next set of meetings will be in next spring. In the meantime, staff will be posting the presentations from this meeting series online. Staff expects to complete the DEIR around a year from now. All the latest is here. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 27, 2010 11:52:49 GMT -8
San Pedro option: There isn't a lot of good options because all the streets run thru some low density housing or industrial areas between Sepulveda and heart of San Pedro. Western Ave is probably the best option from ridership perspective but Normandie is probably cheaper due to existing right of way. - Harbor Subdivision to Western Ave - Turn South on street alignment on Western - Turn east on 1st street to Harbor Blvd - Turn south on Harbor Blvd and follow the shore line to Water Front Terminal or - Harbor Subdivision to Normandie Ave - Turn South on street alignment on Normandie - Rail right of way right before Anaheim St - Water Front Terminal San Pedro via Western would be two blocks from my mom's condo XD EDIT: I do wonder about the First Street routing. Buses do use 1st, but they also travel over to 7th for the hospital. (But the San Francisco-sized hills may prove an engineering challenge?) Then there's downtown San Pedro. I can just imagine local community leaders' reactions when they see that the train will go to Rancho San Pedro (locally known for lovely RSP 13 graffiti) but not the harbor offices, restaurants, cruise ship hotels and condos on 5th, 6th and 7th? A bus is not a train. The best route for a bus may not necessarily be best for a train, which might capture a wider audience than the bus. I'd be happy if San Pedro got linked to Metro Rail one way or another, but even in our dream routes, let's get our dreams right.... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 27, 2010 12:34:10 GMT -8
It would be cool to see the train travel right below the Vincent St. Thomas bridge between San Pedro to Long Beach. That would be a stunning visual for LA.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 27, 2010 13:01:04 GMT -8
It would be cool to see the train travel right below the Vincent St. Thomas bridge between San Pedro to Long Beach. That would be a stunning visual for LA. You know, I used to make the "St. Vincent Thomas" mistake a lot. Didn't know who Assemblyman Vincent Thomas was. Not sure about the engineering issues with a rail deck underneath the auto deck on the bridge. Maybe our Chinese COSCO friends (who sometimes seem to have taken over half the harbor) could help us out. Or a tunnel under the main channel. Wouldn't have the wow factor, but it might be easier. A train across Terminal Island is tempting to me because I know what Tokyo has done with its harbor. All sorts of crazy stuff, from the ferris wheel at Palette Town to Tokyo Big Sight, home of Comiket. And several train lines to what used to be strictly industrial (or non-existant, as Japan likes to build artificial islands). Slowly returning to reality, the trouble with going across Terminal Island is that it's a straight shot from San Pedro to Long Beach, with no stations in between, (and no chance for amusement parks). It would be useful as an express train. But a San Pedro-Wilmington-Long Beach route would serve a larger population. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 27, 2010 14:48:46 GMT -8
Again, a straight shot to Long Beach is better, IMO. Leave San Pedro for the Vermont Corridor like in Damien Goodmon's map.
Besides, wouldn't there be a lot more tape to go through from San Pedro to Long Beach?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 27, 2010 15:15:47 GMT -8
Again, a straight shot to Long Beach is better, IMO. Leave San Pedro for the Vermont Corridor like in Damien Goodmon's map. Besides, wouldn't there be a lot more tape to go through from San Pedro to Long Beach? I'm not sure what you mean by tape. Red tape? Any route from Torrance to Long Beach would preferably go through Harbor City/ Harbor Gateway and Wilmington, maybe south Carson. The route from San Pedro to Long Beach wouldn't be much different (unless we attempt Terminal Island ;D ) All things considered, the Vermont Corridor from central Los Angeles down to San Pedro might be more important than either Torrance to San Pedro or Torrance to Long Beach. And San Pedro to Long Beach would probably be after either of those. |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 27, 2010 16:32:46 GMT -8
Isn't there a proposal to extend the San Pedro streetcar to Long Beach?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 27, 2010 16:55:32 GMT -8
^ Woah, I support extending it to the Blue Line (i'd rather have the Red Line handle San Pedro), but I would much rather have it turn on Lakewood (and someday link with a Rosemead/Lakewood LRT) than going through a golf course to get to LB Airport. Wouldn't it better to have a separate Rosemead line meet up with the Pink line at LGB instead of extending the Pink line north to Rosemead? That would make one hell of a long LRT line... from Hollywood/Highland to Rosemead via LAX and Long Beach? They are separate corridors and there is no need to shotgun them together... |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 27, 2010 17:20:57 GMT -8
San Pedro via Western would be two blocks from my mom's condo XD EDIT: I do wonder about the First Street routing. Buses do use 1st, but they also travel over to 7th for the hospital. (But the San Francisco-sized hills may prove an engineering challenge?) Then there's downtown San Pedro. I can just imagine local community leaders' reactions when they see that the train will go to Rancho San Pedro (locally known for lovely RSP 13 graffiti) but not the harbor offices, restaurants, cruise ship hotels and condos on 5th, 6th and 7th? A bus is not a train. The best route for a bus may not necessarily be best for a train, which might capture a wider audience than the bus. I'd be happy if San Pedro got linked to Metro Rail one way or another, but even in our dream routes, let's get our dreams right.... ;D Initially, I picked 1st Street because I wanted the Western Ave option to replace the San Pedro Streetcar. But I guess that made me miss Downtown San Pedro... I think I like your idea better - have the Pink line go down 6th and 7th. I will change the map  maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=109982261189696647553.00049388ebc1fd973fd89&ll=33.787137,-118.23658&spn=0.183758,0.363579&z=12 |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 27, 2010 17:26:51 GMT -8
A train across Terminal Island is tempting to me because I know what Tokyo has done with its harbor. All sorts of crazy stuff, from the ferris wheel at Palette Town to Tokyo Big Sight, home of Comiket. And several train lines to what used to be strictly industrial (or non-existant, as Japan likes to build artificial islands). Slowly returning to reality, the trouble with going across Terminal Island is that it's a straight shot from San Pedro to Long Beach, with no stations in between, (and no chance for amusement parks). It would be useful as an express train. But a San Pedro-Wilmington-Long Beach route would serve a larger population. When I was in Tokyo this year, I took the train that goes across the harbor on Rainbow Bridge to Daiba... just so I can ride across the bridge. I know exactly what you are talking about... it's a nice  The problem with us re-creating something similar is that no one actually want to go visit Terminal Island... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 27, 2010 17:55:48 GMT -8
Wouldn't it better to have a separate Rosemead line meet up with the Pink line at LGB instead of extending the Pink line north to Rosemead? That would make one hell of a long LRT line... from Hollywood/Highland to Rosemead via LAX and Long Beach? They are separate corridors and there is no need to shotgun them together... Someone on this forum spoke of a "Circle Line", and i'm giving it to them. But they indeed can be seperate lines, with Long Beach Airport being the transfer station. Pink Line? Are you talking about Crenshaw? I'd rather have the Rosemead Line meet the 405 Corridor (Sylmar Metrolink-UCLA-LAX-South Bay-Long Beach). Crenshaw (or "Pink Line") I think should eventually break off from it's LAX route and instead head to the Del Amo Mall via Hawthorne, Prarie, or even further on Crenshaw which could all use rail service. But this is a ways down into the future once the Green Line LAX extension, People Mover, and Harbor Subdivision projects are all finished. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 27, 2010 18:29:59 GMT -8
A train across Terminal Island is tempting to me because I know what Tokyo has done with its harbor. All sorts of crazy stuff, from the ferris wheel at Palette Town to Tokyo Big Sight, home of Comiket. And several train lines to what used to be strictly industrial (or non-existant, as Japan likes to build artificial islands). Slowly returning to reality, the trouble with going across Terminal Island is that it's a straight shot from San Pedro to Long Beach, with no stations in between, (and no chance for amusement parks). It would be useful as an express train. But a San Pedro-Wilmington-Long Beach route would serve a larger population. When I was in Tokyo this year, I took the train that goes across the harbor on Rainbow Bridge to Daiba... just so I can ride across the bridge. I know exactly what you are talking about... it's a nice The problem with us re-creating something similar is that no one actually want to go visit Terminal Island... ;D well, they might if we did what the Japanese did. Odaiba was completely redeveloped from a Terminal Island-ish industrial harbor to a waterfront tourist destination... crazy as it sounds, Japan is that crazy ;D Of course, what we are attempting to do in San Pedro is move all of the industrial stuff to the Terminal Island side so that there would be more room for a tourist waterfront on the San Pedro side, but unfortunately bringing tourist attractions to San Pedro has been slow (thanks to NIMBYs, neighborhood councils, fighting... you know the drill...) It's a shame, because expansion of the Waterfront Red Car Line has been linked to San Pedro waterfront development, much as the LAX peoplemover has been linked to expansion there. JDRCrasher asked about the Red Car Line: The Red Car Line needs more Red Cars, more passing tracks, and there's talk of expanding as far as Banning's Landing in Wilmington (and south to Cabrillo Beach). Long Beach might be stretching things a bit..... |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 28, 2010 0:08:10 GMT -8
The current version of the Waterfront Red Car is limited to (as I recall) 19 mph, which would be rather poky if that speed prevailed all the way to Long Beach. Also, the line has gone from two cars running Friday through Monday to one car Friday through Sunday. There was some discussion of a permanent "carbarn", but last time I visited San Pedro, they were still using the temporary tent-like structure that has served for over seven years now. As far as new cars for a longer line are concerned, I think they have trucks and motors on hand for one or two more replicas. Crossing Terminal Island would involve two bridges (with stiff grades on the approaches) and maybe an elevated railway structure to clear all the truck traffic, so I think it's in the "That dog won't hunt" category. Running through Wilmington also has relatively limited passenger potential, plus I've read that some sections of that area are "bring your pit bull and your Uzi" country.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 25, 2011 11:09:42 GMT -8
Metro staff is recommending that the so-called "Freight Track Alternative" be eliminated from consideration for the South Bay Extension to Torrance. At the January 2011 Metro Board meeting, the Board will consider the recommendation and possibly vote on it. The freight track alternative would have run DMU trains along the existing freight corridor, with fewer stops, between Torrance and LAX. Metro staff cited lack of public support for the alternative, as well as the fact that it would have fewer stations, it would operate at longer headways (15 minutes), it would be noisier, a transfer would be required at LAX/Aviation, and fewer riders would probably ride it (estimated 4,000 per day). An FTA representative agreed with this assessment. The agenda item is here. If this passes, it will mean the environmental study will only consider the LRT alignment to Torrance, along with the required "No-Build" and TSM options. Here is an image of the remaining LRT alignment (shown as a dark green dashed line between the current Green Line terminus and Torrance):  |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 25, 2011 12:25:40 GMT -8
LRT extension makes the most sense given that Green line and Crenshaw are both LRT. Let's get the DEIR done and start construction!
I hope to ride the train from North Hollywood to Long Beach one day... before I start collecting social security!
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jan 25, 2011 12:52:11 GMT -8
bzcat, technically you already can with one transfer from the Red to the Blue Line. I guess you mean from Hollywood to Long Beach without a transfer via an extended Crenshaw corridor that runs through on the South Bay extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 25, 2011 14:37:54 GMT -8
This extension is currently way down near the bottom of Metro's list of "priority projects".
The push to complete the EIR is in case 30/10 gets implemented. But unless it does, this project won't receive Measure R funding until 2028, and won't be completed until 2035.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 25, 2011 18:20:47 GMT -8
bzcat, technically you already can with one transfer from the Red to the Blue Line. I guess you mean from Hollywood to Long Beach without a transfer via an extended Crenshaw corridor that runs through on the South Bay extension. I mean the Crenshaw line of course... That goes without saying ;D |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 14, 2011 14:32:28 GMT -8
I am cross-posting the following here, because if the Crenshaw Corridor and the Green Line Extension projects get green-lit, they will both use the new maintenance facility, and will both contribute to its cost. The SDEIR public comment period is now closed, and Metro Staff is recommending adoption of Site 14 (Arbor Vitae/Bellanca) as the future location of the Crenshaw Corridor maintenance facility. The facility will be located just north of the future Century/Aviation station. It will span 17.6 acres, and cost ~$280 million to develop, with the cost to be shared among the three projects which will use it (Crenshaw Corridor, South Bay Extension and LAX Extension). The site had no public objections and all impacts can be mitigated. A full description of the site can be found here. The recommendation will go to the Planning and Programming Committee on Wednesday April 20, and to the Measure R Project Delivery Committee on Thursday April 21. It will then move forward to the full Metro Board on Thursday April 28. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 10:39:56 GMT -8
The South Bay extension is generating organized resistance. There were hints of this at the meetings last year, with a few people being very angry about the idea of trains passing frequently behind their houses. Now it appears that they are mobilizing for a fight. Story from Neon Tommy: L.A. MTA Faces Tough Crowd In Lawndale Over Green LineThe L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority held a community meeting Thursday in Lawndale to discuss a proposed extension to the South Bay Metro Green Line.
The proposed project would extend the Green Line from its current terminus in Redondo Beach to Torrance and eventually be connected to a larger public transit network that is also being planned.
However, the crowd of concerned citizens who gathered for the last meeting in a series of three could best be described as contentious.
“My property value is going to drop $50,000 or $60,000 right off the bat,” said Lawndale resident Gary White to boisterous applause from most of the attendees. “This project is going to cost $500 million and nobody is going to use it, it’s a boondoggle.”
The project would be at least partially funded by Measure R, which citizens of Los Angeles voted for in 2008, but Measure R would provide only $272 million, about half the projected total cost of the four-and-a-half mile extension.
Daniel Rojas, a graduating senior at UCLA spoke in favor the proposed extension of the Green Line and was heavily booed by the crowd after suggesting that not everyone present would be alive to see the project finished.
“Think about the future and your children,” said Rojas before being drowned out by booing.
Other community members insisted that the extension would have very few riders because of the locations it would run to.
“This line would be like a bridge to nowhere,” said Bob Thegze. “It would run to an oil refinery.”
The MTA is also looking at an option to construct a shorter segment of the proposed extension using only the $272 million provided by Measure R. That line would stop at the South Bay Galleria.
However, some citizens were opposed to the construction of even a truncated railway running through their community.
“There is nothing special about the South Bay Galleria,” said Thegze. “People have their own galleria’s in their own communities, they won’t ride this train to come to the South Bay Galleria.”
Another concern voiced by attending community members was the safety of children if the rail line should run through their neighborhood.
“We’re not trying to stop progress,” said one Redondo Beach resident Laurie Prinzi. “We just want them to move the project.” |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 18, 2011 10:53:24 GMT -8
Exact same NIMBY talking points for Expo... mind numbing stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 18, 2011 12:12:10 GMT -8
The project is already handicapped by low ridership projections and a lack of a "destination" terminus ("Torrance RTC" really is in the middle of nowhere, among the refineries).
Unfortunately, the project team (Metro staff plus consultants) has not done a great job of selling the project. NIMBY opposition has been building since the beginning, and so far as I have seen, the team has said almost nothing to allay people's concerns.
Add to that the fact that transit advocates are not showing up to these meetings, and you get the appearance of overwhelming opposition to the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 18, 2011 12:12:55 GMT -8
This is getting ridiculous...between the NIMBYs in Beverly Hills fighting the Purple Line, the lawsuit from the landholder regarding the Foothill Gold Line, and the nonsense from NFSR (which hopefully we can count as finished with) that we've endured throughout the Expo Line, it's becoming more of a burden to build rail than ever.
Meanwhile, other areas, like West Hollywood, who are clamoring for rail (and who turned out in numbers to vote for Measure R) may not see any rail in our lifetimes.
I don't really have a horse in this particular fight (I hardly ever venture down to the South Bay), but unless the transit advocates of the community rise up and demand this line to be built, I don't know how it's going to happen.
|
|
) should plan to attend at least one of these meetings.
