|
Post by James Fujita on May 6, 2011 14:47:09 GMT -8
I saw that article earlier today and that is definitely good news for the South Bay.
Of course, the next step will be to get the rest of the land cleaned up and sold to somebody who will make good use of it.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 9, 2011 3:56:54 GMT -8
I saw that article earlier today and that is definitely good news for the South Bay. Of course, the next step will be to get the rest of the land cleaned up and sold to somebody who will make good use of it. If I were a Torrance Transit rider, I wouldn't be grateful that the city is spending millions of dollars to convince me that as a bus rider, all I deserve is contaminated land.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 9, 2011 14:25:53 GMT -8
I saw that article earlier today and that is definitely good news for the South Bay. Of course, the next step will be to get the rest of the land cleaned up and sold to somebody who will make good use of it. If I were a Torrance Transit rider, I wouldn't be grateful that the city is spending millions of dollars to convince me that as a bus rider, all I deserve is contaminated land. *bzzt* I'm sorry, try again. There are whole companies dedicated to eliminating toxic contamination from old gas stations, old industrial areas and the like before they can be converted for other uses. If contamination were an unsolvable problem, we'd never be able to get the Wilshire subway through Fairfax.
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 12, 2011 4:05:53 GMT -8
*bzzt* I'm sorry, try again. There are whole companies dedicated to eliminating toxic contamination from old gas stations, old industrial areas and the like before they can be converted for other uses. Way to slice that golf ball, James. There's a bigger problem than giving the riders contaminated land. Are you familiar with this part of Torrance? The city most likely deliberately chose this part of Crenshaw for its very desolation. What has me the most upset is that Torrance Transit, like Metro and every other transit agency, carries riders that are poor and persons of color. They now transfer around a heavily trafficked shopping center, which is near the city hall, a medical center and several other shopping centers within a mile of the main mall. Now the poor, dark-skinned riders are being moved more than a mile away to a remote pocket of Torrance ... where they can't be seen. This would be a bigger safety hazard than a well-trafficked shopping center that's near the city's police department and a heavy private security detail in the mall.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 12, 2011 6:38:52 GMT -8
Way to slice that golf ball, James. There's a bigger problem than giving the riders contaminated land. Are you familiar with this part of Torrance? The city most likely deliberately chose this part of Crenshaw for its very desolation. What has me the most upset is that Torrance Transit, like Metro and every other transit agency, carries riders that are poor and persons of color. They now transfer around a heavily trafficked shopping center, which is near the city hall, a medical center and several other shopping centers within a mile of the main mall. Now the poor, dark-skinned riders are being moved more than a mile away to a remote pocket of Torrance ... where they can't be seen. This would be a bigger safety hazard than a well-trafficked shopping center that's near the city's police department and a heavy private security detail in the mall. What about the non-poor, white, and middle-class people? Don't you think this affects them as well? This decision affects ALL PASSENGERS. And I've seen people on Torrance transit who are not just "dark-skinned" or "poor". Let's please stop with race baiting on message boards. The BRU is prime for that...or the OC register comment system. Let's talk about what affects RIDERS...no matter their race and creed.
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on May 12, 2011 9:21:33 GMT -8
I saw that article earlier today and that is definitely good news for the South Bay. Of course, the next step will be to get the rest of the land cleaned up and sold to somebody who will make good use of it. I use to live in Torrance for most of the 80's. I took a few horticulture classes at El Camino College. The prof told me the world's biggest producer of DDT was still operating in Torrance. DDT had been banned for several years for use in the States but it was still legal at the time to manufacture it and sell it to countries where it was still legal. It was off Normandie Ave but I don't know how far the property extended. I remember it became a Superfund site somewhere in the 90's. The company name was something similar to Monsanto. Anyone else remember? How close was the contaminated site to the new transportation center? DS
|
|
|
Post by 11ball on May 12, 2011 9:36:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 12, 2011 11:24:20 GMT -8
*bzzt* I'm sorry, try again. There are whole companies dedicated to eliminating toxic contamination from old gas stations, old industrial areas and the like before they can be converted for other uses. Way to slice that golf ball, James. There's a bigger problem than giving the riders contaminated land. Are you familiar with this part of Torrance? The city most likely deliberately chose this part of Crenshaw for its very desolation. I'm not even going to comment on the second half of your remarks, LAofAnaheim covered that sufficiently. I don't think Torrance picked that location because of its "desolation." I think they picked it because that's where the train tracks cross Crenshaw. They know that's where light rail is going to go. That's where the ROW is, same as with the Blue Line, the Gold Line and the Expo Line. There happens to be a good-sized bit of open, NIMBY-free land there, land which isn't available further south on the ROW. That's land which can be converted to something new. And, I might add that Crenshaw is a major artery through the South Bay. Easy access to all of Torrance and to the freeway. Del Amo didn't want the bus terminal. And Montrose is a red herring. That's way over on the other side of Western. Honda's HQ on Torrance Boulevard needed cleanup work before it could be transformed into the clean, post-industrial campus it is now. As we have been fond of pointing out, Beverly Hills HS has oil fields underneath it. And methane underneath Wilshire. Metro (or rather, its contractors) will have to drill through all of that. The new Torrance Transit multimodal center will be just fine.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2011 20:33:49 GMT -8
Guys I believe I read an article recently in the latimes about the sale of a property near the Torrance Transit Center.
I've been trying to find it, but no luck.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 14, 2011 20:44:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jun 14, 2011 23:03:06 GMT -8
the transit center is near Crenshaw and 208th
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 15, 2011 14:18:41 GMT -8
well, I suppose 19500 Mariner Avenue could be considered "near" the new transit center if you consider Hawthorne to be near Crenshaw. It is near the Harbor Sub as it zips diagonally through Torrance.
Actually, I didn't know where 19500 Mariner Avenue was until I Googled it. The world is filled with little side streets which go from nowhere to nowhere. As it turns out, Mariner is near the corner of 190th and Hawthorne.
Google is a great source of information, I highly recommend it to any and all transit fans.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 10, 2012 21:21:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 10, 2012 21:37:58 GMT -8
Would there be a stop at 190th street and Hawthorne, and then the terminus at the TTC that is being built?
The 190th st station would be walking distance from a house i own!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Aug 3, 2015 10:10:58 GMT -8
Yeah it's a big thread bump, I know, but: Am I the only one out there who's starting to think that after the Green Line hits the TRTC (whenever that is...), it should briefly break of from the Subdivision ROW and quick run through old town Torrance via Dominguez, Sartori and Cabrillo before jumping back on the Subdivision? The reason I think this is that I feel having a station in Old Town at El Prado or something would be better than having it on Carson St at the Subdivision. It's a denser area, right in the middle of town with tons of jobs nearby, and is within walking distance to the Honda Factory. I know this would be asking a lot for just one station being relocated, but i'm wondering if the benefits of such a small realignment would outweigh the costs. EDIT: I just realized I never responded to rubbertoe's post lol:Would there be a stop at 190th street and Hawthorne, and then the terminus at the TTC that is being built? The 190th st station would be walking distance from a house i own! Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards According to the studies (had to dig through them a bit), there would indeed be a station at Hawthorne & 190th. Hope you still own that house!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 3, 2015 11:54:58 GMT -8
This must be the longest EIR process for Metro Rail yet.
The Alternative Analysis started in 2008 (I think) and the DEIR started in December 2009. It's 2015 and we still don't have a preliminary draft.
How can a 4 station light rail extension completely within an existing ROW take this long?
Looking back on the Expo line Phase 2 EIR process, we were already in the FEIR process at the same point.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Aug 3, 2015 19:23:22 GMT -8
Is there funding for this extension? I'm thinking that the delay may be funding related.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 3, 2015 21:58:05 GMT -8
This must be the longest EIR process for Metro Rail yet. The Alternative Analysis started in 2008 (I think) and the DEIR started in December 2009. It's 2015 and we still don't have a preliminary draft. How can a 4 station light rail extension completely within an existing ROW take this long? Looking back on the Expo line Phase 2 EIR process, we were already in the FEIR process at the same point. Is there funding for this extension? I'm thinking that the delay may be funding related. This came up at the planing committee meeting in July in discussion related to the Eastside Gold Line Extension. Apparently the FTA will not allow the draft eir to be released to the public until a funding plan is in place. Because the green line extension is not due to be completed according to measure R in 2035 and funding does not become available until 2028, there is no funding plan currently in place which means the draft eir becomes mothballed until there is a funding plan. The thing to keep in mind with that is that measure R only provided $272 million while the total cost to Torrance was estimated at $500-600 million. That is why it is important for the potential new sales tax measure to pass, so that projects like this can get the funding needed to finish the projects. The exception for the eastside gold line extension was because the two alternatives being proposed were so dramatically different (60 freeway vs. Washington Blvd) they allowed that to be released to get feedback and allow for further study. You can listen to the meeting where this comes up at this link: Planning and Programming Committee - 7/15/2015The green line extension gets mentioned shortly after the 29 minute mark.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 13, 2015 17:19:40 GMT -8
If the extension diverges from the old Santa Fe route and goes through downtown Torrance, it will be following the Pacific Electric Torrance Shops branch. The proposed Torrance Transit Terminal at Crenshaw & 208th will be within a mile or two of the long-vanished PE Torrance Shops complex.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Apr 4, 2018 7:49:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 5, 2018 10:46:52 GMT -8
My wife used to work near Torrance Airport and we spent a lot of time traversing and experiencing the area. Hawthorne is very seductive from a rail standpoint because the street is insanely wide. However, when residents say they want rail on Hawthorne or think Rail would work on Hawthorne they mean something extremely different from Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternatives 3 and 4 seem to be trying to accommodate a resident feedback about using Hawthorne but are missing the forest for the trees. What residents mean is that they think Rail should extend all the way down Hawthorne as far as possible, to sepulveda or the Airport as a continuous Trunk Line. They do not mean a little 1 to 2 mile diversion on Hawthorne with one Hawthorne station. Nobody probably wants that, what they want is not on the table, but what metro is offering as a response to their comments is not really addressing what their comments mean. I would say Alternatives 1 and 2 are the best, with my preference for Alternative 1. Alternatives 3 and 4 enormously increase cost, ridership time, and construction disruption for little to no benefit in ridership numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 5, 2018 12:07:04 GMT -8
I assume the detour to Hawthrone has higher ridership potential, otherwise there is no reason to do it. So if that is the case, I think alternative 4 is the best choice... cost about the same as alt 3 but eliminates most surface crossing and saves 1.5 minutes of travel time. But if there is no ridership benefit, then I'm not sure why alt 3 and 4 are even on the table.
The wildcard here is if Southbay Galleria eventually get's redeveloped for housing... then the ROW alignment alt 1 is a plus (also the cheapest).
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Apr 6, 2018 11:19:31 GMT -8
Hawthorne Bl going back over one hundred years had the Los Angeles and Redondo ROW down the middle. Later to become the PE and the Los Angeles Railway. But at what is now the Galleria the tracks turned toward old Redondo going under the Santa Fe at El Nido Park. But yes going down the entire length of Hawthorne BL to Inglewood via the Forum area on Prairie to the Crenshaw line. But most likely in fifty years.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 9, 2018 7:24:14 GMT -8
Hawthorne Bl going back over one hundred years had the Los Angeles and Redondo ROW down the middle. Later to become the PE and the Los Angeles Railway. But at what is now the Galleria the tracks turned toward old Redondo going under the Santa Fe at El Nido Park. But yes going down the entire length of Hawthorne BL to Inglewood via the Forum area on Prairie to the Crenshaw line. But most likely in fifty years. Yep, I think at that point they met up with the Redondo Beach via Gardena route. May have been a bit south of where the Galleria now stands, maybe closer to 182nd St. Also, in that great electric railway shakeup in 1911 (I think), LARy got the line on Hawthorne up to the PE El Segundo line (which in later years, operated as a diesel freight line by Southern Pacific, actually went through the parking lot of the old Hawthorne Mall). PE then branched off the El Segundo Line down Hawthorne, eventually meeting up with the Gardena line. All PE rail service on Hawthorne and Redondo via Gardena ended by 1940. El Segundo might have run a little longer, but eventually became freight only.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 10, 2018 10:58:47 GMT -8
I am confounded by the placement of stops. In all of the alternatives. It seems like Metro often bends over backwards to avoid placing stations where people might use them.
I'm guessing that the proposed stop at 166th/Hawthorne is a concession from Metro to the City of Lawndale. Why else would they choose a minor intersection in a super low-density part of the street? Seriously, there is nothing there but gas stations, parking lots and little one-story shops and houses.
I would much rather see an elevated station at Redondo/Artesia/Hawthorne. This is where the destinations are, where the buses run, where the traffic is. In other words, this is the location where all the big red flashing indicators of where to put a station exists.
A station at that great confluence of boulevards would allow for so many bus connections, and would become something of a mini transit hub all by itself. Not to mention it would serve the South Bay Galleria. Buy the land on that triangle, tear down the Walgreens, and build a full service hub for buses and rail.
I've visited many cities with transit, in the U.S. and abroad. And I can't remember any city that spends so much on a transit line only to build a station in such an insignificant and useless place as 166th/Hawthorne.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Aug 1, 2018 23:01:32 GMT -8
According to page 18 of this PDF, the draft Metro Planning and Programming agenda for July 2018 included an item to move the Green Line extension to the EIS/EIR phase, with Alternatives 1 & 3 to move forward (though they want to modify each alternative to remove a station). They listened to metrocenter and are recommending removing the 166th/Hawthorne station on Alternative 3. The final July agenda did not include this. It seems likely this will be on the September agenda: media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_bospacket_2018-0717.pdf
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 2, 2018 8:39:27 GMT -8
According to page 18 of this PDF, the draft Metro Planning and Programming agenda for July 2018 included an item to move the Green Line extension to the EIS/EIR phase, with Alternatives 1 & 3 to move forward (though they want to modify each alternative to remove a station). They listened to metrocenter and are recommending removing the 166th/Hawthorne station on Alternative 3. The final July agenda did not include this. It seems likely this will be on the September agenda: media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_bospacket_2018-0717.pdfInteresting, also looks like the above grade passenger concourse at union station is going forward, unfortunately. However looks like metro link is getting ten miles of double tracking from Roxford to Brighton, though I've no idea what line that would be on.
|
|
|
Post by exporider on Aug 2, 2018 9:37:17 GMT -8
According to page 18 of this PDF, the draft Metro Planning and Programming agenda for July 2018 included an item to move the Green Line extension to the EIS/EIR phase, with Alternatives 1 & 3 to move forward (though they want to modify each alternative to remove a station). They listened to metrocenter and are recommending removing the 166th/Hawthorne station on Alternative 3. The final July agenda did not include this. It seems likely this will be on the September agenda: media.metro.net/about_us/committees/images/agenda_bospacket_2018-0717.pdfInteresting, also looks like the above grade passenger concourse at union station is going forward, unfortunately. However looks like metro link is getting ten miles of double tracking from Roxford to Brighton, though I've no idea what line that would be on. Google Maps shows those streets (Roxford and Brighton) to be in Sylmar and Santa Clarita, respectively, so I'd guess that this is on the Antelope Valley Line. Could they doing this to be prepared for CA-HSR?
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 2, 2018 9:59:11 GMT -8
Interesting, also looks like the above grade passenger concourse at union station is going forward, unfortunately. However looks like metro link is getting ten miles of double tracking from Roxford to Brighton, though I've no idea what line that would be on. Google Maps shows those streets (Roxford and Brighton) to be in Sylmar and Santa Clarita, respectively, so I'd guess that this is on the Antelope Valley Line. Could they doing this to be prepared for CA-HSR? Yes and no, it’s possible this is part of the corridor hsr will need double track for. But Burbank airport to union station is already 100% double tracked. The section that might be used for hsr might be the sylmar to Burbank airport section, which is all single track. Rockford to Brighton is all north of the hsr alignment. Rockford to balboa already has a double track/siding. Balboa to the tunnel is about 2.5 miles and a lot of the alignment to newhall has double track as well. But metrolink has a whole multi billion dollar plan to double track to improve timed overtakes (so they can increase headways) and eventually to electrify over fifty ish years. Most of the double tracks are being broken into smallish segments based on their funding. Very few sections are above twenty million iirc. The costliest is a 1 billion double tracking for forty miles from Palmdale to Santa Clarita, which I doubt will ever be funded. But I think the antelope valley line has relatively few sections that need to be upgraded to double track between union station and newhall. If they can double track just about everything in between they should be able to improve speed and headways of the service. Shoot if the service has even thirty minute headways I’d have probably been using it for the last three months since the final transfer off metrolink isn’t that insurmountable. THe problem is with 70 minute metrolink headways on the antelope valley line, a bus or ride share connection to metrolink for the return trip is an extremely risky proposition. If I mistime the transfer because a bus is late I’m stuck for hours waiting for the next train. If I just pad in way more time to wait at the metro link station by not trying to time the transfer at all and just arrive stupid early. It’s the transfers and the station waiting that increase the commute time to far unacceptable levels for me. If buses were every five minutes and trains every fifteen minutes I would take he train every day. But with stupidly infrequent service it means there is functionally no reliability I can depend on, and my schedule requires a flexibility with the hours I’m working.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Aug 2, 2018 10:46:15 GMT -8
Interesting, also looks like the above grade passenger concourse at union station is going forward, unfortunately. Says approval paused, so I suppose there's still hope. But if they're bent on above-ground, they really need to re-plan the escalator system more efficiently to minimize the walking.
|
|