|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 8, 2014 15:30:00 GMT -8
12.1 APPROVE Motion by Directors DuBois and Knabe that staff investigates coordination or potential connectivity that does not preclude integration of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and the West Santa Ana Branch (Eco-Rapid Transit) Project. metro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=361 |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 9, 2014 9:53:39 GMT -8
12.1 APPROVE Motion by Directors DuBois and Knabe that staff investigates coordination or potential connectivity that does not preclude integration of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and the West Santa Ana Branch (Eco-Rapid Transit) Project. metro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=361In other words, Metro is going to find a way to connect/integrate West Santa Ana Branch with existing Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension. If the West Santa Ana Branch is LRT it could be built to interline with the Gold Line to Union Station by connecting at some yet undetermined place. I don't know southeast LA County very well, but there's no downsides to having more rail operations in southeast LA County! |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 9, 2014 10:52:30 GMT -8
Sounds like Kanabe is trying to make sure East Bank option remains on the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 9, 2014 11:11:45 GMT -8
Sounds like Kanabe is trying to make sure East Bank option remains on the table. What is the East Bank option? |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 9, 2014 19:44:07 GMT -8
They, Thx4GngMtro, the East Bank and West Bank options are the routes being considered to take the line from the Maywood Av./Randolph St. point through to LAUS. East Bank and West Bank 1 run north along Downey Rd. and West Bank 2 & 3 run west along Randolph St. You can find all that and a lot more information in the Alternative Analysis report www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Pages/Completed%20Studies.aspxWest Bank option 3 is the one that eventually ends up on Alameda St. north to LAUS. To me, this one makes sense. The East Bank option seems like a nightmare. The portion of Downey Rd. between Bandini Bl. and Union Pacific Av. is cluttered with pre-existing service tracks that run, not just freight, but also Metrolink and Amtrak service. This also happens to be the second costliest option. What I found upsetting is that they didn't study the possibility of running the tracks along Randolph St. to merge onto the Blue Line tracks and then diverge onto its own tracks north of Washington Bl. to wind up on Alameda St. by way of a tunnel or at-grade along Long Beach Bl. and space under I-10. |
|
|
|
Post by andert on Dec 9, 2014 21:29:31 GMT -8
I agree that merging onto the Blue Line for that stretch far and away seems to make the most sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Dec 10, 2014 6:48:10 GMT -8
How about a little English here? what does it mean or what does it not mean? In other words, Metro is going to find a way to connect/integrate West Santa Ana Branch with existing Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension. If the West Santa Ana Branch is LRT it could be built to interline with the Gold Line to Union Station by connecting at some yet undetermined place. I don't know southeast LA County very well, but there's no downsides to having more rail operations in southeast LA County! Well, technically they did not support that option that strongly. They said they would look into options that might work to connect the West Santa Ana Branch Line with the Gold Line Eastside Extension. There's some indication they are leaning that way, but they have in no way committed to it. |
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 10, 2014 10:42:27 GMT -8
They could take this line up the 605 freeway to the tie Eastside Extension Phase 2 on either Washington or 60 freeway as a branch line or as an extension or have it intersect the GLEE going north to Pasadena
I saw MoveLA was advocating a "605 Line" that would do something similar. Also, part of the mitigation of the 710 freeway extension to the 210 was to provide an alternate via a light rail line from the Gold Line to Pasadena at the Filmore Station to Atlantic Station on the Gold Line Eastside Extension.
Put it together: wouldn't it be great if the 710 bypass LRT was a phase of the MoveLA "605 Line" LRT (used to get the WSAB to the GLEE) and the West Santa Ana Branch ROW was used from around the 605/Green Line to Orange County/Santa Ana. So in affect combining the three would make the 710/605/WSAB Line meet the GLEE at Atlantic in East LA
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 10, 2014 13:01:15 GMT -8
[ there is a rail line that goes up along he west side if the 605 freeway from Slauson all the way to the Pomona freeway. Metro could build the 605 line from the 210 down to the Green line Station and then onto to the Santa Anna branch, along side the San Gabriel river / lots of space and plenty for Park and Ride... |
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Dec 10, 2014 17:42:54 GMT -8
Another issue is that merging into the Eastside Gold Line right of way will mean that the trains can't access Union Station. Remember that the Regional Connector will alter the current Eastside line and delete the ability for it to connect directly to Union, which would then apply to the Santa Ana line as well in that case.
This is actually a problem in the SCAG alternative analysis as well, as they didn't really take the Regional Connector into consideration with the recommended West Bank 3 configuration, just saying that the connection to the Regional Connector would need to be 'refined' in the future. Considering how tight the Regional Connector configuration already is, with the turn, portal to ground level, and immediate transition to the bridge over the 101, its difficult to see how they would also merge a NS line into it during that span, as well as the strange service pattern it would bring to the 2 track Union station.
On the other hand, merging the Santa Ana line into the Gold line in the far East via the 605 ROW presents its own problems. Namely: speed, with the large amount of street running in the Eastside and additional low ridership stops, ridership with the unattractive freeway stations, and impact on the E-W Expo/Gold merged line frequencies and service patterns. I guess they could theoretically run from Santa Ana to Santa Monica in one massive line if they connected at the end of the Eastside Extension, but thats a bizarre service pattern with questionable ridership. And it would also involve completely redoing the environmental reports.
Basically, there are a lot of question marks still flying around!
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 10, 2014 21:54:00 GMT -8
The "605 Line" to complement the "405 Line"...now that's a concept! I believe the "605 Line" alternative was using Rosemead Bl./Lakewood Bl. But moving right along....
One of the challenges with this project is that there are many hands in it: SCAG, LAC/Metro, OC/OCTA, the cities along the proposed ROW, just to name a few. The technology hasn't technically been chosen, though LRT does seem the front runner. Unfortunately, low-speed MagLev also made the cut. And then there's the following: A.) Santa Ana is intent on using their portion of the original ROW to build a street. B.) La Palma wants nothing to do with the project and has requested that a station NOT be included. C.) Huntington Park and Vernon have both stated they prefer that Pacific Bl. not be used as part of the route (this effects the West Bank option 3). Huntington Park did suggest using Santa Fe Av. to reach the ROW on Randolph St.
I think the reason there are still so many gaps to fill and questions left to answer is because this project is like 15 years in the future. A lot can happen in that time...let's hope!
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 11, 2014 11:14:05 GMT -8
This is actually a problem in the SCAG alternative analysis as well, as they didn't really take the Regional Connector into consideration with the recommended West Bank 3 configuration, just saying that the connection to the Regional Connector would need to be 'refined' in the future. Considering how tight the Regional Connector configuration already is, with the turn, portal to ground level, and immediate transition to the bridge over the 101, its difficult to see how they would also merge a NS line into it during that span, as well as the strange service pattern it would bring to the 2 track Union station. Good point about access to Union Station! I frankly thought that the Regional Connector should have had a wye instead of a branch under Alameda/2nd to allow the Eastside access to Union Station as an option even if it doesn't get used from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 11, 2014 12:07:34 GMT -8
[quote author="cyg2014"On the other hand, merging the Santa Ana line into the Gold line in the far East via the 605 ROW presents its own problems. Namely: speed, with the large amount of street running in the Eastside and additional low ridership stops, ridership with the unattractive freeway stations, and impact on the E-W Expo/Gold merged line frequencies and service patterns. I guess they could theoretically run from Santa Ana to Santa Monica in one massive line if they connected at the end of the Eastside Extension, but thats a bizarre service pattern with questionable ridership. And it would also involve completely redoing the environmental reports.
Basically, there are a lot of question marks still flying around![/quote]
Have you down your home work? There is little property along the eastside of the 905 freeway all the way to Downey ( grade separation over the freeway and on to the Green line from the green line yo the Santa Anna Branch is where most of the Home owner live, but that area is from the Norwalk Green line station to Artesia Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 11, 2014 12:12:02 GMT -8
"cyg2014" On the other hand, merging the Santa Ana line into the Gold line in the far East via the 605 ROW presents its own problems. Namely: speed, with the large amount of street running in the Eastside and additional low ridership stops, ridership with the unattractive freeway stations, and impact on the E-W Expo/Gold merged line frequencies and service patterns. I guess they could theoretically run from Santa Ana to Santa Monica in one massive line if they connected at the end of the Eastside Extension, but thats a bizarre service pattern with questionable ridership. And it would also involve completely redoing the environmental reports.
Basically, there are a lot of question marks still flying around!
Have you down your home work? There is little property along the eastside of the 605 freeway all the way to Downey ( grade separation over the 5 freeway), From the Green line to the Santa Anna Branch is where most of the Home owners live,
|
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 20, 2015 9:54:16 GMT -8
What Darrell Clark told me on another group is that there are actually FOUR concepts in play here. The first, which is starting to look like a "go" is the Santa Ana "modern streetcar" project which would use the former Pacific Electric right of way from Santa Ana heading northwest but it is not currently planned to extend all the way to the county line.
The measure "R" has some initial funding (very initial) for a future light rail line that would use the former P.E. right of way starting at the L.A./Orange county line and extending northwest to the "Green" line. Third, there has been some preliminary planning done to continue that planned light rail line from the Green Line all the way downtown but there are currently NO funds to do that. If that ever happens they will have to select a new alignment because the ex P.E. right of way from Watts to the area of I-105 has been largely (but evidently not entirely) obliterated. Darrell said that one stretch has had houses built on it, another section a park.
Then finally, if all this ever comes to pass there would still be a gap between the northwest end of the Santa Ana modern streetcar and the light rail line which would begin and the county line. Evidently no one has figured out how to close that gap yet. One would also hope that the Santa Ana modern streetcar will be built with the idea in mind of accommodating future light rail vehicles.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 20, 2015 11:00:27 GMT -8
Then finally, if all this ever comes to pass there would still be a gap between the northwest end of the Santa Ana modern streetcar and the light rail line which would begin and the county line. Evidently no one has figured out how to close that gap yet. One would also hope that the Santa Ana modern streetcar will be built with the idea in mind of accommodating future light rail vehicles. The current plans for the Santa Ana streetcar call for it to terminate at a new regional transit center near Harbor & Westminster Blvds. Then there's SCAG's published 2013 study of the West Santa Ana Branch PE ROW. If you look at the Alternatives Analysis (Section 2) on page 20, the preferred alternative to the PE right of way which the streetcar project has claimed is identified as the Harbor Blvd / 1st St / SARTC Alternative. It would break from the PE ROW at Westminster, run down the median of Harbor Blvd, then along the median of 1st St to the Santa Ana RTC. That would let the West Santa Ana Branch serve as the higher-speed commuter line, while the Santa Ana Streetcar would provide local service to downtown businesses. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 23, 2015 11:42:09 GMT -8
What Darrell Clark told me on another group is that there are actually FOUR concepts in play here. The first, which is starting to look like a "go" is the Santa Ana "modern streetcar" project which would use the former Pacific Electric right of way from Santa Ana heading northwest but it is not currently planned to extend all the way to the county line. The measure "R" has some initial funding (very initial) for a future light rail line that would use the former P.E. right of way starting at the L.A./Orange county line and extending northwest to the "Green" line. Third, there has been some preliminary planning done to continue that planned light rail line from the Green Line all the way downtown but there are currently NO funds to do that. If that ever happens they will have to select a new alignment because the ex P.E. right of way from Watts to the area of I-105 has been largely (but evidently not entirely) obliterated. Darrell said that one stretch has had houses built on it, another section a park. Then finally, if all this ever comes to pass there would still be a gap between the northwest end of the Santa Ana modern streetcar and the light rail line which would begin and the county line. Evidently no one has figured out how to close that gap yet. One would also hope that the Santa Ana modern streetcar will be built with the idea in mind of accommodating future light rail vehicles. Regards, Fred M. Cain Darrell told you the summary of what we've been discussing the last couple years. If you read thru all the previous pages, you'll see we discussed all the things you mentioned  There are 4 segments if you will on the right of way: 1. Union Station to Green Line 2. Green Line to OC border 3. OC border to Santa Ana border 4. Santa Ana street running portion I believe segments 1-3 are under Alternative Analysis stage in limbo but the favored mode is light rail. Segment 4 is in EIR and will most likely be streetcar. So in all likelihood, we will not have a single line from Union Station to Santa Ana Metrolink/CAHSR station ~~~ Edit: I did some digging and SCAG completed it Alternative Analysis in 2013, but neither Metro nor SCAG moved forward on an EIR so it appears that there is no current activity on this line. West Santa Ana Branch is officially in limbo zombie stage. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 23, 2015 15:12:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Feb 23, 2015 15:29:08 GMT -8
What Darrell Clark told me on another group is that there are actually FOUR concepts in play here. The first, which is starting to look like a "go" is the Santa Ana "modern streetcar" project which would use the former Pacific Electric right of way from Santa Ana heading northwest but it is not currently planned to extend all the way to the county line. The measure "R" has some initial funding (very initial) for a future light rail line that would use the former P.E. right of way starting at the L.A./Orange county line and extending northwest to the "Green" line. Third, there has been some preliminary planning done to continue that planned light rail line from the Green Line all the way downtown but there are currently NO funds to do that. If that ever happens they will have to select a new alignment because the ex P.E. right of way from Watts to the area of I-105 has been largely (but evidently not entirely) obliterated. Darrell said that one stretch has had houses built on it, another section a park. Then finally, if all this ever comes to pass there would still be a gap between the northwest end of the Santa Ana modern streetcar and the light rail line which would begin and the county line. Evidently no one has figured out how to close that gap yet. One would also hope that the Santa Ana modern streetcar will be built with the idea in mind of accommodating future light rail vehicles. Regards, Fred M. Cain Darrell told you the summary of what we've been discussing the last couple years. If you read thru all the previous pages, you'll see we discussed all the things you mentioned There are 4 segments if you will on the right of way: 1. Union Station to Green Line 2. Green Line to OC border 3. OC border to Santa Ana border 4. Santa Ana street running portion I believe segments 1-3 are under Alternative Analysis stage in limbo but the favored mode is light rail. Segment 4 is in EIR and will most likely be streetcar. So in all likelihood, we will not have a single line from Union Station to Santa Ana Metrolink/CAHSR station ~~~ Edit: I did some digging and SCAG completed it Alternative Analysis in 2013, but neither Metro nor SCAG moved forward on an EIR so it appears that there is no current activity on this line. West Santa Ana Branch is officially in limbo zombie stage.The link specifies that there needed to be a technical refinement study done before moving in to the environmental phase. The contract was for 18 months, so that should be done sometime this summer. Once that is done, I am sure we will hear about the draft eir being started. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Feb 23, 2015 16:30:29 GMT -8
I look forward to this summer. If anything, to inquire why merging this onto the Blue Line tracks (north), sharing three (3) stations, then diverging on Washington Bl. onto it's own tracks toward Alameda St. wasn't considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 23, 2015 20:10:07 GMT -8
I look forward to this summer. If anything, to inquire why merging this onto the Blue Line tracks (north), sharing three (3) stations, then diverging on Washington Bl. onto it's own tracks toward Alameda St. wasn't considered. I couldn't agree more, why not use Alameda, a former ROW itself I think, and then (somehow) connecting to the DTC at 2nd Street? I guess that's sort of a DTC2 and there's no funding for this idea...but it's a great idea. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 24, 2015 1:01:39 GMT -8
Haven't there been comments to the effect that there won't be enough capacity on the Regional Connector for three separate lines? By the time the WSAB PEROW gets anywhere near operational, they're likely to be running long and short lines for both the Blue and Expo lines, which would push the current 4-minute headways (2 Blue vs 1 Expo, 12 minute intervals) down to 3 minutes. If they decrease the headways for each line to 10 minutes, that only allows 2.5 minutes between alternating lines. You could fit a 5th train in there, with headways of 2 minutes, but that seems like it might be pushing it a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 24, 2015 9:22:52 GMT -8
Darrell told you the summary of what we've been discussing the last couple years. If you read thru all the previous pages, you'll see we discussed all the things you mentioned There are 4 segments if you will on the right of way: 1. Union Station to Green Line 2. Green Line to OC border 3. OC border to Santa Ana border 4. Santa Ana street running portion I believe segments 1-3 are under Alternative Analysis stage in limbo but the favored mode is light rail. Segment 4 is in EIR and will most likely be streetcar. So in all likelihood, we will not have a single line from Union Station to Santa Ana Metrolink/CAHSR station ~~~ Edit: I did some digging and SCAG completed it Alternative Analysis in 2013, but neither Metro nor SCAG moved forward on an EIR so it appears that there is no current activity on this line. West Santa Ana Branch is officially in limbo zombie stage.Thanks for the response and the info! I guess what concerns me the most about this is the fact that I believe the Santa Ana Streetcar ought to be designed in such a way as to allow the light rail from downtown (your items 1 - 3) to be accommodating to Metro's equipment so that light rail cars can run all the way to Santa Ana by sharing trackage with the streetcar. That ought to be a "no brainer" but if Orange County selects an oddball or incompatible voltage or some other obstacle, they will not be able to do this.Regards,Fred M. Cain |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Feb 24, 2015 11:48:56 GMT -8
I look forward to this summer. If anything, to inquire why merging this onto the Blue Line tracks (north), sharing three (3) stations, then diverging on Washington Bl. onto it's own tracks toward Alameda St. wasn't considered. Sharing tracks with Blue Line means splitting the headways. Since Blue line already sharing tracks with Expo line, adding a 3rd line will make operations too complicated. The whole point of building this line to Downtown LA is to have a 2nd light rail connection to Downtown that is not operationally tied to the Regional Connector. |
|
|
|
Post by fredmcain on Feb 24, 2015 12:08:50 GMT -8
I look forward to this summer. If anything, to inquire why merging this onto the Blue Line tracks (north), sharing three (3) stations, then diverging on Washington Bl. onto it's own tracks toward Alameda St. wasn't considered. Sharing tracks with Blue Line means splitting the headways. Since Blue line already sharing tracks with Expo line, adding a 3rd line will make operations too complicated. The whole point of building this line to Downtown LA is to have a 2nd light rail connection to Downtown that is not operationally tied to the Regional Connector. I have heard this explanation before. Indeed, it is Metro's own explanation as to why they intend to terminate the abuilding Crenshaw line at the Expo line (underground no less) and force riders headed downtown to go upstairs and transfer to downtown-headed Expo trains.
But I am not completely sold on the justification. After all, the Pacific Electric funneled Long Beach trains, Santa Ana trains, Newport Beach and San Pedro trains all onto the same line and brought them downtown so I do not understand why that could be done in 1918 but not in 2018 ! ! ! ! ?
However, I can see a rationale for having a second line as you suggested. But it would be nice if both lines could be used.
Regards, Fred M. Cain
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 24, 2015 12:20:36 GMT -8
Sharing tracks with Blue Line means splitting the headways. Since Blue line already sharing tracks with Expo line, adding a 3rd line will make operations too complicated. The whole point of building this line to Downtown LA is to have a 2nd light rail connection to Downtown that is not operationally tied to the Regional Connector. I have heard this explanation before. Indeed, it is Metro's own explanation as to why they intend to terminate the abuilding Crenshaw line at the Expo line (underground no less) and force riders headed downtown to go upstairs and transfer to downtown-headed Expo trains.
But I am not completely sold on the justification. After all, the Pacific Electric funneled Long Beach trains, Santa Ana trains, Newport Beach and San Pedro trains all onto the same line and brought them downtown so I do not understand why that could be done in 1918 but not in 2018 ! ! ! ! ?
However, I can see a rationale for having a second line as you suggested. But it would be nice if both lines could be used.
Regards, Fred M. Cain
Because Pacific Electric was not running trains every 5 minutes on each line and probably wasn't even running them every 50 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Feb 24, 2015 14:02:23 GMT -8
From what I recall of the WSAB planning documents, both East and West Branch LA river alternatives include a "second Regional Connector" that would possibly tie-in to the current Gold Line tracks near Little Tokyo. It should also be possible to create a bypass for either tunnel using the old Harbor Subdivision ROW, in case one tunnel is blocked, but I'm not sure if Metro will want to go through the extra expense that involves.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 4, 2015 20:21:20 GMT -8
I have heard this explanation before. Indeed, it is Metro's own explanation as to why they intend to terminate the abuilding Crenshaw line at the Expo line (underground no less) and force riders headed downtown to go upstairs and transfer to downtown-headed Expo trains.
But I am not completely sold on the justification. After all, the Pacific Electric funneled Long Beach trains, Santa Ana trains, Newport Beach and San Pedro trains all onto the same line and brought them downtown so I do not understand why that could be done in 1918 but not in 2018 ! ! ! ! ?
However, I can see a rationale for having a second line as you suggested. But it would be nice if both lines could be used.
Regards, Fred M. Cain
Because Pacific Electric was not running trains every 5 minutes on each line and probably wasn't even running them every 50 minutes. Also, I'd prefer for the Regional Connector to NOT turn into LA's version of the Market St Subway. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 14, 2015 11:08:37 GMT -8
Actual Santa Ana branch news! Click on the link and download the meeting agenda (PDF) and then click on the attachments in the agenda: metro.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=28531&GUID=AEDD3054-ED79-4EF6-AC23-D5875EA9F3C0Looks like Metro is ready to move forward with EIR. The original AA study had 2 options: East Bank and West Bank3. Metro introduced 4 more options (all with higher ridership potentials). West Bank Pacific/Alameda [no transfers to Blue Line until Union Station] West Bank Pacific/Vignes [no transfers to Blue Line until Union Station] West Bank Alameda (sharing Blue line ROW) [transfers to Blue @ Slauson, Vernon, Washington; Expo Line @ Little Tokyo] West Bank Alameda/Vignes (sharing Blue line ROW) [transfers to Blue Line @ Slauson, Vernon, Washington; no transfers to Expo line] West Bank Alameda has the highest ridership potential due to it having Blue line AND Expo line transfer stations. Although I'm not sure how that could work logistically if Blue line is running 5 minutes headway already. Edit: just read the document more closely... it says sharing Blue Line ROW, not tracks... So it means Metro will add more tracks. However, Alameda alignment will not serve the Arts District (station at Little Tokyo). Alameda/Vignes, Pacific/Vignes, and Pacific/Alameda will all have station at Arts District. Also note worthy... Cerritos requested that the Bloomfield terminus be eliminated. So yes, in the year 2015, there is still a municipality in LA County that voted itself out of the rail system. Unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 14, 2015 11:40:37 GMT -8
They made this interesting note in the Attachment A Final Executive Summary on page 20:
3. Following the Metro Blue Line
The alternatives proposed alongside the Metro Blue Line connecting Slauson Station
and Union Station reflect a higher number of boardings due to “forced transfers”.
These alternatives include the West Bank – Alameda and West Bank – Alameda/
Vignes. Typically forced transfers are viewed negatively because transferring adds travel
time and can be a deterrent if the delay is significant and the rider has other options.
However, in this case the WSAB alternatives provide the Metro Blue Line riders a
faster means to reach Union Station since the WSAB alternatives are more direct. For
comparison, the travel time from Slauson Station to Union Station by Metro Blue Line
is approximately 22 minutes; and by WSAB the travel time will only be approximately 9
minutes. The addition of WSAB between Slauson Station and Union Station can relieve
demands on the Metro Blue Line which is currently operating at its full capacity.
Interestingly enough, this means that if they went with the aerial station option (above the existing Gold Line station at LAUS) and then extended it to connect with the Gold/A Line tracks north of LAUS, they could switch the configuration of the Gold/A and WSAB lines between the two interline points. The A line could therefore run from Azuza to Long Beach via Little Tokyo and shave off 10 minutes, while the WSAB line could run from Artesia to Union Station via downtown LA.
The only drawback is that SGV riders would be forced to transfer at Union Station to reach downtown LA, but at least they would have two separate ways of reaching LA - either by hopping downstairs to the lower platform and riding through the Regional Connector, or by going down to the subway.
|
|
