LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[plutonicpanda]

Does Metro know they have a Green Line? Millions and millions need to be poured into this. I've been without a car for awhile and relying on transit to get around for awhile and I had to use the Green Line for the first time the other week and it is horrible. The stations suck. The trains are very loud inside you can barely have a conversation. They're very rough to ride in. In one instance the doors on a part of the car I was in only closed halfway from the 110 station to the next station west.

Are there any upgrades planned for this line? They ideally should use this line to extend it to Orange County and go through Norwalk, Buena Park, Anaheim, and Disney Land. Now I'm just hoping the original section gets rebuilt with new cars.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by CCs77

Anybody knows the reasons for the huge ridership increase in the last months?

I mean, they opened the extension in may 20th 2016, as expected with the opening of many new stations, the ridership increased from 29047 in april to 45876 in june, but then it remained flat (even with a small decrease) to 42344 in october. Then, from november, it began to climb until reaching 59931 last month. From april to june the ridership increased to 16829 more people, from october to march it increased to 17587, so, even a larger growth than with the Santa Monica extension opening, Why is that?

Why the increased ridership? Because it is the only line currently in L.A. area (besides the Blue Line) to link inland areas with the Pacific. Plus it brings inland residents to the job rich Westside. Santa Monica is a nice place to be on a 90 degree day inland--usually a 65 degrees or cooler. L.A.'s San Francisco microclimate. If they ever complete the Sepulveda line to the valley, expect massive numbers of riders.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Bzcat, I think the official name should be changed to gold line garbage dump extension haha.

I'm disappointed that you didn't use the garbage dump extension tag in the new article...

http://urbanize.la/post/eastside%E2%...ollar-question



Line "C" is something terrible...

So we know how you feel about the extensions (nothing good to say...) something I think a lot of people shares. But what I didn't read is suggestions for salvaging the situation with something reasonable.

Maybe it is time someone start advocating for something like this:

- Bring Purple (or Red) across the LA River to Boyle Heights but only as far as Indiana Station - This is a relatively short extension and should be less than $3 billion?
- Build either the garbage dump extension to El Monte or the Washington Blvd extension, but not both - This should be less than $4 billion?

That's $7 billion and in my opinion much more functional system



If we build something like I suggests, it preserves the possibility to extend either the Expo/Gold or Purple line somewhere useful in the future. If we build the idiotic Gold Line extensions with the nonsensical "C" junction, we will doom SGV and Whittier to a lifetime of a transit tragedy.

And here it is another look with a hypothetical lightrail on Soto St and Venice Blvd thrown into the mix:

[Quixote]

$6 billion clusterfuck

[202_Cyclist]

We took this trip to Garden Grove... It smelled like Lou Dog inside the streetcar.

OCTA board approves OC Streetcar funding agreement with Federal Transit Administration

By JESSICA KWONG
May 22, 2017
OC Register

"ORANGE — The Orange County Transportation Authority board on Monday, May 22, approved a full-funding agreement with the Federal Transit Administration for the OC Streetcar project that it expects feds will grant.

Under the grant agreement, which passed on an 11-0 board vote, OCTA is trying to secure up to $148.9 million in federal New Starts program funds, which would cover nearly half of the streetcar’s total cost. Of the remaining tab, 19 percent will come from Measure M, the county’s half-cent tax for transportation improvements, and the rest through other, already committed federal and state cap-and-trade funds.

Staff had been working toward Monday’s approval for years. OCTA board member Miguel Pulido called it “the biggest single step so far” for the streetcar planned on a 4.1-mile route from the Santa Ana Regional Transportation center to a new multimodal transit hub on Harbor Boulevard in Garden Grove..."

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/22...iew_id=5839150

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by bzcat

Maybe it is time someone start advocating for something like this:

- Bring Purple (or Red) across the LA River to Boyle Heights but only as far as Indiana Station - This is a relatively short extension and should be less than $3 billion?
- Build either the garbage dump extension to El Monte or the Washington Blvd extension, but not both - This should be less than $4 billion?

That's $7 billion and in my opinion much more functional system



If we build something like I suggests, it preserves the possibility to extend either the Expo/Gold or Purple line somewhere useful in the future. If we build the idiotic Gold Line extensions with the nonsensical "C" junction, we will doom SGV and Whittier to a lifetime of a transit tragedy.

And here it is another look with a hypothetical lightrail on Soto St and Venice Blvd thrown into the mix:

I like the theoretical idea, but would do something rather different, binding it with the WSAB and changing certain alignments. I would plan on a project like this:

Phase one: Extend the Purple line from Union Station to Paramount, along the WSAB alignment. Terminate WSAB line trains at Green Line/I-105

Phase two: Build a LRT line from the 60 Freeway/Whittier Boulevard to Pico/Western.

Phase three: Build a Blue Line connector from Washington to Union Station. Remove LRT along Washington, and route all Blue Line trains this way, forcing a transfer at the phase two line or Union Station to reach the Historic Core or South Park. At this point, there is no longer any interlining in the system, assuming the red line gets extended down Vermont.

Phase four: Extend the line in phase two to Whittier, via Indiana Station, Atlantic Station, and Beverly Boulevard. This route follows a middle route between the Garbage Dump extension and the Washington Boulevard extension, and serves places more useful than either do.

This map shows how such a system would look, and includes potential future lines as well (in white.)

[Quixote]

At $3.8 billion, I don't get why you wouldn't just pursue the Red Line extension. That should be enough to get it to at least Garfield, maybe even Rosemead in Pico Rivera, while all but ensuring an eventual extension to Whittier. What does it say about Metro that this option isn't even included in the EIR, especially now that Measure M is in the bag? Total lack of vision and self-awareness. Morons.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by Quixote

At $3.8 billion, I don't get why you wouldn't just pursue the Red Line extension. That should be enough to get it to at least Garfield, maybe even Rosemead in Pico Rivera, while all but ensuring an eventual extension to Whittier. What does it say about Metro that this option isn't even included in the EIR, especially now that Measure M is in the bag? Total lack of vision and self-awareness. Morons.

I still don't think Eastside ridership is high enough to warrant HRT in comparison to projected WSAB ridership.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

I still don't think Eastside ridership is high enough to warrant HRT in comparison to projected WSAB ridership.

Even if LRT can suffice as far as meeting ridership demand, it's not an efficient modal technology for the Whittier corridor itself -- the urban, commercial spine of its region -- because there's no dedicated ROW.

Metro needs to look at what the Eastside actually needs, rather than forcing a square into a circle like they're doing right now.

[Quixote]

Section 3 is planned to begin construction next year and be completed in 2024.

...

On Friday, Metro announced that Section 3 of the extension (Century City/Constellation to Westwood/VA Hospital) will begin construction in 2018, with a planned completion of 2024.

...

But there is a catch: the plan's acceleration is also dependent on federal money. According to the Daily Bruin, the federal matching funds "still need to be allocated and approved every year as part of Congress’s budget." No small feat in today's political climate.

...

http://laist.com/2017/05/23/purple_line_completion.php

[numble]

The issue with these counter-proposals is that they do not go to SGV or they barely touch the SGV. Measure M strictly requires that $1.5 billion is for the SGV, $1.5 billion is for the Gateway Cities, and $3 billion should be shared between SGV and the Gateway Cities. There is no way that the SGVCOG would agree on a project that is 100% or 90% in the Gateway Cities.

[NSMP]

Originally Posted by bzcat

I'm disappointed that you didn't use the garbage dump extension tag in the new article...

So we know how you feel about the extensions (nothing good to say...) something I think a lot of people shares. But what I didn't read is suggestions for salvaging the situation with something reasonable.

Maybe it is time someone start advocating for something like this:

- Bring Purple (or Red) across the LA River to Boyle Heights but only as far as Indiana Station - This is a relatively short extension and should be less than $3 billion?
- Build either the garbage dump extension to El Monte or the Washington Blvd extension, but not both - This should be less than $4 billion?

That's $7 billion and in my opinion much more functional system

If we build something like I suggests, it preserves the possibility to extend either the Expo/Gold or Purple line somewhere useful in the future. If we build the idiotic Gold Line extensions with the nonsensical "C" junction, we will doom SGV and Whittier to a lifetime of a transit tragedy.

And here it is another look with a hypothetical lightrail on Soto St and Venice Blvd thrown into the mix:

Ha, I did miss the Garbage Dump Extension opportunity. Basically these are my thoughts about the Gold Line Extension (maybe I'll do a follow-up post on this). What numble said is right: politically it's impossible that the current project could be reconfigured in a way that would only serve the Gateway Cities region or the San Gabriel Valley region. And it's definitely impossible that the bulk of the money could go to Boyle Heights, which is in neither subregion.

I did put up what I would rather see happen on Twitter to serve the South SGV and the Gateway Cities. Essentially, that would be to extend the subway east in two branches. The first would go through the Arts District and take Whittier Bl to Whittier.
The other branch would follow Mission (with a new rail yard carved out of piggyback yard as Metro originally considered for the Purple Line) to Valley. Around Boca, it would tunnel to Cal State LA and then through to Garvey, where it has a straight shot out to El Monte.

That would not only serve both of the same subregions, but it would actually serve the same cities that comprise the Washington and SR60 coalitions. I don't think it's possible because it would require the coalitions to wait through more studies and a period of construction in Los Angeles before it got to them. But there's no doubt in my mind that it would be a superior alternative.

[NSMP]

The other cheaper and more politically achievable alternative would be to break the Gold Line's 2 pronged extension into its component parts:
1) LRT extension of the Gold Line along the 60 to S El Monte
2) A new LRT line from DTLA following Whittier Bl to Atlantic, and then taking over the existing southern prong planned by Metro
3) A N-S line following Atlantic, that would connect the two

This plan obviously has flaws. I haven't fixed the Washington Bl or the SR-60 routes, I actually haven't touched them at all. But there's a reason for that.

The garbage dump route is the most accessible extension of the gold line, it has political support, and, relatively speaking, it's cheap. I could live with the 60 as a giveaway *if* we were getting something halfway decent in return for it.

On the other side, the Washington Boulevard alignment beginning at Whittier/Atlantic is actually not completely terrible in isolation. The worst things about it are the branching and the connection to the flawed first phase of the Gold Line. If we eliminate both of those, we have a pretty fast (projected at 28 mph for the segment overall) light rail line that has below-grade stops beneath the Citadel and the center of the East LA commercial district. That should be more than enough to work with. How can we improve it? By making it a standalone light rail line following Whittier Boulevard below grade into DTLA. This section of Whittier Bl (in East LA and Boyle Heights) is the dense, commercially active part. Build a transfer to the Red Line at 6th/Santa Fe and then tunnel under 4th St. The terminus could go under Pershing Square, or if Metro is feeling like doing it right, under Flower where there are pocket tracks for an infill station on the Regional Connector.

The Atlantic Line probably seems like it's out of left field, but it actually could connect some existing proposals as well. Solis is having staff look for a route to connect the Gold Line extensions to the WSAB, meanwhile there is still the 710 gap to fill. Atlantic is in a prime position to do both. So, although in a vacuum this probably wouldn't be a high priority line to build, it could gain some traction that way.

My proposal would be to use the existing money to build the 2 east-west lines and to use the 710 gap money as a seed on the north-south line, while redefining it as a separate project.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The other cheaper and more politically achievable alternative would be to break the Gold Line's 2 pronged extension into its component parts:
1) LRT extension of the Gold Line along the 60 to S El Monte
2) A new LRT line from DTLA following Whittier Bl to Atlantic, and then taking over the existing southern prong planned by Metro
3) A N-S line following Atlantic, that would connect the two

This plan obviously has flaws. I haven't fixed the Washington Bl or the SR-60 routes, I actually haven't touched them at all. But there's a reason for that.

The garbage dump route is the most accessible extension of the gold line, it has political support, and, relatively speaking, it's cheap. I could live with the 60 as a giveaway *if* we were getting something halfway decent in return for it.

On the other side, the Washington Boulevard alignment beginning at Whittier/Atlantic is actually not completely terrible in isolation. The worst things about it are the branching and the connection to the flawed first phase of the Gold Line. If we eliminate both of those, we have a pretty fast (projected at 28 mph for the segment overall) light rail line that has below-grade stops beneath the Citadel and the center of the East LA commercial district. That should be more than enough to work with. How can we improve it? By making it a standalone light rail line following Whittier Boulevard below grade into DTLA. This section of Whittier Bl (in East LA and Boyle Heights) is the dense, commercially active part. Build a transfer to the Red Line at 6th/Santa Fe and then tunnel under 4th St. The terminus could go under Pershing Square, or if Metro is feeling like doing it right, under Flower where there are pocket tracks for an infill station on the Regional Connector.

The Atlantic Line probably seems like it's out of left field, but it actually could connect some existing proposals as well. Solis is having staff look for a route to connect the Gold Line extensions to the WSAB, meanwhile there is still the 710 gap to fill. Atlantic is in a prime position to do both. So, although in a vacuum this probably wouldn't be a high priority line to build, it could gain some traction that way.

My proposal would be to use the existing money to build the 2 east-west lines and to use the 710 gap money as a seed on the north-south line, while redefining it as a separate project.

I really like this. One thing I wonder is whether the Garbage Dump Extension money could instead go to a LRT line from Union Station alignment Valley Blvd and Mission Road to Alhambra--or El Monte, ideally.

One benefit of your idea is that the system can be built as is currently planned, and later modified with few additional costs and little disruption.

[Quixote]

The only thing that matters to me is that Whittier is saved for HRT, so this isn't a loss so much as it's a wasted opportunity. The Washington alignment just pushes Whittier HRT back another 20+ years. :/

[hughfb3]

Please just build the 60 alignment. Don't do this awkward veering off course; save the other corridor for the lifting of prop A&C and build the Whittier Bl purple line

The gold line from downtown to East LA is okay but this is a bunch of compromising. By the way, The last 3 stops in the current gold line in East LA each within a literal 3 min walk of each other is ridiculous. One or 2 of them need to go bye bye

[NSMP]

The literal only thing I could see saving Whittier as an option is if the 60 starts operating first, and riders successfully fight to stop Metro from cutting their service in half. Otherwise, it's a foregone conclusion at this point

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by NSMP

The literal only thing I could see saving Whittier as an option is if the 60 starts operating first, and riders successfully fight to stop Metro from cutting their service in half. Otherwise, it's a foregone conclusion at this point

Well let's fight for 60!!

[numble]

Originally Posted by NSMP

Ha, I did miss the Garbage Dump Extension opportunity. Basically these are my thoughts about the Gold Line Extension (maybe I'll do a follow-up post on this). What numble said is right: politically it's impossible that the current project could be reconfigured in a way that would only serve the Gateway Cities region or the San Gabriel Valley region. And it's definitely impossible that the bulk of the money could go to Boyle Heights, which is in neither subregion.

I did put up what I would rather see happen on Twitter to serve the South SGV and the Gateway Cities. Essentially, that would be to extend the subway east in two branches. The first would go through the Arts District and take Whittier Bl to Whittier.
The other branch would follow Mission (with a new rail yard carved out of piggyback yard as Metro originally considered for the Purple Line) to Valley. Around Boca, it would tunnel to Cal State LA and then through to Garvey, where it has a straight shot out to El Monte.

That would not only serve both of the same subregions, but it would actually serve the same cities that comprise the Washington and SR60 coalitions. I don't think it's possible because it would require the coalitions to wait through more studies and a period of construction in Los Angeles before it got to them. But there's no doubt in my mind that it would be a superior alternative.

The start dates are 2029 and 2053 for the two extensions, they have plenty of time to go through more studies. The Sepulveda Pass project doesn't even have its studies in place, and all three phases (including Westwood to LAX) are slated to start building before 2053. Same deal with the WSAB, which is supposed to start building in 2022 before any of these extensions.

[NSMP]

My point is that it would be a political about-face, and Metro would probably catch hell if they try to change it. Politicians want credit for bringing rail to their cities and don't care much about transit quality. Metro is basically promising people they can accelerate both segments, so no one is going to be ok with starting the environmental process over again.