LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[LAofAnaheim]

@OneMetropolis: Uh............the Blue Line?

[Quixote]

If I had to eliminate a station, I'd choose the one at 2nd and Hope. But let's hope it doesn't come down to that...

Study of Underground Regional Connector Passes Metro Committee

By Eric Richardson
February 18, 2010

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — An underground option for the proposed Regional Connector light rail link was approved for further study by Metro's Planning and Programming committee today, but project team members warned that savings would need to be found to keep the project within the original $700 - $900 million budget.

That could mean that the line ends up with one less station than was initially planned. The project currently has stops proposed at 5th and Flower, 2nd and Hope, 2nd and Broadway and 1st and Alameda. Project staff did not specify which stop they would consider cutting.

...

[Quixote]

The next round of meetings for Eastside Extension II begins next week. I strongly urge you guys to send your comments to Metro, expressing disapproval over the remaining two alignment options. It's not too late.

Metro Sets Environmental Community Scoping Meetings Feb. 22-27 for Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

February 10, 2010

As environmental work continues for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project, Metro will hold four community scoping meetings on February 22-27 in Pico Rivera, South El Monte, Montebello and Whittier to review two build alternatives: light rail transit via State Route 60 and on Washington Boulevard in addition to a transportation systems management (improving bus services), and a no-build alternative.

The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project area consists of portions of eight jurisdictions including the cities of Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte, Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

The scoping meetings are the first step in the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/DEIR) in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The public will learn about the proposed project, provide input on the alternatives and the evaluation process used to identify and mitigate environmental impacts.

The four community meetings will be held on:

Monday, February 22, Pio Pico Women’s Center, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., 9214 Mines Avenue, Pico Rivera

Wednesday, February 24, South El Monte Senior Center (dining room), 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., 1556 Central Avenue, South El Monte

Thursday, February 25, Senior Center at City Park, South Wing, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., 115 South Taylor Avenue, Montebello

Saturday, February 27, The Salvation Army Santa Fe Springs (Studio 12000), 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., 12000 East Washington Boulevard, Whittier

The format of the meetings will include an open house followed by a presentation to inform participants of the environmental process and provide an opportunity to ask questions about the study and submit comments.

Since 2007, Metro has conducted an Alternative Analysis (AA) and has prepared supplemental technical studies to identify feasible routes to extend the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension to cities farther east of Los Angeles.

Every day, approximately 50,000 commuting trips leave the area bound for central Los Angeles and 115,000 daily work trips are made within the study area, itself. These existing conditions, combined with projected population growth of 24 percent and employment growth of 15 percent over the next 30 years, illustrate the need for additional transit alternatives.

If members of the public are unable to attend any of the scoping meetings they may still submit comments by mail, fax or e-mail. The comments must be received by April 14, 2010.

[llamaorama]

I've always wondered this, from my layman background with no knowledge of engineering:

Say you wanted to "tunnel" a rail line to hide or silence it near a residential area. Rather than a bored or cut-and-cover tunnel which would add tens to hundreds of millions to the price tag, how about just a roof?

Basically, over a short distance there would be first a berm, then a stone block retaining wall supporting a metal roof. The roof would then have a small maybe half inch layer of japanese zen style raked pea gravel that would also drain water and never support weeds. There would be desert grass plants sitting in plastic pots in a loopy pattern for visual interest. Sod would come right up to where the roof starts, and oddly placed boulders around the edge would be a un-intrusive barrier to keep some idiot parks employee from driving a heavy mower on top.

Not necessarily a true green roof, but essentially it would be no different from the way some roof levels on high rises are decorated with fake grass or asian rock gardens

I'm sure this would be very expensive but perhaps over short distances, like where a line backs up directly to property, it would calm the NIMBY nerves.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

If I had to eliminate a station, I'd choose the one at 2nd and Hope. But let's hope it doesn't come down to that...

Study of Underground Regional Connector Passes Metro Committee

By Eric Richardson
February 18, 2010

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — An underground option for the proposed Regional Connector light rail link was approved for further study by Metro's Planning and Programming committee today, but project team members warned that savings would need to be found to keep the project within the original $700 - $900 million budget.

That could mean that the line ends up with one less station than was initially planned. The project currently has stops proposed at 5th and Flower, 2nd and Hope, 2nd and Broadway and 1st and Alameda. Project staff did not specify which stop they would consider cutting.

...

Too awesome that all underground is back on the table

Perhaps instead of eliminating stations entirely they could build the box for the station while they're drilling, but not finish anything until funding becomes avalable at a later date. That way they save the money now but don't make it impossibly expensive to add the station back in later. If that doesn't save enough money, they could give a second station the same treatment. Stations along the new line are a nice side bennefit, but the most important part of this project is just getting tracks in to allow blue/expo trains to get to Union Station and gold trains to get through to the blue/expo tracks (which is not to say that I don't see the bennefit of stations, they're just significantly less important IMO).

[Quixote]

^ The key question is whether or not 100% underground makes it even more cost-effective.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I've always wondered this, from my layman background with no knowledge of engineering:

Say you wanted to "tunnel" a rail line to hide or silence it near a residential area. Rather than a bored or cut-and-cover tunnel which would add tens to hundreds of millions to the price tag, how about just a roof?

Basically, over a short distance there would be first a berm, then a stone block retaining wall supporting a metal roof. The roof would then have a small maybe half inch layer of japanese zen style raked pea gravel that would also drain water and never support weeds. There would be desert grass plants sitting in plastic pots in a loopy pattern for visual interest. Sod would come right up to where the roof starts, and oddly placed boulders around the edge would be a un-intrusive barrier to keep some idiot parks employee from driving a heavy mower on top.

Not necessarily a true green roof, but essentially it would be no different from the way some roof levels on high rises are decorated with fake grass or asian rock gardens

I'm sure this would be very expensive but perhaps over short distances, like where a line backs up directly to property, it would calm the NIMBY nerves.

First of all, if you think a gravel exists on earth that would "never support weeds" you've never had gravel in your yard. I think weeds would find a way to grow on Mars or the moon if one of our spacecraft accidentally brought some seeds with it

Anyway, what would be the point of this? You're essentially putting a lot of money into building a berm. That doesn't make anyone happy. It doesn't get out of the way of traffic, it doesn't really reduce visual impact, and it would be expensive. The only benefit it would really have would be safety, but a tall fence could achieve that, would be a lot cheaper, and wouldn't have any greater visual or traffic impact.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I've always wondered this, from my layman background with no knowledge of engineering:

Say you wanted to "tunnel" a rail line to hide or silence it near a residential area. Rather than a bored or cut-and-cover tunnel which would add tens to hundreds of millions to the price tag, how about just a roof?

Basically, over a short distance there would be first a berm, then a stone block retaining wall supporting a metal roof. The roof would then have a small maybe half inch layer of japanese zen style raked pea gravel that would also drain water and never support weeds. There would be desert grass plants sitting in plastic pots in a loopy pattern for visual interest. Sod would come right up to where the roof starts, and oddly placed boulders around the edge would be a un-intrusive barrier to keep some idiot parks employee from driving a heavy mower on top.

Not necessarily a true green roof, but essentially it would be no different from the way some roof levels on high rises are decorated with fake grass or asian rock gardens

I'm sure this would be very expensive but perhaps over short distances, like where a line backs up directly to property, it would calm the NIMBY nerves.

Yea... you'd need to build overpasses or underpasses for crossing roads.

Of course, it HAS been done, albeit on a hillside location...

Riverside Park

[JDRCRASH]

http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/02/18/sch...-making-the-405-a-double-decker-freeway/

[JDRCRASH]

Obviously, we don't need anymore freeways.

Instead, we should be focusing on a rail corridor from the Sylmar Metrolink Station to Long Beach. I'd prefer it to be a COMPLETELY grade-seperated LRT corridor so it can be compatible with the Harbor Subdivision to Long Beach, while making up for such a distance by running at a constant speed of 55 Mph. I also believe it should continue North into the SFV by should running on Van Eyes Blvd, Parthenia, and THEN Sepulveda to the Sylmar metrolink station. This would essentially fuse the 405/Sepulveda and Van Eyes corridors. I don't think the density is there (unlike Santa Monica, which would get both a Purple and Expo Line due to it's high density) for building both as completely seperate corridors.

LA being a polycentric city, needs a grid system, not a downtown-focused system. So having this as a Purple Line extension won't make much sense given the whole 405 Freeway is congested, not just between LAX and the SFV.

[suga]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Well, I am ususally all for rail extensions, especially practical/useful ones. However, in this case.... I don't like either of the presented options. The southern one to Whittier is characterized by low density residential neighborhoods, a twisting and turning alignment, and what appears to be low-density employment job centers. The SR60 alignment .... come-on... it's in a freeway median - terrible terrible place for riders.... waiting at a station while cars go by at 70mph. It's noisey and impractical for users to tolerate in great numbers.

The train actually would not run in the median of the 60 freeway at all, it would run on the south side which has a sound barrier wall between the freeway and where the rail would be placed. The sr-60 is elevated in this area (between just east of atlantic and east of wilcox) and the freeway has large slopes on the sides that would be able to fit in 25' of rail space. The next station east of atlantic would be garfield, which is a major activity center and has some large apartment clusters nearby. Building the rail like this (and not redundantly elevated on an elevated freeway as the MTA is now proposing) would basically deliver grade seperated rail for the cost of at-grade rail. This "along the side of the freeway" route is pretty cost effective, and the large empty space through whittier narrows the train would pass for 3 miles would also help mitigate the slow speeds street running in east la creates.

[suga]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Obviously, we don't need anymore freeways.

Instead, we should be focusing on a rail corridor from the Sylmar Metrolink Station to Long Beach. I'd prefer it to be a COMPLETELY grade-seperated LRT corridor so it can be compatible with the Harbor Subdivision to Long Beach, while making up for such a distance by running at a constant speed of 55 Mph. I also believe it should continue North into the SFV by should running on Van Eyes Blvd, Parthenia, and THEN Sepulveda to the Sylmar metrolink station. This would essentially fuse the 405/Sepulveda and Van Eyes corridors. I don't think the density is there (unlike Santa Monica, which would get both a Purple and Expo Line due to it's high density) for building both as completely seperate corridors.

LA being a polycentric city, needs a grid system, not a downtown-focused system. So having this as a Purple Line extension won't make much sense given the whole 405 Freeway is congested, not just between LAX and the SFV.

The Van Nuys community around Vn blvd has densities about 12-15k per square mile, same with arleta panorma city and pacoima to the north. The north hills area around parthenia has densities above 20k per square mile. These communities are actually more dense than Santa Monica, and they are primarilly occupied by transit dependant minorities, meaning much higher ridership.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Obviously, we don't need anymore freeways.

Instead, we should be focusing on a rail corridor from the Sylmar Metrolink Station to Long Beach. I'd prefer it to be a COMPLETELY grade-seperated LRT corridor so it can be compatible with the Harbor Subdivision to Long Beach, while making up for such a distance by running at a constant speed of 55 Mph. I also believe it should continue North into the SFV by should running on Van Eyes Blvd, Parthenia, and THEN Sepulveda to the Sylmar metrolink station. This would essentially fuse the 405/Sepulveda and Van Eyes corridors. I don't think the density is there (unlike Santa Monica, which would get both a Purple and Expo Line due to it's high density) for building both as completely seperate corridors.

LA being a polycentric city, needs a grid system, not a downtown-focused system. So having this as a Purple Line extension won't make much sense given the whole 405 Freeway is congested, not just between LAX and the SFV.

Do you mean Van Nuys Blvd?

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by suga

The train actually would not run in the median of the 60 freeway at all, it would run on the south side which has a sound barrier wall between the freeway and where the rail would be placed. The sr-60 is elevated in this area (between just east of atlantic and east of wilcox) and the freeway has large slopes on the sides that would be able to fit in 25' of rail space. The next station east of atlantic would be garfield, which is a major activity center and has some large apartment clusters nearby. Building the rail like this (and not redundantly elevated on an elevated freeway as the MTA is now proposing) would basically deliver grade seperated rail for the cost of at-grade rail. This "along the side of the freeway" route is pretty cost effective, and the large empty space through whittier narrows the train would pass for 3 miles would also help mitigate the slow speeds street running in east la creates.

Thanks. I didn't know the alignment was adjacent to the freeway and not in the median. That changes my opinion a bit.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Do you mean Van Nuys Blvd?

I've been making that mistake all day...

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by suga

The Van Nuys community around Vn blvd has densities about 12-15k per square mile, same with arleta panorma city and pacoima to the north. The north hills area around parthenia has densities above 20k per square mile. These communities are actually more dense than Santa Monica, and they are primarilly occupied by transit dependant minorities, meaning much higher ridership.

Is the ridership there even greater than the densest parts of Santa Monica?

[mwadswor]

Heh, go to cbs.com and just watch about the first 5 minutes of this season's "Amazing Race." The first challenge is to get from their starting point in LA to LAX by public transit. I'm not sure if it's more irritating that the show re-enforces the negative and untrue stereotype that transit in LA is no good, or more amusing to watch them all freak out about having to take mass transit

[ardecila]

The show doesn't reinforce anything. In fact, some teams take a train and some take an express bus. If anything, it shows that the LA transit system has multiple choices to get places. People complain initially, but nobody complains once they board a train or bus. It seems like their experiences were pretty positive.

I feel like I would do really, really well on the Amazing Race. Of course, that only means they wouldn't choose me as a contestant. It's a great idea for a show, but they just have too many teams. It needs to be 5 or 6 teams, not 12. I just lose track after awhile...

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The show doesn't reinforce anything. In fact, some teams take a train and some take an express bus. If anything, it shows that the LA transit system has multiple choices to get places. People complain initially, but nobody complains once they board a train or bus. It seems like their experiences were pretty positive.

I just was amused by the dramatic music at the concept of public transit I'd say the idea that taking public transit is a challenge at all reinforces something.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

Heh, go to cbs.com and just watch about the first 5 minutes of this season's "Amazing Race." The first challenge is to get from their starting point in LA to LAX by public transit. I'm not sure if it's more irritating that the show re-enforces the negative and untrue stereotype that transit in LA is no good, or more amusing to watch them all freak out about having to take mass transit

You should've seen the guys from the Northeast (Rhode Island, I think).