LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[JDRCRASH]

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.

Yeah but what they don't say is how long the express bus takes. While LA transit may be a C, it has the potential to be an A+.

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...

I thought it was 11?

[LAdude]

I am definately going to show up to these meetings. This extension has so much potential that would be lost if either of the two alternatives are chosen. Whittier Boulevard makes so much more sense. It is one of the most heavily travelled roads in Los Angeles County and provides some of the largest opportunities for Transit Oriented Development. Initially there were concerns about portions in West Whittier or Pico Rivera where the road was perceived as too narrow. Well, why can't they underground it in those sections like they will be doing in Crenshaw?? Yes it is more expensive, but if you look in the Alternatives Analysis published by Metro, Whittier Blvd. was cheaper than both Washington and the SR-60 routes with comparable ridership.

Of the two alternatives I would prefer Washington because it does pass through some pretty high density areas, but an elevated structure would blight this already industrial corridor. Plus, the line would end almost a mile away from Uptown Whittier. This is a great historic place the city of Whittier wants to see densify and become more like Old Pasadena. Transit can be tranformative in this regard. Also, the SR-60 route would be in very low density areas where it would almost be necessary to drive to all of the train stops. It isn't a train in the middle of the freeway, but why settle when there are much better alternatives?

If you are interested in meeting up at any one of these meetings, PM me. I will be trying to organize a group of students from Cal Poly to come as well.

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

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.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by LAdude

Whittier Boulevard makes so much more sense. It is one of the most heavily travelled roads in Los Angeles County and provides some of the largest opportunities for Transit Oriented Development. Initially there were concerns about portions in West Whittier or Pico Rivera where the road was perceived as too narrow. Well, why can't they underground it in those sections like they will be doing in Crenshaw?? Yes it is more expensive, but if you look in the Alternatives Analysis published by Metro, Whittier Blvd. was cheaper than both Washington and the SR-60 routes with comparable ridership.

I would prefer a Purple Line extension from Pershing Square through the Historic Core via 6th st, which becomes Whittier Blvd, all the way to Sante Fe Springs rd. Imagine, a 30 mile straight shot from Santa Monica to Whittier on a subway. Ridership would definitely be off the charts. And at 70 Mph, it would go MUCH faster than a Gold-Expo Line via the Regional Connector at 55 Mph (30 Mph through Boyle Heights).

Of the two alternatives I would prefer Washington because it does pass through some pretty high density areas, but an elevated structure would blight this already industrial corridor. Plus, the line would end almost a mile away from Uptown Whittier. This is a great historic place the city of Whittier wants to see densify and become more like Old Pasadena. Transit can be tranformative in this regard. Also, the SR-60 route would be in very low density areas where it would almost be necessary to drive to all of the train stops. It isn't a train in the middle of the freeway, but why settle when there are much better alternatives?

The so-called higher ridership on the Washington Blvd route is actually only 15,600, while the SR-60 is not much lower, at nearly 13,000. Plus the TOD opportunites there are MUCH higher than the Washington route. Just because it goes to Whittier doesn't mean it's the wisest choice.

http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/eastside_phase2/images/Eastside_Phase2_Alternatives_web.pdf

[202_Cyclist]

Officials call for action in extending Green Line closer to LAX

By Sandy Mazza Staff Writer
Daily Breeze
Posted: 02/22/2010 07:03:16 PM PST

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14449826

Regional and national elected officials on Monday called for swift progress in extending a light rail line closer to Los Angeles International Airport.

Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, toured the areas proposed for a Green Line extension near the airport with South Bay Rep. Jane Harman, D-El Segundo.

DeFazio said he would be an advocate to garner much-needed federal funding for the project, but acknowledged he was not sure where the money would come from.

DeFazio called Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to combine the transportation extension with other area improvements in the next 10 years a "big-bang" approach. The current plan relies on funds from Measure R, a half-cent sales tax approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2008 that will generate $40 billion in the next 30 years.

"These sorts of things are what we really need to do," DeFazio said. "I think taking one of the most congested places in the country and taking a big-bang approach is visionary. The problem is that this hasn't been done before. The federal government hasn't worked with a region on a scale like this."

But Villaraigosa argued Monday that the project needs federal funding so it can be expedited.

"We're the one city in the country that - in the middle of a recession - passed this measure," Villaraigosa said. "With a partnership with the federal government, we could be a blueprint of what other cities should be doing."

The Green Line currently stops about two miles short of the airport because, when the line was planned in the 1970s, it was intended more to serve workers in the El Segundo aerospace industry than airport workers.

On Monday, Harman called that decision ridiculous.

"This is a critical missing link and it makes no sense not to have it," Harman said. "The Green Line to the airport has been an obsession for a number of us for a long time. It's ridiculous that it ends where it does."

Construction on the Green Line extension is scheduled to begin in two or three years and finish no later than 2018. But it would only connect a stop at Aviation Boulevard and Imperial Highway to a stop at Century and Aviation boulevards.

Los Angeles World Airports would be in charge of shuttling passengers the additional mile to the airport terminals via a tram or bus.

LAWA currently has no firm schedule or budget to build a connection to the airport, and has instead focused on the $1.5 billion expansion of the Tom Bradley International Terminal that broke ground Monday.

LAWA spokesman Mike Molina said airport officials are in regular contact with MTA officials about the joint projects.

"LAWA is committed to the transportation of passengers from the Green Line to LAX," Molina said. "What mode of transportation that will be is a decision for the future."

DeFazio said he hopes his visit to the area stimulates some support for the project in Washington, D.C.

"There are still people who think it can't be done," DeFazio said. "But I think it can."

[mwadswor]

I thought the issue with the green line extension had more to do with LAWA not wanting the green line extended yet because of the work on LAX? More funding won't help anything if LAWA needs an attitude adjustment.

IMO if this extension gets built (which it desperately needs to be), LA will still be missing a transportation link somewhere. Either the other end of the greenline needs to get extended to the Norwalk metrolink station, a connector needs to get built between the blue line and green line allowing through running, or preferably both. The extension to the airport would be great, but it would be much more effective if a way were found to make the other end of the green line more accessible too.

[StethJeff]

Stopping a mile short isn't going to cut it. Nor is it ok for passengers to have to change trains to get onto the Blue Line. Whatever gets built ought to have at least the following two requirements:

1) Have a station (or maybe even two) within the airport, easily accessible by foot. Even if it's a block away from the east terminals it's a failure in my book.

2) Direct link to Union Station or some other future Westside transportation hub.

[OhioGuy]

I thought the Crenshaw line would extend from the Expo line down to the Green line, thereby providing the opportunity to build a station right at LAX on the Crenshaw line? So why the need to create a branch off of the green line up towards the airport? Couldn't trains run from downtown via the Expo line to Crenshaw Blvd and then either continue on towards Culver City and Santa Monica or head south toward LAX and a green line connection?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I thought the Crenshaw line would extend from the Expo line down to the Green line, thereby providing the opportunity to build a station right at LAX on the Crenshaw line? So why the need to create a branch off of the green line up towards the airport? Couldn't trains run from downtown via the Expo line to Crenshaw Blvd and then either continue on towards Culver City and Santa Monica or head south toward LAX and a green line connection?

Trains on the Crenshaw Line wouldn't go downtown, though... they'd go to Wilshire/La Brea. A track connection with the Expo Line would be expensive, too, since the Expo Line will be on the surface at Crenshaw, while the Crenshaw Line will be underground.

I think the Harbor Subdivision, when it is rebuilt as a rail line, will provide that direct-to-downtown service. Some of the plans call for it to have an express track.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Trains on the Crenshaw Line wouldn't go downtown, though... they'd go to Wilshire/La Brea. A track connection with the Expo Line would be expensive, too, since the Expo Line will be on the surface at Crenshaw, while the Crenshaw Line will be underground.

I think the Harbor Subdivision, when it is rebuilt as a rail line, will provide that direct-to-downtown service. Some of the plans call for it to have an express track.

I never understood why the Harbor Subdivision rarely gets mentioned when discussing future rail lines in the region. People obsess about the subway, downtown connector, expo, etc. These are all important lines but wouldn't direct rapid rail between the airport and the center of the city (like most big world cities) be near or at the top? People's negative perceptions of the city begin when they arrive at the airport. "LA has no public transit" would take a big hit when people realize that there is a train that'll take them to the heart of a growing regional rail network in the city center.

[JDRCRASH]

^ It would; I also think a dual LRT/Commuter Rail corridor is appropriate, so the Metrolink can be extended to LAX.

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Stopping a mile short isn't going to cut it.

Well remember an extension to Santa Monica via PCH is also planned. I think it should go West on Century, and then North on PCH. That's only a half-mile from the TB terminal.

[Quixote]

Regional Connector Underground Alternative Approved for Further Environmental Study

Measure R Project - The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors approved the addition of a new fully underground light rail alternative underneath Little Tokyo for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study now in environmental review.

February 25, 2010

The new alternative was added to meet the concerns of the Little Tokyo/Arts District Community raised during scoping and ongoing working group meetings. Community members opposed an at-grade crossing at First and Alameda Streets, asserting the alternative would disrupt street activity in the historic Little Tokyo area. The new alternative now enjoys full community support, and will consist of two variations for a complete underground crossing at this intersection, keeping trains fully grade-separated. It also includes an additional underground station. Portals would be built on both First and Alameda Streets to allow trains to surface and connect to the existing Metro Gold Line both to Pasadena and East Los Angeles.

The project team is preparing the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Study/Report (DEIS/R), and will now conduct the technical studies needed to determine costs, impacts and benefits of the alternative projected to cost roughly between $200 million and $300 million. As part of the environmental review process, planners will consider ways to reduce these additional costs. The agency is scheduled to present a Locally Preferred Alternative for final environmental review to its Board of Directors later this year.

If fully funded through a combination of local, state and federal funds, the project could break ground in 2014 and open in the 2018-2019 timeframe.

A partially funded Measure R project, the Regional Connector seeks to complete a nearly two-mile transit gap between the Metro Gold Line, Metro Blue Line and future Expo Line through downtown Los Angeles. The project will minimize the need for transfers, reducing one-way light rail trips across the county by 10 to 30 minutes or more.

[Quixote]

If this were to happen, it would lay the foundation for an eastward HRT extension...

Another Downtown Subway Station?

By Steve Hymon
February 26, 2010

I wanted to circle back to the end of Thursday’s meeting of the Metro Board of Directors. Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge was serving on the Board yesterday as a one-day substitute — two of the city of Los Angeles appointees to the Board were absent — and at the end of the meeting LaBonge made a simple verbal motion.

He wanted to know if it would be possible to extend subway service downtown to Sixth Street. LaBonge’s reasoning: although Union Station serves as a terminus for subway service, the tracks continue south from Union Station and rise to street level, ending at Metro’s subway maintenance facility between Santa Fe Avenue and the Los Angeles River.

In LaBonge’s view, the infrastructure is already there and all that’s needed is a platform for passengers. So why not add another mile of subway service to the downtown arts district at minimal cost?

I first met Councilman LaBonge in Jan. 2005, when I was assigned to cover the Council for the L.A. Times. On that very first meeting he mentioned his idea about the subway and it’s something he’s been talking about for a long time to a lot of people. He even has large posterboard maps in his office showing where a station could be. It’s just one of those ideas that hasn’t gained traction at Metro.

I’ve always thought it was an intriguing concept. The obvious question is how much would it cost — nothing is free in the world of mass transit — and whether there’s enough demand in the arts district to justify that cost. The area has certainly seen a steady increase in residential housing and seems poised to continue to blossom, but neighborhood sidewalks aren’t exactly overwhelmed with people.

Still, downtown Los Angeles covers a huge area and rail service is mostly concentrated in the central business district. Bringing other parts of downtown into the rail fold is certainly enticing and for that reason, The Source very much looks forward to posting the Metro staff report on LaBonge’s idea.

[JDRCRASH]

^ Well, I would rather have a branch from the 7th street station Southeast to the Santee Alley and onto 6th st, and let the head the Union Station route head to the 10 ROW (and eventually Garvey or Valley).

[bmfarley]

Whenever new branch lines are considered off of an existing segment, rather than off the end, a lot of consideration must be given to how the lines merge together and what the ultimate impact is to capacity.... b/c only so many trains can operate through those areas. Also, is something like this constructable?

Interesting idea.

[Quixote]

How Feasible Is Antonio Villaraigosa's 30/10 Gambit for Los Angeles Transit?

Mayor of nation’s second-largest city fights to advance city’s transit planning… by twenty years. It’s a job that necessitates a national infrastructure bank that does not yet exist.

By Yonah Freemark
March 1, 2010

Forget that old cliché about Los Angeles. It’s not the old highway-obsessed metropolis it used to be. In fact, as L.A. matures, it’s densifying, shedding its abhorrence towards public transportation.

The region already has one of the most ambitious transit expansion plans in the country; a new light rail line to East L.A. opened last year, the Expo light rail line from downtown to Culver City is under construction, and dozens of other routes are in planning throughout Los Angeles County. The passage in November 2008 of Measure R, an additional half-cent sales tax for transit, means that these projects aren’t just conjectural.

But L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has always been a strong proponent of new rail and bus lines, isn’t satisfied by the thirty-year timetable that will be required to complete the projects lined up for $13.7 billion in local funding. (Measure R would also fund $27 billion in transit operations, maintenance, and roads projects.) Current financial assumptions indicate that the Mayor’s highest priority–an extension of the Westside subway (Purple Line) to Westwood–wouldn’t be complete until 2032. A fixed guideway link along I-405 between the San Fernando Valley and UCLA would have to wait until 2038.

For Mr. Villaraigosa, this situation isn’t feasible: he wants his subway as soon as possible, rather than force his city’s inhabitants to spend decades more in congestion. But over ten years, Measure R is only expected to bring in about $3 billion for transit capital projects–enough to build the first phase of the subway, but nothing else. Because the Metropolitan Transportation Authority represents L.A. County’s ten million inhabitants, not just the city’s four million, prioritizing a line that would provide service to a tiny percentage of the region’s overall geographic area would not be politically feasible.

In October last year, the mayor suggested an alternative: ask the federal government to loan Metro billions of dollars to complete the majority of the county’s transit projects, in the city and out, in ten years, rather then thirty. The transit authority would then pay Washington back for twenty more years as revenues from Measure R trickled in.

The 30/10 proposal would allow Metro to construct the full Westside extension, but also two easterly extensions of the Gold Line, two new branches for the Green Line, several busways in San Fernando Valley, a link along I-405, and new light rail lines downtown, along Crenshaw Boulevard, to Santa Monica, and via the West Santa Ana branch corridor. All by 2020.

...

[Quixote]

^ I'm confused about the I-405 Corridor Connection. It implies here that it's really the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening Project (under construction with the same cost), but it's listed under "Rail and Rapid Transit Expansion" and apparently won't be completed until 2038. Hmm...

Also note that the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor is now in the early planning process...

[pesto]

no subway to the sea; maybe it should be "subway to the UC"?

I would extend to SM and perhaps delay some other routes. But we've been through this before.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ I'm confused about the I-405 Corridor Connection. It implies here that it's really the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening Project (under construction with the same cost), but it's listed under "Rail and Rapid Transit Expansion" and apparently won't be completed until 2038. Hmm...

Also note that the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor is now in the early planning process...

I don't see the point behind a line that goes all the way to Santa Ana and doesn't pass by Disneyland, Angel Stadium, The Pond, UCI Medical Center, etc. Or is the hope here that OC will eventually develop it's own rail that will address this?

[JDRCRASH]

I think the 405 corridor should get to the Sylmar Metrolink station via Van Nuys, Parthenia and then Sepulveda, simply because of the wide median in that combination of streets. I presume this was an old ROW.

By doing this, you connect to BOTH the Van Nuys & Sylmar Metrolink stations on one single line, rather than having BOTH a Van Nuys and Sepulveda BRT and/or LRT as 2 seperate corridors.

Originally Posted by StethJeff

I don't see the point behind a line that goes all the way to Santa Ana and doesn't pass by Disneyland, Angel Stadium, The Pond, UCI Medical Center, etc. Or is the hope here that OC will eventually develop it's own rail that will address this?

Yeah, but I think the long-term plan is for it to connect with the Santa Ana Metrolink station via Santa Ana Blvd, possibly as an LRT subway beyond Raitt Street to bypass the inevitable NIMBYs there. Which brings me to your question. I'm aware that OC is developing a "plan" for an LRT system, so it's reasonable to assume that the county will work with LAC to extend the line to the metrolink station. This will actually also be required for an Ontario Int. Airport extension of the Gold Line.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ I'm confused about the I-405 Corridor Connection. It implies here that it's really the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening Project (under construction with the same cost), but it's listed under "Rail and Rapid Transit Expansion" and apparently won't be completed until 2038. Hmm...

Also note that the West Santa Ana Branch Corridor is now in the early planning process...

That map is confusing. So is the Metro site. I-405 project is transit/rail????? Not that I know of. Crenshaw is another weird one... it ends at Imperial/Aviation? Santa Ana Branch... is that a Metrolink expansion?