FINAL EDIT: Nov. 27, 2006

None of the changes are reflected on this map yet::

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/damienwg/goodmon_final.gif

The southern portion of changes are reflected on this map:

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/4419/dgjs9.jpg

For those who don't know when I first returned from school in Boston a little over a year ago, I began questioning why Los Angeles didn't have a rail system and started bringing myself up to speed. That inevitabily led to me penciling together what a good rail system in Los Angeles would look like. Then I found the Transit Coalition (www.transitcoalition.us) message board where I started to throw some ideas around. (Their message board and website is a tremendous resource to anyone who wants to get up to speed about the history and current state of urban rail in Los Angeles.) It was there that I "discovered" the best kept secret about rail planning in Los Angeles: consensus. Most planners and advocates already know where service is needed. Planners just don't have the power (due to the political nature of the MTA board) or money (due to the manner in which public transit is financed) to build the lines. Really this map is more of a compilation of most of the ideas that had been suggested/studied LONG before I got involved in mass transit advocacy. After learning more about the political dynamics that have prevented most of the lines from being built today, I decided to create a more scientific map and place a price tag on it. The result after about three or four drafts is the map above. Each time I've adjusted something I've brought it back to these types of forums TTC and SSP specifically, and asked for input - it undeniably is a collaborative effort. And that's what I'm doing now. After these changes I intend to take the map to the next level and start coalition building - online and off.

I WANT AND NEED YOUR CRITICISM to make this map as tight a proposal as possible.

The goal of the map is to spark discussion and to build a critical mass necessary to increase funding for rail transit in Los Angeles County.

The major changes are to the South LA/Gateway Cities lines. I'm moving the Florence line down to Manchester, extending the Silver line to CSUDH/Home Depot Center and making the Slauson line light rail. You can read the detailed routing below, but basically the Manchester line (the new Orange line) would go from Santa Fe Springs to LAX, the Slauson line (a new "Lime" line, unless you guys can think of a better color) would go from Firestone/Imperial to Playa Vista, and the LAXpress would possibly be light rail.

The other large change is the elimination of the Aqua/Expo alternative segment in Downtown LA. I'm taking the section from Washington/Flower to Central and from Central to Little Tokyo off the map, suggesting the abandoned Washington Blvd tracks operate as trolley service, and hopefully connect to the Downtown Trolley network in the future.

To the northern portion of the map, the only large change is to the Foothill Gold line extension. I'm changing it from light rail to EMU.

The small changes throughout the map are to the stations. I'm adding and subtracting some and replacing a handful of intersections with community names/landmarks/commercial destinations to make the map more recognizable to the public and in some station cases, making them more accurate.

Finally, you'll notice that the price tag has increased from $40 billion to $45 billion. That's primarily because the $40 billion total didn't include the cost of the LAXpress, 605 and Gold Foothill extension lines. The new guestimate does. Beside these numbers I include what I label the "Madrid Cost." Madrid is building subways at about $45-85 million a mile (including the cost of the trains, stations, electrification - everything basically) by constructing their tunnels a little differently than we are: large single-bore tunnel vs. twin smaller tunnels; functional stations vs. large and deep stations; and some other things I've yet to figure out. They are not alone, and some portions of their expansions over the past ten years have been in twin-tunnels as well. Other cities much closer to home (Vancouver and Minneapolis) with similar environmental, labor and safety standards are boring twin-tunnels and building stations under $100 million per mile. The whole question as to whether the cost of tunneling has seriously decreased due to mammoth advances in tunneling technology is a question I’m intent on getting the MTA to answer. So for purposes of this proposal, I include the "Madrid Cost" next to the MTA guestimate. The MTA guestimate is based on the assumption that at-grade = $40-60 million/mile, trench = $80 million/mile, elevated = $100-120 million/mile, cut-and-cover tunnel = $200 million/mile and bored twin tunnels = $300 million/mile. The Madrid Cost basically puts all trench, elevated and twin tunnels underground in single-bored tunnels and is calculated at $100-125 million/mile. I leave the at-grade portions at grade and calculate them at the same MTA estimate of $40-60 million/mile.

Using the MTA costly construction methods the guestimates are:
$39.2 – 45.4 billion
79.4 miles of subway
132 - 145.2 miles of elevated rail
166.6 – 178.9 miles of at-grade rail (79.6 miles for Metrolink lines)
3.6 – 4.5 miles of trench rail

Using the Madrid efficient construction method and guestimates are:
$28.3 – 36.2 billion
237.7 miles of subway
157.1 miles of at-grade (79.6 miles for Metrolink lines)
(If we were able to bore tunnel at the standard 50 feet per day and operated 10 tunnel boring machines simultaneously, as is currently the case in Madrid, we could in theory bore all the tunnels in a little under 7-8 years.)

Here are the alignments:

BLUE LINE
Miles of Track: 33.5 (4.7 miles of new track)
Stations: 36 (5 new stations)
Junctions: Gold, Aqua, Purple, Silver, Lime, Orange, Green, Bronze, LAXpress & Metrolink (Antelope Valley, Ventura County, San Bernardino, Riverside, 91, Orange County, Foothill, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $1.3 billion (Madrid: $470 - 590 million)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Memorial Park > Old Town Pasadena; Mission > South Pasadena; Heritage Square > Heritage Square/Arroyo; Lincoln/Cypress > Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park; Del Amo/Santa Fe > Rancho Dominguez

There are three improvements for the light rail line:

1) The Downtown Regional Connector:
A subway linking the 7th Street Metro station to the Little Tokyo station, by heading north under Flower to 1st Street. East under 1st to Alameda.
(This project was studied in the past as part of the Pasadena Blue line, and a more current Major Investment Study has been funded.)

2) Alameda Tunnel
North under Alameda from 1st St to a new trenched Chinatown Station at College St.
(With three different train lines passing through Little Tokyo station it will be necessary to route all rail traffic underground. In the process we can and should eliminate the currently difficult connection between Metro Rail lines at Union Station).

3) South Downtown Subway:
North from the Washington Station (Washington/Long Beach Ave) under Long Beach Ave to 12th Street. West under 12th Street eventually veering to Pico after the South Park Station.
(The Pico subway allows the Blue line to move through Downtown Los Angeles completely underground and directly serve the booming South Park District and Fashion District, which is filled with pedestrian activity. The abandoned Washington Blvd segment would be served by new trolley service that would run from Washington/Long Beach station to the Washington/Flower station. If the Downtown Trolley returns, it should be linked into that system.)


PURPLE LINE (Wilshire/Whittier)
Miles of Track: 36.1 (29.7 miles of new track)
Stations: 40 (33 new stations)
Junctions: Silver, Blue, Aqua, Red, Pink, Bronze, Green, LAXpress & Metrolink (San Bernardino, Riverside, Antelope Valley, Ventura County, 91, Orange County, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $7.0 - 7.2 billion (Madrid: $2.9 - 3.7 billion)

The heavy rail line has three extensions.

1) The Subway to the Sea:
West from its current terminus at Western under Wilshire to Santa Monica Blvd. Southwest under Santa Monica Blvd to Westwood (this diversion serves Century City). North under Westwood to Wilshire. West under Wilshire to the Santa Monica Pier & Promenade station terminus.
(This is Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s pet project. In many ways he waged his mayoral campaign on his ability to lobby the state and Congress to help fund the extension. The MTA recently funded a Major Investment Study for the corridor to update the decades old EIR and the city of Beverly Hills has already filed a study identifying prospective stations for the portion of the line that runs through their city.)

2) Whittier Blvd:
South from its current terminus at Union Station to Olympic mostly at-grade along existing tracks on the western bank of the Los Angeles River and adding an Artist District station. East under the LA River to Olympic/Soto. North under Soto to Whittier. East under Whittier to Atlantic. East above Whittier to the Whittier Quad station around Whittier/Painter.
(This a much-desired extension of current MTA Board Chair Gloria Molina along with East LA and lower San Gabriel Valley leaders. A Major Investment Study is also being conducted on this corridor.)

3) Union Station Bypass:
The Union Station Bypass begins from the Olympic/LA River tunnel west under Olympic/9th Street heading northwest toward 7th Street after Main eventually joining the other Purple Line branch at 7th Street Metro.
(Half or 2/5ths or whatever Metro planners find necessary of Purple line trains would use the Union Station Bypass, which directly connects residents to the Broadway and Fashion District shopping centers.)


RED LINE
Miles of Track: 54.1 (43.1 miles of new track)
Stations: 50 (41 new stations)
Junctions: Bronze, Gold, Pink, Silver, Purple, Aqua, Lime, Orange, Green, LAXpress & Metrolink (Antelope Valley, Ventura County & Harbor)
Cost: $4.9 - 5.6 billion (Madrid: $3.8 - 4.8 billion)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: MacClay > San Fernando; Laurel Canyon/Roscoe > Canyon Plaza; Laurel Canyon/Victory > Valley Plaza; North Hollywood > NoHo Arts District; Hollywood/Western > East Hollywood; Santa Monica/Vermont > LA City College; Eliminate Lexington

The heavy rail line has three extensions:

1) Vermont Extension with Carson Crescent:
South from Vermont/Wilshire station under Vermont to Gage. South above Vermont to the Artesia Transit Center. East to Avalon elevated along the southern shoulder of the Gardena (91) freeway. Continuing east underground to Rainsbury and south under Rainsbury to the CSUDH/Home Depot Center station. West to Avalon/184th underground. South down Avalon at-grade to Carson St. West above Carson St to the 110 freeway. South down the eastern shoulder of the 110 freeway at-grade to the San Pedro Subdivision ROW just south of near Figueroa/Harry Bridges Blvd. Continuing down the ROW to the Downtown San Pedro terminus at 6th Street.
(A portion of this line from Vermont/Wilshire to the Green Line station is identified in the MTA’s 2006 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan as having an extremely high projected ridership, in part because the Vermont bus line is the second most traveled line in the system behind only Wilshire. South of Gage, the wide mostly commercial boulevard provides opportunities to increase its already high density. Use of the Home Depot Center complex in the 2016 Olympics might allow the portion of the line to that station to be constructed with lots of state and federal funding. South of the Home Depot Center service can continue either as a new line with timed-transfers or solely by trains coming from Glendale, or whatever MTA sees appropriate. Attempting to serve the Vermont corridor in Los Angeles with the Harbor Transitway doesn’t serve the densest part of the corridor, which is also the densest residential area west of Manhattan.)

2) Sylmar Extension:
The Sylmar extension continues north under Lankershim from the current Lankershim/Chandler terminus to Burbank Blvd. West under Burbank Blvd to the eastern shoulder of the Hollywood Fwy. North above the eastern shoulder of the Hollywood Fwy to Laurel Canyon Blvd. North above Laurel Canyon to a few blocks north of Sheldon. North over the wash or the area to San Fernando Road. Northwest up San Fernando Road at-grade to the Sylmar Metrolink station terminus.
(Mayor Villaraigosa and several Valley leaders have proposed this extension be above Lankershim. I prefer Laurel Canyon because it is a slightly wider street, there are several shopping destinations along the boulevard including a major half-billion dollar renovation of Valley Plaza, there is space for a large park-and-ride at Laurel Canyon/Oxnard, and it is much less industrial.)

3) Glendale Extension:
The Glendale Extension extends north from the Vermont/Sunset station under Vermont to Los Feliz. Northeast under Los Feliz to Brand. North above Brand to the Brand/134 Fwy terminus.
(The city of Glendale recently funded a study for light rail down Brand Blvd.)


GREEN LINE (105/Lincoln)
Miles of Track: 34.4 (17.5 miles of new track)
Stations: 32 (22 new stations)
Junctions: Orange, Lime, Silver, Blue, Red, Pink, Bronze, Aqua, Purple, LAXpress & Metrolink (91, Orange County, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $1.7 - 2.1 billion (Madrid: $1.4 - 1.8 billion)

The light rail line has three extensions and three new stations to the existing tracks:

1) LAX & Lincoln
West from the existing elevated alignment at Nash/Maple above Maple to Sepulveda. North under Sepulveda to Lincoln. Northwest up Lincoln to Manchester at-grade. North above Lincoln to 10 Fwy/Olympic. West above the 10 freeway to the Santa Monica Pier/Promenade station terminus.
(An Environmental Impact Report has already been conducted on this corridor up to Playa Vista. The city of Los Angeles recently funded a study to further explore the possibilities of the beach North-South corridors.)

2) West Santa Ana Branch ROW Cerritos Spur
Ascends southeast from the current Green Line tracks after the 710/105 Fwy interchange crossing over the 105 freeway and then descends to run at-grade down the West Santa Ana Branch ROW to the eastern shoulder of the 605 freeway. South down the eastern shoulder of the 605 freeway to the Los Cerritos Center terminus.
(A master’s thesis was submitted that studied the Santa Ana Branch ROW.)

3) Metrolink/Norwalk Transit Center Connection
North from the current Norwalk station terminus under Studebaker. East under Imperial Hwy to the Norwalk Transit Center terminus.
(This connection was in the original Green Line EIR.)

4) Additional Stations
Infill stations at Western (Southwest College), Atlantic and Garfield (Hollydale).


GOLD LINE (Ventura & Sherman Way)
Miles of Track: 57.1 (53.4 miles of new track)
Stations: 47 (43 new stations)
Junctions: Blue, Red, Bronze & Metrolink (Antelope Valley & Ventura County)
Cost: $4.6 - 5.6 billion (Madrid: $4.0 - 5.3 billion)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: 134 Fwy/Colorado > Rose Bowl/Norton Simon Museum; Sepulveda/Ventura > Sherman Oaks Galleria; Hayvenhurst > Lake Balboa; Add Eagle Rock Mall between Chevy Chase/Verdugo & Eagle Rock/Colorado; Add Stadium spur from Rose Bowl/Norton Simon Museum

The light rail line would extend west. Ascending from the Old Town Pasadena station west down Walnut to an elevated line over the 134 freeway. West above the 134 Fwy to Figueroa Street/Colorado. West above Colorado Blvd to Broadway. West above Broadway to the southern shoulder of the 134 freeway. West above the 134 freeway to the Valley Subdivision/Metrolink ROW on San Fernando Road. Northwest up the ROW at-grade to Olive Street.
(The Stadium spur is a city-financed high-occupancy tram system operating down North Arroyo Blvd between the stadium and the Rose Bowl/Norton Simon Museum station on game days.)

It then would branch in two:

A) Ventura Blvd/Studios Spur
Southwest under Olive to North Pass Ave. Southwest under Universal Studios to Ventura/Lankershim. West above Ventura to Reseda Blvd. North above Reseda to the southern shoulder of the Ventura (101) Freeway to run at-grade to Canoga Ave. North up Canoga Ave at-grade to the Burbank Branch/San Fernando Valley Busway ROW near Vanowen to Plummer. Continuing north up the Coast Subdivision ROW at-grade to the Chatsworth Metrolink station terminus.
(Ventura Blvd needs a rail line for three reasons: JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Ventura Blvd. is the San Fernando Valley’s major commercial boulevard. It is home to many of the Valley’s prominent commerce centers and entertainment companies, making it’s connection to the major motion picture studios in Burbank all the more likely to garner trips. The street is the San Fernando Valley’s Wilshire Blvd, and it cannot be adequately served by a rail line that at most points is over a mile north of the street.)

B) Airport/Sherman Way Spur
Northwest up the Coast Subdivision/Metrolink ROW to Sherman Way at-grade. West above Sherman Way to Van Nuys Blvd. Continue west down Sherman Way at-grade to Reseda. North above Reseda Blvd to Nordhoff. West down Norhoff at-grade to the Coast Subdivision/Metrolink ROW. And north up the ROW at-grade to the Chatsworth Metrolink station terminus.
(The MTA recently commissioned a study to connect the Red line to the Pasadena Gold line through Glendale and Burbank.)


AQUA LINE (Expo/Valley)
Miles of Track: 33.4 (25.3 miles of new track)
Stations: 38 (30 new stations)
Junctions: Purple, Green, Bronze, Silver, Pink, Red, Blue, LAXpress & Metrolink (Antelope Valley, Ventura County, 91, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $2.0 - 2.5 billion (Madrid: $1.9 - 2.5 billion)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Valley/Rosemead > Rosemead Civic Center; El Monte > El Monte Transit Center; Add Valley Mall between Baldwin and El Monte Transit Center

The light rail line would have two extensions and one modification:

1) West: Expo Phase II
West from the Robertson/Venice station down the Exposition ROW at-grade to Olympic/22nd. West down Olympic to 10th Street at-grade. West above the 10 freeway to the Santa Monica Pier and Promenade terminus.
(The EIR for this project is currently being processed.)

2) East: Valley Blvd
East from Union Station ascending after crossing the Los Angeles River from subway to at-grade along the Alhambra Subdivision ROW near Lamar/San Antonio Plaza. East along the ROW at-grade to Valley/Borland. East above Valley to the eastern shoulder of the Rio Hondo River near Santa Anita Ave. South above the eastern shoulder of the Rio Hondo River to the El Monte Transit Center near Ramona. East under Ramona to the San Gabriel Subdivision ROW near Cypress, continuing above Ramona to the Baldwin Park station terminus.
(This line is a variation of the grassroots-developed MetroSilverLine.com, which spawned the official study of the corridor by the MTA. The goal is to directly serve the commercial heart of the southern San Gabriel Valley and it’s many transit dependent and transit-friendly citizens.)

3) Extending the Flower Street Tunnel
The current Blue line Flower St tunnel would be extended from its current end at 11th Street south under Flower to Adams.
(All the increased traffic in South Park due to multiple developments, notably LA Live, will make this grade-separation very necessary).


BRONZE LINE
Miles of Track: 50.6 (45.9 miles of new track)
Stations: 43
Junctions: Red, Gold, Purple, Aqua, Silver, Lime, Orange, Green, Pink, Blue, LAXpress & Metrolink (Antelope Valley, Ventura County, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $4.5 - 5.9 billion (Madrid: $4.1 - 5.5 billion)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Foothill/Van Nuys > Foothill; Pacoima > Arleta; Arleta > Woodman/Van Nuys; Van Nuys/Roscoe > Panorama Mall; Van Nuys/Oxnard > Van Nuys Civic Center; Carson/Crenshaw > Old Torrance; Santa Fe/PCH > Santa Fe; Eliminate Van Nuys/Victory; Add Getty Center between UCLA and Van Nuys/Ventura; Add Glenoaks between Foothill and Van Nuys/San Fernando

The heavy rail line likely powered by overhead pantograph begins near the junction of the 118/210 freeways and continues south above Van Nuys. After Van Nuys/Ventura it tunnels directly under the Santa Monica Mountains to UCLA with a small diversion to the Getty Center tram station. South under Westwood to Pico. Southwest under Pico to the eastern shoulder of the 405 freeway. It runs a combination of at-grade and elevated along the eastern shoulder of the 405 freeway until Sepulveda. South above Sepulveda. to the at-grade LAX station. South under Sepulveda to Maple. Continues above Sepulveda to El Segundo, and then at-grade down the western shoulder of Sepulveda from El Segundo to Rosecrans. East above Rosecrans to the existing Green line tracks. Southeast down the Green Line ROW elevated to Marine/Redondo Beach Ave. Continuing elevated southeast down the Harbor Subdivision ROW to the western shoulder of the 405 Fwy to Hawthorne Blvd. Southeast above Hawthorne Blvd. to the Harbor Subdivision ROW at 190th. Southeast down the Harbor Subdivision tracks at-grade with grade separations at major intersections to Normandie. South above Normandie to Pacific Coast Highway. East above PCH, continuing after the Los Alamitos Circle above Atherton to Bellflower. South above Bellflower to 7th street. East above 7th street to the Cal State Long Beach/Long Beach Veterans Hospital terminus at Campus Drive.
(The line would connect all of the Metro Rail lines and the culturally and socio-economically diverse communities that surround the stations, and it would serve the corridor synonymous with Los Angeles’ Traffic Crisis: 405 Freeway. In the Draft Long Range Transportation, MTA identifies the South Bay portion of the line from Redondo Beach to PCH/Harbor Fwy as an extension of the existing green line, and an MIS has already been conducted down to the South Bay Galleria. The abandoned Nash el would continue as trolley service between the Imperial/Aviation or possibly LAX and the Redondo Beach or Lawndale station. The Sepulveda segment allows the line to serve Manhattan Beach, several high-density job pockets and Rosecrans - the retail heart of El Segundo. On the northern end of the line, the San Fernando Valley North-South study identified Van Nuys Blvd as corridor in need of transit upgrades. It is the most popular bus line in the Valley.)

POSSIBLE ALIGNMENT CHANGE: North from Getty Center to Sepulveda/Ventura. North under Sepulveda to Magnolia. East under Magnolia to Van Nuys.
-OR-
North from Getty Center to Sepulveda/Ventura. East under Ventura to Van Nuys. North above Van Nuys.


SILVER LINE
Miles of Track: 44.3 (34.9 miles of new track)
Stations: 55 (41 new stations)
Junctions: Red, Blue, Green, Orange, Lime, Purple, Aqua, Pink, Bronze, & Metrolink (91, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino County, Antelope Valley, Ventura County & Harbor)
Cost: $5.4 - 6.2 billion (Madrid: $3.2 - 4.1 billion)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Sunset/Figueroa > Alpine Hill; La Cienega/Sunset > Sunset Strip; Sunset/San Vicente > Sunset Strip West; Central > Central/Artesia; Eliminate Olvera St

The light rail line begins at Pacific Ave and heads northeast up South Venice at-grade in a single-track segment to Abbot Kinney, where the two-track segment begins. It continues northeast at-grade or above Venice Blvd to Fairfax. North under Fairfax to 3rd Street. West under 3rd to San Vicente. North under San Vicente to Sunset. East under Sunset to La Brea. North under La Brea to Hollywood connecting to the existing Red line tunnels. It continues in the Red line tunnels and stations to Santa Monica/Vermont. Continues east under Santa Monica to Sunset. Southeast under Sunset, which turns into Cesar Chavez to Union Station. South under Alameda to the Little Tokyo Station at 1st. Easterly using the current Gold Line Eastside in a combination of at-grade and subway tracks and stations to Pomona/Atlantic. South under Atlantic to Telegraph, continuing above Atlantic to the 710 freeway in Compton. South down the western shoulder of the 710 freeway to the 91 freeway at-grade. West down the northern shoulder of the 91 freeway at-grade to about one-half mile east of Avalon Blvd. South under Rainsbury to the CSUDH/Home Depot Center terminus.
(The western portion of the line forms a West Hollywood/Beverly Hills crescent that is completely necessary to serve these major Westside traffic generators with one line. The Dodger Stadium station is connected to the Angelino Heights station via a privately-financed high-occupancy tram system operating under Chavez Ravine during events and on game days. Atlantic Blvd is the 2nd most traveled bus line east of Blue line, behind only Long Beach Blvd which serves the same corridor as the Blue line.)


PINK LINE (Crenshaw/La Brea/Hawthorne)
Miles of Track: 20.9
Stations: 24
Junctions: Red, Silver, Purple, Aqua, Lime, Orange, Green, Bronze & LAXpress
Cost: $3.6 - 3.7 billion (Madrid: $2.1 - 2.6 billion)
CHANGES TO MAP: Del Amo/Hawthorne > Delthorne

The light rail line begins at Hollywood/Highland and heads west under Hollywood to La Brea. South under La Brea to San Vicente. Southeast under San Vicente to Venice. East down Venice to Crenshaw at-grade or in a trench. South under Crenshaw to Rodeo. South down Crenshaw from Rodeo Rd to Harbor Subdivision ROW near 67th in a combination of trench and subway. Southwest down the ROW to Market in a trench. South under Market, ascending above the street at La Brea, which turns into Hawthorne to the Del Amo Mall terminus.
(The most recent Major Investment Study on a portion of this corridor was completed in 2003. Other segments have been studied in the past. The portion of the line through Mid-City assumes the hydrogen sulfide soil issue can be avoided with a shallow bored tunnel. The wide boulevards in the Crenshaw and Hawthorne Blvd portions of the line present a tremendous opportunity to redevelop mostly single-story commercial space into gracefully dense mixed-use developments lush with landscaping and wide sidewalks.)


LIME LINE (Slauson/Firestone)
Miles of Track: 22.3 (21.2 miles of new track)
Stations: 21
Junctions: Green, Orange, Silver, Blue, Red, Pink, Bronze, LAXpress & Metrolink (Harbor & 605)
Cost: $850 million – 1.4 billion (Madrid: $990 million – 1.4 billion)

The light rail line begins at the Firestone/Imperial station at Imperial and the Los Nietos Subdivision ROW near Firestone and heads northwest up the ROW at-grade to the San Pedro Subdivision ROW along Salt Lake Ave. Northwest up the San Pedro Subdivision ROW at-grade to the La Habra Subdivision ROW on Randolph Street. West down the La Habra Subdivision ROW at-grade to the Harbor Subdivision ROW on Slauson. West down the Harbor Subdivision ROW at-grade to Crenshaw. Continuing west down the Harbor Subdivision ROW in a trench to Centinela. West at-grade or above Centinela past La Cienega. Continuing west at-grade or in a trench down Centinela to Green Valley Circle. Continuing west at-grade down Centinela to Jefferson. West at-grade down Jefferson to the Playa Vista terminus at Lincoln Blvd.


ORANGE LINE (Manchester/Firestone)
Miles of Track: 20.1 (11.1 miles of new track)
Stations: 20
Junctions: Green, Lime, Silver, Blue, Red, Bronze, Pink, LAXpress & Metrolink (91, Orange County, Harbor & 605)
Cost: $950 million – 1.2 billion (Madrid: $950 million – 1.2 billion)

The light rail line begins at the Norwalk Transit Center station heading west under Imperial to the Los Nietos Subdivision ROW near Firestone. Northwest up the ROW to Alameda/East Manchester at-grade. West above East Manchester to Firestone, which turns into Manchester to the Harbor Subdivision ROW near Aviation. South down the ROW at-grade. West from the ROW underground to 96th Street. West under 96th street ascending to at-grade at the LAX station terminus.


605 LINE
Miles of Track: 35.7 (28.3 miles of new track)
Stations: 16
Junctions: Aqua, Purple, Green, Orange, Lime, Bronze, Blue & Metrolink (San Bernardino, Riverside, 91, Orange County & Foothill)
Cost: $870 – 960 million (Madrid: $870 million – 1 billion)

The EMU line begins at the Irwindale terminus and heads south at-grade down the Azusa Branch ROW near Irwindale Ave to the San Gabriel Subdivision/Metrolink ROW near the Azusa Canyon Road/Los Angeles intersection. Southwest at-grade down the ROW to the Bassett Station near the Railroad Ave/Baldwin Park intersection. West under Valley Blvd to the eastern shoulder of the 605 freeway. Southwest down the eastern shoulder of the 605 freeway elevated to the 60 freeway interchange. Veer south from the interchange elevated west of the Workman Mill/Pellissier intersection descending to the Los Angeles Subdivision ROW. Southwest down the Los Angeles Subdivision ROW at-grade to the Los Nietos Subdivision ROW just southwest of the 605/Beverly junction. South down the Los Nietos ROW at-grade on the east bank of the San Gabriel River to the San Bernardino Subdivision/Metrolink ROW at Slauson. Southeast down the San Bernardino Subdivision ROW at-grade to the Norwalk Transit Center station. West under or above Imperial Hwy to the 105 freeway. West down the Green line ROW in the median of the 105 freeway at-grade to the 105 freeway/Paramount intersection. Southwest under the 105 freeway to the San Pedro Subdivision ROW near Facade Ave. South at-grade down the San Pedro Subdivision ROW to the Lakewood Industrial Lead ROW near Candlewood. South down the Lakewood Industrial Lead ROW at-grade to Cherry near 33rd. South above Cherry to Pacific Coast Highway. West above Pacific Coast Highway to the Long Beach Blvd terminus.
(Whether this line is Metrolink-EMU or light rail, its major purpose is to provide north and south service along the I-605 and I-710 corridors and connectivity between the eastern part of the rail network. New or parallel tracks will be needed in some segments so that freight and passenger rail can flow without disrupting the other and/or to compliment fellow Metrolink service.)


HARBOR LINE
Miles of Track: 34.5 (14.1 miles of new track)
Stations: 17
Junctions: Purple, Silver, Aqua, Blue, Lime, Orange, Green, Red, Bronze, LAXpress & Metrolink (91, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernardino County, Antelope Valley, Ventura County)
Cost: $330 – 370 million (Madrid: $330 – 370 million)

The light rail or EMU line begins at Union Station and continues in the Downtown Connector tunnels (south under Alameda, west under 1st, south under Flower), continuing under Flower to Adams. It then connects to the Harbor Transitway via overpass and continues down the Harbor Transitway at-grade to the Artesia Transit Center. East under the 110 freeway to the eastern shoulder of the freeway near West 184th street. South down the eastern shoulder of the freeway ascending above the 405 freeway exchange. Continuing down the eastern shoulder of the freeway at-grade to the San Pedro Subdivision ROW just south of near Figueroa/Harry Bridges Blvd. Continuing down the ROW to the Downtown San Pedro terminus at 6th Street.
(The Harbor Transitway was built strong enough to support light rail vehicles. I suggest EMU or LRT based on the capabilities of the existing structures, ability to run on the same Downtown Connector tracks and cost. Essentially the major purpose of this line is to quickly connect the distant South Bay communities (San Pedro, Wilmington and Carson specifically) to the hub of the rail network in Downtown LA, while the Blue and Red lines provide much needed local service to a population with a very high concentration of transit dependent citizens.)


LAXpress LINE
Miles of Track: 15 (8.3 miles of new track)
Stations: 8
Junctions: Aqua, Silver, Purple, Blue, Red, Pink, Lime, Orange, Green, Bronze & Metrolink (San Bernardino, Riverside, 91, Orange County, Antelope Valley, Ventura County & Harbor)
Cost: $380-560 million (Madrid: $380-550 million)

The light rail or EMU line heads south from Union Station at-grade down the West Bank ROW to the Harbor Subdivision ROW at Washington near the LA River. Southwesterly down the Harbor Subdivision ROW to Aviation near 96th street. West from the ROW underground to 96th street. West under 96th street ascending to at-grade at the LAX station terminus.
(An MIS was recently funded to determine the capabilities of the ROW.)


FOOTHILL LINE
Miles of Track: 34.5 (27.7 miles of new track)
Stations: 19
Junctions: Gold, Blue & Metrolink (San Bernarndino & 605)
Cost: $540 million (Madrid: $540 million)
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Citrus > Citrus College/Azusa Pacific University; La Verne > Fairplex/University of La Verne; Pomona > North Pomona

The EMU line begins at the Old Town Pasadena station and proceeds east down the existing Gold line tracks to Sierra Madre Villa station continuing down the Pasadena Subdivision ROW primarily at-grade to Cucamonga Creek just east of Vineyard Ave and south down the eastern side of the creek to the Ontario Airport terminus.
(The Gold Line Foothill Authority completed the Draft EIR in 2004 to Montclair. Among the extension’s major contributions to the transit system is a large potential rail yard in Irwindale.)


EXISTING METROLINK CHANGES

San Bernardino Line
Cost: $30 million
-Added LA County USC Medical Center, Alhambra, Rosemead & Bassett stations

Riverside Line
Cost: $150 million
-Moved service from the Los Angeles Subdivision ROW to an upgraded fully double-tracked San Gabriel Subdivision ROW to Bassett station and continuing to an upgraded and fully double-tracked Alhambra Subdivision ROW freeing the Los Angeles Subdivision to operate as the core segment of the Alameda Corridor East from Redondo Junction in Downtown LA to the Inland Empire.
-Eliminated Montebello Commerce station
-Added La Puente & CSU Pomona/Mt. SAC (Kellogg/Valley) stations
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: CSU Pomona > CSU Pomona/Mt. SAC

Ventura County Line
Cost: $20 million
-Moved Northridge Station to Northridge Fashion Center (Nordoff Way/ROW near Corbin)
-Moved Glendale station to Atwater Village (Los Feliz/ROW near Seneca)
-Added Laurel Canyon/Sherman Way, Glassell Park & Glendale (Broadway/San Fernando Road) stations
STATION CHANGES TO MAP: Glassel Park > Glassell Park; Add spur from Glendale Metrolink station to LA Zoo/Autry Museum

Antelope Valley Line
Cost: $10 million
-Added Van Nuys/San Fernando Road & Palmdale Airport stations

Orange County & 91 Lines
Cost: $10 million
-Moved Commerce station to Atlantic/ROW near Bandinis
-Added San Fernando Springs station at Telegraph/ROW near Bloomfield

All criticism and suggestions, especially for station name changes in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys are greatly appreciated.

map looks good
what does ROW mean.

also do i change my sig to...

go aqua[?] line go?

Nice fantasy. But won't see even a quarter of this in my life time and that will happen if you get the money.

map looks good
what does ROW mean.

also do i change my sig to...

go aqua[?] line go?

ROW = Right-Of-Way, meaning any property or easement allocated for use as a transportation system (road, bus or rail).

What happened to the Red Line? Are you gonna force people to transfer to another train if they want to get from Downtown to the Valley via the classic route? I'm a huge rail supporter but I don't know if some of these lines would work from an operational sense. The Red and Purple lines are meant to share routes until Wilshire/Vermont.

im getting excited by this map... i want to have babies with it... little trains that work on computers all day. man... can someone put me in a coma for 4 years so i can wake up and take a train to work!!

What happened to the Red Line? Are you gonna force people to transfer to another train if they want to get from Downtown to the Valley via the classic route?

As long as the stations are constructed where transfers are easy, and trains operate with frequent headways (every 2 or 3 minutes) I don't think there will be much grumbling.

My goal is to get the corridors served by rail. How MTA decides to break up the lines I'll leave to them. For example, I seriously doubt the Gold line will go all the way from Claremont to Chatsworth uninterrupted. Although, at the recent Rail Conference the rail operations executives did seem to suggest that they'd encounter some difficulty changing the ratio of Wilshire/Western to North Hollywood trains from the current one-to-one. I couldn't imagine how much difficulty they'd find having to have two connected lines operating with two to three spurs each.

I think most people assume that if the Red line Vermont extension becomes a reality along with the Subway to the sea the lines will be split.

I'm a huge rail supporter but I don't know if some of these lines would work from an operational sense.

Please be specific.

im getting excited by this map... i want to have babies with it... little trains that work on computers all day. man... can someone put me in a coma for 4 years so i can wake up and take a train to work!!

:lol: I was thinking the same thing!

This is a lot of work you did Damien. Are you planning on presenting this to "important" people? I think you should

The best part of this? The rail that goes to Dodger Stadium.

No Freeway extensions......Huh?

^^ eh... there's so many freeways in there that it's a hastle to get around the streets to find an onramp

No Freeway extensions......Huh?

Building more freeways as a solution for traffic is like treating someone's cocaine addiction with a wider straw.

if this is ever built what would happen to all the freeways will they become
dead?????????

if this is ever built what would happen to all the freeways will they become
dead?????????

The freeways will stay, rail was never indended to replace the freeways (here or anywhere else), only take up its capacity since the SoCal population is ever-growing. Because if you just build more freeways, you set off a real bad chain reaction -- it'll cure traffic temporarily but as the population still grows, that just means more cars, and traffic will be no better than it was, just even more cars. And then when you build more freeways you remove room for housing, businesses and recreation. Plus a real transportation must be balanced: Not too much road, not too much transit, but a functional balance of the two. People need *choices*.

So yes, there will still be people on the roads, and there might stilll be traffic, but with more rail the auto traffic will not get even worse and travel times will not increase, as in third-world traffic conditions.

^^what are the chances of me and you posting at the same time
11:01

I saw this plan on CurbedLA and it's jaw droppingly hot. Personally I like the consideration of South Bay neighborhoods.

Damn, if only L.A. had a transit system like that because if we we have one of the largest transportation system in the U.S. Something like that will take about 40-50 years to complete.

One thing that the map overlooks are the existing Metrolink lines; some of them are already in the works for extensions. For instance the Riverside Line is already being extended to Perris by 2009-2010. Extensions of the existing lines to places like Santa Barbara, Palm Springs and Barstow have also been considered. Even some of those extended lines will be up and running before most of the heavy/light rail lines on this map get built.

^^what are the chances of me and you posting at the same time
11:01

I dunno, but I beat you to it by a few seconds :)

Building more freeways as a solution for traffic is like treating someone's cocaine addiction with a wider straw.


Excellent!

One thing that the map overlooks are the existing Metrolink lines

Adjust your screen Elsong. All of the existing Metrolink lines are on the map and labeled. In the text, I also include suggested upgrades, including the movement and addition of some of the stations.

I don't include the stations outside of Los Angeles County because this is a Los Angeles County map. The MTA has authority and budgets for Los Angeles County, not Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura or Orange.

Damn, if only L.A. had a transit system like that because if we we have one of the largest transportation system in the U.S. Something like that will take about 40-50 years to complete.

It will be built as quickly as we fund it and make it a priority. In the case of subway construction its really about the number of tunnel boring machines we buy. On average, they bore about 50 feet per day and can operate 24-7 because they're below ground. The mayor recently called a meeting with the head contractors/designers in the city and found out that with the money to complete the project on the table the full subway to the sea could be built in 1 1/2 years by purchasing 8 tunnel boring machines instead of the typical two and operating them simultaneously. Add 2-3 years for a full EIR process and you have the Wilshire subway operating before a 2016 Los Angeles Olympics. But if we only finance it in segments that's where you get the 15-20 year estimates.

So Damein, do you support the Transportation/Infrastructure bond?

so that would take care of the subway to the see. but alot of those lines will be at street level. what are the time estimates on how long... oh lets just say the silver [aqua] line, would take to complete?

So Damein, do you support the Transportation/Infrastructure bond?




^^ Do we really need another "BOND"?

^^ Yes, so get that lazy ass of yours out and about, find a job, pay taxes like the rest of us, or most of us....lol

ha

So Damein, do you support the Transportation/Infrastructure bond?

Yes, but reluctantly. Only about 4 billion will go to mass transit while 11 billion goes to highways and the rest to some projects I think should undoubtedbly be provided by the feds. Spending what amounts to 22 billion on highways in 21st century California is as Elsongs puts it, giving a cocaine addict a bigger straw. Every transportation planner admits, especially in the case of Los Angeles, that freeway expansion creates more traffic, not less. And while people have the choice to be ignorant of the facts (George Bush earned 62 million votes for goodness sake), those people really need to stop complaining about traffic and the lack of street life in Los Angeles, and should be ignored when commenting on subjects related to urban planning.

^^ Do we really need another "BOND"?

http://twojb007.tripod.com/images/James%20Bond%20007.jpg

Of course we do. Vote "YES" on Prop 007!
LOL

i was looking at your map yesterday at work damien. when one of my coworkers walked by and said "wow is that what they want to build?!" everyone was getting excited about it. then someone else waked by and said "you know that we were supposed to get that like 1o years ago, and everyone voted for this huge bond that only a small percentage of the money actually got to the project the rest was spent one middle men."

i think that whole thing was interesting. it was interesting to see how many of my co-workers did not even know how long the red line was. or that la had mass transit lines.

and then to hear that this has already been shown in one form or another 1o years ago? but got snagged up in some sort of bureaucracy.

[i was not here 1o years ago. so i do not know what happened then. please someone elaborate]

the plans were laid out ten years ago, similar to damien's but not as many lines (still most of them though). i believe the plan was a fifty year projection of what the mta wanted in los angeles.

if you think about it, 4 billion to mass transit and 11 million to highways sounds ok... we would be spending twice as much on highways than mass transit but there are many times more miles of highway to maintain compared to rail in this state. this isn't a city election so the state won't be considering JUST the needs of los angeles. and anyway, some funding is better than no funding.

Sounds like much of the money will get wasted. And there should be more money going to the metro. If I'm not 100% into a measure, or confused about it, I just vote no.

metro isn't the only mass transit system and l.a. isn't the only city. san diego's system will get some and so will san fransisco's and sacramento's.

los angeles metro will probably get a little less than half of the 4 billion for mass transit. i figure might as well, otherwise we'll end up paying for metro anyway with city taxes or just not getting transit altogether which is unacceptable

if you think about it, 4 billion to mass transit and 11 million to highways sounds ok... we would be spending twice as much on highways than mass transit but there are many times more miles of highway to maintain compared to rail in this state.

If you look at the actual projects for 1B you just see a laundry list of freeway widenings and construction. That's not maintance; that's expansion. Also, I've driven this state and several others, notably in the south and northeast. We have pretty nice freeways in comparison to the rest of the nation. The problem isn't maintenance it's that we're operating over capacity.

I'm not against highway maintenance, and I strongly support things like bringing overpasses up to code, but if I'm going to ask to sign on to what amounts to a 40 billion dollar investment (when interest is added) I expect to see CHANGE. Adding more lanes to freeways is more of the same failed policy that has given us the worst air and traffic in the nation. Again: Adding lanes to freeways increases traffic. So in that respect the bond is at worse adding fuel to the fire and at best letting it burn.

Like I said I'm reluctantly supporting the measure for a lot of reasons, but primarily to finally get these long-debated highway projects off of the discussion board, and begin a real debate about solving our transportation/environmental crisis. Additionally, the MTA says they'll get about a billion for mass transit projects. We'll see.

and anyway, some funding is better than no funding.

It's never that simple.

then someone else waked by and said "you know that we were supposed to get that like 1o years ago, and everyone voted for this huge bond that only a small percentage of the money actually got to the project the rest was spent one middle men."

I might be wrong, but I don't think there were any major mass transit bonds on the ballot 10 years ago. The MTA does update it's 30-year long range plan every 5 years (how big a joke is that?!) and the '92 plan was very ambitious. But there's always the funded aspect of the plan based on projected capital and the unfunded aspect of the plan.

i am also reluctantly voting yes on this one. and yeah everything like overpasses need to be brought up to date. bike paths need to be added street lights and crossings updated, and whatever else. i'm hoping that this will at least give us some more leash length and time to build up what we're supposed to build (subways, lightrail, etc.).

It's never that simple.

of course not, but like you said, i'm forced to vote yes

With support and pressure coming from the LA mayor, our local legislators and local grass-roots public transit organizations, I think LA has a better chance today for getting the much-needed transit funds. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that for the first time in our history, City Hall, local reps and the general populace seems to be on the same page as far as pushing for a comprehensive public mass transit system----this consensus hasn't happened before.

I'm pretty sure their are no new freeways planned for LA city further their are expansions planned for highways but outside of big proj like the 710 tunnel they amount to carpool lanes mainly. Believe me, their will be no 2 freeway expansion through Beverly Hills in our lifetime or ever. In other words to shut up the freeway whores and car addicts some projects have to be pushed through. But I think we can all feel that their is a real consensus evolving regarding rapid mass transit that is undeniable. When Weho, BeHi and SaMo get together to talk about solving traffic congestion and they all push away from the table agreeing on subway and light rail solutions and loathing street widening, the times they are a changin'.
Bottom line the MTA LRP has lots of rail projects and absolutely no brand new highways, look it over: http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf

im a freeway whore :)

And you must just start to cream thinking about congestion.

I always said that Santa Monica Blvd from the 405 to Wilshire should of been a short Fwy like the 90. Instead of wasting million upon million of dollars and still looks like crap!!!!

What exactly are they doing on Santa Monica????

What exactly are they doing on Santa Monica????

Causing lots of traffic

I'm pretty sure their are no new freeways planned for LA city further their are expansions planned for highways but outside of big proj like the 710 tunnel they amount to carpool lanes mainly. Believe me, their will be no 2 freeway expansion through Beverly Hills in our lifetime or ever. In other words to shut up the freeway whores and car addicts some projects have to be pushed through. But I think we can all feel that their is a real consensus evolving regarding rapid mass transit that is undeniable. When Weho, BeHi and SaMo get together to talk about solving traffic congestion and they all push away from the table agreeing on subway and light rail solutions and loathing street widening, the times they are a changin'.
Bottom line the MTA LRP has lots of rail projects and absolutely no brand new highways, look it over: http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf

There needs to be another freeway that leads into Orange County. The West Side has enough, but there are major holes on the East Side. The 57 isn't cutting it, it's congested all the way there and back again.

and a tunnel under BH!!! woo! ferny help me make a petition!

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/damienwg/goodmon_final.gif

$45,000,000,000 for all this?! I just like the project, but How is Los Angeles going to get the funding for all this? It would take more than 45 years to get it all completed.

There needs to be another freeway that leads into Orange County. The West Side has enough, but there are major holes on the East Side. The 57 isn't cutting it, it's congested all the way there and back again.

Are you kidding? The Westside had 2 freeways and only one leads to Orange County. The Eastside has atleast 5 Freeways, depending on what part of town your in. I don't think the Westside needs another freeway, but no other part of the region needs one either.

Jim with matching state and federal dollars we'd probably need to come up with $20 billion, possibly less if the commitments are made at once, and significantly less if we can implement Madrid's tunneling techniques. Pass a bond and pay it off with transportation related taxes over 30 years.

Are you kidding? The Westside had 2 freeways and only one leads to Orange County. The Eastside has atleast 5 Freeways, depending on what part of town your in. I don't think the Westside needs another freeway, but no other part of the region needs one either.

East of I-5, I meant the Eastside of LA County. The only freeway there is the 57.

The freeway building boom in LA county has been over for some time. Now it's about carpools lanes, some lane expansions and maintenance but nothing else. Not being critical of how they build it but when the Gold Line East and Expo I open in 2009 and 2010 successfully the MTA would have spent close to 2 billion dollars on those 2 lines. Once again not commenting on whether or not one agrees with this expenditure, that's 2 billion dollars not going to more freeways.

Freeway construction is still a focus though. The 210 is being worked on as we speak and plans are being tossed around for the 710. The only reason more aren't being built are because of two things.

1. Environmental Impact Reports
2. Public Opinion of Eminent Domain

$45,000,000,000 for all this?! I just like the project, but How is Los Angeles going to get the funding for all this? It would take more than 45 years to get it all completed.

HA!!
it will take longer than that

it will probably have been 45 years before construction starts up again on the red line to santa monica

and a tunnel under BH!!! woo! ferny help me make a petition!


^^ Heck yea and while were at it, let's propose double decking our current Fwy's.

^^ Heck yea and while were at it, let's propose double decking our current Fwy's.

How do you double deck a sunken fwy?

^^how do you put a park on one?

How do you double deck a sunken fwy?


^^ The 101, 405, 10, 105, 90, 91, 110, 10, 5, 60, 91, 2, 210, 134, 170, 710 just to name a few LA area Fwy's are not sunked in. Those are just waiting to be double deck.....

...im not sure the 2 needs a nother level. and isnt he 11o already taken?

...im not sure the 2 needs a nother level. and isnt he 11o already taken?



^^ Yea your right about the 2, it should connect tothe 101 then the 10. This would alleviate some gridlock on the 110 (Pasadena) 5 (both directions). As far as the 110 they just stop adding the second level by USC. If you drive on the 110 you can see metal wires sticking out. Like it supposed to continue ll the way to Downtown or possibly Dodgers Stadium. I hope with the new transportation bond that was passed, then can continue with the second level.... Woohoo!

If you drive on the 110 you can see metal wires sticking out. Like it supposed to continue ll the way to Downtown or possibly Dodgers Stadium. I hope with the new transportation bond that was passed, then can continue with the second level.... Woohoo!

The Harbor Fwy Transitway was originally designed to connect with the El Monte Busway along the 10. Whether it will actually be remains to be seen.

The Harbor Fwy Transitway was originally designed to connect with the El Monte Busway along the 10. Whether it will actually be remains to be seen.



^^ That is news for me, I had no clue. Do you know where was it to connect thru?

tunnel! woo!

^^ That is news for me, I had no clue. Do you know where was it to connect thru?

There were no formal plans for the connection. I'm sure various alignments were drawn up, from a straight through elevated busway over the 110 and 101 to Union Station (where the EMB begins) to a simple surface street route.

As with everything in public engineering, it's "to be determined later."

^^ The 101, 405, 10, 105, 90, 91, 110, 10, 5, 60, 91, 2, 210, 134, 170, 710 just to name a few LA area Fwy's are not sunked in. Those are just waiting to be double deck.....
and while you were busy double decking all of those freeways you could have better yet built all of Damien's map.

God bless Los Angeles:ohno:

According to the MTA LRP they project the 710 tunnel underneath the Pasadena's to cost 6,958 billion dollars. Instead you could build the entire Red Line subway to the beach including its grand cathedral-like stations for about 5 billion dollars. If you would throw in another 2 billion or so you got left over to still equal one 710 tunnel you could either build the entire Yellow Line or complete several smaller projects all at once with the same 2 billion left over after the subway to the sea is finished like Green Line ext to Norwalk Metrolink station + the entire Harbor DMU LAXpress train +the downtown regional connector LRT + the Green ext to the South bay Galleria.

http://www.mta.net/board/Items/2006/05_May/20060503RBMItem45handout.pdf

yah but train lines dont look as cool as 6 story interchanges that displace a hole neighborhood

Gold Line going to Montclair
Lori Consalvo, Staff Writer
Article Launched:11/09/2006 12:00:00 AM PST


MONTCLAIR - In about 10 years, Inland Empire residents, business owners and commuters will have a direct new transportation access into Azusa, Pasadena and Los Angeles.
Although there is a slight delay in the construction and federal funding process, supporters of the Gold Line light rail expanding into Montclair are optimistic about the revitalized transportation system.

"Montclair is already a transportation hub in the area," said City Engineer Mike Hudson. "The Gold Line would bring more in alternative ways to getting to (Los Angeles)."

A few years ago, Hudson said, the first phase of the light rail was completed from Union Station in Los Angeles to Pasadena, ending near the Arcadia border.

Now the proposed idea is to design a route for the Gold Line to continue to Arcadia, Monrovia, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair.

Based on current plans, there are two segments of the extension process known as Phase II. Segment 1 will run 11.4 miles from Pasadena to Azusa. Segment 2 will run 12.5 miles from Azusa to the Montclair station.

"We have a 1,600-parking-space lot - that's the largest along the Metrolink corridor," Hudson said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Gold Line will be able to share the common lot with Metrolink parking."
The light rail differs from the existing Metrolink because its trains rely on electrical contact. It has lighter steel and a lighter train.

According to the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Web site, www.metrogoldline.org, the train will offer shorter commuting trips, increased energy savings and reduced levels of pollution.

Construction has been slightly delayed because of the Federal Transit Authority's request for recalibration of a computer model that helps project ridership and travel benefits, said Susan Hodor, public affairs director for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Expansion Construction Authority.

Upon completion and acceptance of the new model, authorities will move closer to a decision and the potential for a full-funding grant agreement from the FTA.

"We are looking to have the Gold Line extended to Azusa in the years 2011 or 2012 and to Montclair about four years later," Hodor said.

The cost of construction for the first segment of Phase II is $402 million. The second segment, about $760 million, will cost more based on maintenance and facility.

Money for the project will need to come from federal grants as well as local matching funds.

Despite the perceived need for alternative transportation, construction for the extended Gold Line has been delayed.

The best-case scenario, Hodor said, is that the agency will be able to break ground for the first segment in Azusa in late 2008.

"It's really exciting for the region to see everyone committed to making a new type of transportation," she said.

Based on the increasing congestion that has developed on the Interstate 210 extension and the demand for more businesses and housing developments in the Inland Empire, Hodor said there is a definite need for the Gold Line in Montclair.

"We are building as people are planning to grow and expand their cities," she said.

i like the 2oo8 better. are they still planing on making it basicly fallow the 21o or are they going to seperate the two?

Tickle me curious, but has Ferneyism ever actually disputed the fact that more freeway lanes create more traffic?

Can someone give him a first grade explanation please. Obviously, the "streets can only comfortably transport a limited number of cars" concept is too complex.

:nuts:

nonononono, here's the thing about ferney. he wants rail transit so he can get all the other drivers off the roads and keep the wide freeways to himself ;)

ha ha hah... now thats funny

"HEY"...... Very good, so let's keep em' cumming!!!!


(D) does that answer your question? BTW nice to meet you at SSP gathering past Saturday!

...wha?

...wha?



^ Excuse me?

BLAH!! vommiting all over

Hopefully this is the last of the "political lines" to be built. This train to Azusa and then on to Montclair is the height of political shananaree and a waste of precious money. I'm sure AV hates this train and would say so if you took him out to a bar for a drink. This should be handled with Metrolink in mind, it just makes more sense. And then, it's soooo long!
I firmly believe the piece meal way of building rail in LA over the past 16 years is the only way the present lines could have been built under the scrutiny of voters who didn't think that rail was necessary in LA county. Fast forward 16 years later traffic is atrocious, density continues climb, and finally we have a visionary leader in our mayor, I think that by 2010+ after E. Gold is laid and Expo to CC is finished we can start having real discussions about a countywide metro system. Up until then, I think the MTA has been knowingly or unknowingly been building up momentum and ridership.

^ I actually think if it were possible it would be better if the service operated more as Metrolink.

Basically the idea is to:
1) Build the Downtown Connector
2) Have the Blue line assume the Gold line tracks up to Sierra Madre Villa station.
3) Have the new Gold line operate from the Sierra Madre Villa Station station to the west deep into the San Fernando Valley (kind of like my map)
4) Have ELECTRIFIED Metrolink service operate between Memorial Park Station (Old Town Pasadena/Pasadena City Hall) and Montclair, possibly eventually hooking up to Ontario Airport and beyond.

A lot of the train operates like Metrolink service actually, with stations every 2 miles and peak hour frequency only once every 10 minutes. And as everyone knows the density currently isn't there.

But apparently there are some technical obstacles to overcome and it wouldn't save as money as I think it would. I should look more into it though.

Ok, their's a ray of hope. If the Blue could assume the alignment up to Sierra Madre and the new Gold could run west to east possibly connecting to the Red Line in Noho, I'd be for that idea full on. That would mean that the Blue and Gold would share Sierra, Lake and Allen stations.

Well i hope the green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink is up there on the list of priorities. I live near the Lakewood station and its so annyoying that if i wanted to go to Fullerton or somewhere else in the oc i wouldnt be able to just hop on the green line straight to the metrolink. The end of the green line is only like what, 1 1/2 miles away?

Well i hope the green line extension to Norwalk Metrolink is up there on the list of priorities. I live near the Lakewood station and its so annyoying that if i wanted to go to Fullerton or somewhere else in the oc i wouldnt be able to just hop on the green line straight to the metrolink. The end of the green line is only like what, 1 1/2 miles away?




^ Sorry Bud but the Green Line is much more needed to take a turn to LAX/Westchester then to the Valley. That's more of a priority and remember that they base it on how many residence the community have. We also have a lot transit riders on this side of town than Lakewood/Santa Fe Springs.

I agree. The extension of the Purple Line to Santa Monica and the extension of the Green Line to LAX/Weschester are the two top priorities.

Downtown Connector should be priority number 1, with Purple line 1 A, expo to Santa Monica 2, vermont subway and a hollywood connector 3, 405 line to LAX 4 and the green line to LAX and beyond 5, with 50 more lines after that.

More Gold, Faster
LA Downtown News

Metro officials announced recently that service to Downtown from Pasadena on the Gold Line is now faster, thanks to an increase in trains, from four per hour to six during the morning and afternoon rush hours. The change took effect Oct. 29. Local trains now travel from East Pasadena to Downtown in about 29 minutes, down from 34 minutes, and Gold Line express trains make the run in 24 minutes, according to Metro officials. Interviewed last week while waiting for a train, Xavier Puente, who works at a nonprofit development firm at Seventh and Lucas streets, said his ride didn't seem any shorter. "I don't know what it is, but it always takes me an hour to get to work and an hour and a half to get back," he said. Jasmine Dimaranan, on the other hand, said she has noticed a difference. "There's more room and trains come every five minutes or so," said Dimaranan, who commutes to Pershing Square from Highland Park. Metro claims the change will shave waiting times by 30% on average.

After decades of sabotage w/ its evil twin Hancock Park, Beverly Hills is getting serious about a subway.

Mass Transit Committee Proposes Two Possible BH Subway Stations

By Kelly Hartog
The Beverly Hills Courier
November 10, 2006

On Nov. 2, The Beverly Hills Mass Transit Committee held a public town hall meeting to discuss its findings on options for subway alignments and station locations within the city, should the Red line subway be extended through Beverly Hills.

The Mass Transit Committee was established in April 2006, and charged specifically to develop recommendations for the City Council regarding route alignments and station locations. The committee has met every Thursday evening since April with representatives from the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), City staff and outside consultants and experts. All the meetings have also been open to the public.

As a result of those meetings, the committee reported at the Nov. 2 gathering that two possible stations seemed the most feasible in Beverly Hills; one at Beverly Drive (at the corner of Rodeo Dr) and Wilshire Blvd. and the other at La Cienega and Wilshire Blvds.

Co-chairs Allan Alexander and Mark Egerman addressed some 50 people who turned out to the meeting, however Alexander stated that as yet no recommendations had been made to the Council and no votes had been taken. He also made it clear that ultimately all final decisions would rest with the Mass Tranist Authority (MTA). Alexander added, “This is a long term planning issue. It could be 15 to 20 years away, however now is the time to look at these issues.”

Currently, the MTA has four phases for the extension planned; the first from Wilshire and Western to Fairfax Blvd; the second from Fairfax to Century City (which would include Beverly Hills); the third from Century City to Westwood and the fourth from Westwood to Santa Monica.

Egerman told the attendees the committee rode the subway system as part of a field trip on Jun. 14 and visited various stations, and on Sep. 30, they toured the construction site of the existing subway station in East Los Angeles. “We got a good look at how to build a system, the tunnels and staging areas,” he said.

Independent consultant Dick Kaku of Kaku Associates addressed the attendees and explained how they came to the conclusion that the best station sites should be at Beverly and La Cienega and the alignment should be along Wilshire Blvd. Kaku said the criteria employed when determining where the best stations and alignments should be, included employing the standard currently used by the MTA, which places stations approximately one mile apart. “This is not only good for service but also making sure you can maintain a good operating speed,” said

Kaku. Other criteria included looking for high population and employment density areas, the degree to which the stations would be supported by bus services, and ensuring land uses were compatible with transit stations i.e. locations that had lots of office and retail business.

“We looked first at Santa Monica Blvd., traveling from West Hollywood through Beverly Hills and onto Century City,” Kaku said. “However, we discovered that until the line gets to Century City it doesn’t have the density of development [Beverly Hills] is looking for.” He also stated that while the Beverly Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center might appear to be high density they were not “high generators of transit usage” mostly because they have people traveling to their buildings throughout the day and night.

The second option looked at was Santa Monica Blvd traveling through Beverly and Rodeo Drive. However, that was also deemed not a good station location because of the residential area on the northern side of Santa Monica Blvd, which has low residential density. In addition, Kaku said, “It is also not well located to serve the key dense parts of the business triangle.”

However, a station at Beverly Drive and Rodeo Drive along Wilshire Blvd was seen as a good option for several reasons. Firstly, the distance from it to Century City is spaced evenly and there is high bus ridership from that area currently to Century City and further west. “It has a very high density in terms of employment and residential development; higher than the Santa Monica Blvd. corridor,” said Kaku.

Additionally, a station at the intersection of La Cienega and Wilshire Blvds was deemed a good location because the current station at Wilshire and Western contains relatively high-density development, high transit usage and lots of public transit service. A station at this intersection would also be one mile from both the proposed Rodeo/Beverly and Wilshire station and one mile from the proposed Fairfax Blvd station.

Alexander also spoke of four criteria the committee employed in even considering whether Beverly Hills should have stations on the red line at all or whether the line should simply travel from Fairfax straight through to Century City. The four issues were:

* The potential of crime and terrorism

* Land use considerations

* Feasibility of station locations

* Construction and operations impact

Alexander said that based on a great deal of information, and after meeting with the head of security at MA, the committee overall agreed that crime and terrorism were not really a major issue. “There are 128 bus stops in Beverly Hills and 6,000 buses in the city and the crime rate on buses is not very high,” said Alexander.

However, Simone Bennett said she felt more current studies should be done regarding stations being terror targets. And Chris Lockman who also sits on the Mass Transit Committee said crime should be looked at not necessarily on the subway but off the subway, “whether that means kids who are taggers in the alleys or who are imported on the subway from other stations.” He also suggested finding ways to support and sustain additional fire, police and emergency service personnel who would need to be around the subways particularly late at night “If there is a 2 a.m. or midnight curfew….what will happen to those who are drunk or loitering and waiting for the trains to start again?” he queried.

Regarding land use considerations, Alexander said although the MTA runs the subways, the City of Beverly Hills would still control land use issues including density and height.

As to the feasibility of the stations proposed, Alexander said it appeared that both could feasibly be built and operated with enough room to provide escalators and elevators and probably staging areas.

Finally, regarding operations and construction impact, Alexander said, “Everybody knows there will be an impact but the tunnels are not a problem as there is new technology…” He also said the committee is looking into noise and vibration impacts.

LA resident Dana Gabbard who also sits on the Southern California Transit Advocates committee, said, everyone needs to work together to make the Red line extension a reality. “A major transportation official in the Reagan Administration in the 80s noted that Wilshire Blvd. was the most dense corridor in the US lacking mass transit,” he said.

Beverly Hills resident Joe Safier expressed concern that West Hollywood would probably be more interested in having the extension run through Santa Monica Blvd. rather than Wilshire Blvd. However, Alexander said the mass transit committee had been charged with determining what was best for Beverly Hills and ultimately it would be the MTA making the final decisions.

The committee is set to meet again on November 16 to provide further information regarding the potential negative impact of construction of a line through Beverly Hills and running trains underground. On December 7 the committee will finalize its report to the City Council and ask for input and recommendations, and on January 9 it will present its final report to the City Council.

does not really seem like they expect to grow at all in the future. placing thoses stops into said locations does not seem to be propoting the transit cities that everyone esle is trying to create.

and oh man... why is this gona take sooooo long?

beverly hills doesn't really seem like a top priority terrorist target either, compared to any stations in downtown

yeah it should be a factor in building anything, but don't make it too difficult

i would think that every freedom fighter feels the need to level rodeo drive

They're freedom haters. They hate. Freedom. So they do evil. Evil-doers!

:cheers:

Damien, is there a plan for a Blue Line Express? If they can do it for the Gold Line why not the Blue? especially when the Blue Line carries more passengers than the Gold....I took the Blue Line today and boy is it packed! never seen the Gold like that at all.

The Blue Express can go from Long Beach (Transit Mall, Anaheim, Pacific, 1st, 5th station stops) non-stop to the Green Line Wilmington/Rosa Parks station then non-stop to LA (San Pedro, Grand, Pico, 7th/Metro station stops). That would save what, 15-20 minutes? which is comparable to travelling on the car pool lane during rush hour on the 110--from the 405 to DTLA.

maybe they did it to incurage more people to use the gold line?

maybe they did it to incurage more people to use the gold line?




..... and to believe that bitch is getting extended to Montclair!!!

Damien, is there a plan for a Blue Line Express? If they can do it for the Gold Line why not the Blue? especially when the Blue Line carries more passengers than the Gold....I took the Blue Line today and boy is it packed! never seen the Gold like that at all.

The Blue Express can go from Long Beach (Transit Mall, Anaheim, Pacific, 1st, 5th station stops) non-stop to the Green Line Wilmington/Rosa Parks station then non-stop to LA (San Pedro, Grand, Pico, 7th/Metro station stops). That would save what, 15-20 minutes? which is comparable to travelling on the car pool lane during rush hour on the 110--from the 405 to DTLA.

That can happen but the MTA needs to buy the adjoining tracks for express use from the Union Pacific for bypass purposes. Until this happens, there won't be real express service (it's too heavily used to do the Gold Line-style makeshift express service.

Hi
I have been following the LA forum for a while now. I will be travelling there early next year for the first time and the more I read about it the more I am fascinated by this unique city.

I have a question though. Notwithstanding the ongoing light rail developments it sounds like a lot of areas of the city are without public transport. If you go out for a drink or three other than than locally how do you get home?? This may sound like a weird question but having lived in London for most of my life its just natural to go out in all parts of the city and head home by Tube. I suppose there is the option of a cab but it would get bloody expensive.

Rent a car or get a hold of a lot of bus schedules. Here's the bus/rail map for the county: County map (http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/planning_trip-01.htm) and the Trip Planner (http://socaltransport.org/tm_pub_start.php)

Incidentally, if you do rent a car, with hotel parking fees, gas, and late night parking in some popular places (Hollywood and Sunset Strip), late night cabs might not be much more expensive - depends on where you're staying I guess. MTA Day Pass is just $3 and it gets you on all MTA owned buses and rails. The municipal services have their own fare structures and require transfers.

As for Blue line express, the adjacent tracks would likely have to be bought and upgraded for light rail, and I'm guessing some substations would have to be built. And Blue line express service would look quite different from the Gold line express service. The Blue line needs peak hour local service with 5-minute headways with express service. The Gold line sort of replaces one of those local services every half-hour during peak hours with express services.

Yeah, I'll be renting a car during the day. I'm surprised you rent cars to drive home after going to a bar though. Here in London you can be done just for having you car keys in your pocket when over the limit!

Build the rail system and most of the major club spots in Los Angeles will be covered.

Hi
I have been following the LA forum for a while now. I will be travelling there early next year for the first time and the more I read about it the more I am fascinated by this unique city.

I have a question though. Notwithstanding the ongoing light rail developments it sounds like a lot of areas of the city are without public transport. If you go out for a drink or three other than than locally how do you get home?? This may sound like a weird question but having lived in London for most of my life its just natural to go out in all parts of the city and head home by Tube. I suppose there is the option of a cab but it would get bloody expensive.

You have to understand that the rail system here is only 16 years old. Whereas London's is over a century old. So it's like expecting a teenager to work a fulltime job. They're not ready for it yet, they have to grow up first.

Though when I visited Londong in 1995 I was sorely disappointed by the Tube - thought it went everywhere, I couldn't use it to go to clubs because it shut down at midnight!!! I was forced to take a (very expensive) cab ride back to where I was staying (in the northern suburbs of town).

Build the rail system and most of the major club spots in Los Angeles will be covered.


Clubs come and go. The Sunset Strip has been losing its lustre for years because of traffic and complaints by nearby residents. The opposite is happening - clubs are springing up closer to the rail lines, hence all those new clubs along Hollywood and a bunch of new bars and entertainment in Downtown LA.

Most of the existing rail system covers club/entertainment venues. The only problem is that it doesn't run late enough.

You can have a rail system that goes everywhere but what good is it to use for clubs/late night entertainment when it shuts down too early? Such as the case of SF and London -- their rail systems shut down too early to be of use for that purpose.

What's the average time that clubs close in London? Because according to the "London Underground" website the tube closes at about 12:30am, about the same time that our heavy and light rail lines go out of order. I would say as in London after a night of partying just call a cab........here's the #213-385-2227.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/tourists/?lang=en

You have to understand that the rail system here is only 16 years old. Whereas London's is over a century old. So it's like expecting a teenager to work a fulltime job. They're not ready for it yet, they have to grow up first.

.

Well said "El". Coming from a city with one of the most extensive and oldest urban rail systems in the world(NYC) I am always amazed at how impatient, unrealistic and uninformed many people who live here are about LA public transport. Their is always the comment that LA tore out its rail lines that were perhaps the largest in the world but what no one ever states is that not only LA did this but most cities in the country in response to the dawning of the auto age. Trolley systems were seen as old and outdated. Almost all cities moved to a bus based system. Let's face it, America is not Europe, America drives! What, only 3% of commutes to work is done on mass transit in this country? In 16 years LA has thrown together 117 km's of rail in a city that supposedly has the highest car ownership in the world! That's quite impressive. Would I like to see an entire system built at-once? Sure. And call me krazy if you want but I think that their is enough momentum happening that once Expo and E. Gold is complete or nearing completion that their will be the beginning of some serious discussions about a comprehensive system for this city. And I think if we get the US Olympic bid, who knows what might happen.
Honestly, LA just responded to the time frame that it found itself. When NYC and London were building massive and still to this day (imo) a feat comparable to putting a man on the moon by putting trains underground in response to congestion and some serious density levels, LA's population was around 100, 000. Single neighborhoods in this city now hold that population! This is truly in the grand scheme, a very young city that had an 150 year incubation period and in true LA fashion woke up one decade and decided that it wanted to be one of the greatest cities in the world, of course with no plan of how to accomplish that.......soooooo LA. :lol:
Now I know their were some shananaree with the oil/auto and tire company conspiracy. But it doesn't all fall on the MTA on a local or even statewide level. A comprehensive system would have to be aided on a federal level as well, if I'm correct. Do we have an administration in place that is pro-public transport? Their are advocacy groups out there that now have stars on their lapels because of bringing attention to the now being built Expo corridor, Gold line to Pasadena, Green line to LAX and on and on, what are we doing and (I'm talking to myself here)to further transit advocacy in this city? The transit coalition website, Damien's map, hell just riding pub trans in LA are all inspiring. It's important that we stay constructive and not knee jerk critical when it comes to LA pub trans. This is not the days of the RTD and I don't think we'll ever see those days again, at least in our lifetime.

Here is a quote from the official website of the oldest subway company on Earth. It's quite sobering when thinking about our preadolescent system:

London Underground is starting a massive modernisation project to set right decades of chronic under-investment by sucessive governments. However, these improvements will not be delivered overnight.

But it will take time for that money to make a regular difference to your journeys on the Tube.

What's the average time that clubs close in London? Because according to the "London Underground" website the tube closes at about 12:30am, about the same time that our heavy and light rail lines go out of order. I would say as in London after a night of partying just call a cab........here's the #213-385-2227.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/tourists/?lang=en

The clubs close from between 1:30 to 4am.
And I hate cabs...At least mass transit can't rip you off of the fare.

I also think Angelenos are more open to taking mass transit than a cab. I also feel that way. At least we have a mass transit heritage, with the Red Cars, but we've never been a taxi town, and never will. Taking a bus or train that carries a bunch of people is one thing, but if I'm stepping into a car, I'd rather it be my own or in a carpool.

MTA rail operations stated that when they did experiment with late-night service, Friday and Saturday had the greatest ridership and if it were to come back in a limited form it would likely be on those nights, I guess in part because maintenance only occurs Sunday through Thursday night.

Incidentally, I would think from an rail for young people perspective, petitioning for a return of late night service on Friday and Saturday would be a good start.

Well said "El". Coming from a city with one of the most extensive and oldest urban rail systems in the world(NYC) I am always amazed at how impatient, unrealistic and uninformed many people who live here are about LA public transport. Their is always the comment that LA tore out its rail lines that were perhaps the largest in the world but what no one ever states is that not only LA did this but most cities in the country in response to the dawning of the auto age. Trolley systems were seen as old and outdated. Almost all cities moved to a bus based system. Let's face it, America is not Europe, America drives! What, only 3% of commutes to work is done on mass transit in this country? In 16 years LA has thrown together 117 km's of rail in a city that supposedly has the highest car ownership in the world! That's quite impressive.

The main differences are thus:

Most New Yorkers, or Londoners were born after their systems were built. They weren't around when their systems got built. They lived in a world where their sytems were in place already.

For most Angelenos, we had to see it built before us. but people born 20 or 50 years from now will live in a Los Angeles with a complete or nearly-complete mass transit system.

Also, with regard to our old trolley systems (we had two), and just about all the former transit systems in the early 20th century), they were private entities, so they were vulnerable to being bought out eventually. The Pacific Electric Railway was a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad.

The NYC's rail system was originally built by three private companies, but in the 40s-50s, were all integrated into the NYCTA. If the last Red Car line hung around three more years, it would have been integrated into the RTD, and who knows, might have still been in use today, though it didn't matter in the long haul since that line became the Blue Line, which is our first modern rail line.

why there should be late night service on friday and saturday night

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/an-asphalt-jungle/15022/

sorry, the article is too long to post, but its a good read. while youre at it, check the interview with Tenacious D, FUNNY!!!

fuck that... i would park my car on the street somewere and walk a mile

Hi
I have been following the LA forum for a while now. I will be travelling there early next year for the first time and the more I read about it the more I am fascinated by this unique city.

I have a question though. Notwithstanding the ongoing light rail developments it sounds like a lot of areas of the city are without public transport. If you go out for a drink or three other than than locally how do you get home?? This may sound like a weird question but having lived in London for most of my life its just natural to go out in all parts of the city and head home by Tube. I suppose there is the option of a cab but it would get bloody expensive.



^ MAke it easy for yourself and stay at a Hotel in the Hollywood area. Then you can catch a cab for a couple of bucks. Maybe even hook up with someone and attend an after party till the weeeee hours in the morning. Someone will give you a lift, we Angelinos are friendly! Hope this helps out.

^^^ Yes! You'll get more "mileage" for the buck when you stay in Hollywood. You can ride the "Holly Trolley" for a dollar and that's a shuttle that can take you from one hot club to another. Paris Hilton might not be sitting next to you but I guess that's a good thing. It'll be easy for you to make friends here especially when you buy them drinks! :cheers: :nuts:
http://z.about.com/d/golosangeles/1/8/i/-/-/-/KMD06HollyTrolley009T250.jpg
http://golosangeles.about.com/od/gettingaroundlosangeles/a/HollyTrolley.htm

What's the average time that clubs close in London? Because according to the "London Underground" website the tube closes at about 12:30am, about the same time that our heavy and light rail lines go out of order. I would say as in London after a night of partying just call a cab........here's the #213-385-2227.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/tourists/?lang=en


Thats true. Its a real pain. Same for all the suburban rail networks the last trains generally leave at 12.30pm. Thats mainly due to the huge maintenance problems the city has with such an old network. The rail companies have to work pretty much all night to get the system up and running again each day. A late night cab to the suburbs can cost up to $80.

I'm surprised that you have the same type of restictions on the network in LA though. With such a new system I would have thought its possible to build something way in advance of some of the older networks and provide a 24 hour service.

Thats true. Its a real pain. Same for all the suburban rail networks the last trains generally leave at 12.30pm. Thats mainly due to the huge maintenance problems the city has with such an old network. The rail companies have to work pretty much all night to get the system up and running again each day. A late night cab to the suburbs can cost up to $80.

I'm surprised that you have the same type of restictions on the network in LA though. With such a new system I would have thought its possible to build something way in advance of some of the older networks and provide a 24 hour service.

Yet no one brings up the fact that the Tube shuts down early!

The subway in Los Angeles was designed to operate on a 24-hour schedule and certain days (New Year's Eve for instance) it does operate for 24 hours. But you also have to realize that our transit authority has a limited budget for operating our transit lines (both buses and trains). Some of the lines ran a little later but were cut back a couple years ago due to budget constraints.

fuck that... i would park my car on the street somewere and walk a mile

I live in Hollywood, so I don't have to worry about all that :)

^ MAke it easy for yourself and stay at a Hotel in the Hollywood area. Then you can catch a cab for a couple of bucks. Maybe even hook up with someone and attend an after party till the weeeee hours in the morning. Someone will give you a lift, we Angelinos are friendly! Hope this helps out.

Some of the bars/clubs are even walking distance from where you might be staying.

^ MAke it easy for yourself and stay at a Hotel in the Hollywood area. Then you can catch a cab for a couple of bucks. Maybe even hook up with someone and attend an after party till the weeeee hours in the morning. Someone will give you a lift, we Angelinos are friendly! Hope this helps out.

Thats the plan, thanks will do :)

I wonder if trying to move LA towards a denser public transport based model is necessary. I think one of the LA forumers said a while ago that the city structure is one that works, its just different. Clearly living there you would have different view but from an impartial viewpoint I like the thought that a first rate city exists that offers an alternative model for living. Lets face it, if you want to live in an ultra dense public transport orientated city there are plenty out there. Perhaps as more green fuels become available and more sofisticated car guidance systems are developed etc. a city based around personal transportation will once again be viewed as workable.

Just a thought :dunno: Im sure these days it could get you strung up suggesting such a thing!

Exactly! I don't think that transit adv's are suggesting tearing out the stellar LA freeway system, just provide some balance between mass and private transport so one has alternatives. Once this balance is struck(and we are moving in that direction)many things will start to change. I firmly believe that you can have a city that is car tolerant as well as transit friendly.

The redline starts at 4:30am, some clubs are open till 4, so it's not that bad.

The redline starts at 4:30am, some clubs are open till 4, so it's not that bad.

which ones? I really want to know...i will be back in L.A. in mid-December and can't wait to explore all the new places that have opened up this year

Can we learn something from Bogota, Colombia?

http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/transmilenio/home_english.htm (http://www.transmilenio.gov.co/transmilenio/home_english.htm)

Lessons From Columbia

Ex-Bogotá Mayor Enrique Peñalosa Lectures City Officials On How to Steer a Car-less Future
by Evan George

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/archd1/Bogota%20Transit/Bogota20Report_Final20Report_May-1.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/archd1/Bogota%20Transit/Bogota6.jpg

On the night famed urban environmentalist Enrique Peñalosa came Downtown to speak, a First Street closure turned the community into a snake of tailpipes, lending a twisted sense of poetic justice to the event.

A Monday evening speech by ex-Bogota Mayor Enrique Penalosa drew a batch of Los Angeles leaders, including the heads of the CRA and the City Planning Department.

On Monday, Nov. 13, Peñalosa, the former mayor of Bogotá, Columbia, who is widely credited for setting that city of 7 million on a course of sustainable development, spoke to a rapt audience of politicians, planners and employees of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority at the agency's Downtown boardroom.

Making cities more livable, he told the crowd, requires a shared vision among city leaders that extends beyond bus routes.
"It is not for traffic engineers to decide how we are going to solve transportation problems, it is a political decision," Peñalosa said. "How do we want our city to be? How do we want to live?"

City Planning Director Gail Goldberg was in attendance, as was Community Redevelopment Agency CEO Cecilia Estolano and staffers from City Councilwoman Jan Perry's office. The event was co-sponsored by a spectrum of groups including the Alliance for a Livable Los Angeles, the Trust for Public Land and Bikestation, a nonprofit organization that operates repair and rental centers along public transportation corridors.

One sponsor after the next explained why their organization had helped bring Peñalosa to Los Angeles. Single-issue agencies working alone, they agreed, will never manage the strides needed to make Los Angeles a city that lives within its means. Cooperation between city agencies and inspiration for "the city of dreams to dream" is needed, Goldberg said.

Enter Peñalosa, a towering figure with a silver beard and big brown eyes who served as mayor of Bogotá for only three years, from 1998 to 2001, because of the city's limit on consecutive terms. In that short amount of time, Peñalosa made significant inroads to fixing Bogotá's severe environmental and social ills.Walter Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, introduced him by saying, "We were talking about [the solutions] and then Peñalosa just went and did it."

How He Went and Did It

Peñalosa's presentation detailed his administration's achievements in creating 1,200 urban parks, an immense network of bike paths and one of the leading public transportation systems in the world. Even more impressive is that it was achieved in a city that a decade before was known mostly for pollution, traffic congestion and a failed economy.

Peñalosa made strides by ignoring some experts and their conventional wisdom. When Japanese consultants suggested he build seven elevated highways to solve the city's traffic woes, Peñalosa recalled, he did the opposite.

Instead, the city invested in a world-class bus system, built pedestrian-only streets (one stretches 20 miles) and restricted car use in downtown Bogotá. Thanks to a much-improved and "sexier" bus system, Peñalosa said, public transportation in his city is actually too popular and 20% of rail riders own cars they don't use.
The public transportation push was so successful that in a referendum during his term, the city's voters approved an annual car-free day and nearly passed an initiative that would have banned all cars during peak commute hours.

"To make more highways or bigger roads to solve traffic jams is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline," Peñalosa told the crowd on Monday.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/archd1/Bogota%20Transit/Bogota3.jpg

His visit comes at a time when state voters have approved nearly $20 billion in transportation bonds that city officials have said will aid many Los Angeles-area projects. Although a portion of the money will go to expanding rail systems, much of it will be invested in clearing up auto congestion by synchronizing traffic lights, improving roads and expanding highways.

Peñalosa told Los Angeles officials his city might not be the perfect example for one the size of Los Angeles - or even Downtown - to follow, but that planners here will confront many of the same issues because traffic jams are just one symptom of a failing city.

Angelenos will never choose to leave their cars at home, he warned, until the city pushes them to do so with car restrictions in areas like Downtown, provides incentives to take Metro, and offers reasons to spend time in public space rather than in homes or cars.

"Traffic jams without public transportation is useless. But public transportation without traffic jams is useless too," he said. Goldberg thanked Peñalosa for coming to Downtown Los Angeles and assured him that the gathered civic leaders had heard him loud and clear.

"Los Angeles is at a crossroads and we have an opportunity as we are planning for our future to plan it for cars, as we have always done in this city, or plan it for people," she said.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/archd1/Bogota%20Transit/Bogota5.jpg

WTF, if a Third World City can accomplish all these why not the capital of the Third World--Los Angeles!

Again, why not convert those car pool lanes into Busways and as shown in one the photos, let the car drivers suffer in traffic! The choice is clear.

fuck that... just build the damn train lines

WTF, if a Third World City can accomplish all these why not the capital of the Third World--Los Angeles!

Again, why not convert those car pool lanes into Busways and as shown in one the photos, let the car drivers suffer in traffic! The choice is clear.


Your such an inconsiderate ass Archness, your hurting my feelings!!!

Ha!ha! kiss my ----! It's the future Ferney, if not the trains, then the buses!

Exactly! I don't think that transit adv's are suggesting tearing out the stellar LA freeway system, just provide some balance between mass and private transport so one has alternatives. Once this balance is struck(and we are moving in that direction)many things will start to change. I firmly believe that you can have a city that is car tolerant as well as transit friendly.

Yes that is the reason, balance, and the availablility of choices. SF has freeways, and if you're living in the suburbs of the Bay Area, it's just as sprawling and car-dependent as SoCal. But you have the CHOICE of driving or taking BART or CalTrain. That change has already started - just ask all those people who get on the Red Line at NoHo or Universal wearing their Lakers or Kings Jerseys during game nights.

Yes that is the reason, balance, and the availablility of choices. SF has freeways, and if you're living in the suburbs of the Bay Area, it's just as sprawling and car-dependent as SoCal. But you have the CHOICE of driving or taking BART or CalTrain. That change has already started - just ask all those people who get on the Red Line at NoHo or Universal wearing their Lakers or Kings Jerseys during game nights.

and that would include me. i parked at Universal, took the subway to 7th with a bunch of fans as well, had dinner at Roys, then went to the game. On the way back, there were plenty of Laker fans on the subway, and a few cars were standing room only at 11:00.

and that would include me. i parked at Universal, took the subway to 7th with a bunch of fans as well, had dinner at Roys, then went to the game. On the way back, there were plenty of Laker fans on the subway, and a few cars were standing room only at 11:00.

There you go!

BTW how is Roy's? I'm planning to have my birthday dinner there next weekend.

Great to hear that! BTW, really funny you mention that "Sportsfan" because last night Flea of the RHCP came in wearing basically all purple and gold/yellow(shoes, socks, headband, shorts) with a huge "Lakers" shirt on that seemed to swallow him. More LA boosting came when Anthony Kiedis came to join him wearing a cashmere looking expensive sweater that just read "La Cienega". I guess they've written many songs about it but these guys walk the walk when it comes to "love-ing" LA.

This is all good, the only issue I have is that Bogota is a fully bus dependant city. I agreed with him regarding making it easier for cars to exist is like putting gas on a fire. Though I would have to question him on his quote about 'a city with traffic is a sign of a failed city'. Every big city I've ever been to has traffic, so I would have liked for him to expand on that statement.

There you go!

BTW how is Roy's? I'm planning to have my birthday dinner there next weekend.

it is a top 3 restaurant in my book and i eat at plenty of restaurants. the food was unbelievable, the service was good, the place was packed, the location is good, the vibe was nice. highly recommended. by the way, get the Canoe appetizer so that you can taste 5 different appetizers and the Ribs were amazing.

also, Famina was nice and had a bunch of people eating there and just chilling at 7:00 last night.

also, Famina was nice and had a bunch of people eating there and just chilling at 7:00 last night.

I would imagine a place called "Famina" would have NO food :)

^ Sounds like a HAIR STUDIO on Melrose......

^^ isnt it that new japanese convenient store.....like 7-11 but classier?

It's not your typical convenience store. The don't sell Doritos chips and Snicker bars but things like cookies, sandwiches, Pocky, etc.

^^ isnt it that new japanese convenient store.....like 7-11 but classier?


^ They will also serve fresh sushi to go.

...mmmm mmm mmm, convenience store sushi

that place rhymes with "vagina," right? i had a long debate about this saturday

that place rhymes with "vagina," right? i had a long debate about this saturday

I thought the stress was on the first syllable. FA-mi-ma (Triple exclamation).

It's an Engrish-ized shortening of the original franchise name "Family Mart."

Beverly Hills doesn't want to miss the subway
By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
November 27, 2006


Beverly Hills officials, sensing that a subway to the sea is inevitable, want to ensure the train doesn't pass them by.

They are preparing to select a route and two station locations to best serve residents, as well as business owners and their employees.

It doesn't seem to matter that the city has little say over the path of the proposed 13-mile subway that would travel between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica. Or that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which would design, build and operate the subway, is still at least a year or two away from picking the route.

Forget, too, that no money has been set aside for the $5-billion project. Or that using federal funds to tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard still is illegal.

Beverly Hills residents, some of whom once opposed a subway, may be set to endorse a Wilshire Boulevard route from Western Avenue that would include one station at La Cienega Boulevard, and another between Beverly and Rodeo drives.

At community meetings, city leaders have confronted residents' fears of subway crime and potential terrorism. They warn naysayers that, without a subway, traffic on the Westside will only get worse.

"There is an incredible sea change of attitude from resistance to support for the subway," said Allan Alexander, a former Beverly Hills mayor who co-chairs the city's mass transit panel.

Mayor Steve Webb is leading the charge.

He's trying to put Beverly Hills in the best position to lobby federal, state and local officials for the money needed to build the rail line and to make sure it goes through his city.

Webb directed Alexander's subway study committee to "determine what's in our best interest."

The subway study committee's tentative endorsement of the route through the city is to be finalized next month and sent to the City Council for consideration at its January meeting.

A consultant hired by Beverly Hills said Wilshire Boulevard was chosen because it is surrounded by high-density residential and commercial development. It is the county's most heavily traveled transit corridor, according to the MTA.

The committee considered but rejected a route along Santa Monica Boulevard from the subway's Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue station.

Last year, during his campaign for Los Angeles mayor, then-City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa promised to restart the Westside subway project — more than two decades after it had been derailed.

Longtime subway opponents Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), whose district includes parts of West Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the Westside, now are working with Villaraigosa to try to complete the east-west rail line.

But that's still several years away. First, the proposed subway must be added to the MTA's long-range plan — an essential element for federal funding — and given a high priority.

Even with the MTA board's endorsement, the proposed Red Line subway extension faces stiff competition for construction money.

It will have to vie with plans to extend the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica, the Gold Line through the San Gabriel Valley to the Ontario International Airport and the Green Line from El Segundo to Los Angeles International Airport.

Meanwhile, the agency's planners are dusting off old studies, dating to 1994. Planning alone could take up to two years to complete. The MTA board recently authorized a mere $100,000 to hire a full-time planner to oversee the project.

That's all the money currently dedicated to building the subway to the sea. Efforts by Waxman to overturn a federal ban on subway funding along Wilshire are stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Waxman introduced the measure after experts concluded last year that a subway could be built without risk of another methane explosion like the one that ripped through a Fairfax-area clothing store in 1985. Although no one was killed, concerns about the blast helped lead to the stopping of subway construction.

There is another funding complication. In 1998, Los Angeles County voters, in a move led by Yaroslavsky, barred the use of transportation sales tax revenue for tunneling.

No one is suggesting that ban be lifted. Instead, transit officials, including Yaroslavsky, believe local money may be used for non-tunneling parts of the subway project.

Subway advocates are optimistic, especially with passage earlier this month of a $20-billion state infrastructure bond issue.

But critics, such as the Bus Riders Union, argue that bond money should be used to improve bus service.

To make it all happen, MTA officials, who rarely proceed without local support for regional transit projects, welcome the city of Beverly Hills' early efforts to rally support.

"The seriousness and detail of their work shows their commitment for our common vision for improving transit service," Villaraigosa, an MTA board member, said in a statement last week.

Alexander, a longtime subway advocate, believes mass transit is essential to conveniently ferrying many thousands of workers and visitors in and out of the city daily.

"It will allow people to come to work in the city, shop in the city, visit the city without bringing more cars to the city," he said.
The population of Beverly Hills, with just 35,000 residents, swells weekdays to 250,000. Nearly 28,000 people a day board buses along Wilshire Boulevard within the city's limits.

"I'm hoping that by our taking the initiative in this regard that Century City, Mid-Wilshire, Westwood and even Santa Monica will begin focusing on this," Alexander said.

Beverly Hills officials may still have to persuade some residents. At a recent public meeting, one resident fretted that subway stops create potential terrorist targets. Another expressed concern about transit-related crime.

Overall, however, the tide seems to have turned.

"Anything that we can do to get cars off of our streets will be a plus for the quality of the life for the residents as well as assist the businesses," resident Joe Safier said at a meeting this month.

The business community also is on board.

"Gridlock is such a problem on the Westside that it must be relieved, and we must be part of the equation," Dan Walsh, chief executive of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce, said Friday.

Chamber members suspect the traffic congestion they encounter daily could someday discourage visitors from shopping, eating and doing other business in their city. It already does.

It also could make it difficult to attract workers.

I believe we will see the subway to the sea in our lifetime. I also believe that it will spearhead or lead to the comprehensive building of a rail system in the county. The piece by piece assembling of rail lines by the MTA seems to have been the best effort taking into account car culture, opposition and lack of funds. The few rail lines that have been constructed and that are now running has created an unannounced momentum in the city towards a more transit friendly LA. The fact that the Purple Line extension must now fight with other lines and extensions for money tells me that a major rail construction program is underway whether anyone is aware of it or not.
"We have to make it a piece of cake to get here," Walsh said.

cool cool. i thought they took back the law about tunneling though

cool cool. i thought they took back the law about tunneling though

I was under the same impression. Apparently what happened was that it passed through the House of Representatives. That was a few months ago. But, it did not yet pass the Senate. It most likely will come through within the next few months, especially with the new Senate coming in.

Thats the plan, thanks will do :)

I wonder if trying to move LA towards a denser public transport based model is necessary. I think one of the LA forumers said a while ago that the city structure is one that works, its just different. Clearly living there you would have different view but from an impartial viewpoint I like the thought that a first rate city exists that offers an alternative model for living. Lets face it, if you want to live in an ultra dense public transport orientated city there are plenty out there. Perhaps as more green fuels become available and more sofisticated car guidance systems are developed etc. a city based around personal transportation will once again be viewed as workable.

Just a thought :dunno: Im sure these days it could get you strung up suggesting such a thing!

Los Angeles is only so spread out BECAUSE of public transport. Let me explain.

Los Angeles used to have streetcars (or trams as you say) out the nose...going everywhere. The Pacific Electric Railway alone had 1000 miles of track and ran 600 cars a day. One of the main reasons these systems were even built was to provide access to outlying empty lands where new developments, towns and cities were being constructed. Almost nobody owned private autos at this time (1900-1915 or so). Unfortunately, around this same time, automobiles were becoming more and more popular. People liked autos better, leading to the eventual dismantling of all these trams and the construction of our freeway network, starting around the early 1950's.

Now, in 2006, we are all built out. There are no more places to build new towns (unless you go 100 miles out, which, actually, some people don't mind doing). There aren't even any more places for new freeways. We can't expand the freeways or widen them. Therefore, public transport is becoming more and more popular, since it is the only way we can move more people around the megalopolis, and add capacity. The only difference now is that mass transit (rail) is largely publicly owned; before 1970 it was all private companies. Because it is publicly owned, it takes much longer to build a system and put it in place. But, slowly, we are adding more rail lines as the money is available. And there are more and more people, even in Los Angeles, that like mass transit and are willing to use it, as long as it goes where they need to go. That means building more lines. Again, a slow process, but were are making progress.

underground freeways!!!

make that beverly hills freeway just yet!!

At community meetings, city leaders have confronted residents' fears of subway crime and potential terrorism. They warn naysayers that, without a subway, traffic on the Westside will only get worse.


Anytime someone brings this shit up, make sure to point out:

1) A subway doesn't make your community any more accessible than it already is by automobile. Actually, criminals would rather drive. I mean, a drive-by shooting just isn't as fun on a subway train, a subway chase won't get as much ratings as a good old freeway chase and stealing someone's plasma-screen TV is more easier transporting it in an automobile than carrying it on the train.

I once had an argument with a paranoid Valley resident back in the early 90s about the prospect of the subway entering the Valley and told her the same thing. She said,"Well they can't afford cars..." and I said, "They can steal em..." As we all know, the criminals have taken over North Hollywood, it has become the murder capital of America and one can't walk a yard there without getting shot at. :lol:

2) Ditto for terrorism. A ter'rist suicide bomber can just drive up to Rodeo Drive today and KABOOM. He doesn't have to wait for a subway to be built to get him there.

Besides, by the time the Purple Line gets finished, either terrorism won't be as bad as it is now, or we'll all be dead already.

there just trying to say they dont want there tax money going to a subway with out having to actually say it.

its a good idea and everyone knows it

Good to hear NIMBYs on the Westside are finally turning around and beginning to see the "light"....

The quality of life issue caused by traffic gridlock on the Westside is a reality that is not going away anytime soon and is only gonna get much worse..heck its becoming more of a matter of survival now! This would be like a tremendous B12 injection in the arm of once popular, but now flagging tourist destinations ( ie. Rodeo Dr., Westwood) which has incrementally seen a decline in pedestrian activity since the early 90's. With more Westside residents and businesses supportng the Purple Line , we can hopefully expedite the process and have this thing built in time for LA to host the 2016 Olympics (Given that LA will be selected as the host city of course)... Wishful thinking? Hmm, it doesn't sound so farfetched after all...

This "Subway To The Sea" can truly become the catalyst we need, that'll put the city over the hump by altering Angelenos' reluctance for taking public transportation and thus spur momentum in building a bigger, more efficient transportation system that would someday rival the world's biggest. The ramifications of it being built would be huge in a very positive way, that no marketing campaign by the MTA could refuse. For a long time the general perception in LA was that public transportation was only for the working poor..this of course will no longer be the rule of thumb when Angelenos actually see rail transit traversing the wealthy Westside; It'll become hip to ride public transportation again.

In retrospect, the Red line was probably the catalyst that started it all, in altering people's perceptions, but the Purple Line will only help cement the positive attributes of taking public transit even further into Angelenos' consciousness...

that place rhymes with "vagina," right? i had a long debate about this saturday

I believe its FAMIMA!!! which rhymes more with Aunt Jemima...if only they had pancakes :nuts: The panini sandwiches and steamed buns ain't too shabby for a convenience store though.

and that would include me. i parked at Universal, took the subway to 7th with a bunch of fans as well, had dinner at Roys, then went to the game. On the way back, there were plenty of Laker fans on the subway, and a few cars were standing room only at 11:00.

I parked my car at a friend's house in Hollywood last saturday and we walked to the subway at the Hollywood/Highland station... on our way we witnessed a group of maybe 2 dozen Notre Dame Irish fans (probably staying at the Renaissance hotel at the H/H center maybe?) taking the the subway with us to the station at 7th and than boarding a shuttle to the Colisseum..funny how we felt outnumbered by Notre Dame fans on the Subway until we got to the Colisseum..

cool cool. i thought they took back the law about tunneling though

Well, their are actually two laws that haven't been overturned just yet. Their was Zev's law that forbids local money being used for any tunneling for any subway in LA county. Then their's the Waxman law that came about after the Ross Dress For Less exploded in fear that methane gas again would explode construction of a subway that was to be built back in the 80's. Bottom line, it was a concerted and well thought out plan to make sure that this subway would never be built because Waxman's constituents in HanCOCK Park and Zev's constituents in the Valley would not have to deal with anyone darker or poorer than them coming into their neighborhoods of course stealing their tv's or dating their daughters. Just to think that we could have been WELL on our way to building a system comparable or that even rivaled New York's great system is both saddening and uncontainably frustrating.

Here's the thing about traffic on the westside that ive noticed while living here for the past two years, if you live here, its not that bad. traffic on the westside is the worst when you're trying to get in or out of the westside, not while traveling to destinations within it. i know this can be argued with streets like lincoln and sepulveda that are jammed in both directions, but they are major thoroughfares in and out of the region. For example i live on the santa monica/venice border and it only takes me about 20 minutes to get to century city and the same on the way home from work. i think the real problem is that there are too many people commuting in from out of the city that are causing all the gridlock. there are the people who wont benefit from rail on the westside because it wont serve them at all. Hopefully though, a decent rail network could get people out of the burbs and into the city.

Metrolink to Union Station to the Purple Line to the Westside.

Final changes to the map reflected in lead post including the pre-final version of the southern portion of the map.


Here's the thing about traffic on the westside that ive noticed while living here for the past two years, if you live here, its not that bad. traffic on the westside is the worst when you're trying to get in or out of the westside, not while traveling to destinations within it. i know this can be argued with streets like lincoln and sepulveda that are jammed in both directions, but they are major thoroughfares in and out of the region. For example i live on the santa monica/venice border and it only takes me about 20 minutes to get to century city and the same on the way home from work. i think the real problem is that there are too many people commuting in from out of the city that are causing all the gridlock. there are the people who wont benefit from rail on the westside because it wont serve them at all. Hopefully though, a decent rail network could get people out of the burbs and into the city.

The population of the westside reaches a huge number during the day compared to the residents. A lot of them come from the SFV, and it's one of the major reasons, in addition to the gained political capital that would be earned, I strongly support the Purple line turning north after Westwood to meet the Orange line at the Van Nuys station.

Final changes to the map reflected in lead post including the pre-final version of the southern portion of the map.


whats this?

Here's the thing about traffic on the westside that ive noticed while living here for the past two years, if you live here, its not that bad.

Spend a few days in a large, Third-World city and when you come back home the 405 will look like a Montana highway.

Lead post is the first post of the thread. I updated it with new info.

It always surprises me in a city that supposedly has such fucked up transit and everyone supposedly drives why our transit #'s are sooooo high. According to the ATPA we are now at #3 in terms of transit riders in the entire country. Our busses kick ass! We have the highest bus boardings by far of any city w/ the exception of New York of course. And with bus boardings so very high, you could only imagine how ridership will grow exponentially once these rubber tire routes are accompanied by the appropriate rail route. Along with a 7% increase over last year in total ridership I can only think what will happen when we get a brand new line along with perhaps 2 extensions up and running by the end of this decade, more or less.
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q2rep.pdf

It always surprises me in a city that supposedly has such fucked up transit and everyone supposedly drives why our transit #'s are sooooo high. According to the ATPA we are now at #3 in terms of transit riders in the entire country. Our busses kick ass! We have the highest bus boardings by far of any city w/ the exception of New York of course. And with bus boardings so very high, you could only imagine how ridership will grow exponentially once these rubber tire routes are accompanied by the appropriate rail route. Along with a 7% increase over last year in total ridership I can only think what will happen when we get a brand new line along with perhaps 2 extensions up and running by the end of this decade, more or less.
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q2rep.pdf


^ :banana: :banana: :banana: ..... #3 Way to go LA!!!!!!!!

Damien, you need to add a stop on the north green line extension between ocean park and venice. those stops are just too far apart to have no stations between them. there needs to atleast be one station at rose, possibly another one near california by the ralphs.

How times have changed. Now politicians are slinging mud at one another to see who gets the needed funding for their respective rail projects. My money's on the subway to the sea! Screw Antonovich! With sincerest apology to 'botox, if you live in LA or a tourist visiting LA, why would you want to go to the SGV, even for a visit? Wilshire Blvd. is LA's linear downtown, where the pulse of the city beats!

(From Curbed LA)
Red and Gold Lines Stuck in Political Mud
Wednesday, November 29, 2006, by jwilliams

County Supervisor Mike Antonovich has made our list. Once you're on the list, there's no getting off. Prime Example: Jack Weiss. Mr. Antonovich has come out against development of the Purple Line aka Red Line Extension aka Subway to the Sea, citing his own belief that the subway would actually create a worse traffic situation in LA by taking away funding from other projects. Sure, that sort of makes sense in bizarro world, but then this from a weekend story in the LA Times alludes to his actual motivation:

County Supervisor (and MTA board member) Michael Antonovich... is a fierce opponent of extending the Red Line subway along Wilshire Boulevard, preferring projects of far lower public value, such as an extension of the Gold Line to the San Gabriel Valley, which would benefit his own constituents.
Ah-ha! But there's also one of those pathetic political battles in the background. Last week, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, whose constituents would benefit from a Red Line extension, spoke out against the expansion of the Gold Line to the SGV saying "that the Gold Line extension is redundant because Metrolink already serves that corridor."

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_4732351
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-transit21nov21,1,2407962.story?coll=la-news-a_section

gold line shmold line.

silver line [aqua] would be usfull to serve vally blvd that is a traffic cluster fuck. and the metro link stations are too far to support that area. i know la needs more important lines right now. but that one should not be left out. hell is even on the MTA long term plan so im happy.

With sincerest apology to 'botox, if you live in LA or a tourist visiting LA, why would you want to go to the SGV, even for a visit?

if you were chinese or vietnamese you would go there!

Why go to SGV? San Gabriel Mountains and that's about it. The only people who love it are the people who live there (like me). It's definately not a tourist destination, unless you want to stop at Raging Waters.

Check the updated map on the lead post. Rose is there.

..... Speaking of Light Rail in L.A.. Why don't we have any news on the Expo Line? Can we get some support here!

....speaking of support. the 71o tunnel study is up [i dont know how long it has been there] on the mta website if anyone is up for a good read on how to waste alot of money.

with some nice renderings too!

....speaking of support. the 71o tunnel study is up [i dont know how long it has been there] on the mta website if anyone is up for a good read on how to waste alot of money.

with some nice renderings too!

Yeah, it's a real waste for those trucks that can't get to Glendale from Long Beach. The only way to get there is to take the 710 to the the 10, get off on Glendale Blvd., and then take the 2. It would be much easier if those trucks could get to Pasadena and Glendale directly. (An even better idea would be to extend the 2 and the 710, but people hate eminent domain now, and it makes no sense)

im not saying it should not be completed... but a tunnel?

I don't like that it's a tunnel either, but people won't stand for eminent domain nowadays. It seems like it's the only way freeways can be built now.

Imagine how much congestion would be relieved off the 110 if the 2 was extended to at least the 101. That freeway was stopped just because people got tired of eminent domain, and look at the problems it has lead to.

My plan: extend the 710, extend the 2 to at least the 101, build another freeway to Orange County to serve the residents of Eastern LA County, and work on mass transit (basically trains).

the only ones that are being thought about are for the end of the 21o over east someweres, the 71o, and a desert freeway in lancaster... aperently thats la's fastest growing region

Downtown needs the support. The 110-5 interchange is horrible, something really needs to be done about that and quickly. Also, improvements need to be made on the 605-10 interchange. That area is busy on Sundays when there's no traffic. The freeway with the worst traffic right now seems to be the 57. There's only one freeway that goes to Orange County for that area, and when the interchange with the 60 is fixed in a few months, it will be a little better, but there still needs to be another freeway to serve the people in Montebello, El Monte, and Alhambra.

well interchanges are another story. almost every one of them is included on the report. along with hov lanes. and there going to be adding rapid busses to east la and... somewere over there.

you should read it. its alot of pages though

long range plan [circa 2001]:
http://www.mta.net/images/lrtp_techappendix.pdf

71o tunnel:
http://www.mta.net/projects_plans/route_710/images/710_final_report.pdf

Downtown needs the support. The 110-5 interchange is horrible, something really needs to be done about that and quickly. Also, improvements need to be made on the 605-10 interchange. That area is busy on Sundays when there's no traffic. The freeway with the worst traffic right now seems to be the 57. There's only one freeway that goes to Orange County for that area, and when the interchange with the 60 is fixed in a few months, it will be a little better, but there still needs to be another freeway to serve the people in Montebello, El Monte, and Alhambra.

More freeways. More traffic. Halt ALL freeway builiding immediately. !!! But don't listen to me, as "botox" has stated just read the MTA's LRP and you will find that just minimal upgrading to freeways are on their list, excluding the multibillion dollar TUNNEL that could(with that kind of money) fund many a' light rail line. On the LRP many light rail lines and heavy rail lines are on the MTA's wishlist, and I repeat only minimal freeway upgrades with the exception of the 710 tunnel.

More freeways. More traffic. Halt ALL freeway builiding immediately. !!! But don't listen to me, as "botox" has stated just read the MTA's LRP and you will find that just minimal upgrading to freeways are on their list, excluding the multibillion dollar TUNNEL that could(with that kind of money) fund many a' light rail line. On the LRP many light rail lines and heavy rail lines are on the MTA's wishlist, and I repeat only minimal freeway upgrades with the exception of the 710 tunnel.

You can tell me that the 710 shouldn't be extended when you try to get to Glendale or Pasadena from Downtown taking the 110 to the 5 to the 2. I'm sure you'll love the current conditions there.

....And now Ontario wants in on the bandwagon.....

New suitor for Gold Line
Ontario officials make pitch for seat on governing board
By Mason Stockstill Staff Writer
Article Launched:12/05/2006 10:19:39 PM PST

ONTARIO - Though the city's western border is more than a mile from Los Angeles County, Ontario wants a piece of its big neighbor's transit system.

The city has joined a coalition of municipalities working to build an extension of the Metro Gold Line from Pasadena to this area.

More importantly, the city's leaders are pushing to locate the light-rail line's final station at LA/Ontario International Airport, rather than the currently proposed Montclair Transit Center.

"It makes a lot of sense for transportation corridors to have a main place they're going to," said Mayor Paul Leon. "Isn't it much better to say `I'm going to Ontario Airport' ... rather than just saying we're going to head east until the rail line ends?"

As it now exists, the Gold Line runs from downtown Los Angeles to east Pasadena.

When it was first proposed, the extension through the San Gabriel Valley on the old Santa Fe right-of-way was going to end in Claremont. But officials in San Bernardino County lured planners into Montclair, saying the transit center there made a natural terminus for the line.

Since then, the idea of going still farther into San Bernardino County and ending at the Ontario Airport gained traction among officials heading the charge. "Because there's been interest from our board, we're going to sit down with folks in a preliminary way," said Susan Hodor of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority. "It will set the groundwork for what we need to do, should this be an idea that San Bernardino County would embrace."

The move by Ontario to join the Gold Line authority's board, approved by the City Council on Tuesday, comes at a momentous time for the rail project, whose existence depends on a strategic plan being developed in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority operates several light-rail transit lines, as well as a single subway and thousands of buses.

In order to qualify for federal funding, the Gold Line Foothill Extension needs to be listed as a high-priority item on the MTA's long-range plan, which is under development.

But the Gold Line is just one of several transit projects that could qualify for that money, several of which are becoming more politically popular.

For example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - who controls four seats on the MTA's 13-member board - promised during his 2005 campaign to work toward extending the Red Line subway in Los Angeles.

Carol Inge, the MTA's executive officer for planning, said the long-range plan will be updated next spring.

"At that time, this project, along with other projects, will be presented to the board for funding consideration," Inge said.

With transportation funding dollars scarce, the dueling proposals and political alliances have thrown the Gold Line project for a loop.

"It's made the competition even within our own region greater," Hodor said.

Still, the Gold Line extension has powerful allies.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, has said the project is a virtual done deal, though he's had to play "hard ball" with local leaders in Los Angeles over federal funding.

Additionally, the Gold Line extension is further along in its planning and environmental review process than the subway extension or other transit projects being considered, Hodor said.

"All the right-of-way is purchased. We have resolutions of support from all of these cities," she said. "We're really poised to begin construction as soon as these \ issues are resolved."

hmmm... people still want trains in los angeles right?

what is the density out there anyhow?

hmmm... people still want trains in los angeles right?

what is the density out there anyhow?

My problem with the Ontario plan is:

1. You're going to have a light rail line that's 50 or so miles long. That's what Metrolink is for, to serve farther suburban/exurban areas.
Won't it cost less money to string electrical wires on Metrolink tracks and run electric trains with a more frequent schedule? I think this is how Metrolink should be eventually.

2. You're extending it to another county, out of the MTA's jurisdiction. It's in San Bernardino County, which would be quite unprecedented. Unless the MTA wants to make Metro Rail a regional instead of a countywide network, LA County taxpayers shouldn't have to pay a cent on this. We have our own transit needs in the county.

Why not have the IE build its own LRT system that interfaces with Metrolink and the eventual end of the Foothill Gold Line extension?

They could actually procure funding on their own without having to go through the MTA. After all, the Gold Line Foothill Authority is an independent entity the same way the Gold Line was developed and the Expo Line is being developed. This can very well be their strategy in case funding through the MTA falls apart. Also, the region has become politically adept by involving/including more cities and counties---thus having more leverage in negotiating and influencing transit policy makers in sacramento and washington.

I do not know what the rider stats are or pop. density in Ontario, but i think it would be good eventaully to have that extension built especially to Ontario Int'l (which was recently renamed LA Ontario Airport) which is fast becoming a major regional airport that can supplement LAX.

my opinion is that extending the gold line out to ontario or where ever, would be like extending the green line to disneyland. it seems like a good idea, with a major destination at the terminus, but im not sure it makes sense. atleast teh gold lines other terminus is dtla, but there is so much of nothing in between and the end to end ride would be in the hours. now i know that pasadena is a nice area and lots of people like to visit and there are a decent share of jobs, but from my experience with people in suburban LA, they want a rail line built so other people will ride it, to make their commute on the freeway easier. our traffic is awful throughout the region, but depriving wilshire of a subway for a light rail line to fucking BFE is not the answer to our traffic woes. the actual city of LA needs so much more than the wilshire line extended, lets atleast get that done before serving the suburbs. Im a big fan of fixing the heart before the limbs. think about it, if the heart stops, you die. you may be handicapped with a limp limb, but atleast youre alive.

I do not know what the rider stats are or pop. density in Ontario, but i think it would be good eventaully to have that extension built especially to Ontario Int'l (which was recently renamed LA Ontario Airport) which is fast becoming a major regional airport that can supplement LAX.

Yeah LA Ontario Airport is in the city of Ontario but is under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles (LA World Airports).

my opinion is that extending the gold line out to ontario or where ever, would be like extending the green line to disneyland. it seems like a good idea, with a major destination at the terminus, but im not sure it makes sense.

I think it's important to serve sattelite airports via rail and link them with LAX, but not with standard Metro Rail. It's been proposed as Maglev but I think that technology is unproven and potentially more expensive. Light rail cars do not have the space or capacity to serve as an airport-to-aiport link. The cars are too narrow and there are no provisions for luggage racks on the trains. Ideally it should be via Metrolink, in an electrified form. If they build a line like LAX - Union Station - Ontario = WINNER

I think it's important to serve sattelite airports via rail and link them with LAX, but not with standard Metro Rail. It's been proposed as Maglev but I think that technology is unproven and potentially more expensive. Light rail cars do not have the space or capacity to serve as an airport-to-aiport link. The cars are too narrow and there are no provisions for luggage racks on the trains. Ideally it should be via Metrolink, in an electrified form. If they build a line like LAX - Union Station - Ontario = WINNER


I agree that a 50 mile light rail is a bit much, b/se they are slower and smaller than heavy rail/subway rails, so that may not be the best formula to Ontario Airport. However, I disagree that Maglevs are unproven!!?? Apparently, you haven't heard of the Shanghai Maglev that whips from their downtown and airport and back. Maglev is definitely a possible solution.

At the same time I understand that San Bernandino wants to connect with L.A., so honestly I'm not sure what the best solution is at this time. Maybe San Bernandino can come up with their own line, but then overlapping maybe overkill. To bad the gold line isn't a heavy rail line, would make an extension more palatable.

I think it's important to serve sattelite airports via rail and link them with LAX, but not with standard Metro Rail. It's been proposed as Maglev but I think that technology is unproven and potentially more expensive. Light rail cars do not have the space or capacity to serve as an airport-to-aiport link. The cars are too narrow and there are no provisions for luggage racks on the trains. Ideally it should be via Metrolink, in an electrified form. If they build a line like LAX - Union Station - Ontario = WINNER

I don't disagree. In fact an LAXpress from LAX to Union Station could possibly in the future connect to the San Bernardino line, which with new tracks on the side of Cucamonga Creek, could go into Ontario Airport.

But this particular alignment down the Pasadena Subdivision would not serve the same communities along the way. The I-10 and I-210 are two completely different corridors serving two completely different sets of communities. I do think the Foothill extension should be EMU, because it it supposedly much cheaper (my guess is about $20 mil a mile, compared to the $60 mil per mile for LRT) and with the headways (10 min peak, 20 min off peak) spacing of the stations (every 2 miles), low density communities it passes through (lower than any other proposed project on the LRTP) and the length of the line it seems to make more sense. If they could reconfigure the tracks/stations between Sierra Madre Villa and Memorial Park (Old Town Pasadena/Pasadena Civic Center) to fit EMU and the Gold line so it could be a Downtown Pasadena to Ontario Airport Metrolink service, even better. If not, timed transfers at Sierra Madre Villa are fine.

I agree that a 50 mile light rail is a bit much, b/se they are slower and smaller than heavy rail/subway rails, so that may not be the best formula to Ontario Airport. However, I disagree that Maglevs are unproven!!?? Apparently, you haven't heard of the Shanghai Maglev that whips from their downtown and airport and back. Maglev is definitely a possible solution.

Maglev is a long-distance commuter rail service NOT an urban rail or suburban commuter rail service. It is not intented to have a stop every 1 mile (as is the case with Metro rail) or every 2 miles (as is the case with the Foothill extension). It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to travel 300 mph between stations that are 1 mile between one another. It takes 2 minutes for the train to reach 200 mph. By that time you'd already have passed several stations.

The Shanghai line is 19 miles long with NO STATIONS in between. We can run grade-separated LRV at 80 mph, and our freight and commuter rail are already running that fast.

We could build an entire new and VERY EXPENSIVE (read: multiple billions) Maglev line to connect LAX to Palmdale or Ontario Airport with one or no stops in between but why waste the money? We have far more pressing priorities. We need at least $10-15 billion in subways and surface rail just to make a dent. L.A.'s urban rail infrastructure is too immature to handle a new technology like maglev, which WILL drain us of much needed resources while we work through the many adjustments all new technologies require.

However, I disagree that Maglevs are unproven!!?? Apparently, you haven't heard of the Shanghai Maglev that whips from their downtown and airport and back. Maglev is definitely a possible solution.

Conventional rail technology has baseline costs for everything. For example, one light rail vehicle costs $1-3 million. A $10 million LRV would sound ridiculously expensive. But for Maglev, since there's no baseline cost because the technology is so new, there are very few manufacturers who make Maglev equipment that the low (or no) competition dictates high costs for everything (kinda like Macs). Also contractors can justify over-inflated costs for just about everything. That's why you should take any Maglev cost figure with a grain of salt.

Did you also hear about the Maglev Transrapid accident that killed 25 people in Germany...on the TEST TRACK? Sure accidents happen in any and every mode of transportation, nothing is 100% safe, but a bunch of people dying on the friggin test track is not a good thing.

I Agree with the proposal, if and only San Bernardino County is willing to help with the bill. which it seems they want to. WHat about somethging like CALTRAINS from San Francisco. I MEmber taking it from San Jose International to a station in SAn Francisco. THOse work 2!

WHat about somethging like CALTRAINS from San Francisco. I MEmber taking it from San Jose International to a station in SAn Francisco. THOse work 2!

Uh yeah, it's called METROLINK...

its to expensive to take metrolink and its slow!

metro going to ontario airport sounds like a good idea to me in that the airport can better serve visitors of los angeles... since both LAX and Ontario are major ports for los angeles, it would make sense to take more rental cars off our local streets and freeways. and since ontario international will be expanding and lax is stalling, it would make sense to plan the two together

the density of ontario was around 3,200/sq.mi. back in 2000 and the IE is rapidly growing like the rest of the region. people between union station and ontario could use the line anyways... passengers for ontario in 2005 were 7,200,000.

funding outside of L.A. county should be provided by san bernardino county or any other county who wants a piece of metro in the future... it's only fair

its to expensive to take metrolink and its slow!

So is Caltrain...

So is Caltrain...


^^ What's Caltrain??

^^ What's Caltrain??

http://www.digiconinc.com/images/Caltrain%20train.jpg

Caltrain is to the (west*) SF Bay Area as Metrolink is to SoCal.

It's a commuter rail system (well more like one line) serving the (West) SF Bay Area running from downtown SF to San Jose and as far as Gilroy. It's much older than Metrolink because the line was actually started by the Southern Pacific railroad, but was taken over by CalTrans (hence the name) and later transferred to a Joint-Powers Board (similar to the one that administers Metrolink).

Obligatory Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrain

Trivia: In the early '80s, Caltrans once ran a "Test" CalTrain service in Southern California, from Chatsworth to Union Station, to see if something similar could be established here. But it was such a flop that they never made the service permanent. Though in 1990, various counties in Southern CA decided to start a commuter rail service and two years later Metrolink began.



*I make the distinction between West SF Bay Area and the East Bay, as a separate commuter rail system (Altamont Commuter Express) serves Stockton to San Jose.

How long has Metrolink been around then?

How long has Metrolink been around then?

14 years...Metrolink opened in October 1992 with lines to San Bernardino, Moorpark and Santa Clarita (the last two were eventually extended).

^ 14 years.... I just heard of it not so long ago. Well a couple of years only, but 14 where have I been!

^ 14 years.... I just heard of it not so long ago. Well a couple of years only, but 14 where have I been!

I was surprised myself. I remember when Metrolink put "10th Anniversary" stickers on their trains, but that was back in 1992...which was 4 years ago.

Similarly Metro Rail had "10 Years of Moving LA" stickers on their trains in 2000. But that's over 6 years ago! I guess we'll see those "20 years" stickers in just a couple years!

http://www.digiconinc.com/images/Caltrain%20train.jpg


Trivia: In the early '80s, Caltrans once ran a "Test" CalTrain service in Southern California, from Chatsworth to Union Station, to see if something similar could be established here. But it was such a flop that they never made the service permanent. Though in 1990, various counties in Southern CA decided to start a commuter rail service and two years later Metrolink began.



.

Very very interesting. Ironically now, Metrolink is averaging more daily trips as well as increasing at a faster pace than Caltrain.
Another link from my weekend APTA frenzy!
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q2cr.pdf
I was really surprised to see how just a handful of metros in the US run commuter rail.

Very very interesting. Ironically now, Metrolink is averaging more daily trips as well as increasing at a faster pace than Caltrain.
Another link from my weekend APTA frenzy!
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/06q2cr.pdf
I was really surprised to see how just a handful of metros in the US run commuter rail.

Caltrain is only about 70 or so miles, while Metrolink is over 400. Plus Caltrans is just one line whereas Metrolink has about 8. Outside of SF and Oakland proper, BART functions as a commuter rail system.

Actually a growing number of commuter rail systems have boomed in the past decade or so. Even places like Albuquerque and Memphils now (or will soon) have commuter rail systems.

So is Metrolink going electrical anytime soon?

Let's just get Metrolinks #'s up first.

So is Metrolink going electrical anytime soon?

Unfortunately not. But then who knows? They didn't anticipate extending to the Antelope Valley until 2010 or so, until the Northridge Earthquake changed all that, less than 2 years after the system opened (In case any of you are new here, when Metrolink opened in 1992, they had long-term plans to extend to Palmdale and Lancaster, but not for several years. 2008 or 2010 was the original projected date. But after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake destroyed a key freeway interchange between the 5 and 14 near Santa Clarita, Metrolink ran emergency service (thanks to federal transportation and FEMA funds) to the Antelope Valley just days after the earthquake. The service was so popular, even after the freeway reopened, that it made the emergency service permanent, at least 10 years before it was supposed to begin!

There's a movement to make all the other freight railroads in the LA area to electrify their lines, and if that ever happens, then Metrolink will no doubt have to follow suit.

Let's just get Metrolinks #'s up first.

This isn't out of the question. The AQMD has been pushing the local freight railroads to move to lower diesel emissions for years. Metrolink's locomotives give off lower emissions than similar locomotives. But with an increased volume of freight traffic from our ports to the rest of the USA, freight trains are in higher demand. There have been efforts to push to have all railroads in the LA area operate via electric locomotives, with electrical overhead wire (like in the Northeast Corridor and in other countries). If or when this happens, Metrolink, using the same tracks, will no doubt follow suit.

With electric-powered Metrolink trains, not only are there zero emissions, but trains accelerate faster, giving way to faster schedules, which also leads to more frequent trains and obviously higher ridership. So electric-powered Metrolink trains can actually increase ridership numbers.

Let's say that Metrolink goes Electrical with over head wires. The line that travels on the 10 can be easily shared with the future MTA Silver Line. Not the entire route, just as far as El Monti Station where I believe it will eventually end. Can someone shed some light on this matter?

Let's say that Metrolink goes Electrical with over head wires. The line that travels on the 10 can be easily shared with the future MTA Silver Line. Not the entire route, just as far as El Monti Station where I believe it will eventually end. Can someone shed some light on this matter?

I dont quite think it works that way. Mainline railroad tracks used by Metrolink, Amtrak and the freight railroads (Union Pacific and BNSF) are controlled by a signalling system that is interconnected with all the other mainline railroad tracks in the Western USA. Urban rail transit like the Blue Line, Red Line and all the other Metro Rail lines have their own unique signalling system that is controlled by the MTA itself. There are a few rare exceptions, such as the San Diego Trolley, which does share track with a freight railroad in the line to Tijuana.

Also, Metrolink trains are wider than our Light Rail trains. The problem with that is that our light rail trains have high-level platforms on the tracks that can only accommodate a train thats about 8 1/2 feet wide. Metrolink trains are about 10 feet wide and would smash the Metro Rail platforms if they ever ran on the same track.

Also I dont think the "Silver Line" concept route intends to use that track to El Monte.

The other problem is voltage. Metro Rail trains use 750 volts on their overhead (or 3rd rail, for the subway) lines. Because their trains are bigger and heavier, mainline railroads require a much higher voltage.

Apparently, you haven't heard of the Shanghai Maglev that whips from their downtown and airport and back.
The Shanghai Maglev does not run into the centre of the city. It terminates on the outskirts and you have to transfer to the metro to get to and from the centre.

BTW does anyone have any knowledge of a train with overhead cantenary wires fizzling and electrocuting all passengers inside of the train? When I'm riding the light rail trains here, I always think about maybe a surge in voltage for some reason and everyone in the train being fried. It would be, I think, the easiest way to go.

i think the body of the train car is the path of least resistance so i dont think that you have to worry about being the main course on a KBQ

BTW does anyone have any knowledge of a train with overhead cantenary wires fizzling and electrocuting all passengers inside of the train? When I'm riding the light rail trains here, I always think about maybe a surge in voltage for some reason and everyone in the train being fried. It would be, I think, the easiest way to go.

I don't think this has ever happened. There are complex electrical systems regulating the voltage (any fluctuation in voltage results in unreliable service so that's avoided as much as possible), and any damage to the wires would cause an automatic shutdown of either that area or the entire system. Electric railways with overhead wire have been areound for over 100 years.

^^ That's good to know...... Trains are neat!

^^ That's good to know...... Trains are neat!

I remember some incident a few years ago where the Blue Line wires snapped in one location (high winds?) but there was no other damage or injury. It was just like pulling the plug. The only thing it caused as a scheduling inconvenience as the trains had to use one track for part of the route.

From SAN J to SAN FRAN it was only $5.5 bucks

I remember some incident a few years ago where the Blue Line wires snapped in one location (high winds?) but there was no other damage or injury. It was just like pulling the plug. The only thing it caused as a scheduling inconvenience as the trains had to use one track for part of the route.

Actually, that wasn't too long ago. At most 1 1/2 year ago. I remember it. In Compton, just past the Artesia station, a car flew off the 91 onto the Blue Line tracks and that snapped some wires. One track was shut down so they could fix it. I remember that.

But I've always wondered, how is it that those light rail can still run in rain, sleet, and snow? I mean if its transmitting electricity and you could get shocked if you touch it, how is it weather resistant?

But I've always wondered, how is it that those light rail can still run in rain, sleet, and snow? I mean if its transmitting electricity and you could get shocked if you touch it, how is it weather resistant?

The overhead wire carries the positive current, the rails carry the negative current/ground. You can touch the rails because it's the ground and you're already grounded, there's no effect there, you'll only get a shock if you're on the ground and touch the overhead wire (which completes the circuit).

The 3rd rail on the Red Line carries the same current (750V DC) but since it's low to the ground, and you're standing on the ground already - ZAP.

That's why birds can sit down on high-voltage wires and not get zapped - because they're not grounded. Ditto for a drop of rain falling from the sky.

I tend to prefer the second map. It looks more do-able. Damien what are the issues that you have with the second map besides being less extensive of a system. Couldn't the "holes" in the second map be reasonable filled with the Rapid Bus System or even BRT? How much less would the second map cost or how cost effective would this be? This discussion is open to everyone, I just cited Damien because he was the creator of the first map.
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/losangdamiengproposal.gif
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/losangelesfuturetrainmap.gif
We may be no where near the first rail map but we've got at least a third of the second map under construction or up and running.......
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/losangelescomingrail.gif

If the Orange Line is there, why doesn't Metro include the El Monte Busway and Harbor Transitway? Technically, it seems that they should be there, even if they are not dedicated for only Metro.

i like the first map. that would make los aNgeles' trasit system world class. not just a quick fix.

http://mta.net/images/rail_info-1.gif
Anyone? :)

I tend to prefer the second map. It looks more do-able. Damien what are the issues that you have with the second map besides being less extensive of a system

There are quite a few technical issues - stations 3-4 miles apart from one another, intersections that don't exist, etc., but it boils down to this: MTA's full title is LOS ANGELES COUNTY Metropolitan Transportation Authority. A good portion of their budget comes from taxes imposed on the entire county. That said the map is probably just a westside focused map.

Yeah I can see that. Don't know why I had a block about that map.

Here's the graph paper version of the latest and likely final update for quite some time. (Click here for the larger version (http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7339/122106wr7.jpg)):

http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1038/122106vd7.jpg

Here are the station name changes from the old version (http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/damienwg/goodmon_final.gif). I changed a lot of the intersections to actual community names to compliment the "Transit Village" concept, reinforce my belief that a primarily grade separated rail system would bring a diverse city together and to encourage communities to really take ownership of and identify with particular lines and the system.

BLUE LINE
Memorial Park > Old Town Pasadena
Mission > South Pasadena
Heritage Square > Heritage Square/Arroyo
Lincoln/Cypress > Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park
7th St/Metro Center > 7th St/Julian Dixon (not shown on the map)
Slauson/Long Beach > Slauson Junction
Florence/Compton > Florence/Graham
Firestone/Compton > Firestone/Graham
103rd > Watts/Kenneth Hahn
Rosa Parks > Willowbrook/Rosa Parks
Compton Blvd > Compton Civic Center
Artesia/Alameda > Crystal Park
Del Amo/Santa Fe > Rancho Dominguez
Anaheim St > Anaheim/Long Beach

PURPLE LINE
Doheny > Robertson/Wilshire
23rd St Santa Monica > 26th St Santa Monica

RED LINE
MacClay > San Fernando
Laurel Canyon/Roscoe > Canyon Plaza
Laurel Canyon/Victory > Valley Plaza
North Hollywood > NoHo Arts District
Hollywood/Western > East Hollywood
Santa Monica/Vermont > LA City College
Pico/Vermont > Olympic/Vermont
Washington/Vermont > Byzantine-Latino Quarter
Manchester/Vermont > Vermont Knolls
Century/Vermont > Westmont
Imperial/Vermont > Athens
Carson/Main > Keystone
Normandie/Sepulveda > Sepulveda/Harbor Fwy
Normandie/Pacific Coast Hwy > Harbor College & Park
Five Points > Anaheim/Harbor Fwy
Gaffey/Capitol > Cruise Center
6th St San Pedro > Downtown San Pedro
Los Feliz > Los Feliz Village
Eliminated Lexington
Eliminated 13th St San Pedro
Added Vineland between Universal City and NoHo Arts District
Added 3rd/Vermont between Beverly and Wilshire/Vermont
Added Redondo Beach/Vermont between Rosecrans/Vermont and Gardena Blvd

GREEN LINE
Ocean Park/Lincoln > Ocean Park
Imperial/Hawthorne > Lennox
Century/I-105 > Hollydale
Studebaker/I-105 > Hoxie
Pioneer/Imperial > Firestone/Imperial
Norwalk/Imperial > Norwalk Civic Center
Santa Fe Springs > Norwalk Transit Center
Lakewood/Somerset > Somerset
Studebaker/Artesia > Artesia/I-605
Added Rose between Ocean Park and Venice/Lincoln
Added Rosecrans/Paramount between Atlantic/I-105 and Somerset

GOLD LINE
134 Fwy/Colorado > Rose Bowl/Norton Simon Museum
Sepulveda/Ventura > Sherman Oaks Galleria
Moved Glendale Transit Center between Glendale Galleria and Grandview/San Fernando
Added Eagle Rock Mall between Chevy Chase & Eagle Rock/Colorado
Added Stadium spur from Rose Bowl/Norton Simon Museum
Added LA Zoo/Autry Museum spur from Glendale Transit Center

AQUA LINE
Olympic/20th > Water Garden
Palms > Motor
Washington/National > Robertson/Venice
Expo/La Brea > Rancho Cienega
Washington/Flower > LA Trade Tech
Valley/Rosemead > Rosemead Civic Center
El Monte > El Monte Transit Center
Baldwin Park > Baldwin Park Transit Center
Eliminated San Pedro St
Eliminated Produce District
Added Rancho Park between Sepulveda/Pico and Motor
Added Valley Mall between Baldwin and El Monte Transit Center
Added Durfee between Peck and Baldwin Park Transit Center
Added Francisquito between Durfee and Baldwin Park Transit Center

BRONZE LINE
Foothill/Van Nuys > Foothill
Pacoima > Arleta
Arleta > Woodman/Van Nuys
Van Nuys/Roscoe > Panorama Mall
Van Nuys Transit Center > The Plant Shopping Center
Van Nuys/Oxnard > Van Nuys Civic Center
Sepulveda/Culver > Culver
Redondo Beach Ave > Redondo Beach
Manhattan Beach Blvd > Lawndale
Carson/Crenshaw > Old Torrance
Santa Fe/PCH > Santa Fe
Eliminated Van Nuys/Victory
Added Glenoaks between Foothill and Van Nuys/San Fernando
Added Getty Center between UCLA and Sherman Oaks Galleria
Added Sawtelle between Culver and Howard Hughes/Fox Hills Mall
Added Harbor City between Western/Sepulveda and Harbor College & Park
Added Signal Hill, Los Alamitos Circle, Atherton, and CSU Long Beach/LB Vets Hospital

SILVER LINE
Little Ethiopia > SoFax/Little Ethiopia
Sunset/San Vicente > Sunset Strip West
La Cienega/Sunset > Sunset Strip
Figueroa/Sunset > Alpine Hill
Eliminated Venice HS
Eliminated Olvera St
Added Abbot Kinney between Venice Beach and Venice/Lincoln
Added Bandini, Commerce, Maywood, Bell Civic Center, Florence/Atlantic, Cudahy, Tweedy, Imperial/Atlantic, Atlantic/I-105, Rosecrans/Atlantic, East Compton, Alondra, Compton College, Crystal Park, Central/Artesia, and CSU Dominguez Hills/Home Depot Center

PINK LINE
Venice/Shaw > Lafayette Square/Victoria Park Circle
MLK > Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Plaza
Florence/Shaw > Hyde Park
El Segundo/Hawthorne > Hawthorne Plaza & Civic Center
Del Amo/Hawthorne > Delthorne
Eliminated Washington/Crenshaw

PEACH LINE
Hayvenhurst > Lake Balboa
Reseda/Roscoe > Northridge Hospital

FOOTHILL LINE
Citrus > Citrus College/Azusa Pacific University
La Verne > Fairplex/University of La Verne
Pomona > North Pomona

605 LINE
South Whittier > Santa Fe Springs

SAN BERNARDINO LINE
LA County USC Medical Center > County/USC Medical Center
Alhambra > Alhambra Metrolink

VENTURA COUNTY LINE
Glassel Park > Glassell Park

This is all in addition to the numerous changes to the Orange/Lime lines.

pretty expensive rial system

Well, pay now or pay later

^^...?

Well, pay now or pay later


^^ Try more like Master Card!

Well, pay now or pay later

And the more later, the more it will cost.

Free rides tonight on Metro Rail. This is what you get when you associate a night with heavy drinking.

^^ Only Rail not buses?

^^ Only Rail not buses?

I think it's both actually, but which would you enjoy more?

I think it's both actually, but which would you enjoy more?


^ If I had a choice it would be Rail off course. Since I live in the Southwest we don't have that luxury of choosing. I do have an option as far as MTA, Big Blue, and Culver Bus. Something is better than nothing.

Free rides tonight on Metro Rail. This is what you get when you associate a night with heavy drinking.

Same for New Year's Eve. Hop on the Gold Line if you wanna go watch the Rose Parade!

Same for New Year's Eve. Hop on the Gold Line if you wanna go watch the Rose Parade!

And make sure you watch it. I'm gonna be in it. Pasadena City College Tournament of Roses Honor Band.

And make sure you watch it. I'm gonna be in it. Pasadena City College Tournament of Roses Honor Band.

O RLY? What do you play? Or do you just twirl batons? :)

And make sure you watch it. I'm gonna be in it. Pasadena City College Tournament of Roses Honor Band.


^ No way.......... We need proof?

I play the alto sax. And sorry Ferney, there's not really any way for me to prove it.

A pix speaks a thousands words!

I play the alto sax. And sorry Ferney, there's not really any way for me to prove it.

You can show him all the horseshit that's stuck the bottom of your shoes by the time you've reached the end of the route :)

Very cool. I play alto sax as well. It was one of those 2006 New Year's Resolutions that I fulfilled, after not touching a saxophone for 11 years. Now I have to get the thing re-padded.

Trivia: In the early '80s, Caltrans once ran a "Test" CalTrain service in Southern California, from Chatsworth to Union Station, to see if something similar could be established here. But it was such a flop that they never made the service permanent. Though in 1990, various counties in Southern CA decided to start a commuter rail service and two years later Metrolink began.



Hey! I found pictures of the old Los Angeles "CalTrain" service circa 1982 which used Southern Pacific locomotives and cars, like CalTrain originally did:

http://www.trainweb.org/chris/oxc1.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/chris/oxc2.jpg

Caption: "Southern Pacific ran a short lived Oxnard to Los Angeles Commuter Train for four months. Seen here at Los Angeles in June of 1982."

From: http://www.trainweb.org/chris/tributeamtrak.html

(No wonder why they were a flop, those trains looked pathetic! Especially compared to the stylish trains we got 10 years later. I guess our image-conscious mores of riding in a nice-looking car translates to mass transit as well!)

There's your Christmas train everybody! :D

A pix speaks a thousands words!

I have pictures that I took that should be coming in very soon.

I better see a PCC marching outfit.... Buddy!!! lol*

Don't worry, you'll see the red monster soon enough. Of course, if you're really interested, you could go to Dodger Stadium today to watch us practice.

^^ Go Dodgers!

Hey! I found pictures of the old Los Angeles "CalTrain" service circa 1982 which used Southern Pacific locomotives and cars, like CalTrain originally did:

http://www.trainweb.org/chris/oxc1.jpg

http://www.trainweb.org/chris/oxc2.jpg

Caption: "Southern Pacific ran a short lived Oxnard to Los Angeles Commuter Train for four months. Seen here at Los Angeles in June of 1982."

From: http://www.trainweb.org/chris/tributeamtrak.html

(No wonder why they were a flop, those trains looked pathetic! Especially compared to the stylish trains we got 10 years later. I guess our image-conscious mores of riding in a nice-looking car translates to mass transit as well!)

There's your Christmas train everybody! :D



^^ No wonder they went out of business, those trains are not very inviding at all.

The train in the second picture looks like it should have transported animals.

The train in the second picture looks like it should have transported animals.

It looks like the trains that transported Jews to concentration camps in WW2. I'm serious too.

^^I was thinking that, but I just didn't want to say it.

I know it's not much, but I created a Wikipedia article for Damien's map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_citizen_proposals

I see you added the Silver Line as a proposal. My understanding was that proposal was out the door. Since others proposals would have a higher ridership, like the Orange Line when it convert to Light Rail.

I must say I anxiously await for the LAXpress proposal. Since that's an important Line to connect with LAX from Downtown. As well as the Green Line connecting to LAX from the 105, that's sweet!!!

I see you added the Silver Line as a proposal. My understanding was that proposal was out the door. Since others proposals would have a higher ridership, like the Orange Line when it convert to Light Rail.

I must say I anxiously await for the LAXpress proposal. Since that's an important Line to connect with LAX from Downtown. As well as the Green Line connecting to LAX from the 105, that's sweet!!!

Though I support light rail and live near the so-called "Silver Line," I don't see it ever happening. There is simply too much right-of-way that is not owned by the MTA in this route to make it happen...If you look at other transit lines, most of the right of way property is already owned by the MTA. The people who are trying to make this line happen have the best intentions in the world, but are not very realistic. They have patterned their movement after the citiizen activists who successfully pushed to get the Exposition light rail line built, but they're forgetting the fact that the MTA has already owned the Exposition right of way for many years.

I see you added the Silver Line as a proposal. My understanding was that proposal was out the door. Since others proposals would have a higher ridership, like the Orange Line when it convert to Light Rail.

I must say I anxiously await for the LAXpress proposal. Since that's an important Line to connect with LAX from Downtown. As well as the Green Line connecting to LAX from the 105, that's sweet!!!

I only made the article in a few minutes, as you can see there is a lot of detail that needs to be added. Any help from people here would be appreciated. Most you guys know more about these lines than I do.

On a side note, I added on to the Harbor Transitway the part that is not completed, but I can find almost no information on it besides the picture of it. Maybe someone here knows about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbor_Transitway#Uncompleted_Portion

Hey thanks for the pub phattonez.

The LAXpress plan however goes way back as far as (I think) the late '50s and '60s. I'll update the wiki page when I get time.

You probably want to include the Yellow Line (http://web.archive.org/web/20051122041258/http://www.yellowline.org) with the Silver Line (http://web.archive.org/web/20060209145235/http://metrosilverline.com). I don't agree with the Yellow line (I like my set up better) but it was citizen-led. Both sites unfortunately have died and I don't know the status of their creators. My intent with this plan is not to have it heavily based on my efforts alone.

AND BIG NEWS: UPDATED VERSION OF THE MAP TO BE POSTED IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS! :banana: :banana: (With it will come a big call for help.)

Hey thanks for the pub phattonez.

The LAXpress plan however goes way back as far as (I think) the late '50s and '60s. I'll update the wiki page when I get time.

You probably want to include the Yellow Line (http://web.archive.org/web/20051122041258/http://www.yellowline.org) with the Silver Line (http://web.archive.org/web/20060209145235/http://metrosilverline.com). I don't agree with the Yellow line (I like my set up better) but it was citizen-led. Both sites unfortunately have died and I don't know the status of their creators. My intent with this plan is not to have it heavily based on my efforts alone.

AND BIG NEWS: UPDATED VERSION OF THE MAP TO BE POSTED IN THE NEXT 48 HOURS! :banana: :banana: (With it will come a big call for help.)

Any update to the information on the wiki will be great. Also, I need your consent to use that picture on the wiki, but I guess we can do that when you come out with the next map.

Just remember, this is a wiki so it is open for everyone to edit. Hopefully this article will gain more publicity for Damien's plan.

Something I just thought of. Could the tunnel boring machines used for the Gold Lines be used to create more subways? Seems like we can get started on more lines if so.

Something I just thought of. Could the tunnel boring machines used for the Gold Lines be used to create more subways? Seems like we can get started on more lines if so.

In many cases the cost to remove them from the ground doesn't justify re-using them, and they remain buried in the earth for all eternity - at least that was the case for the deep-bore Red Line. The Eastside Gold Line is somewhat more shallow, so I don't know whether they were able to recover them.

^^So the machines used for the red line could possibly be used to extend the red line maybe south from its current terminus?

^^So the machines used for the red line could possibly be used to extend the red line maybe south from its current terminus?

There's no need for that since the Red Line actually terminates at ground level. There is a service tunnel that runs from Union Station to the Red Line maintenance yard along the LA River. But if you look staight down the tunnels at Union Station you will see a couple dead-end "starter tunnels" that were meant for the East LA Red Line extension.

The boring machines are either owned or leased by the contractor. The city does not own these. Also, TBMs are desinged specifically for the type of earth they will be boring through. Because of the methane issue, the red line will need specially desinged TBMs.

In many cases the cost to remove them from the ground doesn't justify re-using them, and they remain buried in the earth for all eternity - at least that was the case for the deep-bore Red Line.

I've heard that before, but I haven't had anyone at MTA confirm it. Also if there were more subway projects they'd never be left underground. Madrid's continuous rail expansion program has them using many of the same TBMs just with different shields.

The boring machines are either owned or leased by the contractor. The city does not own these.

I wonder if Eastside LRT Contractors owns them or a subcontractor. I don't see any reason however MTA couldn't buy the TBMs themselves and have the contractors use them for various projects. If were to engage in an ambitious proposal to drastically expand our subway network I'm sure it would be considered. Whether thats more or less expensive than the current process is obviously a factor however.

Also, TBMs are desinged specifically for the type of earth they will be boring through. Because of the methane issue, the red line will need specially desinged TBMs.

I was told by an MTA executive in an informal/unofficial setting that they could actually be used for the Wilshire subway project.

What are TBM's?

and Damien, what happened with the final draft of the rail system?

[I'm new here, hello!]

welcome KidA.

TBM = Tunnel Boring Machine

hey KidA.......u should go post in the roll call section....

What are TBM's?

and Damien, what happened with the final draft of the rail system?

[I'm new here, hello!]

It's done, and I'm unveiling it at the next Transit Coalition meeting (http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine&boardid=Lobby&thread=21&spec=6211056) on Tuesday night, January 23rd at Phillipe's Original (http://www.philippes.com/location).

I'm actually going to speak at length about all the things that went into making the map, how I think it could be built, etc. and taking questions. This will be the first public presentation of the map/the plan and its in a small informal setting before a group composed of some of the brightest minds in L.A. transit advocacy.

It'll be a good first run, and obviously everyone is invited.

More info on everything else soon and I'll put it in this thread. (We need a lot of help.)