Just an idea I had, I was wondering what you thought of it. It could use the path of the El Monte Busway, be elevated over the lanes when the Busway runs next to the 10, and it can run in the middle of the 10 without distrupting Metrolink service during construction with cut and cover when the Busway runs in the center of the 10.

If the emergency lanes are paved, then the tracks can be laid, and then covered again. The median could then, once the tracks for the subway are laid, hold two HOV lanes and an emergency lane for each side, and the Metrolink service could be replaced by the Red Line.

Just an idea, but it seemed like this could be done at a fairly good price (at least when compared to the normal price of subway.

Just an idea I had, I was wondering what you thought of it. It could use the path of the El Monte Busway, be elevated over the lanes when the Busway runs next to the 10, and it can run in the middle of the 10 without distrupting Metrolink service during construction with cut and cover when the Busway runs in the center of the 10.



Since it closely parallels existing Metrolink and express bus service, that would not be a wise use of transit funds. The former Red Line Eastside extension was turned into the Eastside Gold Line (light rail).

The only way that's feasible to bring the Red/Purple Lines east is to follow the 5 freeway corridor towards the southeast: City of Commerce, Montebello, Santa Fe Springs, Cerritos, Norwalk. This would be cost-effective and perhaps no tunneling would be needed -- this can be built as an aerial extension. Another bonus is that the line can use the existing Red Line Yard tracks and tunnel portal, which are used by the trains every day but never seen by passengers.

There were plans for a line in this corridor made as early as the early 1980s, perhaps it can link with the Green Line, Metrolink for a future Orange County rail system. The 5 freeway is constantly jammed along that route.

If that is done, then some tunneling will be needed so that it can meet an underground Gold Line Station in East LA. That is of course if it follows the 101 and then the 5 south.

But that looks like an extremely expensive expansion . . . might as well build it underground, if it is build at all.

Anyway, it seems to me that the El Monte Busway does not have enough stops, and that building a subway over it will gain many more riders, increase carpooling, decrease traffic on the 10, and should get more people out of their cars. I don't know how many people from that area work in downtown, but it would be interesting to note how it would affect the parking situation in downtown.

What about extending it N through the Valley?

You mean the San Fernando Valley I presume? Sure, but that's not a part of this thread. I'm all for it, but that's beside the point.

You guys really need to get up to speed on the past, present and future of transit in LA. Their are whole threads dedicated to just "Eastside Red Line" on the Transit Coalitions Forum boards, the reason it does not exist and if their will be any hope for it in the future. When you begin to reference the Transit Coalition site you will come up to speed as to why the Red Line only stops at Union Station, Zev's law that barred all tunneling for subways since 1998, the Valley NIMBY opposition to the Red Line continuing on, hence why we have the Orange Line now. Most of the reasons why you don't see rail all over LA is not because of lack of funds or because no one has ever thought of it before but because of strong neighborhood NIMBY opposition groups that pull political strings to get their way.
This link is INVALUABLE:

http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine

What would be the problem with extending it under the El Monte Busway? There are no noise problems, eminent domain issues, and it will greatly help traffic. (People who live west of El Monte are basically forced to drive to downtown because they cannot use the El Monte Busway. There are not enough stations on it, the closest without backtracking is at Cal State LA, so they might as well drive the entire way)

That law needs to be repealed, the more subway construction we do, the better we get at it and the cheaper it becomes.

That's why it is important for all of us to ride transit and get involved.

What would be the problem with extending it under the El Monte Busway? There are no noise problems, eminent domain issues, and it will greatly help traffic. (People who live west of El Monte are basically forced to drive to downtown because they cannot use the El Monte Busway. There are not enough stations on it, the closest without backtracking is at Cal State LA, so they might as well drive the entire way)

That law needs to be repealed, the more subway construction we do, the better we get at it and the cheaper it becomes.

The law will be repealed any day now. But it only applied to the methane gas zones in the Miracle Mile area. There was never anything stopping heavy rail being built in other areas, aside from cost.

The area where the El Monte busway runs is not nearly as dense as Hollywood, Downtown or Koreatown so if the Red Line were to be extended to the east it would likely not go underground.

"Building more subway" doesn't bring the costs down. A subway is not something you can buy in bulk at Cosco. You have to understand that the whole process of building a subway takes a long time, with many contractors and workers. You probably weren't even born yet when the Red Line first broke ground in 1986. The first section opened in 1993, and the subway as we know it wasn't finished until 2000.

The increases in cost of living/inflation equate to a subway project costing more than the previous one.

I am obviously not against more subways, I would love to see the Purple Line go as far wast as possible. But other corridors aren't as dense and therefore do not warrant the high cost of building an underground heavy rail line there.

The difference is that this can be done cut and cover, which is a lot cheaper.

The law was for all of LA County, the law for banning tunneling in the methane zones was passed by Henry Waxman and has already been repealed by the House of Representatives. You're thinking of the law passed by Zev Yaroslavsky, which bans using sales tax revenue for new subway construction.

The problem with the Red Line was cost overruns and that it was not completed on schedule. Of course, as they constructed more, the better they got. i.e. the Red Line to NoHo, which was constructed on time and according to budget. So the more that is built, the better they get, and the cheaper it becomes.

The difference is that this can be done cut and cover, which is a lot cheaper.

The problem with the Red Line was cost overruns and that it was not completed on schedule. Of course, as they constructed more, the better they got. i.e. the Red Line to NoHo, which was constructed on time and according to budget. So the more that is built, the better they get, and the cheaper it becomes.

That's not exactly true, the final Red Line segment to North Hollywood was reasonably less complex than the other segments, with long straightaway sections rather than the curves that had to be dealt with in the first segment in Downtown. Also, the last segment had fewer stations and because of the station locations, did not disrupt surface traffic as much as the previous sections.

There is no reason to build an underground line to El Monte, if a rail line is chosen. It is not as dense. The whole reason for building subways is because travel on the surface of busy city streets is prohibitive. More than likely it will either be light rail or above-ground heavy rail (which can connect to the existing Red Line). If you have ever been to the Bay Area and rode their BART system, you will realize that only a small fraction of the system is actually underground. Most of it is at- or above ground.

The El Monte Busway, along with the Harbor Transitway were both originally designed to be converted to rail lines - the elevated structures are built to support the weight of trains, tracks and roadbed.

Whether Metro will actually convert them is not yet certain.

Where would surface rail go from LA to El Monte that would not destroy existing developments? The only ROW is used by Metrolink, and are you going to disrupt that service for a few years while you build the rail? The rail is not wide enough in the median of the 10, so it can run right below the 10. It wouldn't exactly be a subway, it would be elevated rail covered by freeway. The busway would expand, there would be stations to serve the SGV, and it would not be as expensive as conventional subway. If the busway was to be converted to rail, then it seems that this is the way to do it.

Where would surface rail go from LA to El Monte that would not destroy existing developments? The only ROW is used by Metrolink, and are you going to disrupt that service for a few years while you build the rail? The rail is not wide enough in the median of the 10, so it can run right below the 10. It wouldn't exactly be a subway, it would be elevated rail covered by freeway. The busway would expand, there would be stations to serve the SGV, and it would not be as expensive as conventional subway. If the busway was to be converted to rail, then it seems that this is the way to do it.

Hey, if you could pay for the entire subway yourself, then I'm all for it! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

My idea was always anything west of downtown, south of the Hollywood Hills, north of the 10 needs to be subway. Any other place outside of that general area w/ the exception of some spots east of downtown could be elevated heavy or even elevated light rail. I'm even for giving the Valley only busways.

My idea was always anything west of downtown, south of the Hollywood Hills, north of the 10 needs to be subway. Any other place outside of that general area w/ the exception of some spots east of downtown could be elevated heavy or even elevated light rail. I'm even for giving the Valley only busways.

Only busways? We need something better than that. The traffic on the 210 is comparable to that of any freeway in LA. The only difference is the carpool lane, which is not helping at all. We need something better than BRT. Believe me, coming from someone who lives in the SGV, the people out here don't want to ride in buses.

This line that I proposed would be something like the silver line, and it is not technically subway. The trains that run there don't have to be as frequent as with subway. It can just be grade seperated light rail.

...its there fault they dont want to use the yellow [gold?] line. if it did not take me as long as a ride to downtown i might consider it

the 134 and 210 are no mans lands in the middle of the day, only during the rush hours does the traffic get a bit pooh in pasadena and downtown glendale, but most of that is caused by poorly designed interchanges.

and i beg to differ on your statement about busses. every one of them i see or ride on are full, only in the wee hours of the nite are they not. that means people dont mind the buses, and most certainly want to ride.

what we do need now are some rapid buses running down valley or huntington. those routs are poorly serviced by the current metro.

You do realize that for one to take the Gold Line, they must drive on the 210 until they get to the Sierra Madre Station? The traffic starts in Glendora, so the Gold Line needs to be extended to at least there.

Downtown Glendale traffic is not bad. The right most lanes get some bad traffic, but the lanes on the left move pretty well. This is due to the fact that a lot of the people who work there live nearby.

That is not the case in Pasadena, where people are forced to merge with traffic from downtown, Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena. Pasadena, though, is the major culprit. Extending the Gold Line would get rid of most of that traffic. If the Gold Line was extended, I can almost assure that ridership on it would grow tremendously. Right now, there is not enough benefit because people who use it must continue to drive on the 210 with traffic to get home.

I assume we all know about the traffic on the 10, which is why a red line extension is necessary there.

...so then. why would you want to repeat the problums of the gold line with the red. if your gona drive to a rail stop. why not just go the other 10 feet to the onramp? just get some buses that service the areas well and it wont matter were you live you could just get on a nice fast bus to the gold line or to the bus way or to the metro link or to the east la gold line... im tired. i dont feel like continuing this.

There's no such thing as a fast bus when you compare it to rail. Besides, the people out here want it. If the Westside doesn't want it, let them deal with the traffic problems. We're doing all the work to get the Gold Line extended and the West is still resisting the Expo line. Why should they get something that they don't want when we're doing so much to get something which will greatly help us?

A small vocal minority in Cheviot Hills oppose the Expo Line, let's not start saying that the entire Westside doesn't want Expo. In fact, CC is getting all dressed up for its arrival.

Well, let's just say that they weren't as supportive as the Foothill communities are. We have cities that are already building stations before the line has even started construction.

We want it, we could use it, we're willing to pay for it, so why not?

Yes and that seems to be the reality of the situation. It has become an anomaly for me to see the low dense/suburban areas that will be served by the Foothill Gold jumping all over themselves designing stations before any money has been found or committment has been made to build this thing.

Those areas are getting more and more dense as we speak, I've seen quite a few new developments along Route 66 in Monrovia and Arcadia. A plethora of homes are being built on hillsides, and the 210 will not be able to support the population much longer.

And something that will hopefully get us back to topic. Let's say I live in San Gabriel, how do I get to downtown in less than 30 minutes during rush hour?

Those areas are getting more and more dense as we speak, I've seen quite a few new developments along Route 66 in Monrovia and Arcadia. A plethora of homes are being built on hillsides, and the 210 will not be able to support the population much longer.

?

Are these multifamily or single family homes?

The ones on the hillside are single family homes, but along Route 66 I have seen condos being build.

And something that will hopefully get us back to topic. Let's say I live in San Gabriel, how do I get to downtown in less than 30 minutes during rush hour?

make a valley rapid! problem solved.

...anyhow 45 min is damn close

That's why it is important for all of us to ride transit and get involved.


^^ Absolutely (K)....

Everyone needs to get their behinds off your SUV's and ride transit....

I'm for extending all of the rail lines. LA isn't a built-up, dense city like New York, so, when you get to your destination, unless it's Downtown or Hollywood, there's only so far you can go. Even at that, or because of this fact, we need more public transportation.

Has anyone noticed... The Blue Line was first built years ago connecting Downtown Long Beach with Downtown LA... then, lofts and mixed-use buildings began to spring up in both Downtowns... now there is talk of developing land along the LA River... the Red Line will take you to Hollywood... there are mixed use complexes being erected around Hollywood Blvd. This is a very grand plan.

Southern California's housing prices outpaced all others in part because we had a new market - the walkable, downtown loft next to usable public transportation which actually took you somewhere.

Well it isn't as dense as NYC because we only have half the population, but I get what you are saying.
Take huge parking lots out in front of stores, either put them in the back or create the Santa Monica and Pasadena-ish public parking sites. Also change zoning laws so that you can put housing atop the endless stretch of one and 2 story buildings. The population nor the density isn't really what is missing in LA, it is the over-compensation towards the automobile and not towards pedestrian activity, though this is changing.