More Metro Meetings Coming Up: Gold Line Eastside Extension Phase II

1_5_09_metro.jpg

With meetings already announced to advance the Subway to the Sea and the Regional Connector, Metro could be forgiven if they held off on any other major announcements; but that’s not the way things work.  Late last week, Metro announced another set of meetings to gather information on the four possible routes for the second Eastside Extension for the Metro Gold Line.

Everyday, 50,000 commuting trips to Downtown Los Angeles from the cities of Bell, Commerce, Downey, El Monte, Industry, Los Angeles’ Eastside,
Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs,
South El Monte, Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County; and with both jobs and residency expected to balloon in the coming years, an increase of transit options is needed.  Thus, Metro as designed four possible routes to extend the Gold Line into this area to better meet the current and future demand.

During the current round of public outreach, Metro is seeking comments on these four routes, one would utilize SR-60, another would run glide along Beverly, another would split time on Beverly and Whittier and the last would run on Washington. Each route would service different cities, and each is sure to draw different supporters and detractors as people clamor for better transit in their community.  As a matter of fact, one of the first posts I ever wrote back at Street Heat was about the Latino Urban Forum’s public support of the alternative along Route 60.

For a full list of the upcoming meetings, check out our calendar section, Metro’s press release, or just read on after the jump.

he meetings and open houses will be at:

  • City of Montebello, Wednesday, April 8, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 1600 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640
  • City
    of South El Monte, Tuesday, April 14, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council
    Chambers, 1415 S Santa Anita Av, South El Monte, CA 91733
  • City of Pico Rivera, Tuesday, April 14, 6 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 6615 Passons Blvd. , Pico Rivera CA, 90660
  • City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, April 15, 7 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 320 W Newmark Av, Monterey Park, CA 91754
  • City of Commerce, Tuesday, April 21, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 2535 Commerce Wy, Commerce, CA 90040
  • City of Rosemead, Tuesday, April 28, 7 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 8838 E Valley Bl, Rosemead, CA 91770
  • City of Whittier, Tuesday, May 12, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 13230 Penn St, 1st Floor, Whittier, CA 90602
  • Ken Alpern

    Perhaps by default, but the SR-60 route appears to be the best for the time being. I like the idea of having a southern fork descend to Washington in the future, but unless there’s a LOT of grade separation it doesn’t appear to be an attractive option for commuters who want to move longer distances than a normal bus ride would take.

    Increasing Metrolink service from Orange County to Union Station might help I-5 alternative traffic flow more than any Eastside extension to Whittier (unless, as aforementioned, the whole darn thing was virtually grade-separated).

  • Maximizing Metrolink in the eastern and northern parts of the county doesn’t sound very sexy as nothing “new” is being built, but it is a very important part of Southern California’s transportation future.

    The challenge as I understand is the need to share these rail lines with the ever-greater demands of freight travel from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

    I would hope that the San Gabriel Valley politicians clamoring for both Gold Line extensions also work for more Metrolink service and improvement Foothill Transit bus service to connect it all.

  • Interurbans

    Does extending the Gold Line any distance east really make good sense? It will already take over 40 minutes to get to Atlantic. Who will want an hour plus ride in city streets to get to work, downtown shopping, entertainment in downtown or Hollywood etc? A shorter northern route through a populated area, not along the freeway could work. Keep the total ride to not much more than an houre or the ridership will be limited. But for a line to Whittier or east the Union Pacific Slauson corridor along Randolph goes through a much denser heavily populated area than any of the planned slow in street routs now under consideration. This corridor from the Blue Line Slauson Station along Randolph to Whittier and east would make for a much faster trip to downtown and serve many more people. Let’s get this corridor on the map and move away from the planned slow in street routes now under consideration.

  • Interurbans,

    I recommend you check out John Von Kerczek’s “Ditch the Car, Take the Metro” blog.

    http://www.takethemetro.blogspot.com/

    Many of us recognize that the Gold Lines are at least as much about development as it is about transportation.

    The Gold Line extensions are politically inevitable. I’m of the minority opinion that it is better to work with them to politically leverage more resources for other part of the County than to fight them. That’s just me.

  • The southern extension of Gold line makes a lot more sense than the northern Foothill sprawl extension. I think the Whittier to Atlantic segment will see plenty of ridership. The 60 freeway route is a non-starter… we don’t need another Green line.

  • What’s wrong with a freeway aligned route like the Green Line?

  • Poor accessibility, noise, and safety concerns are all issues. Part of this would be ameliorated by having the Gold Line on an elevated track to the south or north of the 60 freeway, not in the middle (which is their current plan, to avoid having to rebuild all the interchanges). But the 60 freeway route is incompatible with the street running nature of the Gold Line, and studies have shown it provides the least bang for the buck, but is politically easiest since there are no businesses to annoy. I would use the Washington or Whittier Boulevard routes myself, since Whittier is a major city in LA County that is poorly served by both transit and the freeway system.

  • Joel

    Interurbans, perhaps you should add your proposed route to the map, I’m having some trouble picturing it myself.

  • JDRCRASHER

    I think we should have a “fork”, one leg being the Washington Blvd to Whittier alignment, and the other the SR-60 freeway alignment.

    While Whittier is important, people are forgetting that just a little further down the 60 freeway is Ed Roski’s planned multi-billion dollar traffic-generating football stadium. Because of typical politics, it seems increasingly likely that it will get built. Yes, there IS a Metrolink station for the City of Industry, but the problem is that it’s several blocks away from the site, making it virtually useless.

    We have to think smart, people…

  • BOB2

    Going down the 60 corridor is ridiculous. It is a politically forced alternative to support the dubous transit village project in El Monte Which has been a questionable project, propped up with political funding, made even more questionable by recent controversy. An east LA Gold Line extension needs to go where there are actually potential riders, and there are virtually zero in the 60 corridor. Term limits may help to bring real planning decisions, rather than developer driven political decisions into this process.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PROJECT STUDY

|
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting four public upcoming meetings to update the community on the agency’s Eastside Transit Corridor Study Phase 2. The study, which evaluates ways to improve mobility in the corridor by connecting the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los […]

Metro: Eastside Transit Corridor Public Meetings

|
As environmental work continues for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project, Metro will hold four community scoping meetings on February 22-27 in Pico Rivera, South El Monte, Montebello and Whittier to review two build alternatives: light rail transit via State Route 60 and on Washington Boulevard in addition to a transportation systems management (improving […]

Sneak Peak at Potential Gold Line Phase II Extensions

|
A report at Metro’s website outlines the possible alignments for Phase II of the Gold Line Eastside Extension Project. After the first round of scoping hearings, Metro has settled on 16 possible options for extending the Gold Line southeast from Union Station into San Bernadino and Whittier. Of the 16 alternatives that will receive further […]

Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project Update

|
Metro has started work on the environmental analysis of the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 project that would extend the Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los Angeles. Metro is refining the four build alternatives (SR-60, Beverly, Beverly/Whittier and Washington) and evaluating which alternatives to advance and study in the […]

Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Review Advisory Committee

|
There have been a fair number of folks making comments on this site and elsewhere on the internet about the recently opened Gold Line Eastside Extension and safety. This coming week the advisory committee that provides input to Metro on such issues is holding a meeting near the Indiana Street station (Alma is the next street […]

EASTSIDE TRANSIT CORRIDOR PHASE 2 PROJECT STUDY

|
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting four public upcoming meetings to update the community on the agency’s Eastside Transit Corridor Study Phase 2. The study, which evaluates ways to improve mobility in the corridor by connecting the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (under construction) to cities further east of Los […]