U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2010, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,623,944 times
Reputation: 372

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the one View Post
as a daily rider: im all for trains.
but i do question why the gold line was put through PAS before east LA, and why its being put out into the burbs before its put in denser, urban, transit dependant communities where ridership ALREADY exists...

i would much rather a solid system within a reasonable perimeter of DTLA. then build outwards to the suburbs. (but not before tackling those previous issues of DT connector, LAXconnector. etc etc)

I believe the history is as follows:
The original plan was for heavy rail (red line subway) to be extended into East Los Angeles. After cost overuns and growing public opposition to more subway construction in the 1990's, the subway extension to East LA fell by the wayside.

I THINK that when the Gold Line was being planned to Pasadena there was still some thought that heavy rail might eventually make it to East LA. But you do seem to have a good point...East LA got lost in the shuffle.

You know what the urban historians and urban planners say about the freeways which all converge on East LA (5/110/101, etc). East LA was crucified on a cross. If you look at a map the freeways do roughly mirror a cross.

Basically, more affluent communities like So. Pas. have STOPPED freeways from going through their neighborhoods. Beverly Hills did the same thing YEARS ago. Yet, as you point out, the Gold Line went to Pasadena (and So. Pas) first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2010, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,413 posts, read 7,831,219 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal35 View Post
I believe the history is as follows:
The original plan was for heavy rail (red line subway) to be extended into East Los Angeles. After cost overuns and growing public opposition to more subway construction in the 1990's, the subway extension to East LA fell by the wayside.

I THINK that when the Gold Line was being planned to Pasadena there was still some thought that heavy rail might eventually make it to East LA. But you do seem to have a good point...East LA got lost in the shuffle.

You know what the urban historians and urban planners say about the freeways which all converge on East LA (5/110/101, etc). East LA was crucified on a cross. If you look at a map the freeways do roughly mirror a cross.

Basically, more affluent communities like So. Pas. have STOPPED freeways from going through their neighborhoods. Beverly Hills did the same thing YEARS ago. Yet, as you point out, the Gold Line went to Pasadena (and So. Pas) first.
Also Pasadena lobbied hard and put a lot of money into getting the Gold Line. Pasadena has a special relationship to Los Angeles and the two cities seem to work together on projects. For example the first freeway in the nation is the Pasadena Freeway [now called Arroyo Parkway] from downtown to Pasadena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 03:50 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,072,228 times
Reputation: 2244
socal and calsur, you both have good points.
money is a big indicator in these situations.

i wish it were [current] ridership and trans-dependence that mattered more.

at the end of the day, rail is good. one day we'ee be able to take the train from the east side to the west side. from north to south and all around. one day...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,623,944 times
Reputation: 372
Yes CalSur: I agree. The City of Pasadena did show strong support for light rail coming to their town. Also, Pasadena has generally been at the forefront of good urban planning so it's really not a surprise they would support it.

I used to live in Pasadena (prior to the Gold Line opening) and I've always been a fan of how much pride and effort the city puts into making it such a beautiful place to live. If only the rest of SoCal. had been built with such good urban design in mind, we might not be derisively referred to as the capital of sprawl.

One more historical footnote: The original plan for the BLUE LINE was for that line to go from Long Beach to Union Station to Pasadena.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 03:55 PM
 
291 posts, read 626,620 times
Reputation: 277
rail spurs economic growth and fosters neighborhood development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,623,944 times
Reputation: 372
If you really want to dig deep, here's a brief history of the Gold Line. The document refers to the original "BLUE LINE" which had Pasadena as the northern terminus of that line.

http://www.publicartinla.com/Metroar...ne/history.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,623,944 times
Reputation: 372
[quote=the one;14815022]socal and calsur, you both have good points.
money is a big indicator in these situations.

i wish it were [current] ridership and trans-dependence that mattered more.

at the end of the day, rail is good. one day we'ee be able to take the train from the east side to the west side. from north to south and all around. one day...[/quote]


Yes, hopefully we'll see all this BEFORE we are all 6 feet under!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
137 posts, read 534,616 times
Reputation: 74
My only gripe with the Gold Line is the amount of time it takes to get to downtown. I use to live in Hollywood and would take the train to downtown; amazing.

When I moved to Pasadena, I took the train for a year -- the drive to station for me was only 5 minutes, but the amount of time it took to park my car, take the gold line, transfer to the red was well over an hour. Not to mention that it was even longer if I left work after 6:30 since the trains did not run as frequent. I guess beggars can't be choosers, but my commute via car on the 210 -> 110 is no more than 40 minutes usually.

The trek further east on the Gold line is going to be a long one, but I'm glad that option is available for people. I guess you can't really rush the trains for safety reasons since they are above ground etc -- especially around the highland park area.

I don't think I ever took the Gold line when this was offered, but I thought I saw that they use to offer an 'express' train during rush hour that missed certain stops; does anyone remember this or am I just crazy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
787 posts, read 1,623,944 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by LArenter View Post
My only gripe with the Gold Line is the amount of time it takes to get to downtown. I use to live in Hollywood and would take the train to downtown; amazing.

When I moved to Pasadena, I took the train for a year -- the drive to station for me was only 5 minutes, but the amount of time it took to park my car, take the gold line, transfer to the red was well over an hour. Not to mention that it was even longer if I left work after 6:30 since the trains did not run as frequent. I guess beggars can't be choosers, but my commute via car on the 210 -> 110 is no more than 40 minutes usually.

The trek further east on the Gold line is going to be a long one, but I'm glad that option is available for people. I guess you can't really rush the trains for safety reasons since they are above ground etc -- especially around the highland park area.

I don't think I ever took the Gold line when this was offered, but I thought I saw that they use to offer an 'express' train during rush hour that missed certain stops; does anyone remember this or am I just crazy?

Great post. I can't comment on the express train service but it is certainly done in other cities (NYC for example).

Your point about the time it takes on the Gold Line from Pas to Downtown is well taken. One of the BIG advantages of heavy rail (subway) vs. light rail (above ground) is heavy rail is FASTER (MPH) and there is no need to stop for competing traffic/buses, etc.. Of course, heavy rail comes at a higher cost to construct. But I do wish they had made some segments of the Gold Line (Highland Park for example) underground. Less noise, faster service.

The good news will be the Regional Connector which will make the transfer to the red line no longer necessary. That will make it much more convenient for people. Numerous transit studies have shown that the need to TRANSFER makes ridership go down. People just do not want to be inconvenienced (understandably so).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2010, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 10,077,999 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by LArenter View Post
I don't think I ever took the Gold line when this was offered, but I thought I saw that they use to offer an 'express' train during rush hour that missed certain stops; does anyone remember this or am I just crazy?
Express service used to be offered, but Metro made safety enhancements that allowed trains that stop at all stations to pick up time and speed. Hence the express service was canceled. Trip time from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Union Station is now 29 minutes over the roughly 13 miles.

Light rail can reach speeds of over 60mph, such as on the Green Line that hits those speeds on many spots. The Green Line does its 20 mile trip in 30 minutes. Still slower than heavy rail, but pretty fast for light rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top