The Foothill Extension is a very bad choice, for both the San Gabriel Valley and Los Angeles as a metropolis. The Board of Supervisors should oppose funding for it, regardless of the consequences. Not only will the line be a white elephant that drains current and future transit resources, it will also undermine current transit infrastructure, distort future development and transit expansion, and commit the region to a continuance of the same development fueled decentralization that is choking California. Sprawl is sprawl, whether induced by rubber or rail.
What little centralization of population, jobs, development, and transit infrastructure that currently exists in the San Gabriel Valley is concentrated along the 10 corridor. This corridor is served by the San Bernardino Freeway, the San Bernardino Metrolink, and the El Monte Busway. El Monte and West Covina are the dominant transit, commercial, and business centers along this corridor. Both are centrally located cities with populations exceeding 100,000 that would be natural foci for intensified land-use and transit-oriented development.
In contrast, the Foothill extension would skirt most of the central commercial areas along its route, traveling instead through industrial back areas and at times even large swaths of open land. Predictably though, this is all being pitched as somehow being an advantage:
Advocates for the line also point to the abundant amount of land available for development near the tracks, saying that most of the growth in the San Gabriel Valley in coming decades could be put near mass transit -- not the usual way of doing things in Southern California, at least in the past.
This line would be entirely dependent upon creating even more wonderful new communities where none existed before, in turn creating new traffic needs with even fewer options. The Foothill line could be of limited use (i.e. a quick commute to Downtown) to the few people who can afford to live near the new stations and work in Downtown LA, but otherwise it would be pretty much useless for the rest of the Valley’s residents who need more transit options than just a half-assed commuter train in the far reaches of the foothills. Faced with this single, limited option, most residents would continue to depend upon their cars to get around.
The Foothill extension would also open up even more land for development precisely when LA must confront its geographical overstretch and its related over-commitment in terms of infrastructure. The imperative now is to consolidate our infrastructure and invest inward, not open up new tracts of land and continue building relentlessly outward.
Whatever success the line happened to achieve would ultimately come at the expense of existing communities and the region as a whole, by drawing infrastructure away from and undermining the centrality of the established 210 corridor, replacing a single strong regional corridor with two significantly weaker and under-performing corridors. In creating a redundant and ineffectual regional link to Downtown, the Foothill extension would be a drain on future transit resource for the San Gabriel Valley.
My Proposed Compromise: Expo to Alhambra and Busway upgrades
Extending the Expo eastward to Alhambra would bring numerous benefits.
- It would give the Western San Gabriel Valley a direct connection to Downtown and the Westside.
- It would make Alhambra a magnet for smart urban development while re-establishing the city's position as a 1st generation suburban city adjacent to LA (a la Pasadena and Glendale).
- It would also give San Gabriel Valley a stake in seeing the full Expo line completed, from Alhambra, through Lincoln Heights and Downtown, past Dorsey High, through Cheviot Hills, to downtown Santa Monica. (A Westwood spur would only sweeten the appeal further)
- Symbolically, this would make the Expo a truly trans-regional project. While building this line, we can also be building confidence, cooperation, and maybe even a little consensus. This could be a project we work on together as a metropolis.
Improvements to the El Monte Busway include:
- Its Extension to The Plaza and The Eastland Center in West Covina
- Creation of Monterey Park Station
- Increased frequency of service
- Study of possible conversion to rail
- Bolstering of local transit networks serving regional stations
22 comments:
I hope to invite extension supporters here to defend their plan because it's hard to argue against this case (even though, to some, you seem awfully wedded to your plan elsewhere).
I'd like to see you answer some of the cases for the line that have been raised in the comments for the Bottleneck Blog post:
*One commenter, who opposed the extention, suggested a subway along Valley Blvd, which is slightly different from your proposal.
*"[L]et’s not forget the 15 universities and colleges that would be connected along the route, or City of Hope, a leading biomedical research and treatment center and hospital." Would you deny a connection for the Claremont Colleges to the hustle and bustle of LA?
And... that's it. The other pro-extention arguments could be used to support building light rail to Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, Palm Springs, and San Diego, because they basically say "any mass transit is good". Any mass transit is at least marginally good, but the right mass transit is FAR better.
Just a quick response to some of the "for" arguments you pointed out before I head out for work.
I'm not sold, at least not yet, on the Valley Boulevard Subway. I'll go into more detail when I have time for a fuller response.
Those 15 universities could be served just as easily if not more easily by beefing up existing LOCAL service. You can't run light rail to or near every individual destination in the Valley. At some point, you're gonna have to hop on a bus to get where you're going.
You know what would be interesting? To see more people from the SGV opposing this. Most of the people that oppose don't even live in the SGV or would rather see another line built that suits them (it's usually the expo). How convenient. The arguement of creating futher desity in denser areas is great but people have to remember that we have sprawl to deal with also. We can't just ignore the sprawl that we've created and start building up in the denser areas uncontrollably. We have to spread the development evenly over the sprawl that is the greater L.A. area. Why ignore the sprawl, we've already made too many investments into it over time. We need to accept what sprawl there is now and stick with it and build up all over the entire area. I don't know what you mean about open land where the gold line will run...there isn't much, so how would building on that land contribute to sprawl if all of the land is already within established cities? It's not like the gold line is proposed to go out to Victorville or something. lol. So it wouldn't push sprawl outward...
Most of the land and property in question are older businesses and fields where businesses once stood.
I think the longer a commuter or light rail line is the better because it gets more people from more cities out of their cars. No city in the SGV will ever come close to being L.A. in urban status but they are at least trying to become more urban. If you create more jobs in the valley there will be less traffic into L.A....DUH!
Alhambra!?! Is that supposed to be a joke? I can't think of anything there at the top of my head that I would want to go there for...I would like to be able to go to Pasadena from Pomona by rail instead of going to L.A. on the metrolink and then getting on the Gold Line...that is a waste of time and extra distance to travel. I might as well just stand here and turn in circles. Alhambra's population is less than Pomona's, Alhambra is more dense though.
Anyways, I just think metro rail should extend outwards to the bulk of L.A. county before the little micro routes are considered. If the Gold Line came to the Foothill cities then there would be more development which mean smore income and more income means more money to pay tax increases to build more subsidized rail. I even see small city owned lines branching out from the gold line in the Foothill Cities, that is if it ever gets built. I support any new rail line, I don't care where it goes really. But if there is limited funding and one of the proposed lines is coming to my area I'll definitly support that one the most.
It's late, but a response to the first comment for now:
I'd like to see you answer some of the cases for the line that have been raised in the comments for the Bottleneck Blog post: *One commenter, who opposed the extention, suggested a subway along Valley Blvd, which is slightly different from your proposal.*
I can’t comment on Garvey Avenue, but I found Valley Boulevard to be busy, but lacking in definitive destinations. I subscribe to the philosophy of “Every station, a destination.” Valley Boulevard strikes me as a busy though-corridor that nonetheless bypasses the vital central commercial districts of Alhambra and San Gabriel. Also, the stretches of Valley Boulevard and Main Street between Monterey Park and Downtown run through primarily industrial areas, completely missing downtown Lincoln Heights. In its favor, Valley Boulevard does provide a straight shot following an existing right of way along what would be a difficult stretch of its route to the transit foothold in El Monte. But that advantage diminishes somewhat in light of the nearby El Monte Busway to the south, which already has the infrastructure in place to provide regional service between Downtown and the Outer Valley. Presently, I view the Valley Boulevard subway as a valid alternative choice if optimization of the Busway proves to be unfeasable and/or ineffective.
"[L]et’s not forget the 15 universities and colleges that would be connected along the route, or City of Hope, a leading biomedical research and treatment center and hospital." Would you deny a connection for the Claremont Colleges to the hustle and bustle of LA?"
The fact is, these connections and many more already exist. Unfortunately, they are tenuous connections at best and need to be bolstered by LOCAL transit infrastructure, not undermined by ill conceived regional infrastructure. What the Foothill extension does is charge blindly into this nascent network and impose its own extreme northern orientation upon the it. As a result, Metro and Foothill Transit will be forced to reorient their established service to serve this Johnny-Come-Lately line. The Footill Line would be an intrusion, not an enhancement.
The Expo and the Busway would collect travelers from throughout the Westside and Downtown and deposit them in Alhambra and El Monte, respectively. From there, beefed up local bus routes would carry commuters to and from work while also taking local residents to City of Hope or the Claremont Colleges. I guess the only caveat is that more Valley residents would - gasp! - have to board a bus!
I would conditionally support an eastward extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena, if the proponents would ditch their idea of going all the way to Ontario Airport.
No one is going to ride a relatively slow light rail line with stops every mile or two to go to that airport.
And no one coming from the east is going to want to detour through Pasadena to get to Los Angeles.
What I would support is an extension from the present terminal at Sierra Madre Villa Station along the Foothill corridor to just past Duarte, then a southward turn to the Covina Metrolink station.
That would make the Gold Line useful, because it would connect the Metrolink service from the Inland Empire to the service which operates significantly farther north than Metrolink does. People who live in the Inland Empire with jobs in the northern San Gabriel Valley would then have a good excuse to stop driving.
Add a Los Angeles World Airports shuttle from the Ontario Metrolink station to the airport, and you have the connection that people would be inclined to actually use to get there.
the foothill extension will not contribute to more sprawl. it will be a densifing force to the easter SGV. adding larger develeompents to cities known for single family houseing and no commercial hubs. the foothill line would change that, allowing cities to adjust there zoning to allow for higher profile constructions. encouraging more train trips over long driving commutes.
encouraging sprawl would be making a foothill extension to lancaster were open land is prolific.
the foothill extension may not be best suited as a light rail plan, i believe a metrolink style line with more stops could probably work.
but as commenters have pointed out, EVERY city along this line wants it, they really want it.
just because you believe that its not good for you does not mean it should not be built.
I was the person who suggested the subway under Valley or Garvey on the LAT blog (under a different user name than here). John, I suggest you take another survey of SGV, and this time with someone preferably Asian who knows the lay of the land. You mention that Valley blvd "bypasses the vital central commercial districts of Alhambra and San Gabriel" which I strongly disagree. This would be true if you only consider non-ethnic destination to be valid. Valley Blvd is full of ethnic dining, shopping, and employment destinations that are magnets for residents through out SGV. The stretch of the street from Alhambra to Rosemead is jammed packed with major shopping centers and eateries that would be perfect for foot traffic - if only there is a way to get there by efficient transit. And if you've been on Valley on a Saturday night, you'd know that the activity level rivals that of Old Town Pasadena. The other thing that I want to point out is density. Along Valley (and Garvey to a lesser extent), the area is getting dense very quickly. I would think projected ridership of any rail transit in SGV will be highest if it pass through Valley.
In your other blog items, you have repeatedly mention El Monte and West Covina as the central mode of transit in SGV... I don't disagree but I think you are falling into the trap of planning a transit system based on existing transit patterns rather than the total traffic patterns. The balk of commercial and retail activities in SGV takes place within about 1 mile north and south of Valley Blvd. Again, it's primarily ethnic business and employment centers, but they are just as valid as the non-ethnic ones when contemplating transit planning.
And one more thing, I agree with you that the swath of industrial area between Alhambra and downtown LA is not idea place to put mass transit, but you seem to ignore the fact that subway lines need not follow street grids!!! A subway under Valley Blvd can easily detour to Main St Alhambra and Lincoln Heights. There is no reason why the subway need to follow Valley all the way to connect with the Red Line.
And the final major consideration I will point out is the new "LA" Stadium being proposed in City of Industry. The only feasible way to move that many people to a football game in City of Industry is thru subway. A Valley Blvd subway can easily be extended from Rosemead southeast towards City of Industry upon which, it can switch to an alignment under Gale (or place above ground near rail right of way). This will further open up transit options for people living in Eastern SGV (Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, Walnut etc).
As for duplication with the El Monte Busway, I think there is some truth to it... but only if you are thinking of the people living close to the Busway. A subway line that run east past El Monte (to Rosemead or City of Industry) will be a lot more attractive option for transit users than the Bus Way.
irwin, this is the problem with a westsider trying to medal in the SGV.
i would like to know how many times John has even been to valley blvd, main street or las tunas.
he loves to draw his lines, but fails to get into the community aspect of the SGV.
also, irwin, if you are concerned about out valley blvd and its role in transit planing, i suggest you start up an account on the transit coalitions website. pop your ideas to the real transit freaks of los angeles and the people with connections.
Jeremy, you hit the nail on the head. Just look at his maps. There is almost nothing east of the L.A. River (that doesn't already exist) ! It's all about the Westside. What else is new ? The SGV is just "Flyover Country." Classic example of California's Coastal vs. Inland divide.
Before we turn this into bash John thread... :P let me add a few more comment.
I support John's overall vision and I agree with him that foothill extension for Gold Line is not the most optimal way to spend our limited transit funding. That's why I suggested the subway line under Valley Blvd at the LAT Blog. People who actually live (or lived - as is my case) in SGV will all support me when I say that the BULK, if not a significant majority of intra SGV traffic movements are within 1 or 2 miles of 10 Freeway (and by extension Valley, which pretty much parallels I-10). The traffic that moved along the 210 freeway is actually the one that is "just passing by" from IE to Pasadena and beyond (this is exact opposite conclusion that John was able to draw from his study). John's idea is to beef up the Bus Way and take it all the way to West Covina. NOT A BAD IDEA. But the subway line under Valley is much better idea. and here is why:
1. It will support dense development that we need in LA basin. Bus Way will not do that. In fact, Bus Way has the exact opposite effect because it is grade separated and away from foot traffic. In encourages more sprawl.
2. Valley Blvd Corridor is already headed towards dense Westside style mixed use development so no reason to bypass it in transit planning. Witness the new Hilton mixed used development near Valley and Del Mar. And MORE mixed use development is being planned in the cities of San Gabriel, Rosemead, and Alhambra. All of them on or near Valley. The best analogy that I can come up with is this:
Valley Blvd in SGV = Wilshire Blvd in West LA
Garvey or Las Tunas = Santa Monica Blvd
3. The economic vitality of SGV is almost completely based on the "ethnic economy" (namely, ethnic Chinese and Korean owned business). They tend to be small business but they employ a lot of people, many low to medium income people. The same ones that you would considered to be "transit dependent" in South LA or East LA, if not for the fact that they are not black or brown.
4. Because Valley Blvd is one of the 2 major employment centers in SGV (the other being City of Industry clustered around Gale Blvd and Punte Hills Mall) - not West Covina or El Monte, commuters from all areas of SGV and beyond (i.e. East LA, Whittier, North Orange County etc) actually end their trips around this area, as opposed to continue on to Downtown LA. This makes a subway line running under Valley the most logical solution (as opposed to Bus Way, which mainly whisks people out of SGV). A subway line that connects Valley Blvd corridor with City of Industry will be even better... it completes the SGV loop in terms of local traffic.
5. Connectivity between SGV and Downtown LA and Westside is best achieved by transparent one-seat ride. The only feasible way this can happen is thru subway. Sure, we can all talk about transfers but it ain't going to happen unless someone can board a train at Valley/Del Mar and exit Century City 45 minutes later.
6. Unlike the Gold Line extension, which will take it to the "outer suburbs", a Valley Blvd subway is completely consistent with the concept of urban mass rapid transit. The communities it will serve are 1st and 2nd ring suburbs). Beyond City of Industry, you start getting into Commuter train territory. Fortunately, we can design the subway line to connect with Metro Link station in City of Industry.
Again, I want to make it clear that I'm not here to poo poo anyone's idea. I just want to give a more "native" perspective of things in SGV (despite the fact that I no longer live there... I moved to the Westside to escape the commute to my job in Century City!). And besides, this is a largely academic discussion so it's just a free exchange of ideas.
And for the record, I would support Gold Line extension to Acadia/Santa Anita Mall-Race track. Again, the reason being that Acadia (the 605 freeway actually) is a natural demarcation line for inner suburbs and outer suburbs in SGV. Having mass transit going out to 2nd ring is fine as long as we stop there. The secondary reason for my conditional support for extension to Acadia is the inevitable "dense-up" of Acadia given the city's new city council made up of development friendly officials. They already approved the mixed use development outside Santa Anita mall... so having the Gold Line go out there makes *some* sense. But going beyond is not a good idea, at least in the current light rail configuration.
I hate to break it to everyone, but the plans for the gold line extension are already in place. What's in question is what project to fund first out of the proposed projects. So all this meandering around about where possible new routes/lines could efficiently be placed and how they may better serve more people is not going to stop the Gold Line extension from being built when funds are available. Just thought I'd let you all know. It's nice that you guys are thinking outside of the box, we obviously need several lines but there are already plans on the plate that haven't been paid for.
John- Valley residents that rely on public transportaion already take the bus...the problem is-GASP! They're tired of the buses. I know there can't be rail to everywhere but no one wants to ride a bus to L.A. or anywhere far away for that matter. Most of the foothill cities closest to L.A. don't have commuter rail so the logical thing would be to connect the gold line to a few metrolink stations. Pomona has TWO metrolink lines running through it and two train stations so it makes sense to run the Gold Line down here. I've also seen the general city plan for Pomona, it calls for more stations in the future along current rail lines so something is obviously in the works. They're not just going to ignore the foothill cities because we're way out here, especially since sooo many of the cities already have transit oriented development deals waiting on the table. All these other lines that aren't on metro's draft long range plan are just fantasy for now. Decision day for the board on accepting the draft is on the 26th...can't wait!
Garrett, the proponents may think they have a route in place, but Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan (and, more importantly, Assemblymember Feuer's bill that will allow Metro to collect additional sales tax revenue) only calls for the extension to be funded as far as Duarte.
Which is why I suggest turning south from there to connect to Metrolink.
I am well aware that there is a Phase 2A and 2B. I'll be completely fine with wherever phase 2A takes the extension. As long as it's on it's way...lol. I know that Phase 2B has more of a chance than the extension further out to ONT airport.
Would you be kind and point me to a source where I can read about what you just told me? I believe you and everything, it's just that I was under the impression that Phase 2A would end in Azusa. Also, I don't think I've read anything on the bill yet about what the money will be used for precisely.
Garrett,
Here is the text of the Feuer bill, from the State Legislative information site:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2301-2350/ab_2321_bill_20080528_amended_asm_v96.html
1(b)(3)(A)(iv) very clearly denotes funding only to Duarte.
As I said previously, the people who want this have their own ideas of phases, but the people who control the funding are not in lockstep with them. And it is generally the latter who win the arguments.
*sigh*
Blogger made the URL go past the edge of the column.
Try going to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov and to a "bill information" search on AB 2321.
Thank you for both links. It's ok, I was able to get the first link too. I subscibed to the comments on this post so I get updates in my gmail account. On gmail the links show up just fine and are not cut off, I'm even able to click on them (which you cant do on blogger in comments) but I know what you mean, I've noticed that too when I leave links.
So, where does the 'We Will Ride' campaign come in then? Are any of the important people that call all the shots aware of the campaign? I'm a little clueless when it comes to that, I keep supporting 'We Will RIde' but don't actually know what they've accomplished. Have they done anything to sway anyone in charge?
You can also use HTML to define a link in a Blogger comment.
Garrett,
It is my considered opinion that the "We Will Ride" campaign will make no difference whatsoever. The "important people that call all the shots" (aka the Metro Board of Directors) are aware but, with the need to balance the project list across the region, are not inclined to be dictated to by a single region, no matter how well organized.
Despite disparaging comments from Foothill Extension proponents about the Westside subway extension, the reality is that the existing ridership on Wilshire Blvd. proves the need, whereas the "We Will Ride" campaign essentially says "we don't ride now, but we promise to if you give us our project." Facts vs. promises? Guess what the "important people" will put more faith in?
You're probably right, they'll have more faith in the Wealthyside, oops...I meant the Westside. *sings* "We loooove L.A.".
I guess we in the SGV should know better that anywhere east of the L.A. river isn't as important as west of it, Pasadena being an exception of course.
I absolutely have to agree the Gold Line is bad for the SGV and LA Metro.
My proposal was published on Metblogs as frankly I am tired of the Gold Line Extension Authority, a PAC but any other name would stink as bad, trying to push it down Metros throat to benefit developers and realtors in the area. The line as proposed would underserve the region and do little to relieve our problems.
http://la.metblogs.com/2008/04/01/holy-transportation-tuesday-gold-line-passes/
And today's bit:
http://la.metblogs.com/2008/06/25/transit-oriented-design-one-city-at-a-time/
Post a Comment