Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Takes Press for a Ride

OK, OK, no more bad puns—for now.

Seriously, Metro and Mayor Tony hopped aboard the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (MGLEE) on Friday morning. The trains, which have been running on the anticipated regular schedule since 04 October, no longer terminate at Union Station when heading east-bound.

A few trains arrived, discharged passengers and continued on to the Atlantic station terminus while we waited on Mayor Tony. When he arrived, a press conference was held at the top of the stairs while—you guessed it—another Gold Line train arrived and the straphangers were forced to slowly move round the mayor and press circus (of which I were a member, admittedly, as well as the only one who appeared to perceive the mess) to descend the stairs in single file on their way to other transit connections and work.

Mayor Tony's Gold Line Press Con

Eventually the crowd thinned and Tony led us to the nose of the train. A few expected comments later and we were on our way. 

The mayor was not unconcerned for the welfare of those round him, though. In this clip we hear our dear Mayor Tony express his concern that the camera guys covering his MGLEE tour watch out for obstacles.

Mayor Concerned With Camera Guys

Over the next few days, The Bus bench will present video footage of the MGLEE heading east from Union Station, shot from the motorman's cabin. No more animated train porn; this is the real thing! (OK, OK, so what's one more bad pun?)

And speaking of bad puns—three is the magic number, after all—I guess the time has run out that the video clip might have been relevant while we awaited the delayed opening of the MGLEE:

-BusTard

Comments

[Spokker]

Fred Camino rode in the cab and said the sightlines looked good.

Based on reviews I have read, this Eastside Extension sounds slow as hell. I doubt many people are going to get hit as in the 55 MPH sections on the Blue Line. The Eastside Extension's 55 MPH section is underground and it's 35 MPH above ground right?

[browne]

I don't listen to people who are in PR. The Source is a PR blog. I can read the press releases from Marc Littman and get the same information without the conversational speaking tones and fancy pictures.

If Metro paid you what do you think you would be able to truly say about this very important product and be able to continue to get paid by Metro?

I don't believe in the objectivity of politicians, pr people, or urban planners. I don't think they are bad people, but as of yet I have only heard one person not getting paid by the people who built the Gold Line's opinion. I read that LA Curbed Dakota almost got hit by it and she doesn't give a damn one way or the other, as of yet that's the only opinion I'm taking as not being some kind of sugar coated white lie.

Browne

[Fred Camino]

My goal is to get that sweet sweet Metro money (in other words, $$$) and I'll say or do ANYTHING for it, same reason I wrote MetroRiderLA for years writing the same stuff in the same conversational tone. It was always to get that MONEY ($$$$$).

Despite that, sometimes the job is easy when you don't have to lie and kill for the sweet sweet money ($$$$$$) and I did personally think the sightlines looked good, you can check out some video I shot on the blog if you want to see what I saw. It's an at-grade street running light rail line. Pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, bus drivers, and train operators must be cognizant of this addition to the street. I personally like street running light rail, some people hate it. Those who hate it probably will hate the MGLEE.

I don't have a car so I haven't driven along the route to see how confusing or not-confusing it is for an automobile driver. I walked around a couple of the stations and as a pedestrian it seemed fine, like any other street level at-grade light rail station which I've personally never had a problem with. Browne will be happy to know I saw the plastic yellow poles that guard the gaps between the cars installed.

*Metro, if you're reading this, I consider this comment overtime. I believe that's time and half. Gimme $$$$.

[browne]

I think this is all very weird. The Source is blurring the line between editorial and pr. I have to say Fred I find The Source highly disturbing. I'm trying to be open minded about it, but the more I read on that blog the more disturbed I become.

I liked MetroriderLA so much and I really hate The Source. I really hate it. I feel it's unethical. I have have no respect for Hymon. I wish you weren't part of it. I wish you would apply for a grant and get your own blog funded in some kind of away. I wish the economy was better and you didn't have to work for METRO. You know the LA Weekly is hiring for a News Editor Blogger why don't you apply there?

I would also prefer if you signed your comments with your title Fred. You're not a blogger in the traditional sense of community journalist blogger.

By just using your name it's giving people who may not know you the impression that you are a random person. You say the big bucks in a way that might sound like a joke. You get paid by Metro all you have to do is sign your comments with your title when you are making a comment referring to a Metro project. That would be the most ethical thing go to do. It's not being pretentious it's just what you're supposed to do when you work in a PR capacity and you're commenting on blogs.

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

I'll sign with my title from now on if it makes you more comfortable. I personally don't find it unethical, since I was hired to speak in my own voice, and that's what I'm doing, but I can see what you're saying. It's a new world. I didn't take the gig with Metro for the money or because of the economy (as you might know, my main occupation is as a freelance graphic designer), I took it because as a transit rider and a taxpayer I was excited that Metro was (finally) starting a blog and as a transit blogger I thought I could help make it into a great resource for other transit riders and taxpayers. My goal is the same as it has always been, to encourage people of Los Angeles to ditch their cars and use the alternatives. Let me know (you know how to contact me, and my official Metro email address is now linked to my name) what you think I can do to improve the blog, aside from quitting (because at this point, I still believe it can be a good resource for L.A.).

[Randall BusTard]

Regarding sight-lines, I noticed that the Indiana Station on the MGLEE was clearly missing. When The Source aired the video of the ride from last week, there was the exit from the tunnel after departing Soto Street, and the Maravilla Station, and then again after making the second turn from Indiana Station going west on First Street into the tunnel.

In August, I learned from veteran Metro employees that the iron fences at the Indian Station had been cut down owing to the "nearly non-existent visibility" round the two tight curves that bookend Indiana Station. And judging from the results of all I have since witnessed (and photographed extensively), I still argue that the way the line is built round the Indiana Station is sure to be the worse segment along the line. Compared to the straight shots the GL makes through Pasadena—with all the gates and such—one wonders why the Indian Station curves have so little despite the tight curves and considerable incline that marks the north-western turn.

[El Random Hero]

Hey!!! I'm a Metro rider too. How can I get in on that money train ?

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

I agree that the curve around the Indiana Station are the most challenging (here's a

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

I tried to post a link to a google map of Indiana/3rd street, guess it didn't like it. What I was saying was that I agree the curves around that station are definitely the most challenging along the line. The train I rode was very slow at those intersections and literally stopped and waited for traffic to pass as it headed southeast along the curve onto 3rd St.

[a-line-ation]

There is one possible "solution" to the corner problem - though it won't be popular with motorists: eliminate car traffic along Indiana north of Gleason. Turn it into a park-and-ride lot, or parking for local residents. Put up some railings to keep people from walking on the tracks. Grow some junipers or something along the tracks. Hire a crossing guard. Maybe set up some areas where vendors can congregate to sell elotes and fruit. On weekends, do a small swap meet / farmers market.

[browne]

That would be cool, but I would have to know what would be the alternative for the drivers, since I haven't driven in a long time I don't know what would be an alternative route. I personally think that many people on the Eastside would like that idea, but lots of people would also be extremely pissed.

I would close down many streets. Downtown LA in the Historic Core should be off limits to traffic. I would also close off Leimert Park Village to traffic. Santa Monica around that third street, fourth street nonsense, that whole area should be closed to traffic, WeHo along Santa Monica should be closed to car traffic, from what I remember your car does't move when you drive through there anyway, just eliminate it as an option...Compton needs to extend its bike lane to at least hook up with the Blue Line station...ok that's all of the urban planning ideas I have for today...

[Damien Goodmon]

******
I would also close off Leimert Park Village to traffic.
******

And the merchants would try to kill you. It's just one of those things in Leimert Park Village...

Regarding Eastside Extension safety issues, unless one has a firm understanding of the environment in which the train is operating they're really not doing a baseline safety evaluation. MTA loves to ignore this crucial point and aspect, and has no concept of human factors engineering.

The objective is to ensure that people can safety operate in the environment. If you don't know about the people or what they customarily do, you're working in the blind.

A simple example: if it's elderly people walking across the tracks at unmarked crossings perhaps a fence will curb the activity. If it's youths, one can guarantee it won't. If the kids are 7 maybe a crossing guard will work. If they're 17 definitely won't. Etc...

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

"There is one possible "solution" to the corner problem - though it won't be popular with motorists: eliminate car traffic along Indiana north of Gleason. Turn it into a park-and-ride lot, or parking for local residents. Put up some railings to keep people from walking on the tracks. Grow some junipers or something along the tracks. Hire a crossing guard. Maybe set up some areas where vendors can congregate to sell elotes and fruit. On weekends, do a small swap meet / farmers market."

I wish this was viable in Los Angeles. It would revolutionize our streets and create the kind of seamless human oriented environments I dream of... kind of like a real city. To me it's the true solution, don't put the train underground, just keep the cars away from it. Unfortunately, cars are king around here, but maybe someone with more leadership skills than I can spearhead that movement. Either way, I like the way you think.

[Damien Goodmon]

don't put the train underground, just keep the cars away from it.

Yes, because cars are the only things that get hit by trains.

On another note, step out of the world where everyone is a single 20 to 30-something recent college graduate, and into the world of the average 40 something parent with kids from elementary to HS, and the objectives of a Los Angeles public transportation system, and the reason why people aren't on it look a wee-bit different.

I just don't see how one can bash cars in one breadth and then express wild support slow and unreliable public transit (i.e. street running regional rail) in the next.

Then again the same people typically bad mouth those who live in Lakewood and work in Century City, as though there aren't a thousand and one societal factors that go into making such decisions.

Additionally, how is it that people ignore that to FIT the Eastside Extension into those small streets, they had to narrow sidewalks, eliminate parking (which acts as a safety buffer between thoroughfare traffic and pedestrians) and eliminate pedestrian crossings?

That's not how one makes an area "more pedestrian friendly."

Thankfully, the B.S. that is light rail = pedestrian friendly, isn't flying on the Crenshaw Light Rail project. Agencies that actually do community planning and pedestrian-oriented development are calling Metro out. And it couldn't happen at a better time.

More from me on that later.

[browne]

Good points Goodmon. This is all very true. Pedestrian friendly is a two way street. It's not just about people getting out of their cars. We always try to put the onus on the little people when the little people didn't create this mess. Before we start even entertaining the idea of cutting off car traffic we need to make sure there is a safe and reliable and realistic alternative.

This is why I think downtown LA would be such a great place to try the carFree concept. Lots of public transit. The people who live in downtown are upwardly mobile, many self employed, and some almost homeless, all of those demographics could easily change their lives a bit to accomodate a carFree lifestyle. Of course people always want to try out these fancy ideas on working class people's communities first, which I think is a bad idea. Like to me the Bike District should be Los Feliz or Silver Lake or downtown not in the area surrounding LACC, but its easier to bully and force the residents around LACC to do what they want.

Browne

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

I'm just stating my personal preference, and it is admittedly from my limited perspective and experience.

Lucky for you, I don't plan, develop, or construct rail lines. I just ride them.

Los Angeles has millions of unique people with millions of unique needs. High school students, parents, recent grads, wealthy producers, janitors, lawyers, school children, disabled, elderly, bicyclists, environmentalists, conservatives, the list goes on forever.

My needs are unique to me, a single guy in his late 20's, but the core of my needs it that I want to get around without a car. There's a ton of people who fit my demographic profile but who do not need, choose, or want to get around without a car, even if the current system caters to their lifestyles more than it does a 40-something parent with children. On the other hand I see plenty of people fitting that demographic profile (parents with children) on the buses and trains, navigating the system despite the challenges.

So what is more important? Getting the 20-something out of the car and into the train? Making the 40-something parent's life easier? Making sure someone can get from Lakewood to Century City without a car? Making sure wannabe actors can get from Los Feliz to Venice for auditions in time? Making sure car traffic flows uninterrupted? Making sure no one gets hurt? Making sure a complete transit system is done in 10 years?

How do you choose? How do you make everyone happy? The saying goes: fast, cheap, and good - choose two. Well everyone wants all of those and everyone has different opinions on what they mean.

[loveandhatela]

I like it fast and good... and my transportation too:)

Dude not until i read here this post & replies did i realize that "Fred Camino" is a under-30 Caucasian,i also googled him and found his face pic, damn i "ass-umed" that he was a fat middle aged latino, not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe he should of changed his last name to "Walker" or "Street" lol.

I myself am a early 30s latino and about 6 yrs ago i CHOSE to give up driving.
Life is all about free will and choices.
I was "lucky" in that i was prepared and an opportunity presented itself for me to do more telecommuting for work.
I don't want or need children, i already have 19 nieces/nephews thanks to my breeder/rabbit siblings :) i guess i know how to use a condom and they don't lol.

Anyways i really don't have any sympathy or compassion for anyone that has more than one child, really seriously-get a bird or fish.
As i have always said- a license should be required to be a parent.

I like my freedom- to vacation and party when ever i want. In the end you have to be egotistical and look out for yourself cause no one else will.

In every situation you are in- it be personal or professional, think... "is the sacrifice worth the benefit?" and life is easy its people that complicate it..live drama free!

signed- a planned birth not a mistake :)

[Fred Camino - Web Writer, The Source]

"Dude not until i read here this post & replies did i realize that "Fred Camino" is a under-30 Caucasian,i also googled him and found his face pic, damn i "ass-umed" that he was a fat middle aged latino, not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe he should of changed his last name to "Walker" or "Street" lol."

Technically I'm half Caucasian, half South American. Camino is my middle name, my mothers maiden name, I assumed it as my internet persona years ago because I thought it sounded cool. Guess I was wrong, although fat middle-aged latinos are kinda cool now that I think of it.

I like your philosophy.

[ubrayj02]

Damien Goodmon - bashing cars in the urban core is child's play. The negative effects of automobile-only engineering, and rural road safety guidelines, has ruined our city. The ideas to cut off automobile access on Indiana Street are good ones!

I am a busy dad, with a kid and a business to run - and I do it on a massive cargo bike. This isn't the life for everyone, but it ought to be an option for more people. Car-only streets are not a solution - they blight our lives and destroy so much that people value.

I hope you'll re-think your "everyman drives a car" ideas.

[Damien Goodmon]

No, everyman doesn't drive a car. But 88% (in city of LA) and 95% (in Metro LA) are pretty significant numbers don't you think?

Again, am I the only one that has friends who are driving around in hoopies with their tags expired and junk car insurance? Many of those same people don't go places because they can't afford gas, so it's ridiculous to suggest they're paying those high gas prices and maintenance prices because they want to. Most do it because they HAVE to. And these aren't people on the fringe. They darn near make up the majority of our city! It seems like way too many people on these blogs either didn't grow up in these conditions/aren't living these conditions or have forgotten that at one time they did.

The culprit is not just the automobile it's the lack of services and amenities and jobs and good schools and safe communities and yes, the presence of racism, among a myriad of things.

Browne posted a great link (I hope you do again) about how almost all of the models of smart growth in America are overwhelmingly white cities/urban areas. You think that's a coincidence? Term "white flight" come to mind? Might that explain, why many cities abandoned their central core and moved those manufacturing jobs and job centers outside of their downtowns and into suburbia...there I go again talking about that which shall go unmentioned on the alternative living/transit advocacy blogs.

My central point is this, reducing vehicular capacity by 25% from East LA to Century City might make some liberal utopians happy, but it's really just going to make it more difficult for that single mother making barely over living wage to commute to her decent paying job on the westside, especially if this alternative significantly increases travel times (either by car or transit or whatever mode). I'm down with the pedestrian oriented principles, bike lanes (I LOVE the bike boulevard concept), widened sidewalks, etc. I just differ from most in that:

1) I will call out how the light rail we build directly competes and inhibits these objectives (and the Eastside Extension is a perfect example, Pine Street in Downtown Long Beach vs. Long Beach Ave is another)

2) I believe in first creating a reliable and reasonable alternative to the current mess, before we start punishing those (many of which are innocent victims, if you will) who are caught in it.

[ubrayj02]

You cannot create reliable alternatives to the private automobile network without necessarily degrading the LOS, and accessibility, that private automobiles currently enjoy in Los Angeles. Some of the worst-off parts of LA are those that have been turned over entirely to automobile transportation planning. Along with the flight of a productive economy from these areas, I believe that this over-emphasis on cars is a bizarre mid-20th century dream that has driven away with the middle class, educated, people who used to occupy the city with their poorer neighbors.

You have to degrade the driving experience in the city to create viable alternatives for people.

[Damien Goodmon]

Umberto:

The "must severely punish motorist" argument comes from the same people peddling at-grade light rail as a solution to everything. Rossyln-Ballston is the latter 20th Century's greatest testament to mass transit investment yet most "urbanites" don't even talk about it. They all know/talk about that P.R.-hyped Portland though don't they?

Google Rossyln-Ballston corridor and you see the solution was not punishing the automobile, but doing simple planning and connecting a corridor with potential to a larger RAPID transit network (and to be rapid - you have to be going FAST).

They started with a smart growth plan/design standards and pushing hard for the coming Metro to be routed under the main boulevard as opposed to the freeway. They stuck with their plan, have seen a drastic increase in development along the corridor coupled with pedestrian amenities, but limit it to the boulevard and around the stations so as not to impact the surrounding low-density residential communities. As a product of this smart planning they now have drastically more residential density, 14 million additional square feet of office/commercial space, significant open space, and the highest transit patronage numbers of anywhere in the country. And guess what - they did it all while maintaining current vehicular street capacity. And today, traffic in the area is less than it was 30 years ago - they reduced traffic.

Here's a link to an quick read ppt: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/powerpoint/rbpresentation/rbpresentation_060107.pdf

[ubrayj02]

Damien,

I'm looking through that powerpoint and I think we're not connecting on this discussion. The aerial views of Rossyln-Ballston from the 1970's indicate a landuse pattern that is massively directed toward private automobile storage and use (super wide highways with narrow sidewalks and large areas devoted to private car parking).

The "today" images used, as well as the "site plan" zoning rules, feature:

-Mega-wide sidewalks and narrowed automobile lanes.
-High Floor-area-ratios around the station with a reduced parking requirement per 1,000 sq.ft. of building.

These are strictly anti-car measures, and they feed into the idea that we must restrict the use of private automobiles in the urban core to improve it.

As to whether or not we should put rail underground ... I dunno I think you're the expert on that one. All I'd ask is that you re-examine your perspective on the so-called-necessity of automobile dependence to live a high quality of life.

[browne]

Ubray,

Oddly for working class people a car in Los Angeles is pretty necessary, owing to how this city is made up. The places that are transit friendly are expensive now, they weren't always expensive but now they are. The Blue Line in South LA is the only exception BUT the connections there are really shitty. I mean waiting for two hours shitty.

Most crap jobs in LA they ask you straight up if you have a car. You can't get hired places if you don't have a car, not anywhere that can help you get out of the economic hole. Even school for people with no money if they don't have a car in LA they can't go to school, especially if they have kids which alot of people do. Poor people who live in apartments and working class people aren't very close to colleges. LA City which used to be a pretty affordable area has become an unaffordable part of town.

It's just lots of little stuff you can't do in LA if you don't have the freedom of time.

That can change, but it's going to be about more than bike lanes and rail.

It's going to have to be about affordable housing, reasonable childcare options, flexible schedules for everyone not just middle class people who can do consulting, alt transit shouldn't be about just transportation, because there are so many factors involved in that.

I remember talking to a bus driver on the Montebello 40. She was on the bus and I asked her why she didn't live by Union Station or the Purple Line and she laughed and told me that's where rich people live and that I must be rich. I'm not rich, but the amount of money and resources I have put me in a way different category than most of the people I see taking the bus. And that's the thing. The people taking the bus want opportunity too and alot of opportunities are closed to you if you can get yourself a piece of car and you're poor. You can't just reschedule stuff, you can't just do it online (you might not even have online access, the amount of people I meet on the bus with no online access really boggles my mind,) you can't just move to a more transit friendly location or transfer you job there.

The people can't do this alone. It's not just about shutting off access and building some trees, I mean we could but everytime someone has a great urban planning idea it seems to keep hurting the same people.
Browne

[private bus services]

your site is very nice, very useful for me , i bookmarked your blog