Comments on: Gold Line Extension Ready for Service in East Los Angeles

By: Anon256

Anon256 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:01:49 +0000

In these discussions, people often talk about “social justice” and the importance of bringing improvements to poor areas as well as rich ones. They seem to miss the fact that, if you succeed in improving a poor neighbourhood, it stops being a poor neighbourhood. Land values and rents rise, and poor people can’t afford to live there anymore. This sort of redevelopment is often desirable, but we shouldn’t argue that encouraging it is helping the poor. The way to help poor people is to help them stop being poor.

By: Jerard

Jerard — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:08:54 +0000

Which is why I mentioned, that they should have thought of as a quick extension idea to have a branch go down Arizona Avenue which is wide enough for LRT off of 3rd Street and head down to Whittier/Arizona which is at the heart of their commercial district. It would have eliminated problems with merchants and easy to construct.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:28:46 +0000

Well, the 710, or its frontage roads. The main point there isn’t the 710. It’s that as far as I can tell from Google Streetview, Whittier only gets really busy east of the 710, so you’d want light rail to get there as soon as possible, rather than have it not run on that street.

By: Jerard

Jerard — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:49:58 +0000

Running on the 710? Forgive me if I’m missing something here?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:17:15 +0000

The problem with Third is that as soon as you hit the 710, you want to reach Whittier. The point isn’t to serve Whittier Blvd in Whittier, California; it’s to serve Whittier Blvd in East LA, and maybe also Montebello and Whittier, California.

Unfortunately, instead of running on the 710 and then going on Whittier, they decided to stick to 3rd.

By: Jerard

Jerard — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:54:20 +0000

Chavez is difficult to connect to via LRT at Union Station. Whittier Blvd, because fo the 2 lanes of traffic in each direction PLUS parking and given that it is a commercial corridor, that would have been an uphill battle to get anything on there, given the decision on the Phase 2 route section that went away from Whittier Blvd.

First Street is a good choice due to its proximity to Chavez connecting the same destinations (White Memorial Hospital, Mariachi Plaza, Chavez/Soto shopping district). Third Street was a choice because it was the path of leaat resistence to try and reach Whittier Blvd.

However I do wish during the Phase 2 studies that they had an option of making a new small branch down Arizona Avenue until Whittier Blvd, then it stub ends on the Northside of Whittier Blvd. There the line would have the access yet the businesses will miss the disruption.

By: Spokker

Spokker — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:56:43 +0000

“Spokker @ #26 is a genius!”

Thank you. I’ve been working on my transportation model for several years now. I hope to publish my study soon.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:31:24 +0000

Jerard, at this point I’m not even asking for a subway. Given that they chose light rail, why did they route it on First and Third and not Cesar Chavez and Whittier, or even just First?

By: Fallopia Simms

Fallopia Simms — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:05:16 +0000

Jerard @ #24 breaks down the truth and totally neuters the entire argument of race/class bias suggested by Molina in the specific Whittier subway case. Ironically Molina could have been a game changer in ‘98 had she grown some balls and fought back against Zev’s law while convincing her constituency of the long term effects of a subway in their area.

Spokker @ #26 is a genius!

By: Jerard

Jerard — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:52:44 +0000

Alon,

How can they build a subway under Whittier at that time, when the merchants under Whittier don’t want it?

I agree Kelly, lets celebrate what we have right now