By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer Posted: 10/18/2009 10:13:28 PM PDT
San Gabriel Valley leaders are preparing for a fight Thursday, when they'll try to persuade the county transit authority to include funding for the Gold Line Foothill Extension as a priority in its long-range transportation plan.
After months of delays in coming to an agreement, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority finally has an established draft for the long-range plan, which will be voted on by the MTA's board Thursday.
Local officials are not happy with the long-range plan's expected completion date for the first phase of the Gold Line extension to the Azusa/Glendora border. They also object because the plan commits no funds for extending the line any farther. There is also no completion date for the second segment.
"All through the document, the implication is that they aren't planning to build the second part of the extension," said Habib Balian, CEO of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority, which is tasked with building the line.
MTA officials have suggested as recently as last year that rather than extending the line to Claremont, the county should consider building a Metrolink train line from Claremont to meet up with the Gold Line in Azusa, a notion that local authorities have flatly rejected.
Local officials have always argued that the Gold Line should go all the way to the Ontario Airport.
Carol Inge, an MTA planning officer, said the county is committed to the second segment of the extension, Advertisement and that the Metrolink train plan is not a consideration at this point.
"I don't think anyone has been considering that for a long time," said Inge.
Disagreement between local officials and the MTA over the completion of the Gold Line is nothing new. The MTA has long told the Foothill Authority that it will not receive funds to complete the first phase of the line before 2017. The authority is pushing to get it built by 2013.
This time, however, the Foothill Authority is facing a new challenge: It has been looking for a contractor to act as a financier by starting construction without MTA funds, then getting reimbursed as the money begins to come in.
The problem, said Balian, is if the authority succeeds at this strategy, the Long Range Transportation Plan does not commit the MTA to paying the day-to-day operation costs of the line before 2017. If they were to build it early, said Balian, the MTA might not pay to keep it running.
"I can fix a funding gap through financing for building it, but I can't fix a lack of commitment to operating the line," said Balian.
MTA officials, meanwhile, say that just because the plan doesn't include a guarantee to fund the line before 2017 doesn't mean it isn't a possibility.
"I don't think we need that explicit commitment at this time," said Inge. "If they are able to accelerate the project, then it's something we can look at."
Two of the Gold Line's proponents at the MTA board, county Supervisor Michael Antonovich and Duarte Councilman John Fasana, say they will attempt to get the plan altered at Thursday's meeting to ensure the line can be built by 2013.
"This is a very important meeting, and I've asked San Gabriel Valley officials to attend," said Antonovich. "We need to have this support if we are going to overcome the Los Angeles members of the board."
While the commitment to the Gold Line - both in terms of its completion date and to fully funding the entire project - has not changed throughout the process of drafting the long-range plan, two other projects have gained new commitments.
A downtown connector project that would link several existing rail lines had its completion date moved up in the draft of the plan - from 2025 to 2019. The MTA submitted that project and the Westside Subway Extension to federal transportation authorities for federal funding.
Re: Debate over Foothill Extension priority « Reply #1 on Oct 19, 2009, 12:34pm »
Whereever you happen to stand on the issue of the Foothill Gold Line, you've got to admire the tenacity and excitement of SGV light rail supporters who are pushing for this.
Re: Debate over Foothill Extension priority « Reply #2 on Oct 22, 2009, 6:00pm »
After listening to part of the meeting, following the twitters from someone who was at the meeting, and then reading the comments from the thread that I started in the News section, it *still* isn't clear to me whether this means that they will break ground and get the Foothill Extension to Azusa under construction to be completed by the 2013 earlier date.
Maybe if the Ridly-Scott amendment (Foothill/Crenshaw given priority in Non-New Starts funding) is now part of the LRTP, then all that needs to happen is for the MTA board to vote in accordance with the LRTP to turn on funding for immediate construction start of the Foothill Extension. Guess we will see.
The Crenshaw Line has a couple years more of DEIR/FEIR work no matter what, so no shoveling photo-ops for the politicians on that line anytime soon.
Re: Debate over Foothill Extension priority « Reply #3 on Oct 22, 2009, 6:31pm »
Hopefully, it means that the same federal/local coalition that pushed for these projects locally can now go to Washington and extract an extra billion or two ove the next 5-7 years to fund projects like the Crenshaw and Foothill Gold Lines.
They've fought locally...fine and good. Now it's time to go to Sacramento and D.C. to get extra funds to make their noble goals work.
Re: Debate over Foothill Extension priority « Reply #4 on Oct 22, 2009, 8:43pm »
Building the Foothill Extension isn't the worst thing in the world. But damn, it just seems like the wrong mode for that corridor. Light rail is great, but there is only so much it can do at these distances.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Calendar]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Register]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.saunders.bz/images/me_small.jpg)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/images/maps/by_train2.gif)
![[avatar]](http://www.thetransitcoalition.us/nationaltc/Pics/KennethAlpern.gif)