Meeting this Saturday June 2, 10 am - 12 pm

[whitmanlam]

SONS OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY.... IT IS TIME TO STAND UP AND FIGHT !!

THEY CAN TAKE OUR LIVES... BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR GOLD LINE EXTENSION !!


I'LL BE ATTENDING THE MEETING SATURDAY, ANYONE INTERESTED IN JOINING ME, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME

______ ______________ __________ _________________

Dear Project Friends:
I wanted to alert you to an upcoming San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus Transportation Funding Summit that will no doubt have significant impact and influence for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension project as well as other transportation priorities within the San Gabriel Valley.

Please mark your calendars for Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. The location of the meeting is the City of West Covina Council Chambers, 1444 West Garvey Avenue, West Covina.

The focus of the summit will be on San Gabriel Valley funding strategies and efforts to receive its “fair share” of the regional Proposition 1B allocation. Habib Balian, our chief executive officer, will be among the presenters at the meeting, showcasing the readiness and other factors that position our project’s consideration and priority. As a point of reference, the Authority's board of directors certified the project’s FEIR for Segment 2(A) at their February meeting in support of this opportunity.

State Assemblymember Ed Hernandez, who chairs the Caucus, will lead the meeting. Leadership from throughout the San Gabriel Valley, as well as the public, are invited to attend and share their comments. San Gabriel Valley Congressional and State representatives, as well as Los Angeles County Supervisors, are scheduled to attend. An initial agenda is attached for your review.

I hope you will have time to join us this Saturday and lend your voice and support for the project. Please take a moment to introduce yourself to me at the meeting so that I may thank you in person for your participation.

With Best Regards,
Susan Hodor
Public Affairs Director
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

P.S. For those unable to attend, we will post our presentation on the project website, www.foothillextension.org early next week. Also next week, please take a moment to look at our new City Related Transit Development section to see what cities along the corridor are doing in anticipation of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension.

[masonite]

Good luck. However, I still question this extension. The Gold Line continues to be a black eye on our rail system and without a Downtown Connector it is hard to imagine it reaching respectable levels. I think there are many other projects that will get more bang for the buck. The worst thing we can do is build projects that have low ridership. Expo, Green Line, Downtown Connector and Purple Line extensions all have much higher ridership projections. They should be built first.

[damiengoodmon]

Tell them to consider running it as Metrolink first to cut about $800 million - $1 billion of the price tag and make it a project that will actually happen sometime in the next century and get rid of the problem with it draining the Metro Operations budget - a big source of their difficulty with the feds right now - among others.

Otherwise it just another EIR to file on the shelves of the MTA library.

[erict]

The gold line was the only rail line with an increase in passengers from 2006 to 2007 for April. It went up from 15,587 to 18,516. Also - this rail line is being extended into East Los Angeles as we speak. The future potential for this rail line is great - even greater once the DTC is (finally) made.

[Tony Fernandez]

It seems to me that the Gold Line has been one of the major successes in getting people out of their cars and into rail. There are many business people on that train. We can only imagine how much better it would be if it didn't have that section through Highland Park.

[whitmanlam]

Good meeting S. Senator Gloria Romero and Gill Cedillo were there.
Roger Snoble decided not to attend because apparently it "wasn't that important".

We went over the progress on the Alameda Corridor improvement project.

Then we turned our attention to the Metro Goldline Extension. Everyone was really passionate about that. Nobody mentioned anything about low ridership on the existing segment.
The San Gabriel Valley does not get it's fair share of transportation funding for projects. Funds had been secured for the Foothill Extension segment to Azusa.

But if Metro doesn't start construction soon, the money will expire and we may not receive funding for a looooooong time. The clock is ticking....

The session ended with the usual applause, local speeches, and the ubiquitous bashing of Arnold Schwartzenneger.

[bobdavis]

I rode the Gold Line Thursday night (8.52p departure after arriving on Surfliner 589). Car was full, standing load (single car train), mostly young people. And yes, I was at the SGV meeting in West Covina. As a native of the San Gabriel Valley, I want to see my homeland get its fair share. Our project is ready to go, and we don't have NIMBY's trying to divert it from its most practical route.

[kenalpern]

As much as some (many?) of us might question the correct order of the Foothill Gold Line Extension compared to the Expo, Green or Purple Line extensions, I do contend that this is a good project. What we need to do as a county is to find a way to fund all of these extensions together so that we're not fighting a ridiculous argument over which worthy project is "more worthy" than the others.

They're all worthy, and they're all in need of funding and construction, and (read this next phrase carefully, and we all should never forget this) the votes to raise more funding for each of these projects (sales tax, gas tax, bonds, etc.) comes from all those who will be affected and who want these projects.

If the Westside wants an Expo Line to Santa Monica, it needs voter and politician support from the SGV, and if the SGV wants a Foothill Gold Line Extension, then it needs similar support from the Westside. Same with the Green and Purple Line constituencies, the Downtown Connector and Harbor Subdivision constituencies, etc.

[damiengoodmon]

As much as I too applaud our transit friends in the Foothills for coming together for rail transit, it doesn't change the fact that the Foothill extension is still a bad project in a region with many worthy ones and that it will HURT rail throughout the region if it is built.

Spending $400-800 million for 9K additional riders (see below) is about the worst return on investment of any transit project in the region since the Harbor Transitway. The fact that it is even being discussed is a testament to all that is wrong with the way we build rail in this region. It provides fodder to the argument that rail extensions are just pork barrel campaign-filling projects and not real solutions to our mobility crisis. It's makes more cynical the very voters we need to have confidence in an across the board tax increase for mass transit investment.

I'll bear the burden of a higher fare, and argue for it, but I need to know it's money well spent. I'm not going to willfully pay $7.25 for a day pass - or ask my poor neighbor to pay $7.25 for a day pass, just so some politician can cut a ribbon. So yes, I refuse to support the Foothill extension project, because it has absolutely NO significant benefit to the system and will drain an already scarce operations budget.

The Foothill corridor does not now nor will it ever have the density or the land use policy to support urban rail. And I continue to fail to understand how Metrolink is not only sufficient, but completely appropriate.


Ridership calculated for extended route of Gold Line system
By Alison Hewitt Staff Writer

The Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority has predicted that people will get on the Pasadena-to-Azusa Gold Line extension 9,500 times a day - in the year 2030.

Ridership figures required by the Federal Transit Administration - the gatekeepers for federal funding - are pegged to far-off dates, not to opening day in 2012, Gold Line Extension officials said.

Setting 2030 as the ridership year allows the FTA to consider how many people a transit project is likely to serve after becoming established, and to compare diverse projects on an even footing, an FTA spokesman said.

The Gold Line extension authority is still calculating how many riders to expect in 2012. How the Authority came up with the 9,500 figure is complicated, said project manager Mike Cannell.

"That ridership number is a combination of assumptions and variables that are very, very confusing, based upon human factors such as age, income, how people look at the price of gasoline," Cannell said.

The model does not break down the incomes of riders, Cannell said, but provided figures from a forecast by the Southern California Association of Governments.

In 2030, residents near the Gold Line extension would be 39 percent low income, 44 percent medium income, and 17 percent high income, according to the SCAG.

A survey released in November touted the Gold Line's ability to attract higher-income riders than other light rail lines in the county. The survey was designed to get the FTA to allow the Gold Line to count those people in the ridership model.

The ridership model predicting 9,500 boardings - about 4,750 riders - also predicts that the 12-mile extension will save riders 7,300 traveling hours per weekday. It will also get 5,100 cars off the road each commuting day, according to figures pulled from the model by Cannell.

The model also estimates that 51 percent of Gold Line Extension trips would be for work; 25 percent would be for errands and shopping; and 15 percent would be for school.

The FTA is still analyzing how the Pasadena-to-Azusa extension compares, on a cost-per-ride basis, to other projects vying for federal dollars. The cost is estimated at $400 million, but still needs to be approved by the FTA.

Gold Line supporters hope to extend the light-rail line 24 additional miles, from east Pasadena to Montclair and, eventually, Ontario International Airport.

Locally, the other Gold Line extension - from downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles - has received funding approval, said Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Rick Jager. The cost of the six-mile line, expected to open in 2009, is estimated at $898 million, with 17,000 daily boardings in 2020.

The existing Gold Line, a $750 million project running from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena, runs 13.7 miles and had 18,516 daily boardings in April, Jager said.

[e-mail]

[phone], Ext. 2730


9.5K riders! And that's after 18 years of operation! And that's after strenuous lobbying by the Gold Line Authority!

[Tony Fernandez]

So then do you want this to be built as commuter rail or just nothing built there at all?

Personally, I'd have commuter rail, but only so far as Azusa.

[bluelineshawn]

This may be too simplistic, but it seems to me that because the MTA is a county system and allocates tax dollars for rail, that all areas of the county want their fair share. In fact, that's the phrase that I've seen several times in articles about this line - "fair share." I suspect that many of the local politicians that support this line would gladly trade their support for a billion dollars in road construction money if that were somehow possible.

I'm not really against this line, but I can't really support it either when there are a dozen other lines that are more worthy. Still you have to give it them credit because they've stepped up to the plate when many other areas haven't. In the end I guess that I'll be happy if this doesn't end up literally as the anti-rail poster child for expensive rail lines that people don't use.

[whitmanlam]

The problem is really timing. If we can costruct this extension at the same time as the Downtown Connector and Expo Line, it would be a dream come true.

But it doesn't work that way, they have pitted community against community rail vs. rail vs. bus, so our lobbying is disorganized and factional. The Governor's cuts have divided the groups. Instead of uniting against the Governor's cuts busriders are fighting rail.

Commuter rail has worked in low density places like Palmdale, San Bernardino, and Orange County.

[kenalpern]

It's really difficult to know exactly what the ridership for any line will be--even the Orange Line ridership surprised its backers with its high ridership. Considering how the Foothill Gold Line parallels the 210 freeway, I suspect its ridership would be higher than expected.

Still, the reality of the need for a Downtown Connector as a more urgent project than the Foothill Extension can't be denied, and the reality for a Foothill Gold Line that makes it to Azusa/Irwindale with its train yard as a benefit with respect to overall operations also can't be denied.

I think that if we want to enhance freeway congestion relief, the Alameda Corridor East is a more urgent project than even the Gold Line extension to Azusa. I think that an expansion of Metrolink commuter rail operations is also, arguably a better way to provide more cost-effective relief...but with increased development, the concept of an interlinking Gold Line and Metrolink will be one that needs more exploration.

Still, it's everyone's money and I hope that we can focus on a combined Expo/Downtown Connector/Gold Line lobbying effort in order to please all parties involved...and when I say Gold Line I mean only to Azusa/Irwindale.

[whitmanlam]

Ken is right on the money.

A huge bulk of our traffic congestion and air pollution comes from trucks hauling freight from the Ports.

If we can get these trucks off the road, we'll notice a dramatic difference from day one.

Light rail only affects a regional area by getting a few thousand cars off the road.
The Alameda Corridor can have Global implications!!

[damiengoodmon]

With the DTC, the Irwindale yard isn't needed and it too would cost more to build and operate than alternatives, like expanding the Blue Line yard - a project currently underway.

The Irwindale yard would be over 25 miles from the Expo Line and Eastside Gold Line compared to the Blue Line yard which would be around half that distance from the lines. Plus the yard would be on the outskirts of the least used line. How many hours will Metro rail operators be paid each year just to waste time transporting trains to/from an Irwindale yard compared to transporting them to/from the Blue Line yard, or a more central yard in the city of Vernon?

With the DTC and the Crenshaw LRT the entire light rail fleet would be much closer and better served by the two South Bay rail yards (Blue and Green) than Irwindale.

Simply, I don't see how in any legitimate alternatives analysis the Gold Line LRT extension comes close in benefit to any of the alternatives (including the NO BUILD option) as far as capital and operational cost is concerned.

Go back to the EIR, get them to adopt commuter rail, build the thing at a fraction of current cost while connecting it to the rest of the Metrolink rail lines in Pomona and funded through Metrolink's budget and fare structure. It is what is needed to make the project viable and competitive. It is what is appropriate for the corridor. It is what provides the greatest regional benefit - by leaps and bounds.

[JerardWright]

Believe it or not, a Rail facility will still be needed in Irwindale even with the DTC because we are growing our rail fleet and the current facility on the Gold Line CANNOT handle major repairs/shop work which the current Blue/Green Lines can provide at the same time you don't want to max out the current facilities when the LRT system is expanded.

As for the Metrolink/Gold Line issue. I'm torn.

In one side I agree operationally with that setup by Metrolink using the Azusa ROW to the Foothill Gold Line ROW and then tie that back into the San Bernandino Line. On the other you have an area who got their acts together politically with other cities along the line funding the pot of the project to reduce the overall cost and get more done.

It's kind of like the Crenshaw Line. Politically the residents/leaders have gotten their acts together and have the studies/funding lobbied and ready for a particular technology let's say LRT and now some outside voice/force says, "Hey guys forget what you've lobbied to do and here's the technology that you are guys have to use" What reaction do you think you're going to get?

[kenalpern]

I am in agreement with Jerard--from an engineering standpoint, Damien makes good sense. From a political and even moral standpoint, I agree with Jerard. Furthermore, if we want to find new places to develop and direct density, affordable housing, commercial corridors, etc., then this local service makes good sense.

[bobdavis]

Commuter (Metrolink) service was considered for what is now the Gold Line, but the decision was made (probably by the old LACTC) to rebuild the Santa Fe route as a high-platform electric railway. I don't think running a diesel-powered service from Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa or Claremont is the way to go. There are too many people in the San Gabriel Vally who look upon Pasadena as their "big city", going there for entertainment and products not found further out in the suburbs. A Metrolink schedule, even as frequent as the San Bernardino Line just isn't the same as 15/20 minute headway light rail. Also, with ever-rising oil prices, even the freight railroads are looking at overhead electric power.

[whitmanlam]

Ken and Bob make some sense, Downtown Pasadena is becoming the business hub of the San Gabriel Valley. There are some high density TOD's being built in Monrovia and Azusa as we speak.

I myself think it wouldn't make sense without a Downtown Connector, but in a way Pasadena is becoming a new Downtown, and we can either ignore it, or help it grow.

If the cost of Goldline operations becomes an issue, I suggest letting Foothill Transit run the system. They can charge higher fares for the extension to make up for Low Ridership and high maintenance costs.

[masonite]

Another vote for building Alameda Corridor East, an important project for the region, especially for goods movement (i.e. economy) and air quality. The Alameda Corridor East project and expanded Metrolink service for the SGV will have to suffice for this area for now as other vastly more needed projects come to fruition.

Building this Gold Line extension will hurt rail immensely by sucking funds for other worthy projects and then giving the critics more ammo to shoot at as an expensive little used line, not to mention taking operating funds with low farebox recovery. The conclusion will be that rail doesn't work in LA and shouldn't be pursued b/c it is a waste of money. We'll all lose then.

I disagree that being near the 210 will help the line. The 210 is a nice modern freeway with carpool lanes. The fact that the line is near the freeway means that driving will almost always be a faster mode of transport. For rail to really flourish and attract ridership, it needs to be competitive with a car or even faster (i.e. serving areas where no direct freeway connection exists such as Hollywood - West LA) or it needs to serve an area where parking is difficult or very expensive like Downtown or LAX. The Gold Line Extension really has neither of these unless a passenger goes all the way downtown which will take a very long time on this line.

I could maybe tolerate it, if it was packaged with the Downtown Connector, which is perhaps the most cost-effective project proposed right now. This will be apparent on the Lone Range Plan due out soon as cost per passenger mile is projected for these projects. I believe these figures still make a difference in federal funding (if they don't they should).

[kenalpern]

This really IS a toughie, isn't it? My understanding from SGV local advocates is that it's the second phase of this line that really makes it what the region wants for its future. It should be remembered that this part of the county wants to be proactive and build around this line, rather than the idiotic Westside and Mid-City which is building "reactive" lines. They are to be commended, regardless of whether they can get what they want.

Still, we don't have a federal/state contribution to give everyone what we all want, and the Pasadena Gold Line ended up being a P.R. black eye to the entire Metro system (at least by conventional wisdom). The Downtown Connector is needed NOW, and the best I can recommend to Foothill Gold Line supporters is tell Gary Miller and David Dreier and Jerry Lewis to start pushing bigtime for federal funds for Expo and the Downtown Connector...and the Westside/Mid-City advocates should push for the Azusa Gold Line extension/Downtown Connector combination as well.

As much as I believe that the extra rail maintenance yard at Azusa/Irwindale WILL be a good addition to the system, especially since there's no consensus at all yet on the Downtown Connector, I think that the SGV folks need to step up and recognize that ridership is even less than the Orange Line Busway, and that they need to employ a new strategy that gets what they need. They also need to recognize that without the Connector, it's only a leap of faith that even the Azusa/Irwindale will be a great investment...and perhaps mainly for the rail yard.

Furthermore, the SGV needs to ask why David Dreier and Jerry Lewis and Gary Miller entirely blew it with the ACE project when they had the political power to get that done. As much as I am a Republican, I think those three were just terrible with respect to ensuring that Southern California got its fair share in transportation dollars when they could have gotten more.

[JerardWright]

masonite said:

Another vote for building Alameda Corridor East, an important project for the region, especially for goods movement (i.e. economy) and air quality. The Alameda Corridor East project and expanded Metrolink service for the SGV will have to suffice for this area for now as other vastly more needed projects come to fruition.

Building this Gold Line extension will hurt rail immensely by sucking funds for other worthy projects and then giving the critics more ammo to shoot at as an expensive little used line, not to mention taking operating funds with low farebox recovery. The conclusion will be that rail doesn't work in LA and shouldn't be pursued b/c it is a waste of money. We'll all lose then.

I disagree that being near the 210 will help the line. The 210 is a nice modern freeway with carpool lanes. The fact that the line is near the freeway means that driving will almost always be a faster mode of transport. For rail to really flourish and attract ridership, it needs to be competitive with a car or even faster (i.e. serving areas where no direct freeway connection exists such as Hollywood - West LA) or it needs to serve an area where parking is difficult or very expensive like Downtown or LAX. The Gold Line Extension really has neither of these unless a passenger goes all the way downtown which will take a very long time on this line.

Actually most of the right of way have grade separated pieces with a couple of at-grade crossings and with the average distance between stops the way it is, it would be time competative to the 210 since the base of destinations are along the right of way the big destination of the line is Pasadena/Old Town Pasadena and the Azusa area is slowly growing into another Pasadena so it's there is definitely some advantages to it.

I prefer just building it to Azusa/Citrus College now because there is a need there. In addition it depends on where they get the funding it will matter if it gets more approval for future funding in other areas.

If it's with local funds then there's really no worries. If it's state not as bad. If it's federal, then they we can worry. In addition, with the building of a long line, this will provide an opportunity to have our light rail system go with distance based fares which can make up a difference to the fare recovery ratio. Denver, San Diego and Portland all have "honor" fare systems and they use a distance based fares and collect between 42(Portland-their Farefree zone drags this figure down) to up to 60+% (San Diego) of fare recovery.

I could maybe tolerate it, if it was packaged with the Downtown Connector, which is perhaps the most cost-effective project proposed right now. This will be apparent on the Lone Range Plan due out soon as cost per passenger mile is projected for these projects. I believe these figures still make a difference in federal funding (if they don't they should).

I would too, thankfully a couple of key San Gabriel Valley officials like John Fasana and Mike Antonovich (Hell must be freezing over is Mike is supporting it, right. J/k His Planning deputy is a great guy :-) ) are very supportive of the Downtown Connector and want to integrate it in some fashion because they understand that this would boost ridership and consensus for the Foothill Gold Line project.

[bobdavis]

I use the 210 fairly often, and during rush hours, the carpool lane usually doesn't move any faster than the others. Add to this the need for users of that lane to cross all the other lanes to get to an off-ramp and carpool lanes aren't as wonderful as their advocates think they are. Back when I had a day job, one of my work sites was a service center in Monrovia, on the north side of the 210. I'd be out in the yard working on a truck radio in mid morning, maybe around 10:30 am. From the freeway there would come the hiss of big-rig air brakes and the sound of traffic slowing down. Sometimes it was a wreck ahead, other times no apparent reason. Last week I rode the Gold Line into LA in the afternoon and observed the 210 slowing in BOTH directions. I don't think any of the cities along the 210 would take kindly to a plan to widen it, but they're all gung-ho for extending the Gold Line.

[kenalpern]

Having recently gone to Big Bear during a Friday afternoon, I can assure you that the 210 was a totally messed-up gridlock. Yes, I think that there is a definite possibility that a Foothill Gold Line could be used.

[whitmanlam]

People living deep inside the Inland Empire can use the Gold=Line to get to Pasadena faster (Once the Phase 2 extension to Pomona is built though.

The transfer and trip from Pomona to Pasaden via GoldLine would be way faster than from Union Station to Pasadena.

But alas, I am getting waaaaaay too ahead of myself.

We haven't even broken ground on projects we should have had 20 years ago....

We are always playing Catch Up with the Bay Area and Portland, who have their act together. Our act is always a mess no matter what we do.

The Gold Line needs more efficient buslines running North and South like on Rosemead Blvd, Irwindale Ave, and Myrtle Ave.