|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 4, 2008 15:14:42 GMT -8
At the risk of sounding incredibly naive--and childish--I would love to see the Expo and Foothill Gold Line Authorities "racing" to get their lines done...although I'm sure that the latter would win.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 4, 2008 15:50:50 GMT -8
no that would be no good, both of them would just fall apart in 5 years
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 4, 2008 18:32:38 GMT -8
no that would be no good, both of them would just fall apart in 5 years The Transcontinental Railroad lasted more than 5 years...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 5, 2008 6:36:01 GMT -8
When I say "built" I presume that it would be built with first-rate quality. Nothing would fall apart. Much of what slows a project down (other than legal or political wrangling) is the effectiveness of the contractor and the his/her work schedule.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 5, 2008 18:06:06 GMT -8
The Transcontinental Railroad was, as most of us know, completed in 1869. According to some sources, it took from 5 to 10 years of "remedial" work in the 1870's before the line was a really reliable railroad. Rickety trestles were replaced with fills, "best we could get at the time" ties were replaced with higher-grade timber, hastily built sections were properly lined and leveled, etc. One of the big advantages of the CP-UP project was that there weren't any NIMBY's to complain about the noise, smoke, and people getting run over. There was the matter of native tribes, but once the Civil War was over, the government had plenty of troops to deploy. The end of the war also meant plenty of manpower available for what was then a labor-intensive business. One of the complaints about modern "light rail" projects is that they are "overbuilt". Back in the 80's and early 90's one electric railway commentator in particular had a "crusade" against overhead construction that he likened to the Pennsylvania RR main line--he might say something like "you're running streetcars, not GG-1's" or "The Milwaukee Road ran heavy freight trains and cross country passenger service with less-elaborate overhead." And he'd run photos of bulky, unsightly overhead supports that made it seem that the engineers who designed them got paid by the ton (of ironwork).
|
|
snuffy
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by snuffy on Feb 28, 2009 13:48:39 GMT -8
any progress or news?
Snuffy
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 28, 2009 16:55:50 GMT -8
It appears that the stimulus package will allow Metro to pursue funds to jumpstart both the Foothill Gold Lines and Expo Light Rail projects.
|
|
|
Post by dachacon on Feb 28, 2009 21:22:42 GMT -8
really i thought the almost one billion that we got was going for bus purchases??
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 1, 2009 0:19:25 GMT -8
Apparently $150 million is also going to the Foothill line
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 1, 2009 21:21:52 GMT -8
BNSF has just stashed about two miles worth of double-stack well cars on the former Santa Fe line west of Miller Brewing in Irwindale (part of the GLFE). Let's hope the economy picks up before they have to find another place to store them.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Mar 1, 2009 22:52:27 GMT -8
As far as I know, the plan for the Foothill Extension has always been to retain the freight line up to the San Gabriel River, so those cars might not even need to move very far. And it's good news that Metro is finally moving to get this line built. As I said long ago, it's pretty much an operational necessity once the downtown connector opens, and I suspect that it's because of the operational issues that this project is moving forward, rather than whatever political considerations normally guide Metro's priorities.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 2, 2009 6:33:46 GMT -8
Well said, and on the mark, crzwdjk. The line to Azusa helps the local region get new transportation alternatives, but it's that rail maintenance yard that makes everything so critical for the entire county that this get built.
It's a pretty sad reason for the politics to be put aside for this project to be built, but I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 25, 2009 15:34:47 GMT -8
I found the Gold Line Foothill Extension Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), hidden on the Authority's website at www.metrogoldline.org/feir/feir.html , where you can download individual PDF sections.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 25, 2009 16:49:49 GMT -8
The San Gabriel Valley Tribune editorialized yesterday: Our View: Welcome ally for Gold Line Posted: 04/24/2009 05:48:34 PM PDT
THE foothill extension of the Gold Line just received some unexpected support from westside L.A. County Supervisor and Metro board member Zev Yaroslavsky.
"The Foothill Gold Line is well positioned - better positioned than any other single line right now with the possible exception of the No. 1 priority project of this agency, which is the completion of Phase 2 of Expo (in westside of L.A.) - to move, and move quickly. It's going to happen. I'm going to support it," he said at a recent Metro (formerly MTA) meeting.
The declaration that the Gold Line is ready to go, even more ready than most regional projects (and we would include the Expo Phase II which has not yet completed environmental studies, while Gold Line Foothill has) is a first, especially coming from Yaroslavsky. The westside supervisor, who is part of the powerful L.A. majority on the Metro board that controls all transportation funding for the region, is a welcome ally.
We would add - as we've said many times in this space - that we also support the westside light-rail projects, as well as the extensions of the Gold Line through East Los Angeles and beyond.
But it's worth noting that the economies of scale are different. It costs $120 million a mile to build the Expo Line and will cost $210 million a mile for the Expo Line II. And the westside subway (read: underground) will cost an astronomical $700 million per mile. The Gold Line Foothill Extension's price tag is only $30 million per mile.
These are economies of scale that the Metro board should remember, as should the federal Department of Transportation, when considering how to spend limited federal dollars and spend them relatively quickly.
Right now, the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority should fund the first leg - up to Azusa and including a new maintenance yard for all Metro rail projects in the vicinity in Irwindale - with the tax money that will be collected starting in July from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax approved by voters last November.
The Gold Line is promised $735 million by Metro, but not until 2017. That is too long for the Valley and Inland Valley commuters cued up on the Foothill (210) Freeway every morning to wait in their cars.
Instead, Metro should include the Gold Line in its long range plans at its May meeting and guarantee funding starting in 2010. This would enable construction to begin in June of that year and at least extend the existing line to Azusa by 2013. The feds could provide the missing match that will take it to Montclair, and we hope, Ontario Airport.
Because it's clear to everyone, even those on the west side, that the Gold Line Foothill extension is ready to go. In fact, as Yaroslavsky said, "it's going to happen." There's more than 2.1 million people here who say that should be sooner, rather than later. I support the Foothill extension, but their Expo Line cost-effectiveness comparison (bolded above) is way off. Per the Foothill Final EIR (the reason for the post above), the Azusa segment is 11.4 miles for $402.3M (2005 $) = $35.3M/mile. I'd note that Metro has disagreed with their cost estimates as being too low. Per the Expo phase 2 Draft EIR, its preferred LRT2 alternative is 6.6 miles for $932.5M (2008$) = $141.3M/mile. Note that this base year reflects construction cost inflation 3 years later. But ridership here is proportional to cost. Foothill to Azusa projects only 9,004 daily boardings in 2025 (Table 3-15.25), while Expo phase 2 projects 36,412 weekday boardings in 2030 (Table 7.3-1) - four times as many.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 25, 2009 23:08:34 GMT -8
I found the application of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy to the Gold Line Foothill Extension in the FEIR section 3-15, Traffic worthwhile to compare with Expo phase 2. Expo is not unique in working out mitigations in the gray area between thresholds. Beginning on page 3-15-80, Of the 40 proposed grade crossings, the Milestone 1 screening indicated that there were no grade crossings where grade separation would usually be required and there were 29 crossings where operation should be feasible at grade. With respect to the 11 remaining locations, 5 were clearly exceeding the threshold 1 & 2 line therefore requiring a Milestone 2 analysis to confirm “possible at grade operation” and the remaining six were straddling the threshold between “at grade operation should be feasible” and “possible at grade operation”. Therefore, a total of 11 crossings were analyzed using the Milestone 2 procedures to verify whether operation at grade would be possible. Only one new grade separation will be provided, at Santa Anita Avenue, paid for by the City of Arcadia. Continuing on page 3-15-82, Detailed Analysis Reports (Milestone 2 Analysis) were completed for each crossing identified in the “Possible At-Grade Operation” region, as well as those that were in the border line region between the “At Grade Should be Feasible” category and the “Possible At-Grade Operation” category. Utilizing several checks on rail operations, traffic operations, and safety, feasible mitigations and crossing treatments for these 11 crossings were identified. Table 3-15.23 outlines the treatments that would allow these crossings to be operable at grade. For example, at Myrtle Avenue in Monrovia the Recommended Treatment for At-Grade Operation is: Four quadrant gates. Provide pedestrian gates. Provide pre-emption of the traffic signal. Provide pre-signal. Consider queue length detection and traffic signal interconnect between Duarte Avenue and Evergreen Ave. Include traffic signal provisions to address queues. Add no right turn on red sign
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 27, 2009 4:32:35 GMT -8
I now work in the San Gabriel Valley, so I don't know if this means I will have a horse in this race, but ...
Darrell points out it's only a value in capital but not when you have to factor in ridership. The Gold Line just runs through a bad corridor.
It's at the extreme north end of the Valley, which means ridership potential dwindles the farther south you go.
If the San Gabriel Valley wants successful rail, it has far superior corridors if the train followed the Metrolink San Bernardino line right of way or Foothill Transit's Silver Streak.
I am still sour by the whole Measure R issue where the Gold Line became about saving face rather than about saving scarce transportation dollars.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 27, 2009 9:08:41 GMT -8
You work and/or pay taxes, so you always have a horse in this race. I agree that there are better locations for the SGV to have a rail line, but it is my hope that if new development must occur then it will be along lines such as this Foothill Gold Line.
I also believe that an Eastside Gold Line Rail Extension can direct future development and provide transportation alternatives along freeways or freeway-adjacent locations such as SR 60, which I drive at least 1-2 times a week to get to my Riverside County clinics and which is getting choked up in traffic.
On a final note, by far too much is being devoted to MetroRail projects at the expense of Metrolink routes and operations.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 27, 2009 14:53:31 GMT -8
The way I see it, I don't mind the Foothill Extension because, I mean, what else can really go there? There's a right of way and it's just sitting there. I just hope that if they build it, there's some express service so the northern terminus isn't a total ghost station.
Again, this is just the way I see it. I haven't been following the Foothill Extension as closely as others who probably live in the area. I welcome any criticisms of my assessment.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 28, 2009 3:53:13 GMT -8
Sure, there is a right of way, but the projections that adding 20+ miles of high-frequency service for 9,000 boardings by 2025 (!) is absolutely ludicrous.
A Metro bus with 9,000 boardings would have about 20 minute frequencies. No single Metro bus line costs more than $1 billion to build and operate. Heck, you can get a service sector's worth of divisions with buses and still have a couple hundred million left over.
If the San Gabriel Valley is hard up for using the Foothill right of way, I could see a far more plausible scenario of an Orange Line-style busway. At 9,000 boardings, even that would be overspending, but unlike the Orange Line, ridership would have to double before capacity becomes a problem.
The other scenario I could see is a Metro and Metrolink swap. I see a right of way running through Irwindale that connects the San Bernardino Line right of way to the Foothill right of way. Disclaimer: I don't know much about this segment of railroad, so I don't know how viable my plan could be.
Metro could run a combination of the Silver Line proposal through Alhambra, Rosemead, Temple City and El Monte, then run via I-10 to Baldwin Park, then take over the right of way of the existing San Bernardino line.
This way, the high capacity service matches the area where it would be most used.
The San Bernardino Line would meanwhile run along the Foothill right of way, then travel through Irwindale and resume its current route.
Of course, with this swap plan, this would mean an extension of the Gold Line no farther east than Citrus College.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 28, 2009 5:22:55 GMT -8
I don't think your idea is too off-base, wad, because once we get to Citrus and also include a train maintenance yard, the benefits of a further Gold Line to the east becomes more questionable.
What has NOT been done, however, is a study of how MetroRail and Metrolink can coordinate services to provide transfers from commuter to local rail service.
The Gold Line extension to Irwindale/Citrus is all that's being pushed for right now. By that time, a new generation of leaders will hopefully be in place to figure out a more viable long-term plan than what's been proposed.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 28, 2009 11:28:24 GMT -8
It sounds like the Foothill Extension should be BRT.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 28, 2009 11:46:01 GMT -8
It sounds like the Foothill Extension should be BRT. terrible. metrolink sure, BRT... no way
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 28, 2009 11:55:16 GMT -8
If they really want this to be rail I would push for a Gold Line extension with express service. To make this happen would you need some upgrades on the southern portion of the line? New passing tracks, improved signaling, etc.?
If I'm trying to get from Montclair to LA, that's a long haul for light rail unless it's skipping a good number of stops.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 28, 2009 14:00:56 GMT -8
If they really want this to be rail I would push for a Gold Line extension with express service. To make this happen would you need some upgrades on the southern portion of the line? New passing tracks, improved signaling, etc.? If I'm trying to get from Montclair to LA, that's a long haul for light rail unless it's skipping a good number of stops. The Foothill extension will be fast. At 55 mph top speed and stations averaging 2 miles apart the FEIR estimates average speed for the 24 miles from Sierra Madre Villa to Montclair at 41 mph (35 minutes). For nearly all at-grade track.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 28, 2009 15:00:42 GMT -8
If I'm trying to get from Montclair to LA, that's a long haul for light rail unless it's skipping a good number of stops. I can't imagine there being much end-to-end ridership from Montclair to LA, given that Metrolink is frequent and significantly faster. I suppose the operators will have to endure a long run from Montclair to East LA, though.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 28, 2009 19:41:00 GMT -8
Couldnt we get the Gold Line trains to go fast (as talked about above) The stations are further apart so it would be (to a degree) an express and to make it faster each train could stop every other station but just switch off or would that be too confusing?
I think we need the Azusa/Citrus College Extension for sure! If we extend it to Montclair and add an extension to Ontario Airport couldnt that bring the ridership? and what if it's brought to Victoria Gardens and Ontario Mills (though at that point it should really fall under Omnitrans funding) but it could still have the ridership bringing people not just from the SGV into LA but the SGV into the Pomona Valley
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 28, 2009 20:30:00 GMT -8
If the Foothill Extension can achieve 41MPH average speed, then it would have already accomplished matching the speed of Metrolink and would blow away the Green Line's 36MPH and Red Line's 30MPH average speeds.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 28, 2009 21:06:19 GMT -8
Bear in mind that the route in question used to have Santa Fe (and then Amtrak) trains running at 60-65 mph on jointed rail with wooden ties. For a contrast from ancient times, the Pacific Electric cars that served Monrovia had a nominal top speed of about 45 mph. Regarding the Gold Line vs. Metrolink controversy: Granted that someone needing to go from Montclair to downtown LA would probably be better served by Metrolink, as long as they didn't want to travel too late in the evening. The Gold Line would serve (for example) someone wanting to visit Old Pasadena from Duarte, or students at PCC or Citrus College.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 28, 2009 22:17:01 GMT -8
The only thing that can get me through this Gold Line extension is that it will hopefully be very cheap to build compared to our other lines and it has the chance for these communities who really support the line to have a lot TOD around the stations increasing ridership beyond these miserable projections.
Hopefully, with these fast speeds, ridership will be better than projected, but I still have questions about how many people are really going to Pasadena from other San Gabriel Valley cities. Unless there are a lot of people going from Azuza to Arcadia and trips like that, there just won't be much of a built in ridership for this line. The Gold Line is already the black sheep of our rail lines.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 29, 2009 4:03:53 GMT -8
What has NOT been done, however, is a study of how MetroRail and Metrolink can coordinate services to provide transfers from commuter to local rail service. I don't know where the Gold Line is going to end, but I pick Citrus College/Azusa Pacific University because a college station would be a strong anchor terminal. Colleges produce heavy ridership. Citrus and APU moreso, since you have a 2-year and a 4+-year campus as neighbors. Ken, it is not too rare to find such a configuration. Washington DC has a few stations where you can transfer between a MARC or Virginia Railway Express commuter train and the DC Metro, even though all three services go to the Union Station in Washington. In California, we have the Millbrae intermodal transit center near SFO. You have transfers between Caltrain and BART, and in a few years, high speed rail. If you mean a spatial configuration, you'd elevate Metrorail and keep Metrolink at ground level.
|
|