|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 9, 2011 21:41:29 GMT -8
I suspect there is quite a bit of behind-the-scenes damage control in progress right now. How long it will take is open to question, but this is too big a project to be "left hanging" indefinitely.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 20, 2011 13:26:02 GMT -8
GLFE special board meeting scheduled for 4:00pm today, 6-20-11. Two items on the closed agenda: both property negotiations with the Monrovia parties. Could be some news coming out tomorrow...
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 22, 2011 7:23:27 GMT -8
Well, well, well, about a year after the "ground breaking" it looks like they may actually start the IBS construction. See the following e-mail from the authority hot off the press...
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 22, 2011 7:39:28 GMT -8
Here are a couple shots of the center median, and the area likely to be leveled prior to actual digging: Given the view of the area from the Eastbound lanes of the 210, this work should make for some very nice construction photos. How far East that retaining wall will go that will support the Westbound lanes is anyone's guess. It should be quite impressive when they start digging the 110 foot deep 11 foot wide foundation. Time to dust off the camera... RT
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 23, 2011 11:52:16 GMT -8
Regarding the ongoing saga of the Monrovia Maintenance & Operations facility: Looks like this issue has been "kicked down the road" again, with more discussion scheduled for next month.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jun 23, 2011 14:26:21 GMT -8
^ Siiighhh... just get this s**t over with so we FINALLY can get started on building this baby.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 8, 2011 21:58:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 9, 2011 17:40:37 GMT -8
The question often comes up what the travel times will be on new segments. I was looking through some new GLFE documents, and came across the TPSS load flow study. The placement of the TPSS's depends on the distance between stations, and whether you can still run normal service with one out of commission for a while. They had this nifty table: Looks like the travel time from Sierra Madre to the end 6 stations later will be 16.58 minutes. RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 11, 2011 7:26:20 GMT -8
Thanks for the news and info, carter and rubbertoe. I hope Brokate's suits all get summarily tossed out for lack of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 11, 2011 7:47:04 GMT -8
I assume that those travel times are just start to stop times. To get the actual travel time, you also need to account for dwell time, so add about 15-30 seconds per station. It's still fast, just not quite as fast. Also, it's insteresting to see that it will take almost no energy to go 3 miles from Sierra Madre Villa to Arcadia, and quite a lot of energy to go the other way, which makes sense since it's one huge downgrade from Pasadena to Arcadia. I wonder if the Gold Line has regenerative braking. That could be helpful here.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 11, 2011 9:35:20 GMT -8
I assume that those travel times are just start to stop times. To get the actual travel time, you also need to account for dwell time, so add about 15-30 seconds per station. It's still fast, just not quite as fast. Also, it's insteresting to see that it will take almost no energy to go 3 miles from Sierra Madre Villa to Arcadia, and quite a lot of energy to go the other way, which makes sense since it's one huge downgrade from Pasadena to Arcadia. I wonder if the Gold Line has regenerative braking. That could be helpful here. crzwdjk, I just checked the study again. The simulations assumed and modeled 20 second intermediate station dwell time, and 3 minutes terminating station dwell times. I assumed that was the case, since they were modeling the entire system, which by it's nature would have to include the station dwell times if you wanted to accurately reflect the sub-station power draw by the moving trains over time over time. They also show a maximum speed of 55MPH, imposed by the signaling system. RT
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 11, 2011 9:45:26 GMT -8
Why a 55MPH speed limit? What's reason? Anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 11, 2011 10:34:41 GMT -8
Why a 55MPH speed limit? What's reason? Anyone know? I'm pretty sure that's the speed limit for all LRT segments that aren't completely grade separated. Only the Green, Red and Purple Lines, I believe, ever go above 55 mph. Maybe the Gold Line when it's in the 210 median?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jul 11, 2011 19:25:48 GMT -8
Why a 55MPH speed limit? What's reason? Anyone know? I'm pretty sure that's the speed limit for all LRT segments that aren't completely grade separated. Only the Green, Red and Purple Lines, I believe, ever go above 55 mph. Maybe the Gold Line when it's in the 210 median? The maximum speed for the Blue and Gold Lines is 55 MPH. The Green Line originally had a maximum speed of 55 MPH but it was raised to 65 MPH in around 2000. Given the relatively long station spacing on the Foothill Extension, some meaningful time savings could likely be earned by increasing the Gold Line maximum speed to 65 MPH. I'm not sure what signalling, hardware, or vehicle changes might be necessary to increase the maximum speed on the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jul 11, 2011 22:44:13 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that's the speed limit for all LRT segments that aren't completely grade separated. Only the Green, Red and Purple Lines, I believe, ever go above 55 mph. Maybe the Gold Line when it's in the 210 median? The maximum speed for the Blue and Gold Lines is 55 MPH. The Green Line originally had a maximum speed of 55 MPH but it was raised to 65 MPH in around 2000. Given the relatively long station spacing on the Foothill Extension, some meaningful time savings could likely be earned by increasing the Gold Line maximum speed to 65 MPH. I'm not sure what signalling, hardware, or vehicle changes might be necessary to increase the maximum speed on the Gold Line. You're definitely right about the station spacing, but I think the more important issue is the total length of track where Metro would feel comfortable bumping trains from 55 to 65. If you're only talking about a handful of places -- as I'd suspect -- then the time savings might not be all that great.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Jul 11, 2011 22:49:14 GMT -8
The 55 mph speed limit is imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission on all light rail lines with grade crossings. I imagine that if there is a long enough segment of the Gold Line with no crossings, it can be run at 65 mph, but the current Gold/Blue Line signal system only has speed codes going up to 55 mph. I imagine the long freeway-median segments from Allen to Sieera Madre Villa and Sierra Madre Villa to Arcadia would be eligible for the speed upgrade and also benefit noticeably from it, even if only by a minute or two overall.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 26, 2011 6:51:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 26, 2011 10:42:34 GMT -8
Thanks for the info, rubbertoe. From the board reports doc, the following is the legal schedule for the Brokate case: - Petitioner's Opening Brief - due August 15
- Opposition Brief - due September 16
- Petitioner's Reply Brief - due October 3
- Hearing for Writ of Mandate - October 26
The agenda document also mentions "anticipated litigation" from another claimant, Christopher Sutton. Property owner? I did a search for properties owned by someone with that name, but I couldn't find any.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 26, 2011 13:54:56 GMT -8
I think Mr. Sutton is connected to the Brokate interests. Regarding the Wednesday meeting: I plan to be there, and am preparing remarks for the Public Comments period.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 27, 2011 22:41:07 GMT -8
As planned, I attended the Board meeting today and spoke in favor of moving the project along as fast as possible. Also speaking was rail historian Alan Weeks, who took many photos of the Pacific Electric line in this area just before it was abandoned in 1951. The board moved to start the preliminary steps toward eminent domain to acquire land for the maintenance facility. Unfortunately, the property owner who has the northeast segment of the intended site has started a number of legal actions, which may slow down the progress. According to one observer, the law firm representing the owner was also involved with cases related to the Expo rail project. We'll have to see how this plays out. The second news item was of a more positive nature; the Authority chose the Kiewit-Parsons joint venture to build the railway line. After evaluating three proposals, the GLFE found that K-P was the best qualified and the low bidder. What struck a chord of recognition was that when I was a boy, Kiewit had a large material and machinery storage yard in Arcadia, near my home in Monrovia, within walking distance of the Arcadia City Hall where today's action took place.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 27, 2011 14:13:49 GMT -8
I'm going to be out-of-town for a while, and internet connections will be intermittent, so if someone wants to be the "on the spot reporter" for the GLFE until I return to my native land (i.e. San Gabriel Valley), please do so. I'm expecting to see some substantial progress on the IFS bridge, and maybe we'll get some of those legal issues resolved. "Let's Dig It!"
|
|
|
Post by simonla on Sept 15, 2011 11:52:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 15, 2011 21:09:32 GMT -8
Mr. Brokate sometimes shows up at Foothill Extension board meetings in a military-veteran jacket, presumably to gain sympathy to his side of the controversy. Much as I respect anyone who has served in our country's armed forces (and especially the Marines), he's not doing his country any favors by trying to stymie a project that will (as least in a small way) cut down on oil consumption.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 27, 2011 14:46:18 GMT -8
In 2008, Mr. Brokate (of Newport Beach) contributed to several Republican groups and candidates, including the campaign of far-right representative Duncan Hunter for President (!).
Now I am not interested in getting into a political debate on this forum, considering there are folks on the left and on the right who see the need for public transit. However, it's clear that Mr. Brokate has a well-defined political perspective, one that puts a very high value on private property rights above the needs of "the public".
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 27, 2011 20:11:51 GMT -8
Dude, metrocenter, it's absolutely NO secret now that the right wing in general (particularly the politicians), don't want public transit.
There will be no debate on whether John Boner and Mitch McConnell support public transit. Trust me, at SSP (a place that's VERY left wing) we've beaten that argument to death.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 8, 2011 19:45:43 GMT -8
Just received an e-mail from GLFE: Gov. Brown has signed AB 706, clarifying the role of city council members as members of the Construction Authority Board of Directors. I haven't studied all the details, but it was in response to a legal challenge regarding conflict of interest when council members are also on the board. It should mean that there's one less matter for those objecting to the location of the maintenance facility in Monrovia to raise in court.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 8, 2011 19:55:22 GMT -8
On a more productive note, the Construction Authority reports that concrete pouring for the three foundation columns for the 210 freeway bridge in Arcadia has been completed. This involved 45 truckloads of concrete (450 cubic yards) for each column. Now the above-ground work can start.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 9, 2011 15:30:04 GMT -8
Projected opening of the Gold Line to Asuza is 2016....or as Habib would say "we're still on track for a 2016 opening" (I swear he use to say "we're on track for a 2013 opening" years ago......).
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 9, 2011 19:10:29 GMT -8
My "IWillRide" golden t-shirt says (as I recall) "Azusa in 2013". To put things into perspective, the Perris Valley Metrolink line was supposed to open in 2009, and now they're projecting trains to be running in 2013. It's one thing to lay tracks through the boonies; it's quite another to have to deal with the "built environment" of 21st Century Southern California and all the myriad government restrictions and regulations, plus dozens of property owners rather than just the US government. Some of the sections will be fairly easy: part of the right of way in Monrovia had a siding that the Santa Fe used into the 1970's, so there's plenty of room for two tracks. On the other hand, rebuilding the Huntington Dr. bridge in Arcadia and widening the embankment from east of the bridge to Monrovia Station is going to involve some heavy construction, probably with retaining walls, taking care to minimize effects on adjoining properties. And we still have to resolve the maintenance facility issue.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 29, 2011 7:31:52 GMT -8
CEQA Challenge Denied! Court Rules In Favor Of Gold Line On First Of Six Meritless LawsuitsThis decision is particularly important because it means that the SEIR is valid, and thus construction can move forward. This ruling comes on the heels of the revision this week of the funding agreement with Metro, which will soon free up funds to allow construction of the Gold Line Extension to begin immediately. Here is the Gold Line Authority's press release about its victory in court: MONROVIA – Today, the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Construction Authority) received the final Court ruling on one of several petitions filed by an unwilling seller of land within the future maintenance and operations facility site for the Pasadena to Azusa extension of the Gold Line Foothill Extension project. The ruling released today denies the petitioner’s request that the court invalidate the Construction Authority’s certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the project.
In general, the basis for the lawsuit was the following: the SEIR covered only a piece of the overall project from Pasadena to Montclair and therefore did not evaluate the full impact, mitigation or alternatives necessary; the range of alternatives was insufficient; the Final SEIR did not adequately respond to the comments submitted to the Draft SEIR by the petitioner; and the Monrovia site was the predetermined choice for the maintenance facility before the environmental process was complete.
“This is an important victory for the project,” said Construction Authority board chairman and Glendora Mayor Doug Tessitor. “The SEIR addressed and analyzed a number of project changes since the original EIR was certified in 2007 and the Authority can now continue moving forward with these changes as part of the final project.”
To date, the petitioner has initiated six lawsuits against the Construction Authority and City of Monrovia in an attempt to stop the eminent domain process for his property. The lawsuits have ranged from alleging a secret conspiracy, to challenging the ability of board members to sit on the Construction Authority board, to claiming the Construction Authority is not legally permitted to conduct design-build procurements.
“The Court’s ruling is consistent with the very thorough tentative ruling we received earlier this week, augmented with additional responses to the petitioner’s more-than-hour long oral argument the day of the hearing,” said Construction Authority CEO Habib F. Balian. “This is all very good news and we appreciate that the Judge provided her final ruling within days of the hearing.”
# # #
About the Foothill Extension from Pasadena to Azusa
The Foothill Extension from Pasadena to Azusa is being built by the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, an independent transportation planning and construction agency created in 1998 by the California State Legislature to plan, design and build the light rail line from Union Station to the county line along the Foothills of the San Gabriel Valley. Los Angeles County’s Measure R half-cent sales tax increase is fully funding the Foothill Extension from Pasadena to Azusa, an 11.5-mile extension that will add six new stations in five cities. Future segments are also being planned and are in varying phases of study.
|
|