|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 8, 2008 6:35:53 GMT -8
nothing in this section so i thought i would share some email correspondence i have had with the city engineer of san gabriel
i originally started talking to him about what the time frame is for this extension and how it could tie into the silver line. any how this was his response:
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 11, 2008 10:16:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 11, 2008 10:22:06 GMT -8
ok, now seriously. does anyone here think the MTA is even talking to the ACE about allowing for additional space in this trench for the future silverline that is on there long rang plan.
i need to get some contact info so i cant start a literary riot
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 11, 2008 17:11:42 GMT -8
Considering that Metro takes the Silver Line a lot more seriously than you think, they probably have. Still, it's "after gold comes silver" because this line would still fall behind a Gold Line extension to Montclair and/or Whittier. The El Monte Busway could become a rail line, and/or a Eastside Gold Line to El Monte Busway connection via a Rapid Bus also lies ahead of this otherwise worthy project.
The Silver Line was originally very well received by Metro staff, but money and reality will force this to remain on the back burner while all the other, more clearly-defined important projects move forward. Ultimately, though, the responsibility of the ACE authority is to move freight faster and reduce congestion.
From a purely environmental and economic standpoint, this ACE project, tied in with the Orange County grade separations for freight rail and port improvement/cleanup projects, may be more important than all the passenger rail projects put together.
Approximately $1 billion of our federal economy goes through our ports each day!
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 11, 2008 23:53:01 GMT -8
oh yes i know. im very happy that this project has been awarded funding. but i also hope that it does not remove the future prospect of the silver line
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 14, 2008 13:40:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 14, 2008 13:56:33 GMT -8
I would love to see more trains, less trucks, and easier car movement with the completion of this ACE project. It's hard to say what'll happen this or even next year, but I hope that the pursuing of more grade separations between freight and car traffic will be done with the greatest speed possible.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 26, 2008 9:03:07 GMT -8
crap... input period ended november 14th...
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 25, 2010 17:12:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 25, 2010 17:29:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Aug 25, 2010 21:56:32 GMT -8
Will this be a two-track trench? I couldn't find the part of the EIR that addressed this.
I'm wondering if the trench would be wide enough to allow a passenger platform to be added someday, if UPRR ever decided to allow passenger service thru this right-of-way. It looks like there is only one freight track now, so there may be room in the schedule for passenger trains if the line is double-tracked along with this project.
The right-of-way is 100 ft wide. It would be a shame if trenching the line makes it impossible to use all the righ-of-way in the future. An elevated line would have been easier to expand .
I know the California HSR authority isn't planning to use this route, but it could be good for regional rail (Metrolink) service someday.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 26, 2010 9:53:56 GMT -8
Will this be a two-track trench? I couldn't find the part of the EIR that addressed this. I'm wondering if the trench would be wide enough to allow a passenger platform to be added someday, if UPRR ever decided to allow passenger service thru this right-of-way. It looks like there is only one freight track now, so there may be room in the schedule for passenger trains if the line is double-tracked along with this project. The right-of-way is 100 ft wide. It would be a shame if trenching the line makes it impossible to use all the righ-of-way in the future. An elevated line would have been easier to expand . I know the California HSR authority isn't planning to use this route, but it could be good for regional rail (Metrolink) service someday. already asked this a year or so ago to the city engineer of san gabriel. basically the UP tracks have ZERO space for 2 track freight and a commuter line. UP apparently wants to reserve space in the trench for a double track, so the current tracks will be slid south of where they are now inside the trench. much like in the eastern portion of the alhambra trench. elevate freight was considered but eliminated from the option lists. and i believe it will be better that way. the alhambra trench works out very well. i wonder if a cap light rail over the trench is even feasible.
|
|