|
Post by zoostation on Dec 5, 2007 20:51:54 GMT -8
I would probably still leave about 4 rows of $s.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 6, 2007 17:31:28 GMT -8
It's on the verge of funding...$320 million from the feds, with an agreed-to commitment of $80 million of local matching funding, to allow it to be extended to Azusa/Irwindale. The politics is going strong for a combined Expo/Downtown Connector/Foothill Gold Line effort. ;D Good Doctor Alpern: So when do you think the money's coming for the Pasadena Eastside Extension? Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 6, 2007 17:39:55 GMT -8
Hi, Roadtrainer: By the "Pasadena Eastside Extension", do you mean the Foothill Gold Line?
Presuming you do, I will guess that it will arrive over the next 1-2 years. It's only a guess, because it could fall flat like any other budgetting effort. Still, this Foothill Gold Line has enormous local, state and federal political support, and I suspect that there will be some Expo/Gold political parity to ensure that both projects are moved forward.
...as it SHOULD be, with a Downtown Connector to tie them together.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 20, 2007 16:41:03 GMT -8
Hi, Roadtrainer: By the "Pasadena Eastside Extension", do you mean the Foothill Gold Line? Presuming you do, I will guess that it will arrive over the next 1-2 years. It's only a guess, because it could fall flat like any other budgeting effort. Still, this Foothill Gold Line has enormous local, state and federal political support, and I suspect that there will be some Expo/Gold political parity to ensure that both projects are moved forward. ...as it SHOULD be, with a Downtown Connector to tie them together. ;D Well it looks like the Foothills got shafted by the Glorious Peoples Demoncratic Party and they aint getting no money out of this latest congress. But to keep the Demoncratics happy they wouldn't get any money from the Imperialist Republican Party either. One would think that Rep. Shift was going to deliver the check for the funding first hand to the Gold-line Construction Authority. Hey I have to admit I was expecting funding out of this congress for the Foothills. But now we're going to have to wáit....But for how long? Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 20, 2007 19:59:21 GMT -8
I thought many of the cities are paying for most of the Gold line. Remember that "ground breaking" ceremony? Whatever happened to that???
|
|
snuffy
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by snuffy on Feb 18, 2008 23:30:25 GMT -8
www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_8292170Losing its glitter Gold Line extension now uncertain By Fred Ortega, Staff Writer Article Launched: 02/17/2008 09:57:24 PM PST Staff Photo by Walt Mancini • Link: More on the setback Metro's snub of the Gold Line extension last month is the latest example of the San Gabriel Valley's apparent dearth of political clout in the region - and one that could cost the area tens of millions of dollars in new developments. More than $2 billion has already been spent on building and planning projects surrounding the extension's proposed stations. But the Metro Board of Directors decided in January to keep the estimated $1.4 billion project off a critical funding list, at the least delaying the 24-mile rail extension from Pasadena to Claremont. It is no surprise that the Valley has so far been unsuccessful in getting even the $8 million operating commitment from Metro, said Douglas Johnson, a fellow with the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College. "On all levels, federal, state and county," Los Angeles and the Westside have the advantage, said Johnson. "The perfect example is the Gold Line, which has been talked about for years with no progress, while the Westside Subway (to the Sea) has been resuscitated in recent months. The contrast is just telling." Metro's decision prompted an Azusa official to say he was worried that further delays could jeopardize some major projects along the Gold Line corridor. "We are very concerned," said City Manager Fran Delach. Developers are spending between $120 and $150 million in transit-oriented projects around one of Azusa's proposed Gold Line stations. Construction has already begun on the Azusa Village Center, also known as Block 36, a 66-condominium development with 32,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space going up within a block of the proposed Alameda station. But another nearby mixed-use development, Downtown North, is still in the planning phases. Further delays to the Gold Line - or outright cancellation of the project - could spell disaster for such projects, according to Delach. "It puts a major portion (of these projects) up in the air with respect to economic viability," said Delach, who added there is about $40 to $50 million in development near his city's other planned station, on Citrus Avenue, as part of the massive Rosedale housing development. Despite Metro's decision, Delach said his city is proceeding as planned in the hopes that the project will eventually be built. "We are obviously concerned that the projects will suffer (from the delays), but we are going to continue because it is obvious the Gold Line is drastically needed along the 210 corridor," Delach said, adding that the Metrolink line along the 10 Freeway corridor has been extremely successful and should be replicated in the north Valley. "Frankly I don't understand what is wrong with the MTA," he said. Officials in Monrovia and Glendora, which also have development planned around their respective stations, vowed to push forward with their projects. "We in the city believe that the Gold Line will eventually come through," said Glendora Planning Manager Dianne Walter, who said two transit-oriented developments alongside the city's proposed station near Glendora Avenue are "moving forward rapidly." Among them is an 87-unit condo complex with ground floor retail space next to the station, which has already been approved, and another mixed-use development across the street, where Walter said grading will begin shortly. "We have designed our whole central area including our village and town center mixed-use district around our future station, so it is our hope and expectation that (the Gold Line will be built)," she said. Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond was also optimistic that "ultimately the Gold Line will come true." And it better, because there are plans for an 80-acre revamp of the South Myrtle Avenue area around the station including homes, commercial and office buildings that has an estimated cost of $750 million to $1 billion. "It is our fervent hope that the MTA sees the value of the people of the San Gabriel Valley," Hammond said. "We have been left out of so much compared to Los Angeles and we are due some help. We can't be quiet forever." Local cities have been trying to get the Metro Board to put the project on its funding list - known as the long-range plan - since at least 2006. The move is necessary because by doing so, Metro would at least guarantee funding to operate the line - a requirement for the project to qualify for up to $320 million in federal funds. Metro - or another state or local agency - would still need to come up with $80 million in matching funds to complete the estimated $400 million, first leg of the extension through Azusa. Johnson said the lack of political clout has less to do with local legislators than with the way area districts are structured. "Part of it is how the population is divided by districts, where the San Gabriel Valley is carved up with many legislators having arms and legs (of their districts) extending into the Valley," he said. "Toward the west legislators have more centralized districts and are more focused on their areas." In addition the L.A. region has a singular, powerful mayor who can marshal resources more effectively. "The San Gabriel Valley is made up of so many cities there is no one powerful mayor speaking for the whole region, and that hurts them as well," Johnson said. And that lack of cohesion, if translated into lack of progress on the Gold Line, could have dire consequences, said Richard Willson, chairman of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at Cal Poly Pomona. Willson said many of the cities along the Gold Line corridor have planned their development based on the assumption that the rail line would be built. So if the project is axed at this point, vehicle traffic will be far worse than if the plans had been developed without the Gold Line in mind. "You would have more automobile trips, more traffic," said Willson, adding that alternatives to the Gold Line could be developed, including rapid transit buses. "But these developments as planned are not in the right place for that," he added. "They are on the rail right-of-way, instead of on main thoroughfares." fred.ortega@sgvn.com (626) 962-8811, Ext. 2306
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 25, 2008 2:08:17 GMT -8
The MTA seriously needs to get their act together. I'm glad to see that the wording of the Foothill Extension in the Draft LRTP has changed from "Gold Line SGV Extension to Duarte" to "Gold Line SGV Extension to Azusa" which makes it eligible for that 320 million if it comes through. I forget where I saw this but I will try to find it. Anyway, the other 80 million (thats chump change for Expo) could come from Prop whatever that they used to build the $50 mil Culver City Station. Think about it, for 30 million more than we spent to grade separate two intersections we could have 11 more miles of rail. Spending 1.4 billion for the whole thing doesn't make sense to a lot of people who put this line down but in reality all we are doing is spending 80 mil. It's not like its money being diverted away from the Purple Line, which still has no semblance of a funding plan. This thing is on the radar and can be built fast. It's effectiveness ends at Azusa. From Azusa you can run DMU to Montclair.
Also there is a lot of TOD development around these stations and for all you anti-suburbanists out there, these cities are making a conscious effort to reduce vehicle traffic along the 210 by keeping it in their cities and shoehorning it into big parking structures. They are doing it like DC does with a subway but with speedy LRT. It sounds crazy, but I see the Foothill line far exceeding the projected ridership because you have two destinations for commuters from Azusa: downtown LA and Pasadena. The new TODs also provide destinations which will keep weekend and evening ridership healthy. The Gold Line will then have a lot of overlapping traffic that will raise its overall ridership more than just 7,000 as the feds project. Part of the reason the SMV parking lot is largely empty is because traffic is so bad on the 210 that driving from Azusa to East Pasadena to catch a line to work is not worth it even if you wanted to. The foothill ROW is unique in that it largely replicates a freeway without actually running in the median (except for the part where it already does. There will be no new stations in the 210 Median) but has station stops in the centers of the communities that the freeway draws its traffic from. I really hope this gets built ASAP
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 25, 2008 7:11:18 GMT -8
Inasmuch as we all want all sorts of rail lines built, a more immediate focus on a short-term light rail network, an east-west Ocean To Inland Rail plan that includes Expo, Foothill Gold and Downtown Connector is one that is both politically and economically smart.
I also think a north-south light rail network that includes a Green Line/LAX/Crenshaw Line combination also makes sense.
I favor the Foothill Gold Line extension to Azusa bigtime, and hope that Prop. 1B funds and other local, state and federal funds can be used to create this local match.
Where I disagree with any politician is a favoring of any one project over the Downtown Connector, which should get lots of private funding from Downtown developers ASAP as a requirement to develop and lots of local, state and federal support. Anyone that lionizes the Expo Line west of Venice/Robertson, the Gold Line east of its current terminus, or even the Wilshire Subway over the Downtown Connector should be shouted down and brought to bear.
The Foothill Gold Line got a huge political black eye because of lower-than-anticipated ridership for a variety of reasons, but its failure to link to the Blue Line was its biggest shortcoming. The Expo and Eastside Light Rail Lines are on their way to having similar problems in 2009/10, while the few of us who even know what the Downtown Connector is must stand idly by while Westside, SGV and other politicians focus on other projects.
Yes, the Downtown Connector will get some lip service, but will it get the "big project that needs to be built before the Wilshire Subway" treatment it deserves? So far, it's just an afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 25, 2008 8:35:18 GMT -8
Yes, the Downtown Connector will get some lip service, but will it get the "big project that needs to be built before the Wilshire Subway" treatment it deserves? So far, it's just an afterthought. These are the 3 biggest reasons on top of the cost-effectiveness factor: 1)Better turnback operations for Blue/Expo Lines for improved on time performance. Improved on-time performance reduces operation costs on a very cost-effective LRT lines. 2) Increases reserve capacity on the existing Red/Purple Subway for future extensions such as the Purple Line to Westwood [/size]or Red Line into Van Nuys or Sun Valley. This is important if we're trying to build an extensive transit network. 3)Reduces trip times for many riders THROUGHOUT the region in the same vain of the subway because of better trip connections. This is really relevant at night when those extra transfers adds upwards of 45 minutes of travel time a time where transit agencies should be convincing new riders to use a time competative and less stressed way to get where they need to go. 4) Improving ridership on some rinky-dinky Foothill Gold Line extension to Azusa because of the direct trip into Downtown.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 25, 2008 15:14:28 GMT -8
Well, those are four reasons, Jerard, but I agree with them! )
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 25, 2008 15:38:54 GMT -8
Well there's more than that but I wanted to stick to the three that directly effected the Subway to the Sea.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Mar 19, 2008 21:27:19 GMT -8
Okay, is it just me, or am I the only one deeply disappointed about this ?? METRO LEAVES OUT THE FOOTHILL GOLDLINE EXTENSION ON LIST OF PRIORITIES IN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS : This is a project with federal funds status AND near unanimous community support. It has the potential to spur billions of dollars in investment... especially with a recession going on .... we need all the investment we can get. Yet Metro doesn't think the measly $80 million price tag and operating expense is worthy I will write a letter to Metro Board first thing in the morning !!! Whitman Lam ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Linda Manning, LManning@foothillextension.org Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:58:32 -0700 CALL TO ACTION: SEND MESSAGE TO METRO - - INCLUDE THE FOOTHILL EXTENSION IN YOUR PLANS! As you may know, Metro’s Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) was released yesterday. As anticipated, the Foothill Extension project remains in the list of Strategic Projects (“if additional funding becomes available”) and not in the Constrained Plan (budgeted). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has mandated that, in order to receive federal funding, the Foothill Extension must be included in this 30-year regional plan. The amount requested for our project is $80 million towards the construction of Phase 2A through Azusa , (just over one-half of one percent of the plan’s total rail allocation), and $8 million per year for operations. Two Critical Ways to Help Reshape the Plan to Include the Foothill Extension: 1. Write/email a letter in response to the LRTP. A copy of the Draft LRTP can be accessed through the Metro website at www.metro.net/longrangeplan. On page 26 of the plan you will find the list of constrained and strategic rail projects. The deadline for emails and letters is April 25, 2008 (postmarked). Attached are key talking points that you may wish to consider and include in your letter, but please be sure to include personal perspectives and experience in your comments. * Send emails to: metroplan@metro.net Or mail letters to: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Countywide Planning & Development Attn: Robert Cálix, Transportation Program Manager One Gateway Plaza , MS : 99-23-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 * We appreciate receiving copies of your correspondence. If you wish, you may send copies to: lmanning@foothillextension.org, or mail to Document Control, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, 406 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 202 , Monrovia , CA 91016 . 2. Attend the Public Hearing meeting for San Gabriel Valley : A San Gabriel Valley public meeting will be held on Tuesday evening, April 8, 2008, 6:00 PM at Potrero Heights Elementary School , 8026 East Hill Drive , Rosemead 91770 . See attached flyer for more information. This meeting will address all San Gabriel Valley components of the Long Range Transportation Plan, and provide a formal public comment period. All comments will be included as part of the Final LRTP document. We need to convey a clear message to Metro Staff and Board of Directors that the time is right, the project is ready, and the opportunity to extend light rail into the San Gabriel Valley with immediate federal support cannot be passed by. If you did not receive our February newsletter, you may want to view or download it from our website at www.foothillextension.org. It contains recent news about our status and funding strategies. We welcome your questions, and thank you in advance, for your support to challenge the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan to include immediate construction of Phase 2A of the Foothill Extension. Additional information will be forwarded as it becomes available. Thank you for your support. The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Questions: Please call 626-305-7026 Key Talking Points for Letter of Support for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension: • In terms of readiness (environmental clearance, level of engineering and design, municipal / public review and support), the Foothill Extension is ahead of all regional light rail projects under consideration for funding in Los Angeles County. • In terms of population and employment, the San Gabriel Valley is the fastest growing region in Los Angeles County. • The San Gabriel Valley is the only sector of Los Angeles County without a mass transit alternative. • $28 million has already been invested toward the implementation of this project. None of these funds were allocated through METRO funding. • Over $2 billion dollars of public and private investment has already been committed to Transit Oriented Developments throughout the Foothill Extension corridor. • A total economic development benefit of $43.5 billion is projected over the period from 2008 to 2030 in the form of private investment, household spending, and increased property taxes. • The Construction Authority’s capital request of $80 million dollars, which can leverage $320 million in federal support to complete Phase 2(A), is just over one-half of one percent of the total County Rail and Transitway Capital budget in the current Long Range Transportation Plan.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 20, 2008 22:05:24 GMT -8
Huh?
Bus service is not a mass transit alternative?
Busways is not a fixed guideway alternative?
Metrolink is not a rail transit alternative?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 18, 2008 7:40:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 18, 2008 8:07:10 GMT -8
I think it's in response to political pressure, and if the SGV wants to turn down this major step forward--and an olive branch--from Metro, then it will both deserve and get NOTHING.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 18, 2008 8:22:03 GMT -8
The SGV's politicized stance will (most likely) delay this bill, dooming a nearly impossible vote and cause all of LA county to suffer - including the SGV. I no longer support the Gold Line foothill extension. It is golden no more.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 18, 2008 9:03:49 GMT -8
The SGV's politicized stance will (most likely) delay this bill, dooming a nearly impossible vote and cause all of LA county to suffer - including the SGV. I no longer support the Gold Line foothill extension. It is golden no more. such a hasty opinion for a fault that the region has not even decided on
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 18, 2008 12:21:05 GMT -8
It's my opinion, but I don't see much hope now for AB 2321 to even get on the ballet now, let alone getting 2/3 majority vote. Hopefully I am wrong. We need a double miracle.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 18, 2008 15:53:13 GMT -8
It's my opinion, but I don't see much hope now for AB 2321 to even get on the ballet now, let alone getting 2/3 majority vote. Hopefully I am wrong. We need a double miracle. I'm infuriated too by the process and specifically by the SGV state senators, but as much as I hate it, this is part of our imperfect process. I wouldn't get too down about this. Mike Feuer, who is the driving force behind this, is still positive towards this getting on the ballot. I think it will make the ballot as I can't imagine the SGV senators blowing this whole thing up as they have just as much to lose now. By not letting people vote on it, it can only hurt them. Getting the 2/3 in Nov. will be the tough part, especially if the sales tax is already going to go up from the state budget crisis.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 18, 2008 16:44:31 GMT -8
Hang in there, everyone! We can always write the SGV Tribune, the Times and our political leadership. Do not EVER question what the grassroots can do.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Jul 22, 2008 0:29:22 GMT -8
I think it'll get on the ballot. 2/3rds is the big problem. I hope the state doesn't put a new sales tax up statewide because that'll really kill things.
A local city sales tax measure can pass, but a big statewide thing will attract tons of press and a huge anti-sales tax initiative that will drive down the local vote as well. Two thirds votes ... such a bad bad system.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 22, 2008 19:57:15 GMT -8
I'm feeling optimistic about Thursday's Metro Board meeting to put this on the County ballot.
Here's last week's draft Expenditure Plan. There's been a lot of high-level negotiation toward each subregion feeling it will get its fair share.
New Rail and/or Bus Rapid Transit Capital Projects - project definition depends on final environmental review process -- 35% -- $13,790M over 30 years
New Project Operations and Maintenance -- 5% -- $1,970M
Commuter Rail Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion -- 3% -- $1,182M
Metro Rail Capital - [Existing] System Improvements, Rail Yards, and Rail Cars -- 2% -- $788M
Countywide Bus Service Operations, Maintenance, and Expansion (includes $150M for Metro and Municipal Regional Clean Fuel Bus Capital Facilities and Rolling Stock) -- 20% -- $7,880M
Carpool Lanes, Highways, Goods Movement, Grade Separations, and Soundwalls -- 20% -- $7,880M
Local Return to the Incorporated Cities within Los Angeles County and to Los Angeles County for the Unincorporated Area of the County on a Per Capita Basis (Flexible use for transit; major street resurfacing, rehabilitation and reconstruction; pothole repair; left turn signals; bikeways; pedestrian improvements; streetscapes; and signal synchronization.) -- 15% -- $5,910M
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 23, 2008 12:28:28 GMT -8
According to the Bottleneck Blog, the plan is to have some of the tax money go toward funding this extension to Azusa. But from a post today, it seems that SGV officials still are not pleased. Do they still want the funding so that the line can go all the way to Montclair and are unwilling to compromise, or is there (hopefully) more to this?
|
|
|
Post by jeffe77 on Dec 3, 2008 14:21:01 GMT -8
www.masstransitmag.com/online/printer.jsp?id=7512Two Routes Identified for Rail Line Extension to Ontario AirportPosted: December 3rd, 2008 10:04 AM EDT Liset Marquez San Bernardino County Sun (California) ONTARIO - A study has identified two feasible routes for extending the Metro Gold Line light rail system from Montclair to L.A./Ontario International Airport. After 10 months - and narrowing down the options from 13 possibilities - the two best routes have been identified, said Jerry Sims, project manager for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. One route would travel east from Montclair along the Pacific Electric Trail before heading south along the Cucamonga Creek Channel to the airport. The second route would be constructed on a new track alongside the Metrolink track and south along the Cucamonga Creek Channel to the airport. The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension board of directors will host open houses tonight in Upland and Thursday in Rancho Cucamonga to give residents a chance to learn more about the routes, Sims said. "We're seeing throughout the nation the extension of light rails to regional airports," said Mike Bair, director of transit and rail programs for San Bernardino Associated Governments. "If we can get to Montclair - and that's a big if - it's not a far stretch to go the airport." Depending on the route selected, the extension would cost $300 million to $400 million. The route would take passengers from Montclair to the airport in 15 minutes. The extension to the airport would add 14,000 new riders on the Gold Line per day, Sims said. There are now 24,000 riders daily taking the Gold Line, which ends in Pasadena. By the time the line is extended to the airport, Sims said it will carry 60,000 to 70,000 riders a day. "It's going to be an important line and it will touch the airport," Sims said. The open house will give residents an opportunity to learn more about proposed stations in Montclair, Upland, Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga as well. A committee, comprising all the cities involved, as well as Sanbag and the Southern California Association of Governments, was set up to ensure everyone's concerns about the proposed routes were heard, Bair said. Because the project is in its early stages, Sims said a completion date has yet to be determined. The study was the first step in a process required for the project to qualify for federal funding, he said. The next phase is to conduct an alternative analysis as well as an environment assessment. Funding sources for those studies have yet to be identified, Bair said. The route running along the Metrolink tracks would be the most economical option, with a price tag of $300 million, Sims said. The Pacific Electric Trail is a little longer than the other route and would cost about $400 million. Because of its proximity to the existing trail, a barrier would be constructed to separate the two, he said.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 3, 2008 15:25:23 GMT -8
those are the two options? if im reading the PE track right then its only about .25 mile between the two options before they become the same option
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Dec 3, 2008 16:28:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 3, 2008 17:44:26 GMT -8
One of the apparently rejected routes included the Euclid Ave. median between Upland and Ontario. Back in the 1890's this route was famous for the mule-car line which (because of its gentle downhill slope) had the mules pulling the car uphill and getting a "free ride" downhill on a small trailer car. Getting back to this century, somewhere along the way, the Gold Line will have to cross the Metrolink San Bernardino line. This could make a case for the northern option, because it would give room to build the approach ramps for an overpass, since I suspect an at-grade crossing would not be approved by the PUC. The southern option would seem to call for a "flyover" similar to the structure east of the El Monte station on the Metrolink line. Then the question is: where can it be located with the least amount of objection from adjoining property owners?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 4, 2008 10:29:21 GMT -8
( enlarge map; PDF map source) An email from the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority listed these target dates for the Gold Line Phase 2A (Pasadena to Azusa): - November 2009 - Commencement of the design / build procurement process for both the Santa Anita Aerial Structure and the Foothill Extension Phase 2A Alignment.
- August 2010 - Groundbreaking for Santa Anita Aerial Structure
- February 2011 - Groundbreaking for Foothill Extension Phase 2A
- December 2013 - Phase 2A Revenue Service
Is Santa Anita the only grade separation? Completion before the end of 2013 appears aggressive unless it really is almost all track at grade. And what about time to build a new maintenance yard?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 4, 2008 11:56:19 GMT -8
at one point i found all the engineering drawings for the phase 2 of the gold line extension. there were, as i recall, very few grade separations. i think most of them were due to rail bridges already being in place.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 4, 2008 13:30:37 GMT -8
The only other NEW grade separation would be in Azusa, where the line would flyover the BNSF single track that is being preserved for minimal freight operations. This would be about a 1/2 or 1/2 mile before the Downtown Azusa station just past Alameda. Like jejozwik said, the rest would be in place, except for the I-210 overcrossing which would need to be rebuilt, but the supports are intact just the actual flyover is gone.
|
|