Progress???

[LAofAnaheim]

Apr 28, 2009 22:17:01 GMT -8 masonite said:

The Gold Line is already the black sheep of our rail lines.

That perception is going to change when the Eastside extension opens this summer.

[crzwdjk]

Apr 28, 2009 22:17:01 GMT -8 masonite said:

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.

The 210 is quite congested in Pasadena, and I don't think that's just because of a local bottleneck, as Pasadena is definitely a regional job center. And the 210 is a wider and more congested freeway than the 110, and doesn't have the geographically constrained corridor of the original Gold Line. Plus, if you haven't notice, Gold Line ridership has increased significantly since they sped it up, it's at 24,293 for March 2009, compared to the Orange Line's 22,334. I think the fast average speed and congested freeway will make for a fairly attractive service, at least between Pasadena and Azusa, and of course there's the operational benefit of the maintenance facility in Irwindale. Beyond Citrus Ave, the corridor becomes significantly less attractive and more duplicative of Metrolink.

[masonite]

Apr 29, 2009 14:35:25 GMT -8 crzwdjk said:

Apr 28, 2009 22:17:01 GMT -8 masonite said:

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.

The 210 is quite congested in Pasadena, and I don't think that's just because of a local bottleneck, as Pasadena is definitely a regional job center. And the 210 is a wider and more congested freeway than the 110, and doesn't have the geographically constrained corridor of the original Gold Line. Plus, if you haven't notice, Gold Line ridership has increased significantly since they sped it up, it's at 24,293 for March 2009, compared to the Orange Line's 22,334. I think the fast average speed and congested freeway will make for a fairly attractive service, at least between Pasadena and Azusa, and of course there's the operational benefit of the maintenance facility in Irwindale. Beyond Citrus Ave, the corridor becomes significantly less attractive and more duplicative of Metrolink.

Good points. I still say 24k is pretty disappointing when compared with our other rail lines as even the Green Line is pushing 40k now, but it is moving in the right direction and I know there will be some more TOD coming on line that may help this get a little higher. I'd still like to see more cars using the far eastern Gold Line station and then riding in to feel better about future extensions east. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't feel like this is a busy station (certainly it is no North Hollywood).

I know the 210 gets backed up now, but it is still a question as to where all those cars disperse to. Quite a few continue on to Burbank and Glendale and even beyond. Others may end up in Pasadena or Monrovia, but not necessarily near the Gold Line tracks and I don't see a lot of these people connecting to a bus.

As far as the Gold Line perception changing with the Eastside extension, I don't really feel like the Linea de Oro is the same line as the Gold Line and I doubt it will even be officially considered to be the same line once the DTC is up. Nevertheless, it is quite exciting to have a new line starting service in a few months. It has been far too long and hopefully we don't have to wait 6 years between lines for many decades to come.

[bobdavis]

Get ready for the "Brain Train". This morning "iwillride.org" had a rally at Citrus College (on the Azusa-Glendora boundary, urging support for prompt funding of the Foothill Extension, which will connect several colleges in the San Gabriel Valley. Even the Citrus Owl was there, urging the crowd to "give a hoot" for better transportation.

[masonite]

I wasn't all that in favor of the Gold Line Foothill extension, but at this point with it largely ready to be built, I say why not just allocate the funds that will be gathering dust at the MTA's HQ for this project. Now is the time to build, before the economy and especially inflation come back in full force.

[bobdavis]

Today's Pasadena Star-News had a front-page article about Metro approving $10 from Measure "R" funds to start the Foothill Extension project (the original amount was about $127K). Not sure if all the input from I Will Ride.org and several SGV municipal representatives helped with the decision, and this will just get the work moving, but it's still positive news and puts us one step closer to restoring the electric railway service we lost in 1951. (full disclosure: I was part of the I Will Ride contingent, and took the opportunity to speak during the "public comment" period--"This project is 'shovel-ready'--let's dig it!!"

[Transit Coalition]

May 29, 2009 12:49:46 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

Today's Pasadena Star-News had a front-page article about Metro approving $10 million from Measure "R" funds to start the Foothill Extension project (the original amount was about $127K). Not sure if all the input from I Will Ride.org and several SGV municipal representatives helped with the decision, and this will just get the work moving, but it's still positive news and puts us one step closer to restoring the electric railway service we lost in 1951. (full disclosure: I was part of the I Will Ride contingent, and took the opportunity to speak during the "public comment" period--"This project is 'shovel-ready'--let's dig it!!"

All that really counts is when the Foothill Gold Line gets put into the Long Range Plan. The $10 million was just symbolic and really has no actual meaning. Since the Gold Line is funded and has a completion date in the Measure R language, supporter continue to attempt for "More, better and different", but the Free for All will be controlled by the Measure R law, which is a lot different than the Pot Grabbing that happened in the 1980's and 1990's, where all the rail ran short of funding and the projects were mothballed.

All I can say is: be patient. The Metro CEO knows that this is a shovel ready, job rich project and it will move forward in the next six months.

[kenalpern]

Bart is absolutely correct, and despite the political and SGV Tribune saber-rattling, everyone with a sense of which way is up in the transit world will get this project going sooner and not later.

[losangeles2319]

Metro is holding a community open house for Duarte residents to tell them about Metro rail maintenance yards and what goes into maintaining a rail system.

www.metro.net/news_info/press/Metro_110.htm

but would they care if any-old-body decided to go
like, non-Duarte residents?

[spokker]

Come on, don't be that guy that infiltrates the community meeting so you can see the trains.

[losangeles2319]

So I'm taking that as a no then
lol
Darn
Thanks for your help

[spokker]

It was just a joke. Go infiltrate that meeting James Bond style.

[Jason Saunders]

They actually like it when people show up to the meetings. It takes a bit of work to put a meeting together including presentation, materials and handouts. If the meeting is under attended it's a bit of a drag for staff. All that work and no one to appreciate it.

Further, Metro Rail is a COUNTY wide system. If you have an interest in going you should go. Your an interested party who lives elsewhere within the county. Nothing wrong with that.

Lastly, information learned from meetings regarding a Gold Line train yard may be beneficial in regards to Expo train yard or potential future Orange Line train yard. Information is information. If you want access to it, go get it and please share what ever interesting tidbit you get with us. I really enjoy reading what info gets passed along.

[spokker]

I would go and 'sperg out over the maintenance facility.

[Philip]

New article on the Foothill Extension from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_13263478

Inland Valley cities anticipate extension of Gold Line light rail to area

Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino, Staff Writer
Created: 09/03/2009 03:43:25 PM PDT

Area cities have jumped on the Gold Line bandwagon, but the light-rail train is not likely to pull into Inland Valley stations any time soon - 2017, at best.
"Maybe we'll be dead by then," said Richard Taskesen of La Verne, who drives to Pasadena daily and catches the Gold Line to downtown Los Angeles.

The cities have been planning their land use around the arrival of the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line even though the first segment of the project is yet to be included in the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Long Range Transportation Plan.

"It's become a political football," said Steve Lustro, director of community development for Montclair. "We don't have influence that other cities and counties have."

Metro Gold Line, a 13-mile light-rail line that connects downtown Los Angeles with Pasadena, opened in 2003.

The Foothill Extension would go 24 miles farther east following the old Santa Fe railroad route.

Some of the stations will be in Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair.

A further extension to L.A./Ontario International Airport is also in the works.

Freight and Metrolink lines east of Pomona would travel along the same right of way as the light rail but will not share the same tracks.

The light rail would offer increased energy savings - an estimated 1.5 million gallons of gasoline each year - and reduce levels of pollution.

It would run every 15 to 20 minutes, providing Inland Valley residents with more transit options to the west.

"If you have Gold Line, on weekends you could go to Old Pasadena for dinner," Lustro said. "It would be convenient and nice. The traffic on the 210 (Freeway) is not going to get any better."

The first segment of the extension project, reaching Azusa, is set to open in 2013, funded with $735million in Measure R money, said Habib Balian, chief executive officer of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority.

Measure R was approved by Los Angeles County voters in November. It increases the sales tax to pay for a projected $40billion for traffic relief and transportation upgrades throughout the county over the next 30 years.

The light rail at the earliest might pull into the Montclair station in 2017, at a cost of an additional $465million.

Because of its current access to Metrolink and the future arrival of light rail, Montclair has changed land-use designation for 150 acres just north of Montclair Plaza. The North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan envisions higher density of residential development near shops and restaurants.

"The idea is to try to create a downtown feel," Lustro said. "We don't have a true downtown. It would be an attractive place to live with an urban-environment feel. I'm optimistic that it will eventually get done. We continue to plan around that expectation."

La Verne and Ontario have been also planning for the Gold Line.

Ontario has identified a mixed-use parcel of land on the north side of the airport near Archibald Avenue as able to accommodate a Gold Line station, said Tom Danna, traffic and transportation manager for the city.

La Verne designated an area near First and E streets for mixed-use development and higher-density housing.

"Our community has been anticipating the Gold Line for some time," said Hal Fredericksen, director of community development.

"It's been a frustrating experience. The west side of the L.A. Basin has received a lion's share of benefits. This line is needed and anticipated, and it's ready to be built today. Environmental study and right of way are already in place - it would go with existing railway. That's not the case with other rail projects."

Ellen Taylor, a former mayor of Claremont, echoed Fredericksen's sentiment.

"We've been working on it for years," Taylor said. "We have invested $60million in infrastructure when we developed the Village Expansion. We are not reinventing the wheel. We are trying to do something that works."

The real problem is in the politics, Taylor said.

The Metro board is heavily weighed toward west Los Angeles County and is pushing for developing the subway-to-the-sea project, an extension of the subway from Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue in Los Angeles to Santa Monica.

"We have two million people but have not gotten two million people worth of projects," Taylor said. "They think (people here) don't matter or need subway. Our regional transportation solutions have been neglected."

Metro is committed to providing funding for the Foothill Extension, even though the recession is impacting sales tax from which Measure R derives its funding, said Carol Inge, Metro chief planning officer.

Metro's board members are expected to vote to add the Foothill Extension to the agency's long-range plan in October.

"In terms of final completion, Measure R shows Foothill Extension to Azusa being finished before the subway to Westwood is completed," Inge said.

Acting on a motion by Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, Metro board members have already allocated $10million for the Foothill Extension.

"It sends a message that Foothill Extension is real, that it's going to get built under Measure R," said Michael Cano, transportation deputy for Antonovich.

"The board is going to have to make it a priority for the first time. The border between the counties is fictional for drivers. San Gabriel Valley is at the crossroads. We need to get this (light rail) to San Bernardino County to (Ontario International)."

Initially, the Foothill Extension was supposed to reach a dead end at the county line in Claremont. But the potential of connecting the Ontario airport with foothill communities prompted San Bernardino County to join in.

The county will foot the bill for the three-mile stretch to Montclair and eventually to the airport using money from its own transportation/sales-tax generator, Measure I, among other funds.

"We are waiting on LA Metro for Gold Line to get moving," said Victoria Baker, senior transit analyst at San Bernardino Associated Governments. "We can't even contemplate what will happen in San Bernardino County until it (the Gold Line) gets here."

Although the environmental-impact study was completed, the second phase of Foothill Extension has yet to be developed.

"You never want to get those plans developed too far ahead of funding because projects can change and plans will be criticized," Balian said.

"It takes 20 to 25 years from the time people think it's a good idea to the time when the construction begins. For the Los Angeles-to-Pasadena leg of the Gold Line - it was discussed in the '80s and didn't open until 2003. Be patient."

[e-mail]
[phone]

[numble]

www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_13295519?source=rss

Looks like there are NIMBYs on the Foothill extension...

Monrovia looks to get rail yard
By Nathan McIntire, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/08/2009 08:23:27 PM PDT

MONROVIA - Plans to put a Foothill Gold Line Extension rail yard in Irwindale near the Duarte border have met with opposition from residents who worry the yard would be too noisy and unsightly.

But a new proposal to put the maintenance yard in Monrovia could quell those concerns and speed up construction of the eastward expansion, Monrovia city officials said.

A site in Monrovia now slated to be part of the 80-acre Station Square mixed-use project could provide the solution, City Manager Scott Ochoa said.

"Metro has decreed the Gold Line cannot move forward until there is a rail yard along this alignment," Ochoa said. "We're looking at locating this site in Monrovia if it means the Gold Line will move forward expeditiously."

Duarte residents have sought to block a proposal to put the yard just east of the 605 Freeway on property owned by Mt. Olive Storage, saying it would be a blight to the community and decrease property values.

Henry Baltazar, who lives in the 500 block of Elkhorn Drive in Duarte, said his residents' group opposed the Irwindale site but welcomed Monrovia's idea.

"We're gung-ho," Baltazar said. "We hope Monrovia takes it, and we're more than happy to give it to them."

Over the next few months, Monrovia city staff will study whether city-owned property at the northeast corner of California Avenue and Duarte Road could work as the rail yard needed for the light-rail system planned to stretch from Pasadena to Claremont.

The 15-acre site, south of the 210 Freeway near Home Depot, is already in an industrial part of town. However, building the rail yard there would require the purchase of more property by the city to meet the MTA's goal of 20 to 25 acres of space, Ochoa said.

He was confident the city could do it.

"We've talked to every property owner on that block over the last 3 to 4 years" about buying their property, Ochoa said.

Duarte Mayor John Fasana said the Monrovia location would give easier access than its Irwindale counterpart because of its proximity to train tracks. But any decision about the site must wait for detailed environmental impact reports.

"We don't prefer a site," Fasana said. "We just want to make sure we don't lose the line because we haven't identified a site."

Construction on the rail yard at any location would likely start at the same time Gold Line construction begins, Ochoa said.

[e-mail]

[phone] ext. 4475

[James Fujita]

there are undoubtedly NIMBYs in SGV, just as there are NIMBYs everywhere.

but just look at what is happening in this case: NIMBY opposition is found, and they almost miraculously come up with a solution that seems to detour around the NIMBYs.

I'm looking at Google maps, and I see where the Monrovia site is. if it works, go for it.

whether you agree with the Foothill Gold or not, you have to give them credit.

[kenalpern]

I entirely concur with James, and I think this is one of the strongest arguments to get things moving on this line ASAP.

[metrocenter]

Sept 10, 2009 1:37:13 GMT -8 James Fujita said:

but just look at what is happening in this case: NIMBY opposition is found, and they almost miraculously come up with a solution that seems to detour around the NIMBYs.

I think a big part of that is the fact that land use is far less intensive in the SGV than in the Westside and other dense areas. Thus, there are more options for where to put things.

[masonite]

www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_13263478

Let me just say the whole we are a victim aspect of the article is a little annoying. No where does this discuss the Gold Line's anemic ridership or that of this proposed extension, and instead just plays the regional bias card.

Nevertheless, at this point, I'd be eager to see construction on the Foothill Gold Line start as soon as possible. I am not a big fan of this project, but its cost is low ($735M) and it is about ready to go for construction. Better to do it now, while costs are low. It is a Measure R item to Azuza at least and there aren't really any alternatives for this initial segment.

From what I know, there could be semi-decent ridership to Azuza (Citrus College). As far as the extension past Azuza I am against this. It seems almost pointless. Yes there is the argument of connecting to Ontario Airport, which is tiny and had to close one of its terminals I believe due to lack of patronage even if this connection is a worthy goal.

Why not just expand Metrolink for the points east of Azuza. I mean if it takes 50 minutes on Metrolink from Claremont to get to Downtown LA and 75 on the expanded Gold Line, there doesn't seem like much ridership there. I know the SGV answer is that people will take the Gold Line to Pasadena en masse, but that really can't be a big figure at all (if Pasadena were such a magnet wouldn't the current Gold Line be doing much better now?).

I suppose I could be convinced otherwise if this extension had big ridership, but that is very difficult to imagine when the current line is just above 20k per day in riders (about 1/8th of the similarly lengthed Red Line). We continue to ignore Metrolink as a resource when a lot of that infrastructure is already in place. Such a waste, but an even bigger one if we build light-rail where commuter rail can serve nearly as well

[bobdavis]

Metrolink and Gold Line serve two different purposes. Metrolink is might be called "expanded commuter service" with most trains running during rush hours, but some off-peak service. Gold Line and other light-rail operations run fairly frequent trains throughout the day, and maintain service until around midnight. There's a coterie of railfans on Trainorders.com that holds to the belief that the Santa Fe line between LA and Pasadena should have been Metrolink, presumably using the existing Santa Fe track until upgrades could be made. That's not what happened, and no amount of "they shoulda" comments will change the fact. I'll admit that I'm prejudiced--as an old-timer who remembers Pacific Electric and has a retirement hobby as an "amateur streetcar mechanic", "If it has wire above it, I'm gonna love it". Electric railways have the advantage of using diverse sources of power: hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, etc. I'm not sure about extending the Gold Line to Ontario Airport--by the time that's done, "jet juice" could be so expensive that only the rich will be able to fly, rather like it was 60 years ago. On the other hand, extending to Pomona or Claremont will make transfers to Metrolink possible. I don't think a stub-end Metrolink to Glendora is the answer; I haven't studied the timetable lately, but as I recall, there aren't that many sidings between Glendora and Claremont, making possible headways quit a bit longer than a double track light rail line. The San Diego Trolley, as built in 1981, had several miles of single track. Traffic grew to the point where more cars and double track were soon needed.

[Philip]

From the Pasadena Star-News:

www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13388742

Gold Line not a funding priority for regional transportation coalition

By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/21/2009 05:38:50 PM PDT

County transportation officials recommended two Los Angeles rail projects for federal funding Monday but left the Gold Line Foothill Extension off the list.

Metropolitan Transportation Agency officials made the announcement at a transportation conference devoted to highlighting the county's most important transit projects.

The conference, held by Mobility 21, a local transportation coalition, focused on 21 local projects that should be prioritized, including the Gold Line, carpool lanes on the 10 Freeway and grade separation projects related to the Alameda Corridor in the San Gabriel Valley.

But while officials touted the importance of finding federal funds for all 21 projects, they put their immediate focus on just two projects - the so-called "Subway to the Sea," a proposed extension of the Purple Line out to Santa Monica; and a "regional connector" project that would link several rail lines together through downtown Los Angeles.

"We need to use our local funds as a way to leverage federal money for these projects," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an MTA board member.

The MTA board on Thursday is scheduled to consider whether to make a request to federal officials to include the 21 projects in the federal government's New Starts transportation program, which funds public transit projects across the country.

The MTA board has been attempting to come to an agreement on its New Starts priorities for several months. While several board members have been pushing for the Subway to the Sea, county Supervisor Michael Antonovich has been pushing a plan to include the Gold Line.
That may be about to change. Representatives for Antonovich said Monday he would likely not continue to push for the inclusion of the Gold Line in the New Starts program.

"It may not have the consensus for New Starts that the other projects do," said Michael Cano, Antonovich's transportation deputy. "There are traditional enemies of the Gold Line that don't want to see it compete with the Subway to the Sea."

Cano said Antonovich views the regional connector project as a win for the San Gabriel Valley. The line would connect the Gold Line directly to several other lines, making it possible for riders to one day go directly from Pasadena to Long Beach, Santa Monica and Los Angeles International Airport.

"It would eliminate a 15, 20 minute wait between lines for San Gabriel Valley riders, because they won't have to stop at Union Station and switch to other lines," said Cano.

MTA officials have said the connector could cut the commute to Long Beach by as much as 21 minutes by eliminating the need for riders to switch rail lines twice.

It also could mean a one-seat trip from Pasadena to Culver City along the Exposition Line, which is slated to eventually extend to that western Los Angeles city.

Cano said Antonovich still plans to introduce a motion to direct MTA staff to look for other sources of federal money to complete the 24-mile Foothill Extension to Claremont. Currently, there are committed local funds to get the line only as far as the Azusa/Glendora border.

Antonovich may introduce that motion at Thursday's meeting, or wait until next month, when the MTA board discusses the agency's Long Range Transportation Plan once again.

The board has been attempting to make changes to the long-range plan for the last few months. The Gold Line still does not appear in the plan, even though it has committed funds from Measure R, the sales-tax hike voters passed last year to fund local transportation projects.

Local officials have maintained that the Gold Line should be in the front of the line for funding, since the project already has an established right-of-way for the route all the way to Claremont.

"It looks to us like the other projects are 10 years away from needing federal money," said Keith Hanks, an Azusa council member who chairs a local Gold Line board. "We don't believe the Gold Line should be precluded from any discussion of federal funding."

[kenalpern]

I really do mourn for the SGV voters and politicians who fought and still fight for that Gold Line extension, but the hard cold reality is that the Downtown Connector is the most immediate need to beef up the Pasadena Gold Line to spruce up ridership and operations.

I'm not going to proclaim that the SGV should pay the price for not having the DTC done before pushing to Azusa--that's just not accurate or fair. It is accurate and fair, however, to suggest that the existing ridership of the Pasadena Gold Line will be greatly enhanced by the DTC, thereby enhancing future support of the Foothill Gold Line.

The Downtown Connector is the logical extension of both the Eastside and Pasadena Gold Lines as well as the first phase of the Expo Line. Because the second phase of the Expo Line is NOT going to be funded with federal funds, there's no competition with that project with the Downtown Connector...but if there was competition I would still say that the DTC is a higher priority than Phase Two of Expo as well.

It is my sincere hope that state and county financial magic can reprioritize the Foothill Gold Line, and I don't want to (but probably should) suggest that the Foothill Gold Line be funded BEFORE the Crenshaw Line as a priority to be paid with Proposition R funds...but that's a conversation that must be enjoined because the Foothill Gold Line has a lot more questions answered for its project than the Crenshaw Line does.

[erict]

I like the idea of the Foothill extension and I know it will be built, I just don't see it's priority as higher than Expo II, the DTC, or even Crenshaw. I also did not like the SGV opposition and politicking when it came to Measure R. If they decide on BRT (and I sure hope not) for Crenshaw, then I would support the Foothill extension before Crenshaw as I view BRT as a sad alternative. Seattle just spent a fortune converting their bus tunnels to light rail. The San Fernando Valley is really who I feel bad for, but once again they did nothing to help the situation and got the Orange Crush. Anyway, it is all just my opinion

[rajacobs]

The long commute times endemic to living in the San Gabriel Valley beg for a solution. Allowing the termination of the Gold Line at Sierra Madre Villa station to continue for years to come offers little to those in LA struggling through I-210/Foothill Freeway stagnation.

I would argue in favor Proposition R funding of the Foothill Extension for the same reason as Expo II completion is so important: terrible freeway congestion and a line that will serve many. SGV supporters have worked hard to bring in the rail--it's sad to see it further delayed ...and I hope that Foothill Extension's supporters will lobby for the Proposition R funding to keep the project moving forward.

[kenalpern]

We need to remember that SGV taxpayers' taxes are helping to pay for our Wilshire Subway and Expo Line, and that therefore (in addition to the Downtown Connector) we need to figure out some bond or other mechanism to jumpstart this Azusa Foothill Gold Line extension sooner, and not later.

[masonite]

Sept 23, 2009 15:19:56 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

We need to remember that SGV taxpayers' taxes are helping to pay for our Wilshire Subway and Expo Line, and that therefore (in addition to the Downtown Connector) we need to figure out some bond or other mechanism to jumpstart this Azusa Foothill Gold Line extension sooner, and not later.

I don't think a bond is necessary. I believe the Foothill Gold Line is to start receiving money in the next fiscal year from Measure R. It just needs to be put in the LRTP and then start getting ready for construction as it has its environmental docs.

I'm not crazy about this line and I think a sparsely used rail line is worse than no rail at all. However, given that this is project is almost ready to start construction and it was part of Measure R, I'd say we should just build it now as it will only get more expensive. They can get it to Azuza and after that it will be difficult to get any funds to get it any farther.

[darrell]

Sept 23, 2009 15:00:37 GMT -8 rajacobs said:

I would argue in favor Proposition R funding of the Foothill Extension for the same reason as Expo II completion is so important: terrible freeway congestion and a line that will serve many. SGV supporters have worked hard to bring in the rail--it's sad to see it further delayed ...and I hope that Foothill Extension's supporters will lobby for the Proposiion R funding to get their project off "hold."

Measure R does fund $735M for the Foothill extension, beginning FY 2010-12, to open FY 2015-17. The debate is about funding its operations if it opens sooner and about extending it beyond Azusa to Claremont.

[kenalpern]

Well, Darrell and masonite, that IS a debate because the first phase of the line, along with that rail yard, realizes its full potential when that Downtown Connector is built...and THAT won't happen until 2017. I'd like things put on hold for a Claremont Extension until we know more.

The SGV just MIGHT do better with Metrolink grade separations and increased operations east of Azusa.

[masonite]

Sept 23, 2009 18:53:51 GMT -8 kenalpern said:

Well, Darrell and masonite, that IS a debate because the first phase of the line, along with that rail yard, realizes its full potential when that Downtown Connector is built...and THAT won't happen until 2017. I'd like things put on hold for a Claremont Extension until we know more.

The SGV just MIGHT do better with Metrolink grade separations and increased operations east of Azusa.

For the record, I agree that past Azuza, I am in favor of better Metrolink service (i.e. more grade separations, more service, etc...), not an extended Gold Line. However, to Azuza, I say lets build it now, while it is as cheap as possible to do so. Besides past Azuza, there are no funds at this time.

As for other projects that I think are much better use of funds, but were not included in Measure R are the Vermont Subway, the Harbor Sub ROW, the Green Line Extension to Norwalk Metrolink/CAHSR, and of course Crenshaw from Expo to Wilshire. This assumes we get federal funds for the DTC and Purple and Pink Lines.

The real one that bothers me is the Green Line Norwalk extension. This is a project that has no champion and with HSR and 30 minute Metrolink service coming it is a huge hole in the system and major lost opportunity. This is especially true with the Green Line having plenty of capacity and being a destination line (assuming it connects directly with LAX), and also being a major connection with Orange County into the LA transportation system.