|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 24, 2009 5:53:44 GMT -8
Unfortunately, masonite, the lack of a political champion is what kills any project. There are no shortage of Westside and South Bay officials who favor the Green Line Extension to LAX and the South Bay Galleria (or both). However, both Southeast L.A. County and Orange County officials hold the Green Line Extension to Norwalk in very low esteem because:
1) There is little to no organized grassroots support
2) Politician and citizen efforts and interests are focused more on improving the I-5 and I-710 freeways
3) CAHSR is a greater focus
4) The cities of Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs have insisted that the project be under Imperial Highway--which the old EIR concluded would be the Locally Preferred Alternative--and they're afraid something else will happen
5) Most importantly, the links to LAX and the South Bay Galleria Mall (especially the former) won't occur for another 5-10 years, thereby taking away the focus from this gap
When the other projects, both freeway and rail, are either done or under way, greater attention will be focused on this gap. Look how long it took, and how hard it was, for TTC to reeeeeally get the powers that be to recognize the virtue of the Downtown Connector (which still gets dismissed by many suburban politicians that don't recognize how it affects their own constituents.
I predict that in another ten, maybe twenty years, this eastern Green Gap, as Friends of the Green Line called it, will start dominating the discussions of regional transportation planners in both L.A. County and Orange County...and even Riverside County.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 24, 2009 8:02:31 GMT -8
Unfortunately, masonite, the lack of a political champion is what kills any project. <snip> 1) There is little to no organized grassroots support <snip> I'm sure Ken, et all, would agree with me that Item one relates to his first sentence. No politician is going to push for a Green Line extension eastward unless you have citizens or popular opinion advocating for it. It kind of works that way for most political things from Israel to health care. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 24, 2009 13:15:16 GMT -8
Unfortunately, masonite, the lack of a political champion is what kills any project. <snip> 1) There is little to no organized grassroots support <snip> I'm sure Ken, et all, would agree with me that Item one relates to his first sentence. No politician is going to push for a Green Line extension eastward unless you have citizens or popular opinion advocating for it. It kind of works that way for most political things from Israel to health care. I agree with everything Ken and Saunders say. I just think it is unfortunate that no one will advocate for this as this is the major problem in the lack of regional coherent system here. However, this was once the case with the DTC so I am hopeful this will change someday. It is easy to see why there is no real champion for this as the people in Norwalk and SE LA County don't benefit much from it. They can just drive to the current Norwalk station and get on board. It is really people using HSR and Metrolink that will be the users, who will mostly be from OC. Hopefully, with HSR, there will be a new focus in on connections with the system and people will realize what an important one this is. I just hate waiting until it is completely obvious that a connection is badly needed. We did this with the current Green Line and LAX, we did it with the Regional Connector, we are doing it again with the Crenshaw Line and now here as well. The Green Line would be a very successful line if it connected to LAX and the Norwalk train station(s) with HSR and 30 minute Metrolink in place. I'd hazard a guess that this line could easily double in ridership with this arrangement. |
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Sept 24, 2009 13:50:49 GMT -8
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. Unfortunately for Norwalk, 30-minute service as it stands is from Fullerton to Irvine only, paid for by Measure M money -- I too had dreams about actually being able to have dinner at the Tam O'Shanter, walk to Glendale Metrolink and take the train back home to OC, but 'tis not to be at this time. I agree wholeheartedly with you that the Green Line has to got to continue, but the problem as I see it is that this is a one-city fight, and nobody in that city wants to be put up as the "guy who split Norwalk in half". Every time I go past the current station, which is basically IN the 105/605 intersection and not really walkable from anywhere, I wince. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 24, 2009 13:59:28 GMT -8
I am making the assumption that the 30 minute service can be brought up to Norwalk in the next 10 years. Measure R did include some money for Metrolink improvements and this would be a minor cost (one station into the county) for the benefit if this all could happen.
Also, from what I know, I believe the Norwalk extension may have to be brought in as subway to the train station(s) so I am not sure it would really split the city up although there would be construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 24, 2009 21:06:44 GMT -8
You are absolutely right, masonite--no split city in half. When the Friends of the Green Line, during its heyday (and which, in part, led to the second-tier projects of the Green Line to LAX and South Bay Galleria Mall) dealt with the Norwalk gap we learned that the subway option was only slightly more expensive and locally preferred compared to the elevated option.
Of course, that's years ago...and the OrangeLine MagLev beast that overcame the Green Line extension still lingers and poses a problem.
So we'll bide our time...sadly. Yet I've no question that this problem will be readdressed and resolved in our lifetime with the advent of other rail lines and a quality LAX connection and a CAHSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 24, 2009 21:08:01 GMT -8
What I meant, by the way, by the OrangeLine MagLev Beast referenced the political connections and political airtime that was the OrangeLine MagLev planned for the PE ROW between Downtown L.A. and Orange County.
That's going nowhere, of course, but right now we're stuck with a Southeast Cities that has (for now) put this Norwalk Green Line connection on the far back burner.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 30, 2009 2:53:24 GMT -8
www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13444149Gold Line officials seeking over $100 million in private financing Posted: 09/29/2009 11:33:44 AM PDT Gold Line authorities are looking for a contractor to put up $100 million to $150 million to expedite the start of construction on the first segment of its 24-mile extension to Claremont. The Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority, the agency responsible for building the line, has set the completion date for 2013, but lacks the funding to get the project done on that time line. To get the line going, the authority wants to commit to a firm that can afford to finance the project itself at first, and get paid back over time. The authority has a commitment of up to $875 million from Measure R funds, but will likely receive the allotments on an annual basis until 2019. The Metropolitan Transportation Agency, which is tasked with distributing the funds, has the completion date for the first phase of the Gold Line, to the Azusa/Glendora border, as 2017. The Foothill Extension authority drew a crowd of about 200, many representing engineering firms, on Tuesday at an event devoted to explaining the bidding process to get the job. The line's cost will be $320 million, and the authority will also be awarding a $30 million contract for bridgework. It is asking for an upfront commitment of $5 million from the contractor doing that project. The authority would pay back the $100 million to $150 million as it gets its allotment of Measure R funds. Interest on the loan would ultimately cost the authority $30 million, officials say.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Sept 30, 2009 2:56:29 GMT -8
www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_13447468Agency seeks deep-pockets contractor willing to fast-track Gold Line extension project By Dan Abendschein and Ryan Carter, Staff Writer Posted: 09/29/2009 04:54:25 PM PDT MONROVIA - Wanted: Private contractor willing to put up $100 million to $150 million to expedite construction of the first segment of the 24-mile Gold Line extension to Claremont. Nearly 200 people, many of them representing engineering firms, turned out Tuesday at a Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority event where officials explained how companies can bid for work related to the extension project. Authority officials had previously set a completion date of 2013 for the first phase of the rail line, but the agency lacks funding to ensure completion by that date. It is seeking to hire a contractor that can afford to finance the project up front, then receive reimbursement over time, officials announced. The downside would be that interest on the financing could ultimately cost the agency $30 million, Extension Authority CEO Habib Balian said. "But we think it's worth it, considering the price of labor and steel and other materials in this economy," said Balian. "We can save a lot of money and get the project going sooner." The authority has a commitment to receive up to $875 million from Measure R funds, but the money will likely trickle in as annual allotments through 2019. Thomas M. Wilson, a vice president at Pasadena-based Parsons Engineering, who attended the meeting, said it was ironic that the extension project is ready to go but does not have sufficient funding. Usually, he said, it's the other way around. Still, said Wilson, Parsons is interested in bidding on Gold Line projects. "We've been watching the project for years," he said. "They are really ready to go....We'd be interested in doing the engineering for the project." The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board has not yet reached an agreement about when each Measure R project will receive funding - that issue will be discussed at its October board meeting. An initial staff recommendation calls for the first phase of the Gold Line to be funded on a schedule that would push the completion date back to 2017. Ara Najarian,cq head of the MTA board, said he doesn't expect the Gold Line to be a top priority for the board for the next few years. "There are still officials at the MTA who want to kill the Gold Line project," said Najarian. "I've been working hard to quell that uprising." The largest single contract related to the extension project is pegged at $320 million and will involve most of the work on the rail line. Authority officials are hoping to find a contractor willing to commit $100 million to $150 million in financing toward that contract. The authority is also set to award a $30-million contract for bridge work. The agency is asking for an up-front commitment of $5 million from the contractor eventually selected to do that project. Officials hope to break ground on the first phase of the extension by June 2010. The first phase would extend the Gold Line from Pasadena to the Azusa/Glendora border. Gold Line officials also said Tuesday they anticipate receiving federal funding for the second phase of the line, which would take it to Claremont. Officials hope to complete that phase by 2017. dan.abendschein@sgvn.com (626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 30, 2009 5:16:23 GMT -8
While I bitterly disagree with any MTA officials that might want to kill the Gold Line project to Azusa, I think it's ridiculous to think that--given the low ridership of the Pasadena Gold Line--federal funding will be available to the second phase of the Gold Line project to Claremont.
Only after the first phase of the Gold Line to Azusa (complete with rail yard) and the Downtown Light Rail Connector are completed can there be an accurate projection of what the Gold Line from Downtown to Azusa can be.
I would love to see a flood of riders between Azusa and Pasadena make this project a highly successful one, but east of Azusa I'm not sure anyone can know (at this immediate time) if the money spent to extend the line to Claremont or Ontario Airport would be better spent on Metrolink upgrades and operations.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 30, 2009 21:07:12 GMT -8
Granted, this was a century ago, when the eastern San Gabriel Valley was mostly orange groves and farms, but as an historic note, the Pacific Electric line was double track as far as Azusa, and was single track the rest of the way to Glendora. I realize that there may be serious objections to the following idea, but once the Gold Line is in service to Citrus/Azusa Pacific Colleges, the line could be continued to the edge of Claremont by bonding the existing Santa Fe track and installing trolley wire on bracket arms supported by wooden poles (following PE standards which worked well for many years) for a lot less cost.
Running Metrolink to Ontario Airport might work; they already serve Bob Hope/Burbank, although the frequency at some times of the day leaves something to be desired, and I think the distance from the tracks to the airline terminals is much greater at ONT.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 30, 2009 21:26:33 GMT -8
All these lines you're describing are just fine...but I do not believe they'll qualify for federal funding. Wanting the lines, funding them locally and with state funds are all good...but asking/qualifying for federal funds is something else altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Sept 30, 2009 23:06:37 GMT -8
Bob, the only problem with your idea is that the track will still be active for freight, which is incompatible with light rail's high platforms, unless they do fancy workarounds like bridge plates, which are expensive. But I like the idea of building the light rail line as cheaply as possible. Cheaper single track, wooden platforms, shorter trains, and fewer substations, use spring switches and automatic signals instead of power interlockings and cab signals. It might be a good way to build light rail cost effectively in areas where ridership is never expected to be particularly great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 30, 2009 23:50:41 GMT -8
Bob, the only problem with your idea is that the track will still be active for freight, which is incompatible with light rail's high platforms, unless they do fancy workarounds like bridge plates, which are expensive. We definitely want to avoid sinking money to build special platform bridges to let freight trains through, as done with the Sprinter.  |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 1, 2009 1:00:15 GMT -8
I don't think that the platform bridges are that bad. Consider it a creative solution to an unusual situation.
Mind you, I wouldn't want them in Little Tokyo or in Long Beach, but I think under the right circumstances: in places where combining freight with passenger rail is inevitable, in places where you may not have the funds for a full-fledged light metro but you still want to grab people out of their cars and buses just haven't cut it.
The Waterfront Red Car Line in San Pedro was built with platform bridges. The circumstances there are a little different. You have historic equipment, you have insistence upon high-platform loading, you have older tracks...
The Red Car line has never lived up to its full potential because you don't have enough equipment and the line needs to be extended into downtown San Pedro or to Cabrillo Beach. But, for a relatively inexpensive cost, they were able to get an actual Pacific Electric streetcar up and running, which is more than you can say for downtown Los Angeles ;D (ha ha)
They got "the camel's nose into the tent" so to speak, and the new plans for the waterfront - which were just approved tonight - include the expansion that will make the project more of a success.
What does this have to do with the Foothill Line? Probably more than you might suspect....
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 1, 2009 6:08:40 GMT -8
I don't think that the platform bridges are that bad. Consider it a creative solution to an unusual situation. Creative or cheap? Seems like gauntlet tracks might have been better, but given that the freights and Sprinter don't run at the same time, platform bridges are likely a cheaper alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 3, 2009 12:23:23 GMT -8
MONROVIA - Wanted: Private contractor willing to put up $100 million to $150 million to expedite construction of the first segment of the 24-mile Gold Line extension to Claremont. Nearly 200 people, many of them representing engineering firms, turned out Tuesday at a Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority event where officials explained how companies can bid for work related to the extension project. Authority officials had previously set a completion date of 2013 for the first phase of the rail line, but the agency lacks funding to ensure completion by that date. It is seeking to hire a contractor that can afford to finance the project up front, then receive reimbursement over time, officials announced. The downside would be that interest on the financing could ultimately cost the agency $30 million, Extension Authority CEO Habib Balian said. "But we think it's worth it, considering the price of labor and steel and other materials in this economy," said Balian. "We can save a lot of money and get the project going sooner." No thoughts on this idea to privately finance the initial portion and pay the loans off with Measure R funds later on? It costs more (interest on loans), but it also costs more to start later (inflation, rising construction/material costs). |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 4, 2009 9:43:56 GMT -8
Numble,
If that could be done, I think it would be a good idea. Throwing away $30 million in interest to get the construction started ASAP I believe is a good tradeoff, assuming of course that it is absolutely guaranteed that Metro funds the eventual cost. This is where things get a little fuzzy, and those more knowledgeable can correct my mis-understanding if I have this wrong, which I might.
1. The Foothill extension of the Gold Line is currently not in the long range transportation plan. The plan was last modified prior to the recent Measure R that provided some $735 million for the Gold Line extension. But until they actually produce the long delayed update to the LRTP, there is no clear schedule for when Measure R funds would be available. So, while a contractor could start building the line in advance, what is to stop Metro from not putting the Azusa extension in until say 2018? Remember, the money that is being raised by the measure is from sales tax. If the recession continues, then there will be less $ available. A few cost overruns on the subway and any financial cushion for other projects soon starts dwindling. What if Metro doesn't have the money to pay the contractor by the agreed upon dates?
2. Concerning the Foothill Construction Authority, this is more of a question. I know when they stopped Gold Line work around 1999 it was 20% complete. The state created the Construction Authority to take th eproject away from Metro, figuring they could do a better job than Metro, then turn it over to Metro when completed. This worked great, the Gold Line was completed on time and under budget. So now, is this same authority responsible for constructing the Foothill extension? If so, maybe Metro gets a little territorial and plans their projects ahead of the Foothill extension?
3. Some work seems like it is already being readied for construction. The $30 million bridge over the 210 freeway is mentioned as something that could begin by June 2010, with the contractor putting up $5 million up front. I know Arcadia passed a measure to build an aerial structure over Santa Anita avenue, but I am assuming that the bridge discussed here is the 210 bridge. While the newspaper makes it sound like construction is imminent, aren't they still required to wait until Metro picks a timetable for the extension in the LRTP? And even then, if the construction authority is getting money from Metro to contract out the work, won't there need to be another agreement between Metro and the construction authority before the authority can authorize *any* work actually proceeding?
RubberToe
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 4, 2009 11:34:49 GMT -8
Howza 'bout the state contributing some startup costs for this project, based on how much money it stole from transit in previous years?
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 6, 2009 7:25:47 GMT -8
Here is an editorial from the SGV Tribune, which I think shows that even newspaper editorial staffs don't get the full picture... www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_13484907This is what I'm talking about: " the board moved to place the Westside subway (the "Subway to the Sea") and the Downtown Regional Connector projects on the federal New Starts funding list. Note the absence of the Gold Line, which would need federal dollars for completion of the second phase to Claremont, possibly to Montclair and eventually to Ontario International Airport. Again, without arguing the merits of those two projects, it's clear that they are not nearly as far along in terms of planning, engineering and land acquisition as the Gold Line Foothill. The two will only be available for federal funding five to eight years down the line, while the Gold Line is ready now. Would the MTA risk missing out entirely on upcoming federal New Start funding just to push two pet projects that are not yet qualified?" If my reading of the forum here is correct, the Gold Line extension to even just Azusa, let alone further East, would not have any chance at Federal new starts funding because it would score relatively low on the scale of projects. The MTA, by submitting the subway and the DTC for new starts funding, hopes to get federal money for those, and thereby free up some of the Measure R money to pay for other projects that won't get federal money. The Gold Line being exhibit A on that list. I understand that the $725 million Measure R funds for the Gold Line won't get it past Azusa, and that federal money would be needed to get beyond there. But the low score due to ridership precludes the feds actually funding it at this point in time. So, submitting projects other than the Gold Line for new starts funding is not a slap in the face to the Gold Line by any means. Correct me if I have this wrong. RubberToe |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 6, 2009 12:36:39 GMT -8
I think your correct about that one. The paper is confused.  |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 6, 2009 16:37:17 GMT -8
I think a whole lotta folks are confused. The Expo, Crenshaw, Foothill Gold and probably even the Green Line to LAX won't qualify for federal funding--the costs are too high and the ridership too low to get past what is some ridiculous federal criteria!
Hence it's gotta be the Downtown Connector and the Subway only that can get help from the feds, while we shoulder the burden for the above-ground light rail projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 6, 2009 20:34:28 GMT -8
I think a whole lotta folks are confused. The Expo, Crenshaw, Foothill Gold and probably even the Green Line to LAX won't qualify for federal funding--the costs are too high and the ridership too low to get past what is some ridiculous federal criteria! Hence it's gotta be the Downtown Connector and the Subway only that can get help from the feds, while we shoulder the burden for the above-ground light rail projects. If federal funding is a function of cost per passenger mile, places like Houston, Phoenix and Salt Lake City, current Federal beneficiaries, are always going to have better numbers because it simply cost less to build rail in those lower density cities. These small and medium size cities have a leg up because there is less need for grade seperation due to traffic density and the cost of land is considerably less. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 6, 2009 20:43:55 GMT -8
...and there you have it, Saunders--the system is gamed against Blue states and/or big, urban centers like New York and Los Angeles, where land and grade separation is much more difficult to work with.
Perhaps it's best to fund all LRT projects with local/state funds, and focus federal funds ONLY on subways (or where it's so dense that subways are mandated).
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 10, 2009 9:09:32 GMT -8
Just received an e-mail from iwillride.org. The LRTP is supposed to be voted on between 9-12am on October 22nd at the MTA meeting. Should be some interesting news the next day no matter what...
RubberToe
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 22, 2009 12:08:33 GMT -8
The authority has a nice end of 2009 status presentation. 44 pages worth right here: www.metrogoldline.org/Presentations/PSS_18dec09.pdfAlso some nice shots of the new bridge over the 210 freeway, I like it:   One thing isn't clear to me, maybe I just need to study the available moterial a bit more. I know the city of Arcadia raised a bunch of money to grade separate the line from Santa Anita avenue. The line will go over Santa Anita. I don't know if after it crosses the 210 whether it will remain elevated all the way across Santa Anita, or whether it will run at grade for a short stretch and then go over the road. I know there is a road underpass between the freeway and where the train will cross Santa Anita, so maybe they will have to rebuild that single track train bridge too... RT |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 22, 2009 12:18:39 GMT -8
Here is the Arcadia layout after the train crosses the freeway on the "basket bridge"...  I couldn't find the Google distance measurement tool, but a crude look shows that the distance after crossing the freeway is about 1,100 feet to the center of Santa Anita avenue. After that, it's only another 600 feet maximum to the station at 1st and Santa Clara. If I had to guess I would think they would stay aerial all the way over Santa Anita then do an at grade station. RT |
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Dec 22, 2009 14:38:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 22, 2009 21:46:05 GMT -8
Say what you will about the Foothill project in general, that's one pretty amazing bridge. It would be impossible for freeway drivers to ignore that.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 23, 2009 4:45:13 GMT -8
The Google Maps distance measurement tool is now a downloadable mapplet. You must create an account first.
|
|
