|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Mar 20, 2007 9:46:03 GMT -8
It has always befuddled me why ridership on the Goldline has been so low. I was very saddened to hear the latest ridership figures for Feb '07.
At first I thought it was the slow crawl of the train. But with recent advances in signalling and the price of gallon gas @ a painful $3.00 again, why aren't more riders coming to the Gold-line Rush ?
Why has it always been a transit planner's "Fool's Gold".
And then I finally understood why. It's the stations.
During rush-hour the train was packed full, standing room only. Much like the Blue Line or Red Line. Even in off peak times my beloved Gold-Line was never less than half full.
But between Highland Park and Union station only a dozen or so people board or get off the train. Between Highland Park and Memorial Park (Pasadena) I notice the same thing, that low rate of boarding and transfer.
Then it hit me, this is just a 3 station horse. Bad station planning and lack of bus connections had doomed the Gold-line to become an expensive carnival ride.
Too many stations just don't connect to the communities around them. They are lonely ghosttowns that no politician has been creative enough to convert the potential.
Hopefully this will not happen again on any rail line. Don't spend so much talk and money building it only to abandon it and move on. Nurture and support the stations, like a baby, who will someday be a hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Mar 20, 2007 18:02:48 GMT -8
I wholeheartedly agree that the station placing on the Gold Line is horrible and is a big part of the line's underachievment. For those commuters from Pasadena to Downtown, the line becomes inefficient because of the forced transfer to the Red Line (which is a horrible connection as it is. they could have been smarter about elevator placement). For people in the area between Cypress Park and Highland Park(Ave. 31-50), they are not served well at all. The Southwest Museum station may serve the museum well but it does not serve the neighborhood well. A better location would have been a few blocks down between Ave. 43-45 serving more homes and businesses making the Arroyo/Heritage Square station redundant(that station is really the middle of nowhere serving ZERO destinations. There are other station location gripes but i wont go into them all). But there's no use complaining about them now because they are high platform stations that can't be moved easily. So for now we have to focus on better bus connections (especially in Pasadena where the line could be attractive if it connected frequently to many more places than it does now)
|
|
bahg
New Member
Posts: 7 
|
Post by bahg on Apr 5, 2007 18:19:10 GMT -8
I agree with all of that - but the main reason the goldline isn't used is if you work in downtown - it's still faster to drive and we all know it's about time. I live in east pasadena and it take me 40 minutes to get to 7th and fig to drive. by train much longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 5, 2007 19:03:45 GMT -8
I agree with all of that - but the main reason the goldline isn't used is if you work in downtown - it's still faster to drive and we all know it's about time. I live in east pasadena and it take me 40 minutes to get to 7th and fig to drive. by train much longer. I know a couple of people that live in Highland Park and San Marino that said the same thing. They tried the gold line but stopped taking it because door to door driving a car is faster. It should be faster now than it was a couple of years ago when they told me that, but it may take until the connector opens that lots of people make the switch. Of course gas hitting $4/gallon could speed that up! |
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Apr 11, 2007 23:39:50 GMT -8
yes, but raising fares wont help our cause either. I know we need it and the $2 base fare is reasonable but $120 bucks for a monthly pass wont win over any converts to the Gold Line. On the other hand its still cheaper than $4 dollars a gallon for gas but I just don't think people will see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Aug 30, 2007 7:55:24 GMT -8
Saw this in the SGV Tribune Newspaper yesterday.
State Funding fails but .....
______________________________________________________
Area cities gear up for Gold Line extension
Projects developed around mass transit
By Fred Ortega Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/29/2007 12:07:02 AM PDT
MONROVIA - The Gold Line extension to Montclair from Pasadena is a long way from reality, but cities and developers have already spent billions of dollars on projects along the proposed 24-mile light-rail line.
The state budget last week transferred more than $1 billion away from transportation agencies, dealing a blow to additional funding for the extension.
But Gold Line officials say they were not counting on state money for the project. They plan to obtain federal funds from the Federal Transportation Agency next year.
"(State funds) were never part of the project plan," said Habib Balian, CEO of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. "If we relied on the state or the MTA for our funds, it would never get built."
The precarious nature of the project's funding has not affected planning for transit-oriented developments around yet-to-be-built stations along the extension's route, according to a study commissioned by the authority.
The study, led by the Irvine-based IBI Group, determined that about $2.1 billion in public and private investment has already gone into developing projects within a half mile of proposed stations in the 11 cities traversed by the
Gold Line extension. That includes funds for projects already being built, like the massive Rosedale development in Azusa, as well as those in the planning stages like Monrovia's Station Square.
The figure also includes funds used by cities to update their land use plans to accommodate the future train stops, as well as construction of public parking facilities near the stations.
The study also estimated that the Gold Line extension would spur more than $36 billion in new private development, generate up to $6.2 billion in new household spending through 2030 and add nearly $1.5 billion in property and sales tax revenue for local cities over the next 30 years.
The Foothill extension provides the opportunity to absorb the tremendous growth projected for the San Gabriel Valley, which is expected to add more than a half million residents by 2035, said Patricia Flynn of The Maxima Group, who was involved in preparing the study. About 160,000 new housing units will be needed to accommodate that population growth, she said.
"You have the capacity to build 23,000 new housing units within station areas, as well as enough capacity to absorb 28,000 new jobs," said Flynn. "That is a significant part of the growth coming to the Valley."
The amount of money being spent on developments around the future stations show that cities are counting on the proposed extension in their plans to accommodate that future growth, Flynn said.
"(The Gold Line) is the organizing principle for how these cities are thinking about growth," she said. "Without the train, you don't have that focal point."
In Glendora, that centers on two developments surrounding that city's proposed Gold Line station, located near the intersection of Glendora and Ada avenues just south of downtown.
The Morgan Group has already secured approval from the city for a 161-unit, residential development with 11,900 square feet of office space just south of the future station, near Route 66 and Glendora, said Glendora Redevelopment Manager Al Lavine.
"They are getting ready for construction," he said of the two-story, $45-million project.
The other development, by the Neiman Group, is in its preliminary stages, with a planned 87 condominium units across the street from the station.
"We expect approval by the end of the year," said Lavine, adding that the Gold Line is the centerpiece of the future development scheme in the city's center.
Duarte has come up with a preliminary design concept for a new downtown district around the planned Gold Line station across from the City of Hope on Duarte Road. The plan includes a major hotel, commercial and office buildings, restaurants and retail, as well as parks, residential units and a connection to the Duarte Civic Center under the Foothill (210) Freeway.
"We have an enormous opportunity to create jobs, housing and develop that area to be compatible with the extension of the Gold Line," said Duarte Councilman John Fasana, who is also a member of the MTA board. "If we were to develop that area without a corresponding (mass transit route) then you are just going to have overdevelopment with added vehicle congestion."
Richard Thompson, vice president of facilities for the City of Hope, said his world-renowned hospital and cancer research facility is counting on the Gold Line to accommodate the more than 3,400 staffers, patients and visitors who commute to the campus every day.
"On any given day our parking lots are filled up by 10 a.m. each morning," said Thompson. "If we had a reliable, efficient mass transit alternative, we know a significant number of these people would use it."
He added that development around the station would also benefit the hospital.
"A hotel near the station would have appeal, not only as a place for our visiting scientists to stay but also to use the convention facilities to augment our educational programs," Thompson said. "We also have a large number of nurses who would be very interested in new housing developments near the station."
All of these investments and planning efforts, however, depend on the Gold Line becoming a reality.
The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority has already completed an environmental study of the project, settled on station locations with all but one of the corridor cities, and owns the railroad right-of-way, Balian said.
In addition, local congressional representatives including David Dreier, R-Glendora, Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena and Hilda Solis, D-El Monte, have inserted language in a federal bill that would allow the authority to leverage the almost $1 billion spent on the first leg of the Gold Line from downtown L.A. to Pasadena to secure matching funds from the government. The bill has yet to pass the Senate.
That coupled with a ridership projection of 9,500 passenger trips on the extension by 2030 would allow the authority to apply for the federal funds next year, Balian said. But it must get a commitment from the MTA for the $8 million per year that will be needed to operate the line, Balian said.
"We are going through this huge effort to get the MTA to commit this money, to beg for scraps for the San Gabriel Valley, when it is really a freebie for the MTA," said Balian. "They don't have to spend anything to build it. They just have to drive the choo-choo train in 2011."
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Aug 30, 2007 10:15:29 GMT -8
I applaud the SGV's persistence on Gold Line funding instead of highway construction. That's the change of mentality we need to see present in all of socal to push for more transit projects instead of freeway widenings. I hope the MTA will commit to operating the Gold Line foothill extension once operations commence.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 23, 2008 7:23:15 GMT -8
Students join in effort to extend Metro Gold LineBy Fred Ortega, Staff Writer Article Launched: 03/21/2008 11:14:13 PM PDT MONROVIA - A group of local students have put their technological savvy and marketing know-how to work in hopes of hastening the construction of the Gold Line extension to Montclair. The students, who come from a variety of disciplines from both Mt. Sierra College in Monrovia and the University of La Verne, have created a Web site - www.iwillride.org - which has already collected more than 150 signatures in support of the $1.4 billion project. The goal of the campaign is to persuade members of the Metro Board to include the 24-mile rail link on the transit agency's long-range transportation plan. The board voted in January against doing so but has until June to finalize the plan. "This is something that we as students really need," said Jonathan Fitzhugh, 22, student body president at University of La Verne, who was involved in the project. "There is no real efficient mass transit system like this in the San Gabriel Valley." Area officials say getting the project on the plan is critical in order to leverage up to $320 million in federal funds for the first phase of the project, to the Azusa-Glendora border. Metro's actions have already delayed construction of the extension by at least one year, to the end of 2009. "I think we are all tired of the traffic, and we want to help the environment," said Kristen Manes, 23, of San Gabriel, a media arts major who helped design the campaign's posters. They feature clever reverse-psychology catch phrases such as "Efficient Travel is Overrated" and "San Gabriel Valley is Not Important." "Stating the obvious would be mundane, but having statements that make people say `What?' makes people want to find out more," said Mitch McKenzie, who designed the site and came up with some of the campaign slogans. The Web site also features a page for users to upload their own YouTube video testimonials in favor of the extension, and the students are expanding their campaign through cyberspace by tapping into social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook. The petitions collected on the site will eventually be presented to the Metro Board when it next meets to consider the project. Chester Britt, an outreach consultant for the Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority, who provided some assistance to the students, said it was natural for college-aged youths in the Valley to be supportive of the Gold Line. "We don't know of any other light rail line going by so many colleges, so if anybody should be disappointed this doesn't get built, it should be the students," Britt said. "They recognize this is their chance to make a difference and influence what the legislators are doing."
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 23, 2008 10:54:59 GMT -8
although I am not a huge fan of the San Gabriel Valley extension of the Gold Line, I have to admit that what these students are doing is admirable.
college students should be the perfect rail transit supporters - young enough to give a damn about traffic and the environment, not old enough to be set in their ways like older car drivers, united by a single, common destination and the Gold Line would have several colleges along its route.
even rich USC, which gained a reputation for being anti-rail, will surely see many students riding Expo Rail- it was always the top brass administration (and its crackpot professor Moore) and not the student body that was largely opposed to light rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Mar 23, 2008 11:44:56 GMT -8
Well said--I applaud these students, and all those others in the SGV, for pushing for this extension. I hope that, somehow, they get their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Mar 24, 2008 8:53:36 GMT -8
I applaud these students too.
If sending the Gold Line to Montclair is what it will take politically to get the Purple Line to Santa Monica, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Mar 24, 2008 22:09:28 GMT -8
The San Gabriel Valley is quite vast. The El Monte busways and Metrolink don't serve that foothill area. A busway would be innefficient, and almost as costly as light rail. Only an $80 million price tag and the fed pays the rest.
SGV leaders have fought long and hard for this one. And the 210 freeway has worsened steadily since then.
Finally.... a community that actually supports rail, and high density development.
The development and construction of TOD's will create thousands of new jobs. Especially helpful in times like these.
I'd live there if I can find a job along the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 1, 2008 21:16:41 GMT -8
Foothill Gold Line to Azusa Citrus College as LRT, pieces east via Metrolink.
By that point east of Azusa they will be adding 2 new locations at (Glendora/San Dimas and University La Verne) the rest are already served by Metrolink which would be a better use of transit funding and resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 8, 2008 18:46:04 GMT -8
Metrolink works well as a commuter service to LA, not so good for reverse commuting or local transportation. One commentator remarked that for an operation that started with nothing less than 20 years ago, the Metrolink San Bernardino line is quite impressive, but it's still not in the same league with Caltrain (SF to San Jose) or Metro North out of NY City. Caltrain offers half-hour headways on weekdays, not hard to do with a double track main line. Metrolink has major gaps in the morning eastbound and afternoon westbound timetables. I feel fortunate living just a few miles from the Gold Line terminal, the only bad thing is I have to drive there because the bus service between my neighborhood and Sierra Madre Villa doesn't run very often or very late. About 2 years ago, I wanted to visit San Francisco for the Earthquake Centennial. My wife drove me to SMV and I caught the next-to-last Gold Line train, arriving at Union Station in plenty of time to catch the Ambus to Bakersfield and the San Joaquin train. Even if I lived in El Monte (nearest ML stop), their trains would be "in bed for the night" that late in the evening. There are still some diehard diesel-oriented railfans who look upon the Gold Line as an abomination, a Toonerville Trolley that runs where "real trains" used to rule the rails. I say, the only major advantage of Metrolink is that the cars have restrooms. Americans are an impatient lot, and the less waiting around we have to do, the better we like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on May 9, 2008 3:49:54 GMT -8
The San Gabriel Valley is quite vast. The El Monte busways and Metrolink don't serve that foothill area. The El Monte Busway's buses do. San Dimas has a park & ride lot within the city that's one of Foothill's busiest commuter lines. As for Metrolink, if the train doesn't go to the people, the people go to the train. Commuter parking is scarce at the SGV Metrolink stations. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 18, 2008 19:52:26 GMT -8
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-goldline18-2008jun18,0,3027308.story Regarding today's story on the Gold Line in today's LA Times, a couple things stuck out to me. One is the price tag of just $400M for the 11.4 miles to Azuza. I know it doesn't have the complications of the Expo Line, but that number seems pretty low any way you cut it. I imagine they maybe are trying to quote a low number to get firm committments for the project. Also, the fact that these boosters think they can get an 80% match from a combined federal/state allocation seems a bit unrealistic for a project with such low ridership. If the FTA can allocate 80% for a project we should be pushing this for our lines with high benefit/feasibility scores. I believe the MTA should not approve these funds now even if they have them. People in the SGV should have to wait for the Nov. sales tax approval to get this money. If the MTA gives it to them before, the voters may then vote against the tax increase because they already have their money, while the rest of the county will get nothing. As I have said before, this project should not be able to go forward without a DTC. At the worst these two should be tied together if this extension should go through at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 19, 2008 0:38:52 GMT -8
I totally agree with you, masonite, but the doggone DTC is still in its planning stages so that--as with the Eastside Gold Line and the Expo Line, we have to proceed with these nonconnected lines!!!  ( That said, a powerful promise by the Mayor and/or other Metro officials from the Westside in support of the Gold Line extension to Azusa with the sales tax--even if it's a future $200 million with a 50% match--would go a long way to assuage the hurt feelings that I see the SGV as having right now, and would also go a long way to ensure that the SGV came out in support of the sales tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 19, 2008 7:10:25 GMT -8
The MTA should compromise with them instead of just ignoring them. They can push a line with relatively high speed that goes to Azusa. Someone is being too stubborn. We all know what would be best, but no one wants that.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 19, 2008 16:14:50 GMT -8
You are not the only one who is holding this exact position. They know they'll have no federal support without some of the other projects and certainly no full LA County support without making some concessions and all regional parties coming to the table to make the ballot work.
|
|
snuffy
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by snuffy on Jun 19, 2008 17:56:57 GMT -8
It's all MTA & developer's fault. They should have made it to Santa Anita/Arcadia instead of Sierra Madre Villa parking structure. Also lack of bus connection, you have to walk few mins to bus stop, isn't easy to get to PCC, no crossing gates in Highland park, we only need one station in Old town instead of two which are Del Mar & Memorial Park. There's few more I want to say... but it's just soooooo stupid!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 19, 2008 18:13:37 GMT -8
You do make a good point on the lack of connectivity being the Gold LIne's achillies heel.
The poor ridership on the Gold Line is mostly due to the stop locations. Because with better stop locations, more transfer connections with the buses are possible and easier which would improve the ridership on the line.
The Regional Connector is the obvious lack of proper stop location but there's a whole thread on that one.
For example, there shouldn't have been an Allen Avenue Station, instead it should have been on Hill Ave, which is short walk to Pasadena City College and a bus connection to CalTech and Huntington Library and Gardens which would be a short distance away.
There should have included a station on Fair Oaks which would serve local commercial centers and major bus connections which would have improved ridership.
The two stops in Old Town are actually well thought out because they can make the most of the improved pedestrian connectivity from both ends of Old Town Pasadena. Of course there should have been one on Colorado Blvd, the problem now comes to which historic buildings are we knock down to gain the needed space for a full underground station. Which would esssentially kill the entire project.
In Highland Park there should have been two stations one at it's current location the other at Ave 50/51 which would reduce the issues of the 20mph running along Marmion Way because the stations are closer by each other, instead that station was moved to Southwest Museum. As for crossing gates Snuffy, show me a location on Marimion where we can actually install these gates without encroaching the properties or abstructing the driver's turning view on Marmion.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 19, 2008 19:02:58 GMT -8
You are not the only one who is holding this exact position. They know they'll have no federal support without some of the other projects and certainly no full LA County support without making some concessions and all regional parties coming to the table to make the ballot work. ;D The last two rail projects are down town, should not the people of San Gabriel Valley get some funding along with the DTC? In order to make everybody happy who wants Light rail it should be: 1. San Gabriel Extension. 2. The DTC. 3. Airport Green Line. 4. Expo-line airport connection. 5. Pomona Freeway to Whittier. 6. Green line to South Bay Galleria. So lets in fairness spread it all around evenly I can hear you all booing me now. Sincerely The Roadtrainer  |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 19, 2008 20:22:52 GMT -8
You are not the only one who is holding this exact position. They know they'll have no federal support without some of the other projects and certainly no full LA County support without making some concessions and all regional parties coming to the table to make the ballot work. ;D The last two rail projects are down town, should not the people of San Gabriel Valley get some funding along with the DTC? In order to make everybody happy who wants Light rail it should be: 1. San Gabriel Extension. 2. The DTC. 3. Airport Green Line. 4. Expo-line airport connection. 5. Pomona Freeway to Whittier. 6. Green line to South Bay Galleria. So lets in fairness spread it all around evenly I can hear you all booing me now. Sincerely The Roadtrainer Roadtrainer, that is basically how the politicians have been thinking. However, that is no way to plan a transit system. Give an area a rail line because it is supposedly its turn rather on need, usefulness, benefits to the entire system, etc... You'll end up with a mish-mash mess which we are on our way to. As for the last two projects being downtown that is not really true. Both the Gold Line projects end in Downtown after servicing other areas such as Pasadena and the Eastside, but downtown is the center of our transit system so this has to be the case. Believe me, the people in the SGV would not be all that interested in an extension of the Gold Line if it didn't reach downtown. Pasadena is in the SGV. Should we say that since this Gold Line portion was the most recently completed rail line they should then have to wait until after the Westside and the South Bay area get something first no matter what the project is? Also, the SGV already has Metrolink, which the Westside and South Bay don't have, so I don't buy their whining that they haven't got their fair share so far. If anything they have received more than their fair share. Projects should be evaluated on their cost-benefit. The FTA metric for this should be a base for determining this. This way you get the most bang for your buck initially and more people use the system and are happy with its benefits, which leads to more support for expansion of the system and so forth. Doing it backwards and then trying to tie it all together is a lot harder. You may run out of support and money before you can do that (people say these guys don't know how to build a rail system in that it doesn't go to where most people will use it and so forth and I am not giving them any more of my tax money), which is pretty much the situation we are in now. |
|
snuffy
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by snuffy on Jun 19, 2008 20:43:24 GMT -8
>As for crossing gates Snuffy, show me a location on Marimion where we can actually install these gates without encroaching the >properties or abstructing the driver's turning view on Marmion. Jerard, If I was in charge, I would dig a trench between Ave 50 to Highland Park station instead of trench portion between Heritage Square to Southwest Museum. >The two stops in Old Town are actually well thought but they could spend money for something else like extend to Arcadia or Duarte. Have you ridden Foothill Bus Line 187 before? It takes forever to get to Arcadia. I really wish They should have extend Gold Line to the east but it's too late and I don't think the extension plan will happen at least 10 years and that really painful if you don't drive.  |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 20, 2008 6:35:44 GMT -8
> Jerard, If I was in charge, I would dig a trench between Ave 50 to Highland Park station instead of trench portion between Heritage Square to Southwest Museum. I'll ask the same question again, show me how you'll be able to build this trench within the current right-of-way width without negatively affecting people living on Marimion and closely spaced cross streets. Yeah I have ridden the Foothill 187 and I agree with the fact that the line is slow as molasses. But do you know how much it costs to extend the line approx 2.0 miles to Arcadia compared to the cost of building the platforms for one or both stations in Old Pasadena. The cost of extending the Gold Line 2.0 miles would far exceed the cost of building the platforms at those two stations. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 20, 2008 12:17:51 GMT -8
although the Foothill Gold Line extension to Azusa is not the light rail line that I would build first in a perfect world, there is a certain "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" inevitability about it that I do not necessarily see with other projects, such as Expo Phase II or even getting rail to the airport or to the South Bay. there is no Cheviot Hills or "Fix Expo" in the SGV. there is no jurisdictional gridlock like you see with the MTA and LAWA at the airport.
the way I see it, we have choices: we can gripe about changing the rules of the political game such as they currently exist, we can waste time and resources trying to create a transit meritocracy (based on a combination of Plato's Republic and Machiavelli?? ); or we can work with the system such as it currently exists — COMPROMISE.
most parts of Los Angeles County are ridiculously congested and that includes the SGV. so here's what I would do: 1) keep pushing the Downtown Connector as hard as we can. we've gotten the MTA to take it seriously, we've gotten plans drawn up, that's a good start. 2) fight as hard as we can for this proposed November ballot measure, we'll need it if we want more rail lines to the westside and the SGV. strike a deal so that the SGV gets some of the funds.
some of you will hate the idea of giving anything to the squeaky wheels of the SGV. but building a rail transit system built in Los Angeles will require paying attention to every area of our diverse population. suck it up and deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 22, 2008 14:41:23 GMT -8
Mr. Fujita: Well Said my friend! Sincerely The Roadtrainer |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 23, 2008 1:35:58 GMT -8
I suspect that some of the shortcomings of the Gold Line, (e.g. station at Allen rather than Hill in Pasadena) are due to conflicts with the existing structures that were designed for the Santa Fe single track line. I thought it was quite an acheivement to squeeze a double track trolley line into some of the locations. There will be quite a bit of engineering necessary to get the line to Azusa, but at least in some places the right-of-way is wide enough, having been the location of long-gone sidings. Two challenges will be the bridges over Historic Route 66 in Arcadia and Azusa; apparently these are historic locations and will require new abutments matching the existing structures, only wider. (if one keeps going on Old 66, there's an ex-PE bridge in Upland that has the abutments to support two parallel spans, but that line was never double tracked)
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 23, 2008 6:37:02 GMT -8
I favor sharing the next priority after Expo to the Beach with the Gold Line extension, but I do NOT favor shoving Phase 2 of the Expo Line behind the Gold Line extension.
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 23, 2008 8:08:25 GMT -8
I favor sharing the next priority after Expo to the Beach with the Gold Line extension, but I do NOT favor shoving Phase 2 of the Expo Line behind the Gold Line extension. D Good Doctor Alpern: I forgot phase two when I wrote my idea for funding.  It should have been #4 construct the two together Expo to Santa Monica and Expo to the Air port. Sincerely The Road trainer |
|
(
It should have been #4 construct the two together Expo to Santa Monica and Expo to the Air port.