Kick-Off Celebration and Station Billboard Unveil

[LAofAnaheim]

There's a billboard unveiling this Saturday, November 21st for the Foothill extension. Don't know what more information they plan to provide the public on Saturday, but, if you have free time on Saturday, may be worth attending.

www.iwillride.org/?p=414

10 am - 12 pm

Historic Santa Fe Train Depot
(NW corner of Myrtle Avenue and Duarte Road)
Monrovia, CA

[spokker]

It should say, "The Gold Line Foothill Extension: Logrolling all the way to Azusa!"

[bobdavis]

As someone who remembers seeing the Pacific Electric tracks to Monrovia torn up in 1952, and who has heard old timers (and even people who came after the PE disappeared) say "They shoulda kept it!", bringing electric rail service back to Monrovia and adjoining cities is long overdue. The "Subway to the Sea" holds little attraction for me; if I live long enough, I'll probably ride opening day but rarely thereafter. The Crenshaw line (probably another "I should live so long" project) doesn't go anywhere that I'm likely to go, but I can envision riding the Gold Line to events at Citrus College and avoiding spending half an hour finding a parking spot. Had the Foothill Extension not been in Measure "R", it probably would have gone down to defeat; as it was, some of my fellow San Gabriel Valley residents voted "NO", saying "Metro will probably find some way to screw us out of our tax money and use it for things that don't do us any good."

[erict]

No one denies the need for the Foothill extension, but there are other more pressing needs. Despite of your desire to not go to these other "parts" of your city, many more people need to go there every day and cannot afford a car. However, I will be happy to ride the Gold line Foothill. I doubt I would go beyond Azusa, but ya never know.

[spokker]

The cost to build the Foothill Extension is essentially a cost of the Purple Line extension... It's hush money.

[bobdavis]

I was at the "kickoff" yesterday, as was Bart Reed and several members of Pacific Railroad Society. What was impressive was the solidarity of local official and political representatives. When David Dreier and Judy Chu are on the same side, there must be a reason. As far as calling the funding for the GLFE "hush money", as a San Gabriel Valley native, I would call it our "fair share". I'm not sure whether I'm a special case in my relative lack of interest in things west and south of Downtown; it would be interesting to see how many SGV residents work on the so-called Westside and voted YES on Measure "R" because they would find subway extensions useful.

[Justin Walker]

Nov 22, 2009 14:55:11 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

it would be interesting to see how many SGV residents work on the so-called Westside and voted YES on Measure "R" because they would find subway extensions useful.

Quite a few more than those who live on the Westside and voted yes on Measure R because they thought the Foothill Extension would be useful...

That's not to say the San Gabriel Valley doesn't deserve rail; it's just that the Wilshire Subway would benefit EVERYONE in the county whereas I don't believe the same can be said for the Foothill Extension.

Anyways, back on topic: the unveiling. Anyone get some pictures?

[bluelineshawn]

Nov 22, 2009 15:31:09 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

That's not to say the San Gabriel Valley doesn't deserve rail; it's just that the Wilshire Subway would benefit EVERYONE in the county whereas the Foothill extension would not.

I don't know about that. I rarely go to the westside. I think that both lines will benefit me equally, which is almost not at all.

OTOH the downtown connector does benefit much of the county. Anyone that rides the blue, gold, or expo lines will benefit. Also red/purple/metrolink riders will benefit.

[Jason Saunders]

Nov 22, 2009 15:57:16 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

Nov 22, 2009 15:31:09 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

That's not to say the San Gabriel Valley doesn't deserve rail; it's just that the Wilshire Subway would benefit EVERYONE in the county whereas the Foothill extension would not.

I don't know about that. I rarely go to the westside. I think that both lines will benefit me equally, which is almost not at all.

OTOH the downtown connector does benefit much of the county. Anyone that rides the blue, gold, or expo lines will benefit. Also red/purple/metrolink riders will benefit.

Public Transportation is like the telephone. If you have two telephones it's mildly useful. If you have three or four it becomes much more useful. If you have many telephones it is exponentially many times more useful.

[LAofAnaheim]

I was at the kick-off celebration as well. It was interesting that all the Foothill politicians were very thankful and celebratory for Measure R. Based on what I remember last year, the SGV wasn't too fond of the measure, and their representatives Molina and Antonovich were the two supervisors against it. Now, all of a sudden to the politicans there, it's like a god-send. Maybe I'm wrong...but was that a complete 180 from last year?

[LAofAnaheim]

Nov 22, 2009 15:31:09 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

Anyways, back on topic: the unveiling. Anyone get some pictures?

I took a picture of the big billboard unveiling from my blackberry and posted it on twitpic. Here it is: twitpic.com/qlieu

[kenalpern]

Yes, LA of Anaheim, that is entirely a 180 degree turn. I'm pretty certain that there will be a convenient amnesia among these politicians now that Measure R is now being interpreted and implemented the way it should have.

[tonyw79sfv]

Nov 22, 2009 17:01:13 GMT -8 Jason Saunders said:

Public Transportation is like the telephone. If you have two telephones it's mildly useful. If you have three or four it becomes much more useful. If you have many telephones it is exponentially many times more useful.

Except that the San Fernando Valley is still using rotary pulse dialing while the rest of LA County has gone touch-tone.

[spokker]

It'll still be fun to ride I guess, and I hope those stations look as nice as the concept art.

[erict]

Nov 22, 2009 22:29:22 GMT -8 tonyw79sfv said:

Nov 22, 2009 17:01:13 GMT -8 Jason Saunders said:

Public Transportation is like the telephone. If you have two telephones it's mildly useful. If you have three or four it becomes much more useful. If you have many telephones it is exponentially many times more useful.

Except that the San Fernando Valley is still using rotary pulse dialing while the rest of LA County has gone touch-tone.

I don't think the valley has been left out in any way. The SFV has the Red line, the Orange line (which could have been rail but was opposed by the residents of the SFV) - and currently has the only under construction Metro transit project extending the Orange line to Chatsworth.

[LAofAnaheim]

Nov 23, 2009 7:33:14 GMT -8 erict said:

I don't think the valley has been left out in any way. The SFV has the Red line, the Orange line (which could have been rail but was opposed by the residents of the SFV) - and currently has the only under construction Metro transit project extending the Orange line to Chatsworth.

Ahhmmmmm......Expo Line???

[Justin Walker]

Nov 23, 2009 7:33:14 GMT -8 erict said:

Nov 22, 2009 22:29:22 GMT -8 tonyw79sfv said:

Except that the San Fernando Valley is still using rotary pulse dialing while the rest of LA County has gone touch-tone.

I don't think the valley has been left out in any way. The SFV has the Red line, the Orange line (which could have been rail but was opposed by the residents of the SFV) - and currently has the only under construction Metro transit project extending the Orange line to Chatsworth.

The bottom line is that every region is getting rail lines except the Valley. And again, only a very small minority of Valley residents opposed rail. Otherwise, support for rail in the Valley was widespread.

Also, if you will recall, the original point of the Robbins bill was to ensure that the Valley got what it had always been promised, a Red Line extension, rather than a less useful light rail line. How that purpose was perverted to end up as a busway, I may never understand.

[erict]

Nov 23, 2009 8:03:27 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Nov 23, 2009 7:33:14 GMT -8 erict said:

I don't think the valley has been left out in any way. The SFV has the Red line, the Orange line (which could have been rail but was opposed by the residents of the SFV) - and currently has the only under construction Metro transit project extending the Orange line to Chatsworth.

Ahhmmmmm......Expo Line???

I guess Expo really is a Metro project after all, sorry about that one .

The Robinson bill tied Metro's hand after Zev and the residents of Los Angeles (not me) voted to ban Proposition money for rail tunneling ( A & B?). So the Busway was the only option (Zev again). And if I recall correctly, the SFV fought this busway to the bitter very end. I did not hear anyone asking for rail except the people on this board. Now, perhaps, the valley is reconsidering their years of opposition.

[kenalpern]

From what I very much remember, the SFV was entirely unorganized but did prefer a LRT for the Orange Line to the Busway...and still remains unorganized while regretting the Busway wasn't a LRT as new rail lines are extended throughout the county.

Plenty of L.A. Daily News editorials decried the underspending of the Valley while overspending in other regions of the county.

[warrenbowman]

Don't forget, a lot of NIMBY's were terrified of the idea of a big nasty train running down the middle of Chandler. Wonder how they like the bus they wound up with?

[bobdavis]

I should point out one big difference between the PE "Air Line" right of way being converted into the Expo (Aqua?) line and the former Santa Fe route that will carry the Foothill Extension: The ex-PE line had one slow local freight a few times a week (probably 15 or at most 20 mph). Before Santa Fe sold off the 2nd District, it had the Amtrak "Southwest Chief" traveling at 65 mph and freight trains authorized for 55 mph through the Arcadia-Pomona area. Of course that was over 15 years ago, but it means the right-of-way has the high-speed curves and relatively few grade crossings of a main-line railroad.

[erict]

Nov 24, 2009 12:43:45 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

I should point out one big difference between the PE "Air Line" right of way being converted into the Expo (Aqua?) line and the former Santa Fe route that will carry the Foothill Extension: The ex-PE line had one slow local freight a few times a week (probably 15 or at most 20 mph). Before Santa Fe sold off the 2nd District, it had the Amtrak "Southwest Chief" traveling at 65 mph and freight trains authorized for 55 mph through the Arcadia-Pomona area. Of course that was over 15 years ago, but it means the right-of-way has the high-speed curves and relatively few grade crossings of a main-line railroad.

That is good to hear, this line will need the extra speed. It will (if completed to Monrovia) be the the longest light rail line in the country.

[wad]

Nov 23, 2009 9:17:47 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

Also, if you will recall, the original point of the Robbins bill was to ensure that the Valley got what it had always been promised, a Red Line extension, rather than a less useful light rail line. How that purpose was perverted to end up as a busway, I may never understand.

Hoo boy is that revisionist history most foul.

There's a good term in the dictionary for what the Robbins Bill was.

equivocate (v. intransitive)
use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself : [with direct speech ] “Not that we are aware of,” she equivocated.

The intent of the Robbins Bill, as pro- and anti-transit camps both knew, was to mandate a subway to blow it out of the water.

The Robbins Bill mandated a subway extension that would have been so expensive as to prevent it from ever meeting any cost-effectiveness benchmark.

[Justin Walker]

Nov 27, 2009 3:42:07 GMT -8 wad said:

Nov 23, 2009 9:17:47 GMT -8 Justin Walker said:

Also, if you will recall, the original point of the Robbins bill was to ensure that the Valley got what it had always been promised, a Red Line extension, rather than a less useful light rail line. How that purpose was perverted to end up as a busway, I may never understand.

The intent of the Robbins Bill, as pro- and anti-transit camps both knew, was to mandate a subway to blow it out of the water.

The Robbins Bill mandated a subway extension that would have been so expensive as to prevent it from ever meeting any cost-effectiveness benchmark.

I disagree with that claim. Extending the Red Line into the Valley was considered doable until Yaroslavsky's 1998 Prop A subway ban.
Consider the 1995 MTA Long Range Plan:




Also, here is a 1989 article about the so-called "Robbins-Braude Valley Subway Plan," which proposed subway out to Sepulveda and BRT the rest of the way to Warner Center:

After three years of fighting over what kind of San Fernando Valley rail line to build and where to build it, one plan appears to have emerged from the smoke and debris-extending the Metro Rail subway partly underground from North Hollywood to Encino, then busing passengers to Warner Center.

The Metro Rail-express bus plan, which requires both homeowner and business leaders to give up some of their demands, for the moment appears to have squeezed out all other schemes touted in recent years, including several different configurations of ground-level or elevated light rail.

Even if, as is considered likely, Gov. George Deukmejian vetoes a bill aimed at forcing construction of the seven-mile Metro Rail extension, the proposal has been endorsed by so many elected officials, homeowner leaders and business groups that it seems likely to prevail, local officials say.

Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, a late convert to the plan, said last week that support was "virtually wall to wall."

Consolidated Support

"It looks like the Valley has finally gotten behind a single plan, as we have been asking them to do," said Richard Stanger, rail development director for the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, which is building a countywide network of rail lines.

And Commissioner Jacki Bacharach, who heads the commission's Rail Construction Committee, added: "If the Valley is finally speaking with one voice, as appears to be the case, then we will probably do what the Valley asks or not build anything there for now."

On the other hand, both Stanger and Bacharach said the Metro Rail extension may prove too costly to build, no matter how much support it enjoys.

Since proposed four months ago by state Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana) and Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, the plan to extend the downtown-to-North Hollywood Metro Rail across the eastern Valley has steadily muscled aside all rival proposals, several of which had strong support.

These include a controversial plan to build a 15-mile rail system from North Hollywood to Warner Center along a Southern Pacific railroad right of way that follows Chandler and Victory boulevards, and Oxnard and Topham streets from Metro Rail's northern terminus at Chandler and Lankershim boulevards to Warner Center.

That plan had strong backing from business leaders because it would bring rail all the way to fast-growing Warner Center and apparently can be built with the uncommitted funds that the commission expects to have during the 1990s.

Another rival proposal is construction of an elevated line on the Ventura Freeway's south shoulder from Universal City to Warner Center.

The commission is studying both routes, either as Metro Rail extensions or for light-rail trolleys, which are slower and have less capacity.

The commission study, expected to be completed in November, will provide cost and ridership estimates for each combination of route and technology.

Homeowner leaders along both routes vigorously opposed any plan, whether light rail or Metro Rail extension, that was not a subway in residential areas.

Noise, traffic congestion and ground vibrations from trains running as often as every three minutes during rush hour would make single-family neighborhoods unlivable, they argued.

They saw little relief in two other schemes under study by the commission-placing trains in shallow trenches lined with earthen berms or placing trains fully underground but with trenches open to the air or covered with grates.

The Robbins-Braude plan differs from others in that it acknowledges that there will be only enough money initially to build as far as the Sepulveda Basin, and that homeowner opposition is so strong that a ground-level system is not politically feasible.

Endorsing a plan that does not provide rail service all the way to Warner Center was a difficult decision, said Roger Stanard, a Warner Center business leader and co-chairman of a light-rail support group.

"But it appears to be what we can get, and the Valley needs something desperately," he said.

25-Foot Depth

On the other hand, the Robbins-Braude plan, which follows the route of the Southern Pacific right of way, gives homeowner groups the 25-foot-deep subway they demanded only in a brief segment, between Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Woodman Avenue.

Between the Hollywood Freeway and Laurel Canyon and between Woodman and Hazeltine Avenue-both solidly residential areas-the trains must be below ground but there is no depth requirement and the line could be open to the air. From Hazeltine to Balboa Boulevard, the presumed point of transfer to express buses, the line would not pass through any residential areas and could be ground-level.

The differing depth requirements initially led to grumbling by homeowner activists about "first- and second-class citizens."

But in recent weeks, homeowner leaders from Studio City, Sherman Oaks and North Hollywood have endorsed the plan, partly through realization that to get to the 25-foot depth, the trains would have to start descending some distance away, leaving only a small area with an open trench.

Tom Paterson, president of Valley Village Homeowners Assn. in North Hollywood, at first denounced the Robbins-Braude plan as a "divide-and-conquer strategy."

`Settle for It'

But last week, Paterson, who represents a neighborhood bisected by the proposed line, said: "It's all the mitigation we are going to get, and we might as well settle for it."

Unwilling to endorse the plan are two large coalitions formed in recent years along the Southern Pacific route-the Eastern Sector Transit Coalition and the Western Sector Transit Coalition.

Tom Herman, president of the eastern group, said the plan "just doesn't go far enough" in protecting residents from noise.

Julie Fine, chairwoman of the western group, based in Reseda and Woodland Hills, was more vehement: "For us, this is the worst possible situation. It brings the rail line right to our doorsteps but gives us no protection whatsoever."

A political activist who asked not to be identified said Robbins and Braude, in putting together their consensus, theorized that single-issue groups such as the two transit coalitions were "less of a threat than long-established groups of homeowners, who you don't want to get on the wrong side of if possible."

Bipartisan Backing

A bill introduced by Robbins in the Legislature includes key elements of the Metro Rail extension plan. It quickly drew bipartisan support among Valley legislators in Sacramento, was passed by the Senate and Assembly and is awaiting action by the governor.

The county Transportation Commission has mounted a formidable lobbying effort, arguing that since the Valley rail line would be built solely with local sales tax funds, the legislation would be an improper intrusion by the state into a local issue.

Deukmejian, who has frequently vetoed bills that he determined were attempts to settle local issues in the Legislature, has until Oct. 2 to act.

The bill would not force the commission to build a Valley line but, through tunneling requirements, would leave it with only two options-build no Valley line or build according to the Robbins-Braude plan.

Even while fighting the Robbins bill, Bacharach predicted that the commission would be strongly influenced by the widespread support the plan has gathered.

Affordability Issue

"It's our policy not to buck communities," she said. "If a halfway system is truly what the Valley wants and we can afford it, we'll probably build it."

But the question of affordability looms large with the commission, which is building the Long Beach-Los Angeles and Century Freeway light-rail lines and contributing to Metro Rail construction.

Rough estimates of Valley rail plans are $900 million for a 15-mile light-rail system and $2.4 billion for a 15-mile all-subway system. No estimates for a part-subway system of only seven miles-the Robbins-Braude plan-are available.

Commission planners say they hope to have $800 million to start another rail line during the 1990s, but they admit that with cost overruns on projects under way, it could be only half that much.

On the other hand, the extra half-cent sales tax that county voters approved in 1980 produces about $110 million in rail construction money each year, and the three projects under way are expected to be completed and paid for by the turn of the century.

Stanger, the commission's rail development director, said that by dragging out the Valley project, "it's possible that it could be done, but we just won't know until our study is done."

Comparing Valley Rail Plans

METRO RAIL EXTENSION

Advantages
No disruption of residential area where trains are underground, minimal where trains are in deep trench.

No need to transfer to downtown-bound Metro Rail

Top speed of 70 m.p.h.

Extra capacity should ridership exceed estimates

Disadvantages
Higher construction cost (about $180 million a mile) means enough money to build only to Balboa Boulevard, about seven miles.

Transfer to buses might prove unpopular with riders traveling to and from West Valley.

Might be difficult to justify per-mile cost based on ridership estimates, which are not yet available.

Capacity of 19,000 riders per hour likely to exceed need.

LIGHT RAIL

Advantages
Less costly (about $45 million per mile).

Although revenue estimates are not available, there is potentially enough to build 15 miles from North Hollywood Metro Rail terminus to Warner Center.

Construction cost more likely to be justified by ridership projections, which are not yet available.

Lack of tunneling results in less disruption during construction.

Disadvantages
Disrupts residents where trains operate at ground level or in shallow trenches.

All suggested routes contain numerous residential areas.

Usually combined with unsightly overhead power lines.

Riders must switch to Metro Rail in North Hollywood to go downtown.

Requires its own storage and repair yard.

Limited to about 6,000 riders per hour.

Top speed is only 55 m.p.h.

I agree that legislators shouldn't meddle in planning efforts and tie planners hands. I also agree that Robbins+Yaroslavsky together doomed SFV rail. But the Robbins bill by itself was not intended as an anti-rail measure.

[Gokhan]

Robbins was a corrupt politician, who should have been jailed. He could care less about subway, LRT, bus, or nothing at all. He was only an opportunist who only cared about himself. And he sided with the NIMBYs. The history keeps repeating itself -- corrupt politicans, opportunists, and NIMBYs working together to prevent light-rail. It's the same thing with the Expo Line, Crenshaw Line, Eastside Line, etc. The details are different but the essence is the same and it is very easy to understand what is going on: there are always going to be NIMBYs and opportunists opposing light-rail, and if there are not enough support groups, corrupt politicians will side with them. This is as simple as that and there is no need for political correctness to understand this.

There was never a "subway ban." Zev's proposition only precluded the use of certain local funds being spent on expensive underground alignments and was aimed at stopping highly reckless and corrupt spending by MTA, done according to the pressure by the politicians. It was the best law ever passed. Without it there wouldn't the Gold Line, Expo Line, Eastside Line, and even the rapid-bus system that we have. All we would have would be a Purple Line extension to La Cienega or so. Now, with Measure R, we will have that and even more.

I also see no mention of "BRT" in the above article, only express buses. It's typical with NIMBYs against LRT: It's OK to have roaring and polluting CNG buses but not OK to have quiet and clean electric trains. And, thanks to corrupt Robbins, the Valley won't have them.

[kenalpern]

There are certain locations to have pure subways, and certain places not to have pure subways. The Downtown Connector and Wilshire Corridor projects both are so megadense as to warrant subways (one is light rail and the other is heavy rail.

Regardless of whether there was political unity (but insignificant funds) to build a Red Line Subway from North Hollywood to Warner Center, by insisting on a subway only in a corridor that could have done just fine with light rail--grade separated at the right places--the area got only a Busway.

Lesson learned?

[bobdavis]

Update on sign "unveilings": Jan 30 saw the ceremony for Duarte, which was held across the street in front of the City of Hope. Your observer was there, and even did a four-minute video for IWILLRIDE.org, which has been posted on YouTube. One of the Duarte City Council members at that event recalled riding the Pacific Electric Monrovia-Glendora line in her younger days, and she's really gung-ho about the Gold Line. Arcadia was earlier this week, and I spotted the sign while taking some last photos of the railroad cars that are about to be moved. Azusa and Azusa/Citrus will round out the stations for the first phase.

[bobdavis]

There's one more "sign ceremony": Azusa (downtown) on Mar. 20 at 10 AM. It will be near the former Santa Fe Azusa station, famous in the days of radio comedy shows (like when I was a boy) for the Jack Benny show's LA Union Station routine. Jack would be leaving to confer with his sponsor in New York, and while waiting for train time, the station announcer (played by Mel Blanc) would intone "Train leaving on Track Five for Anaheim, A-zusa, and Cuuuuc-amonga."

[wad]

Mar 9, 2010 21:47:26 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

"Train leaving on Track Five for Anaheim, A-zusa, and Cuuuuc-amonga."

No wonder that route failed. Why would people go first to Anaheim, then swing back in the opposite direction to Azusa?

[bobdavis]

There never was a train that really did that "route"; the idea was to use unusual Southern California place names. I've heard that some folks on the East Coast thought that the town names were products of the comedy writers' imaginations. This was years before Anaheim became world famous as the home of Disneyland. When the Gold Line reaches Pomona and Claremont, it will be possible to go from Anaheim (on a Surfliner or Metrolink train) to Union Station, take the Gold Line to Azusa, Gold line to Pomona and then Metrolink from Pomona to Cucamonga. I would guess that by the time that happens, there won't be many of us left who remember old time radio. When I worked for the Santa Fe in 1969-70, there was a period when I didn't have a car. To go from San Bernardino to my home in Duarte, I would arrange with the dispatcher to have Train #23, which left San Berdoo around 3:30 AM, drop me off in Azusa. From there I would walk along the mostly abandoned Pacific Electric route to Duarte. This would probably make me the last person to get off a train at that station, so I'm really looking forward to arriving there by electric railway in the future.