|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 6, 2016 1:05:43 GMT -8
I just did the Irwindale to APU-Citrus segment (two non-railway events limited my Gold Line time). Metro was running three-car Breda trains, and when I was ready to ride back to Irwindale, a two-car Kinki-Sharyo train (1013 and 1010) arrived at the terminal. So at least two of them are "ready for prime time."
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 6, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -8
I just did the Irwindale to APU-Citrus segment (two non-railway events limited my Gold Line time). Metro was running three-car Breda trains, and when I was ready to ride back to Irwindale, a two-car Kinki-Sharyo train (1013 and 1010) arrived at the terminal. So at least two of them are "ready for prime time." Nice. What were your impressions on the new cars and the line in general?
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Mar 6, 2016 16:32:37 GMT -8
I rode it out to APU/Citrus and back around 5pm. It didn't seem very smooth; there were a lot of stops at places that weren't stations. The train crawled between the basket bridge and Arcadia, and on the approach to the last station we stopped for a good 30 seconds in the middle of an at-grade crossing. Maybe the signals weren't designed for the headways they were running?
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Mar 6, 2016 20:29:49 GMT -8
Two of us set off to ride the Gold Line at 6:30 this morning, starting at the Beverly and Vermont Red Line station. The trip went fine until Allen Avenue where we were ushered off the train and on to a bus which set off for Arcadia - but the driver didn't know the route and we went by way of San Marino. We got back on the train in Arcadia and rode to APU/Citrus. The return trip was the same except that the bus bridge appeared to be better organized and the driver knew where he was going and it didn't take us as long to get from Arcadia to Allen Avenue. What we were told was that a truck had gone over the center barrier on the 210 freeway and on to the tracks near the Sierra Madre Villa Station. The rail portions of the trip went well - no crawling along. I wonder whether this problem indirectly contributed to the problems Fissue observed.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 7, 2016 6:47:00 GMT -8
GOLD LINE UPDATE: emergency repairs completed, normal train service in AM.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Mar 7, 2016 14:41:06 GMT -8
Took it this morning from City of Hope to Pasadena ... Nice! Didn't stop for a single red light. 20 minutes. We really flew; only one place by Sierra Madre Villa where it even slowed down. The seats were getting full by the time we rolled into Pasadena. If ridership keeps growing, there might be standing for some folks.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 7, 2016 17:30:49 GMT -8
Standing room only and as a direct result of six (6) additional stations...interesting! If this is any indication of the kinds of ridership to be expected out of the SGV Foothills, then maybe there's hope for phase 2b or Metrolink service.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 8, 2016 15:56:55 GMT -8
Standing room only and as a direct result of six (6) additional stations...interesting! If this is any indication of the kinds of ridership to be expected out of the SGV Foothills, then maybe there's hope for phase 2b or Metrolink service. Metrolink really needs to electrify the San Bernardino line. The current timetable with 30-minute peak headways was an improvement over the 40 minute peak headways it used to have, but it's still extremely inconvenient if you miss a train. I wonder if there would be enough P2000 cars for Metro to sell those to Metrolink for such a hypothetical electrification, assuming they can order enough Kinkisharyo cars to make up the difference. The SB line ROW is straight and flat, with widely-spaced stations which should be perfect running conditions.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Mar 8, 2016 17:12:23 GMT -8
So I went on opening day, but I decided to wait until all the mayhem died down a little and took the train from APU/CC to Union Station at around 6pm. Surprisingly even at this hour i had to spend about 10 minutes trying to find a parking spot. I have to say the ride was fairly smooth. Every seat was taken from the start. It didn't really start to get crowded until Duarte, and by Arcadia it was standing room only. It started to dwindle as we got deep into Pasadena, leveled off in NELA, and then dwindled a little more at Chinatown and US.
There was quite a bit of people my age and younger, but (not surprisingly), most of them got off between Lake and Del Mar, a few at Highland Park, and the rest in DTLA.
I wanted to go adventuring DTLA; unfortunately I had things to do that evening, so at US as soon as I exited the train, I crossed the platform and hopped onto the NB train back.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Mar 9, 2016 10:28:57 GMT -8
Some more observations as I've ridden it: The APU/Citrus garage was mostly filled by about 6:30 on Monday morning. The Downtown Azusa parking structure fills up completely at or before 7:30. However, the first floor-and-a-half of the garage is reserved for "local" 3-hour parking, which practically speaking means that there are only around 2 dozen cars parked there at any given time. It's a complete waste and Foothill Transit really should consider using at least some of that space as permit parking. Another rider said the Irwindale garage still had parking available around 8 AM. Seems reasonable considering that garage has 350 spots to the two Azusa garages' 200 spots, is further west, and is kind of hidden from sight. Also, here's a piece in the SGV Tribune talking about Monday.Still haven't had a chance to ride a Kinkisharyo train. Didn't even see one this morning, although I passed one on my way home yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 14, 2016 3:08:12 GMT -8
My older daughter has been riding from APU (sounds like an island in the south seas)Citrus to LA all week, except for one day when she had business in Covina and still had her Metrolink pass. The day after what may be her last diesel powered trip for a while, one of the original 1992-vintage ML units had a catastrophic failure in Pomona, but she was traveling with "trolley power". Two new ML locomotives were spotted by Trainorders.com members en route to California, and someone commented, "Can't get here soon enough."
I went by the terminal on Sunday afternoon and found a few survey stakes, but otherwise no sign of activity to close the gap between Foothill Blvd. and the parking structure. There are new STOP signs at the Palm Dr. intersection which may help newbies find the long way around that reaches the parking structure from the north. I did see a small Transit Systems bus heading for the station, so it looks like even on Sunday, students can reach their campuses.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 18, 2016 17:59:43 GMT -8
Observations from last week: Boarded Gold Line southbound at Sierra Madre Villa, which some Metro announcements call Sierra Madre Villa/East Pasadena. This was around 2:30 PM so there were some empty spaces, but not many. Went into Union Station, picked up new Metro Rail and Metrolink timetables. Continued on to East LA. Took photos, boarded "northbound" train headed for SMV and got off at Little Tokyo for some quick shots of Regional Connector activity. Boarded train to APU Citrus and went racing through the San Gabriel Valley along the old Super Chief route. Spotted the Santa Fe postcard scene mural on the storage building in Duarte. Got off at APU, looked south on Citrus Ave. and saw large yellow machines, a hopeful sign for passengers who now have to take the long way around until the Citrus Ave. gap is closed.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 9, 2016 19:48:02 GMT -8
News from the Construction Authority meeting last night: Latest report on the long-delayed Citrus Ave. extension: Expect completion by Aug. 30 (yes, this year). 2A project is winding down, just a few minor "punch list" items and completing as-built drawings remain. Planning for Phase 2B is active, although funding is still a question mark.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 11, 2016 16:59:02 GMT -8
Standing room only and as a direct result of six (6) additional stations...interesting! If this is any indication of the kinds of ridership to be expected out of the SGV Foothills, then maybe there's hope for phase 2b or Metrolink service. Metrolink really needs to electrify the San Bernardino line. The current timetable with 30-minute peak headways was an improvement over the 40 minute peak headways it used to have, but it's still extremely inconvenient if you miss a train. I wonder if there would be enough P2000 cars for Metro to sell those to Metrolink for such a hypothetical electrification, assuming they can order enough Kinkisharyo cars to make up the difference. The SB line ROW is straight and flat, with widely-spaced stations which should be perfect running conditions. Metro and Metrolink are two different animals. If the San Bernardino Metrolink line is to be electrified it will probably use cars more like the new Denver Airport line or the NICTD South Shore Line between Chicago and South Bend IN. Once the San Bernardino Line gets east of Bassett, the current alignment has freight traffic (UP from Bassett to Pomona, BNSF from Claremont to San Bernardino.)
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 11, 2016 17:04:55 GMT -8
I went by the Citrus Ave. extension project near Citrus College today, preliminary grading and retaining walls have been done, but the construction crew will really have to "get their backs in it" to be done by the end of August.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 31, 2016 22:27:42 GMT -8
Update on Citrus Ave.: My daughter, who rides the Gold Line to work in LA, reports that the paving is nearly done and the signals have been installed but not activated. So they won't meet the "end of August" prediction, but should be done some time is September.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 10, 2016 21:10:32 GMT -8
Went by Citrus Ave. on my way home from Orange Empire this afternoon, looks like the paving is done. The signals are in place but covered. Should be ready for service soon.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 11, 2016 10:24:46 GMT -8
Went by Citrus Ave. on my way home from Orange Empire this afternoon, looks like the paving is done. The signals are in place but covered. Should be ready for service soon. Do you think this will have any real positive effect on ridership when finished?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Sept 11, 2016 13:46:05 GMT -8
Went by Citrus Ave. on my way home from Orange Empire this afternoon, looks like the paving is done. The signals are in place but covered. Should be ready for service soon. Do you think this will have any real positive effect on ridership when finished? Well this would make it much easier for students to access the station rather than walking all the way around Foothill and then Palm, so i would think the ridership would increase on that end somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Sept 12, 2016 8:09:44 GMT -8
Do you think this will have any real positive effect on ridership when finished? Well this would make it much easier for students to access the station rather than walking all the way around Foothill and then Palm, so i would think the ridership would increase on that end somewhat. I suspect most of the students have avoided this line because of this. When the street opening is public I would guess that ridership should increase by at least a few hundred almost over night, and gradually increase to at least 1000. The vast majority students who are driving from the west are certainly not going to stop driving to walk 1.5 miles to campus from Metro Rail. Same with any students on the 187. I'd rather take the bus that drops me off in front of the campus than take the train right now. A 1.5 mile walk will not only negate any speed savings from the train(if not worse) but you will also be hot and sweaty by the time you get to class. The Claremont extension will actually maximize the potential of this station, since this will gain access to students who live on Metrolink further East. These students will also be more likely to ride the train since these students will be in morning and afternoon rush hour traffic direction.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 12, 2016 12:25:36 GMT -8
Well this would make it much easier for students to access the station rather than walking all the way around Foothill and then Palm, so i would think the ridership would increase on that end somewhat. I suspect most of the students have avoided this line because of this. When the street opening is public I would guess that ridership should increase by at least a few hundred almost over night, and gradually increase to at least 1000. The vast majority students who are driving from the west are certainly not going to stop driving to walk 1.5 miles to campus from Metro Rail. Same with any students on the 187. I'd rather take the bus that drops me off in front of the campus than take the train right now. A 1.5 mile walk will not only negate any speed savings from the train(if not worse) but you will also be hot and sweaty by the time you get to class. The Claremont extension will actually maximize the potential of this station, since this will gain access to students who live on Metrolink further East. These students will also be more likely to ride the train since these students will be in morning and afternoon rush hour traffic direction. What about the parking crunch. Any chance that the public will utilize the pay garage at Citrus College? That was more what I was thinking since I know just about everyone needs parking out there and that has been such a contentious issue. Ironically on Expo it doesn't seem like much of an issue, although I imagine Culver City will become a problem once that lot goes away.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Sept 12, 2016 13:41:41 GMT -8
I suspect most of the students have avoided this line because of this. When the street opening is public I would guess that ridership should increase by at least a few hundred almost over night, and gradually increase to at least 1000. The vast majority students who are driving from the west are certainly not going to stop driving to walk 1.5 miles to campus from Metro Rail. Same with any students on the 187. I'd rather take the bus that drops me off in front of the campus than take the train right now. A 1.5 mile walk will not only negate any speed savings from the train(if not worse) but you will also be hot and sweaty by the time you get to class. The Claremont extension will actually maximize the potential of this station, since this will gain access to students who live on Metrolink further East. These students will also be more likely to ride the train since these students will be in morning and afternoon rush hour traffic direction. What about the parking crunch. Any chance that the public will utilize the pay garage at Citrus College? That was more what I was thinking since I know just about everyone needs parking out there and that has been such a contentious issue. Ironically on Expo it doesn't seem like much of an issue, although I imagine Culver City will become a problem once that lot goes away. The parking is an absolute blunder on the Gold line and will pretty much limit its potential ridership. These are suburban communities where the vast majority drive cars. The whole Palm/East Promenade block should've been a parking lot and garage. Why this line's stations weren't planned like Metrolink stations is beyond me. It's like if Rancho Cucamonga had built their Metrolink station with a 100 car parking lot. Tons of people riding their bike and bus to a suburb station because of a lack of parking is fantasy land. Most of the 800 people who use Rancho Metrolink would go back to driving their car to work before they'd get on Omnitrans to get to the station. Rancho imposing parking fees pretty much caused 200-300 Metrolink riders to vanish overnight, so I don't see many people using the pay garage at citrus college depending on how much it costs.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 12, 2016 16:28:38 GMT -8
Parking spots in a structure cost $30-80k a spot, plus maintenance and limiting future TOD. Considering even a 100 spot lot would only boost ridership by... well... about 100 riders per weekday, I would rather Metro spend $8 million on literally anything else.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Sept 12, 2016 17:15:33 GMT -8
Parking spots in a structure cost $30-80k a spot, plus maintenance and limiting future TOD. Considering even a 100 spot lot would only boost ridership by... well... about 100 riders per weekday, I would rather Metro spend $8 million on literally anything else. Actually, its all relative. I'm not arguing we should put parking garages next to downtown stations. The fact is, the further the Gold Line heads east the further it gets into Metrolink territory; therefore it should be treated like a Metrolink station. If Metro doesn't want to spend money on parking garages, they shouldn't be spending billions on light rail extensions to suburban neighborhoods where everyone drives. I'm a transit advocate, but I'm also realistic. People don't move to suburbs to live TODs, and the despite all the TODs built around Metrolink stations in past couple years on the SB line the vast majority still drive to the stations. It's simply fantasy land. Also, at this distance, you are potentially taking 10-60 lane miles(and the subsequent pollution) per day off the highway system per parking spot. It's the same reason why despite Metrolink only moving 40,000 boardings, it actually does more to ease traffic than any of the local transit agencies combined besides LA Metro.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 12, 2016 21:21:47 GMT -8
Parking spots in a structure cost $30-80k a spot, plus maintenance and limiting future TOD. Considering even a 100 spot lot would only boost ridership by... well... about 100 riders per weekday, I would rather Metro spend $8 million on literally anything else. Actually, its all relative. I'm not arguing we should put parking garages next to downtown stations. The fact is, the further the Gold Line heads east the further it gets into Metrolink territory; therefore it should be treated like a Metrolink station. If Metro doesn't want to spend money on parking garages, they shouldn't be spending billions on light rail extensions to suburban neighborhoods where everyone drives. I'm a transit advocate, but I'm also realistic. People don't move to suburbs to live TODs, and the despite all the TODs built around Metrolink stations in past couple years on the SB line the vast majority still drive to the stations. It's simply fantasy land. Also, at this distance, you are potentially taking 10-60 lane miles(and the subsequent pollution) per day off the highway system per parking spot. It's the same reason why despite Metrolink only moving 40,000 boardings, it actually does more to ease traffic than any of the local transit agencies combined besides LA Metro. That is the argument against light rail so deep in suburbia. It just doesn't make economic sense. People seem to just want a cheap Metrolink out there with free parking, and so far the ridership is not good at all. With a distanced based fare scheme similar to Metrolink along with paid parking, I think you'd have a fairer system instead of subsidizing long distanced commuters at the expense of urban customers and just weakening Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Sept 13, 2016 10:05:21 GMT -8
Actually, its all relative. I'm not arguing we should put parking garages next to downtown stations. The fact is, the further the Gold Line heads east the further it gets into Metrolink territory; therefore it should be treated like a Metrolink station. If Metro doesn't want to spend money on parking garages, they shouldn't be spending billions on light rail extensions to suburban neighborhoods where everyone drives. I'm a transit advocate, but I'm also realistic. People don't move to suburbs to live TODs, and the despite all the TODs built around Metrolink stations in past couple years on the SB line the vast majority still drive to the stations. It's simply fantasy land. Also, at this distance, you are potentially taking 10-60 lane miles(and the subsequent pollution) per day off the highway system per parking spot. It's the same reason why despite Metrolink only moving 40,000 boardings, it actually does more to ease traffic than any of the local transit agencies combined besides LA Metro. That is the argument against light rail so deep in suburbia. It just doesn't make economic sense. People seem to just want a cheap Metrolink out there with free parking, and so far the ridership is not good at all. With a distanced based fare scheme similar to Metrolink along with paid parking, I think you'd have a fairer system instead of subsidizing long distanced commuters at the expense of urban customers and just weakening Metrolink. Paid parking is wait-listed in Irwindale and Azusa, and it looks like Monrovia might be filling up soon. What makes you think that GL ridership is not good? It's still at 50,000/weekday.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Sept 13, 2016 11:16:25 GMT -8
That is the argument against light rail so deep in suburbia. It just doesn't make economic sense. People seem to just want a cheap Metrolink out there with free parking, and so far the ridership is not good at all. With a distanced based fare scheme similar to Metrolink along with paid parking, I think you'd have a fairer system instead of subsidizing long distanced commuters at the expense of urban customers and just weakening Metrolink. Paid parking is wait-listed in Irwindale and Azusa, and it looks like Monrovia might be filling up soon. What makes you think that GL ridership is not good? It's still at 50,000/weekday. Except 48,000 of those riders were already there before the Gold Line Foothill Extension. Metro cites 47,931 for February 2016. 2,000 extra riders would be a healthy increase for Metrolink, not a $1 Billion light rail extension with trains running every 12 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Sept 13, 2016 12:15:52 GMT -8
Paid parking is wait-listed in Irwindale and Azusa, and it looks like Monrovia might be filling up soon. What makes you think that GL ridership is not good? It's still at 50,000/weekday. Except 48,000 of those riders were already there before the Gold Line Foothill Extension. Metro cites 47,931 for February 2016. 2,000 extra riders would be a healthy increase for Metrolink, not a $1 Billion light rail extension with trains running every 12 minutes. In my estimation, the 48K number is skewed for some reason, perhaps due to miscounting during the Little Tokyo construction and bus bridge. There is a 12.5% increase in eight months while major construction was done in the middle of the line.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 13, 2016 17:17:07 GMT -8
That is the argument against light rail so deep in suburbia. It just doesn't make economic sense. People seem to just want a cheap Metrolink out there with free parking, and so far the ridership is not good at all. With a distanced based fare scheme similar to Metrolink along with paid parking, I think you'd have a fairer system instead of subsidizing long distanced commuters at the expense of urban customers and just weakening Metrolink. Paid parking is wait-listed in Irwindale and Azusa, and it looks like Monrovia might be filling up soon. What makes you think that GL ridership is not good? It's still at 50,000/weekday. Whether the limited parking lots are filling up is not a metric of ridership. The Gold Line has the worst ridership per mile of any Metro line including the Green Line. It is a light rail line in an area trying to use it as commuter rail service. Light rail simply won't work like that. There will never be enough free parking and the service is not sustainable over 20+ miles at $1.75 a pop. If people only go one way in the morning and the other way at night, they will think ridership is pretty good, but the trains are operating mostly empty the other direction and during the middle of the day in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Sept 14, 2016 5:48:35 GMT -8
What are the destinations of Gold Line Azusa passengers? Downtown Los Angeles? Pasadena? The fact that the line ends in Los Angeles doesn't necessarily mean that most people boarding in Azusa are traveling to Los Angeles.
|
|