|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 14, 2016 22:08:46 GMT -8
At long last! The Citrus Ave. extension from Foothill Blvd. to the APU-Citrus station is scheduled to have its ceremonial opening Monday, Sept. 19 at 10 AM.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 15, 2016 5:45:40 GMT -8
I believe previous analysis by Metro determined that of the 5,000 some new passengers initially, roughly half got off in Pasadena. Which makes quite a bit of sense, given that the Gold Line bypasses the absolute worst sections of the 210.
Regarding the parking, it seems abundantly clear that the APU/Citrus station was never intended to be the terminus. The construction authority even extended the line as far as they could beyond the station with their remaining funds in preparation for a future extension to Claremont/Montclair.
Once the Gold Line links up with Metrolink, both the commuter and parking issues are mostly resolved. There is already considerable parking at Montclair, should SANBAG choose to cooperate, and the extension plans call for a large garage at Claremont (which already has a large surface lot). Plus it allows Metrolink riders from San Bernardino to transfer, which would make SB-to-Pasadena commutes a lot faster than taking the SB line 1.5 hours to LA, and then backtracking 30+ minutes to Pasadena on the Gold Line. It's only 30 minutes to Montclair from SB on Metrolink, and then with the extension it should take less than an hour to reach Pasadena on the Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Sept 15, 2016 7:56:23 GMT -8
To me, its a question of what the line is for in the first place. Beyond this line's political necessity, if you are only looking for a short term conversion of a handful of car commuters into car commuters who also get subsidized parking and subsidized rail journeys just to take a few car miles a day off the roads, then sure. Park and rides fulfill that at a massively expensive per VMT price. It would no doubt be cheaper to pay people $100 a day to take the bus. On the other side, if you are looking for this line (or any transit line) to lay the groundwork for long term development shifts in both the composition and commuting habits of whole regions, then building massively expensive park and ride lots on the most critical station adjacent land is likely the worst of both worlds. I have a feeling that the real reason that so many transit agencies continue to build park and rides is not a failure to understand the second point by the staff themselves, but by their directorate boards and voting constituencies who can't imagine, or actively resist, a future not completely centered on the private automobile. usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/05/park-rides-lose-money-and-waste-land-but-agencies-keep-building-them/
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Sept 15, 2016 9:33:15 GMT -8
To me, its a question of what the line is for in the first place. Beyond this line's political necessity, if you are only looking for a short term conversion of a handful of car commuters into car commuters who also get subsidized parking and subsidized rail journeys just to take a few car miles a day off the roads, then sure. Park and rides fulfill that at a massively expensive per VMT price. It would no doubt be cheaper to pay people $100 a day to take the bus. On the other side, if you are looking for this line (or any transit line) to lay the groundwork for long term development shifts in both the composition and commuting habits of whole regions, then building massively expensive park and ride lots on the most critical station adjacent land is likely the worst of both worlds. I have a feeling that the real reason that so many transit agencies continue to build park and rides is not a failure to understand the second point by the staff themselves, but by their directorate boards and voting constituencies who can't imagine, or actively resist, a future not completely centered on the private automobile. usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/05/park-rides-lose-money-and-waste-land-but-agencies-keep-building-them/As I keep saying, its all relative. Building parking lots in urban areas that have good transit and bike access obviously makes no sense and no one here is arguing that. As misonite said also, the current $1.75 fare with free parking obviously is not going to work, but paid parking and distance based fares will. If you'd read the study the article is referencing, BART's paid parking lots are a success with all but two park n ride lots at 95% full with $30 million in revenue. WMATA fared even better. Obviously Retail and residential developments were ideal, but these areas already have good transit. I was skeptical of paid parking, but the study shows it can work well enough. The places where Park n Ride didn't work were mostly urban rail systems with areas with good transit access and free parking. They didn't survey Metrolink, where 80% of Metrolink's ridership is from Auto. Also, it's allot more than taking a "few car miles" off the roads. We're talking at least 30-120 miles round trip per spot depending on the distance of the station to major work centers. This aspect obviously can not be easily taken into the cost vs benefit equation of parking lots in far flung suburbs. I used to have the same anti-parking-regardless nature until I experienced it. I live in Rialto and took Omnitrans to get the Metrolink Station for 4 years to get to work and school in Pomona. When heading home I had to get off at Fontana and waste 40 minutes to get to my home street, with a 15 minute walk still. If I were to get off at my home station, Rialto, I'd have to take 2 buses and still have the 15 minute walk. Just got a car, 6 minute drive to and from the station. I've talked to the head planner at Omnitrans via a recent Omnitrans yard tour. I pleaded for circulators and better connections, but they weren't open to it. The planner said "Most riders want E-W service, and only 0.04% of our riders connect to and from Metrolink" Given my experience, the best approach for suburban areas is service like Metrolink. Very low subsidy and train operations can be arranged to maximize the effectiveness of the service. With Metrolink the stations are owned by their respective cities so each community can decide whether they want to charge for parking. However, building a light rail line half way to San Bernardino then expecting to force people onto a bus by restricting parking is pure fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Sept 19, 2016 10:25:17 GMT -8
As I keep saying, its all relative. Building parking lots in urban areas that have good transit and bike access obviously makes no sense and no one here is arguing that. As misonite said also, the current $1.75 fare with free parking obviously is not going to work, but paid parking and distance based fares will. If you'd read the study the article is referencing, BART's paid parking lots are a success with all but two park n ride lots at 95% full with $30 million in revenue. WMATA fared even better. Obviously Retail and residential developments were ideal, but these areas already have good transit. I was skeptical of paid parking, but the study shows it can work well enough. The places where Park n Ride didn't work were mostly urban rail systems with areas with good transit access and free parking. They didn't survey Metrolink, where 80% of Metrolink's ridership is from Auto. Also, it's allot more than taking a "few car miles" off the roads. We're talking at least 30-120 miles round trip per spot depending on the distance of the station to major work centers. This aspect obviously can not be easily taken into the cost vs benefit equation of parking lots in far flung suburbs. I used to have the same anti-parking-regardless nature until I experienced it. I live in Rialto and took Omnitrans to get the Metrolink Station for 4 years to get to work and school in Pomona. When heading home I had to get off at Fontana and waste 40 minutes to get to my home street, with a 15 minute walk still. If I were to get off at my home station, Rialto, I'd have to take 2 buses and still have the 15 minute walk. Just got a car, 6 minute drive to and from the station. I've talked to the head planner at Omnitrans via a recent Omnitrans yard tour. I pleaded for circulators and better connections, but they weren't open to it. The planner said "Most riders want E-W service, and only 0.04% of our riders connect to and from Metrolink" Given my experience, the best approach for suburban areas is service like Metrolink. Very low subsidy and train operations can be arranged to maximize the effectiveness of the service. With Metrolink the stations are owned by their respective cities so each community can decide whether they want to charge for parking. However, building a light rail line half way to San Bernardino then expecting to force people onto a bus by restricting parking is pure fantasy. I'll concur - parking is a necessary evil in the process of casting off the suburban sprawl mindset. Former suburbs like Santa Monica that have since urbanized can get away with minimal or no parking and still maintain ridership. However, rail stations in the Valley and the Inland Empire that are surrounded by sprawl need parking lots to build the sort of ridership that transit agencies can then use to justify improving the connecting services and such needed to wean riders off of driving. From that perspective, of parking as a temporary necessity, it does seem like a waste to spend $30,000 per space, but when you consider the lifetime of a parking garage and how long it takes for a community to urbanize, it could be 20+ years before the area is urbanized/connected enough to make the garage superfluous. With that said, the communities around along the right-of-ways in the IE are all building denser housing, and it appears that the possibility of extending the Gold Line to Montclair actually drove several transit-oriented developments. Two TODs next to Montclair Station, a more walkable downtown core for Montclair, a Claremont Village TOD next to that station and plans for future TODs within walking distance along Indian Hill, redevelopment at Pomona, support for similar efforts in La Verne, and of course the already-open mixed-use development next to the station site in San Dimas. Further along the SB line, Upland is also trying to urbanize in spite of whack-a-loon Agenda 21 NIMBYs, and similar efforts are underway at Fontana, Rialto, and even downtown San Bernardino with the new downtown hub station that will finally connect the SB line to the sbX Green Line BRT.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 19, 2016 22:52:42 GMT -8
From our on-the-spot reporter (our older daughter): The Citrus Connection is officially open from Foothill Blvd (original route of US 66) to the present Gold Line terminal at APU-Citrus. She and her fellow Glendora commuters will no longer have to "Take the Long Way Home" (taking a song title from the Supertramp hit of 1979).
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 29, 2016 21:11:01 GMT -8
Went by the Monrovia Santa Fe station today--it was enshrouded with a fumigation tent. First sign of progress I've seen so far in the quest to restore the old depot.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Dec 9, 2016 9:03:28 GMT -8
Interesting; Looks like the Gold Line extension is killing Covina-LAUS Metrolink ridership. From today's Metrolink Board Meeting Agenda: No real surprises here. 82% of Metrolink riders have automobiles, so they can easily drive North for the $1.75 flat fare and 12 minute service. On the plus side, Metrolink's cheaper short distance fares seems to be working like a charm. Students commuting from Covina to Cal State LA seems to being growing by as much as 34% according another table, so props to Art Leahy on his push for cheaper short distance fares..
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Dec 9, 2016 11:28:11 GMT -8
No real surprises here. 82% of Metrolink riders have automobiles, so they can easily drive North for the $1.75 flat fare and 12 minute service. 7 minute service during rush-hour ... although my guess is that the $$$ are the number one issue for Metrolink riders. It adds up when you ride every day. Hopefully Art can get enough funding to drop fares to a reasonable level. $5 for West Covina - LAUS would be reasonable IMO.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Dec 9, 2016 12:12:53 GMT -8
No real surprises here. 82% of Metrolink riders have automobiles, so they can easily drive North for the $1.75 flat fare and 12 minute service. 7 minute service during rush-hour ... although my guess is that the $$$ are the number one issue for Metrolink riders. It adds up when you ride every day. Hopefully Art can get enough funding to drop fares to a reasonable level. $5 for West Covina - LAUS would be reasonable IMO. Actually, I think Metro should be going for distance based fares. If the fares were "unreasonable" then those riders wouldn't be riding Metrolink at all. Moving Metrolink riders to the Gold Line is just a loss to the taxpayer. I've already spoken with Art Leahy on this, and longer distance riders were already getting a higher subsidy. The only fares that were unreasonable were the short distance trips, which Art openly stated was designed to discourage short distance trips. We'll see how this fans out, because I doubt the 5 member agencies are willing to cut fares across the board.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Dec 9, 2016 14:05:58 GMT -8
7 minute service during rush-hour ... although my guess is that the $$$ are the number one issue for Metrolink riders. It adds up when you ride every day. Hopefully Art can get enough funding to drop fares to a reasonable level. $5 for West Covina - LAUS would be reasonable IMO. The only fares that were unreasonable were the short distance trips, which Art openly stated was designed to discourage short distance trips. Both a Metro switch to a distance fare (keeping fares low as affordability was part of Measures R/M) and dropping Metrolink fares would be good. Getting 5 counties to approve more money will be quite a feat, as you say, but, Metrolink ought to be aiming higher than just the existing paltry ridership, and both freeways and Metro have larger subsidies than Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 9, 2016 15:40:14 GMT -8
The most important factor for choice riders is frequency/convenience so they'll always opt for the more frequent and reliable service. For riders that have no choice, price is important.
Since measure m passed fare recovery is less important, I can't imagine metro will go to distance based fares for light rail
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 9, 2016 16:47:10 GMT -8
7 minute service during rush-hour ... although my guess is that the $$$ are the number one issue for Metrolink riders. It adds up when you ride every day. Hopefully Art can get enough funding to drop fares to a reasonable level. $5 for West Covina - LAUS would be reasonable IMO. Actually, I think Metro should be going for distance based fares. If the fares were "unreasonable" then those riders wouldn't be riding Metrolink at all. Moving Metrolink riders to the Gold Line is just a loss to the taxpayer. I've already spoken with Art Leahy on this, and longer distance riders were already getting a higher subsidy. The only fares that were unreasonable were the short distance trips, which Art openly stated was designed to discourage short distance trips. We'll see how this fans out, because I doubt the 5 member agencies are willing to cut fares across the board. This is right on. I'm no believer that distanced based fares are the end all as they add a lot of complexity to the system. However, it makes no sense to have one public system be distanced based and another be flat rate when they are running in the same area as this. Also, doesn't make sense for one system to be mandated to have a 50% recovery ratio while the other is around half that. Measure M doesn't absolve Metro from its fare recovery problems. In fact as the system grows it magnifies them as the subsidies become bigger. Also, having a person pay the same fare for a one mile ride as someone does for a 50 mile ride does raise some equity issues. When MetroRail was small, this wasn't much of an issue, but now that it has grown so much it becomes a bigger one. When the Gold Line expanded to Azuza the trains became full of people riding from Azuza to DTLA. Some people in Highland Park couldn't even get on the train and had to resort to other means. Basically ridership didn't increase much, but ridership by distance did and on the other side operating costs did increase because of the longer length of the Line.
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Dec 9, 2016 18:17:28 GMT -8
Distance fares really should be implemented ... People aren't going to hop on Metro for one or two stops to get to Target if they're charged $3.50 for a round-trip. If a "medium" length trip is $1.75, then 50 cents or a buck for a short one-way sounds reasonable. Short trips for errands and spur of the moment things are another step in getting people to let go of their cars.
Dropping prices for short trips might actually increase revenue as they would bring in riders who ordinarily wouldn't take the train for errands.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Dec 21, 2016 13:10:07 GMT -8
Short trips at Metro are basically free. I see a lot of people hopping on the train without swiping and leaving two stations later; the chance of being caught is very slim that way. Getting caught increases when your trip is longer especially if you transfer at 7th Street Metrocenter.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 6, 2017 20:43:32 GMT -8
Update on the former Santa Fe station in Monrovia: Work has begun on restoring the historic building. Completion is expected later this year.
|
|