|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 11, 2011 9:24:39 GMT -8
I don't think this will affect the financing issued by Metro for Foothill Phase 2A. Although Metro is a state-created entity, it is not part of the state government, so it shouldn't be affected by this state budget policy. Crenshaw will not be receiving any state or federal funding. Most of its funding (over 80%) is from Measure R, and the rest is to come from local sources. (It did receive a $500+ million Federal loan, to be paid back from Measure R money). |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 11, 2011 9:55:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 11, 2011 13:17:03 GMT -8
Final board approval of Phase 2A (Gold Line to Azusa) is scheduled for the special board meeting on next Tuesday, January 18! Just got an email confirming this. At the meeting, the board will consider certifying the SEIR, supplement to the 2007 FEIR. I don't believe there are any significant objections to the project, so it should pass fairly easily. The meeting is at noon in Monrovia and is open to the public. Since I work less than a half mile away from the Authority's office, I will try to be there. Meeting info is here.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 11, 2011 22:13:05 GMT -8
Thanks for the heads-up! I often go to the regular meetings in Arcadia, but I haven't checked the schedule recently. Last week there was some work on the Huntington Dr. bridge in Arcadia, dealing with seismic issues. Slowly but surely, things are starting to happen....
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 12, 2011 8:25:09 GMT -8
By this coming fall and winter, we should be seeing lots of construction happening up and down the line. I had planned to take lots of construction pictures, since I work in Monrovia near the middle of the corridor. But alas, it wasn't meant to be: my job is moving to east Glendora in May.  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 12, 2011 20:48:12 GMT -8
Fear not, for I plan to keep a sharp eye on the construction work (being retired has its advantages). If anyone remembers the Andy Capp British cartoon strip: Andy sees some workmen constructing a building, and asks what it's going to house. The foreman answers, "It's a new pub, mate," And Andy says, "Well then, get your backs in it, lads!"
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 8:27:18 GMT -8
Well, today's the day that the Foothill Authority Board will finally give the Gold Line extension to Azusa the green light. The Special Board Meeting will be held today at noon, at the following location: Construction Authority Offices
406 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 202
Monrovia, CA 91016 More details on the meeting and the SEIR can be found here. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 13:04:23 GMT -8
Certification of the SEIR is temporarily on hold, due to objections from an owner of property at the M&O site.  At today's Authority meeting, a member of staff summarized the SEIR findings. This summary was followed by a public comment period. There were three comments from the public, all of them representing one George Brokate. Mr. Brokate's corporation, Excalibur Property Holdings LLC, owns 4.5 acres at the proposed M&O (maintenance yard) site in Monrovia. The comments came from two lawyers representing Mr. Brokate, followed by Brokate himself. Mr. Brokate objects to the taking of his property for the project. The lawyers cited numerous "faults" in the SEIR which they said made it illegal, including breaking up the project into two phases, and inadequate consideration/responses to objections (both arguments we've heard before with the Expo Line). The lawyers left bankers boxes full of written material containing their objections. Mr. Brokate and his lawyers said they would not sell and promised to "vigorously" oppose eminent domain using all legal means. After the end of public comment, the Authority's counsel recommended that the board recess until 5PM to see if they can answer the new objections in the documents provided by the opponent's lawyers. (The meeting will remain open, so that if they have adequate responses they can still certify the SEIR.) The Board discussed the proposal, and then passed the motion to recess. The Authority will update its website sometime this afternoon, to notify the public whether or not it is able to complete its response by 5PM. If it cannot, the Authority will officially close today's meeting and kick the ball (certification) down the field, to the next scheduled board meeting on January 26th.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 17:21:21 GMT -8
The meeting was again moved, this time to 5:30. No announcement was ever made on the website.
I'm sticking around because frankly this drama is kind of fascinating.
This Brokate guy is a very wealthy dude. He's also very right-wing and anti-government, in with the RNC, tea party and evangelist organizations. So it wouldn't surprise me if his personal objective goes beyond his property, and extends to killing what he considers a wasteful government program.
I guess we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 17:49:15 GMT -8
Staff just handed out its written response. In short: Brokate's objections are without merit and The Board should vote to certify the project. Now the board is having one more recess in the meeting before taking a final round of public comments and then putting it to a vote.
UPDATE: Shortly before 7 PM, the board unanimously voted to certify the Phase 2A SEIR.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jan 18, 2011 19:28:38 GMT -8
No, please no more NIMBYs...why does he oppose it?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 18, 2011 20:23:13 GMT -8
Not exactly a case of NIMBY; the property in question is in a commercial/industrial zone.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jan 18, 2011 21:41:17 GMT -8
Any update?
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 22:28:31 GMT -8
In the end, the Board certified the SEIR. The vote was unanimous.
But before doing so, staff responded to all the objections put forth. Not only that, they also altered the resolution to certify the project, to include several pointed retorts to the opposition's claims.
It could be, as Bob suggests, that the guy is looking to hit the jackpot. Bluffing legal action, prior to negotiations. I hope he gets eminent domained.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 25, 2011 13:51:18 GMT -8
Work began around two weeks ago on the rail bridge in Arcadia to be used by the Gold Line. The bridge crosses diagonally over the intersection of Huntington Drive and Second Avenue. Lanes are closed for the seismic retrofit, which is being completed by L.A. County Public Works. The retrofit will cost $174,000 and is being funded by the federal government.
Work will last until early March. Until then, both Second Avenue and Huntington Drive will have one traffic lane and one sidewalk closed, at all times.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 26, 2011 21:52:34 GMT -8
I observed the GLFE board meeting tonight and learned the following items: Construction for the IFS (bridge over I-210 at Arcadia) should begin in June of this year and be "substantially complete" in July 2012. Approval has been secured from Caltrans for "encroachments" to facilitate start of construction. Contract for the major part of the project should be awarded in April. Final agreement with BNSF for vacating the former Santa Fe track west of the San Gabriel River should be complete within a month. Also in process are negotiations with the US Army Corps of Engineers for construction of a new bridge over the San Gabriel River. (My unofficial thought: at least we don't have to worry about it being a "navigable body of water" and have to get the Coast Guard involved. The existing bridge apparently has seismic issues and is single track.)
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 27, 2011 8:47:39 GMT -8
^^Thanks for the report, Bob.
I'd really like to meet the program manager on this project. The schedule over the past two years has been very aggressive, with lots of points of potential delay on the critical path. And yet so far, this project has been kept on track.
Major construction will start in a few months: hopefully they can maintain their momentum until then, and throughout the construction process as well.
The Authority was planning to reuse the existing bridge until sometime last year, when they decided it made more sense to build a new one, as you said, for the seismic issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 27, 2011 19:25:55 GMT -8
From all I've seen, the Foothill Extension staff, from Mr. Balian on down the org chart, has a "can do" attitude. I think of the TV animated character "Bob the Builder" and his "Can Do Crew": "Can we build it? Yes we can!" What really helps is the support from the six cities that will be served by the first extension; unlike some of the objections to the Purple Line project (what? build a subway under our High School? What a ghastly thought!) and the Cheviot Hills "nattering nabobs of negativism". Earlier this month I attended a "scoping meeting" in Glendora for Phase 2-B. This won't be happening for several years, but many of the folks further out are already looking forward to rail service.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 23, 2011 8:48:58 GMT -8
Well, here it is. Mr. Brokate has filed suit to stop the Foothill Extension in Monrovia. The lawsuit was filed in LA County Superior Court, case number BS130732. If anybody is interested. The lawsuit alleges the following against the Gold Line Authority: - Authority improperly segmented of Phase 2 into two projects (Phase 2a to Azusa, and Phase 2b to Montclair).
- Authority didn't consider enough alternative sites for the maintenance yard.
- Authority didn't do a thorough analysis of all environmental impacts from the maintenance yard.
- Authority's analysis was rigged to support their decision to relocate the maintenance yard to Monrovia.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 23, 2011 9:32:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 9, 2011 23:22:12 GMT -8
I attended the GLFE board meeting tonight (Mar 9). No big developments; still waiting for Metro to approve certain elements of the project. Closed session held to discuss real estate and legal matters (presumably related to the Monrovia maintenance facility).
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 10, 2011 12:32:45 GMT -8
I attended the GLFE board meeting tonight (Mar 9). No big developments; still waiting for Metro to approve certain elements of the project. Closed session held to discuss real estate and legal matters (presumably related to the Monrovia maintenance facility). Bob, Any mention of early footing work starting on the IBS? RT |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 10, 2011 13:28:44 GMT -8
Hey Bob, thanks for the update. It was my understanding that several agreements had been finalized since the previous meeting, such as an agreement with BNSF. Any news on that?
|
|
|
|
Post by carter on Mar 10, 2011 14:48:19 GMT -8
Random thought: For a long time I thought about this project as being an important connection from the Foothill cities to Los Angeles. And too some extent that's definitely true, especially when Metrolink frequency is low during off-peak hours.
But I could really see the biggest boon being for Pasadena. Because of the median/grade separations, the Foothill extension should have much higher average speeds than the Pasadena to LA route.
This would make Pasadena an even more appealing evening/weekend destination for people along the route who want to check out Old Town, the playhouse, or what have you, but who do not want to deal with parking hassles or who want to be able to drink responsibly.
On that front, anyone have a guess on the trip time from Azusa to Pasadena?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 10, 2011 16:04:59 GMT -8
I don't have the exact numbers, but I have always seen that the Foothill Extension's greatest benefactors would be people commuting from the Inland Empire to Pasadena.
The Gold Line would be slower from Azusa to downtown Los Angeles, but Azus-Pasadena ought to be much faster than taking Metrolink to Union Station and heading north on the Gold Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 10, 2011 16:51:53 GMT -8
On that front, anyone have a guess on the trip time from Azusa to Pasadena? From the FEIR, page 2-100, it is expected to take 17.22 minutes from Sierra Madre Villa to Azusa/Citrus (11.34 miles). According to the Gold Line timetable, it takes another 9 minutes to get from Sierra Madre Villa to Memorial Park. Thus, a total of about 26 minutes from Azusa/Citrus to Old Town. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 10, 2011 19:45:20 GMT -8
Thus, a total of about 26 minutes from Azusa/Citrus to Old Town. That should be very competitive with driving. Google says it takes 23 to drive that route, and 40 minutes with traffic. With a train every 12 minutes, the total average transit trip time is 32 minutes. Even with a 10 minute walk or drive to the station, the transit trip will be as good or better than driving, with traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 11, 2011 11:45:20 GMT -8
Regarding the Metro agreement with BNSF: I just received an update from GLFE, among other things, it mentioned that we're not dealing with an all-new agreement, but an amendment to one that dates back to the 1990's, presumably when what was then AT&SF (Santa Fe Railway) sold off their "Second District" to predecessors of Metro. The amendment will involve the abandonment of the Arcadia to San Gabriel River track, which has no remaining freight customers, and (the hard part) maintaining freight service to Miller-Coors in Irwindale when construction of the light rail line is in progress. Much as we rail transit enthusiasts want to see some "action", getting all the details worked out now can prevent time-consuming delays and re-designs in the future. One could say, "Paper is cheaper than concrete and steel."
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 23, 2011 10:31:12 GMT -8
The Foothill Authority has requested an $45 million increase in total budget, to $735 million, to reflect updated cost estimates. The Metro Board will vote on the increase tomorrow. Link to agenda item. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 23, 2011 22:09:23 GMT -8
I attended the GLFE board meeting tonight. Possible negative development was more legal action by the property owner mentioned on Feb 23. We'll have to see how this shakes out. The board had a closed session to discuss this legal matter and various property acquisitions. The public portion had reports of progress on both the IFS (freeway bridge) and the selection of a contractor for the main part of the project. Still no agreement between BNSF and Metro, but it should be finalized fairly soon. Have faith, the trains will come!
|
|
