|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 5, 2010 11:59:49 GMT -8
Well...it looks like "transit racism" is spreading into the San Gabriel Valely. So, now, transit advocates have to argue with people like NFSR, Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills, AND low income people about the benefits of rail transit. We can deal with NFSR, Cheviot Hills, and Beverly Hills....but having to deal with the low income people and shouting "racism" is a bigger problem. tsl.pomona.edu/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1294:city-council-approves-gold-line-plan&catid=116:claremont&Itemid=168By the way, looks like the whole "reducing traffic" hyperbole is spreading to the SGV. This is how lies start and then when they see no traffic reduced (which rail transit never does; see: London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Tokyo, etc...) they'll be up in arms again. But, eh, if it's the only way to win votes........................ |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 13:00:26 GMT -8
Claremont has been lagging on this project, and it seems like Mr. Yao is the problem. That city might want to choose a different representative. I read about him last month, how he didn't even realize he needed to ask his city for some approvals. As for the five college students students choosing to oppose the extension, they are clearly BRU types out of sync with the needs of their fellow students. Their facts are wrong: light rail has lower operating costs per passenger-mile than bus. (In L.A., LRT costs 30 cents per passenger-mile to operate, vs. 48 cents for bus. -source-) The extension will be a great benefit to the Claremont Colleges and in fact will make it easier for poor and minority folks to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 5, 2010 17:27:25 GMT -8
The first part of the Foothill Extension (2A) has received enthusiastic backing from students at Citrus College and Mt. Sierra College, but there probably are a few naysayers in those student bodies, too. Colleges are supposed to be places where conflicting ideas are discussed and arguments are presented. We expect that our side will have a chance to prove that light rail belongs as a link to campus, home and cultural events. Imagine being able to attend a concert or football game without fighting the 210 or hunting for a parking spot. And as far as the BRU is concerned, I've seen several photos of their deluded supporters on Metro Rail platforms. Another observation about rail transit and diversity: the BART system was criticized for being a fast train for affluent suburbanites. Whenever I visit "up north" and ride BART, the passengers I see represent a wide assortment of ethnic and economic backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 4, 2011 8:56:37 GMT -8
The scoping period for Phase 2B has begun! Here is the postcard. The purpose of the scoping period is to receive input from the public on the scope of the project and the scope of the environmental study, including those issues and alternatives that should be studied in the EIS/EIR. Comments can be emailed to llevybuch@foothillextension.org. The scoping period is from December 27, 2010 through February 2, 2011. All comments must be received by February 2. The Foothill Authority has scheduled four public scoping meetings during January. All meetings are from 6 PM to 8 PM.
Wednesday, January 12
Pomona
Ganesha Community Center
1575 North White Avenue, Pomona (map).
Thursday, January 13
Glendora
Timothy Daniel Crowther Teen and Family Center
241 West Dawson Avenue, Glendora (map).
Wednesday, January 19
Claremont
Oakmont Elementary
120 West Green Street, Claremont (map).
Thursday, January 20
San Dimas
Ekstrand Elementary School
400 North Walnut Avenue, San Dimas (map).
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 10, 2011 11:06:19 GMT -8
Just a reminder, Phase 2B scoping meetings begin this week, with meetings in Pomona and Glendora on Wednesday and Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 18, 2011 16:53:58 GMT -8
One more reminder: Phase 2B scoping meetings continue this week, with meetings in Claremont and San Dimas on Wednesday and Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 23, 2011 22:21:54 GMT -8
More meetings scheduled; I took note of a "workshop" at the Glendora Public Library on Wed. May 4 between 6 and 8 pm (It's the nearest one to my home). The others should be on the GLFE website.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 19, 2011 21:20:01 GMT -8
Although this is still well into the future, the preliminary plans for Claremont call for running the light rail tracks between the Metrolink tracks and the former Santa Fe station. Metrolink platforms will be moved further east, probably just south of the site of the long-gone Pacific Electric station. This should provide a lot of action for the trainwatchers--Gold Line trains every ten to twenty minutes, over three dozen Metrolinks on weekdays, and the BNSF local that serves the Miller-Coors brewery. Note that this is all quite preliminary and subject to change before concrete and steel turn it into reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 23, 2011 15:01:14 GMT -8
The first part of the Foothill Extension (2A) has received enthusiastic backing from students at Citrus College and Mt. Sierra College, but there probably are a few naysayers in those student bodies, too. I wouldn't say that. I've asked people around campus that know of the project, and virtually everyone I met is in favor of it. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 8, 2011 11:12:45 GMT -8
The following relates to an issue on the Phase 2B right-of-way. The ROW crosses diagonally through the intersection of Lone Hill Avenue at Auto Center Drive in Glendora. Notice that the railroad signals are flashing, and a train is crossing: yet, the light is green. In fact, the traffic signals continued to cycle as normal, before and while the train was crossing and railroad lights were flashing. This confused several people before the train arrived: several cars from both directions began to cross, but once they saw the train they got stuck in the intersection. To me, this is clearly an unsafe crossing. Somebody should fix the traffic signal ASAP. Any thoughts as to who I should report this to?  Image by MetroCenter, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 8, 2011 12:07:19 GMT -8
The following relates to an issue on the Phase 2B right-of-way. The ROW crosses diagonally through the intersection of Lone Hill Avenue at Auto Center Drive in Glendora. Notice that the railroad signals are flashing, and a train is crossing: yet, the light is green. In fact, the traffic signals continued to cycle as normal, before and while the train was crossing and railroad lights were flashing. This confused several people before the train arrived: several cars from both directions began to cross, but once they saw the train they got stuck in the intersection. To me, this is clearly an unsafe crossing. Somebody should fix the traffic signal ASAP. Any thoughts as to who I should report this to? Good catch. I think your representative/city council should follow up with this matter urgently. Then they'll coordinate with the traffic light engineers to fix. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 8, 2011 14:48:39 GMT -8
^ Thanks for the advice, I informed the folks at public works about the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Nov 8, 2011 18:33:55 GMT -8
What Ive seen done elsewhere is the signal becomes flashing red in all directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 13, 2011 16:33:02 GMT -8
Simple. Grade separate it; preferably elevated.
Expensive? yeah definitely. But better to pay for it NOW (and convert it into a station box later on) rather than tearing it down later for the Gold Line and starting all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 14, 2011 7:56:11 GMT -8
I haven't examined the Lone Hill crossing lately--how much of a civil engineering challenge would it be to construct an elevated station there? I'm thinking that one of the constraints might be the tunnel that takes the present BNSF line under the 210 freeway. Another consideration is how much land would be required for an elevated structure--given the problems GLFE has had with the Monrovia real estate situation, the fewer square feet required, the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 14, 2011 8:55:02 GMT -8
There is no stop being planned at Lone Hill, it's just a crossing. Closest planned stations are Glendora (at Glendora Avenue) and San Dimas (at Bonita Avenue). (Here is my Google map of the existing and planned Gold Line, along with the possible future route of Phase 2B.) I don't think the Lone Hill crossing will need grade-separation. It just needs the lights to work correctly, and maybe gates. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 14, 2011 14:20:21 GMT -8
Given its location near the San Dimas stop and in the middle of car dealerships, I am not surprised that there would not be a station here.
Especially as the existing station placement seems to set up the line as an electric commuter line to Pasadena, more than a typical light rail line. A station would just slow the line down.
It would be better to come up with a simple but effective solution now before somebody comes up with a "Farmdale Solution". It doesn't have to be elevated, but it absolutely needs better lights and gates.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 14, 2011 17:49:49 GMT -8
Given its location near the San Dimas stop and in the middle of car dealerships, I am not surprised that there would not be a station here. It's also surrounded by a HUGE shopping center, with a vast amount of parking lots that can be used as TOD's. Did the studies conclude the location next to the Lowe's is better in ridership than Lone Hill? |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 14, 2011 18:13:47 GMT -8
After reading the spacing between stations on the Expo Line, I'm seeing the Gold Line east of Pasadena as more of an "electric suburban" service, with some of the station spacings more like Metrolink. A study of the Pacific Electric line between Arcadia and Glendora shows as many as a half a dozen passenger stops between locations with depots, but this was over a hundred years ago, when most people depended on horses or their own two feet for local transportation.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 14, 2011 19:10:15 GMT -8
It's also surrounded by a HUGE shopping center, with a vast amount of parking lots that can be used as TOD's. Did the studies conclude the location next to the Lowe's is better in ridership than Lone Hill? I'm not sure what format was used in the studies, but just based on the map, the San Dimas location with two business hotels nearby looks about as good, if not better than the other location. I also see several shopping centers with restaurants in the neighborhood. And you're assuming that the current owner of those parking lots would be willing or able to donate them for the alleged TODs. I prefer to stay within the realm of what's already there, unless something is already planned. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 15, 2011 12:52:49 GMT -8
It's also surrounded by a HUGE shopping center, with a vast amount of parking lots that can be used as TOD's. Did the studies conclude the location next to the Lowe's is better in ridership than Lone Hill? I'm not sure what format was used in the studies, but just based on the map, the San Dimas location with two business hotels nearby looks about as good, if not better than the other location. I also see several shopping centers with restaurants in the neighborhood. And you're assuming that the current owner of those parking lots would be willing or able to donate them for the alleged TODs. I prefer to stay within the realm of what's already there, unless something is already planned. No donation required. Placing a station there (and changing zoning around the station) would essentially be giving the land owner a gift. The increased value of the land would motivate them to sell it, or to develop it themselves in order to capture the increased economic value from being next to the station. It would simply make more economic sense to increase land use intensity, and not waste land with a unique station amenity on a comparatively low value parking lot. Not arguing for or against any station placement, just stating that with proper zoning it can always be a win-win for urbanism and land owners. |
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 27, 2012 9:33:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 27, 2012 11:12:32 GMT -8
So according to that article, funding for the second phase of the Foothill extension won't be available until 2050? That's insane.
The entire extension (unless I'm mistaken) is practically shovel-ready and (as far as we know now) has support from all the local cities it passes through.
I know it's not really a priority project, but that timeline is unacceptable. I wouldn't blame them for opposing Measure R+.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 27, 2012 14:23:04 GMT -8
So according to that article, funding for the second phase of the Foothill extension won't be available until 2050? That's insane. The entire extension (unless I'm mistaken) is practically shovel-ready and (as far as we know now) has support from all the local cities it passes through. I know it's not really a priority project, but that timeline is unacceptable. I wouldn't blame them for opposing Measure R+. However a timeline of no new extension because Measure R wasn't extended beyond the 30 year window is unacceptable as well. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 10, 2012 13:36:01 GMT -8
So according to that article, funding for the second phase of the Foothill extension won't be available until 2050? That's insane. The entire extension (unless I'm mistaken) is practically shovel-ready and (as far as we know now) has support from all the local cities it passes through. I know it's not really a priority project, but that timeline is unacceptable. I wouldn't blame them for opposing Measure R+. That is the case for any project that is not in Measure R. This project wasn't in there (only to Azuza) and therefore there is no funding until Measure R can be completed. Hopefully, it can be a few years before 2050 if sales taxes really pick up, but don't count on it. The same is for Crenshaw past Expo and a bunch of other projects. We likely won't see them in our lifetime. One thing that could change this is if the 710 Extension is scrapped and funds redistributed to rail. They could easily complete Foothill Gold to the border (Claremont), include some funding to complete ACE, as well upgrade the San Bernadino Metrolink Line to include double tracking and possibly even electrify with just this money. |
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 11, 2012 0:16:14 GMT -8
Seems like the further the rail system gets from DTLA, the weirder people get about it. I think the only controversy about the Red Line in Downtown back at the time was, "What? It's only 4.4 miles?!?!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 11, 2012 0:20:03 GMT -8
After reading the spacing between stations on the Expo Line, I'm seeing the Gold Line east of Pasadena as more of an "electric suburban" service, with some of the station spacings more like Metrolink. A study of the Pacific Electric line between Arcadia and Glendora shows as many as a half a dozen passenger stops between locations with depots, but this was over a hundred years ago, when most people depended on horses or their own two feet for local transportation. Though this phenomenon is not unique to Los Angeles Metro Rail. Just look at BART or the SD trolley...station spacing is directly correlated with density. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 20, 2012 22:53:59 GMT -8
Please check the Phase 2A for an update on GLFE board meeting locations (and it's a good idea to check their website to be sure of specific dates).
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 7, 2013 20:15:23 GMT -8
Big meeting last night regarding the Environmental Impact Report for Phase 2B. A major area of concern was the crossing at Garey Ave. in Pomona. At this location, we presently have the ex-Santa Fe line, which will be north of the Gold line at this point, and two Metrolink tracks about half a block south of the future Gold Line location. A number of speakers from Pomona were making their case for a grade-separated (probably a "flyover" at this point). One wonders whether Pomona can come up with the funds for an overpass (like Arcadia) or whether they will be able to persuade GLFE to add this to the total project. Since finalization of plans (to say nothing of identifying funding) is still a ways down the road, we'll wait and see how this plays out. (note that this is personal observation and has no official connection with GLFE.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 2, 2013 21:55:46 GMT -8
At last week's Metro Board meeting, the board rejected the Antonovich amendment, which would have added Foothill Extension 2B (Glendora to Claremont) to the funding plan. This was after several of the cities in the area and other elected officials lobbied for it. Needless to say, we San Gabriel Valley residents are not happy, and some of the skeptics who said "LA is going to take OUR tax money for THEIR pet projects" are probably lining up to say "We told you so!"
|
|
