|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 2, 2013 22:14:24 GMT -8
out of curiousity, how long would the commute be from the end of the line 2B to DTLA and how would that compare to using a personal car on the freeway?
Also, have there ever been any rumblings on expanding the gold line the other direction? Through Burbank/Glendale to the Orange/Red intersection? That expansion would make more sense to me than churning further east.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 3, 2013 9:19:58 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!" Maybe Azuza to Claremont can be part of a future Measure R and get built in the 2040-2070 timeframe. Since it was not part of Measure R, short of that, I would say they would have to kill the horrible Eastside Gold Line Part II or the even worse 710 Tunnel extension and use funds here. Each region got a similar amount of money. In Los Angeles, there aren't the highway projects that the suburbs have in Measure R. Also, projects in LA have much higher ridership, which attracts federal new starts funds. That isn't possible here, because the ridership just isn't there. Even the Gold Line today can barely keep up ridership wise with the Green Line which is disconnected on both ends. Going to Claremont presents several problems. Light rail isn't really meant to operate over 50-60 mile distances so it presents operating challenges. The cost of operating a line that long is going to be problematic unless you have really high ridership, which isn't going to be the case here. There is traffic on the 210, but it is all one way, which means you have trains going almost empty one direction for a long way. This is more typical of a commuter rail corridor where you run trains with few stops in one direction in the morning and back in the evening. There is no real network effect either once you get a line so far out from the rest of system. Metro will likely have to implement distance based fares. Will people pay $3.00 a ride to go from Claremont to Pasadena? I don't know. I question the whole argument that just because there is traffic on the 210 one direction, that means people will ride here in great numbers. Many of those people are working in Burbank, Glendale or LA. It is too far from Claremont to Downtown LA for anyone to reasonably ride. They are better off on commuter rail, which can get there in barely more than half the time. Pasadena is only a moderate job center. Will people in San Dimas ride a bus to get to their station and then get off on a freeway station like Lake and walk to their job on Colorado. Probably not if it will take longer than driving which it probably will. People working in Pasadena almost always get their parking paid, which is certainly not the case in Downtown LA and that is a big incentive. I am anxious to see how the Azuza extension does ridership wise. I think this is a good project that should do pretty well. However, if it struggles like the Gold Line initially did, I think it makes efforts to extend the line that much tougher. |
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 3, 2013 13:03:27 GMT -8
out of curiousity, how long would the commute be from the end of the line 2B to DTLA and how would that compare to using a personal car on the freeway? Even if the gold line were extended to Claremont, it would be faster to take Metrolink to DTLA, which is already in service. Any additional gold line ridership would largely come from people moving between regions on the extension. I haven't calculated whether someone going from Claremont to Pasadena would be better off taking the Gold line the whole way, or whether it would be faster to take Metrolink to Union Station and the gold line from there to Pasadena (forgetting now about whether one fare would be higher than the other). Assuming Metro introduced zone based fares, they should be harmonized with Metrolink (and allow people to ride on either system with the same pass). One potential benefit of a gold line extension could be frequency, as there are capacity issues on the San Bernardino line, but it might be better value to spend money on double tracking the San Bernardino line. Ultimately, I think we should do both, but I'm not outraged that Metro isn't putting the Foothill extension 2B on the top of the list when they have already spent a lot of money on the SGV. I think the highest priorities (roughly in order) to maximize utility of the whole system should be: 1) Purple line to Westwood 2) Downtown connector 3) 405 line from the San Fernando Valley to LAX 4) Crenshaw line north to Hollywood but that's just me. |
|
bzzzt
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by bzzzt on Jul 4, 2013 19:10:47 GMT -8
Hi y'all. First, it's nice to be posting - I have been reading this board for a while now, though not participating as that sign-up process was um, a bit messed up.
Let me give my take on Metro's expansion from a political and not an engineering point of view in this post.
The Metro board is made up of reps from the City of LA, some varying cities besides LA, and the LA County supervisors. The expansion of Metro has happened in different areas in part to make these reps happy. As some of you are saying, it just isn't necessary to expand everywhere, and there isn't enough money to do so, anyways. What will Metro do?
The expansion of the last ten years or so has had the support of most of the supervisors as there has been expansion in their respective areas. The central districts (1,2,3) are now served fairly well and construction is still planned for those districts. The one district where there hasn't been much is the 4th (Knabe), but now there is plenty of construction planned for the 4th (Green line extension, Crenshaw, Gold Line EE P2, and the Santa Ana). There was construction for Antonovich in district 5 (GL Foothill), but support for GL extension past Azusa doesn't seem to be there.
I see a switch happening in the voting bloc for Metro expansion. Knabe will now be a firm supporter, and Antonovich and his successor will be likely be against it. This means there will quite possibly be no further extension of the Gold Line Foothill or the 710 (I believe that's in D5), and there will be movement forward on the various 4th district projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 15, 2013 19:23:42 GMT -8
As if we don't have enough to worry about, recent articles about the Ontario Int'l Airport cite dwindling passenger counts. I think the City of Ontario (maybe with help from San Bernardino County) is trying to get ONT away from LA World Airports in hopes that local management will help increase traffic there. I realize that actually having the Gold Line run to ONT is in the "I should live so long" category, but it would be a shame to get the line completed, only to find that ONT was mostly for air cargo, and most of the passengers on the train were freight-handling personnel."
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 22, 2013 22:51:02 GMT -8
GLFE Const. Authority held a pre-bidding conference for vendors and contractors interested in bidding on Phase 2B in Arcadia this week. It was nearly a full house at the Arcadia City Hall council chambers. This indicates a lot of interest in the project, even though the funding hasn't been assured. Either the prospective bidders are confident that the money will be found, or they're desperate for work.
In other news: the long-running saga of the California Ave. grade crossing is finally wrapping up. Limited car traffic is now allowed, and it should be done in the near future. The Mayflower Ave. crossing already has track in place, and should be done a lot faster than California. Mountain Ave. (on the Monrovia-Duarte boundary) will not start until next year--don't want to affect holiday shopping traffic to Wal*Mart. That will be a fairly extensive project, because unlike Mayflower and Magnolia, Mountain also involves reconfiguring a street intersection. In Arcadia, horse racing is done until Dec. 26, so the Santa Clara-First Ave. intersection is in progress, and the beams for the Santa Anita Ave. bridge should be placed in the next few weeks. Further east, relocation of the BNSF track to Miller-Coors continues, but the crossing of Foothill Blvd. will be the last segment of this part of the project, and this is waiting for the two new bridges to be installed. There's also the Virginia Ave. grade crossing to be done as part of this segment. Track laying for the main line should begin before the year is out, or Jan 2014 at the latest.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 30, 2013 23:49:19 GMT -8
In Monrovia, Mayflower Ave. is open for traffic--here is a photo from less that two weeks ago showing the crossing panels stacked up, and a view taken on Nov. 29 showing them in service. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 1, 2013 0:05:16 GMT -8
Photos: 1) Looking east from Mayflower Ave. in Monrovia. Rocks washed down from the San Gabriel Mountains over the centuries are a common component of the underground of Monrovia and nearby towns. In the distance is the Magnolia Ave. crossing, which, like Mayflower, will be one of the less complex crossings. Way off in the distance is the former Santa Fe Monrovia station, which I remember from childhood, watching the local train pick up the US Mail "on the fly" back around 1945. (note: the construction work just beyond the rocks is a storm drain bridge; Magnolia is further east) 2) Looking west from Mayflower. The right of way, which used to contain one Santa Fe track, has been regraded for two tracks. The pole on the right side of the photo indicates a foundation for an overhead support pole. Several locations along the route have these in place, other segments need more grading. 3) The base for the passenger platform in Arcadia; the Santa Fe station was on the north side of the tracks here. The station building is now preserved at the R&LHS exhibit at the LA County Fairground, which has been in the news lately with Union Pacific preparing to move "Big Boy" steam locomotive 4014 to Cheyenne, WY for restoration. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 1, 2013 0:21:50 GMT -8
1) Out in Irwindale, work is progressing on relocating the BNSF track for access to the Miller-Coors brewery. Concrete ties have been placed, and will soon have welded rails affixed. 2) Santa Fe fans treasure the BNSF locomotives that retain the "Warbonnet" paint job originally applied to Santa Fe streamliner diesels in the 1940s. Some, like the trailing unit in this consist, wear the BNSF "Great Pumpkin" color scheme. This train has just pulled the empties from the brewery and will be taking them to Kaiser Yard near Fontana. 3) Heading east over Historic Route 66 in Azusa. The abutments are in place for new spans on either side of the existing ex-Santa Fe bridge, which will eventually carry the eastbound electric railway track. We can see the rebar for the westbound track bridge center support; on the other side will be the new bridge for BNSF traffic. I'm hoping there will be a few Warbonnet diesels left by the time Gold Line trains start running to Azusa. |
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jun 6, 2014 20:27:58 GMT -8
As if we don't have enough to worry about, recent articles about the Ontario Int'l Airport cite dwindling passenger counts. I think the City of Ontario (maybe with help from San Bernardino County) is trying to get ONT away from LA World Airports in hopes that local management will help increase traffic there. I realize that actually having the Gold Line run to ONT is in the "I should live so long" category, but it would be a shame to get the line completed, only to find that ONT was mostly for air cargo, and most of the passengers on the train were freight-handling personnel." Everybody seems to want transit to the airport, and it does sound like it would be great. But how practical is such an idea when it comes right down to it? Typical urban railcars aren't really designed to accommodate travelers with any more than a minimal amount of luggage. The practice works very well with SFO and BART because of BART's unique positioning as a suburban/urban transit system. Moreover, BART cars are particularly wide and spacious, taking advantage of the 5' foot "Indian" gauge tracks. What's wrong with the Gold Line being full of freight handlers on their way to and from work? They'd be commuters, and that's rather the whole idea, right? |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 27, 2015 3:39:06 GMT -8
At the Gold Line Foothill Extension meeting Wednesday evening, the subject of phase 2B came up. Public meetings/open houses are scheduled for the various cities from Glendora to Claremont. Even though funding has not yet been secured for this section, planning is going ahead. The GLFE team has shown that they can get the job done, and when the money is ready, the preliminary plans will be ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 2, 2015 1:14:06 GMT -8
For anyone out in the eastern part of the SGV, there will be a presentation at the Bidwell Forum (I think that's in the library, but I'll double check) in Glendora on April 23 between 6 and 8 pm regarding Phase 2B extending the Gold Line to Claremont.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 26, 2015 0:03:27 GMT -8
I went to the Glendora meeting with my older daughter and son-in-law. Although funding is still in question, the construction authority is moving along with plans and has done preliminary engineering. Even the proposed artwork for the stations has been exhibited. For Glendora some of the themes will be the citrus-growing heritage and the Scottish motif of the local high school, whose teams are the Glendora Highlanders. Among the challenges of the Azusa to Claremont segment are having to build a flyover bridge at Lone Hill Ave. at the southeast corner of Glendora to put the electric railway on the south side of the BNSF freight line. Then there will be overpasses at Garey Ave. and Towne Ave. in Pomona to raise the tracks over these busy north-south streets. There will be another bridge in San Bernardino County to go over Monte Vista Ave. and probably the Metrolink tracks. The San Dimas station will be of special interest because it will be within a few blocks of the Pacific Railroad Museum in the former Santa Fe depot.
A rather ironic aspect of Phase 2B is that back about a hundred years ago, Pacific Electric wanted to extend their Monrovia-Glendora Line to San Dimas for a connection with the San Bernardino Line (which survived long enough in freight service to be rebuilt into the Metrolink San Bernardino Line.) PE applied to the State Railroad Commission (predecessor to the Public Utilities Commission) and was denied permission to build any further east. Apparently Santa Fe made a strong case against the possible competition from the PE.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 26, 2015 0:15:39 GMT -8
Earlier, there was a question of how fast the trains will go. As I recall, the top speed for Santa Fe trains along here was at least 65 mph, and typical LRVs max out at 55. Since the grade crossings will be protected by quad gates, there should be no reason why the operators can't "put it on the brass" as the old interurban motormen would say. One hazard I can see between Glendora and San Dimas--the wooded hills between Route 66 and the 210 Freeway sometimes have deer roving about, and deer are not the smartest herbivores in the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on May 3, 2015 19:16:05 GMT -8
Earlier, there was a question of how fast the trains will go. As I recall, the top speed for Santa Fe trains along here was at least 65 mph, and typical LRVs max out at 55. Since the grade crossings will be protected by quad gates, there should be no reason why the operators can't "put it on the brass" as the old interurban motormen would say. One hazard I can see between Glendora and San Dimas--the wooded hills between Route 66 and the 210 Freeway sometimes have deer roving about, and deer are not the smartest herbivores in the animal kingdom. It's true the at-grade crossings can be quad-gated, but won't the planners and engineers have to consider the impact on road traffic at crossing points? If that gets overly backed-up at crossings, it wouldn't be good publicity for the transit system. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 5, 2015 1:08:54 GMT -8
The only crossing in 2A that might be a problem is Myrtle Ave., where the station stop is about a half block west of Myrtle. The other crossings in Monrovia, and the only crossing in Arcadia are not main streets so there shouldn't be that much traffic backing up. At the Duarte-Monrovia boundary, we have Mountain Ave., but the trains should be moving fairly quickly along here, so there shouldn't be that much delay. Neither of the Duarte streets are that busy, and Highland Ave. is the only one near a station. In Azusa, we have Azusa Ave. and San Gabriel Ave., a pair of one-way streets, with Azusa being adjacent to the station, but there is enough space coming up to the crossing so that car traffic shouldn't get gridlocked. Virginia, Dalton and Pasadena Aves. usually aren't very busy, and from Pasadena Ave. to the Citrus station, there are underpasses for the streets. Heading eastward into the 2B segment, Barranca is mostly residential. Grand Ave. in Glendora could be a challenge, since the tracks will cross the intersection of Grand and Foothill on a diagonal, but the trains should go through here at a good speed. Glendora Ave. has room on either side for cars to wait; going east from there, the streets go to residential areas, including the neighborhood where mny daughter and son-in-law live. Then it's over Historic Route 66 again, and over Lone Hill Ave. on a new overpass while the BNSF track stays at grade level with the Gold Line crossing over it (from here to Pomona, the BNSF customers are on the north side). If anyone is interested, I'll cover the line further east, but at last report, plans call for bridges over Garey and Towne Aves. in Pomona. Not sure how they plan to align the track in relation to Metrolink in Claremont.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 9, 2016 20:07:31 GMT -8
From last night's GLFE Board meeting (June 8, 2016): Planning is moving along. It looks like an overpass is planned for Grand Ave.-Foothill Blvd in Glendora. The tracks cross the intersection at about a 45-degree angle, and there's both Citrus College and a hospital nearby. The ex Santa Fe bridge over Route 66 on the east side of Glendora is due for replacement, with a heavy-duty span for BNSF to the west, and two lighter (if a railway bridge can be considered "light") bridges for the electric line. About 1.5 miles southeast, the plans call for a flyover to get the BNSF track on the other side of the Gold Line and the electric lines over Lone Hill Ave. There was some discussion at an earlier meeting with the City of Pomona about an overpass at Garey Ave.--I'm not sure how that came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 13, 2016 16:04:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 13, 2016 18:29:14 GMT -8
This might be a dumb question, but why was Montclair included in Phase 2B when Montclair isn't in L.A. County? Why not just end the line at Claremont?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzzzt on Jul 13, 2016 20:34:15 GMT -8
Maybe Claremont doesn't want a giant parking lot and traffic from all the SB commuters? Metro comments indicate that SB County would have to pitch in for the portion of the line in their county.
|
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Jul 15, 2016 8:32:30 GMT -8
Claremont already has a pretty large parking lot, although it's still less than half the size of Montclair's absurd set of parking lots.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 15, 2016 8:52:29 GMT -8
This might be a dumb question, but why was Montclair included in Phase 2B when Montclair isn't in L.A. County? Why not just end the line at Claremont? Montclair has the better connection to Metrolink too. Up to San Bernardino to pay for it though. I think it is almost comical though how SB is fiddling around about whether or how to pay for a couple of football fields length of light rail track and a station. They say they want it, but when it comes time to actually pay the bill they aren't as enthused. Can't believe Orange County isn't interested in the West Santa Ana Branch either. It is really sad. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jul 15, 2016 10:16:20 GMT -8
I imagine from the SB County perspective, there would be significant political pressure from all the other cities in the county to not spend the hundreds of millions of county funds on a project that only benefited a small part of the county. The county is the largest in the US, so I'm sure you would get people in Needles, or Barstow, or Baker complaining. I'm also sure people would argue that they shouldn't be spending SB County funds on a project that is 'for' LA County. I don't really agree with either of those arguments, but they are likely political reality.
On the money side, they would also have to work out a deal with Metro on maintenance costs for both rolling stock and the line within the county. Neither of those are deal breakers, but it might be difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Jul 15, 2016 12:46:30 GMT -8
SB County badly needs another sales tax measure. Going off of SANBAG's own chart, more than 75% of the current measures goes to highways.
Omnitrans and Metrolink are pretty much at each other's throats for SANBAG money, and SANBAG seems more interested in rail extensions than fixing the current issues with Metrolink's SB Line which could be done rather cheaply.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 17, 2016 16:15:14 GMT -8
This might be a dumb question, but why was Montclair included in Phase 2B when Montclair isn't in L.A. County? Why not just end the line at Claremont? It makes sense to me to do this now rather than later for a couple reasons. The first is that you don't have the little bit of track between the Claremont station and the county line to coordinate with LA county if there is a future extension to Ontario. The rest of the work would be entirely within San Bernardino County's competence (in the political sense of the word, as the SB county government isn't really competent in any other sense). The second reason is that San Bernardino is forced to put some skin in the game before LA county invests any more money in the line. That gives LA county some evidence that SB county can at least go through with some of the necessary budget allocations and planning necessary to get rail done. If they can get that far, there's a greater chance that they might actually do their job and get it built the rest of the way to Ontario. As to whether the line should be extended to Ontario at all, I personally support building rail transit in the Inland Empire (4 million people, a majority of whom live within or close to the Ontario, San Bernardino, Riverside triangle). Urban planning is currently a disaster, so any physical infrastructure that can concentrate development in a way that enough density forms to make a mildly sustainable pedestrian lifestyle possible is positive in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 9, 2016 20:52:49 GMT -8
With the apparent passage of Measure M yesterday (still has to be certified by the County Registrar/Recorder, but with over 69% Yes votes that would appear to be a formality), we should see some reports about the next phase from Azusa to at least Claremont. I am planning to attend the GLFE board meeting next week and should have some news by then.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 16, 2016 18:02:54 GMT -8
With funding from Measure M secured, work on Phase 2B will start "ramping up" next year. There is already some preliminary survey work in progress, and groundbreaking is planned for Dec. 2017. As we found with Phase 2A, constructing a double track electric railway in a built-up area involves dealing with numerous governmental and quasi-governmental organizations, so it's going to be a while before the "sidewalk superintendents" will have construction work to watch. Next Board meeting is Jan. 11, 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 26, 2017 18:00:15 GMT -8
It's been reported on I Will Ride and various blogs that groundbreaking will be October, 2017.
It also looks like complications with the construction have delayed the opening to 2025/2026 from 2023.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 27, 2017 11:39:52 GMT -8
I read the story. So is this a pre-construction activity for a potential Phase II? Does Metro even have an opinion about any of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 30, 2017 15:23:58 GMT -8
If 2B is going to happen then I think it is time we start discussing how to separate the operations of the future Line A into two different service. I can't imagine Metro wants to be saddled with a Long Beach to Claremont rail line (with potential to go all the way to Ontario).
Where should the majority of trains turn back?
Does it make sense to operate a separate service within SGV?
|
|
