Foothill Extension Phase 2B

[transitfan]

Jan 30, 2017 15:23:58 GMT -8 bzcat said:

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?

There is supposed to be a pocket track just north of 7th Street/Metro Center, so that is one possible turnback location. Possibly at Union Station also. And of course, right now, some Blue Line trains end at Willow St in Long Beach. There's a pocket south of Imperial/Wilmington (Rosa Parks), but that hasn't really been used as a turnback location. The only segments that jump out at me are Long Beach-Union Station and Claremont (or points east)-7th St (for the Red/Purple connection), but that would require a reverse move, too bad the pocket track isn't south of 7th.

[cygnip2p]

I don't see anything in the EIR about a future short line. Like transitfan mentioned, the only pocket track on the EIR is north of Metro Center. I guess you could theoretically take northbound trains out of service at Chinatown Station and use the yard as a turnback facility, but I'm not sure what you would do about southbound trains. Seems like shortlines would make things a mess for peak times, considering the number of trains they are going to try to run through downtown, but maybe off peak could happen.

[Philip]

The logical thing to me would seem to turn back trains in both directions at Memorial Park Station.

Most of the people commuting west from Montclair are likely headed to Pasadena. Meanwhile, a Long Beach-Passdena line makes the most end-to-end sense.

[johanragle]

Feb 1, 2017 20:20:27 GMT -8 Philip said:

The logical thing to me would seem to turn back trains in both directions at Memorial Park Station.

Most of the people commuting west from Montclair are likely headed to Pasadena. Meanwhile, a Long Beach-Passdena line makes the most end-to-end sense.

I think Sierra Madre Villa might make a better transfer point, since it's (1) a center platform station, and (2) has a third pocket track available on each end to turn trains around with. The platforms at Memorial Park are side platforms, and to make matters worse, they're not long enough to allow two trains to stop at the station simultaneously.

[johanragle]

In other news, here's a leaked concept of the new 2B station platforms. They're considering switching from the 2A design's metal canopies to structural glass canopies.

[bzzzt]

It's blazing hot and bright inland during the summer -- what's the point of glass canopies in the summer? When people want sun, they can stand between the canopies. If anything, they ought to have larger solid canopies - the benches underneath them still get rained on and dripped on as they back up to the drip edge of the canopies.

[johanragle]

Feb 2, 2017 21:22:22 GMT -8 bzzzt said:

It's blazing hot and bright inland during the summer -- what's the point of glass canopies in the summer? When people want sun, they can stand between the canopies. If anything, they ought to have larger solid canopies - the benches underneath them still get rained on and dripped on as they back up to the drip edge of the canopies.

I have it on good authority that they're evaluating decorative printed glass rather than plain glazing. No idea what sort of coverage the prints would provide, but even if they did a halftone dot pattern (like the printed border at the top of a windshield) it would cut light and heat transmission significantly.

[bzzzt]

well, it says 60% opacity on the left edge of the drawing. Not dark enough, I'd say.

The roof is high enough that in the winter, sunlight comes in from a low angle, making sunlight a non-issue, and of course it keeps the rain off.

In the summer, the solid roof is good for shade.

My own two cents from riding in the SGV all year round is that I'd prefer a solid dark roof.

[bahg]

why don't the make the roof with solar panels?

[thanks4goingmetro]

Streetsblog: Foothill Gold Line Montclair Extension Early Construction Will Start This Year

TL;DR

• Utility relocation starts this year
• Open to the public by 2026
• SB County will need to kick in $70M from Prop I for less than a mile from Claremont to Montclair
• 3580 new parking spaces

[culvercitylocke]

First contract awarded for utility relocation. The next contract will be for relocating metrolink and freight track and will be awarded this time next year

[usmc1401]

Yesterday 12/03/2017 a press conference was held to start the construction of the next section of the Gold Line. This will be a eleven mile section to the Los Angeles County San Bernadino County line.

[culvercitylocke]

Two lawsuits filed against the gold line.

One lawsuit by Pomona is because a rail bridge at a grade separation was modified from being a single unit to being two units (one for each track) which made Pomona freak out about possible minuscule changes to agreed upon height restrictions and shadow restrictions

The change was made to speed construction of thengrade separation and reduce street closures related to the grade separation construction.

In response to the lawsuit, metro switched back to the original design, but Pomona is refusing to drop the lawsuit and are taking it to court (metro expects it to be dismissed).

The second lawsuit is the city of San dimas, metro added a grade separation at a major intersection required by CPUC and San dimas is suing to stop the grade separation because the bridge will be unsightly and divide their city .

Also metro will make modifications to the entrance exit of a parking garage and San dimas says that needs to be environmentally reviewed . And San dimas does not want metro to buy some property along the route because that property is adjacent to two allegedly historic structures and metro should be prohibited from buying adjacent property because metro in the future might not always be appropriately reverential to the allegedly historic structures.

www.sgvtribune.com/2018/02/16/san-dimas-pomona-sue-the-gold-line-construction-authority-over-plans-for-the-trains-expansion/

[numble]

The utility relocation contract has been completed, 2 months ahead of schedule and below budget:
foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-08-21-FINAL-Press-Release-Utility-Relocation-Contract-Completed.pdf

[brady12]

Jan 30, 2017 15:23:58 GMT -8 bzcat said:

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 twnno 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?

Well if Metro was smart (and that’s up for debate), they would have a line go from the western edge of the Orange line through North Hollywood through Glendale through Pasadena and ending in Ontario. Have 1 out of 3 trains go the entire route, 2 of 3 turn back in Pasadena

[numble]

Aug 28, 2018 18:45:23 GMT -8 brady12 said:

Jan 30, 2017 15:23:58 GMT -8 bzcat said:

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 twnno 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?

Well if Metro was smart (and that’s up for debate), they would have a line go from the western edge of the Orange line through North Hollywood through Glendale through Pasadena and ending in Ontario. Have 1 out of 3 trains go the entire route, 2 of 3 turn back in Pasadena

Don't see how it would work. At peak periods they currently have trains every 7 minutes from Pasadena to Azusa. To match that headway, you would need to have 2 minute headways for trains from Orange Line to Pasadena. The Red/Purple Line cannot even accomplish that right now until after the portal widening project. And 2 minutes headway’s would be overkill given the ridership.

Under your approach, if you have 7 minute headways from Orange Line to Pasadena during rush hour, that means 21 minute headways from Pasadena to Montclair during rush hour. Mid-day headways of 12 minutes from Orange Line to Pasadena would mean 36 minute headways from Pasadena to Montclair. That is a serious degradation from current service and I don't see how the SGV would agree to it. The worst headways on the Gold Line today are 20 minute headways after 9:30 pm.

[exporider]

Well, since you asked, here is the operating plan I would like to see for the LRT routes:
- Peak Period:
- Long Beach to Montclair: 10 minutes
- Willow to Monrovia: 10 minutes
- Santa Monica to Atlantic: 10 minutes
- Santa Monica to LAUS: 10 minutes
- Off-Peak Period:
- Long Beach to Montclair: 10 minutes
- Santa Monica to Atlantic: 10 minutes

[numble]

After receiving 4 construction bids for the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, the construction authority will report next week that estimated costs increase from $1.52 billion to $2.1 billion. There currently is no funding identified for this $570 million gap.

foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-11-13-Board-Reports.pdf

[culvercitylocke]

Nov 11, 2018 9:01:35 GMT -8 numble said:

After receiving 4 construction bids for the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, the construction authority will report next week that estimated costs increase from $1.52 billion to $2.1 billion. There currently is no funding identified for this $570 million gap.

foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-11-13-Board-Reports.pdf

Moving the existing rail to the side is 500 million more than they thought it would be, hmm?

[numble]

Nov 11, 2018 13:43:41 GMT -8 culvercitylocke said:

Nov 11, 2018 9:01:35 GMT -8 numble said:

After receiving 4 construction bids for the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, the construction authority will report next week that estimated costs increase from $1.52 billion to $2.1 billion. There currently is no funding identified for this $570 million gap.

foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-11-13-Board-Reports.pdf

Moving the existing rail to the side is 500 million more than they thought it would be, hmm?

Seems like it. If they get rid of all the parking structures they had planned to build, they can save $230 million, but they need to find the other $340 million somewhere. If they do a shorter line, they are going to lose $70 million in funding from San Bernardino.

[jahanes]

2.1 Billion for the Vermont or Crenshaw North lines would be a blessing.

[numble]

Nov 12, 2018 12:26:19 GMT -8 jahanes said:

2.1 Billion for the Vermont or Crenshaw North lines would be a blessing.

Crenshaw North is slated to get $1.8 billion from Measure M, while the Gold Line extension only gets $1 billion from Measure M.
Vermont is shortchanged, but that was in favor of Crenshaw North ($1.8 billion), Sepulveda ($2.9 billion), and West Santa Ana Line ($1.4 billion).
Based on the geographic funding allocation formulas for Measure M, the $1 billion for the Gold Line would never go to anything except another project in the San Gabriel Valley.

[numble]

Due to the lack of funding, the Gold Line Construction Authority proposes shrinking the extension from 12.3 miles to Montclair, to 8 miles to La Verne, with another phase when more funding is secured (Phase 2C?):
foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-11-12-FINAL-Media-Statement.pdf

Today, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Construction Authority) announced a proposed plan to deliver nearly 70% of the Foothill Gold Line light rail extension from Glendora to Montclair at least two years ahead of schedule and avoid tens of millions of dollars annually in market escalation and risk money proposed by the four design-build teams competing for the Glendora to Montclair Alignment contract; while also increasing the budget for the 12.3-mile, six station light rail project by $570 million to a total project budget of $2.1 billion. The proposed plan is subject to environmental approval.

The need for the proposed plan follows receipt of bids by the four teams competing for the design-build contract. All four bids reflect a significant unfavorable shift in market conditions since the agency completed the project estimate two years ago. When added with current unknowns and risk within the construction industry locally and nationally, these factors resulted in the long-term construction project becoming especially expensive and risky for bidders.

In response, the Construction Authority is proposing to revise the phasing of project construction to deliver the first eight miles of the 12.3-mile light rail extension (including delivery of the Glendora, San Dimas and La Verne stations) at least two years ahead of the original schedule, while working to secure the additional funding necessary to complete the project to Montclair.

If the plan is approved, the agency can deliver it within the ongoing design-build procurement by asking bidders to provide revised bids for the first eight miles of the project and including an option that would allow the winning team to complete the full project to Montclair if funding is secured within two years of Notice to Proceed. The anticipated benefits of this revised plan, if approved, include:
• Completion of the majority of the Glendora to Montclair light rail extension at least two years ahead of the original schedule, including: delivery of three new stations, 65% of the grade crossings, 72% of the structures, and 80% of the freight system relocation.
• Saving tens of millions of dollars annually in escalation being charged at historically high market rates, by eliminating years off the original construction schedule.
• Isolating costs associated with building the vastly more complicated and risk-burdened eastern portion of the project that shares a corridor with Metrolink.
• Providing the Construction Authority flexibility for procuring the eastern portion of the project to ensure the best price, including the potential to complete the extension to Montclair as part of the ongoing procurement and the opportunity to re-procure it separately if market conditions improve.

In order to conduct the necessary environmental review associated with the La Verne Station becoming a possible interim terminus if full funding is not secured in time to build to Montclair during this contract, it is expected that any award of the design-build contract would be delayed by six months.

[masonite]

Nov 12, 2018 20:53:16 GMT -8 numble said:

Due to the lack of funding, the Gold Line Construction Authority proposes shrinking the extension from 12.3 miles to Montclair, to 8 miles to La Verne, with another phase when more funding is secured (Phase 2C?):
foothillgoldline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-11-12-FINAL-Media-Statement.pdf

Today, the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (Construction Authority) announced a proposed plan to deliver nearly 70% of the Foothill Gold Line light rail extension from Glendora to Montclair at least two years ahead of schedule and avoid tens of millions of dollars annually in market escalation and risk money proposed by the four design-build teams competing for the Glendora to Montclair Alignment contract; while also increasing the budget for the 12.3-mile, six station light rail project by $570 million to a total project budget of $2.1 billion. The proposed plan is subject to environmental approval.

The need for the proposed plan follows receipt of bids by the four teams competing for the design-build contract. All four bids reflect a significant unfavorable shift in market conditions since the agency completed the project estimate two years ago. When added with current unknowns and risk within the construction industry locally and nationally, these factors resulted in the long-term construction project becoming especially expensive and risky for bidders.

In response, the Construction Authority is proposing to revise the phasing of project construction to deliver the first eight miles of the 12.3-mile light rail extension (including delivery of the Glendora, San Dimas and La Verne stations) at least two years ahead of the original schedule, while working to secure the additional funding necessary to complete the project to Montclair.

If the plan is approved, the agency can deliver it within the ongoing design-build procurement by asking bidders to provide revised bids for the first eight miles of the project and including an option that would allow the winning team to complete the full project to Montclair if funding is secured within two years of Notice to Proceed. The anticipated benefits of this revised plan, if approved, include:
• Completion of the majority of the Glendora to Montclair light rail extension at least two years ahead of the original schedule, including: delivery of three new stations, 65% of the grade crossings, 72% of the structures, and 80% of the freight system relocation.
• Saving tens of millions of dollars annually in escalation being charged at historically high market rates, by eliminating years off the original construction schedule.
• Isolating costs associated with building the vastly more complicated and risk-burdened eastern portion of the project that shares a corridor with Metrolink.
• Providing the Construction Authority flexibility for procuring the eastern portion of the project to ensure the best price, including the potential to complete the extension to Montclair as part of the ongoing procurement and the opportunity to re-procure it separately if market conditions improve.

In order to conduct the necessary environmental review associated with the La Verne Station becoming a possible interim terminus if full funding is not secured in time to build to Montclair during this contract, it is expected that any award of the design-build contract would be delayed by six months.

Too bad they couldn't go one more station East to Pomona. Then it would be connected with Metrolink at least. I suppose Metrolink could put in some sort of a temp station at La Verne in the meantime though.

[fissure]

Nov 14, 2018 14:04:22 GMT -8 masonite said:

Too bad they couldn't go one more station East to Pomona. Then it would be connected with Metrolink at least. I suppose Metrolink could put in some sort of a temp station at La Verne in the meantime though.

The Fairplex station is just west of Arrow Highway, about 1000 feet from the station site. The platform is only ~240 feet long, though, which would make loading slow, especially if it's supposed to be a transfer station. Get your popcorn ready for the fight over who pays to lengthen it.

[numble]

5 Metro board directors will make a motion at the December 6, 2018 board meeting to ask Metro to find funding for the Foothill Gold Line extension’s $570 million funding gap, opposing any plans that make it more costly to complete the line, and consider funding a first phase to Pomona instead of La Verne.
metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3768222&GUID=C63306C0-1747-4BAF-A4CF-E72FDC5BFB96&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&Search=&FullText=1

[jahanes]

That moment you realize just what we've gotten into with this foothill extension.

www.sgvtribune.com/2018/12/05/glendora-discusses-preparing-for-future-metro-gold-line-station/

In preparation of the Metro Gold Line extending through Glendora and farther east, the city could begin improving the area around the planned station to make walking and bicycling to and from the station easier.



The city Planning Commission received a presentation from Metro about “first/last mile projects,” referring to the mile people are willing to walk or bike to get to the station and the mile after exiting the train to get to their final destinations.


Planning Commissioner Terry Kent expressed some concern there may be little demand for the Gold Line station in general, let alone for walking and bike paths to get there.


“We’re built out — we’re not going to become Pasadena because we have no stomach for high-density housing,” Kent said. “Will people walk or bike to use this stuff?”

[bzcat]

Whomp whomp...

I like how he used Pasadena as an example of "high-density housing". LOL

[numble]

The Metro board will consider allocating another $126 million in Measure M funds to the project to cover the shortfall in getting the extension to Pomona. It looks like they may award the construction contract soon.

[bzcat]

I guess there is no hope of killing this zombie 2B extension to exburb

I was hoping the funding shortfall will put it on permanent ice but damn Measure M... why did we pass it! (that was a joke... Measure M is great. But I'm not joking about this white elephant extension... such a waste of money)