Western Railroad Discussion > Pasadena Sub/Gold Line: Any News?

I check the MetroGoldLine website almost daily looking for some news, any news pertaining to the current status of the project. Do any of our insiders have any current info? Is the line still going to be built? Is it on hold? Has it been cancelled? When is construction to begin? What about the Arcadia/Santa Anita crossing issue? Is it going to be street level or is a bridge going to be built?

Good source:

http://www.metrogoldline.org/projectstatus.html

That's the problem with politicians...they try to be all inclusive to everyone. And as a result, no one is happy. And nothing meaningful gets accomplished. Somebody needs to get "screwed" so to speak so that the rest of the system can work-or at least have a viable chance at succeeding. Public transit such as this [Gold Line] becomes a mockery of itself when the system is so slow and onerous to use (such as 20 or so stops between Montclair and LA, taking an hour and a half or two hours to complete the journey) that it ends up taking just as long and just as much hassle as driving.

So that being the case and all things being equal, why bother with the train when it will take just as long to do it myself-and be in control?

For something like Gold Line to work, there really shouldn't be any stops further west than Lake in Pasadena. And either remove half of the intermediate stops, or at least run a couple of express trains that perhaps start in Montclair and end in LA with stops only in-for example-Pomona, San Dimas, Glendora, THEN Pasadena THEN nonstop to Union.

> Public transit such as this becomes a
> mockery of itself when the system is so slow and
> onerous to use (such as 20 or so stops between
> Montclair and LA, taking an hour and a half or two
> hours to complete the journey) that it ends up
> taking just as long and just as much hassle as
> driving.

The design of the Gold Line and the resulting stations is very typical of Light Rail transit projects across the country, in fact the new segment, has fewer stations than most. Light Rail usually has on an loose average about 1 station per mile. Light rail is not intended to be fast overall, although most systems do have sections that reach 55 MPH for some sustained periods. The Segment 1 portionof this project is actuall designed about as fast as any LRT system in the country, save for the St. Clair Extension of the Metrolink LRT in the St. Louis area. As far as a hassle with driving, I beg to differ. Being from out of the area, and the horrendous traffic in the LA region and finding parking, riding a slow train, whether I can get there as fast in a car is definitely much less a hassle than driving.
>
> So that being the case and all things being equal,
> why bother with the train when it will take just
> as long to do it myself-and be in control?

One, its much cheaper. Could you drive Montclair to LA for $3 one-way. Doubtful unless perhaps your driving a motorcycle. Sitting stuck in traffic on the 210 is one of the most frustrating feelings I have ever had while I drive. Maybe this is not a big deal to you, but to others its great to be flashing by stopped traffic while riding the train. I guarantee you that you could get to LA faster on the LRT to LA (or reverse) in rush hour traffic. Not only that, its public transportation, and part of its goal is to provide transportation to those who may have no other way of travel.
>
> For something like Gold Line to work, there really
> shouldn't be any stops further west than Lake in
> Pasadena. And either remove half of the
> intermediate stops, or at least run a couple of
> express trains that perhaps start in Montclair and
> end in LA with stops only in-for example-Pomona,
> San Dimas, Glendora, THEN Pasadena THEN nonstop to
> Union.

Light Rail in most cases will not support express service like commuter rail, because headways on the system are typically equal in both directions of travel, a neccessity for how the trains run and fleet requirements. There is not fleeting of service during rush hour such as what commuter rail does (other than when more trains are introduced into service during the peak periods), and double track service will not support running trains around each other without disrupting traffic in the opposing directions. Crossovers on LRT systems are usually designed to be used only at terminals or under contingency conditions, for example if a train becomes disabled and blocks a section of track. You are asking for service that LRT systems are not designed to do.

Now, that being said, a better use for the ROW would have been to make this a commuter rail system, something I understand was the initial reason the MTA purchased the line. Community pressure from the local cities and governments pushed the line to be built as an LRT system. This was a mistake, the line would have been much better suited in a commuter rail environment. There was definitely some poitical beaurocracy that failed here.

And, don't get to excited about the Gold Line from Montclair to Azusa. Unless projected riderhip numbers get much better, that portion of the line may never be built, and even if it does, construction will not even likely begin until the completion of construction of Segment 1, more than likley sometime in 2010, with a projected completion of sometime in 2013 or 2014.

ricky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Light Rail in most cases will not support express
> service like commuter rail, because headways on
> the system are typically equal in both directions
> of travel, a neccessity for how the trains run and
> fleet requirements. There is not fleeting of
> service during rush hour such as what commuter
> rail does (other than when more trains are
> introduced into service during the peak periods),
> and double track service will not support running
> trains around each other without disrupting
> traffic in the opposing directions. Crossovers on
> LRT systems are usually designed to be used only
> at terminals or under contingency conditions, for
> example if a train becomes disabled and blocks a
> section of track. You are asking for service that
> LRT systems are not designed to do.

I once asked the ERHA folks about the possibility of the Blue Line running "express service" (not stopping at all stations). The system is not set up to do that, in part because the software that controls the grade crossing signals has a built-in 'dwell time' at stations next to crossings. The Gold Line is probably wired the same way, where the crossing signals next to stations are not just activated upon approach but also based on some expected wait time at the stations.

MP