Comments on: Welcome to the Blogroll: I Will Ride

By: browne

browne — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:11:16 +0000

If “I Will Ride” is truly a PR blog and not an editorial blog that is a big deal and is very unethicial and it should be stated on the blog. I’m going to look into that Kymberleigh. Thanks for bringing that up. To me I am very tired of the well funded blogosphere pretending to be grass roots. I’m tired of PR companies pretending to be editorial.

Browne

By: Dan Wentzel

Dan Wentzel — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:50:48 +0000

According to this pic, Metrolink plans on double-tracking their San Bernadino corridor by 2030. So, I guess they believe it can be done.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/coachocd/3590078257_a2c0670450_b.jpg

By: Dana Gabbard

Dana Gabbard — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:29:10 +0000

Albert, I never claimed to speak for the residents. The attempt at raising a strawman against me is fairly laughable. I am merely asking hard questions and debunking some of the claims being made. And by the way, as a taxpayer I think I have every right to do so. Oh, please–”the legal requirement” doesn’t mean holding pep rallies and raising unreasonable expectations with exaggerated claims. I know transportation planning processes inside and out, and don’t buy this claim of a “spontaneous” outpouring of support. This thing reeks of astroturf.

As I have said before, the extension will reach Azusa sometime in the next decade but despite instead of because of the efforts of its proponents.

By: Albert

Albert — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:11:57 +0000

@Dana – actually the excitement among the residents was a result of the legal requirement of any builder/developer to notify the surrounding communities of upcoming projects.

Once again, I have spoken to these communities and residents. You haven’t. I don’t get where you have the right to speak for them.

By: Dana Gabbard

Dana Gabbard — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:37:50 +0000

Actually Albert you condemn youself with comments about the excitement among residents. It hasn’t happened by accident. The Authority has spent a great deal of money (including hiring the folks who employ you) to foster a frenzy based on the impression the project is within inches of a groundbreaking. This approach didn’t work over a decade ago in the Crenshaw corridor, and it won’t work here. And I find such tactics distasteful, falely raising hopes via manipulative empty boosterism.

I am going for free to offer a suggestion if the advocates of this project really want to get some traction–they should be strong supporters of the regional connector. First because that would let them build alliances with downtown interests to help the Foothill Extension overcome the perception it is only being boosted by corridor electeds etc. The connector would if built also I think do a lot to boost the projected ridership of the the Foothill Extension since at that point it would be based on a one seat ride to Long Beach (and connections to the westside via the Expo Line shared stops). That would be the savvy move to make the project happen.

BTW, I have always been a strong supporters of the ACE project–which has a legitmate claim of being a national priority. That is what the SGV powers should be putting their support behind, instead of the Foothill Extension.

http://www.theaceproject.org/

By: Albert

Albert — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:52:40 +0000

@Kymberleigh – “Who gets the better credibility rating?”
We’re talking about a project in a region where you have not spoken to as many (or any at all) residents as I have. In the end, the residents – and not the politicians – are the ones who matter in regards to this project. As someone who has met with and spoken to a great number of these residents, I’m pretty sure I have more credibility than you here. Thanks for posting that question so I can answer it.

By: Kymberleigh Richards

Kymberleigh Richards — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:29:39 +0000

@Dan – The Silver Line is, I believe, proposed for inclusion in the Long Range Transportation Plan (which comes to the Metro Board for approval next month) as an unfunded project. What that means is, when everything on the “funded” list (which now includes the Measure R project list) has full-funding guarantees, the Silver Line would be among those projects considered for any funds that come in beyond that.

@Albert – Yes, it is my opinion that the blog operated by the PR firm you work for, on behalf of the Construction Authority, is misleading. However, I have the advantage of expressing my opinion as a representative of a bona fide public transportation advocacy organization, whereas you express yours as an employee of the PR firm. Who gets the better credibility rating?

By: Dan Wentzel

Dan Wentzel — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:56:32 +0000

Whatever happened to the old Silver Line project? Wouldn’t that have served some of the less affluent, heavier transit ridership areas between the two Gold Line extensions?

The project had merit. I understand the funding difficulties, but did the advocates for this SGV project just fall off the face of the earth?

By: Dana Gabbard

Dana Gabbard — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:01:22 +0000

Albert, how can you say “there are no Foothill Extension supporters who are against the Subway or Expo.” Antonovich, for one, regularly has decried the subway as taking funds that should go for the Foothill extension. As for we advocates who cite the projected ridership, this is to counterbalance the outrageous claims made by proponents about what the project would produce. cph makes the key point about the proponents using dubious numbers and employing advocacy methods that are very squint worthy that seemingly betray a lack of faith in the merit of the project being enough to justify it. Community support is important but doesn’t supplant actual need–posting a bunch of comment cards (or using public funds to transport crowds of proponents to meetings) is no substitute for producing technical analysis proving the value of the project. This seems a case of “If you don’t have the numbers, start yelling”. The financial incentive of the authority (it staff and the p.r. firm it has hired) to continually keep up the myth this project is shovel ready and is a regional priority is very clear. Some years ago I (and Kymberleigh) had dealings with the political elite of the San Gabriel Valley during the fight over the composition of the Metro Sector Governance Councils and I came away from the experience with a rather low regard for what seems a very dysfuncional political environment built on parochialism, fair share etc. The extension proponents seem to be following that well trod path.

By: Dan Wentzel

Dan Wentzel — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:06:32 +0000

“Metrolink is not an option so let’s take that off the table.”

————-

I certainly support your right to advocate for a project you believe in, but as a transit advocate I just cannot agree with you that Metrolink is not an option.

Just because it is not your ‘preferred’ option, doesn’t not mean it is not an option.

By: Albert

Albert — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:40:19 +0000

@Kymberleigh – your bias is quite obvious, so you will always find something to pick at. That’s something I’ve already accepted and have no problem with.

Your claims that the Construction Authority has the most to gain financially is quite baffling, seeing as the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension CONSTRUCTION Authority’s only goal is to get the Foothill Extension CONSTRUCTED. Quite simple.

Thank you for your opinions (which are just that).

@Everyone – The blog was designed to get information out to the public because nobody else was doing it. The lack of transportation coverage for a region as large as the San Gabriel Valley was one of the main concerns that drove the creation of the blog. The Foothill Cities Blog is no longer up, and even when they were, they rarely actually covered transportation or anything outside a few cities along the 210.

The Foothill Extension will never compete with the Subway to the Sea or the Expo Line on ridership – it’s been quite established and yet people bring it up like it’s brand new data we’ve never seen before. And also, there are no Foothill Extension supporters who are against the Subway or Expo. There is no reason why all these lines can’t be built. Measure R was passed with the intention of funding construction – which is our problem here. It can begin building the Foothill Extension next year while studying the Expo II, Crenshaw, Green Line, and Subway to the Sea. We’re all in this together (not to mention we’re all in this together in paying the sales tax) and as transit advocates we should all be looking out for one another. Metrolink is not an option so let’s take that off the table.

By: cph

cph — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:38:03 +0000

IF there was the money (and intestinal fortitude) for such a project, I would suggest replacing the current middle five lanes (2 carpool lanes, 2 carpool shoulders, and rail line) with a two-level structure–one level with carpool lanes (and bus stops?) the other with four tracks–two for Metrolink, and two for a light rail between LA and El Monte….

It would really be a mess to build, though….

By: calwatch

calwatch — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:49:11 +0000

It would have nothing to do with goods movement, since there are only a handful of freight trains a week along the Metrolink San Bernardino Line right of way, which is owned by the SCRRA. Most freight trains use either the UP Alhambra or Los Angeles Subdivisions (as does the Metrolink Riverside Line) or the BNSF Transcon (like the Metrolink 91 Line). The problem with double tracking between El Monte and Union Station down the 10 freeway is that the track has to be moved to one side of the other, and there is no clear space, short of taking away a lane of traffic – which is already tight due to the congestion pricing program.

The other suggestion that has been thrown about is to reroute some peak hour trains via the BNSF Alhambra Subdivision through San Gabriel, missing Cal State LA station. The problem with that is that is the length of the detour, and the fact that the track is not rated for the same speed as the Metrolink tracks down the middle of the 10 – I think top speed was 50 mph.

By: cph

cph — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:30:38 +0000

Yawn, yet more astroturf. Won’t be the first, won’t be the last.

I don’t have a particular objection to the Foothill light rail (other than it should not have a greater prority than, say Phase 2 of Expo). But when proponents resort to tricks like this, it does make people think: “Is this project so important that we need to artificially prop it up”?

By: Dan W.

Dan W. — Sat, 16 May 2009 05:20:53 +0000

“The one place where Metrolink does need to add service, during peak hours, they can’t on the San Bernardino line because of the stretch of single track between El Monte and Union Station.”

—————

Wouldn’t a two-track stretch between El Monte and Union Station be a critical transportation project, not just for people, but goods movement as well?

By: calwatch

calwatch — Sat, 16 May 2009 02:06:38 +0000

But more Metrolink service during off peak hours is not the answer. The one place where Metrolink does need to add service, during peak hours, they can’t on the San Bernardino line because of the stretch of single track between El Monte and Union Station. I would like to take Metrolink to work, for example, but there’s an hour long gap between the 6 o’clock and 7 o’clock train. I’m not twiddling my thumbs for 45 minutes when I could get in my car and be home in that amount of time. More Metrolink trains on weekends and middays, which is where they would go without any capital improvements, are useless. And, it is very tricky to build an extra track down the middle of the 10 freeway. The Gold Line is not an ideal project, but Metrolink expansion has its own issues.

By the way, what you are describing in London is the same model used in Philadelphia. A one zone bus and regional rail pass is $84 and the $10 day pass even can be used all day on regional rail! But SEPTA, despite its high urban transit fare (one of the first agencies to go to $2), perenially depends on Harrisburg to give it money.

By: Kymberleigh Richards

Kymberleigh Richards — Fri, 15 May 2009 23:07:20 +0000

@Albert: My comment was an observation of the blog, not of you personally. I suggest a thicker skin if you’re going to play in this arena.

By: Dan Wentzel

Dan Wentzel — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:21:05 +0000

One of the things I like about London is that my transit pass worked for any services that were in the “Zones” I paid for. If I had bought a Zone 1-6 pass, basically all of Greater London, I could ride bus, light rail, heavy, rail, commuter rail, tram, etc. If you were riding commuter rail within the Zones you paid for, there was no extra fare.

That hasn’t happened in NYC and is unlikely to happen here because of the drop in revenue for Metrolink.

Calwatch, I absolutely agree that better bus service would be great, but don’t expect the SGV (or anywhere else) to cheer or go away quietly if you tell them, “we’re scrapping your rail project, but don’t worry, you’re getting better bus service.” I’ll lend you an umbrella to shield you from the tomatoes.

This area now expects and insists on rail service and their local leaders have told them they deserve it. Even if it isn’t the best use of resources from textbook transportation planning purposes, no SGV politician can get away with opposing it.

The only alternative that this area would “settle” for is another rail project.

By: calwatch

calwatch — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:11:29 +0000

Part of it is political – there are no representatives from the San Gabriel Valley on the Metrolink board, since Tony Villar pulled Anthony Bejarano, Baldwin Park councilmember, from the board after the Metrolink crash. Metrolink tickets are very expensive, especially for short trips. The better solution would be better bus service, such as upgrading the existing Silver Streak service to true BRT status, including signal preemption, bypass lanes, and offboard fare payment.

By: Dan Wentzel

Dan Wentzel — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:42:51 +0000

What I don’t understand is why San Gabriel Valley politicians aren’t pushing Metrolink more? Aren’t their development possibilities along the current Metrolink corridor? Couldn’t Foothill Transit be rerouted in a way that centers around EXISTING rail service?

Assuming the Foothill Branch will eventually be built because of its political inevitability, it will be at least 20 years before it goes all the way to Montclair.

Why aren’t they calling for greater and more frequent Metrolink service now? The cities who live along the current Metrolink corridor don’t seem to be very agressive or interested in this which I don’t understand yet. Maybe the Purple Line has to be extended and the downtown regional connector built first so that when those commuters get to Union Station they can travel beyond downtown.

London, which is a sprawl like Los Angeles, has several “Union Stations”. There are 12 “tube” subway lines, but dozens and dozens of commuter rail lines going in every direction. Metrolink is the most comfortable ride we have.

I lived in LaVerne for two years in high school. Couldn’t a commuter rail line be built to Montclair quicker branching off from El Monte, then waiting for a light rail line to get extended from Azusa?

Does anyone here have a theory as to why Metrolink isn’t given more credence in transportation planning? If I lived 20 miles out from Downtown and I had to commute there, I’d much rather hop on a commuter rail than a light rail.