Gold Line Foothill Extension Station Planning Workshops Upcoming

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority is co-sponsoring workshops with the cities in the 12.6-mile corridor between Azusa and Montclair along which the Authority hopes to extend the Gold Line. The subject of the meetings are proposed station sites in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair. The meetings begin this coming Monday.

Meeting details can be found in a flyer posted on the Authority’s website.

Some folks are gung-ho for this extension. Others of us much less so. But I will acknowledge the Authority has been quite pro-active in its public outreach, which these workshops are an example of.

In the coming months, the Authority will host tours of the Metro Gold Line light rail line between Pasadena and Los Angeles. Streetsblog is going to sign up for one of those tours, and we want you to come along.  Contact Damien at if you’re interested in riding the rails with a group of Streetsbloggers.  The Authority claims that the tours will provide an opportunity to experience how light rail interacts within communities, the design of stations and street crossings and the various train sounds.

  • Anonymous

    It concerns me greatly that The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority seems to infer (or does little to to dissuade the notion) that fares charged on the extended Gold Line will be the same when this extension opens as they are now. That is, a base fare (presently $1.50 or one token) will take a rider from Montclair to LA-Union Station (or onwards to East L.A.). There seems to be alot of support for this line not so much as a more frequent (albeit much slower) alternative to Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line, but as a much cheaper alternative ($1.50 versus the $8.50 one-way Metrolink fare from Montclair to LAUS).

    I would hope that The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority would do more to explain that a regional fare policy (with fares based on distance) is supposed to be in place by the time this line opens. Of course, given the progress on TAP cards, we shouldn’t get our hopes up.

  • GB

    @TAPman – There’s also a lot of support for the extension not as an alternative to the Metrolink San Bernardino Line, but to connect these communities to jobs in Pasadena and provide an alternative to the congested 210 freeway

  • Bob Davis

    As one of the “Gung Ho” supporters of the Foothill Extension, I would like to add that the Construction Authority does not set fares. When the project is finished, LA Metro will provide operators and cars, and decide what the fares will be. And it will serve the northern part of the San Gabriel Valley, and not overlap Metrolink until the Glendora-Clararemnot segsegment is built.aremon

  • Bob Davis

    The last sentence of my comment got scrambled. It should read: …..Glendora-Claremont segment is built.

  • Anonymous

    I think this is really key. The Montclaire to DLTA trip will take 75 minutes, but the slowest parts of that segment are already built — between Pasadena and LA.

    The trip from foothill cities to Pasadena will actually be quite fast and competitive with the 210, especially during rush hour.

    The real boon will be for Pasadena, which will now be much more accessible for jobs and recreation to foothill bedroom communities.

  • M to the I

    For real?! That is one hella long light rail line. Probably the wrong mode if you ask me.

  • Anonymous

    This extension will be a wonderful addition to my community. I’m looking forward to it.

  • Anonymous

    It’s going to get really interesting when the northern part of the Gold Line is tied in with the high-ridership Blue Line via the regional connector.

    That’s going to be a real challenge for Metro, to figure out how to get 5 minute headways from Long Beach to LA, but 10-15 minute headways on the same track in the Inland Empire where demand will surely be lower.

  • Bob Davis

    There will probably relatively few passengers who ride the Gold Line end-to-end. A major function of the new section will be to give residents of the San Gabriel Valley an alternative to the 210 Freeway and the 187 bus line. Regarding speed: the new section was once the route of Santa Fe’s “Super Chief” and “Fast Mail” trains, which ran at 65 mph, which is equal to or more than top speed for a light-rail train. As an electric railway line, it will have improved grade-crossing protection, and trains will accelerate faster.

  • Dan W.

    I have a feeling this line won’t run from Montclair to Long Beach. At that point, there will probably be two segments that overlap downtown.

    What is interesting is the decision on how to extend the southern fork. Will it be the SR-60 adjacent route or the Whittier route?

  • I don’t know what Metro will do but clearly, it is impractical to run every train from Long Beach to Montclair due to the imbalance of demand between the SGV segment and the South LA segment. However, I think you can make the case that Metro can run every other train the entire length thus providing 10-12 minute headway between Downtown and Montclair. The other half of the train will only run from Union Station to Long Beach so that combined, the southern portion of the Blue line from Union Station to Long Beach will get 5-6 minute headway. That would be the simplest and easiest to operate solution.