A rendering of the bridge that will carry Foothill Extension tracks from the center of the 210 freeway over the eastbound lanes. The old bridge was demolished after being damaged in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
Here’s the latest update on planning and pre-construction efforts on the Gold Line Foothill Extension project, which will extend the Gold Line from Pasadena to the Azusa/Glendora border adjacent to Citrus College. The Foothill Extension is a project funded by Measure R, the sales tax increase approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2008.
The update is from Habib Balian, the CEO of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, the agency that is building the line, which will be operated by Metro when completed:
Before the year comes to a close, I want to update you on progress made this month critical to our schedule.
First and foremost is the outstanding cooperation we have received from Caltrans. This month, the agency approved the Phase 2A (Pasadena to Azusa) Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) and Type Selection Study, essential documents for the progression of the Iconic Freeway Structure (IFS) and overall Phase 2A project. The PSR/PR, a detailed technical document required by Caltrans when working in their right-of-way, was approved for all elements of Phase 2A including construction of the IFS; upgrades to existing bridges, underpasses, and the I-210/I-605 Interchange; conduit laying; fence replacement and other key elements. Caltrans’ “Bridge Type Selection Committee” approved the Authority’s “Type Selection Study” after a substantive meeting in Sacramento with the Authority and the Skanska USA team to discuss the engineering, technical studies, and preliminary design submitted for the IFS. These approvals not only keep the IFS on schedule to begin construction in June, but also keep the entire Phase 2A alignment on schedule as we prepare to select a design-builder in the coming months.
Progress was also made this month, with the tremendous cooperation and leadership of Metro, on the critical agreement between Metro and BNSF in which BNSF agrees to relinquish use of the rail right-of-way west of Irwindale and agrees to share the corridor with the Gold Line east of Irwindale. Both parties approved in principle the terms of the agreement. Now their legal counsel is working to draw up the formal documents for signature within the next few weeks. As you may recall, obtaining this agreement is one of two necessary steps before substantial funding for Phase 2A is transferred to the Construction Authority.
As we gain momentum toward award of the Phase 2A Alignment contract in the Spring, we are establishing evaluation committees to evaluate and score the proposals (which are due January 27). Through this process, we will ensure that the team selected will provide the Authority with the best possible product at a great value and meet our high expectations.
Finally, as part of our overall goal for the project, the Authority will host scoping meetings for the Azusa to Montclair phase of the project (Phase 2B), which is currently undergoing environmental review. Many of the details about our progress and upcoming scoping meetings can be found on the Authority’s new website, launched last week (www.foothillextension.org). I encourage you to visit the site, view one of the new project videos or use the interactive maps to find information about the project or corridor cities, and more.
The Gold Line Authority Team looks ahead with great excitement to the coming year. For now – Merry Christmas, happy holidays and a Happy New Year.
The Journey Continues,
Habib F. Balian
Why do people keep saying the Green Line is a failure? I ride it all the time and it’s always packed or very full. Also, the bus connection to LAX works great. I use it all the time to go to the airport. I would suspect that those who say the Green line doesn’t work never use it.
I think having some lines run along freeways, which are, for better or for worse, arterial corridors for movement, is ok as long as the beginning and end points hit destinations or some in between and if there is easy access to the stations. So yes, its more of an implementation issue rather than just being on the freeway or not. The CTA blue line in chicago for example runs in the middle of the I90 for part of its route but not the whole time. It has high ridership and it still hits neighborhoods well in addition to the freeway center stations and the line serves as an important link in the system to the northwest neighborhoods and ohare airport. It is easily identifiable and it also is protected from much of the noise and pollution of the freeway with glass barriers between the tracks and the freeway lanes. The gold line is somewhat similar in the sense that it hits major destinations like downtown la, chinatown, old town Pasadena etc. while still being able to serve further out neighborhoods quickly with this extension (although a Colorado blvd. subway would have made more sense in downtown Pasadena for ridership sake.) The suburban nature of the neighborhoods beyond sierra madre villa means that park and ride is common so freeway stations make sense in some areas so long as they are accessible. TOD should always be promoted as much as possible but not every station is necessarily going to work for it 100 percent of the time. This will serve as a true rapid transit line because our LRVs (Breda and Siemens) are able to go up to 66 mph which is an appropriate speed for HRT/LRT and the station spacing on this extension. Unfortunately it may still be restricted to lower speeds on RR rows which still makes no sense because commuter rail can cross faster than that so maybe that will be addressed for the better. Either way this will be a valuable extension of an ever- improving rail line here and implementing it well is the most important thing. The speed is also especially important for this.