On July 1st, our taxes in LA County increased a half penny on the dollar to fund a mix of transportation projects, whether they be rail, highway or something else, thanks to Measure R, which was voted in by the public last November. This Thursday morning, Metro will hold a Measure R committee meeting (.pdf) to discuss aspects of that and part of that discussion will be the possibility of moving up the timelines of three projects.
Those projects are moving opening dates of the regional connector in downtown from 2025 to 2018, the second Gold Line Eastside Extension to 2035 to 2018 and the Green Line to LAX from 2028 to 2017.
That has Gold Line Foothill Extension advocates worried.
"We will be at the workshop to ask that the schedule be amended to accelerate the Foothill Extension by four years," wrote Habib Balian, the CEO of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, in an e-mail reprinted on a blog dedicated to the rail line. "Speaking of the opening date for Measure R projects, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has set a goal to 'build eight Measure R rail projects on time or ahead of schedule' in his second term in office. We are very supportive of his efforts, especially his plan for the Foothill Extension."
In Villaraigosa's plan, he envisions building eight rail projects on time or ahead of schedule including the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa by 2013.




How about the county privatizes Metro so we can get stuff built sooner than 30 years from now? I would love to ride the subway to the sea but by the looks of things most of us will be dead by the time it finally opens.
How about some money to extend the hours of the Red Line until 2:30AM? The only way people will use the system is if they can go out and not worry about missing the last subway at 12:17AM from Union Station.
It took six years to build the transcontinental railroad during the civil war. Why is it going to take 25 years to build seven miles out to Westwood?
The transcontinental railroad wasn't underground in seismic territory, under pre-existing buildings. In fact, it was pretty basic. If it's safer for them to take time with this project... well, I'd rather not be killed when the subway tunnel collapses, you know? Though yes, I think that if they were a private contractor rather than the government, they could speed this up a bit.
Another factor is they used a lot of indentured servants and worse to build it. The sheer volume of the labor force was a large part of how they did that.
An decent argument could be made that striping the 10 freeway with rail down the middle instead (ala the green line). It would make a lot more sense, and could be built a lot quicker. I'm actually surprised people don't bring that up as an option.
because it would suck balls to travel on and be miles away from the most traffic snarled areas.
also... expo line. leave the transit planning to the transit planners
uh, because they've done such a stellar job so far?
the green line is fast, it doesn't suck to travel on.
a lot of nimby people are trying to block the expo line - slowing it's rollout to a crawl. (in one timeline it was already going to be done by now)
the beauty of a train/highway combo is no NIMBY homeowners can block it - the right of way *exists*.
as people have said, that subway to the sea really isn't happening in anyone here's lifetime. just saying.