Documents and forms

2018 Gold Line Updates

Gold Line News

January 2018

The Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority recently received Statements of Qualifications from seven design-build teams interested in building the 12.3-mile, Phase 2B Glendora to Montclair Alignment Design-Build Project. In alphabetical order, the submitting firms include AECOM Stacy and Witbeck Team; Balfour Beatty-Skanska Joint Venture; Herzog Rados Lane, a Joint Venture; Kiewit-Parsons, a Joint Venture; Metro Builder & Engineers Group Ltd.; San Gabriel Valley Transit Partners, a Joint-Venture of Flour and Ames; and The Flatiron Dragados Joint Venture.

The Construction Authority Evaluation Committee, comprised of experts in their respective fields, will now evaluate each of the seven firms on their project experience, staffing and organizational structure, legal qualifications, and financial qualifications. Each firm will then be assigned a rating in the specific categories. From this process, the Construction Authority will generate a short list of project candidates and invite them to bid on the approximately $750 million design-build project. The shortlist of the most qualified teams is planned to be released in mid-February 2018.

The Construction Authority is also finalizing the Request for Proposals (RFP) document—that draft document will be made available for Industry Review next month to the firms on the short list, Phase 2B corridor cities (including Montclair), and certain third-party agencies. Industry Review allows the Construction Authority to receive feedback from the potential bidders and their reactions to the draft proposal solicitation prior to issuance of the final document. The official RFP will be issued in May and proposals will be due in September. The award of contract will be to the team providing the best value to the Construction Authority.

February 2018

The Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority completed a major milestone this month when the Board of Directors approved the shortlist of teams to compete to build the $1.5 billion, Phase 2B six-station Foothill Gold Line extension from Glendora to Montclair. The four shortlisted teams were narrowed down from a field of seven that responded to the agency’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ). Each respondent was evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) related project experience, (2) staffing and organization, (3) legal qualifications, and (4) financial qualifications.

The following four teams were recommended for the shortlist:

  • AECOM | Stacy and Witbeck JV
  • Herzog Rados Lane, a Joint Venture
  • Kiewit-Parsons, a Joint Venture
  • San Gabriel Valley Transit Partners (STP), a Joint Venture of Fluor and Ames Board approval of the above shortlist concludes the first of two competitive steps in the procurement process to hire the design-build team for Phase 2B.

Release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is the second, and will occur in May 2018. Only those teams shortlisted will receive the RFP and compete to win the work. The contract award is anticipated in October 2018, with work to begin in 2019.

April 2018

Council Member Bill Ruh traveled to Sacramento to appear before the Assembly Local Government Committee to testify on behalf of Assembly Bill 2417, a bill authored by Assembly Member Freddie Rodriguez (52nd Assembly District), providing the City of Montclair a vote on the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority Board of Directors. I am pleased to report the bill easily passed through the Assembly Local Government Committee on a unanimous 7-0 vote, moving the legislation one stop closer to becoming law.

In proposing AB 2417 to the Assembly Local Government Committee, Assembly Member Rodriguez noted that, “The Gold Line light rail is an economic engine and its future growth is imperative to the development of Inland Empire communities. Since its inception, the Authority’s terminus has expanded, requiring an update to the membership of its Board. I am continually excited by the progress being made and look forward to hearing new voices on the Board. Giving Montclair a voting seat is the right thing to do and maintains local control of the Gold Line project.”

The Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority is presently governed by a 9-member Board of Directors, with 5 voting members and 4 non-voting members. The 5 voting members are appointed by the following entities: City of Pasadena, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), City of Los Angeles, City of South Pasadena and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro). If signed into law by Governor Brown, Montclair would hold a sixth voting seat on the Board—an honor not presently granted to any of the other five Phase 2B cities, and to only three other Gold Line cities: Los Angeles, Pasadena, and South Pasadena.

The Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority is an independent transportation planning and construction agency, created in 1998 to oversee construction of the light rail from Pasadena to Azusa (Phase 2A) and Glendora to Montclair (Phase 2B)—a previous phase, Phase 1, from Los Angeles’ Union Station to Pasadena was first coordinated by Metro, and then transferred to the Construction Authority upon its creation.

The entire 23.9-mile route (Phase 2A and 2B) of the Foothill Gold Line Extension follows the roadbed of the former Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway’s Second Division through the Foothill cities. The route parallels several major roads and highways, including the I-210, Huntington Drive, and Foothill Boulevard.

The initial Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Foothill Gold Line Extension was completed in April 2006, and covered the entire corridor between Pasadena and Montclair. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) study assessed two different construction options: an LRT Full Build alternative which would complete the entire extension to Montclair, and an LRT Build To Azusa alternative, which would extend only to Azusa—dubbed Phase 2A. In February 2007, the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority Board certified the Final EIR and decided to complete the LRT Build to Azusa alternative.

In October 2009, the Metro board unanimously voted to include the Foothill Gold Line in its long-range plan, and approved funding for the construction and operation of Phase 2A. Construction began the following summer and was completed in September 2015, with the extension entering service in March 2016. The project budget for Phase 2A was $735 million—a total that included costs related to construction, purchase of vehicles, financing, administrative costs, and mitigation.

Phase 2B from Glendora to Montclair is 12.6 miles long. The alignment will have 6 new Metro stations: Glendora; San Dimas; La Verne; Pomona, at the Pomona (North) Metrolink Station with a connection to the Metrolink San Bernardino Line; Claremont, at the Claremont Metrolink Station with a connection to the Metrolink San Bernardino Line; and Montclair, at the Montclair Transcenter with connections to the Metrolink San Bernardino Line, Foothill Transit Silver to Union Station, Foothill Transit Local Line 690 to Azusa, Omnitrans bus routes 66, 85, 88, and 290, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) route 204 to downtown Riverside, and proposed shuttle and ride-share services to Ontario International Airport and other destinations. AB 1600 (2012), authored by then State Senator Norma Torres, designated the Montclair Transcenter as the terminus of the Foothill Gold Line Extension. Phase 2B is expected to generate 17,800 daily riders by 2035, with an estimated 5,200 boarding at the Montclair Transcenter.

Planning for Phase 2B of the Foothill Gold Line Extension began in 2003. The Final EIR for the project was certified by the Construction Authority Board of Directors in March 2013, and advanced conceptual engineering began in 2014—Montclair fronted $3 million for SBCTA’s share of the cost of the advanced work in order to keep the extension to Montclair viable. In June 2017, the Metro Board of Directors approved a $1.4 billion budget to extend the Gold Line from APU/Citrus College station to Claremont, 11.5 miles to the east. It is expected to cost an additional $78 million to extend the Gold Line from Claremont to Montclair, across the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County lines. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) has secured approximately $42 million for construction of the Montclair Segment, with the balance expected from the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) through a cap-and-trade grant.

Phase 2B of the Gold Line extension is composed of two Design-Build projects: Project 1 is the relocation of Metrolink and freight railroad tracks, which is expected to begin in 2020, following utility realignments. Project 2 is the construction of the light rail line, expected to begin in late 2021, with completion in 2026. Total cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion.

May 2018

Late last month, the Gold Line Phase 2B Foothill Extension Project was awarded approximately $300 million in grant funding by CalSTA through the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). TIRCP funding comes from a combination of cap-and-trade auction funds and allocations from SB1—the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The award includes $39 million in TIRCP funds to complete the Montclair Segment. The CTC formally approved the recommendation, committing the approved funding for construction of the Gold Line Extension project.

June 2018

the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority announced the release of the Alignment Design Build Request for Proposals (RFP) to the four pre-qualified, design-build teams competing to build the Glendora to Montclair (Phase 2B) project. The RFP includes tens of thousands of pages of updated engineering and project information, including detailed drawings of every aspect of the 12.3-mile project.

The four short-listed teams vying for the more than $700 million contract are:

  • AECOM | Stacy and Witbeck JV
  • Herzog Rados Lane, a Joint Venture
  • Kiewit-Parsons, a Joint Venture
  • San Gabriel Valley Transit Partners (STP), a Joint Venture of Fluor and Ames

The teams have until September 12, 2018, to submit proposals. Each proposal will then be reviewed and ranked by several committees of experts. The winning bidder will be selected late in 2018, with major construction projected to begin in early 2020.

The project’s first contractor, W.A. Rasic Construction, is nearly halfway complete with the strategic utility relocation effort that began last October. In the pictures, below, crews recently installed steel casing to protect the existing underground water lines within the rail corridor in La Verne.

September 2018

Utility undergrounding was completed last month, and the Construction Authority is working with the freight line operator to eliminate the current pole line communication system, which uses mostly overhead lines located within the shared rail corridor to communicate with safety equipment at crossings. The pole lines are being removed to make room for the relocation of freight tracks and installation of the light rail system. A third component of the Phase 2B Project (Design-Build 3) will involve construction of parking facilities for the five cities in Los Angeles County designated to receive Gold Line stations (Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona and Claremont). Funding for parking facilities will come from Measure M, approved by Los Angeles County voters in November 2016. The Montclair Transcenter, located in San Bernardino County, is not eligible for Measure M dollars.

November 2018

Over the past decade, the City of Montclair has served as an ardent proponent in securing Gold Line light rail service for the community and the west end of San Bernardino County. During that time, Montclair directly addressed a number of Gold Line-related challenges, from elimination of the Gold Line by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as a priority transit project, to funding-related threats to extension of Phase 2B of the Gold Line from Glendora to Montclair.

The most recent funding threat came from Proposition 6 on the November 6, 2018 ballot. Proposition 6 threatened the repeal of SB 1, the transportation tax approved by the legislature in 2016 that is projected to raise $54 billion over ten years for transportation and transit projects. The Montclair Segment of the Gold line depended on SB 1 funds to complete the required construction funding. Fortunately, the electorate of California rejected Proposition 6 by 54 percent of the vote.

The future of the Phase 2B extension has now apparently fallen victim to the bid process and the uncertainties of tariffs, talk of trade wars, perceived labor shortages, and other economic uncertainties associated with the nation’s economic future.

Over the past two months, the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority reviewed proposals submitted by four design-build teams competing to win the Glendora to Montclair Alignment Contract (Phase 2B of the Gold Line extension). Each of the four bids demonstrated a significant, unfavorable shift in market conditions reflected in construction cost estimates that greatly exceeded Phase 2B construction cost estimates completed two years ago. In their bid packages, respondents reportedly built in cost escalation components that extended out over the life of the 8-year design-build project. Estimated costs were also reportedly influenced by a number of other factors, including economic market speculation based on projected labor shortages, tariff impacts, talk of trade wars, the projected price for materials, and other trends in the national economy.

The least costly of the four bid responses reportedly doubled the cost of construction of Phase 2B from Glendora to Montclair, greatly exceeding current available funding by $570 million. The Construction Authority had estimated the cost of construction for Design-Build 2 (DB-2) at $630 million for the entire length of Phase 2B. DB-2 is that portion of the design-build contract for construction of the rail alignment which includes tracks, bridges, service lines, grade crossings, stations, and other physical components of the system. DB-1, related to utility relocation, has been completed. And DB-3, a future project, relates to the construction of parking garages at the various station locations in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and Claremont. It is DB-2, the main construction component of the $1.5 billion Phase 2B project that is affected by the current bid process.

The Construction Authority makes note that during the entire period of bid preparation, not one of the four bidders provided any indication that their respective proposals would greatly exceed the projected $630 million construction cost.

To address this unexpected increase in costs, the Construction Authority proposed a plan that would deliver “nearly 70 percent of the Glendora to Montclair project at least two years ahead of the original schedule and avoid tens of millions of dollars annually in market escalation and risk money proposed by the four design-build teams; while also increasing the budget for the 12.3-mile, 6-station light rail project by $570 million to a total project budget of $2.1 billion. This proposed plan, which could be completed within the currently ongoing procurement, will also include an option to complete the full project to Montclair if funding is secured within two years of the winning bidder receiving Notice to Proceed. The proposed plan is subject to environmental review and approval.”

Effectively, the proposed plan adversely impacts extension of the Gold Line to the communities of Pomona, Claremont, and Montclair. The Construction Authority argues that the proposed plan achieves the following:

  1. Allows for completion of the majority of the Glendora to Montclair project in 2024 (two years ahead of the original schedule), including: 80 percent of the freight system relocation, 72 percent of the structures, 65 percent of the grade crossings, and delivery of 3 new light rail stations (Glendora, San Dimas, and La Verne). Montclair is concerned that the plan does not actually complete any alignment construction to Pomona, Claremont, or Montclair. The plan effectively completes the Phase 2B extension only to La Verne and no further. Completion beyond La Verne will require a new procurement phase and an estimated $570 million in new funding, with construction to Montclair to be completed no sooner than 2028, two years beyond the current 2026 target date.Montclair has already reached out to legislative representatives to find a funding solution for the $570 million required to complete construction of Phase 2B to the Montclair Transcenter. Montclair also argues that the bids should be rejected, and that a new bid process be expanded and pursued. Alternatively, Montclair is also of the opinion that the Construction Authority should negotiate terms of the bid packages to address risk, labor, and other cost factors and consider establishing a separate contingency account above the normal scope of costs—a contingency fund that would provide for any actual and real costs realized by the contractor, as opposed to simply accepting the bid costs as proposed. Of course, Montclair realizes that a contingency fund would require the allocation of funds that the Construction Authority does not have, but could seek from Metro as part of a larger contingency plan to address similar impacts on other Metro projects. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) would need to be a partner in any plan that requires additional funding for construction of the Montclair Segment from the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County line to the Montclair Transcenter.
  2. Saves tens of millions of dollars annually in escalation being charged at historically high market rates, by eliminating years off the original construction schedule. The Construction Authority Board of Directors has agreed to require the two low bidders to separately re-bid Glendora to La Verne (Phase 1) and La Verne to Montclair (Phase 2) as two separate projects within the current procurement, with Phase 2 as an optional segment. Under the revised phasing plan, the Phase 2B project has effectively been cut in half, with only 3 cities now included in Phase 1 (Glendora, San Dimas, and La Verne) instead of the original 6 (Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair)—and for those 3 cities included in Phase 1, the cost of construction is not expected to fall significantly below the $630 million construction cost originally projected by the Construction Authority to build Phase 2B to all 6 cities.While the cost of the new Phase 1 extension from Glendora to La Verne will likely produce a relative reduction in overall costs because (1) it avoids the more complicated Metrolink track relocation associated with the Pomona to Montclair segment (Phase 2), and (2) it shortens the timeline for construction of the Phase 1 alignment by 2 years, it is unlikely that this division will produce drastic savings that will significantly bring down the estimated $570 million required to complete Phase 2.
  3. Isolates costs associated with building the vastly more complicated and risk-burdened eastern portion of the project that shares a corridor with Metrolink. As addressed above, to achieve this reduction the Construction Authority will re-bid the two new project phases (Phase 1—Glendora to La Verne, and Phase 2—La Verne to Montclair) as separate projects, with Phase 2 identified as an “optional” project.
  4. Provides the Construction Authority flexibility for procuring the portion of the project from La Verne to Montclair to ensure the best price, including the potential to complete the extension to Montclair as part of the currently ongoing procurement, and the opportunity to re-procure it separately if market conditions improve. Completing Phase 2 within the original procurement for Phase 2B will depend entirely on the development of the estimated $570 million required to complete Phase 2 from La Verne to Montclair. It is unlikely the La Verne to Montclair segment (Phase 2) will be included in the current procurement unless $570 million is developed prior to 2021. The next round of cap-and-trade grant funding will not occur until 2021, which complicates fund generation within the 2-year period mandated by the Construction Authority. At this point, as the best course option, Montclair will reach out to its legislative partners to determine the probability for a future funding path.

On November 13, the Construction Authority Board of Directors approved the proposed phasing plan. The Construction Authority will now designate La Verne as the “temporary” terminus of the Gold Line, and will conduct an environmental review for that purpose—Montclair is the legislatively mandated terminus of the eastern extension of the Gold Line. The Construction Authority will also amend the procurement process to request revised bids to build the first 8 miles of the project (Phase 1 from Glendora to La Verne), followed by the remaining 4.7 miles from La Verne to Montclair (Phase 2).

Montclair urged that the bid documents, as presently proposed, be examined by a consulting economist to examine the reasoning and justifications behind the massive, upward cost estimations. The Construction Authority did request input from a Chief Economist with the Associated General Contractors of America. The Chief Economist for the construction industry opined that “the construction market has changed dramatically in several respect that make higher costs much more likely….Construction activity has increased, notably for transit and rail construction—a relatively small and specialized subsector….The labor market has tightened…and the overwhelming share of contractors reporting difficulty finding qualified workers….Wages and salaries are rising at an accelerated pace. Prices for many materials and services used in construction are increasing at the fastest rate in several years. Thus, it is likely that there will be some combination of further escalation in bid prices and/or fewer bidders for projects as long as labor and materials costs are rising at current rates or higher. Based on recent demographic, market and policy trends, these cost escalations appear likely to remain in place for several more years.” Based on this analysis, the Construction Authority accepted that the bid packages appropriately reflect the trends cited.

Montclair recognizes the current labor shortage projections, tariffs, and other market conditions have given rise to the speculation and escalation that has impacted the Phase 2B bid packages. However, Montclair also notes that other projects, such as Phase 1 of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) I-10 widening project (a 6-year, $900 million construction project) from the Los Angeles-San Bernardino County border to the I-15 Freeway, awarded several months ago, did not suffer from a similar dramatic rise in costs above engineer estimates. While there may be factors unique to a niche construction market, such as transit construction, Montclair remains concerned that the proposed Phase 2B project costs are based less on real-world economics then on concern and speculation shaped around national issues of a transient nature. Montclair also is of the opinion that as a “prevailing wage” project with a guaranteed 8-year construction cycle, the referenced labor shortage is overstated. Further, with Metro pursuing a vast array of transit and transportation projects, transit construction in the region no longer functions as a “niche” market.

Further, if present and forecasted U.S. economic conditions give rise to the concerns raised in the bid documents—concerns that appear to run counter to everything we read and hear about the powerful U.S. economy—Montclair believes the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and all transportation agencies will have to carefully evaluate each project going forward, and re-prioritize their respective funding and projects plans.

The Gold Line is intricately tied into development of North Montclair. For that reason, Montclair will continue to put forth every effort to ensure the Gold Line does arrive in Montclair, whether in 2026, 2028, or at a later date. Montclair will now work with the Construction Authority, the cities of Pomona and Claremont, and state and federal legislative representatives to determine a future course of action, particularly as it relates to funding the La Verne to Montclair segment.

December 2018

The Metropolitan Transportation District (Metro) Board of Directors unanimously supported a motion by Los Angeles County Supervisors Hilda Solis and Kathryn Barger, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Metro Board Directors John Fasana and Ara Najarian to reaffirm the agency’s commitment to funding and completing the Foothill Gold Line from Glendora to Montclair (Phase 2B) as a Metro “first priority project.” The motion also directed agency staff to identify funding sources and approaches to fill the funding gap identified by the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority (the Construction Authority) through the currently on-going procurement.

The Construction Authority opines that by rebidding Phase 2B as two separate procurements, the Construction Authority can definitively determine the funding required to construct each procurement.
Under the revised procurement process, the Construction Authority anticipates that a rebid of Procurement 1 from Glendora to La Verne would produce a project well within the current $630 million allocated for the entire Phase 2B alignment.

The rebid for Procurement 2 is expected to produce a project that exceeds remaining, available funding. Nonetheless, the Construction Authority argues that the rebid will determine the true shortfall for the overall project, and will provide clarity on the amount of additional funding that must be sought for Procurement 2.

In preparing to rebid Procurements 1 and 2, it is anticipated the Construction Authority will redesign the scope of each procurement by value engineering the entire length of the Phase 2B alignment. Value engineering represents a coordinated effort directed at analyzing alternative design solutions to optimize and maintain results while reducing construction and operational costs.

By rebidding Phase 2B as two procurements, value engineering the entire length of the Phase 2B Project from Glendora to La Verne/Pomona, and abandoning or minimizing all or some of DB-3 (parking structure construction) the Construction Authority may anticipate achieving a significant reduction to the cost of construction for Procurement 1 from Glendora to La Verne—a construction cost reduction that may allow Procurement 1 to fit well within currently allocated Metro funds for all DB Project elements.

The Construction Authority’s projection for lower Procurement 1 construction costs is based on the following factors:

  1. A shorter, four-year construction period for Procurement 1, as opposed to the estimated eight-year construction period for the combined Phase 2B Project from Glendora to Montclair. The shorter four-year construction period for Procurement 1 should significantly reduce the escalation factors that drove up the estimated cost of construction for the Phase 2B Project by 30 percent or higher
  2. Less risk due to reduced opportunity for claims. Two known claims presently driving risk concerns originate in the form of lawsuits from the cities of San Dimas and Pomona. With Pomona currently excluded from Procurement 1, the known risk factor for Procurement 1 is reduced to one city (San Dimas)
  3. Value engineering the Phase 2B corridor to meet objectives of the Construction Authority, while reducing construction and operational costs. Value engineering may produce the required savings to allow Procurement 1 to extend the eastern terminus of the Gold Line to Pomona, rather than La Verne.

Issues that remain of concern going forward are:

  • The availability of skilled labor
  • Speculation on tariffs and the economy
  • Supply of materials.

Together, these factors, along with inflation and escalation components, are the main drivers to the unexpected increases in construction-related costs for Phase 2B.

In other Gold Line news, a Phase 2B Project scoping meeting was held in La Verne earlier this month. At the meeting, the Construction Authority indicated it is now contemplating two additional procurement alternatives, for a total of four:

  1. Glendora to La Verne, with construction anticipated to last from August 2019 to November 2024—the Construction Authority indicated it is developing an analysis of environmental impacts for a temporary terminus at La Verne.
  2. La Verne to Pomona North, with construction anticipated to last from August 2019 to August 2025, subject to available funding from Metro—the Construction Authority indicated it is developing an analysis of environmental impacts for a temporary terminus at Pomona.
  3. Pomona North to Claremont, with construction anticipated to last from August 2021 to August 2028, subject to available funding from Metro.
  4. Claremont to Montclair with construction anticipated to last from 2021 to August 2028, subject to available funding from SBCTA for the portion from Claremont to Montclair—the Montclair Segment. SBCTA has indicated it has developed up to $48 million for construction of the Montclair Segment. In addition, a portion of the $280 million in cap-and-trade and SB 1 funding approved by CalSTA is also available for the Montclair Segment.As a side note, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren, writing as a member of the SBCTA Board, submitted a letter raising her concerns about the impact the Gold Line extension would have on Metrolink stations in San Bernardino County. Both SBCTA and Metrolink have argued that ridership on Metrolink would decline as riders switch to the less expensive Gold Line light rail service. Montclair respectively makes the point that the Gold Line serves the Foothill cities of the San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena and Los Angeles. In contrast, the Metrolink is a direct line between Los Angeles’ Union Station and San Bernardino. Both SBCTA and Metrolink point to a decline in ridership at the Covina Metrolink station after the May 2016 opening of the Azusa Gold Line station. However, beyond this decline at the Covina Metrolink station, there is no significant empirical evidence to support a claim for a significant decline in Metrolink ridership at the future Pomona, Claremont and Montclair stations.

    Montclair argues that (1) it is very likely that ridership out of the Covina Metrolink station declined because Metrolink riders using the Covina station were from neighborhoods closer to the new Azusa Gold Line station, and found it more convenient to access transit service at that latter station; (2)the Gold Line commute trip out of the new Azusa station added relatively little time for the commute to Union Station in comparison to the Metrolink commute from Covina to Union Station; (3) the Gold Line offers a direct route to Pasadena, whereas the Metrolink commute to Pasadena would require a rider to transfer out of Union Station to the Gold Line for transit service to Pasadena, adding greater time for a Metrolink commute to Pasadena; and (4), the Gold Line and Metrolink are not competitors, but offer completely different transit experiences that reach into different areas of their respective service areas. Thus, Metrolink and the Gold Line are not a choice between transit services; rather, they each meet different and respective transit service needs.

    Yes, it is likely that Metrolink ridership out of future Gold Line stations in Pomona, Claremont and Montclair may see a decline after Gold Line stations open in those cities; but this decline will be based on the same reasons described in the preceding paragraph; i.e., the Gold Line meets a completely different transit need for commuters and that, alone, is justification for extending Gold Line service to the Montclair Transcenter. Further, there are many competing demands that influence transit ridership. Commuters have the option of personal cars, buses, bicycles, walking, ride-sharing services, shuttle services, ridesharing, and other forms of transportation. Both Metrolink and the Gold Line must compete against these various alternatives within their respective service areas. In that regard, the focus should be to enhance and promote each respective service as attractive alternatives to their potential ridership base and cooperate with cities along their respective service routes to enhance the development of transit districts along rail corridors to expand the transit population base.

Public input received at the scoping meeting was reviewed at a Special Meeting of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority Board this past Tuesday. The Board received and filed the report on the proposed alignment alternatives, and a decision will await completion of the necessary environmental studies related to the “temporary” terminus status for both the future La Verne and Pomona stations—previous environmental reports had designated Claremont and Montclair as terminus stations.

Further, to proceed with the La Verne to Pomona alignment, the Construction Authority advised that the estimated $200 million in additional funding for construction to Pomona must be identified by June 2019, when the Construction Authority completes environmental studies for both La Verne and Pomona and receives responses to its rebid on the multiple, proposed procurements.

 

Close window