News & Reviews News Wire LA Metro board approves plans for improvements on Metrolink’s Antelope Valley line NEWSWIRE

LA Metro board approves plans for improvements on Metrolink’s Antelope Valley line NEWSWIRE

By Angela Cotey | July 30, 2019

| Last updated on November 3, 2020

Get a weekly roundup of the industry news you need.

Email Newsletter

Get the newest photos, videos, stories, and more from Trains.com brands. Sign-up for email today!

MetrolinkNewLogo

LOS ANGELES — The LA Metro board has approved plans to upgrade service on Metrolink’s Antelope Valley Line, which carries about 7,000 passengers daily.

The Santa Clarita Signal reports that the board approved a study which recoomended three changes to the 76.6-mile line, which currently offers 15 round trips on weekdays. Recommendations included adding one additional late-night round trip on Fridays and Saturdays, two additional off-peak round trips for midday service, and improve peak and off-peak service.

The study’s long-term goal is to have service on 30-minute headways, which would require double-tracking of much of the route at a cost of $180 million. Short-term improvements will require $41.8 million for four capital projects; those must be preceded by environmental clearance, which will cost an estimated $12.75 million.

7 thoughts on “LA Metro board approves plans for improvements on Metrolink’s Antelope Valley line NEWSWIRE

  1. CALIFORNIANS – To the extent I understand SoCal geography I do thing you guys are onto something. The problem in California isn’t the need for high speed, it’s the gap between Bakersfield and the LA Basin over (or under) the San Gabriel Mountains.

    Gov Edmund G. the Younger ruined this. By going for the Low Hanging Fruit in the San Juaquin Valley, he blew the money needed for a better connection south of Bakersfield.

  2. Yes Paul, I would have used the HSR rail money to build the Bakersfield to Lancaster segment first. Then extend the San Joaquins to LA. Incrimental improvements, based upon the bond money would be the only money. Then, if they build it, let’s see if they would come.

    Of course, I would have favored HSR over Tejon and roughly in, or following the I-5 freeway up to and over Altamont Pass- through Niles Cyn, cross the bay over a new Dumbarton Bridge and up to SFO. The shortest distance. But then the Bond issue’s alignment was designed to pass the bond. There is an old issue of the CA Rail News on the TRAC website graphically illustrating this route.

  3. @Charles Landey
    Yeah I forgot to mention tunneling the San Gabriels as well. The only problem today is how and where? One issue with the Pasadena area being so over built now that would’ve made a prefect entrance for an 23 mile electrified tunnel exiting at Acton. This is where the western half of the old Santa Fe 2nd district from LAUPT to Pasadena would’ve made better use instead of Metro’s Gold Line…

  4. Instead of California pushing their HSR proposal that I use to back. The money would’ve been better spent tunneling under the Tehachapi Mountains. Buying dual mode locomotives, along with bi-level cars. Extending San Joaquin service to L.A.. Upgrading both UP, and BNSF valley lines for 110 or 125 mph operation with limited and express service..

  5. I like your idea John Blaubach, but why stop short at Newhall? If they’re gonna double track through Soledad Canyon according to this item to support higher Metrolink frequencies to Lancaster, run those Surfliners to Lancaster.

    Makes it more obvious that a rail link under the Tehachapis is needed.

    Yes James Shigley. It’s ridiculous.

  6. It will cost $12.75M for environmental clearance in order to accomplish only $41.8M in capital projects?

  7. There are also plans in the works involving LOSSAN and Metrolink to use Metrolink to move Amtrak passengers transferring from LAUPT to Bakersfield. They would detrain at Newhall. This would eliminate most of the time and unreliability in the existing bus bridge. This something which should have been done years ago!

    But, why not go one step further? Why not extend the Amtrak Surfliners terminating in LA and extend them to Newhall? Thus avoiding a transfer and saving more time.

You must login to submit a comment