The Gold Line Foothill Extension*

Across the San Gabriel Valley, cities are drawing up big plans for hundreds of new residences and massive new office buildings -- all for a new train line that may never arrive. Or at least not anytime soon.

So desperate has the campaign become for an extension of the Gold Line that officials in the San Gabriel Valley are treating residents to free transit rides to an MTA board meeting later this month, where a decision on providing $80 million in funding for the line is expected.

At issue is a proposal to extend the Gold Line 23.9 miles from its current terminus in Pasadena to Montclair in two phases, the first going 11.4 miles to Azusa. The flap -- officials want the money now, not later -- has pitted the San Gabriel Valley against the rest of the county and amounts to one big argument over whose transit project gets funded first.

Habib Balian, the chief executive officer of the Foothill Extension Construction Authority, offers a long list of pluses about the Gold Line: It has widespread public support, there's almost no controversy surrounding it, and the line is fairly easy to build because the old freight right-of-way is still there.

The construction authority has completed most of the preliminary work on the line and Balian says it's nearly ready for construction -- but needs local funds first to secure other state and federal funds. In the meantime, officials in several cities along the route have been preparing development plans around the new stations, the idea being to create new transit villages along the route and channel the valley's growth there.

The train now goes through a mostly industrial area. "Don't look at it as what you see today," Balian said on a recent tour of the corridor. "Look at what it will be in 30 years." (That's Balian, pictured above, at the old Monrovia station, and a rendering of the redevelopment of the site is below).

Trains and Politics

Although the Gold Line may enjoy considerable support in the San Gabriel Valley, it has proven to be a tough sell elsewhere in Los Angeles County, where it is considered a line that will have low ridership that could also bleed money from more worthy projects.

The Westside Cities Council of Governments grew sufficiently concerned about the issue that they met last month with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to try to persuade him that funding for Westside projects must come first.

"The fear is that the Gold Line has all its ducks in order and they [the Council of Governments] were worried that the Gold Line could leapfrog over the Expo Line" for money, said Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represents the far Westside and attended the meeting. "They wanted to make sure the mayor knew the Gold Line couldn't leapfrog ahead of the Expo Line -- that the Expo Line construction time-line is sacred."

The first phase of the Expo Line is under construction from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. But the line has run into controversy about street crossings that could delay construction of the first phase and delay the second phase from getting underway. The Expo Line will need federal money for its second phase and officials worry it's hard enough without having to compete with a Gold Line extension.

For more of this story, click below...

San Gabriel Valley officials have long chafed at the structure of the MTA Board, which gives the most political muscle to the city of Los Angeles and the western half of the county. Now those officials want leverage and have privately hinted that if the Gold Line doesn't get money now, they may not support a prospective ballot measure in November that would raise the sales tax in Los Angeles County by a half-penny to pay for a pile of transit projects.

"The San Gabriel Valley is not without its political clout," said Monrovia Mayor Rob Hammond. (An earlier version of this post incorrectly gave the mayor's last name as Martin.)* "The timing is such that it’s all coming to a head right this minute and part of the agreement that is out there is that the San Gabriel Valley, through the foothill extension, will receive favorable support from members of the MTA Board."

That view is somewhat echoed by MTA board member David Fleming, who was appointed to the board by Villaraigosa.

"We’ve talked to them about this sales tax and told them 'Look, you want our help, we have to have your help,'" Fleming said. "I personally think your extension is a good one and we need it. Part of the consideration for supporting them, they have to support the sales tax, which they agreed to do."

The man in the middle -- both geographically and politically -- is Villaraiogosa. His press office declined to say whether he would vote to give the Gold Line money this month, although the mayor has expressed support for the project in the past. At the same time, he is under pressure to provide mass transit for the Westside and likely needs the sales tax increase if the subway-to-the-sea is to become a reality.

There are other concerns about money. Balian has long maintained that if the Construction Authority gets $80 million, it may be able to get the other $320-million-plus needed for the project's first phase from the state and federal government.

Although the Federal Transit Administration can fund up to 80% of a project, it rarely does so, said Paul Griffo, a spokesman with the agency. Annual reports from the FTA, available on its public website, indicate that in recent years the FTA has typically provided 25% and 45% of the costs of new light rail lines or subways.

Is the Gold Line a Good Project?

By some measures, the existing Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena has been a disappointment. Of the MTA's four rail lines, it has the lowest ridership although its monthly ridership numbers in May were the highest ever at about 23,000 per weekday.

The extension would initially travel west down the middle of the 210 freeway and then cross to the south side of the freeway on a new bridge. It would stop near downtown Arcadia -- missing both Santa Anita racetrack and the busy Westfield mall -- and then stop a mile south of the gentrified downtown Monrovia.

Officials also point to the fact that the train would connect with Metrolink rail service in the second phase. That would allow riders from the Inland Empire to take a train all the way to Pasadena and provide an alternative to the congested 210. It's also exactly the kind of linkage that Balian and other officials say will grow ridership in future years.

Advocates for the line also point to the abundant amount of land available for development near the tracks, saying that most of the growth in the San Gabriel Valley in coming decades could be put near mass transit -- not the usual way of doing things in Southern California, at least in the past.

Many of the development plans are ambitious and officials want the train project to go forward before those deals go stale. In Monrovia, for example, officials want to build 1,400 residential units, a hotel and more than 850,000-square-feet of office space, transforming a parking lot into a transit village. They also plan to link the station to downtown by greening and reinvigorating a mile-long stretch of Myrtle Avenue between the two.

In Duarte, the train station would be adjacent to the City of Hope hospital. Officials there want to redevelop 19 acres of industrial land into more than 800 residences. Farther east, in Azusa, a station is planned near a massive subdivision that has been proposed for the San Gabriel Mountain foothills.

"You have this opportunity today with these efforts being put toward the stations," said John Fasana, the only MTA board member who lives in the San Gabriel Valley and a Duarte council member. "It sounds great, but if the transit never comes, then you have over development and you've induced gridlock."

--Steve Hymon

Top photo: Gary Friedman / LAT

Station rendering and map: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

To readers: What do you think? Should the Foothill Extension go forward now? Or should other projects be built first? Leave a comment.

Comments

[Dan W.]

"I just don't get why the Metrolink alternative has never been seriously considered, given the obvious and clearly documented needs of the corridor. Is it just that Metrolink trains don't look as pretty in the renderings? Is the solution building the electrified Metrolink locomotives so they look like the new light rail trains?"

That is the question of the hour about this topic. Metrolink is unfortunately the best kept secret. I suspect many people out in the SGV who still don't even know there is a Metrolink system. There is one problem with it that needs to be addressed to. There is heavy competition for those same tracks for people movement and goods movement.

---------------------------

"Build the extension as electrified Metrolink. 20-25 minute peak hour headways with 35-60 minute off peak will be plenty to serve this corridor. Where necessary, add extra tracks and possibly reduce stations (which are currently spaced at every 2 miles - the distance of several East Coast commuter rail lines). Retrofit/add a track to the portion of the Gold Line from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Memorial Park station so the Metrolink service can operate from Memorial Park to Ontario, a good portion of which it can operate on existing Metrolink tracks. And work with BNSF and the local cities to create the type of public-private partnerships we all talk about but never do, to build grade separations at problematic crossings."

These are great suggestions that should have at least been considered.

[Get LA Moving]

The only extension of the Gold Line we should be considering are SOUTH (Downtown Connector) to 7th St Metro Station and EAST (the SFV-SGV connector) to Universal City Station via Downtown Glendale and Downtown Burbank and eventually under Ventura Blvd.

Of the fixed gateway projects, the existing Gold Line, which on its best day only has 23K boardings (not individual RIDERS, but boardings), is by far the most expensive to operate per passenger mile. Worst than the SFV Busway (which I refuse to dignify by recognizing it with a color), worse than the Green Line, worse than the Blue Line (which performs the best of fixed guideway projects), worse than the Red Line. It is the outlier of all the projects costing 50% more to operate per passenger mile than the system in second place (SFV Busway)!

The reason it costs so much is obvious: the ridership is too low. 23K BOARDINGS in the traffic capital of the world improves commute times by what 2 seconds? Building an extension of the line that is already BLEEDING Metro's operations budget with no current or future ridership will only further bleed the treasury. To build it in the face of reasonable alternatives is quite simply insane.

Build the extension as electrified Metrolink. 20-25 minute peak hour headways with 35-60 minute off peak will be plenty to serve this corridor. Where necessary, add extra tracks and possibly reduce stations (which are currently spaced at every 2 miles - the distance of several East Coast commuter rail lines). Retrofit/add a track to the portion of the Gold Line from Sierra Madre Villa Station to Memorial Park station so the Metrolink service can operate from Memorial Park to Ontario, a good portion of which it can operate on existing Metrolink tracks. And work with BNSF and the local cities to create the type of public-private partnerships we all talk about but never do, to build grade separations at problematic crossings.

All of this makes a lot more sense and would cost a fraction of the cost of building this extension as light rail.

I just don't get why the Metrolink alternative has never been seriously considered, given the obvious and clearly documented needs of the corridor. Is it just that Metrolink trains don't look as pretty in the renderings? Is the solution building the electrified Metrolink locomotives so they look like the new light rail trains?

[Dan W.]

"I believe the Gold Line, for better or for worse, is politically inevitable."

That sounds like a defeatist point of view.

----------------------------

Perhaps it is. I agree with you about that the interesting ideas John has developed at takethemetro.blogspot.com are certainly worthy of discussion and consideration.

There too many people who don't see how the Purple Line will benefit them, even though I believe it will benefit the entire county, even those people who don't use it regularly.

Supervisor Antonovich has regularly dismissed the Purple Line as "only helping three cities" while the Gold Line serves over twenty. (This is an asinine comment as Los Angeles is 35-40% of the County's population.) The SGV politicians have shown their willingness to hold up the Purple Line if necessary to get the Gold Line.

If you can find a way around that, good for you.

Expanding Metrolink with beefed up Foothill Transit is probably a more rational way to go. Now you go sell that to the SGV. Tell them that you don't want to build a line they are excited about, but want you to support the Purple Line (which they may not see how it benefits them even though it does), and to pay increased sales tax to build it, and see what reaction you get.

Perhaps I am being defeatest. However, we have to pick our battles. I'd much rather spend my energy fighting the NIMBYs in Cheviot Hills and Hancock Park than fighting communities that are asking for a transit project. That's just me.

However, if there is a better idea for the San Gabriel Valley than the two Gold Line extensions and beefing up the Metrolink Line and Foothill Transit with a busway or two, and possibly resurrecting the old Silver Line project, then by all means, start selling it to the SGV as better alternative. But time is running short.

As for me, I have NIMBYs to stand up to.

[Morgan Wick]

"I believe the Gold Line, for better or for worse, is politically inevitable."

That sounds like a defeatist point of view. The Gold Line extention doesn't just make little sense from a rational point of view, it could be catastrophic. And I'm not sure how you intend to "leverage" the Gold Line extention to get Westside improvements built. The only thing I'm thinking of is "you don't get your thing built until I get mine", which implies that it IS within our power to stop it. (And that we're saying "either we spend zero dollars on these two projects or we spend billions", when we can't afford billions and the future LA can't afford zero. You want more money, and I want more money, so what are we actually trading?) If you have an elected representative who supports the extention and is part of what's making it "inevitable", and you oppose it, e-mail him (or her) with your objections and start building opposition to it in your community - because it could be your community that loses, whether it's losing its suburban-or-rural character (why, oh, why did opposition on losing-suburban-character have to sprout in Cheviot Hills and not along the 210?) or not doing anything to solve LA's traffic problems where they should be solved and possibly making them worse.

DTC,TTM (which I linked to earlier) has a fairly compelling case for not building the extension at http://takethemetro.blogspot.com/2008/06/foothill-extension-bad-for-san-gabriel.html, including a reason for politicians representing El Sereno and Alhambra to suggest a more practical alternative. I'd advise extension supporters to read it and, if they still support it, give a compelling counterargument there, because I'm still willing to be swayed if I'm presented with a compelling enough counterargument.

The power of the Internet in effecting change in the political sphere has already been hinted at with the presidential campaigns of Howard Dean in 2004 and Ron Paul and (to a lesser extent, but perhaps a more demonstrative one) Barack Obama in 2008. Can you imagine what it would be like, what it would say, if a grassroots campaign of political activism could overturn a seemingly inevitable bad policy or enact a seemingly impossible good one, even one as seemingly trivial as this?

"Recently, the FTA approved a similar arrangement to help build a commuter rail line between Salt Lake City and its suburban communities. This is exactly what we are seeking for the Gold Line."

Except the Gold Line isn't a commuter rail line, at least in terms of the technology involved, yet it's expected to go all the way out to Ontario along a system that's more appropriate for urban use. Plans are for it to run through a bunch of wilderness with huge sprawling mansions instead of the parts of the San Gabriel Valley that are already well developed, where people actually live. Running through already developed areas does have its advantages over building through a blank slate: it makes the line practical right away and kick-starts the line's making money, and it actually kinda sorta does something to take cars off the roads NOW, which is really why LA is building a rail transit system in the first place. And if it doesn't take cars off the roads now, it probably won't take cars off the roads as much as it should in the future.

The article says "most of the growth in the San Gabriel Valley in coming decades could be put near mass transit -- not the usual way of doing things in Southern California, at least in the past."

Except that the only difference between doing that on a blank slate and doing it where there are already people is that the people already there will resist redevelopment. They likely won't for long. LA is already seeing transit-oriented development (yes, there's an actual term for it) along the Red Line, and to a lesser extent the Orange Line. Having a blank slate to work with can have as many (long-term) negatives as (short-term, and fairly insubstantial) positives.

"Having a Purple Line that allows me to go deep into the SGV via a connection to a Gold Line Extension makes it a much more useful system than having a line that merely gets me to Downtown..."

What about expanding commuter rail or building cheaper BRT serving the same purpose? And if you want to look at it from a regional perspective, do you really want to have to go deep into the SGV all that often?

You're thinking "build transit anywhere, because anywhere you build it, it'll help the system." Or in short form, you're conflating an argument to "build mass transit" as immediately meaning "build the extension" without considering "build mass transit right the first time". (Which is why I agree, albeit far more tentatively, with DTC,TTM on another idea: build Venice-Sepulveda to keep Expo from going obsolete when the Purple Line gets built. Even the Cheviot ROW barely touches the real meat of West LA at best.)

All right then! Let's build mass transit! It doesn't matter where we go or how it connects, all that matters is that it connects! Why stop in Ontario? Let's build it all the way to San Bernardino! Gotta make it easier for those Rancho Cucamonga folks to take two hours to go to Santa Monica, stopping every mile or two, whenever they want! It's no faster than driving at this distance, but who cares? We gotta build mass transit, you know! Better yet, let's go all the way to Palm Springs! Let's build mass transit to Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, and San Diego too! That way, any time someone in Ventura decides to take the train to a job in Glendale it helps reduce congestion and doesn't burn gas! That's the sort of thinking that got LA into its decentralized, sprawly, congested mess in the first place.

Thinking in terms of horse trading and real self-interest is absolutely necessary. But so is thinking of appropriateness of modes vis-a-vis current, potential, and ideal density, and about what will lead to a healthier region, which is in EVERYONE'S interest.

"Thinking of "our projects" will achieve not a subway that will get me to and from work, but rather a system that will allow me to go throughout my community and allow everyone in my community to come to me. Thinking of "our projects" will provide not a surrounding morass of gas-guzzling, smog belching cars, but rather a region with cleaner air and less dependence on imported oil. Thinking of "our projects" will spare me from living in a third-world mix of stratospherically rich and crushingly poor, but rather in a region where a thriving middle class has chosen to stay because of the tremendous life style they can enjoy here."

Thinking of "our projects" will do all those things. But it SHOULD also provide a mindset that building just any transit system won't do. Especially one that treats the far-out exurbs as though they were part of the city. Thinking of "our projects" should think of not just the region, but of the transit system itself, as an interconnected whole that complements itself and makes it easier to get around in a compact, dense area where rich, middle class, AND poor live and work. (And - gasp - shop within walking distance of their homes!) Thinking of "our projects" means thinking of the LA of 2015 and 2020 as well as the LA of 2050 and 2075, and finding that helping the LA of 2015 and 2020 has benefits for the LA of 2050 and 2075.

Thinking of "our projects" means realizing that "an effective regional system" means building for LA first, where the jobs and the bulk of the population are (or at least should be) and where the natural center is, and expanding outward - not starting with a line to freaking Ontario, because building for LA will greatly benefit areas of the SGV that may never get a rapid transit line, but I doubt that the Foothill Extention will benefit, say, someone who lives on the Palos Verdes Peninsula and works in Cerritos. Thinking of "our projects" means not just lapping up whatever the politicians give us, but also considering the proposed regional solutions at takethemetro.blogspot.com, getlamoving.com, and any others we may happen to brainstorm, while taking practical realities into account of course. Thinking of "our projects" means realizing Foothill Extention is not in "our" self interest - including the self interest of those it ostensibly most directly serves, since it is not even the best way to build rail to the SGV (a line more closely following the 10 is). Thinking of "our projects" means realizing that, by any measure, the Foothill Extention is not "a better future," but rather all too much "business as usual" that, at present, benefits no one but powerful SGV politicians.

Wow, even when sleep-deprived I can still write like Lincoln. And if I get convinced of the extension's merits I may well come to regret it...

[Dana Gabbard]

The mention of $320-million of federal funding is a fantasy. Not only because the feds haven't funded at 80% for a long time but because ths project has very weak numbers to compete against projects from many other urbanized areas around the country. For various reasons I think an extension to Azusa (along with millions for ACE grad separations) is appropriate to include in the sales tax measure. An extension to Ontario, etc. isn't going to happen any time soon. And attempts to play hardball will backfire. San Gabriel Valley will get a fair share--they should knock off the grandstanding while they are ahead.

[Habib Balian]

We have a rare window of opportunity before us. The Foothill Extension is ready to build, and ready to leverage $320 million in potential Federal Transit Administration funds at a time when no other rail projects in Los Angeles County will be under construction or seeking state or federal funds. Over the last few months as gas prices have increased, ridership on the Gold Line has surged about 20 percent, a significantly higher increase than any other rail line in the county. This trend will continue into the future. The San Gabriel Valley is expected to generate more than a million peak-period, home-to-work total trips by 2030, the largest in the county. By funding the Gold Line Foothill Extension, we provide drivers with a mass-transit alternative and reduce pollution and congestion, all without diverting funds from any other planned transit project. Including the Foothill Extension in the LRTP is a win for everyone. The article raised the question about whether the FTA would fund 80 percent of the project. The good news is there is a precedent. Recently, the FTA approved a similar arrangement to help build a commuter rail line between Salt Lake City and its suburban communities. This is exactly what we are seeking for the Gold Line.

Habib Balian
CEO, Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority

[Dan W.]

"let’s not forget the 15 universities and colleges that would be connected along the route, or City of Hope, a leading biomedical research and treatment center and hospital. A mass transit system linking these institutions isn’t just serving commuters; it’s serving thousands of students, professors, medical workers, patients and others."

----------------

Thanks for mentioning that. Let's hope they put the stops is the best locations for these places.

Whether one believes the Gold Line extensions are the best choice from a rational, academic planning point of view, or rather enhanced Metrolink service is preferable -- Either way, this project is not a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

Metrolink will hopefully be beefed up someday regardless of the Gold Line.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

Cheapest and most immediate solution:
Spot a driver going the opposite direction on the freeway;
and swap jobs with him.
Problem solved....on budget.

[Peter Yao]

The San Gabriel Valley is a community as rich in diversity as it is in potential. When we examine the arguments for funding the Gold Line Foothill Extension, let’s not forget the 15 universities and colleges that would be connected along the route, or City of Hope, a leading biomedical research and treatment center and hospital. A mass transit system linking these institutions isn’t just serving commuters; it’s serving thousands of students, professors, medical workers, patients and others. The Gold Line represents a solution for providing better access to higher education, health care and a brighter future for our community.
Peter Yao,
Councilmember, City of Claremont

[Dan W.]

"I don't want to pour water on the "rising tide lift all boat" advocate since I know you mean well... But Gold Line extension is the wrong mode and the wrong solution."

----------------

"Right" or "wrong" solution notwithstanding, the Gold Line is going to happen. Political support is going to steamroll it through.

There is a big difference between rational, quality urban & transportation planning designs and politically motivated decisions about how infrastructure dollars are spent. Every once in a while these two groups intersect, but not always.

I believe the Gold Line, for better or for worse, is politically inevitable. Therefore, we should use it to leverage whatever support we can for other projects, in particular a Westside Transit Corridor project and a Sepulveda Valley to LAX project.

I think that extending and enhancing Metrolink Service may be the way to go from a rational planning point of view.. But, with the competition for those tracks with freight rail, and the support that already exists for the Gold Line, it's pretty much a non-starter.

[Clancy]

I don't want to pour water on the "rising tide lift all boat" advocate since I know you mean well... But Gold Line extension is the wrong mode and the wrong solution. We should be talking about a subway line under Valley Blvd (perhaps a Red Line extension). At the very minimum, I would support Gold Line extension out to Acadia/Santa Anita Race Track. But going all the way to Azusa, La Vern, Clairmout etc is going to be a waste of money. That funds are going to better serve SGV if they use it to build the subway under Valley Blvd where it will have easily 10x the ridership. As someone who used to live in SGV, I feel confident is saying this... the Gold Line running near 210 deep into the Valley is a "nice to have", not a "must have" like a subway under Valley Blvd.

[Dan Wentzel]

Ironically, for the most selfish of reasons, I can no longer afford to think in terms of "my," but rather in terms of "ours."
------------

Ism, your post was wonderful. All of these projects benefit all of us. A rising transit tide lifts all boats. Even if I never take the Gold Line to Claremont, the fact that I will be able to opens up opportunity for me and for them.

[lsm]

Dan Wentzel correctly observes that in our "my project" versus "your project" climate, our safest way to advance all projects is to start horse trading. The Westside and the SFV and the Downtown and the South Central and the SGV and the South Bay politicos should start making their back room deals. Moreover, Metro needs not just to list projects a county sales tax hike would fund, but also to provide a realistic time table of when these projects can be finished with such a sales tax hike. If individual voters across the county then compare, "How much faster can I get 'my project' with the hike?" versus "Can I ever expect to get 'my project' with us squabbling over inadequate funds without the hike?" the hike should garner well over a two-thirds vote.

Ironically, while this horse trading is our only realistic way of moving forward, this pragmatic approach blinds us to understanding our own self-interest. As an example, I live in Westwood and work near the Beverly Center. "My project" would be a Purple Line completion with a detour near my work. Once I (or my parochial politicians) fall into the trap, however, of thinking of "my project," I (or we) forget that building effective mass transit in the SGV is also "my project." Having a Purple Line that allows me to go deep into the SGV via a connection to a Gold Line Extension makes it a much more useful system than having a line that merely gets me to Downtown, just as having a Gold Line extension that allows people to go beyond Western Avenue makes for a more useful system for the SGV. Moreover, even if I never plan to travel to the SGV nor feel I benefit from having anyone from the SGV come to me, I benefit greatly from a Gold LIne extension when a driver in the SGV forgoes burning a tank of gas and when our region becomes more livable not just for people so rich they can play here and people so poor they cannot move away, but also for a thriving middle class. Thinking not of "my project/your project," but rather of "our projects" is our best way out of our transit quagmire. Thinking of "our projects" will achieve not a subway that will get me to and from work, but rather a system that will allow me to go throughout my community and allow everyone in my community to come to me. Thinking of "our projects" will provide not a surrounding morass of gas-guzzling, smog belching cars, but rather a region with cleaner air and less dependence on imported oil. Thinking of "our projects" will spare me from living in a third-world mix of stratospherically rich and crushingly poor, but rather in a region where a thriving middle class has chosen to stay because of the tremendous life style they can enjoy here. Ironically, for the most selfish of reasons, I can no longer afford to think in terms of "my," but rather in terms of "ours."

Even as one person, I can do much to effect this change. I plan to vote for a county sales tax hike provided it includes appropriate safe guards against raiding and goes towards completing an effective regional system in an appropriate time frame. Whenever I hear someone raising a smoke-screen to protect narrow self-interests--whether that smoke-screen takes the form of "methane gas hazards," or "risks from possible gang-fights near at-grade tracks," or "greater ridership on a tortuous re-routing,"--I plan to say we have not the luxury of indulging these stall tactics. Whenever elected officials play to my parochial interests or to the next election cycle, I will attempt to replace them with officials who will lead us into a better future. Doing business as usual would take less effort, but business as usual has put us too far behind the eight ball to allow us to coast along.

[frazgo]

We desperately need mass transit and light rail in the SGV and IE. Unfortunately the Gold Line isn't it. It can stay where it is and serve as a feeder line to LA.

We need an express metro line from San Bernardino that runs more or less straight across to the Valley to handle where the masses go daily.

The Gold line as proposed will underserve the region and do little to alleviate the region wide use of the 210 corridor.

It is these micro route planning bits that are keeping ridership down. Those routes need to be feeders between the major cross metro region rails. Intil we look at it on a regional basis the ridership won't be there.

The problem none of this has ever addressed what about families trying to move around the metro area. Cost for one is close to breaking even. Multiply it by 4 or 5 for a family and the cost per trip is cheaper to use the car even with gas at $5/gal.

[anticustomerservice]

Monrovia is a bedroom community of roughly 38,000.

The developers that run the city desire that it be 380,000.

They and their minions get theirs so what the hell!

Money- 1
Civility- 0
Smells like fish- 10

[Greg Kay]

"Advocates for the line also point to the abundant amount of land available for development near the tracks, saying that most of the growth in the San Gabriel Valley in coming decades could be put near mass transit -- not the usual way of doing things in Southern California, at least in the past."

In the far past, Huntington Pacific Electric past, this was exactly the way (mass) transit was done - and very successfully. The Pacific Electric Red Cars were the progenitors of sprawl, not the freeway system.

[Dan Wentzel]

I'm not convinced that the Gold Line is a better project than running Metrolink trains on the San Bernadino route every 10-15 minutes.

However, the competition between freight and passenger rail on those same tracks makes such an expansion in frequency unlikely.

The best thing that those of us can do in other parts of the county is to use the Gold Line support to leverage support for the Purple, Pink, Expo and Sepulveda lines. "Ill support your line if you support mine."

There is an understandable tendency to devalue the worth of a new line that doesn't go to a part of the county we live in or imagine ourselves traveling to. Also, there is the fear out there that "if they build this line, then there may not be money for my preferred project." While I've been a westside resident for years, I lived in LaVerne a lifetime ago and believe the Gold Line will be used. Even if Metrolink expansion is arguably more appropriate alternative from a rational planning point of view, at least the Gold Line won't be one of those Alaskan bridges to nowhere.

Since the Gold Line is inevitable, I see it as a way of leveraging support for other projects as part of a grand political deal. Instead of fighting over a limited pie, I see the a rising transit tide lifting all boats.

[calwatch]

I think that double tracking Metrolink and lowering fares will do a lot. OCTA's Art Leahy has the right idea when he proposed fare cuts in conjunction with the Metrolink to midnight service to be offered in Orange County. Right now the chepaest Metrolink fare to go two stations is $4.75, which is ridiculous, especially since the odds of being checked for a four minute ride are close to zero. Metrolink fares are appropriate for 30+ mile trips, but $1 a mile to ride the train is stupid. 4-10 mile trips will be common on the Gold Line.

[yours truly, Johnny Dollar]

With gas prices racing toward $5/gallon, it is high time that
CalTrans put down their T-squares and slide-rules and
step back to take a deep breath.
The mountain has come to Mohammad; suddenly, there
is a personalized lane on each freeway.
Less traffic has created:
a lane all for Susan
a lane all for Tomas
a lane all for Harley Davidson
and a lane all for Mr. 18-Wheeler.
With fewer cars on the freeways, there is a lane for
everyone.
Result: the 118 is now the Sarah and the Ronald Reagan
freeway (a form of ride sharing).

[Alan Fishel]

We all seam to agree that the Gold Line to at least Montclair needs to be built in this decade. The problem seams to be funding not need.

Since cost is the main determining factor that is keeping the line from getting built, lets look at a different way to see the line in operation in two to five years.

If the current rail line was electrified which can be done for well under half a million dollars a mile, add passing sidings, build station platforms and parking. The line can be ready to go for under 100 million dollars. The MTA already has the cars on order so there is little that would stand in the way of getting the line started economically.

San Diego started this way and as ridership grew they were able to double track the line and improve the original track when they could use the second track with out interrupting service.

The BNSF could operate their fright service at night and the LRT service would operate in the daytime hours as is done in San Diego.

This is a quick and easy way to get this much needed line going and a way for it to prove itself.

The line can continue to upgrade as the downtown regional connector gets built and its ridership grows.

[Morgan Wick]

Clancy brings up some food for thought. It's possible the Foothill Extension is not as controversial as it should be. It's not controversial because there are no NIMBYs along the route, but it's a bad idea because it goes WAY too far afield. We need to promote growth in the LA core first, not promote "dense sprawl", especially if it comes with jobs that perpetuate LA's decentralized commute patterns.

I'd like to see the proposed sales-tax increase come with a robust plan for what an LA rail system would ideally look like in 50 years if money was not an object, and what could be built in 10 years with the sales-tax increase. That would build support for the measure and force MTA to look at what the LA of the future will really need. Perhaps they could look at the ideas at http://takethemetro.blogspot.com/ (not my site, but further food for thought).

People in the San Gabriel Valley might not be served at all, but the New York subway doesn't go out to the Hamptons either. A commuter rail line along the 210 is a much better idea, although I'm not sure where its western terminus would be. Burbank? Dumping people in Pasadena? Following the Gold Line corridor to Union Station? And what about building a busway in the middle of the 210, at least to Sierra Madre Villa station, similar to the El Monte Busway (10) and Harbor Transitway (110)?

[Clancy]

The problem with Gold line extension to the outer suburbs is that it runs counter to the point of a mass rapid transit system. Places like Azusa shouldn't be connect by light rail to Downtown.. they should be connected by commuter rail (i.e. Metrolink) that can move faster and carry more people. Commuters from these outer rings should then transfer to local mass rapid transit at a central mode... i.e. Union Station. Take NYC for example... the subways don't go all the way out to Connecticut or Long Island. People take trains in to Grand Central or Penn Station and THEN transfer to subway way. For those that mentioned the benefit of 1-seat ride, if you live in Azusa and work in Long Beach or Santa Monica, it will take 2 hours to ride light rail from one end to the other end. It's not a feasible solution.

The only marginal benefit of such a line would be people traveling WITHIN the San Gabriel valley. And in this case, the Gold line is too far north to service the major transit centers along Valley Blvd. Funding the Metro Gold line to Foothill means building another Green line. It's the wrong solution for transit in the Foothill area of San Gabriel Valley.

[Dan W.]

"I say build in the neighborhoods that want and support it first. Yes, the Westside needs traffic relief, but if there's opposition, then the residents that live there obviously don't want the relief that badly."

-----------------------

Whoa there. I'm on the Westside and its REALLY unfair to punish the whole westside because of the remaining NIMBYs Cheviot Hills and Hancock Park. Those NIMBYs do not speak for the majority on the Westside.

They may wish to throw up obstacles, but I imagine there is an overwhelming majority of people on the Westside who want the Expo and Purple Lines extended and completed and operating.

We need to do a better job of standing up to NIMBYs when they have unreasonable requests or wish to thwart the common good because of their parochial interests. We shouldn't abandon the welfare of the Westside as a whole because of these people.

Cheviot Hills NIMBYs do not equal the Westside as a whole.

[Alan K. Weeks]

Morning Steve
You really did your homework on this article (Blog) You have all the information and facts right. The Gold Line Foothill Extension is badly needed. It will be easy to build and there is no oppisition like there is on the Expo Project.
The MTA spent 100 million to buy the Santa Fe railroad right of way to make the Extension happen. Then the West Side politicians decided they had to have a rail line. They are demanding funding for the Purple Line Subway to the beach. They are demanding funding for the Expo Line Phase 1 & Phase 2. We in the San Gabriel Valley area are stuck in the 210 freeway gridlock. The Mayor of L A is a Hypocrite. He talked up the Gold Line Extension to Ontario Airport but when the chips are down he is siding with the West Side Power Politicians. The MTA has never forgiven the Gold Line Construction Authority for picking up a project they dropped and then built the Pasadena Line successfully. I am not optimistic that we will ever get are share. I have voted for every transit tax issue but will not vote for a new one if the MTA on June 26 fails to give the Gold Line Extension the 80 million in seed money.

Alan Weeks

[RB]

While I would love to see the Gold Line extension and Expo lines built simultaneously, I know that it's going to be a hard sell unless LA County ponies up more money. As a resident on the west side of LA, I would like to see the Expo line completed first. HOWEVER, because of negative interferences by certain activists and communities along that proposed line, I say put the money and support behind the Gold Line. Why deal with NIMBYs and attention grabbers when you can work with people and communities that support LRT, want LRT and help to get it built instead of delaying it.

I say build in the neighborhoods that want and support it first. Yes, the Westside needs traffic relief, but if there's opposition, then the residents that live there obviously don't want the relief that badly.