Metro Gold Line: Should we extend it now?

Any Metro Gold Line riders here? Pasadena Weekly praises the Gold Line and wants the second phase -- stretching the Gold Line from the Sierra Madre Villa station in east Pasadena to Azusa by the end of 2011 -- to get funded and built already. (via Bottleneck Blog)

Others disagree, of course. MetroRiderLA's  FredCamino argued in his guest post yesterday that Metro has wasted money on some of the rail projects. He specifically pointed to the Gold Line, writing: "Don't even get me started on the serious proposals now to extend the Gold Line another 30 miles through the Inland Empire to Ontario."

I'm not against the extension -- I just think other rail projects -- such as Phase 2 of the Expo Line and the Subway to the Sea -- need to come first, as they're going to serve areas with higher density. Time for another guest post from FredCamino?

Photo by LAT

Comments

[Dan W.]

I think the problem is that some lines were created first because they were politically easier.

If it weren't for Henry Waxman caving into racist/classist elements in the 1980s, we would already have the Purple Line finished to the sea and be enjoying its usage.

I think the Gold Line extensions to both Montclair and Whittier is necessary in the long term.

However, the political realities of funding now is that there needs to be something being constructed in several parts of the county to win the funds for where it is most needed.

The "Downtown Connector" will greatly help the Gold Line too.

I think Fred's point is well taken, but both the Gold and Expo line are necessary. They were just built out of priority order thanks to Henry Waxman's actions in the 1980s.

Fortunately, Waxman has seen the light to at least shepherd through a repeal of the tunneling ban. Now, let's send him letters and call his office asking that he get out in front on this issue and crusade for the necessary funding to build the lines we need.

[Holly]

I live in Pasadena and I regularly ride the Gold Line into downtown. I think it would be very helpful to extend the Gold Line to Claremont, Pomona or the end of LA County. More people are moving east and the traffic on the 210 is HORRIBLE. I guess timing is the real question and prioritizing the needs of the city.

[tim1724]

Yes, the subway to the sea would likely carry more people. But you have to consider cost as well. The price per passenger mile for the gold line is a tiny fraction of what it is for a subway, for a number of reasons.

Light rail is cheaper than the heavy rail used on the red/purple lines. The subway also has the added cost of tunneling, which is horribly expensive. Building light rail above ground for the gold line is a bargain. Especially since the MTA _already_ owns the right of way and has done much of the preliminary planning work. Furthermore, they have very strong support from all of the cities on the route, which are willing to supply land, provide for grade-separated crossings, etc. (It's the complete opposite of what's going on in the communities surrounding the expo line.. the communities in the San Gabriel Valley want it in our backyards!)

Yes, the subway to the sea needs to happen. But when funding is as tight as it is, the MTA shouldn't ignore the more affordable projects (such as the expo line and the various gold line expansions).

I'm biased of course.. I'd use the gold line to commute to work every day once the Montclair extension is built.

[Siel]

I guess my main concern is that, once you DO get into the higher density areas (i.e. downtown LA) via the Gold Line, there's really no way for people to get to get west of western (or highland a bit higher north) without switching to buses via an uncomfortable series of transfers. Since more and more people are working on the westside, I feel like it makes sense to first connect that to the downtown area before stretching out the Gold Line. Otherwise, people who're coming into west LA from these way east areas will still drive because they can't deal with multiple transfers --

But again, I totally support the extension of the Gold Line AFTER these other lines are built --

[m]

There are a decent number of people coming from the 210 in the East that are just going as far as Pasadena. Maybe it wouldn't help everyone, but it would still help a good number. The traffic on the 210 is pretty bad already because of people coming in from far away (some 70+ miles each way). Many of my coworkers come in at odd times to avoid as much of the 210 traffic east of Pasadena as possible. I think there would be value in extending it before other lines are in place, especially when they already have so many resources and seem to be doing well with the project. I know I would have enjoyed the Gold line when I was living out in that direction without a car...

[TransitPlanner]

The Gold Line is a project ready to go. The Purple Line isn't even in the planning stages. The Westside delayed the subway and now they complain they will have to wait. Downtown, the Eastside and SGV are growing much faster than the Westside and deserve transit improvements that are ready to go.

[Kate]

The entire Westside didn't delay the subway, TransitPlanner. A select few screwed it up for the rest of us. Does that mean that now that we've managed to persuade most of those opponents, it should remain screwed up?

[Alan Fishel]

The problem seams to be funding. The building of the Gold Line east is needed wanted and agreed that it must be built. The question is when.

Why not build the line as San Diego built their Trolley. They simply “electrified” the fright railroad tracks that were in place.

By electrifying the BNSF tracks that the MTA now owns, add passing tracks and stations. Half hour service could easily be run one a single track line. The San Diego Sprinter is now doing this. The MTA already has the cars needed for this service on order to be delivered within the next two years.

This line could be built to Azusa for around a million dollars ($500.000 a mile to electrify, plus stations, plus two sidings. Cal Trans will rebuild the bridge they removed several years ago and replace the rails from Sierra Madre Villa Station to the end of track in Arcadia)

This line will prove itself for a very small investment and can be extended in sections. As service grows the second track can be added and the original track can be upgraded.

This can also be done in one or two years instead of the normal five plus years to build a new line. Lets get this started now and tits cost will not be taking mony form other transit projects.

[John McNary]

Wrong. The San Diego trolley had to completely rebuild the old San Diego and Arizona Eastern tracks, from the ground up.

The old single tracks had been laid in 1926, and were unsuitable for even 10 mph diesel freight trains, much less highspeed electric trolleys.

Plus, San Diego quickly ran out of old railroad alignments it could electrify and doubletrack, and soon found itself digging subways through SDSU and putting trains on new bridges the length of Mission Valley.

Just because certain pathways made sense for rail 100 plus years ago does not mean that is where light rail should go now. The existing Gold Line mess through Highland Park is a perfect example of that.