Of course, this could all be moot today, but last week Bottleneck Blog commenter transit booster neatly articulated some questions the citizens deserve an answer to regardless of whether they live in Monina's, Antonovich's, or Knabe's districts.
1. Why should the Gold Line extension be the #1 priority for the County, when its projected ridership is very low and its FTA effectiveness score is well below that of other county projects?
2. What job centers will the extension serve? How much will this extension benefit the rest of the system and increase usage on other lines?
3. If population is the primary metric for ensuring balance in projects then does not working or daytime population matter at all? Should places like LAX and Century City which have few or no residents not have rail service even though hundreds of thousands of people try to access these destinations?
4. There are critics of this extension who feel it is a largely a pork barrell project for local developers since the line goes through areas which will have significant real estate development around it. How would you answer this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Not that having these questions out in the open isn't beneficial to get people talking about them, and I would add "If population is the primary metric for ensuring balance in projects why are you building a light rail line in one of the least dense areas of the county that isn't laden with mountains while doing relatively little for the 10 corridor?", but I can already give you their weaselly answers:
1. That is a very good question. I wouldn't say the Gold Line extension is the county's #1 priority, exactly, but I would say it is far less expensive than many other projects that are on the table. We're ready to go to build this right now. All I need is a little more money and a rock-solid guarantee that it'll be 35 miles long when it's done.
2. I would say there are plenty of job centers along the Gold Line route, like the industrial area of Irwindale and the colleges in Pomona, not to mention Pasadena and downtown Los Angeles, which the Gold Line already serves.
3. I think there's a misconception that I want to kill all the other projects for the sake of the Gold Line and that's not true. Of course I support projects like the Purple Line and the Green Line to LAX. I just think the SGV hasn't gotten their fair share. For years they've had to stumble along with just the 210, 10, 60, 605, and 57 freeways. They can't benefit from projects like the Purple Line if they don't have a rail line of their own. It's not like those projects would take cars off the freeways they use or something.
4. Well, wherever you have a rail line you're going to have development. I think the Gold Line will serve as a tremendous economic opportunity for the San Gabriel Valley and will provide the Valley with the infrastructure we need to support a growing population. Oh, and if you're referring to that John Von Kerczek guy... isn't he really Westside-centric? I think he's just being parochial and not looking at the big picture, trying to play up divisions between parts of the county for his own purposes.
The only politically acceptable and financially viable place to try Transit Oriented Development is in new development corridors. The Gold Line Extension doesn't serve the existing population but it does supposedly address the public policy of encouraging TOD.
A tiny fig leaf at best IMO.
I've mention this before and I will mention it again. Why is it that the cities in the southern part of SGV not outraged by the money grab by the less populated Foothill cities? I'm talking to you, the "do nothing" city councils of Rosemead, El Monte, South El Monte, Montebello, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, Whittier, La Punte, City of Industry, Walnut, Diamond Bar, and the poor folks in the unincorporated Hacienda and Rowland Heights.
They are the biggest loser in this entire deal and so far we have not heard anyone in this region speak up. If Gold Line gets build, it will guarantee that the most populated, most job heavy, and most traveled portion of SGV get no rail.
But assuming Gold Line is politically necessary to get the sales tax increase passed, the unequal distribution of transit dollars within SGV still begs for explanation. But this point, you should know that I will offer one such explanation...
The southern part of SGV is largely minority-majority and voter turn out is low. The Foothill cities have lots of political sway because its voters are older, whiter, and wealthier. Plus there is lack of open track in southern SGV (unlike Foothill area) so there is no developer money greasing the wheels.
So I guess it's up to people reading this blog to get those elected officials to speak out - or organize to speak out for them.
Post a Comment