German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseNo Gold Line? No problem
[tags]los angeles, san gabriel valley, gold line, light rail, transit oriented development[/tags]
Clicking on the map directs you to the Gold Line Foothill Extension web site.
Credit: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension
The Metro Gold Line’s prospects of getting extended from Pasadena to Montclair have been getting dimmer. The initial segment has been plagued with poor ridership, the potential ridership along the Foothill Extension is very low, and the project fell out of favor in Congress when the Democrats took over in 2006.
The cities on the line, though, are taking no chances and putting in developments before the train arrives — if it ever arrives.
A San Gabriel Valley Tribune story cites a study saying the cities already have generated over $2 billion in development investment within a half mile of proposed stations. And the future?
The study also estimated that the Gold Line extension would spur more than $36 billion in new private development, generate up to $6.2 billion in new household spending through 2030 and add nearly $1.5 billion in property and sales tax revenue for local cities over the next 30 years.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
This might be a good prospect for “rail-ready bus rapid transit”–build something relatively cheap but useful, and hopefully upgrade it later.
Also, is there any thought of improving the existing Gold Line, for example by adding grade separation so that the parts of the line that are currently slowed down for safety could be sped up?
12 stops. 1/2mi cachement. 9.4 square miles. 6,032 acres. $36 billion in “spurred” investment. $5,968,310.37 per acre in direct investment attributable to a light rail extension. Transit math.
If that’s the case, that this should be a Private-public venture. Where much like the Pacific Electric days when the developer paid for a built the tracks around the development.
concern Pacific Electric. The developer also owned all the land around the lines. And just how much is 9.4 sq miles of Pasadena-Montclair worth?
The projections are criminally inaccurate. This isn’t some alternative accounting. The numbers are pure fabrication. We see it all the time. Real transit advocates should be incensed and demanding retractions but no, this is a “mistake” in favor tof the transit position.
Robert wrote:
The projections are criminally inaccurate. This isn’t some alternative accounting. The numbers are pure fabrication. We see it all the time. Real transit advocates should be incensed and demanding retractions but no, this is a “mistake” in favor tof the transit position.
Robert, if you choose to prosecute this matter, you should take it up with the IBI Group, or call them to the carpet in front of a professional association.
What was reported here was the news story of the study. The methodology used by IBI group was not outlined, but a figure of $36 billion must be a cumulative total, based along a broad time frame. We also don’t know what is a similar baseline estimate of not building the light rail line, as the cities will look to develop the areas anyway. In that case, you may still get a figure as high as the $36 billion.
FWIW, KCET-Channel 28 aired an interview with L.A. County Assessor Rick Auerbach, and he said the total value of all non-public land within the county is over $1.037 trillion dollars. The Foothill Gold Line, despite having poor ridership prospects, would be a huge outlier.
This brings up a different issue, though. The Foothill Cities want to bolster their support for the Gold Line extension through this study. Trouble is, the extension’s prospects are terrible. It has political support and not much more.
The ridership density the line would attract would be not much more different than parallel Foothill Transit Line 187. It’s busy — to Foothill Transit standards. Meanwhile, there are about two dozen Metro bus lines more worthy of rail enhancement, yet will never see service.
But, $2 billion in investments through the time of the study and $36 billion over ?? years? For another $4 billion, the cities could get their Gold Line annd build much of Damien Goodmon’s dream rail map.
Or, the cities can leverage those billions and draw down the money to expedite construction. The better question is, why didn’t they do so?
Answer (albeit cynical): the cities are using the study to hold their place in line for funding.
Chris, and additional $6m induced investment per acre for every acre within 1/2 mile. You and I know 35% are public spaces, r-o-ws, etc. You’ve seen the aerials. Is another 1/3rd SFR towards the edges unreasonable? The numbers aren’t adding up. I’m not gonna lie down in front of the trolley just so the trolley advocates get it right. Let them repeat this fabrication enough and hang themselves.
When they say $2bn already they are the cock taking credit for the sun rising.
The numbers aren’t adding up. I’m not gonna lie down in front of the trolley just so the trolley advocates get it right. Let them repeat this fabrication enough and hang themselves.
Keep in mind the study was paid for by the cities. Their intent is to accentuate the positive, by focusing on development, rather than the lousy performance fundamentals of the train line.
Find out the number of the no-build and see the parity. Obviously, the value is not going to be $0, and it would be not too far from the estimate with the rail line.
Otherwise, see if the cities put their mouth where their money is. They can take that $36 billion and leverage the value to build the train line without having to have the Gold Line Authority fight for the money. If they are just doing this to keep their project relevant, the study is ephemeral.
Chris,
If “cities” were replaced with “Antonivich” and “light rail” with “monorail” do you thinkt this study would have gotten a free pass?
If “cities” were replaced with “Caltrians” and “light rail” with “freeway” do you thinkt this study would have gotten a free pass?
How did this study get a “free pass”? Here you are, Rob, tearing it apart.
There are few other people outside of the transit advocacy/criticism community that care enough about it to tear it apart, or, alternately, “give it a free pass.”
At least everyone admits that the political will to build this line is quite strong, and by starting to build TODs even before the line is approved, the odds are quite good that it will get built.
Should it get built before the Purple Line, the Downtown Connector, or the Green Line to LAX? Of course not. When did that ever make a difference? The politicians in the SGV want their rail line, and they’re gonna get it.
How did this study get a “free pass”? Here you are, Rob, tearing it apart.
Chris, bad data hurts transit proponents. I’m not tearing it apart. There’s a mistake and I am correcting it. There’s Cox and O’Toole to tear this apart. It has been more than a decade. Don’t you get that I am not a transit hater?