Gold Line extension official's response to Metrolink idea

Yesterday I wrote a post about a MTA proposal to halt the Gold Line at the Azusa/Glendora border and link it to Claremont with a Metrolink line.

Habib Balian, who heads up the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority, an independent agency founded to handle the Gold Line project, responded to the post some additional reasons to oppose the Metrolink expansion. In particular, I believe he is unhappy with my characterization of cities opposition as being because Metrolink is less "sexy.":

Metrolink service is: a) less frequent (say once every hour or two in the am and pm not every 10 or twenty minutes throughout the day - in each direction); b) fewer stops probably not less than 5 miles apart (there were to be six stations between Azusa and Montclair - now there may be only two or three); c) forced transfer is a ridership killer; d) greatly reduces development opportunities and community interest with transit as the centerpiece.

It's not about being "sexy" it's about service.

I believe he makes a good point with the issue of how frequent the trains would be, and about forced transfer, though I do have to say that his point on Metrolink reducing development opportunities is pretty much the exact point I was making when I said Metrolink is not as sexy as the Gold Line.

To clarify my choice of words, yes the cities do have a legitimate concern that Metrolink is less sexy, because people legitimately do not want to live next to a train line that creates local pollution.

It does highlight, though, where MTA's and local cities' interests diverge: cities badly want that transit-oriented development, while MTA figures as long as the rail networks link up it has done its job.