Link: Our View: Gold Line taking bidders - SGVTribune.com
Our View: Gold Line taking bidders
Posted: 10/04/2009 06:14:39 PM PDT
The old adage "if you want something done right, do it yourself" could be the new philosophy of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority.
And that can be both bad and good.
It is still waiting for the shovel-ready project - a 24-mile extension from east Pasadena to Claremont - to be funded at least for the first half to the Azusa/Glendora border. Despite promises from Metro that they will be partners, there has been no sealed commitment.
On Tuesday, it asked for private contractors to provide $150 million in seed money to fast-track the extension's first leg.
It's good that the agency is not sitting on its hands. The interest it generated from top-notch engineering firms such as Parsons and Jacobs speaks highly of the project. It also sends a message to the balky Metropolitan Transportation Authority that real firms are looking to spend real dollars and create thousands of real jobs if it would just do as it promised last year and commit the Measure R sales tax dollars for construction of the Gold Line foothill extension's first leg.
While we share in the agency's frustration, we are concerned that this go-it-alone attitude could backfire. We reiterate that the project needs Metro's support. Which is why we are once again urging the Metro board to place the project in the agency's Long Range Transportation Plan, and commit the $875 million from the half-cent sales tax San Gabriel Valley residents are currently paying.
We would take this concern further and say the Metro board's decision last month doesn't make supporters of this project breathe any easier. That is, the board moved to place the Westside subway (the "Subway to the Sea") and the Downtown Regional Connector projects on the federal New Starts funding list. Note the absence of the Gold Line, which would need federal dollars for completion of the second phase to Claremont, possibly to Montclair and eventually to Ontario International Airport. Again, without arguing the merits of those two projects, it's clear that they are not nearly as far along in terms of planning, engineering and land acquisition as the Gold Line Foothill. The two will only be available for federal funding five to eight years down the line, while the Gold Line is ready now. Would the MTA risk missing out entirely on upcoming federal New Start funding just to push two pet projects that are not yet qualified?
Those are real concerns of the San Gabriel Valley cities, the regional chambers of commerce and the local construction unions who want to see the project funded starting in 2010, and not by 2019 as the MTA has suggested.
Again, we share the construction authority's frustration with Metro. We see its attempts to secure some private dollars - if only as a loan - as an indication of the project's viability. It is also a reminder of the Gold Line's past: It took break-away legislation by then state Sen. Adam Schiff to create the funding for the existing Los Angeles-to-Pasadena Gold Line. If it did it once on its own, it could do it again.
No comments:
Post a Comment