New reports show number of developments along Gold Line

Existing Proposed

Interesting new report commissioned by the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority on transit-oriented development (TOD) along the line. Check out the two key pages above. (If you want to print or download the reports, click here).

Of course, this comes with a caveat. Some of this development may have happened with or without the train line. Still, the report shows what’s pretty obvious if you look at the neighborhoods along the line: Pasadena has been aggressive about allowing more density near the train and actually attraction development.

And the other cities along the line? Well, not so much. It’s hard to say why. In some cases, there may simply not be any development opportunities or parcels available. And perhaps in others, city officials just aren’t that interested in adding any more units.

A second study looked at the financial impacts of TODs in Pasadena. Here’s the key info from that:

The economic and fiscal effects of TOD near the six Gold Line stations in Pasadena is substantial and is growing, both in the short term due to residential and commercial construction and in the long term due to ongoing operations at businesses at TOD properties and spending by new residents. Residential and commercial construction at existing TOD properties generates $2.6 billion in economic output, supports roughly 16,300 jobs, generates $860.7 million in labor income, and generates $52.9 million in tax revenue.

In addition, residential and commercial construction at planned and proposed TOD properties generates $688.1 million in economic output, supports roughly 4,400 jobs, generates $239.6 million in labor income, and generates $13.4 million in tax revenue. Altogether, residential and commercial construction at TOD properties generates $3.3 billion in economic output, supports roughly 20,700 jobs, generates $1.1 billion in labor income, and generates $66.3 million in tax revenue for public agencies across Los Angeles County.

What’cha think, readers? Too much development along the Gold Line? Or too little? Anywhere you think is ripe for something to happen? Comment please.

One note: the Gold Line extension from Azusa to Claremont is unfunded. Measure M, Metro’s sales tax ballot measure, does have funding for the project. Measure M would raise the countywide sales tax by a half cent and continue the Measure R half-cent sales tax beyond its 2039 expiration date. To see a timeline of projects and programs funded by Measure M, click here and scroll down.

Related: check out this post from a while back that has maps from around the county of communities before and after the Metro Rail lines arrived.

And here’s a video that includes a discussion of TODs along the line from a recent Construction Authority “state of the project” event:

7 replies

  1. I think it is always a wise idea for a writer to define abbreviations very close to the beginning of any article or other published piece — especially an abbreviation that is not widely used in everyday conversation, such as “TOD.” The reader should not have to search the page or look elsewhere just to figure out what an abbreviation stands for. In this instance, I had to scroll way down to your embedded external document, where I happened to glimpse that it stands for “Transit Oriented Development.” It is helpful to remember that not everyone routinely uses jargon that you and your colleagues might use on a daily basis, so you should try to assist your readers.

  2. IMO, east LA county cities will be resistant to new “high density” housing for various reasons. In Glendora the NIMBY crowd will likely fight any new development east of Glendora Avenue or north of the 210 freeway, assuming there was any developable space left. There was a big fight over a development at Glendora Ave. and Route 66. In San Dimas a developer (and the city?) got burned building in anticipation of the Goldline extension off San Dimas Ave., north of Arrow Highway. The NIMBY crowd successfully killed a project proposed near downtown San Dimas. La Verne, I don’t know where any new development would occur near the Goldline. The University of La Verne has been expanding rapidly in that area. Claremont, I don’t think there’s much space left. What they’ve already developed appears to have been very successful. If any new development occurs, Claremont would be the most likely area for it to occur …again within LA County.