Stepping up against odds

I have to disagree with most of your points. First, the MTA (and its predecessors) have a history of trying to provide more transit for the San Gabriel Valley. Included are: it built the first busway in Los Angeles, the El Monte Busway (1972), it designated the Pasadena Light rail line as one of the six high-priority rail line designated for Prop A dollars (1984), it purchased two railroad rights-of-way through the SGV to protect them from being lost (1990 and 1992), it voted to build the Gold Line over the (then) competing Green Line Extension and the SFV light rail lines (1990), and it worked hard to build one of Metrolink's first commuter rail lines, the San Bernardino Line (1992). Yes, it had to be forced to finally build the Gold Line but it was facing legal problems over its bus system and lack of sales tax revenues in the mid-1990's - both reasonable reasons to be cautious.

And now the Gold Line is built. Like it or not, the full extension to Montclair brings in a limited number of new riders - enough to fill a one-car train operating every 10 minutes during each peak hour if loaded to the same standards as the Blue and Green Lines. This ridership projection assumed a flat fare of $1.25 from Montclair!! Yet the SGV feels it deserves a full-blown, two-track light rail extension twice as long as the original Gold Line. Why should the MTA - or any other objective agency - agree to build so over-designed a project, when a busway or mainly single-tracked Sprinter service at half the cost will do just fine. No corridor deserves a line far in excess of its actual needs, even if the money is "free".

The Gold Line is the poorest performing light rail line of MTA's three: in ridership and cost to operate. Any objective agency would question a decision to build an extension knowing it will eat far more than its fair share of operating cost subsidies - forever.

The San Gabriel Valley has the El Monte Busway, its Metrolink commuter rail line and its Gold Line. What exactly has the Westside gotten so far? I don't see a busway or any rail line anywhere within this most built-up part of Los Angeles. So who is being left out?

"Why should the MTA - or any other objective agency - agree to build so over-designed a project, when a busway or mainly single-tracked Sprinter service at half the cost will do just fine. No corridor deserves a line far in excess of its actual needs, even if the money is "free"."

I believe you've hit the nail on the head in regards to the need of practical, mission specific, mass transportation weighed against municipalities viewing a rail line as an economic stimulator for their respective communities.

I'd just point out that the City of LA now has over 4,000,000 residents. The population of LA County is just over 10 million. So your "barely a third of the population" line is very misleading.
The Gold Line Extension is projected to add what, 9,000 new daily riders? You've also already got Metrolink.
While I'd agree that eventually the Gold Line should be built, it's not more important than a Subway down Wilshire (which is built up at extreme densities from Downtown to Santa Monica), nor the Expo Line which will provide alternatives to the ever-crowded 10 Freeway for people commuting to jobs in Downtown and the Westside.
Think clearly about this now, and you'll realize that the Gold Line could and should wait.

As a supporter of the extension, I'm not so sad to see it have to wait. With new developments in the foothill cities being planned and/or built it's only a matter of time before there will be enough projected ridership to justify a double track line out to Montclair and eventually to Ontario. With all these newly planned TOD's we'll surely have our chance under the spotlight once again. :)