Duarte MTA open house, tours of light rail yards (Source: SGVTribune.com)

Link: Duarte MTA open house, tours of light rail yards - SGVTribune.com

Duarte MTA open house, tours of light rail yards
Staff Reports
Posted: 07/12/2009 04:24:44 PM PDT

In response to requests of Duarte City Council members and city residents, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has scheduled three tours and a community open house.

The open house will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. Aug. 6, at the Duarte Community Center, 1600 Huntington Dr. The tours are scheduled for 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. July 18, July 22, and Aug. 4 at the community center.

These tours will provide an opportunity to see all three of Metro's operating light rail maintenance yards.

A new rail maintenance facility is needed to complete and operate the Foothill Extension.

Included in the tours are the light rail maintenance yards for Metro's Blue, Green and Gold Lines in Long Beach, Lawndale and Los Angeles. Tours will begin at the Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line station.

For reservations, call Dave Monks at (213) 922-7456.

To submit information for briefs, e-mail news.tribune@sgvn.com

CurbedWire: Subway Soil Testing on Wilshire, Shy Still Painting (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: CurbedWire: Subway Soil Testing on Wilshire, Shy Still Painting

CurbedWire: Subway Soil Testing on Wilshire, Shy Still Painting

Friday, July 10, 2009, by Neal Broverman



WILSHIRE BLVD: Many complain that the subway to the sea is a far-off reality. Well, courtesy of Metro, photo evidence that drilling has already started—though it's for soil-testing rather than installing tunnels at this point. The photo shows drilling near Wilshire and Fairfax, the likely terminus of the first leg of the Purple Line extension, and according to an article in the Beverly Press, Santa Monica Boulevard is being drilled too for a possible WeHo subway spur. And more Wilshire drilling is happening this weekend and next week, according to LAist.com. [BP/Metro]

Is this a time for state bullet train? (Source: Fresno Bee)

Is this a time for state bullet train? - Dan Walters - fresnobee.com

Is this a time for state bullet train?
Published online on Sunday, Jul. 12, 2009

By Dan Walters / The Sacramento Bee

California is mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression: its budget is riddled with deficits, its credit rating is dropping into junk status and Sacramento is issuing IOUs in lieu of checks.

Is this any time for the state to undertake construction of a high-speed railroad line between Northern and Southern California that will cost at least $40 billion, much of it from bonds to be repaid from a state budget that already is hemorrhaging red ink?

Yes, say its fervent advocates, contending that a bullet train, similar to those in Europe and Japan, will reduce air and auto congestion, reduce greenhouse gases and generate many billions of dollars in economic benefits.

Last year, California voters passed a $9.95 billion bond issue to provide initial financing for the system, with the rest to assumedly come from the federal government, private investors and perhaps revenue bonds.
The criticism continues, however, questioning both whether a high-speed rail system makes transportation and economic sense and the route adopted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), especially running trains over the unpopulated Pacheco Pass between San Jose and the Central Valley.

Bullet train advocates have been touting California as qualifying for a significant portion of the $8 billion set aside in federal stimulus money for transit because of the bond issue.

Just a few days ago, however, the feds decided to place the Los Angeles-Las Vegas high-speed route promoted by Nevada interests, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the California system.

It raises the specter that huge sums would be spent to make it easier for Californians to spend their money in Las Vegas casinos.

Meanwhile, opposition to the Pacheco Pass route appears to be growing because it would mean routing trains down the bucolic San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. The alternate would be to run trains over the Altamont Pass along Interstate 580 into the Stockton-Tracy area, a more heavily traveled commuter corridor.

Environmental activists in Palo Alto are complaining about the impact on their city and somewhat mysteriously, language appeared in the still-pending revisions to the 2009-10 state budget that makes allocation of $139 million in high-speed rail planning funds contingent on "alternative alignments" being considered. Advocates of the Pacheco Pass route consider it to be a poison pill and will try to get it removed before a final budget is enacted, if that ever occurs.

While $9 billion of the voter-approved bond issue is to be used for the system, if and when it is ever built, the remaining $995 million can be spent on local mass transit systems on the assumption that they will improve access to high-speed rail.

There is a suspicion among those who chart the erratic course taken by the bullet train project that when push comes to shove, its only tangible fruit will be those local projects.
Dan Walters writes for The Bee’s Capitol bureau. E-mail: dwalters@sacbee. com
 mail: P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852.

Why The CHSRA Was Right To Reject The Settlement (Link: www.cahsr.blogspot.com)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: Why The CHSRA Was Right To Reject The Settlement

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Why The CHSRA Was Right To Reject The Settlement

by Robert Cruickshank

Reports of the CHSRA's rejection of a settlement offer put forward by Menlo Park, Atherton, the Planning and Conservation League, and several other unnamed organizations have gotten some notice in the comments to the previous post, but it deserves its own entry.

Especially so I can explain why this was the right thing to do for not just the CHSRA, but the HSR project.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has rejected a settlement offer that Menlo Park, Atherton and environmental groups made in a lawsuit challenging the decision to run bullet trains through the Peninsula instead of the East Bay, an attorney for the cities said.

The offer, which the authority rejected in a closed session meeting July 2, would have required the agency to consider running trains through Altamont Pass, said Stuart Flashman, an attorney for the petitioners. Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass were the two finalists for the route, and the authority selected Pacheco in 2007.

"What we are proposing is we would agree to dismiss the case if you would agree at the project level to restudy one Altamont alternative," Flashman said Thursday. "You throw this out now, and it may not come back. They decided they would just roll the dice."


Why should the CHSRA believe this? Although the specific parties to a settlement would be bound by its terms, others would not. Flashman has done a lot of work to sow doubt about the Pacheco choice. Menlo Park and Atherton have residents who would still be free to file their own lawsuits - suits that are almost guaranteed to occur should the CHSRA decide on anything other than a no-build option for the Peninsula.

More importantly, it would open the door to revisiting route choices by what is essentially blackmail. Route selection and design choices must be driven by what is best for the HSR project.

There's more:

Flashman noted that the authority did not make a counter offer.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny held a five-hour hearing in the case May 29 and must make a ruling by the end of August, Flashman said. In the meantime, he must go through about 35,000 pages of documents.

"I felt, and talking with my clients they also felt, that this would have been an opportune time to try and settle," Flashman said. "Essentially we were in a situation where everybody could form their opinions about who was likely to win."


Flashman is parsing his words carefully here, but this is as clear an admission of defeat as we'll probably ever get from him and his crew. One has to assume the CHSRA recognized this as well and therefore felt no reason to settle. A court victory for the Authority would also do much to discourage other frivolous lawsuits.

Still, would it have been good for the CHSRA to offer a settlement anyway? Especially since it's possible that refusing to do so might reinforce the incorrect view among the Peninsula NIMBYs that the CHSRA is unaccountable and hostile?

I don't believe it would have been, since I'm not seeing anything the CHSRA could have offered that would be better than a court victory. As I noted above, no settlement could stop others in Menlo Park and Atherton - or other cities - from suing. Flashman et. al. want to force reconsideration of the Altamont corridor, but that ship has long since sailed, especially with CA voters ratifying the plan to use the Altamont corridor as a high speed corridor anyway.

I still await the final verdict, in favor of the HSR project and its fair process, against NIMBYs and those so-called environmentalists who prioritize small-time parochial concerns over the much greater benefits to the environment of actually building HSR.

Who's Next on Google Transit? A Sampling (Source: LAist)

Who's Next on Google Transit? A Sampling

Yesterday was a big day for Los Angeles transportation. Metro, the county's behemoth transit agency, officially announced their partnership with Google. But the county is large and there are various partner agencies throughout. Here's a sampling, with more to come in later days, of where other city transit systems stand with Google Transit:

Los Angeles (LADOT): "Basically, our information, all of it, whether it's DASH or Commuter Express, will be included in whatever Metro provides [to Google]," said Laura Keller of the department's Public Information Office. However, Metro was a bit bemused upon hearing this and could not confirm this fact immediately. UPDATE: Metro is looking into the possibility, but Google wants to pursue individual agreements with every municipal operator.

Culver City: "Culver City is interested in the program," says Art Ida, who manages the city's transit division. "However, we do not have an expected implementation date."

Santa Clarita: The city's Webmaster, Ryan Drake, explains it from a technical side: "It is something we have looked into in the past but due to the way our routes are set up we are not able to provide them with the data they require. However, once we have fully implemented our new Transit Information Network (TIN) we plan on revisiting the application." When Google Transit was gearing up to launch a few years ago, the city had applied to be part of the beta test, but their application did not make it through.

Santa Monica (Big Blue Bus): Yes, hopefully by the end of the calendar year, they said in a comment left on Green LA Girl.

Who else locally is already on Google Transit? Burbank, Irvin, Orange County, Riverside, San Bernadino County, Foothill Transit, Metrolink and Thousand Oaks.

By Zach Behrens in News on July 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Metro rep tells WANA about possible new LB light-rail line (Source: Signal Tribune Newspaper)

Line: Metro rep tells WANA about possible new LB light-rail line | Signal Tribune Newspaper

Metro rep tells WANA about possible new LB light-rail line
July 10th, 2009 · No Comments


Randy Lamm and Cory Zelmer

BY NICK DIAMANTIDES
Staff Writer

Twenty years from now, there could be a new light-rail line linking The Blue Line at Long Beach to San Pedro and the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). That’s what Randy Lamm told the approximately 30 people who attended the monthly meeting of the Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance (WANA) last week at Jackie Robinson Academy.

Lamm is the project manager of a study being conducted by the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (Metro). “I and Metro Transportation Planner Cory Zelmer are here to tell you about the progress we are making on what we call the alternatives analysis study for a 26-mile rail right-of-way that Metro purchased from Burlington Northern Railroad in the early 1990s,” Lamm said. “This corridor runs from just south of Union Station in Los Angeles to the east side of LAX and then southeast through the South Bay to Wilmington.”

Lamm explained that Metro is conducting the study to determine how to best utilize the 26-mile corridor. He added that, in the future, the transit agency might have to acquire additional right-of-way to link the corridor to the Blue Line (which runs from downtown Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles). He said that if that happens, a light rail might one day run along either Spring or Willow streets.

“We are looking at various alternatives and service options to serve the 26-mile corridor,” he said. “It’s a big area that traverses 12 jurisdictions.” He noted that the right-of-way varies in width. “It is very narrow in the northern area– probably only wide enough for one type of transit service,” he said. “It’s wider in the southern area and it also overlaps (for five miles) with another project that we are studying right now called the Crenshaw Corridor Transit Project that will run from Green Line Aviation Station near LAX to Crenshaw Boulevard and then north to Wilshire Boulevard.” He explained that part of the complexity of the alternatives analysis is making sure that whatever is done on the corridor is compatible with the Crenshaw Project.

Lamm told the audience that the Metro study is evaluating 13 different criteria, beginning with costs. He explained that his staff will try to estimate the capital costs as well as operating and maintenance costs of each of the alternatives being considered. Some of the other criteria include: the type of system that can fit in the right-of-way; travel time, reliability and connectivity; environmental benefits and impacts; environmental sustainability; financial feasibility; safety; and security.

Lamm explained that the study began with 25 alternatives, but his staff has narrowed the number down to four. The first of those is a train with local stops from Union Station to LAX. The next is a train with local stops running from LAX to either San Pedro or Long Beach. Third is a train with regional stops running from Union Station to either San Pedro or Long Beach. The fourth is an express train running from Union Station to LAX.
Lamm noted that the four alternatives could use light-rail (electric) transit, clean-burning diesel-powered trains, or commuter rail modes. He added that bus rapid transit was eliminated from further consideration after staff determined that it was not feasible on the 26-mile right-of-way for a variety of reasons.

He told the WANA audience that Metro began the study last year. “We have done extensive community outreach, beginning with five scoping meetings that we conducted in fall 2008,” he said. He added that seven technical advisory meetings have been held to date, five community meetings were conducted in spring 2009, and more will be conducted before the study is completed.

Lamm explained that so far the community meetings have shown that the public desires transit improvements along the 26-mile corridor and there is strong support for connections to LAX, downtown Los Angeles and the communities along the corridor. He acknowledged, however, that residents have also expressed concerns about environmental impacts, air-quality issues and safety due to the large number of grade crossings in the corridor.

After the presentation, Lamm and Zelmer fielded questions and comments from the audience. Several people said they would not want a light rail running on either Spring or Willow because those streets are already heavily used. Others expressed concern about parking problems caused by a large influx of commuters driving their cars to the light-rail stations.
Lamm replied that their concerns would be included in the analysis. He added that his staff expects to complete the study and make recommendations to the Metro board of directors by the end of this year. At that point, the board could approve one of the alternatives and vote to go forward with the next phase– an environmental review of the selected alternative. Lamm stressed that the study is the first small step in a very long process and the Metro board could decide to alter the alternative that it ultimately selects. A few days after the WANA meeting, Lamm gave essentially the same presentation at the monthly meeting of the Wrigley Association.

More Information
(213) 922-4004
www.harborsubdivision@metro.net

Green Line to LAX Takes Another Step (Source: LAist)

Link: Green Line to LAX Takes Another Step - LAist

Green Line to LAX Takes Another Step


At the Rosa Parks Station where the Blue and Green Lines meet | Photo by Fred Camino via Flickr

As talks to extend the Green Line closer to LAX continue, the city will still have to figure out how to get people to each terminal from the new station. Councilman Bill Rosendahl last week proposed that a study be conducted about the feasibility of extending the train line directly into the Central Terminus area so a people mover can deliver travelers to their terminals, according to his motion:

An on-airport rail link inside the LAX Central Terminal Area (CTA) would provide the greatest convenience to passengers and encourage the use of the city's mass-transit system. Space constraints, however, have made such a proposal difficult to consider. The pending purchase by LAWA of the Park One property, adjacent to Terminal 1, may provide the first real opportunity to build an on-airport rail link at LAX.

"If we don't make it accessible, people won't use it," Councilwoman Janice Hahn told the Daily Breeze earlier this week in regards to the people mover/rail link connection. "It's time to right that wrong for the public."

The Park One property the motion speaks of was approved for purchase today by the full council with the high price tag of $126 million. The Green Line motion passed a city panel on Wednesday and will hit the council in the near future. If the line is extended, Metro said it could be as late as 2018 before it is completed, according to the Breeze.

By Zach Behrens in News on July 10, 2009 5:20 PM

Downtown Streetcar Project Opens Website, Seeks Feedback (Source: Streetblog Los Angeles)

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Downtown Streetcar Project Opens Website, Seeks Feedback

Downtown Streetcar Project Opens Website, Seeks Feedback

by Damien Newton on July 10, 2009


A street car on Tornoto's King Street. Photo: Kevinseanw/Flickr

Activist and blogger Eric Richardson, and indeed the whole Blogdowntown team so some extent, have been heavily involved in advocating for bringing streetcars back to Los Angeles on Broadway and beyond. Thus, it's little surprise that Richardson has the scoop on L.A. Streetcar Inc.'s new website designed to solicit feedback on potential routes for Los Angeles' streetcars of the 21st Century:

For many Downtowners, 2014 just can't get here fast enough.

That's the projected opening date for a Downtown streetcar planned to link South Park, Bunker Hill and the Historic Core. L.A. Streetcar Inc. (LASI) today launched a new website full of information about the project and its current status.

Most importantly, the site includes maps for three conceptual alignments currently under consideration.

The non-profit LASI was set up in 2008 to spearhead the streetcar project, following a model established in other cities like Portland. In January, the board named Dennis Allen its Executive Director and he's been hard at work on streetcar issues ever since.

What follows is an interview with Allen that touches on the choices behind the roots and other issues. If you're not familar with Blogdowntown and have some thoughts on the streetcar, please feel free to leave comments there as well as here. The folks at L.A.S.I. are familar with Blogdowntown and will be mining the site for feedback.

Appiphilia: Some Google Maps smartphone apps get L.A. transit info (Source: LA Times)

Link: Appiphilia: Some Google Maps smartphone apps get L.A. transit info | Technology | Los Angeles Times

Appiphilia: Some Google Maps smartphone apps get L.A. transit info
4:34 PM, July 10, 2009

Google mapsHave you noticed some new data points on your Google Maps app? Well, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has just hooked up with Google Maps to make it easier for passengers to plan trips using the MTA's buses and trains.

As mentioned on the LA Now blog, the MTA is the latest to add its info to Google's interactive maps. And you can tap into that on your iPhone as well. By tapping the transit icon (the bus in the middle), you can access schedules for the road and rail public transportation options to your destination. It includes the departure times, estimated travel time and price to hitch a ride.

The BlackBerry Google Maps app also offers transit details -- routes, times and distance. The MTA's info wasn't accessible when we tried to call it up with plans for a trip from downtown L.A. to Glendale and one from downtown to Irvine. Foothill Transit directions from L.A. to Claremont came up without issue.

Other transit agencies currently available through Google Maps include Foothill Transit and Metrolink.

-- Michelle Maltais

Google Transit Officially Launches with Metro, Big Blue Bus Coming Soon (Source: LAist)

Link: Google Transit Officially Launches with Metro, Big Blue Bus Coming Soon - LAist

Google Transit Officially Launches with Metro, Big Blue Bus Coming Soon


View Larger Map

Earlier this week, word got around that Google Transit was up and working in beta mode. Today, it became the real deal. Over 200 bus lines and five lines with more than 2.5 million data points are now on Google Transit, an option found on Google Maps.

"This is a big milestone in Metro history," exclaimed Maya Emsden, the transit agency's Deputy Executive Officer of Creative Services. "We're very excited with our partnership with Google Maps." Perhaps even more excited is the public, many of whom begged Metro to partner with Google.

Google Transit is a free service for Metro and staff expect it to increase ridership, especially during off-peak times, said spokesman Dave Sotero. Now people who plan their driving directions on Google Maps will have an option to look at what's available via public transit.

In an online demonstration this morning, Jessica Wei of Google showed how it was easy to compare drive time to public transit time using the map's historical freeway traffic data. Let's say you're planning to travel over the Cahunega Pass from Universal Studios to Downtown during rush hour on a Friday morning. The traffic pull down offers real time traffic or traffic by day and time. A ride on the red line is around 25 minutes and Google Maps traffic data says the route is up to 40 minutes with traffic. The choice is up to you.

Today's announcement also is good for locals and tourism as Google Transit is compatible in 40 languages, easily used on a mobile phone, works for the visually impaired and can help you find public transit options by searching the business name instead of address.

On Monday, LAist readers found quirks with the system, sometimes being told a bus line that was slower than another. Wei said many of the complaints and data errors will be fixed by Friday, but says any and all suggestions are welcome. Just go to google.com/transitpartners and report issues via the Contact form for feature improvements and issues.

While Metro is the largest transit operator in Los Angeles County, there is a plethora of partner agencies like the city of Los Angeles' DASH system and Santa Clarita Transit. Only a handful--Orange County, Riverside, Metrolink, Burbank and Thousand Oaks--are currently with Google Transit, but Wei says they are talks with many more.

One of those is Santa Monica.

"Big Blue Bus has been working diligently towards bringing our information on to Google Transit for over a year," said spokesperson Linda Gamberg in a comment on Green LA Girl. "We are finally in the home stretch with the vendor who provides our scheduling software, and expect to be part of Google Transit within this calendar year."

As for what's next, much of that will depend on what developers come up with. Last month in preparation for today's launch, Metro released Google Transit data so individuals and companies could make their own applications and mash-ups. On the East Coast, some agencies have an overlay where you can watch the bus in real time arrive at a location. No word on that happening in Los Angeles yet, but it could happen one day.

Metro will continue to promote it's own Trip Planner on its website, which will include all partner agencies, but will also link to Google Transit.

“We have listened to our customers and have provided the Google transit planning resource they have requested,” said Metro CEO Art Leahy in a statement. “As the third largest transportation agency in the United States, it made perfect sense for us to join the Google phenomenon."
user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on July 9, 2009 1:25 PM

Google Makes it Easier to Get Around LA (Source: NBC Los Angeles)

Link: Google Makes it Easier to Get Around LA | NBC Los Angeles

Google Makes it Easier to Get Around LA

By SCOTT WEBER

Updated 5:16 PM PDT, Thu, Jul 9, 2009


Put away the maps, guys. Google has you covered.


Soon Google will know everything and own the world. Thursday put them one step closer. The search gurus and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority signed a deal Thursday to make it easier for travelers to use the Web to plan Los Angeles-area trips on Metro buses and trains.

Google Maps will provide routes and schedules for the nearly 200 bus lines and five rail lines that Metro operates within the county. The Web site also provides information on the length of each leg of the journey, traffic data for specific times and days, walking directions to bus stations and transit stops, other points of interest on the route, and even street-level photos.

Metro officials said no other online mapping service puts transit data in the context of so much other useful information.

"We have listened to our customers," Metro CEO Art Leahy said. "As the third largest transportation agency in the United States, it made perfect sense for us to join the Google phenomenon."

Tourists are another target of the service. Nearly 4.7 million international visitors came to Los Angeles last year. Metro officials hope the convenience of the the service will encourage more people to park their cars and take public transportation instead. Currently, an average of 1.5 million people board its bus and rail system every weekday.

Google will provide information on Metro services only. For other transit information, visitors can still go to Metro's own Trip Planner at Metro.net.


Copyright City News Service / NBC Los Angeles

Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 3: Metro (Source: MetroRiderLA)

Link: Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 3: Metro | MetroRiderLA

Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 3: Metro
Contributed by Wad on July 10th, 2009 at 3:00 am

Expo Line construction sign

The Expo Line is coming, but it may be in 2011. The bus service changes below are suggested to help both bus and rail riders.
Photo by Alan Weeks and uploaded by Metro Library and Archive on Flickr; used with a Creative Commons license

MetroReaders, we have arrived at the third and final installment of the Expo Line Transit Service interface proposals. Thank you to all of those who have read and participated in the discussions of the other two proposals for Culver CityBus and Big Blue Bus. Metro, as the operator of the Expo Line and the largest bus system in the county, has a lot to go ahead. The line’s opening date may be some time in 2011, with Phase 2 to Santa Monica another four years after that.

Phase 2 is at the centerpiece for the initial segment of the Expo Line, as you will see below. One of the most important suggestions of the bus lines proposed is … wait for it … a Phase 2 Gold Line emulator.

You are probably reading this and rolling your eyes. One criticism I am expecting is: “You want this to end up like Line 632’s rise and fall?” That is the last thing I want. Here’s the difference. The Expo Emulator would be planned along with regular service, not put together on the fly. Second, it is going to last for at least four years, so it has some time to build a ridership base. Third, it would emulate the path of Expo Phase II but follow a slightly different path. Fourth, the Expo Emulator is a pre-emptive solution to what is bound to be a major Expo Line problem: What to do about all those passengers transferring from Expo and heading west, particularly on Line 33/333 — on which ridership is extremely heavy now, and unable to handle a swarm of passengers hoping to transfer when the rail line opens.

The other proposal also suggests the turnover of some Metro services to Santa Monica or Culver City. These are only requests to see if the munis are willing or capable of taking on additional service. Both the blue and green buses can operate services about 10 percent cheaper than Metro, according to figures on the National Transit Database. This is especially helpful for low-performing, high-cost lines. Some of the Metro lines proposed for municipal turnover include 4, 30/31, 35, 38 and 534.

There are also some service improvements suggested for the Westside that do not tie in directly with the Expo Line, but would be helpful to plan for them concurrently. I have also reposted some of the route changes that would affect the Expo Line TSIP routes mentioned before in the Eastside Gold Line TSIP. I can’t cut and paste routes from one map to the other, but I can add the original route proposals here as a refresher.

Compare the existing Metro system map with the changes proposed on the Google Map. As a reminder, these proposals are not official by any agency and are not endorsed by them. Also, please send in any comments you may have by the end of the month by posting them on this board or including your name in an e-mail. All suggestions will be forwarded to the respective agencies’ planners.

The table of changes and rationales follows the jump.

Expo Emulator

Rationale: This special bus line would be a temporary gap until Expo Phase II opens. It would emulate the future Expo Stations, but along Pico Bl. If Metro has the resources and the police permission, it should install temporary ticket vending machines at the stops to expedite boardings. Although it is a bus, Expo Emulator would help “prime” the ridership for when light rail service is extended, and perhaps add riders who originate trips in the Westside to board the Expo Line.

The other reason is to stem an expected operational bottleneck caused by the end-of-the-line transfer. Line 33 would bear the brunt of heavy transfer activity. If riders do not shift rides from 33 to Expo, there would be no room for transfers. Or, riders do shift their trips, but Culver Junction becomes the site of a massive rider log-jam that may force passengers to wait long periods before a local or Rapid 733 arrives. The Expo Emulator would serve to stem this problem by transporting riders to Santa Monica, making only stops close to proposed Phase II stations.

The Expo Emulator would primarily run along Pico Bl. While Venice Bl. would have Line 733 Rapid service, ridership would be at existing levels or much higher, not allowing it to bear the load. Pico is the biggest street with frequent service and important destinations including Westside Pavilion, Santa Monica College and Santa Monica High School.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, Washington Bl., Venice Bl., National Bl., Overland Av., National Bl., Westwood Bl., Pico Bl., 4th St., Colorado Av., 2nd St., Santa Monica Bl., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl. and 4th St.

Expo Emulator makes only the following stops:
Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl. & Palms Bl. (Palms), Overland Av. & National Bl., Westwood Bl. & Pico Bl. (Westside Pavilion), Pico Bl. & Sepulveda Bl., Pico Bl. & Bundy Dr., Pico Bl. & 18th St. (Santa Monica College), Pico Bl. & Lincoln Bl. (Santa Monica High School), 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl.
Line 105
Line 305
Line 550

Rationale: Lines 305 and 550 run similar services, yet they have never been productive lines. A restructured Line 105 would provide service from the Vernon Blue Line station to Century City. It would lose the routing west of the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza and continue via Crenshaw Bl. to Pico Bl., then via San Vicente Bl., Burton Way and Santa Monica Bl. to Century City. It would replace Line 16 service west of Cedars-Sinai.

Service along Martin Luther King Bl. would be replaced by Line 40 (see Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal). La Cienega Bl. service would be replaced by a restructured Line 217.
Line 108
Line 358

Rationale: Line 108’s Marina del Rey segment suffers from unreliable service, due to being an hourly tail on a busy trunk service. Line 108 would now terminate at Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills. Marina del Rey service would be provided by Culver CityBus Line 7 (see Culver City proposal). Line 108 would be extended east on Slauson to Rosemead Bl.

Line 358’s service change, shown in the Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal, would take the route north on Atlantic Bl. from Slauson Av. to connect with the Gold Line at the Atlantic/Pomona Station.

Route (Line 108 only): Rosemead Bl., Bermudez St., Bequette Av., Slauson Av. and Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills.
Line 110

Rationale: Due to a change proposed for Culver CityBus Line 3 (see Culver CityBus proposals), Line 110 would pick up the Fox Hills-adjacent routing on its route. The line would be shortened to terminate at Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills. Its eastern terminal would also be extended to Slauson Av. and Telegraph Rd. Also, a route deviation would be added to serve the Slauson Av. Harbor Transitway Station.

Route: Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills, Slauson Av., Buckingham Pkwy., Hannum Av., Bristol Pkwy., Centinela Av., Hyde Park Bl., Van Ness Av., 62nd St., Western Av., Gage Av., Figueroa St., Slauson Av., Slauson Harbor Transitway Station, Broadway, Gage Av., Compton Av., Florence Av., Holmes Av., Gage Av., Slauson Av., Telegraph Rd., Bluff Rd. and Slauson Av.
Line 212

Rationale: With the restructuring of Line 40, Line 212 becomes the crosstown service from Hollywood to Redondo Beach via La Brea Av. and Hawthorne Bl. See the Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal.

Route: Hollywood Bl., Hollywood/Vine Red Line station, Argyle Av., Selma Av., Vine St., Hollywood Bl., La Brea Av., Overhill Dr., Slauson Av., La Brea Av., Inglewood Transit Center, La Brea Av., Hawthorne Bl., Hawthorne/I-105 Green Line Station, Hawthorne Bl., 177th St, Kingsdale Av., South Bay Galleria Transit Center, Artesia Bl., and Hawthorne Bl.
Line 217

Rationale: With the availability of Line 780 and the return of Metro Line 1, the existing Line 217 would no longer need to continue to Hollywood. The restructured Line 217 would be a bidirectional loop along Fairfax Av. and La Cienega Bl. This would help balance similar north-south lines with headways close to the existing Line 217.

Route: Fairfax/La Cienega Expo Line station, Fairfax Av., Sunset Bl., La Cienega Bl. and Fairfax/La Cienega Expo Line station.
Line 220

Rationale: Despite low ridership and threats by Metro to eliminate this service, Expo Line may help restore relevancy to this moribund route. Line 220, like Line 217, would become a bidirectional loop along Robertson Bl. and Beverly Dr., which would no longer be served by Line 14.

Each loop would run hourly, but the shared route on Robertson between Pico Bl. and the Expo Line would replace service that is lost by Big Blue Bus Line 12 now terminating at Culver Junction. The shared portion of service would run every 30 minutes.

Route: Venice Bl., National Bl., Washington/National Expo Line Station, Washington Bl., Robertson Bl., Santa Monica Bl., Canon Dr., Wilshire Bl., Beverly Dr., Pico Bl., Robertson Bl., Venice Bl., National Bl. and Washington/National Expo Line Station.
Line 312

Rationale: To offer a more productive route, a deviation would be added to Leimert Park to connect with other bus services at Crenshaw Bl. and Martin Luther King Jr. Bl. The route would also be shortened to Inglewood. Also, when the development at Hollywood Bl. & Vine St. is completed, revert Line 312 to peak-hour service, but continue offering bidirectional service.

Route: Hollywood Bl., Hollywood/Vine Red Line station, Argyle Av., Selma Av., Vine St., Hollywood Bl., La Brea Av., La Brea Expo Line station, La Brea Av., Rodeo Rd., Martin Luther King Jr. Bl., Crenshaw Bl., Florence Av., Market St., Manchester Av. La Brea Av. and Florence Av.
NEW Line 356

Rationale: Normandie Av.’s Line 206 has the ridership and transfer activity, like its nearby Vermont Av. and Western Av., services to support limited-stop buses. Line 356 would run bidirectional peak-hour limited-stop service and connect with the Expo Line at Vermont.

Route: Sunset Bl., Virgil Av., Fountain Av., Vermont Av., Vermont/Sunset Red Line station, Sunset Bl., Normandie Av., Wilshire/Normandie Purple Line Station., Normandie Av., Irolo St., Normandie Av., Jefferson Bl., Vermont Av., Vermont Expo Line station, Vermont Av., Martin Luther King Jr. Bl., Normandie Av., Imperial Hwy., Vermont Av., Vermont/I-105 Green Line Station, 120th St., and Normandie Av.
NEW Line 539X

Rationale: Line 439 would no longer be needed once Expo Line is operational, but an attempt should be made to serve its busiest transfer points. The prototype name is 539X, and would use blue express buses to connect Culver Junction with LAX and the Aviation/I-105 Green Line station. The bus would use mostly surface streets, but it would have only major destination stops along the line. It would operate hourly, 7-day service, just as 439 does now.

Line 439 would be replaced by new Culver CityBus Line 8 through Baldwin Hills. The list of exact stops is in the pop-up menu when the route is clicked.

A major issue that’s sure to arise is Culver City’s possible objection to a service operating mostly within its territory. One possibility would be to offer Culver CityBus operation of the line with Metro paying for it, but withdrawing funds if the line proves to be unproductive.

Also, the schedule would need to be adjusted to avoid West Los Angeles College service when it’s not in session.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, Washington Bl., Culver Bl., Duquesne Av., Jefferson Bl., Overland Av., Freshman Dr., A St., B St., F St., Freshman Dr., Overland Av., Playa St., Sepulveda Bl., Fox Hills Mall, Sepulveda Bl., Howard Hughes Pkwy., I-405, Century Bl., Vicksburg Av., 96th St., LAX City Bus Center, 96th St., Vicksburg Av., Century Bl., Aviation St. and Aviation/I-105 Green Line Station.
Line 780

Rationale: The route stays the same, but its west terminal would now be Fairfax/La Cienega Expo Line station, but 7-day service would be added on Fairfax Av. to compensate for Line 217 becoming a Fairfax Av.-La Cienega Bl. bidirectional loop.
The following is a list of suggestion first proposed in the Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal. They are refreshed here.
NEW-Line 1

Rationale: This line would save transfers by creating a crosstown route between East Los Angeles and Hollywood through Downtown L.A., Echo Park and Silver Lake. It would restore the Line 1/217 configuration seen until 1999. Line 68 would be canceled and replaced by Line 1, and its interlined Line 84 would become a stand-alone route. This route change consists of two phases.

Phase 1 (Eastside Gold Line opening): Line 1 operates between Atlantic Gold Line Station and Vermont/Sunset Red Line station. Line 1 lays over then continues as Line 217 on its present route.

Phase 2 (Expo Line opening): Line 217 becomes a bidirectional loop on Fairfax Avenue, no longer running to Hollywood. Service to Hollywood would be provided on existing Rapid Line 780, which would get 7-day service on Fairfax Av. Replacement service on Hollywood Bl. would now be provided by Line 1, which would be extended to Santa Monica Bl. and San Vicente Bl.

Route (Phase 1): Atlantic Gold Line station, Atlantic Bl., Cesar Chavez Av., Sunset Bl., Hollywood Bl., Vermont Av., Sunset Bl., Virgil Av., Fountain Av.
Line 4

Rationale: The only change would be to shorten the route from Hill St. & Venice Bl. to Union Station. In the long-term, Metro should consider turning over operation of local Line 4 to Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, which would operate Line 1 from Santa Monica to the Vermont/Sunset Red Line station. Metro would retain Rapid Line 704 between Union Station and Santa Monica.

Route: Patsaouras Transit Plaza, Vignes St., Sunset Bl., Sanborn Av., Santa Monica Bl. to Sepulveda Bl. or Santa Monica. Under theoretical turnover to Big Blue Bus, route would begin at Vermont/Sunset Red Line Station, then Sunset Bl., Sanborn Av., Santa Monica Boulevard to Santa Monica. Local service on Sunset would be provided by Metro Line 1 and Line 2, and Rapid service on Line 704.
Line 14

Rationale: Changes come to Line 14 in two phases. The first phase is to eliminate the interline with Line 37 to improve service. Line 14 would originate at Union Station.

The second phase of changes is implemented with the opening of the Expo Line. The Beverly Dr. portion would be split off and attached to Line 220, which becomes a bidirectional loop along Robertson Bl. and Beverly Dr.

Route: Union Station, Vignes St., Cesar Chavez Av., Alameda St., 1st St., Beverly Bl, Santa Monica Bl., Civic Center Dr., Little Santa Monica Bl., Beverly Dr. In Phase 2, when Expo Line opens, Line 14 terminates in Beverly Hills and Line 220 takes over Beverly Dr. route.
Line 16
Line 316

Rationale: The primary goal is to shorten and hopefully eliminate Line 30 and 31, while still providing an east-west crosstown route with identical levels of service. Line 30/31 would not operate east of downtown L.A., and the plan would be to work out an arrangement with Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus to operate Line 7 between downtown L.A. and Santa Monica, and Metro providing Rapid Line 707, the merger of Rapid Line 730 and Rapid 7.

The replacement crosstown route is Line 16, which would run between East Los Angeles College and Cedars-Sinai or Century City via 1st and 3rd streets in Phase 1. Line 316 would only operate west of downtown L.A., as to not duplicate limited-stop service by the Gold Line. In Phase 2, when the Expo Line opens, Line 16/316 is rerouted to terminate in West Hollywood. Service between Cedars-Sinai and Century City is replaced by rerouted Line 105.

Route: (Phase 1) East L.A. College, Collegian Dr., Floral Dr., Atlantic Bl., 1st St., Beaudry Av., 3rd St., Robertson Bl., Burton Wy., Santa Monica Bl., Century City.
(Phase 2) East L.A. College, Collegian Dr., Floral Dr., Atlantic Bl., 1st St., Beaudry Av., 3rd St., Robertson Bl., Santa Monica Bl., San Vicente Bl. and Melrose Av.
Line 30
Line 31
Rapid Line 730
Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus Line 7
Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus Rapid 7

Rationale: The phases of these lines along Pico would be planned for the opening of the Expo Line. Metro should consider splitting service with Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus and operating a single service along Pico.

Service along 1st St. would be replaced by Line 16.
Line 35

Rationale: The immediate proposal would be to restore bus service on Alameda St. and provide another Westside connection to the Gold Line. Also, Metro should consider turning over operation of Line 35 to Culver CityBus, which would merge it into Line 1 for a West Washington Bl., service between Venice and Downtown L.A.

Route: Union Station, Vignes St., Alameda St., Washington Bl., Fairfax Av. and West L.A. Transit Center.
Line 37
Line 55

Rationale: With Line 14 no longer paired to it, Line 37 could instead be paired with Line 55, which partly runs along Adams Bl. This change can be postponed until the opening of the Expo Line.

Route: West L.A. Transit Center, La Cienega Bl., Adams Bl., Hooper Av., 41st St., Compton Av., Firestone Bl., Maie Av., 89th St., Compton Av., 92nd Av., Compton Av., 120th St., Willobrook Av., and Rosa Parks Blue and Green Line Station.
Line 38

Rationale: There are two phases to Line 38 changes.

Phase 1 involves Line 38 assuming the eastern portion of Line 102. Phase 2 has significant changes with interlines or possible turnover to Culver CityBus.

Route: West L.A. Transit Center, La Cienega Bl., Jefferson Bl., Central Av., 41st St., Hooper Av., Gage Av., Central Av., Florence Av., Seville Av., Liberty Bl., Long Beach Bl., Palm Pl.
Line 40
Rapid Line 740

Rationale: The route would be shortened to focus on local service while Line 740 continues along its present route. The rerouted Line 40 will no longer run south of Crenshaw Bl. & Martin Luther King Jr. Bl. Instead, it will run between Mid City and Lincoln Heights at present service levels.

Line 212 would replace Line 40 service along Hawthorne Bl. at present service levels, becoming a La Brea Av.-Hawthorne Bl. crosstown route.

Route: Exposition Bl., Rimpau Bl., Jefferson Bl., La Brea Av., Rodeo Rd., Martin Luther King Jr. Bl., Broadway, 1st St., Mission Rd., Marengo St., Cornwell St., Zonal Av., Mission Rd., Daly St., Ave. 26, Figueroa St., Cypress Av., and Idell Av.
Line 42
Line 102

Rationale: This route change may be postponed until the opening of the Expo Line, or implemented to serve the Eastside Gold Line but terminating at Union Station. Line 42 would become its own line instead of a Line 40 branch. It would take over the Exposition Bl. routing of Line 102, which would now be canceled, then resume its present route south of Leimert Park. Line 42 would also be extended to serve the Aviation/I-105 Green Line station. In Phase 2, it would be interlined with Line 44.

Route: (Phase 1) Union Station, Vignes St., Cesar Chavez Av., Alameda St., 1st St., Spring St. (Main St. northbound), Jefferson Bl., Figueroa St., Exposition Bl., Rodeo Rd., Crenshaw Bl., Coliseum St, Martin Luther King Jr. Bl., Crenshaw Bl., Stocker St., Overhill Av., Slauson Av., La Tijera Bl., Sepulveda Bl., 96th St., LAX City Bus Center, Airport Bl., Century Bl., Aviation Bl., and Aviation/I-105 Green Line station.
(Phase 2): Main St., 23rd St., Flower St., Washington Bl., Main St., then via Phase 1 routing.
NEW Rapid Line 705
Rapid Line 751

Rationale: Rapid Line 751 would merge into Line 705, providing a long but potentially productive service through the Eastside, South L.A., and West Hollywood. Line 705 would now be terminated at County/USC Medical Center.

When the Expo Line opens, line would be rerouted to serve the Culver Junction station.

Route: Marengo St., Mission Rd., Zonal Av., County/USC Medical Center, Cornwell St., Marengo St., Soto St., Soto Gold Line Station, Leonis Bl., Pacific Bl., Vernon Av., Crenshaw Bl., Martin Luther King Jr. Bl., Rodeo Rd., La Cienega Bl., Melrose Av., San Vicente Bl., Santa Monica Bl. and La Cienega Bl.

Call to shift car plants to bullet trains (Source: San Francisco Business Times)

Link: Call to shift car plants to bullet trains - San Francisco Business Times:

Thursday, July 2, 2009
Call to shift car plants to bullet trains
San Francisco Business Times

In one of his last acts as chairman of the state’s high speed rail authority, Quentin Kopp is proposing that shuttered auto plants be converted into bullet train factories.

Kopp, a Bay Area judge who will remain a member of the state-chartered authority, introduced a resolution Thursday encouraging U.S. and California authorities to consider ways to make the switch.

Kopp said that as auto plants in Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and California are shuttered by auto giants like General Motors Corp., the country has the opportunity to promote jobs through the construction of bullet trains.

Just this week northern California appeared to be on the verge of losing its only auto plant. GM said it would pull out of a joint venture with Toyota Corp. in Fremont because the two companies could not agree on what model to build there.

Kopp, who has been chairman of the high-speed rail authority for three years, was one of the most vocal proponents of a bullet train in California. The high speed rail authority proposes building a train that links the Bay Area with southern California.

Federal transportation officials said California is one of two states that are leading candidates to secure federal money for high-speed passenger-rail service. “California and Florida are way ahead of the curve,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last May.

The U.S. Department of Transportation in coming months will start awarding $8 billion under the economic-stimulus program to states with the most attractive plans for building bullet trains or upgrading passenger rail service.

The state has almost $10 billion in money approved by voters last year and a designated route. The state will need many billions of dollars more and expects to tap private investors as well.

Curt Pringle, the mayor of Anaheim, is expected to replace Kopp as chairman of the high-speed rail authority.

eyoung@bizjournals.com

Reid uses corridor designation to show backing for private project (Source: Las Vegas Sun)

Link: A boost for DesertXpress - Las Vegas Sun

A boost for DesertXpress:
Reid uses corridor designation to show backing for private project


Leila Navidi

Senator Harry Reid, with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, holds a press conference about a proposed high-speed train that would go from Las Vegas to Southern California in downtown Las Vegas Thursday, July 2, 2009.

By Lisa Mascaro & Stephanie Tavares

Friday, July 3, 2009 | 2 a.m.
High-speed train press conference


* U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaks at a press conference on Thursday, July 2, 2009.



Chris Morris

Nowhere on the official documents from Thursday’s announcement of a new high-speed rail corridor between Las Vegas and Los Angeles is the proposed DesertXpress featured as the preferred project.

But make no mistake: DesertXpress is the chosen one, at least for now.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid backs the private venture, and he let it be known that the privately backed train to Victorville, Calif., not the once-hoped-for magnetic levitation train to Anaheim, was the one for which the Transportation Department’s new corridor is intended.

The publicly run $12 billion maglev proposal has worn out its welcome after 30 years in the planning stages, Reid said. He reiterated that he is ready to put his efforts into the newer DesertXpress.

“I’m not going to put any more of my (time) into maglev,” Reid said. “It’s time for action in this corridor. We’re past the planning stage; we’ve got to move on and start the construction.”

Reid predicted that the $5 billion Desert-

Xpress, backed by his political supporter Sig Rogich, a Republican leader in Nevada, would be up and running by 2012. Ground would be broken early next year, and Reid said it would be built with “40 to 50 percent” private financing, and the rest government loans, if needed.

The announcement Thursday came with a large map showing the DesertXpress route to Victorville, the high-desert outpost 85 miles north of Los Angeles, and its planned spur to Palmdale to connect with California’s planned north-south line connecting San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange County.

But the Transportation Department made it clear later in the day that it did not supply that map. Also, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declined to weigh in on the fierce competition between the two Las Vegas trains.

“We believe that the development of regional high-speed passenger rail systems will create jobs, spur economic development and provide positive environmental benefits for all Americans,” LaHood said in a statement.

A Transportation spokeswoman later explained that the department did not choose one train over the other. “We didn’t pick a route,” she said. “We know there are obviously two competing proposals. The states decide.”

Technically, the Las Vegas route is an extension of the department’s existing California corridor, an offshoot of that state’s $45 billion line, which will be financed in part by an $11 billion bond passed by voters last fall.

Establishing a corridor will open the door to allow the Las Vegas project to compete for $8 billion in federal stimulus money passed by Congress this year, as well as other federal aid.

However, DesertXpress does not immediately qualify for that money because it is not a state-sponsored agency, which is required under federal guidelines. No private companies can independently qualify.

DesertXpress has insisted it has no interest in tapping the stimulus money, but said it may want low-interest government loans. The company has said it intends to privately finance 30 percent of the cost, but would borrow the rest — about $3.5 billion.

The Transportation Department runs a loan program that can fund 100 percent of the project, payable in 35 years.

Experts say there are virtually no privately run rail lines in operation anywhere in the world because they cannot be built without public money, and cannot turn a profit. The private monorail system in Las Vegas may soon seek public aid.

DesertXpress issued a statement saying it was “thrilled” with the day’s announcement. The company has poured $25 million into planning documents.

“The solid support expressed for our privately funded DesertXpress project today, as part of a great solution to

I-15 congestion and as a lifeline to Nevada’s tourism industry, is significant,” DesertXpress President Tom Stone said.

The publicly run maglev proposal will continue to press on, its backers said.

“We intend to move ahead,” said Neil Cummings, president of American Magline Group, the private consortium hired by the California Nevada Super Speed Train Commission to build the maglev train.

He understood, however, the message at the conference.

“Certainly, there was no mention of the maglev system,” he said.

LACMTA installs Najarian as chairman, nears light-rail extension opening (Source: progressive railroading.com) The Gold Line Eastside Extension's opening date is still up in the air.

Link: LACMTA installs Najarian as chairman, nears light-rail extension opening

LACMTA installs Najarian as chairman, nears light-rail extension opening

Last week, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (LACMTA) board elected Glendale City Councilman Ara Najarian as chairman to succeed Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose term expired.

A member of the board governing LACMTA’s Metrolink regional rail system, Najarian was elected to Glendale’s city council in 2005 and later served as mayor from 2007 to 2008. He currently chairs the Glendale Housing Authority and previously chaired the Glendale Redevelopment Agency.

Meanwhile, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and several congressmen toured the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension on July 3. Nearing completion, the six-mile light-rail extension will connect downtown L.A.’s Union Station with Little Tokyo, the Arts District, Boyle Heights and East L.A. The extension’s opening date will be announced soon after LACMTA completes additional testing, the agency said.

USC professor appointed to direct high-speed train project (Source: ContraCostaTimes.com)

Link: USC professor appointed to direct high-speed train project - ContraCostaTimes.com

USC professor appointed to direct high-speed train project
From news services
Posted: 07/07/2009 04:32:59 PM PDT
Updated: 07/07/2009 04:33:21 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES - A USC professor and urban planner was appointed today to spearhead the development of a maglev train system for Southern California.

Cerritos Mayor Bruce Barrows, who heads the Orangeline Development Authority, chose Michael Kodama as executive director of the project.

Planners envision an elevated, 110-mile-long train line between Irvine and Palmdale. The estimated cost of the overall project is in the $12 billion range.

Barrows called Kodama "the perfect choice for this position," noting his extensive knowledge of Los Angeles and Orange County transportation issues.

Kodama's 20 years of urban planning experience includes the development of freeways, and bus and rail lines.

The UCLA graduate teaches transportation planning at USC and is the president of his own transportation planning firm.

The maglev train would travel as fast as 240 mph and have a passenger capacity on par with the that of an eight-lane freeway, according to the Orangeline Web site.

The train would be able to carry passengers and freight, including container cargo coming off ships, on a route that follows Interstate 5, the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway and parts of the old Pacific Electric line

Site of Original Fatburger Stand in South LA Saved By CRA Deal (Source: LAist)

Link: Site of Original Fatburger Stand in South LA Saved By CRA Deal - LAist

Site of Original Fatburger Stand in South LA Saved By CRA Deal



CurbedLA shares this good-news bit for preservationists and fans of Fatburger, and report that the original 1952 South LA stand where the popular fast food franchise began has been purchased by the CRA and will be preserved and made a part of the new development on the property. According to family rep Frank Evanisko," The actual shack still on the property cannot be torn down but must be rehabbed and incorporated into any new development." The site is destined to be for low income housing; public records indicate "the proposed project will be a 66-unit moderate income housing condominium consisting of 61 residential condominiums and five Live/Work units at 3001-3023 S. Western Avenue." Fatburger was founded by "female African American entrepreneur Lovie Yancey." Yancey died at age 96 in February 2008.

By Lindsay William-Ross in News on July 8, 2009 11:59 AM

LA council orders LAX to study Green Line extension (Source: Daily Breeze)

Link: LA council orders LAX to study Green Line extension - The Daily Breeze

LA council orders LAX to study Green Line extension

By Art Marroquin Staff Writer

Posted: 07/08/2009 07:15:42 PM PDT

The Metro Green Line might finally wind its way down to the terminals at Los Angeles International Airport, thanks to the recent purchase of an adjacent 20-acre parking lot that's ripe for use.

The Los Angeles City Council's Trade, Commerce and Tourism Committee on Wednesday directed airport officials to spend the next six months studying whether it's possible to bring the light rail line directly to LAX by building a stop on the site of the Park 'N Ride at Park One lot, located just east of Terminal One.

The Board of Airport Commissioners agreed last month to buy the parking lot for $126.5 million. The full City Council is expected to sign off on the expenditure by Friday.

"It's a no-brainer that every major airport has a rail line going into it," said Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes LAX.

The Green Line's estimated $200 million, two-mile extension would likely be funded by Measure R. Los Angeles County voters approved the half-cent county sales tax measure, which went into effect last week and is expected to generate $40 billion for local transportation projects over the next 30 years.

As part of their research, airport officials will dust off and update a report completed more than a decade ago, examining whether to bring the Green Line to LAX.

"We really want this to be the premier study to say yes, this is feasible and here's how it's going to happen," said Councilwoman Janice
Advertisement
Quantcast
Hahn, who chairs the council committee that oversees LAX.

"If we don't make it accessible, people won't use it," Hahn said. "It's time to right that wrong for the public."

The Green Line, running 20 miles from Norwalk to Redondo Beach, opened in 1995 at a cost of $700 million.

For now, the Green Line's stop at Aviation Boulevard drops passengers two miles away from LAX, forcing travelers to board a bus to complete a trip to the airport.

The rail line's missing link should connect "deep into the heart of the airport," Councilman Tom LaBonge said.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's current plan calls for extending the Green Line to nearby Manchester Square, allowing travelers to board a proposed people mover to gain access to airport terminals.

The MTA had initially called for extending the Green Line to LAX by 2015, but officials announced last year that the project won't likely be completed until 2018 at the earliest.

But MTA officials on Wednesday said they would welcome input from airport and city officials who want to use the airport-adjacent parking lot as a new Green Line stop.

"We're working with the airport in creating a better link to the terminals, but this is a new proposal to us," said Roderick Diaz of the MTA's South Bay planning department.

"We'd have to examine various possibilities to bring the line to the terminals," Diaz said. "But this is an interesting alternative to pursue."

Airport Commission President Alan Rothenberg said the Park One property will continue to operate as a parking lot as officials study all potential uses, including a new consolidated car rental office.

"You have a privately owned piece of property within the footprint of LAX and it's a shame we didn't acquire it the last time it was on the market," Rothenberg said. "It's clear that it should be part of LAX."

art.marroquin@dailybreeze.com

Is the State Legislature Going to Screw Up HSR? (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: Is the State Legislature Going to Screw Up HSR?

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Is the State Legislature Going to Screw Up HSR?

The California State Legislature isn't exactly the most popular group of people these days. As the state budget crisis worsens - and as California's bond rating takes another hit - Californians are losing what little patience they had for their legislators, who remain unable to produce a budget solution. It's not for lack of trying, as the 2/3rds rule and Republican obstinacy has produced the ongoing delays and deficits. But it reflects poorly on the legislators, who are facing some of the lowest approval ratings ever.

It doesn't help matters when the Legislature proposes something that is manifestly stupid, wasteful, and unnecessary. And that is what has happened regarding high speed rail on the peninsula, where the legislature has caved to Peninsula NIMBYs at the possible cost of $1 billion in stimulus funds:

An obscure sentence inserted deep in a massive state budget bill could delay construction of the proposed high-speed rail route from San Jose to San Francisco, potentially costing the region more than $1 billion in federal stimulus money, high-speed rail planners said Monday.

The language requires that as a condition of getting $139 million next year from the state budget to hire staff and engineering firms, the state High Speed Rail Authority must study "alternative alignments" to the route along the Caltrain tracks, approved by the authority last July.

Though the bill has passed both chambers of the state Legislature, its fate is uncertain because it remains part of the bigger state budget imbroglio.


This is ridiculous. The CHSRA already studied the Peninsula corridor, already studied the Altamont alignment, and already concluded that the Caltrain corridor is the best solution. They spent 11 years on these studies. Neither the Legislature nor the Peninsula NIMBYs have any place calling for another study just because they didn't like the outcome of the first one.

This is especially troubling given the financial implications of the Legislature's meddling:

On Monday, Rod Diridon, a former Santa Clara County supervisor who sits on the high-speed rail board, said that restudying the route could jeopardize federal stimulus money that requires eligible projects have construction started by September 2012.

"If it were to stay in, only our corridor in the whole state would be penalized, and all the federal stimulus money would go to Southern California," Diridon said.

The San Jose-to-San Francisco route will be seeking $1.3 billion in stimulus money, Diridon said. Two other proposed high-speed-rail routes near Los Angeles also will be seeking similar amounts.


The Peninsula NIMBYs would be perfectly happy with this outcome - their goal is to kill the HSR project in their own backyard, and have shown no regard for fiscal responsibility (such as their proposal of an extremely costly tunnel without offering any method of paying for it).

But it would cost the state as much as $1 billion in HSR stimulus, which translates into thousands of jobs and a not insignificant boost to the local economy on the Peninsula, which in turn means rising tax receipts in Sacramento. I'm not surprised at the Peninsula NIMBYs for not caring about any of this. I am surprised at the Legislature for being incredibly reckless by approving this proposal.

Sen. Joe Simitian, who represents Palo Alto, understands as much, as he denied responsibility for this moronic provision:

Adding to the drama Monday was that neither Diridon nor any other member of the high-speed rail board said they knew who wrote the provision requiring the extra study.

"We're all mystified. The whole board was caught by surprise how the language got in the bill," Diridon said.

State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto — whose constituents are most upset by the route — said he's not the author.

"That's not my language. I didn't have anything to do with it," he said.

Political skulduggery may not be to blame. In the rush to finish the budget, legislative staff members crafted the new requirement based on what Peninsula residents who testified at hearings and senators seemed to want, said Brian Annis, transportation budget consultant on the state Senate budget committee.

"We were incorporating many different comments and issues that staff and legislators were involved in," Annis said. "As far as the specific language, we drafted something we thought was workable."


So the problem seems to be in the Senate Budget Committee. There are a LOT of Senators on that committee - including one familiar name:

Senator Alan Lowenthal.

Now granted, we don't know whether he was responsible for this provision. But it would not surprise me if he were. Senator Lowenthal has been working for the last year to gut the HSR project. My assessment has always been that he wants to turn the HSR project into a vehicle to deliver funds to commuter rail projects in Southern California, and that he has no commitment to the statewide project, and certainly not to the route voters approved in Prop 1A at the November 2008 election.

Was he behind the provision in question that would undermine the HSR project AND cost California $1 billion in HSR stimulus? We don't know, but someone in the Legislature was, and they're currently trying to keep quiet. These things don't just wind up in the legislation by accident. California deserves to know who in the State Senate believes that a few NIMBYs should have the power to upend 11 years of studies and cost the state $1 billion in stimulus funding.

It's also time for the Legislature to stop meddling with the HSR project. The CHSRA exists to provide clear leadership and project management that isn't tied down by the vicissitudes - and, frankly, the incompetence - of the state legislature, which has shown itself incapable of offering anything positive toward the HSR project. The legislature needs to take advantage of the budget delay by stripping this provision from the bill, and ensuring that the legislature remains committed to the HSR project as approved by voters in November.

Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 2: Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus (Source: MetroRiderLA)

Link: Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 2: Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus | MetroRiderLA

Expo Line Transit Service Interface Proposal — Part 2: Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus
Contributed by Wad on July 8th, 2009 at 2:00 am



Photo by Yours Truly; posted in the MetroRiderLA Flickr pool


Welcome back to the second installment in the Transit Service Interface Proposal for the Expo Line. Part 1 focused on changes for Culver CityBus. Part 2 focuses on the transit system everybody loves, Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus. When the Expo Line opens, there will be more of the periwinkle buses to love.

Santa Monica’s proposals would not grow the system as much as the line changes posited for Culver City. Some changes are included here to be concurrent with the first phase of Expo, even though the lines themselves would not connect with the train until it is extended to Santa Monica. Most of the changes that do connect with the Expo Line would focus more activity around the western end of the line.

This signals the end of the forced transfer at Crackton. It also means a concerted effort to get a one-seat ride along Pico Boulevard, ending almost 50 years of dumbassery, by merging Big Blue Bus Line 7 with Metro lines 30/31. For the other services, they would be rerouted to originate at the Expo Line. The Expo Line would also allow for a single transfer bus connection to such important Westside destinations as Century City, UCLA, the Westside Pavilion and Santa Monica College.

Santa Monica would offer nearly 20 lines, but with service levels closely approximating what is available now. You can see what the service looks like now on its existing system map. As a reminder, these proposals are not official by any agency and are not endorsed by them.

The table of changes follows the jump.

Line 1
Rationale: One of Santa Monica’s busiest routes would see a huge transformation. One plan would focus on keeping Santa Monica Boulevard service within the Westside. The other would bring it farther into Los Angeles.

The first plan would have Line 1 operate the sole service between Santa Monica and Venice. It would operate one-way service along Pacific Avenue and Main Street/Neilson Wy., consolidating Line 1 and Line 2. Furthermore, Line 1 would be extended to Venice High School. See Line 2 proposal below for proposals south of Santa Monica. Also, Line 1 would no longer serve UCLA and be extended east to Century City.

A more ambitious plan would have Line 1 take over Metro Line 4 service. Line 1 would operate between Santa Monica and Silver Lake by operating entirely along Santa Monica Boulevard. Metro would continue to operate Rapid Line 704. Local service on Sunset would be provided by New Metro Line 1 and Line 2 (see Eastside Gold Line Transit Service Interface Proposal). If this were adopted, the Venice route would be picked up by another as-yet-unnumbered Big Blue Bus line.

None of these plans would connect with Phase I of the Expo Line, but are included here as part of a restructuring tied to light rail service.

Route: (Westside Plan) Venice High School, Venice Bl., Beethoven St., Washington Bl., Walgrove Av., Venice Bl., Lincoln Bl., California Av., Abbot Kinney Bl., Westminster Av., Riviera Av., Windward Av., Main St./Pacific Av./Neilson Wy., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., Santa Monica Bl., Century Park W., and Constellation Bl.
(Full route plan) Century Park E., Santa Monica Bl., Vermont/Santa Monica Red Line Station, Santa Monica Bl., Virgil Av., Fountain Av., Sunset Bl., Manzanita St., and Santa Monica Bl.

Line 2
Rationale: Line 2, being a less-frequent service on Wilshire, would be tied to a route with similar service: the present tail length of Line 3 from Santa Monica to UCLA. Line 2 would now become a bidrectional loop along Wilshire Bl. and Montana Av. between UCLA and Santa Monica.

Line 2 would also lose Santa Monica-to-Venice service, which would now be provided by Line 1.

By appending Montana Av. service to a Line 2 loop, this would improve reliability for both Montana Av. riders and Lincoln Bl. riders, as Line 3 becomes shorter.

This plan would not connect with Phase I of the Expo Line, but are included here as part of a restructuring tied to light rail service.

Route: UCLA Transit Center, Hilgard Av., Le Conte Av., Westwood Bl., Wilshire Bl., Ocean Av., Santa Monica Bl., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 4th St., Broadway, Ocean Av., Montana Av., Barrington Av., San Vicente Bl., Wilshire Bl., Westwood Bl., Le Conte Av., Hilgard Av. and UCLA Transit Center.

Line 3
Rationale: Line 3 would exist as it does now, but the northern terminal would now be 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl. Montana Av. service would now be provided by Line 2.

This plan would not connect with Phase I of the Expo Line, but are included here as part of a restructuring tied to light rail service.

Route: Ocean Av., Santa Monica Bl., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 4th St., Colorado Av., Ocean Av., Pico Bl., Lincoln Bl., Manchester Av., Sepulveda Bl., 96th St., LAX City Bus Center, 96th St., Airport Bl., Century Bl., Aviation Bl.,
Aviation/I-105 Green Line Station.

Line 4
Rationale: This is another route that won’t be affected by Expo Phase I, but a rerouting would be suitable. Line 4 would now assume the Brentwood route of Line 14 every day. It would terminate at Sunset Bl. & Church Ln.

Line 4 would also lose Sawtelle Bl. service, but it would be replaced by new Line 6, which would now connect the Expo Line to Brentwood.

Route: 4th St., Olympic Bl., Main St., Colorado Av., 4th St., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 4th St., San Vicente Bl./Carlyle Av., Barrington Av., Sunset Bl., Church Ln. and Ovada Pl.

Line 5
Rationale: Line 5 would be restructured to serve the Expo Line instead of Crackton. It would also replace a segment of Line 13 and now provide service outside of rush hours, but on weekdays only. On weekends, Line 5 terminates in Century City.

Route: 4th St., Wilshire Bl., 5th St., Arizona Av., 4th St., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 4th St., Colorado Av., 26th St., Olympic Bl., Century Park W., Constellation Bl., Century Park E., Olympic Bl., Beverly Dr., Monte Mar Dr., Bagley Av., Fairfax Av. and Fairfax/La Cienega Expo Line Station.
NEW Line 6

Rationale: The current designation for SMC Commuter would be used for a regular route service, which connects West L.A. and Brentwood to the Expo Line. It would also replace the VA Commuter line. Line 6 would provide 30 minute service every day along Sawtelle Bl. at existing service levels.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl., Palms Bl., Glendon Av., Charnock Rd., Sepulveda Bl., Palms Bl., Sawtelle Bl., Dowlen Dr., Bonsall Av., Eisenhower, Bingham Av., San Vicente Bl., Barrington Av., Montana Av. and San Vicente Bl.

Line 7
Rationale: Once and for all, it is time to send the Crackton Transfer to the dustbin of history like the streetcars that once terminated there. This does not affect Expo, but Pico Bl. riders should get the benefit of a single local and Rapid service by the time the Expo Line opens.

The suggested routing could be either Line 7 or Metro Line 30, but riders would prefer Big Blue Bus service, so it is proposed here. Consequently, whichever agency operates the local service, Big Blue Bus or Metro, the other would operate the Rapid service.

Route: Santa Monica Bl., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 4th St., Broadway, Ocean Bl., Pico Bl., Santa Monica College, Pico Bl., Broadway, 1st St., Alameda St., Cesar Chavez Av., Vignes St. and Union Station.

Line 8
NEW Line 18

Rationale: Line 8 would have weekday service reduced to every 30 minutes along Westwood Bl., and half of the service would be allocated to new branch Line 18. Otherwise, Line 8’s route stays the same.

Line 18 would provide another access way from the Expo Line to Santa Monica College and downtown Santa Monica. It would operate every 30 minutes weekdays only. It duplicates services that operate 7 days a week, so it would be supplemental.

Line 18 route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, Venice Bl., Bagley Av., National Bl., Palms Bl., Glendon Av., Charnock Rd., Sepulveda Bl., National Bl., Barrington Av., Ocean Park Bl., Main St., Colorado Av., 2nd St., Santa Monica Bl., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., 6th St., Colorado Av. and Main St.

Line 9
Rationale: Big Blue Bus Line 9 would replace Metro Line 534. Service along the lines are about the same, and freeway access would be maintained by Big Blue Bus Line 10.

Route: 4th St., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl., Santa Monica Bl., 6th St., Montana Av., 7th St., Entrada Dr., Channel Rd., Chautauqua Bl., Sunset Bl., Temescal Canyon Rd., Pacific Coast Hwy., Cross Creek Rd., Civic Center Wy., Malibu Canyon Rd., Pepperdine University, Pacific Coast Hwy. and Trancas Canyon Rd.

Line 12
Rationale: Line 12 would see two improvements. First, it would now terminate at Culver Junction. Second, it would provide a more direct route to UCLA. The Charnock Rd. service would be replaced by other routes, but since this is a popular service for Bruin students, Super 12 would be upgraded to Rapid 12 service on weekdays.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl., Venice Bl., Bagley Av., National Bl., National Pl, Westwood Bl., Le Conte Av., Hilgard Av. and UCLA Transit Center.

Line 14
Rationale: Big Blue Bus’ most productive route would get more so with extensions at both ends of the line. The northern terminal would be extended to UCLA Transit Center Monday through Saturday. The southern route would be extended to Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills, as was promised in a late-1990s restructuring. This route does not connect with Phase I of the Expo Line.

Route: (Monday-Saturday route) UCLA Transit Center, Hilgard Av., Le Conte Av., Gayley Av., Veteran Av., Sunset Bl., Barrington Av., Montana Av.
(Everyday route) Bundy Dr., Centinela Av., Sepulveda Bl. and Westfield Shoppingtown Fox Hills.
NEW Line 16

Rationale: This was another new service proposed in a late-1990s restructuring study, but was never implemented. The first phase of the Expo Lne would be a good chance to dust off this service.

Line 16 would be a new weekday-only minibus route running from Culver Junction to downtown Santa Monica via Palms Bl. and Rose Av.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl., Palms Bl., Glendon Av., Charnock Rd., Sepulveda Bl., Palms Bl., Walgrove Av., Venice High School, Venice Bl., Lincoln Bl., Rose Av., Main St., Colorado Av., 4th St., 4th St. & Santa Monica Bl.,, Santa Monica Bl., 6th St. and Colorado Av.
SMC Commuter

Rationale: This tripper for Santa Monica College students would be modified somewhat from its existing route to provide a limited-stop loop route connecting the Expo Line with the main SMC campus as well as the Airport and Academy of Entertainment Technology campuses. The route would operate rush hours only and use minibuses. The route can be unidirectional or bidirectional, depending on ridership levels.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl., Palms Bl., Glendo Av., Charnock Dr., Sepulveda Bl., Palms Bl., Centinela Av., Santa Monica Airport/Santa Mon ica College Airport Campus, Ocean Park Bl., 17th St., Pearl St., 14th St., Pico Bl., Santa Monica College Main Campus, Pico Bl., 20th St., Colorado Av., Stewart St., Santa Monica College Academy of Entertainment Technology, Stewart St., Olympic Bl., Westwood Bl., Westside Pavilion, Westwood Bl., National Bl., Overland Av., National Bl. and Culver Junction Expo Line Station.
NEW Rapid 12

Rationale: Super 12 service, presently a commuter route, would be upgraded to a weekday-only Rapid line along Westwood Bl. with midday service. It would connect the Expo Line to UCLA with limited-stop service. It would also preserve the route of the existing Line 12.

Route: Culver Junction Expo Line Station, National Bl., Venice Bl., Robertson Bl., National Bl., Palms Bl., Sepulveda Bl., National Bl., Westwood Bl., Westside Pavilion, Westwood Bl. and UCLA Ackerman Union.