The Thin Red Line: A Review of Taylor, Kim, & Gahbauer

The LA Subway Blog - Transportation, Real Estate, and the Future of Los Angeles: The Thin Red Line: A Review of Taylor, Kim, & Gahbauer

The Thin Red Line: A Review of Taylor, Kim, & Gahbauer
Posted by Juan Sunday, December 27, 2009

Brian Taylor, our esteemed professor of Urban Planning at UCLA and transportation finance expert, and John Gahbauer, our favorite transit geek and UCLA colleague, along with Eugene Kim, co-authored a paper on the history of transportation planning in the Wilshire Corridor in Los Angeles. This is a review of their paper, which appears in the Journal of Planning Education and Research (requires subscription or library access). I believe you can also visit the Metro Library to view a copy.

Taylor begins by discussing the tendency of politicians to pursue large capital projects in favor of incremental operational improvements. The "monument" or "ribbon-cutting" effects of new capital projects have proven very attractive to politicians. It's difficult to hold a photo-op in front of increased bus frequency, but much easier in front of a subway station:

Most transit capital projects are subjected to cost-benefit analysis, but costs are often underestimated and benefits are almost universally overestimated.

These generalizations are present to varying degrees in the history of the Wilshire Subway. Planning on what will eventually become the Wilshire Subway began in the 1970s, but encountered many hurdles along the way. A giant hurdle was the 1980s prohibition of the use of federal funds to tunnel under Henry Waxman's district in Beverly Hills, which came after a methane deposit under a Ross store exploded and burned for several days. Out of the political negotiations surrounding this ban came the present day Purple line stub at Wilshire & Western. In order to circumvent this ban, planners proposed less cost-effective routes. Taylor shows how these alternate routes, which were never seriously studied, were inferior to the proposed Wilshire route.


Proposed Southern route

Taylor argues that the Wilshire Route, along the "linear downtown," is one of the most transit-friendly corridors in the West. With over 100,000 bus riders per day, traffic congestion, expensive parking, high residential density, high peak hour volumes, Wilshire Boulevard is likely the most cost-effective subway corridor in Southern California. There are 7x more workers on the Wilshire foute than the southern alternative along San Vicente & Pico. Later on, Taylor points out that just 3 of nearly a dozen lines which travel on Wilshire (18, 20, and 720) have a combined ridership of 90,033 per day, 1/3 more than the Gold, Green, and Orange lines combined (66,871 per day).

In 2005, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was elected. A strong proponent of the subway, he negotiated with Waxman to lift the ban on tunneling, and took implicit responsibility for any incidents that may arise from tunneling under Wilshire. Villaraigosa and other politicians pushed for Measure R, the voter approved 1/2 cent sales tax which will provide the funding for the first two segments of the subway. Federal loans and grants could build more subway quicker.

The proposed 2009 route isn't much different from the 1979 route.

Taylor, Gahbauer, and Kim offer a great overview of the history of the Wilshire Subway in Los Angeles. I learned a lot about the political tumult in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the power of one man, Waxman, to impact the urban form of a city for so many years.

Side Note: Monorails have been proposed along Wilshire for well over 100 years. They've never been taken seriously, as aerial structures would severely disrupt the nature of the neighborhood.

Santa Monica: Residents get first look at multi-story transit project (Source: The Argonaut)

Link: The Argonaut: Top Stories

Santa Monica: Residents get first look at multi-story transit project

BY GARY WALKER

Santa Monica officials and a real estate management company are exploring the possibility of a mixed-use complex near a future light rail site at Bergamot Station, which they believe will provide increased green space, housing and commercial opportunities.

In addition, planning representatives believe that attracting employees who work in or adjacent to Santa Monica to the residential units will bring the added bonus of reducing automobile traffic in the beachside city.

Residents of the Pico Neighborhood heard a presentation on the planned mixed use development near the site of the Mid-City/Exposition Light Rail Line on December 15th and the reaction to the project appeared to be mixed.

Santa Monica Planning Director Eileen Fogarty and Jing Yeo, the city’s special projects manager, opened the evening with a visual presentation of what the proposed transit-oriented project, which is at the former Paper Mate factory north of Olympic Boulevard, will entail.

The developer of the proposed venture, Hines, purchased the property in 2007 and is seeking to build a nearly one million-square -foot complex that will house residential units, along with space for the creative arts and entertainment, retail, commercial and office space.

Hines Senior Vice President Colin Shepherd followed Fogarty and Yeo and explained the benefits that the developer feels the project will bring to Santa Monica.

Shepherd said the mixed-use complex would be LEED certified, and the plans also include the possibility of building an amphitheater at the complex.

LEED certification is the nationally recognized standard for measuring sustainability, according to the National Resources Defense Council.

The developer will also attempt to lure local workers to live in the residential component of the complex, which in turn could help to alleviate congestion near the transit corridor and other areas of the city, Shepherd said. He added that they would especially like to attract firefighters, police officers and teachers.

“We will target those who work in the area,” Shepherd told the audience. “When there is a person working in the nearby area that can walk to work, the (car) trip that would have been generated no longer exits.”

Nearly 100 residents attended the public hearing, and most who addressed the developer appeared interested and supportive of what is being considered by the city.

“It seems to me that there’s a balance of spaces for creative arts and housing, and bike and pedestrian friendly access,” said Jerry Rubin, a longtime Santa Monica environmental activist. “I think it’s good that it is also a LEED-certified project, even though they are not required by the city to do so.”

Rubin said he was generally pleased with the tone of the meeting and he feels that both Hines and planning officials seem to be considering what the public offered as feedback on the night of the hearing.

“I sensed that the developer and the city are listening to the public,” he said.

Robert Rosenstein told Shepherd that he is worried about the potential for increased traffic, particularly for residents who live near Colorado Avenue.

“Folks north of Colorado are very concerned not only about this project, but the other four projects that are on the drawing board that will be nearby,” said Rosenstein, who lives on Yale Street. “My street will be destined for a lot of the traffic coming out of these four projects because it’s a way for people to get to the 405 (freeway).

“I think that it’s going to be a challenge for anyone to develop this site.”

A five-story post-production facility and a LEED-certified, 3.85-acre mixed-use project are being proposed on Colorado for next year, as well as another mixed-use complex with 135,000 square feet of office space and 84 residential units. A three-story, 91-unit artist lofts project is also in the works, but its environmental impact report has been suspended per the applicant’s request.

All three are within blocks of the former Paper Mate location.

In an interview with The Argonaut after the meeting, Shepherd mentioned his company’s longtime involvement with Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) process, and attending a number of meetings in recent years has given them an idea what city officials and residents want for their city.

“We’ve been hearing from a lot of people over the past three years during the LUCE process, and at the (December 15th) public hearing, we did not hear anything that was new,” he said.

The Hines executive acknowledged that one of the most frequent complaints about the planned transit development is centered around the potential for added traffic in certain areas, and he and city traffic engineers are taking that concern seriously.

“We are the closest site to the light rail line and one of the best ways to mitigate traffic is with rail,” Shepherd stated.

City Councilman Kevin McKeown also attended the community meeting and he said the City Council will be faced with a dilemma when Hines makes its presentation before the city’s governing body.

“The question is how much new traffic we’re willing to risk in one of Santa Monica’s critical crossroads, and how much new commercial office space we

still need,” the councilman told The Argonaut. “We want a vital mixed-use gateway across from the future Expo station, with restaurants and retail, affordable housing, local jobs, and pedestrian and bicycle access.”

Shepherd also addressed the height of his proposed project and sought to clarify the significance of how tall the complex would be as compared to what the developer can legally build.

“We are ten percent below the current density and just over ten percent above the current height requirement. In the original LUCE draft, there was an average building height of 78 feet,” he explain-ed. “The current LUCE document has an average of 65 feet, and our proposed building height is 71.”

The current zoning in the area where the transit center is proposed is 84 feet.

McKeown noted that the planned transit development is a green project, but said that was to be expected.

“LEED certification is a given, not a negotiating point,” he asserted.

Rubin pointed out that this was the first presentation of the project and it still requires approval of the City Council.

“It’s the beginning of the process, and I’m hopeful that everyone can come together to make this a win-win situation,” he said.

The developer has been tracking the former Paper Mate site for many years, Shepherd said.

“We purchased the land with a strong positive use in mind,” he said. “Santa Monica is a very involved community, and we would like to hear all of the individual ideas and concerns with our project.”

McKeown said the inclusion of units that could house creative arts-related businesses might help the public’s perception of the project.

“If we could guarantee true arts-related creative space, I’d be more comfortable, but often such promises fall prey to broad interpretation and we end up with creative accounting,” he said.

Shepherd told the audience at the public meeting that city officials are working with the former owners of the property toward remediation for environmental hazards due to various chemicals and solvents that found their way into the Olympic Wellfield, an aquifer that represents the city’s second largest groundwater supply.

Santa Monica Assistant City Attorney Joseph Lawrence confirmed that Gillette, which purchased the site from Paper Mate in 2004, has agreed to clean up contaminated soil at the site and transfer property to Santa Monica valued at approximately $3.25 million as part of a $68 million settlement agreement.

Hines is slated to present its proposal to the Planning Commission on January 27th.

Japan ups pace in race for U.S. bullet train deal

By JAY ALABASTER

The Associated Press

NAGOYA — On a desolate stretch of track just before midnight, when all passenger lines have been put to bed, a juiced-up bullet train goes online and accelerates to over 320 kph. The 700-ton train, about 400 meters long, whooshes by rice paddies in under 5 seconds. There are no locals around to witness the train glide to a stop at a deserted Kyoto Station, but that's not the point. This is an accelerated sales pitch aimed squarely at the U.S., where Japan is competing with European train makers for a new high-speed train network that could deliver contracts worth hundreds of billions.

Diplomats, business leaders and journalists were crammed in to watch special speedometers record the feat last month, the first time Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) has allowed outsiders to join a test run. Rivals abroad said Japanese trains weren't up to spec, and JR Tokai wanted to set the record straight.

"In France and Germany they have been saying we can only do 280 kph, so we had to demonstrate," JR Tokai Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai said.

That Japan's bottlenose bullet trains can hold their own against overseas models has long been a point of pride. But now a massive sales race is under way. While the majority of services to date have been built in Europe, where makers like France's Alstom and Germany's Siemens dominate, governments around the world are looking to upgrade as existing lines age.

A diverse group of countries is at various stages of introducing supertrains, including Russia, the U.K., Vietnam and Brazil, but the U.S. is the ultimate prize.

President Barack Obama's stimulus package included an $8 billion provision for high-speed trains, and some say eventually $600 billion will be needed for a nationwide network. Japan's exports to the U.S. last year totaled about $140 billion.

A high-speed network would drastically cut U.S. train times. The Washington-to-New York route would drop from 2 1/2 hours to about 70 minutes, according to Kasai. That would create a viable alternative to planes and cars, cutting down on traffic and depositing travelers at stations that are often in the city center.

Some analysts question whether cash-strapped Washington can afford to follow up the initial provision with more funds. But building new train lines can also be a vote winner, hitting political touchstones like jobs and reduced pollution.

JR Tokai, one of the operators created when the Japanese National Railway was privatized in 1987, is leading the charge in the U.S., but is also taking a risky winner-takes-all approach. The carrier is pitching a total package covering everything from train cars to signals to maintenance machinery and even employee instruction — even though many in the industry prefer to rely on a variety of suppliers.

Few countries have the technology to safely move passengers and hundreds of tons of train so swiftly.

Japan was an early innovator, launching services in 1964 to coincide with the Tokyo Olympics. Rivals with more experience at exporting include Alstom, a world leader by market share, and Siemens, which already has a light rail factory in Sacramento, Calif. Both have 320-kph trains in Europe and have said they will pursue the rail dollars from Washington.

Japan is hoping its close political ties to the U.S. will give its sales pitch a boost. When Obama visited Tokyo last month, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama highlighted Japanese trains and handed over promotional DVDs.

The country has had some success abroad. Earlier this week the U.K. launched its first high-speed service using trains made by Hitachi. In Vietnam, a major recipient of Japanese government financial assistance, officials have said they want to use Japan's technology for a new train network that may include high-speed services.

JR Tokai runs high-speed services on the prized routes from Tokyo to Kyoto and Osaka, and designs and operates its own fleet. Bullet trains built by the company are currently used in a high-speed network in Taiwan, the first time they were sold abroad.

But that $18 billion project combines the Japanese train cars with technologies from other countries, a hodgepodge solution that JR Tokai wants to avoid in the U.S., because it means modifying proven technologies and a smaller paycheck.

"This is not a system that can be divided up into parts, and we are proposing adoption of the entire system," said Tsutomu Morimura, an executive in charge of JR Tokai's technology division.

Morimura says this is the only way to employ the company's advanced technology and guarantee a safe and efficient system. Rail experts agree that Japan's train tech is among the best in the world, but wonder whether an all-or-nothing approach will work in the U.S.

"If you rely totally and completely on a single country, when a problem arises there is a lot of risk, so the fundamental stance of many buyers is not to rely on the technology from one country," said Credit Suisse analyst Osuke Itazaki.

Robert Eckels, chairman of Texas High Speed Rail Corp., which is working to bring such a system to the state, was present at the demonstration in Japan. He was impressed but wasn't sure how the company's all-in-one pitch would play out in the States.

Unlike in Europe, where border crossings and ensuring compatibility on differing rail networks are prerequisites for doing business, Japan's trains have been developed on an island, with homegrown technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but incompatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.

Another wrinkle: Japan's high-speed trains run on their own tracks, with no crossings and dedicated bridges over crowded areas. Building such lines from scratch in the U.S. would be costly, but executives like Morimura say it's an advantage to be unconstrained by the standards of conventional networks.

Bullet trains do have an impressive history. No passengers have died from a derailment or collision in nearly a half century of service, with the only derailment during a major earthquake in 2004. The average delay for JR Tokai services each year, despite hundreds of trains each day, is typically less than a minute.

For Japan, billions in contracts would be a welcome boost as the economy begins to recover from recession, and help stir national pride.

The shinkansen are a symbol of the country's technological prowess here, where services have names like "Hope" and "Light," and miniature replicas are popular with children.

When one of the original trains was retired and put on display at a museum on the outskirts of Tokyo earlier this year, some 16,000 visitors crammed in during the first week to take pictures and rub its elongated nose.

The Japan Times

(C) All rights reserved

Roundup on Articles on the Gold Line

Article 1

Advocates push for Gold Line extension

Dec. 19, 2009 | KPCC Wire Services

GLENDORA — Political leaders in eastern Los Angeles County plan to press the Metropolitan Transit Authority board to expedite funding for a light rail train extension from Sierra Madre to Arcadia, Montclair and beyond.

The Pasadena Star-News reported that backers of the Gold Line's eastern extension plan to lobby the MTA Board to vote in January to transfer funds to the project. If approved by MTA, the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority could make a deal with a contractor, who would start the project and be paid over the years, as Measure R funds trickle in.

The east county transit advocates say construction could begin next year if the borrowing arrangement is approved, with an eye on completion by 2013. If no agreement is in place by January, the extension will not be finished until 2017, the Pasadena Star-News reported.

Drawings of the Gold Line extension were unveiled by the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority Friday, as plans for a massive viaduct straddling the eastbound Foothill (210) Freeway lanes were presented.

The 739-foot bridge will stretch diagonally across the freeway at an angle, to carry the tracks from the freeway median to its south side near Santa Anita Avenue in Arcadia. It will be adorned by four basket-shaped columns that pay tribute to the basket-weaving of the Chumash Indians.

Officials estimate the bridge will cost $20 million to $25 million.

The proposed extension will continue the Metro Gold Line from its current terminus in East Pasadena through the cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair.

East county transit advocates say it is in competition with light rail projects in West Los Angeles, the Crenshaw District and Inglewood, as well as the proposed Wilshire Boulevard subway.

Article 2

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Holds State of the Project

Posted by mincho2008

Monday, 21 December 2009

Today, the Foothill Extension Construction Authority held its 2009 State of the Project to commemorate 10 years of achievement and usher in its next phase of construction. Featuring a diverse coalition of local, state and federal leaders, and transportation and community advocates, the dialogue underscored the critical deadlines needed to meet the Authority's June 2010 groundbreaking schedule and the growing excitement around the project moving forward. The San Gabriel Valley's Congressional leadership, Rep. Judy Chu, Rep. David Dreier and Rep. Adam Schiff offered a collective look at the project's past decade while addressing key issues about its future. Their remarks struck a similar note: it is imperative to keep our commitment to the residents of Los Angeles and ensure that the next leg of this vital public transportation project proceeds as planned. Rep. Schiff outlined the many accomplishments achieved by the Authority during its first decade. "The Gold Line has been very successful in getting people out of their cars, improving traffic and spurring economic development," said Schiff. "I am very excited to see that construction on the extension will begin soon, and I am committed to pushing ahead until the line reaches Ontario Airport." Citing the enormous benefits the Foothill Extension will bring to the region, Rep. Judy Chu focused on what the Gold Line will mean to local communities. "I'm here to say to the people of the San Gabriel Valley that we heard you -- your demand for the rail line and your desire for less congestion on our freeways, less pollution in our communities and a catalyst for new jobs and economic development. This project will go a long way towards meeting the growing needs of our corridor cities, and I look forward to playing an important role in the work that lies ahead." Ever mindful of the extraordinary collaboration it took to reach 10 years of achievement, Rep. Dreier spoke with pride and concern about progress moving forward. "I have been a strong advocate for the Foothill Extension from its inception and I'm proud to be a part of the Congressional delegation that came together to voice its support for the project. But we need to make sure that we recommit our advocacy on behalf of this important project, and keep the momentum going to fund the line to Montclair and to LA/Ontario International Airport," stated Dreier. "With unparalleled support from every level of government, we have the opportunity to create a regional transportation system befitting the 21st Century." During a morning workshop about the project's status and schedule, Habib F. Balian, Construction Authority CEO, and Christopher Burner, Construction Authority Chief Project Officer, told attendees a crucial fund transfer agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) must be finalized in January to reach the Phase 2A groundbreaking planned for June. "To meet the Authority charter and Measure R commitments to taxpayers, our mission is clear -- begin construction in June 2010," said Balian. "Today, the Authority is on the cusp of doing just that. With plans being finalized and a community waiting for increased public transit options, we are poised to complete our project to the County line and beyond." The State of the Project also featured the first look at the project slated to break ground in June, the Iconic Freeway Structure titled The Gateway to the San Gabriel Valley. The Gateway is the bridge that will span Interstate 210 in Arcadia. A scale model of The Gateway was unveiled as artist Andrew Leicester discussed his design process and symbolism. Researcher Michael Several presented Going for the Gold, an overview of public art featured in Phase 1 from Union Station to Pasadena. Going for the Gold is a collaborative project between USC Libraries and Several, with funding from the California Council for the Humanities' California Story Fund. State of the Project Workshop presentations will be available later today on the Authority's web site - www.foothillextension.org. About the Metro Gold Line Construction Authority The Metro Gold Line Construction Authority is an independent transportation planning and construction agency created in 1999 by the California State Legislature. Its purpose is to extend the Metro Gold Line from Union Station to Montclair, enhancing the transportation experience of commuters in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. The Metro Gold Line light rail system opened in 2003, connecting downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena. Funds from Los Angeles County Measure R half-cent sales tax increase will be used for the construction of the Foothill Extension from the Sierra Madre Villa station in Pasadena to Azusa, beginning in 2010.

Roundup on Articles on the Expo Line

Article 1
Delays won't derail Expo project

By Nick Taborek

December 19, 2009
DOWNTOWN — Despite delays and cost overruns during Phase One of the Expo Light Rail project, which is expected to link Santa Monica to Downtown Los Angeles by 2015, City Hall officials and mass transit supporters remain confident the project is on track.

The environmental impact report for the rail line's second phase — the portion that will run from Culver City to Downtown Santa Monica — was released on Friday and is slated to come before the Expo authority's board of directors for a vote Feb. 4. Construction could begin by the end of 2010.

Last week the Los Angeles Times reported the first phase of the project, which was originally supposed to open this summer, has fallen more than a year behind schedule and is running $220 million over budget.

But because the line's two phases are separate projects with separate environmental review processes, delays to the first leg don't necessarily affect the Santa Monica segment, said Mayor Pro Tem Pam O'Connor, who sits on the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority's board of directors.

"It's not like we have to wait until everything in Phase One is done to begin Phase Two," she said.

O'Connor also downplayed cost concerns during the first phase, saying some of the added expenses were because of added infrastructure improvements to the project, not mismanagement. She added the second phase could go more smoothly because of knowledge and experience gained during Phase One.

"Certainly the design-build contracting method (for the second phase) has been refined based on lessons learned," she said.

Supporters of the line are gearing up for a final push as the second phase environmental impact report heads to the board.

"Elected officials need to see there's public support," said Darrell Clarke, who heads the group Friends 4 Expo.

Clarke, a former planning commissioner, agreed that concerns about the first phase don't have bearing on the Santa Monica section's timeline for completion.

"The second half is about a mile shorter," he said. "It's really simpler."

But Kevin Hughes, the president of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association and a past critic of the Expo Authority's handling of the project, said delays during Phase One could cause transportation leaders to expedite Phase Two, while ignoring community groups' concerns.

"Certainly we would expect to hear the argument, 'Hey there's more pressure on you in Phase Two to get this thing moving'" because of Phase One delays, he said.

Hughes' group has asked the Expo Authority to consider putting the rail line underground in the Century City area, citing traffic and safety concerns.

Maintenance yard update

A land swap designed to aid the Expo line's need for a maintenance yard moved ahead last week, as the Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustees unanimously decided to allow its president to negotiate a deal with City Hall that would compensate the college for SMC-owned land slated to become the rail yard.

Under the plan, a 2.35-acre lot at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard currently being used as a parking lot would be used for the maintenance facility. In exchange, City Hall would give the college a lot of equal value located near SMC's Bundy Campus.

Some neighborhood residents have opposed the idea, claiming the proposed rail yard will be yet another environmental blight in an area already impacted by the I-10 Freeway and a solid waste transfer station.

The final EIR for the second phase of the Expo project includes a plan to build a 100-foot buffer aimed at sheltering homes in the vicinity from the proposed facility.

Article 2

Final environmental report issued for pAroposed Expo Line extension

prayitno/Flickr CC

A Metro train nearing downtown Los Angeles, California.

Dec. 20, 2009 | KPCC Wire Services

A Final Environmental Impact report for the proposed Expo Line light rail project has been released, and Westside residents have been told that the hoped-for overpasses cannot be provided near several schoolyards.

The proposed passenger train service will mostly run along the old Southern Pacific tracks from Venice at Robertson boulevards to eastern Santa Monica. The tracks will likely shift to Colorado Boulevard to a proposed downtown terminus three blocks from the pier.

Regional transit authorities have already voted to build the train tracks. The earlier, eastern phase of the project is already under construction between Culver City and downtown Los Angeles, and will be running by 2012.

Regional transit authorities have already voted to build the train tracks. The earlier, eastern phase of the project is already under construction between Culver City and downtown Los Angeles, and will be running by 2012.

The EIR is a government-required study of all imaginable impacts that could be caused by extending passenger train service through the area. The public is allowed to comment on it until Feb. 4.

The Exposition Construction Authority will afterward vote on it, in what will effectively be the final

decision on how to build the $314 million project.

In the final version of the EIR, requests from some Westside residents for overpasses at Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue were rejected by the study authors, who said having light-rail tracks crossing the arterial streets will meet safety standards. Elementary schools are nearby those grade

crossings, and state regulatory agencies have ordered MTA to add safety equipment at similar crossings near schools in the Crenshaw District.

But planners said an overpass might be needed to lift the light rail tracks over Sepulveda Boulevard and Sawtelle Avenue, two busy roads that parallel the Santa Monica (10) Freeway under the San Diego (405) Freeway interchange. City of Los Angeles planners convinced the Expo Authority that the

heavy traffic that frequently gridlocks there should not be aggravated with trains.

The Sepulveda-Sawtelle bridge would connect to one planned over the Pico-Gateway boulevards intersection, and Sawtelle Avenue would have to be dropped into a shallow trench so the light rail trains could squeeze under the adjacent 405 viaduct.

The study retains several alternatives for later decision, including whether to eliminate 170 commuter parking spaces proposed for the Westwood Boulevard station, another lightning rod for neighborhood opposition. The decision to ban parking along Colorado Boulevard in Santa Monica, and the exact configuration of the downtown terminus have yet to be determined.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the first phase of the Expo Line is late and over-budget. But Santa Monica officials said the ballooning cost was the result of overpasses and other features demanded by stakeholders along the tracks, and said Phase Two is not expected to have such problems.

Many Westside residents have bitterly opposed running up to 24 trains per hour through the expensive, leafy neighborhoods along the abandoned railroad tracks. After that route was adopted, they cited the nearby schools and houses and asked that the train be elevated or put into a trench near Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue.

But similar requests were turned down for cost reasons in crowded inner-city neighborhoods, and Expo officials say MTA policies on grade separations for light-rail trains show that the street and pedestrian crossings will be safe, and not congested.

The EIR contains evaluations for not building the train and using buses, but rejects that option because it would require 37 buses and create pollution and congestion. An alternate route, sparing Cheviot Hills but using Sepulveda and Venice boulevards, was rejected as costlier than the old Southern Pacific tracks.

The Final Environmental Impact Report was released late Friday, and is available online at www.buildexpo.org .

Two differing views on High-Speed Rail

Alliance pushes high-speed train corridor

By Richard N. Velotta (contact), In Business reporter

Fri, Dec 18, 2009 (3 a.m.)

Jacob Snow

MARSHALL ALLEN / LAS VEGAS SUN

The Shanghai Transrapid maglev train at a station in Shanghai, Nov. 9, 2009.

DesertXpress

A newly created alliance of local transit agencies will try to persuade federal authorities that stimulus money should be used on high-speed rail corridor studies, a move that could put Las Vegas back on the map as a railroad town.

The Western High-Speed Rail Alliance wants the Federal Railroad Administration to fund a key portion of President Barack Obama’s transportation strategy: the development of a nationwide high-speed train network.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, backers of high-speed rail systems in Japan spoke at UNLV to show interest in providing its technology for systems built in the United States.

The Railroad Administration’s plan for high-speed rail includes corridors in California, the Pacific Northwest and east of the Mississippi River, but nothing in the Intermountain West. The alliance contends that Western cities such as Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Denver will be among the fastest growing in the next few decades and should be connected with high-speed rail.

Jacob Snow, general manager of the Las Vegas-based Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and chairman of the alliance, said local transit agencies need to take the lead on developing high-speed passenger rail because the most difficult part of the planning is the final miles to bring a line into a city.

Snow and other members of the four-state alliance held in an Internet news conference last week. Snow and Tom Skancke, a Las Vegas-based transportation consultant, have been the driving forces for forming the alliance, which includes representatives from the Utah Transit Authority, the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission and Arizona’s Maricopa Association of Governments.

Skancke said the alliance is in the process of incorporating as a nonprofit organization that would approach federal agencies for money to develop a high-speed rail network that would tie into planned rail lines across the country.

The alliance is important to Las Vegas because the city is a key hub in the regional network. A rough route map presented by Skancke at a meeting of the North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce in October showed routes linking Las Vegas with Phoenix and Salt Lake City as priorities. Other priority routes include Phoenix to Los Angeles, Salt Lake City to Denver and Salt Lake City to Reno.

The alliance has acknowledged a route linking Las Vegas with Los Angeles is a high priority that is being pursued by competing private interests. Snow said the Regional Transportation Commission has met regularly with the developers of DesertXpress and the American Magline Group, which want to build lines between Las Vegas and Southern California. The commission is neutral in its support of DesertXpress, which plans a traditional high-speed rail, or American Magline, which backs magnetic-levitation transport.

At the Dec. 9 news conference, Snow said he is pleased that Obama has made high-speed rail a priority, but he thinks multistate approaches to building a national rail network are key to its success, just as the interstate highway system was developed.

Alliance members say they have been working with their state transportation departments to get them to understand the organization’s concepts.

The group has been talking with the Railroad Administration on freight lines. Separating passenger and freight lines would benefit both systems. Snow said he is open to discussions with other states to expand the alliance. He has been in contact with California, New Mexico and Idaho, which have shown interest in the organization’s goals.

On Dec. 7, the Central Japan Railway Co., operator of the famed Shinkansen “bullet train,” told an audience at UNLV it is interested in bringing its technology to the United States. The presentation was the fourth in a series of high-speed rail forums sponsored by UNLV’s Transportation Research Center and the Ward 5 Chamber of Commerce.

Two high-speed proposals are in different stages of development. The traditional steel-wheel DesertXpress would connect Las Vegas to Victorville, Calif., has completed an environmental-impact statement on its proposed route, and managers have said construction would begin on the $4 billion project in next year’s first quarter.

American Magline Group, would use magnetic levitation technology with a route that would go to Anaheim, Calif. The maglev is at least a year behind DesertXpress, and the company estimates it would cost $12 billion to build.

The Central Japan Railway is on the outside looking in on the existing proposals because DesertXpress has partnered with Canada-based Bombardier as its primary supplier, while American Magline is working with Transrapid of Germany, which has a commercially operating maglev in Shanghai.

Tsutomu Morimura, senior executive director and director general of the technology division of the Central Japan Railway, said his company has patented anti-derailing guard rails and post-derailment stoppers on tracks to help prevent trains from coming off their tracks in an earthquake.

Morimura said the Shinkansen is on its fifth generation design and the N700-I model the company is pitching worldwide has a maximum cruising speed of 205 mph — 55 mph faster than the DesertXpress.

But Morimura said operators of trains in Southern California and Southern Nevada should pay attention to earthquakes and take measures to prevent derailments.

Central Japan Railway, based in one of the most earthquake-prone regions in the world, has conducted vibration tests on high-speed-rail bogies and developed track enhancements to head off derailments.

High-speed myths / Business plan shows deceit of bullet train push

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2009 AT MIDNIGHT

Thirteen months ago, California voters bamboozled by a governor with an edifice complex and a swooning media made one of their dumbest decisions in recent memory. They gave narrow approval to Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond billed as a one-time-only taxpayer “down payment” on a $34 billion high-speed rail system linking Northern and Southern California. The rest of the funding was supposed to come from the private sector and the federal government.

Bullet trains are a cool concept that have proven popular – if very expensive – in other parts of the world. But the bold promises made by Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest of the pro-1A camp for California’s version went beyond outlandish to preposterous.

Advocates said annual ridership would be so enormous – 117 million – that the project would become massively profitable and would have vast environmental and traffic benefits by getting tens of thousands of polluting vehicles off the state’s roads. Ridership would be so voluminous that economies of scale would hold the cost of trips from Los Angeles to San Francisco to just $55 and that 450,000 non-transportation-related jobs would be created as a result.

There was just one problem: The ridership figure that was central to all these claims was seemingly invented out of whole cloth. The entire Amtrak system, which has more than 500 destinations in 46 states, has but 26 million passengers a year. The 117 million estimate was also vastly inflated from rail advocates’ own initial estimates – almost certainly because an honest estimate would have been a harder sell.

The grotesqueness of this exaggeration was widely known in fall 2008. Beyond this fundamental problem, a Reason Foundation study assisted by Joseph Vranich, a former president of the High Speed Rail Association, exposed basic errors in speed and safety claims.

The governor didn’t care. Neither, amazingly, did much of the state media. The same editorial pages that are now deeply and appropriately worried about the state’s dangerously high levels of bond debt in many cases backed high-speed rail.

Now, finally, California High-Speed Rail Authority officials are being forced to discuss their project more honestly. An updated business plan released this week scraps several ridiculous claims in favor of somewhat or slightly less ridiculous claims. The San Francisco-Los Angeles fare is now projected to be $105, not $55. Annual ridership is now expected to be 41 million, not 117 million.

But other key claims endure – especially the daffy assertion that 450,000 non-transportation-related jobs would be created by the train system. And an absolutely crucial finding in the updated plan was glossed over. It noted that private investors were very wary to risk their money without an additional “clear public funding commitment” – which can only be interpreted as a demand that the project have so much taxpayer money in it that it becomes, yes, too big to fail.

Meanwhile, a new report says California’s freeways rank 49th among the states in pavement condition.

What’s wrong with this picture? Everything.