Activist Calls For Congressional Safety Hearings on Blue Line Safety
Updated 3:00 PM PDT, Fri, May 22, 2009
A day after a man was killed and a woman injured in separate collisions involving the Metro Blue Line, an activist today called for congressional hearings on the safety of the light rail line between downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach.
A 55-year-old man was struck and killed by a northbound train in the 1600 block of East 48th Street yesterday. About five and a half hours later, a 49-year-old woman was critically injured when she was struck by a Blue Line train in the 1500 block of South Flower Street.
Since the Blue Line opened in 1990, there have been 826 collisions and 93 deaths. Metro officials say about 20 of those deaths were suicides.
"Clearly, MTA is indifferent to the safety of the members of the public who must interface with their trains," said Damien Goodmon of the Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line.
"Absent congressional intervention and oversight to require MTA quickly implement necessary changes to their rail system and internal processes, MTA will continue killing on the tracks with impunity," he said. "How much longer must these preventable tragedies continue to occur?"
Metro officials said the criticism ignores safety improvements, including safety cameras and gates that stop motorists and pedestrians from crossing when trains are approaching intersections.
Those safety measures have also been implemented along the Metro Gold Line and the under-construction Eastside Extension.
"It's really been an evolving process over the last 20 years," said Metro spokesman Rick Jager. "We need a partner here and that partner is the public. They need to be aware that trains have the right of way and they need to stop, look and listen."
Copyright City News Service
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Obama's Stimulus Projects Won't Amount to Major Infrastructure Overhaul
Obama's Stimulus Projects Won't Amount to Major Infrastructure Overhaul
By Amanda Ruggeri
Posted May 22, 2009
source, just click here.
Describing the $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama evokes the 1950s construction of the interstate system, conjuring images of highways, bridges, and orange cones. "Throughout our history, there have been times when a generation of Americans seized the chance to remake the face of this nation," he said last month. "And that's what we're doing today: building a 21st-century infrastructure."
People Who Read This Also Read
*
Antimatter & Destruction: Particle Physics Plays Central Role in Angels & Demons 24673066
*
Obama Aides: Cheney Is Just Rehashing Old Bush Administration Fights 24701390
*
10-Week Workout: Talking Motivation With Matthew Reeve 24700336
*
Obama is Right: Cheney and Bush Fell For Bin Laden's Terrorist Trick 24677584
*
How Obama Is Revamping America's Cars 24630780
Recommendations by Loomia
But as projects are chosen, it's becoming clear that the program may amount to little more than an infrastructure face-lift. Owing to the need for speed and to institutional obstacles, most stimulus transportation projects are small and localized. "Here and there, people will notice things," says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation. He cites repaired potholes and new streetlights. "But I don't think the country as a whole will say, 'Wow, transportation is so much better,' " Poole says.
This stems from the law's main purpose: creating jobs quickly. It prioritizes projects that will be completed within three years. Major highway construction typically takes 13 years from start to finish, reports the Federal Highway Administration.
So more than three quarters of the approved highway projects' funds will go to repaving and widening roads, while less than 6 percent will pay for new construction, according to the investigative nonprofit ProPublica. Other reports show that smaller, rural projects, like bridges, often receive funding priority over those that might get more traffic, largely because they can be launched more quickly.
That doesn't necessarily make the spending ineffective. One quarter of major urban roads, for example, are in poor condition and would benefit from repairs. But it does mean that few projects will have sweeping effects.
One project that experts say could be "transformational" is limited by a lack of funding. High-speed rail, which Obama says could benefit 10 major corridors between cities around the country, was slated for $8 billion in the stimulus, and Obama has asked Congress for $5 billion more over five years. But the Government Accountability Office estimates that constructing high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco alone will cost about $33 billion. Similarly, while the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that the nation's highways and bridges need an annual investment of $166 billion through 2015, the stimulus package has only $27.5 billion. Overall, the law allots $48.1 billion to the Department of Transportation, or just 6 percent of total stimulus funds.
An even bigger problem, experts say, is how that funding is doled out. Decisions are often politicized and are rarely coordinated between levels of government. Transportation dollars are traditionally spread thinly, "like peanut butter," says Robert Puentes, senior fellow in the Brookings Institution's metropolitan policy program. "We don't do cost-benefit analysis in this country." That is a systemic problem, unrelated to the stimulus. But it could be addressed in the next big infrastructure battle. The so-called highway bill, which maps out funding for the country's roads, bridges, and transit over the next five years, is due to be reauthorized this fall. America may not have a clear vision for its transportation system, but infrastructure advocates, not to mention Americans who have ever sat in stalled traffic or bumped over a pothole, hope that will change.
By Amanda Ruggeri
Posted May 22, 2009
source, just click here.
Describing the $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama evokes the 1950s construction of the interstate system, conjuring images of highways, bridges, and orange cones. "Throughout our history, there have been times when a generation of Americans seized the chance to remake the face of this nation," he said last month. "And that's what we're doing today: building a 21st-century infrastructure."
People Who Read This Also Read
*
Antimatter & Destruction: Particle Physics Plays Central Role in Angels & Demons 24673066
*
Obama Aides: Cheney Is Just Rehashing Old Bush Administration Fights 24701390
*
10-Week Workout: Talking Motivation With Matthew Reeve 24700336
*
Obama is Right: Cheney and Bush Fell For Bin Laden's Terrorist Trick 24677584
*
How Obama Is Revamping America's Cars 24630780
Recommendations by Loomia
But as projects are chosen, it's becoming clear that the program may amount to little more than an infrastructure face-lift. Owing to the need for speed and to institutional obstacles, most stimulus transportation projects are small and localized. "Here and there, people will notice things," says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation. He cites repaired potholes and new streetlights. "But I don't think the country as a whole will say, 'Wow, transportation is so much better,' " Poole says.
This stems from the law's main purpose: creating jobs quickly. It prioritizes projects that will be completed within three years. Major highway construction typically takes 13 years from start to finish, reports the Federal Highway Administration.
So more than three quarters of the approved highway projects' funds will go to repaving and widening roads, while less than 6 percent will pay for new construction, according to the investigative nonprofit ProPublica. Other reports show that smaller, rural projects, like bridges, often receive funding priority over those that might get more traffic, largely because they can be launched more quickly.
That doesn't necessarily make the spending ineffective. One quarter of major urban roads, for example, are in poor condition and would benefit from repairs. But it does mean that few projects will have sweeping effects.
One project that experts say could be "transformational" is limited by a lack of funding. High-speed rail, which Obama says could benefit 10 major corridors between cities around the country, was slated for $8 billion in the stimulus, and Obama has asked Congress for $5 billion more over five years. But the Government Accountability Office estimates that constructing high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco alone will cost about $33 billion. Similarly, while the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that the nation's highways and bridges need an annual investment of $166 billion through 2015, the stimulus package has only $27.5 billion. Overall, the law allots $48.1 billion to the Department of Transportation, or just 6 percent of total stimulus funds.
An even bigger problem, experts say, is how that funding is doled out. Decisions are often politicized and are rarely coordinated between levels of government. Transportation dollars are traditionally spread thinly, "like peanut butter," says Robert Puentes, senior fellow in the Brookings Institution's metropolitan policy program. "We don't do cost-benefit analysis in this country." That is a systemic problem, unrelated to the stimulus. But it could be addressed in the next big infrastructure battle. The so-called highway bill, which maps out funding for the country's roads, bridges, and transit over the next five years, is due to be reauthorized this fall. America may not have a clear vision for its transportation system, but infrastructure advocates, not to mention Americans who have ever sat in stalled traffic or bumped over a pothole, hope that will change.
Friday, May 22, 2009
LaHood defends mass transit push of the President against criticism of George Will.
LaHood defends mass transit push - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com
LaHood defends mass transit push
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe correspondent
WASHINGTON -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood defended the pro-mass transit policies of the Obama administration today, and fired back at conservative writer George Will, who devoted an entire column to attacking LaHood earlier this week.
"We have to create opportunities for people who want to ride a bike or walk or take a streetcar," he said. "The only person that I've heard of who objects to this is George Will."
Will wrote a column in Newsweek magazine criticizing the secretary, whom he dubbed "Secretary of Behavior Modification," for supporting measures to wean commuters off automobiles.
LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, made his remarks during a speech at the National Press Club about Obama's economic stimulus plan, which directed billions to transit and high-speed rail, and the upcoming transportation bill. The Obama administration hopes the bill, which sets federal policy for the next five years, will shift more money into public transportation.
One of only two Republicans in the Obama cabinet, LaHood was named to the post in part to serve as the president's ambassador to Congressional Republicans. He acknowledged that efforts to win GOP support for the stimulus had failed, but said he believed more Republicans would support the Obama administration on healthcare and climate change legislation that is also expected this year.
In a question-and-answer session following his remarks, Lahood expressed exasperation with the suggestion from some of his fellow Republicans that redirecting federal transportation money from highways to other modes of transportation amounted to government meddling in individual decisions.
"About everything we do around here is government intrusion into people's lives," he said.
"It is a way to coerce people out of their cars. Yeah."
Metro Bus Rapid Transit Project Could Drastically Affect Wilshire Traffic
Metro Bus Rapid Transit Project Could Drastically Affect Wilshire Traffic « Joy in the Journey,
Maps, not put in this article. See link for them.
Maps, not put in this article. See link for them.
Metro Bus Rapid Transit Project Could Drastically Affect Wilshire Traffic
May 20, 2009
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit project could drastically affect traffic on Wilshire Boulevard and increase bus efficiency along the route, but full project funding has not been secured.
The project would introduce dedicated bus lanes on both sides of Wilshire Boulevard from the Santa Monica city border to the west edge of Beverly Hills, and from the east edge of that city to Valencia Street near downtown Los Angeles. The 9.6 miles of lanes would only be active between 7-9 a.m. and from 4-7 p.m., and curbside lanes would be repaved. However, obtaining federal funding for the project remains an issue.
“Our project is still in [the federal] budget at this point but it could be removed,” said Rex Gephart, Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager. “[Even] if it remains, the dollars could be cut back.”
The project, if approved, could serve as a temporary solution to the traffic problems currently afflicting Los Angeles commuters. Without federal funding, however, the project’s future could be called into question.
“The things that we’ve been doing for the last five to eight years have not resulted in any improvements and [the federal government is] looking for improvements, and they think this is a great project to try and improve that congestion,” Gephart said.
Metro estimates the project’s cost at $31.5 million with $4.9 million from Metro, $3.3 million from the city of Los Angeles and the other $23.3 million – more than 70 percent of the total – from the Federal Transit Administration.
Originally, Metro authorities had hoped to organize a series of four public meetings in late April or early May, but that’s been delayed. The meetings – set at different locations along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor – would help explain what Metro, along with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, found in the study taking a close look at what impact the project would have on air quality, noise, the environment and, of course, traffic. The project paid special attention to 74 Los Angeles intersections on and off Wilshire Boulevard that might be affected by the new dedicated bus lanes.
Gephart said that although the study is in the final stages and is “looking really good.” Public meetings have been pushed back to June or July. Taking more time in this initial study is, according to Metro authorities, actually a money-saving move. If the federal government finds that Metro has not done all it can to mitigate various negative effects of the project on the community, an additional study might be required, potentially leading to higher costs and more delays.
View Larger Map
While commuters in personal vehicles might see their travel times on Wilshire Boulevard slow if the project is approved, regular bus riders like Keith Maloy believe the project is a good idea.
“It would definitely be a lot of help. I mean, I miss buses, some buses pass us up because they’re too full and sometimes the buses are just late,” Maloy said.
The project is designed to encourage more bus ridership. As travel times for Wilshire buses improve, Metro hopes the buses will be able to carry more passengers during morning and evening rush hours. The ultimate goal is to see a 25 percent travel time improvement for the 120 buses that operate on Wilshire.
“We wouldn’t have to add buses because the bus speeds will improve,” Gephart said.
Local motorist Bill Stephens has some reservations about the proposal.
“In concept it’s a great idea, but … in actual use, I don’t think you could get enough people to take the bus to make it worthwhile,” Stephens said.
Committee recommends $10 million for Gold Line extension project. San Gabriel Valley is also part of the MTA's jurisdiction and full of tax payers not getting their share of the pie so far.
Committee recommends $10 million for Gold Line extension project - Pasadena Star-News
Committee recommends $10 million for Gold Line extension project
By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/21/2009 06:06:20 PM PDT
Prompted by lobbying from San Gabriel Valley politicians, a county transportation committee has recommended the Gold Line extension receive $10 million in initial funding from Measure R, instead of the $127,000 that was originally budgeted for the light-rail line.
The amount must still be approved by the full Metropolitan Transportation Authority board next Thursday. But even with the possibility of more funding for the Gold Line now on the table, Valley officials are questioning whether Measure R funds are being distributed fairly.
"The original call for the Gold Line to get only $127,000 was an absolute slap in the face," said Glendora Councilman Doug Tessitor, who attended the transportation committee meeting Wednesday.
By comparison, the Exposition Line light-rail extension from the Culver City to the coast, which is also scheduled to start receiving funds in 2010, is slated to get $61.1 million.
John Fasana, the Duarte City Council member and an MTA board member, said he isn't sure why, for example, the proposed "Subway to the Sea" from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, which is still in the planning stages, is budgeted to receive $11.8 million. That project wasn't expected to receive any funds from Measure R - the half-cent sales tax approved by voters in November - until 2013.
"I haven't heard any good explanations for why that is, so far," said Fasana.
MTA Chief Financial Officer Terry Matsumoto defended the Subway to the Sea funding plan, saying the money would go for planning, not for construction.
"We look at the money-available date in the expenditure plan to mean funding actual construction work," said Matsumoto.
The MTA's proposed budget calls for $96.5 million slated for rail projects to be allocated to projects, and $28 million to be held in reserve.
Matsumoto said that, regardless of whether the motion passes next Thursday, the budget is likely to be changed later this year. The Gold Line, he said, received such a small allotment because it is not yet in the MTA's Long Range Plan. The board is scheduled to review that plan next month.
Matsumoto said he was certain the Gold Line would be added to the plan at that point.
"There is no question that it will be put in," said Matsumoto. "We would be in violation of Measure R if we didn't."
Once the board makes changes to the Long Range Plan, more resources could be committed to different projects, based on the priorities of the board, he added.
Getting more funds committed to the Gold Line in the long-term is the chief concern of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, the independent board tasked with building the 24-mile rail extension.
"The $10 million doesn't build the line...We need a 5-7 year funding commitment," said Habib Balian, the CEO of the construction authority.
The $10 million, if approved next week, would allow design work to get started on the project, he said.
There is also a dispute between the MTA and the construction authority about who should do planning work for a rail maintenance yard that is supposed to be funded with Gold Line Measure R funds. Several locations where it might be built are under consideration in Duarte or Irwindale, but the land has not yet been acquired. The yard would be used by other county rail lines, not just the Gold Line.
The MTA views the maintenance yard project as a priority that should be well on the way toward being built before any construction funds are allocated to the Gold Line, said Matsumoto.
But Balian said the maintenance yard issue could be easily straightened out to allow completion of the Gold Line extension by 2013, the goal the authority has for completion if funding is provided.
"The maintenance yard acquisition was a new wrinkle they recently put in front of us," said Balian. "But we've presented Metro with a schedule that shows we can build the line and acquire the yard concurrently and get them open at the same time in 2013."
dan.abendschein@sgvn.com
(626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451
DesertXpress Enterprises hopes to start construction next year on the 295 km electrified route, which would parallel Interstate 15 across the Mojave desert between Las Vegas and Victorville. Work is expected to take around four years, at an estimated cost of $3·5bn to US$4bn
Railway Gazette: DesertXpress consultation starts
DesertXpress consultation starts
29 Apr 2009
USA: Public consultation hearings are taking place this week in California and Nevada into the Environmental Impact Statement for the privately-promoted DesertXpress high speed line linking the southern California region with Las Vegas. The meetings in Las Vegas, Victorville and Barstow follow approval of the Draft EIS by the Federal Railroad Administration on March 18.
DesertXpress Enterprises hopes to start construction next year on the 295 km electrified route, which would parallel Interstate 15 across the Mojave desert between Las Vegas and Victorville, which lies north of the San Bernadino mountains on the edge of the Los Angeles conurbation. Work is expected to take around four years, at an estimated cost of $3·5bn to US$4bn, generating several thousand jobs at a time when unemployment in California is rising rapidly.
With trains operating at up to 240 km/h, the target journey time is put at 1 h 24 min. The line is projected to carry 10 million passengers a year from 2015, rising to 16 million by 2030. Describing the I-15 corridor as ‘one of America’s most-congested transportation corridors’, the promoters estimate that road-to-rail modal shift could reduce CO2 emissions along the route by 165 million tonnes.
An independent study prepared for the Southern California Logistics Rail Authority by BSL Management Consultants found that DesertXpress was 'clearly the most practical and viable alternative' compared to a maglev proposal costing up to $52bn.
According to DesertXpress backer Tony Marnell, 'this project will provide significant benefits to both California and Nevada and is coming on line at the perfect time, with the government recognizing the need to find viable, alternative solutions for cleaner and more efficient modes of transportation.' He believes that it 'can be the model for other similar projects throughout America, demonstrating how private enterprise can partner with government to develop solutions that fulfil needs that may otherwise not be feasible in today’s economy.'
In the longer term, DesertXpress says the line could be extended westwards by 80 km from Victorville to Palmdale, where it would connect with the California High Speed Rail network linking San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.
The CRA board unanimously agreed Thursday to begin negotiating exclusively with an Italian rail company,AnsaldoBreda, that has drawn up plans to build a rail car factory, which translates into local jobs. This explains why the CRA is so interested.
Italian rail company moves ahead in L.A. | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times
Italian rail company moves ahead in L.A.
7:29 AM | May 22, 2009
The Community Redevelopment Agency board unanimously agreed Thursday to begin negotiating exclusively with an Italian rail company that has drawn up plans to build a rail car factory on a city-owned parcel east of downtown.
The CRA board's approval was just a first step for the rail company, AnsaldoBreda, which is lobbying the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for a $300-million deal to build 100 additional light-rail cars for several Metro lines, including the Gold Line and Expo Line extensions.
The company is already under contract to build 50 cars for the agency, but the MTA staff had recommended opening the bidding for the new contract to other rail companies because the AnsaldoBreda cars were late and overweight, MTA officials said. The company has blamed the problems on last-minute MTA requests.
The tentative agreement approved by the CRA board Thursday set the terms for the rail company to lease a prized parcel of city land -- a deal that would be executed only if the MTA board agrees, as early as next Thursday, to let AnsaldoBreda build the 100 cars.
AnsaldoBreda officials said they would build an energy-efficient "green" building on 14 acres of city land near the intersection of 15th Street and Washington Boulevard in the city's old industrial core. The company would pay $906,000 in rent annually -- with reappraisals at various points over the 50-year lease -- and make a rent payment of $15 million upfront to help the CRA pay off its loan on the property.
-- Maeve Reston
Dear Metro: Fund the Gold Line Foothill Extension
Dear Metro: Fund the Gold Line Foothill Extension « I Will Ride Blog
Dear Metro: Fund the Gold Line Foothill Extension
Posted by Albert
A week from today, on May 28, the Metro Board of Directors will consider the agency’s 2010 budget. We need your help to ensure that the Gold Line Foothill Extension receives its fair share of Measure R funds so we can get the line open to Azusa in 2013. The proposed budget includes less than $127,000 for Foothill Extension, while giving tens of millions of dollars to projects that are still being studied. This level of funding will delay our project by four years.
Fortunately, there is a proposal to add $10 million in funding for Foothill Extension without taking a dime from any other project. Metro’s Budget and Finance Committee has recommended approval of the motion. We need you to attend the Metro board meeting next week so you can personally tell the directors that you support the Foothill Extension and you favor funding the line so the next phase can be built by 2013.
As you know, the Foothill Extension is ready to go, and it is the only rail project that could begin construction within 12 months. That means jobs. By delaying and minimizing Gold Line funding, Metro is losing the ability to get 3.3 million people off the road and onto trains every year past 2013. Metro board members and staff say they are committed to funding the Gold Line, but so far no guarantee has been made as to when the line will be funded.
We need you to join us in demonstrating to Metro that the San Gabriel Valley wants the Foothill Extension Funded Now!
Metro Board Meeting
Thursday, May 28, 2009
9:30 a.m.
Metro Headquarters, Board Room
One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Map
A couple of hours of your morning will make an impact in the lives of millions of San Gabriel Valley Residents.
The first 30 people who RSVP will receive a free t-shirt at the board meeting!
We can’t afford to wait! Tell Metro that the Foothill Extension can reduce freeway congestion and pollution and no other local rail project meets the "ready to go" criteria for economic stimulus.
To RSVP, call (888) 977-2269, or visit www.iwillride.org/signup.php to sign up.
LA's Expo Light Rail on track with controversies in tow
The Architect's Newspaper
05.13.2009
Crossing the Line
LA's Expo Light Rail on track with controversies in tow
The proposed La Cienega station would be one of a number of elevated stations.
Courtesy Exposition Construction Authority
Work on a century-old railroad right-of-way in Los Angeles is chugging right along. With Phase I of the Exposition Light Rail Transit Line well underway—and due for completion by the end of 2010—the line will follow an 8.6-mile route from downtown to Culver City.
The University of Southern California’s station is nearly complete in Exposition Park. Pylons for an overpass are rising on either side of La Brea Avenue, tracks are welded in Culver City, and the line’s undulating sun-shield canopies should start shimmering above stations starting in May. Although beleaguered by community groups seeking changes, the Expo Line remains on track.
The $2-billion-plus project, which is managed by the Exposition Construction Authority (a state agency only partially funded by LA’s transit authority), was given a boost by Measure R. The half-cent county sales tax passed by voters last fall will provide needed funds during Phase II—expansion to Santa Monica—and has lent an overall sense of confidence to the project.
A view of the proposed platform at Washington/National station, which is a model for those throughout the system.
All images courtesy Exposition Construction Authority
“Before Measure R, there was always the possibility that, due to lack of funding, Phase II could be delayed," said Roland Genick, lead designer for the project's urban design and architecture. "But now it looks like it might get accelerated, and final design might start earlier.” On May 18, an industry review allowed potential design-build teams to begin viewing procurement documents for Phase II. The companies involved in station architecture, urban design, and engineering during Phase I include Gruen Associates, Parsons, and Miyamoto International.
The Expo Line has a unified design, meaning all stations adhere to the same basic system, with slight customization at each station during the fabrication and installation phase. One detail that designers hope riders will notice is the patterns of tiny perforations in the sun shields: dot-matrix photographs from the neighborhood, which will be shadowed on the ground. The stations will also be transformed significantly at night, thanks to illumination from within the rain shelters. Artists have been selected for each station, adding another layer of local reference.
In addition to the stations themselves, a flurry of development has cropped up along the Phase I transit corridor. Culver City has purchased a triangle of land next to the new Robertson-Venice station, where a mixed-use development with commercial space, a potential boutique hotel, and residential units has been proposed by developers Urban Partners with architects Moule & Polyzoides.
Further east near the La Cienega station, Eric Owen Moss has unveiled a concept for a 200,000-square-foot residential tower developed by Samitaur Construct. Surrounding the Crenshaw station, the Community Redevelopment Agency has completed a vision plan with Urban Studio that will bring pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, and a comprehensive landscape plan by ah’bé landscape architects to Crenshaw Street.
An aerial view of the proposed Western station.
Not everyone is happy. As development spikes along the route, grassroots groups like Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line and Neighbors For Smart Rail have mobilized, specifically to prevent at-grade crossings in neighborhoods, which they believe will increase accidents, traffic, noise, and glare. The groups have also claimed that residents in lower-income neighborhoods are not receiving the same safety measures as wealthier Westside residents.
The Citizens’ Campaign focused their efforts on the Exposition Boulevard-Farmdale Avenue crossing, which was deemed too close to Dorsey High School, whose students would have to cross the at-grade alignment. After a February ruling that deemed the crossing unsafe, Expo began work on a new proposal to include a pedestrian bridge and a likely permanent closing of Farmdale. An Environmental Impact Review will be available for public comment this summer, and major changes could delay the opening for a year.
On April 2, Expo announced the preferred alignment for the project’s Phase II to Santa Monica, exiting Culver City on the existing Exposition right-of-way through a corner of Cheviot Hills to the art complex at Bergamot Station and continuing along Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica, ending just blocks from the Pacific. Although the route is not confirmed, it already has its own set of issues. Some residents in Cheviot Hills rallied unsuccessfully for a new alignment down Sepulveda that avoided their neighborhood completely.
The proposed La Brea station.
Further west, Santa Monica residents are up in arms about a potential Verizon facility recommended as a maintenance yard (it has not yet been purchased, but Expo is in negotiations). Groups were so incensed about the yard butting up against one of the city’s lowest-income neighborhoods that they put forth a proposal to use the ancient maintenance yard at Bergamot Station instead, striking fear into the local art community.
“The Bergamot takeover is a non-issue—it has never been considered as the site—but with the right design and input from residents, a maintenance facility with a park or mixed-use buffer could actually be an asset to the neighborhood,” said Genick. “We are heading into a new city and one that, while very supportive, is pretty opinionated,” he added.
As the Expo Line continues to travel west (Phase II could be operating by 2014 if construction begins next year as planned), it will be serving more affluent residents, meaning riders who will demand more from their transit system. “You need a solution for the majority, and good design can solve a lot of problems," said Genick, who welcomes the challenges. "Developing designs that are cognizant of the community concerns will result in the communities being invested in the project, and it will be a better project for it.”
Alissa Walker
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Former City Councilman , Professor Michael Woo talks about the connection between mass transit, urban planning and the environment.
Streetsblog » Streetsblog Interview: Michael Woo
Streetsblog Interview: Michael Woo
by Damien Newton on May 21, 2009
Michael Woo has a long history fighting for a cleaner Los Angeles. In the late 1980's, he was the rare City Councilman who was also a trained urban planner and had a strong showing in the 1993 Mayoral Election coming up short to Mayor Riordan. He currently teaches urban planning at USC, and consultant to Climate Plan, a coalition promoting transportation and Land-Use strategy. Streetsblog caught up to him in the USC faculty lounge on Bike to Work Day to talk about Climate Change, S.B. 375 and what all of us can do. If you’re interested, you can read a lot more about Woo at his Wikipedia Page.
Sadly, there was a great anecdote at the end of our discussion, after the tape recorder was turned off about working with Ron “Bike Sage” Milam to become an urban cyclist himself. I guess we’ll have to wait for Milam’s Streetsblog interview to get that story on tape.
The full text of the interview is available after the jump.
Streetsblog: One of the main things we’re here to talk about is Senate Bill 375, which has been dubbed by many people as the “Smart Growth” bill. This legislation was passed last winter, and now we’re talking implementation around the state. Could you start by giving us a brief summary of what the goals are.
Woo: The goal is to tackle the number one source of Greenhouse Gas emissions here in California, which is the transportation sector. 40% of all of the Greenhouse Gas emissions produced in California are transportation related, and the largest share of the transportation-related emissions are caused by the cars and light trucks which most people use for their daily trips.
I work with a statewide coalition called ClimatePlan which was organized to advocate land use and transportation strategies to address climate change. In many discussions about climate change, you hear a lot of talk about demand for electricity, the need for alternatives to burning coal, energy conservation resulting from green building techniques, and of course the negative effects of our reliance on oil. But many times you don’t hear much about the impact of the transportation choices which are caused by our land use patterns.
Climate Change’s position is if we’re going to be serious about Greenhouse Gas emissions, we have to focus on the transportation sources. In other words, if we create cities that put housing far away from jobs, and create low-density patterns that don’t support transit very well; , then it’s no surprise that people have to drive cars a lot to get from one place to another.
S.B. 375 is the first major law in California that makes that connection between land use- , transportation, and climate change, and sets up a process to encourage the creation of communities which grow in a more sustainable way.
Streetsblog: A lot of the push for cleaner air has been about cleaner cars. This isn’t about that, it’s more about less cars than cleaner cars?
Woo: That’s right.
Senator Fran Pavley is the author of a law (AB 1493) that which reduces greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by about 22% by 2012 and by about 30% by 2016. These California clean car standards were held up for years by lawsuits from the auto industry, but the new federal standards announced by the Obama Administration should settle the matter.
SB 375 tackles a separate problem. Pavley’s landmark climate law AB 32 committed California to a the goal of rolling back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, but it didn’t really spell out how California is going to achieve that goal. SB 375 authored by Senator Steinberg is the next step in terms of addressing one of the major causes of Greenhouse Gas emissions related to transportation and land use.
Streetsblog: In a perfect world, how should Greater Los Angeles embrace SB 375. As a City, a county, a Metropolitan Planning Organization? What changes can we expect as a city and a county.
Woo: SB 375 sets a process whereby the 18 so-called “Metropolitan Planning Organizations” (MPOs) such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Central Valley and Southern California are responsible for adopting plans for reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions generated within each region. The Southern California region is huge, the largest region in the state, with 48% of the state’s population. . The MPO in our region is called the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and is a voluntary association representing local governments across the region, not just the City of L.A. and the County of L.A., but also Ventura, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and all the cities large and small within them.
Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board will set a target for each for proportional reductions in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions relating to land use and transportation. In Southern California, since we have the largest and most complicated region, the sub-regions can adopt their own plan to reduce Greenhouse Gases as it applies to transportation.
To answer your question, a large city such as Los Angeles or a subregional association of cities in Western L.A. County or Western Riverside County may collaborate on what this law calls a “Sustainable Community Strategy” that will start to be serious about relating land-use decisions and transportation to the creation of Greenhouse Gases. Various local governments will start to focus on this.
Inside the cities, people will have to think about what role transportation and land-use make in their personal decisions.
Streetsblog: We’ve talked a lot about development, but what role does alternative transportation (transit, walking, biking) play in meeting the goals of 375?Mike Woo as portrayed in City Beat.
Woo: The modes of transportation matter a lot. The availability of rail transit, bus lines, car sharing and even bicycles are very important to anyone making a transportation plan. If a plan is going to be developed at a local level, the people making this plan have to address how these alternatives help accommodate a reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions.
The expectation is that the parts of the region that have the most alternatives to cars, that is have access to transit, ought to do more than areas that don’t have as many alternatives and aren’t going to have the opportunities to do it.
Yes, the availability of alternatives will have a lot to do with a local community’s ability to do their fare share in reducing their Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Streetsblog: What is your role, and what is Climate Plan’s role, in getting this moving in Southern California.
Woo: I wear many hats in connection to S.B. 375. I’m appointed to the Regional Targets Advisory Committee, RTAC, which is appointed by the Air Resources Board to make recommendations to the ARB by this September about how to develop targets for each of the regions for the state.
In addition to that, I’m an advocate in that I do work for Climate Plan. Climate Plan is pushing for the phrases “ambitious but achievable targets.” We want to push the envelope to set the targets as high as possible as a way of showing that land use and transportation changes can play a big part in reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. Furthermore, by getting serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can also get more serious about planning for communities which rely less on driving cars and encourage diverse, lively, and sustainable mixed-use communities which aren’t wasteful about land, energy, and water.
The other hat I wear is as a member of the City Planning Commission. I can play a role in making a decision about specific development projects in L.A. in terms of what impact they have on transportation patterns, what kind of development patterns are created in the long-term and what are the climate implications.
Streetsblog: What kind of opposition are you facing in terms of people that don’t want to see this legislation implemented for whatever reasons?
Woo: When S.B. 375 was first addressed, it was much more of a mandatory bill, with a lot more teeth in it. There was strong opposition from the building industry, city governments and county governments that felt they were going to be required to do something but not be given the money to pay for it.
As the bill moved through the legislative process, it became less mandatory. You could say it’s a lot less mandatory bill and it is weaker than the original version of the bill. But it’s still quite an accomplishment that it got passed at all. And it can be a very constructive influence moving local government land use and transportation decisions in a more sustainable direction.
There is still some opposition to what were trying to do. Just last week I was at a meeting of the Southern California Association of Governments and there was opposition being articulated from two levels.
One source of opposition was local elected officials who questioned whether climate change was a real problem or questioned whether what they do has any impact on climate change. So there’s still a certain amount of foot dragging going on with local officials who don’t think it’s a problem or think it’s someone else’s problem.
Separate from that, right now I’d say there are a lot of people in local government who know of S.B. 375 but they are very unclear on how this affects what they’re doing right now. I know there’s a lot of conferences and outreach planned to help demystify this problem and explain clearly how this law will effect local government.
The next level is the general public, most of whom have never heard of S.B. 375. But if things start to change the general public will start to notice things happening differently then they would without this law. At some point this becomes a political issue: how do you make change if the goals aren’t very clear and if the effected representatives of the public aren’t very clear about what’s going on.
Woo speaks at the CALPIRG confernce on transportation reform earlier this month.
Streetsblog: If someone reading this interview likes what you’re saying and wants to help move the ball forward, what should they do?
Woo: They can contact us at ClimatePlan and beyond that if you belong to a local organization that has any interest in the environment or urban planning or transportation issues you can encourage those groups to get involved with the process.
In the end, the changes we’re talking about won’t happen without a groundswell of support which currently doesn’t exist. So, there is a role, a very critical and important role, for getting people involved with the process and building public awareness.
If there are elected officials, such as the ones I heard from last week, who don’t think it’s a problem or think it’s someone else’s problem, this is a place where the public can get involved and start influencing the local officials who are thinking about their place in relation to climate change.
Streetsblog: Anything else you want to add on Climate Change?
Woo: Ultimately, this does come down to some level of personal responsibility. This is not an abstract issue.
I sometimes mention when I give talks on the subject that if you stay up late and are watching cable television you can sometime see these public service announcements for the World Wildlife Fund with a sad polar bear sitting alone on a rapidly shrinking piece of ice.
The urban viewer is most likely wondering what that polar bear has to do with me. So this can be a hard point to get across, it might seem too theoretical; but clearly the decisions we make about urban sprawl and giving people few options except to drive a car ultimately have an effect on that polar bear.
In other words, there is some level of personal responsibility which is necessary in order to be serious about addressing this global problem.
Streetsblog: This is unrelated. On my way biking here as part of the “Bike Not to Work Day,” two people told me to ask you “Why Do the Streets of Hollywood Glitter?”
Woo: Back in the 1990’s when I was a Member of the L.A. City Council, someone suggested an experiment on Hollywood Boulevard using recycled glass mixed in with asphalt, aka “glassphalt” to use recycled material, to stretch the amount of money available for street repaving and creating this glitter effect on the streets of Hollywood. This is very appropriate given the reputation of Hollywood.
That was the reason there was some experimentation in paving Hollywood Boulevard with glassphalt. At the time there were a lot of people that made fun of it, thought it was a joke. But now I think it’s something a lot of people think should be done more because it encourages recycling and I just learned that it does relate to Global Warming.
Streetsblog: Everything relates to Global Warming
Woo: Typically black or dark colored streets retain heat much more than older streets in Los Angeles that are lighter colored or made of cement. I’m not a scientific expert on this, but if a the material in the street is reflecting light back , maybe that would retain heat less than using dark colored asphalt.
Maybe there is a carbon change benefit to using reflective material rather than dark colored material.
This is actually a good example of how some mundane decisions can be part of the solution.
Streetsblog: I’m hardly a scientific expert on anything, but I’ve heard the same thing: glassphalt is better for the environment than traditional road materials.
Woo: In the 90’s we talked about it only as a way to expand the demand for recycled materials. Nobody was talking about urban heat island effects on the city streets.
Streetsblog: So you were ahead of your time!
Woo: I guess so. I didn’t know everything about the underlying problem either, but at least there was an underlying idea about making a connection between a mundane project like street repaving and the state of the environment.
Streetsblog: The last question I ask everyone when I interview them is “if you could change one thing about transportation in Los Angeles, wave a magic wand and it would be changed, what would it be?”
Woo: I think I would borrow and idea from Bogota, Colombia. I would close the streets on Sunday, or one day a week, for two reasons. The first reason is to take over the street for recreational purposes on that particular day but also to show urban residents that there are dramatically different ways about thinking of urban space.
In Bogota, Mayor Penalosa started this idea and was initially ridiculed. Now, years later, this Sunday tradition is wildly popular. There are people on bikes, on roller skates or just walking down the middle of the street.
Every Sunday I go to the Hollywood Farmer’s Market to get fresh produce and I’m surrounded by people who just like walking in the middle of the street. Reclaiming the urban space.
To take this concept further, imagine Wilshire Boulevard completely closed to (automobile) traffic from the beach to Downtown L.A. and turning it into the world’s longest linear park. Things like that would be really exciting, wouldn’t cost much money and would really change the way people think about our streets.
Keeping Perspective on HSR (high-speed rail) and State Budget
California High Speed Rail Blog: Keeping Perspective on HSR and State Budget
Keeping Perspective on HSR and State Budget
The failure of the budget propositions yesterday have led some to wonder how this will impact high speed rail. It's been discussed in the comments, and is mentioned in a George Will column. George Will has been on a kind of jihad against sustainable policy lately, with his silly attack on Portland and his dishonest misuse of data to undermine action on global warming. So it should be in that vein that we read this:
California’s voters are complicit in their state’s collapse.
They elect and re-elect the legislators off whom public employees unions batten. Also, voters have promiscuously used their state’s plebiscitary devices to control and fatten the budget. Last November, as the dark fiscal clouds lowered, they authorized $9.95 billion more in debt as a down payment on a perhaps $75 billion high-speed rail project linking San Francisco and Los Angeles — a delight California cannot afford.
As you can tell, facts and evidence no longer mean anything to Will - there is no basis for the claim that HSR will cost $75 billion. If "perhaps" is the only justification to toss out numbers, then I think HSR will "perhaps" cost $1.50. I mean, really. WTF.
Of course, Will's argument is deeper. He claims that HSR is unnecessary (a "delight") that we "can't afford" and its mere presence on the book as a partly-funded proposal is to him further sign of how California got into the crisis.
So, here we go again, with arguments that to me were decisively won by our side in 2008. I won't completely repeat myself - go read The Cost of Doing Nothing is Not Zero and Prop 1A and State Bond Debt for starters.
But, it is worth reminding ourselves of the key points:
* If we don't build HSR, that does NOT represent savings to the budget. HSR is itself savings. The cost of expanding airports and freeways to meet the expected future demand has been estimated to be anywhere from $80 to $160 billion. HSR can meet much of that demand for much less of the cost. Further, it does so by providing sustainable transportation, saving money to workers and businesses by liberating them from the vagaries of oil prices.
* HSR is absolutely necessary to economic recovery. Our budget mess isn't the product of overspending but of the worst economic crisis in 60 years. If it were up to folks like Will we'd still be in the Depression - massive public works projects like HSR provide short-term stimulus and long-term economic growth. The 100,000+ jobs the construction will create will pour money into the state's economy and into the state's treasury. On the converse, NOT doing public works like this will help create a downward spiral that will leave California in perpetual crisis.
* HSR does NOT come at the expense of any other budget line item. It's not a matter of firing teachers to build trains. This is because the money for HSR is going to come out of bonds and federal funds. Some might say that's disingenuous since we have to pay for the bonds somehow. But the point I would make is that HSR's costs are amortized over 30-40 years. Teachers need to be hired and paid now. Cutting HSR won't save other services (especially when the current amount of spending on HSR is barely $100 million, whereas the budget deficit is $25,100 million). The problems with the ongoing budget deficit have to be resolved through a mixture of new taxes and economic stimulus. Cutting stuff will actually make the problem worse.
It's not that we support HSR because we are train junkies. We support it because it is an essential part of our economic recovery and vital to providing long-term prosperity in the 21st century. We should not be surprised when the usual suspects and, yes, HSR deniers like George Will use the budget mess to try and push through their usual attack on government and on passenger rail. But we can and should push back against their nonsense.
Campus rallies in support of transit extension
Campus rallies in support of transit extension - News
Campus rallies in support of transit extension
Emily Rios
Issue date: 5/20/09 Section: News
Mt. Sierra College professor Glenn Dunki-Jacobs, whose students initiated the Media Credit: Emily Rios
Mt. Sierra College professor Glenn Dunki-Jacobs, whose students initiated the "I Will Ride" campaign, spoke of the importance of the Gold Line Foothill Extension during the May 7 rally.
The Foothill Extension of the Gold Line could have potentially received federal funding under the stimulus, but funding was awarded instead to the Eastside Extension, which runs from downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles.
Nevertheless, supporters of the extension are working to ensure that this project gets off the ground. Their enthusiasm was evident at the May 7 "I Will Ride" rally held in the Campus Center Mall at Citrus College.
Giving a "hoot" was a theme reiterated by those who addressed the issue.
Geraldine M. Perri, Ph.D., superintendent/president of Citrus College, pointed out that Citrus has reached its highest enrollment ever with 14,000 students in spring 2009. In addition to the challenges of serving those students and constructing more buildings, the biggest problem for the campus community has become parking.
One solution to that problem, she said, is the Gold Line, which the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority needs to fund now.
The Gold Line would expand public transit options in the San Gabriel Valley by extending the rail system from Pasadena to Azusa and eventually to Ontario International Airport.
"The Gold Line will be our brain train. Educational institutions, business and industry and our communities will all profit from it," she said. "We need it, and we need Metro to support us and support us now."
Local elected officials were also in attendance, including Azusa Councilman Uriel Macias.
"It is truly remarkable to be one of the few colleges with something like this accessible in such a manner," he said.
Glendora Councilman Doug Tessitor, who serves on the board of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, said that the Gold Line is the only transit project in Los Angeles County that is ready to go. He urged those in attendance to attend Metro meetings and speak on behalf of the Gold Line to get the board to support the Foothill Extension.
Mt. Sierra College professor Glenn Dunki-Jacobs, whose students initiated the "I Will Ride" campaign as a means to petition Metro to fund the line, emphasized that everyone would benefit from the Gold Line.
"You will have more people in the area taking the Gold Line than you will see taking the 'subway to the seas' with their surfboards," he said.
Stefano Saltalamacchia, Associated Students of Citrus College president, urged students to support this project, emphasizing the positive benefits it will have for future students.
The "I Will Ride" campaign is still working to ensure that local funds collected under Measure R go toward the Foothill Extension.
Measure R is a half-cent sales tax increase that was approved by Los Angeles County voters in November 2008 and is expected to generate $40 billion over the next 30 years to fund transportation projects and provide traffic relief.
Measure R goes into effect on July 1.
For more information, visit iwillride.org or follow the group on Twitter at twitter.com/IWillRide.
Emily Rios can be reached at Rios_EmilyC@yahoo.com
L.A. officials weigh exclusive deal with Italian rail firm
L.A. officials weigh exclusive deal with Italian rail firm - Los Angeles Times
L.A. officials weigh exclusive deal with Italian rail firm
A redevelopment agency vote today could set the stage for AnsaldoBreda to build a manufacturing plant in downtown L.A.'s future green corridor.
By Maeve Reston
May 21, 2009
Los Angeles redevelopment officials are drawing closer to an agreement with an Italian rail car company that hopes to build a manufacturing plant on a prized city site east of downtown.
The company, AnsaldoBreda, is angling for a $300-million contract with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority to build 100 light-rail cars, some of which would be used for the expansion of Metro's Gold and Expo lines.
The company proposed the Los Angeles-based plant and a corporate headquarters earlier this year, when it learned that MTA staff had criticized the firm's performance on a previous 50-car contract. By creating up to 650 full-time jobs in Los Angeles, AnsaldoBreda hopes to improve its odds of securing the new contract.
The city's Community Redevelopment Agency board, whose members are appointed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is slated to vote today to authorize an exclusive agreement that would set the stage for AnsaldoBreda to build on a parcel near 15th Street and Santa Fe Avenue in the city's industrial core.
The mayor hopes the city-owned site could serve as southern anchor for a green corridor that would attract clean technology companies to Los Angeles.
As the city struggles with 12% unemployment, approval from the redevelopment board could increase pressure on members of the MTA board to agree to the 100-car deal with AnsaldoBreda as early as next week's meeting.
In March, the MTA's former chief executive, Roger Snoble, advised the board to seek bids from other rail companies for the 100 cars, because AnsaldoBreda's cars had arrived late and 5,000 to 6,000 pounds overweight, he said.
With the backing of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Villaraigosa, the MTA board chairman and a board ally successfully brokered a two-month reprieve to give the MTA's incoming chief executive time to review the rail company's performance.
AnsaldoBreda officials have said MTA's problems with the initial 50 cars stem from changes requested by the agency.
Officials at the Community Redevelopment Agency have stressed that an agreement with AnsaldoBreda hinges entirely on the MTA's decision.
The exclusive agreement under discussion sets out a 50-year lease with AnsaldoBreda for 14 acres of the 20-acre site -- allowing the city to pursue additional tenants.
Redevelopment officials are also seeking a series of guarantees from AnsaldoBreda to ensure that the company follows through with its promise to build an environmentally friendly plant on the site, a formerly contaminated parcel that the city purchased from the state in 2008 for $14 million.
AnsaldoBreda, which would be eligible for sizable state and federal tax breaks in that industrial zone, would agree to pay $906,000 in rent annually to the city, and would make a nonrefundable rent payment of $15.1 million up front, allowing officials to pay off the loan they got to purchase the property.
City officials said the company could face $35 million in penalties if it did not complete the project.
maeve.reston@latimes.com
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Video: Thomas Pellegrino on the Hope for a Better Commute
Video: Thomas Pellegrino on the Hope for a Better Commute « I Will Ride Blog
Video: Thomas Pellegrino on the Hope for a Better Commute
Posted by Albert
Thomas Pellegrino knows a thing or two about the need for alternative modes of transportation – seeing that he is the Employee Transportation Coordinator for the thousands of employees at the City of Hope in Duarte, CA. Here he speaks about the need for a better commute for staff at the world-renowned medical campus.
If you would like to submit a video in support of the Gold Line Foothill Extension, visit the Speak Up page and submit your YouTube link.
City Has a Plan for Expo Bike Path, But What About Complete Streets?
Streetsblog » City Has a Plan for Expo Bike Path, But What About Complete Streets?
City Has a Plan for Expo Bike Path, But What About Complete Streets?
by Damien Newton on May 20, 2009
Cyclists on the Expo Exposure Ride take a break in front of Dorsey High.
It finally appears as though the Expo Bike Path, the path that is going to run parallel to Phases I and II of the Expo Line is going to be built. After the Expo Construction Authority punted on taking the lead on the project earlier this year, leaving the federally funded path to Los Angeles, Culver City and Santa Monica to complete the environmental reviews; it appeared the path might not happen. After all, if construction couldn't begin by the time Phase II of the Expo Line began construction, the path would become unaffordable.
However, the LADOT and City of Los Angeles seem poised to rush through the environmental review so that the path is ready for construction by the end of the calendar year. Soon, a final design for the path will be available for public review as part of the NEPA process required before any federal dollars can be spent.
While a lot of work has gone into getting the path to this phase, and in addressing the areas where teh path will temporarily turn into bike lanes; there is still criticism of the path which will come up as the review process moves forward. Of chief concern is the design of the path which has cyclists moving parallel and next to the I-10 for on portion of the ride and moves cyclists onto bike lanes on National for another stretch. Despite the planner's intent that the path would connect the Downtown to Santa Monica, there has yet to be a public presentation of any plan to provide a feeder network into the path for cyclists looking to get in off local streets.
For example, the plan calls for bike lanes on Exposition Boulevard as it crosses Western, home of the controversial crossing of the Foshay Learning Center. If you look at an overhead map of the area, you'll see that the Expo Line will run down the middle of Exposition and the bike lanes will run one-way parallel the car traffic. That means that any student, teacher or administrator that lives west of the learning center would either have to ride in the wrong direction on Exposition Blvd, walk their bike or take a half-mile detour to safely enter the center at the start of the day. The opposite is true for those living east of the school that want to bike home at the end of the day.
My guess? Most students will ride in the wrong direction on Exposition for the last leg of their ride, against the grain of traffic and contrary to what we're trying to teach them about safe cycling.
So if the planned bike path isn't the perfect solution, what is? Last week on the "Expo Exposure" ride, the third annual "Bike Not to Work Day" ride, a group of thirty cyclists rode path of the future Expo line from Vermont Ave all the way into Culver City. As the group of cyclists snaked down the residential areas of Exposition Boulevard, a similar thought was expressed by nearly every cyclist I spoke with: this street, running parallel to the light rail, would make a perfect Bike Boulevard or complete street.
The concept of a Bike Boulevard is a street that is designed not only for cyclists, but to give a community control of its streets and open space. A great explanation of a Bike Boulevard can be found on the Bicycle Transportation Alliance of Portland's webpage.
Turning Exposition into a Boulevard would not impede residents from getting to and from their homes but would instead tie the community better in to the light rail line and encourage residents to embrace the rail and their local streets. Such treatments would also make for safer crossings near Dorsey High School and the Foshay Learning Center by reducing commuter traffic near the schools.
It would take some work, but creating a series of complete, protected and community-controlled streets connecting the Downtown to Santa Monica, to provide cyclists a series of safety and equality while biking on our streets can be done. However, it would take a major investment of time and brainpower by planners in all three cities. The first step in getting that investment is asking and then demanding it.
The good news is that the bike path is on its way; but that still leaves the question of whether or not the bike path is the best thing the three Expo cities should be doing for cyclists and for their community.
Where the dicussion was in 2005.....
MTA's Plan for Westside Transit Line Detours South - Los Angeles Times
TA's Plan for Westside Transit Line Detours South
By Martha Groves
October 08, 2005
For decades, people have said the traffic-choked Westside, more than most other parts of the region, needed a mass transit system that went beyond crowded buses. But neighborhood opposition and high costs have always stymied proposals for light rail or subway.
As it happens, plans for a Westside rail system are already chugging along, just not where many people think they should be.
The transit line that appears close to becoming a reality for the Westside isn't the long-debated Wilshire Boulevard subway running through the heart of Beverly Hills, Westwood and Brentwood and near Century City's worker-jammed office towers. It is instead a light rail line miles to the south that would extend through a largely industrial and residential area that parallels Exposition Boulevard.
The 9.6-mile Expo Line would begin at the existing 7th Street Metro Rail station and follow a former freight route through southwestern Los Angeles before heading west to Culver City. It is intended eventually to run to Santa Monica.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority plans to release the project's environmental impact documents Monday, and officials said Friday that they have identified $590 million in federal and state funding, $50 million shy of the total needed for the downtown-to-Culver City run. The MTA expects to begin the first phase of construction early next year.
The documents call for 10 stations along the route, with two possible routings through downtown and five variations offered for the hotly debated Culver City "interim terminus" that would complete the first phase in 2010.
Unlike the long-stalled Wilshire Boulevard subway, which would cost $1 billion for its first three miles, the Expo Line could be built less expensively because it would be above ground and on an old Southern Pacific right of way that the MTA owns.
Although some residents along the right of way still oppose the Expo Line, their chorus of boos has grown more muted as traffic congestion has steadily worsened and the prospect of perpetually high gasoline prices has settled in.
"With time has come the realization that we cannot continue our current methods," said Steve Cunningham, Culver City's transportation director. "Many people are ready for another option to be there."
Still, critics contend that the MTA is picking political expediency over sound transit planning.
They say the agency is foolish to move ahead on a relatively remote
route rather than fight for a more obvious, if problematic, subway line
that would draw thousands more commuters.
Portland Congressman to George Will: Let’s Debate
Streetsblog » Portland Congressman to George Will: Let’s Debate
Portland Congressman to George Will: Let’s Debate
by Elana Schor on May 20, 2009Will vs. Blumenauer: Battle of the bowties.
Just when you thought George Will's pouty, ill-informed tirade against new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was going to stand unchallenged, here comes Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR).
Blumenauer, co-chief of the Congressional Bike Caucus and a Streetfilms favorite, released a statement this morning that dares the conservative pundit to come to Portland for a debate on sustainable urban planning and transportation policy.
The gauntlet was first thrown via Twitter, where Blumenauer posted: "it's LaHood that gets it. George Will doesn't ..." before following up with a sarcastic reference to the love of bowties that both men share.
So is Will prepared to answer the call and head northwest? We've got a call in to Newsweek's spokeswoman, and will keep you posted on any response we receive.
Meanwhile, you can read Blumenauer's full statement to Will after the jump.
In his article, Mr. Will proves that he is mired in a one-dimensional past, one that the city of Portland has successfully overcome” said Blumenauer. “He opposes policies that will provide Americans with more choices while saving them money, creating jobs and protecting the environment. In Portland we have been able to increase productivity, boost our economy, and invest in our city’s resources by taking a well-rounded approach to transportation. Secretary LaHood shares this comprehensive view on transportation options for our nation — it's not about behavior modification its about giving Americans the freedom to choose more than just the highway or byway.
Rather than pontificate about practicality from afar, I challenge Mr. Will to come experience Portland, and then debate the facts, the future and the visions we offer,” continued Blumenauer. “I am proud to defend the Portland model so painstakingly developed and implemented over the last 1/3 of a century. Maybe he will understand why young well educated people move here without jobs and older, well established business and professional people won’t leave for jobs that pay more. We will be happy to buy his plane ticket and give him a bottle of Oregon pinot to die for.
Metro Gold Line Foothill is still being treated like the system's step child.
Covering Today’s Metro Finance and Budget Committee Meeting « I Will Ride Blog
Covering Today’s Metro Finance and Budget Committee Meeting
Posted by Albert
An orphan rhino
Two big public meetings remain to be held by Metro in May to determine the (funding) fate of the Gold Line Foothill Extension.
The outcome of last week’s budget workshop on the 2010 fiscal year budget didn’t go too well with Foothill Extension advocates, so here’s hoping that today’s meeting gives us better news. After learning that the Foothill Extension was slated to receive a paltry $126,778 in 2010 instead of the previously-allocated $4 million (or the $735 million needed to build the extension), Supervisors Gloria Molina and Michael Antonovich, along with Duarte Mayor John Fasana, requested that Metro increase the budgets for both the Foothill Extension and Green Line. So that leaves us with today’s meeting, where Metro’s Finance and Budget Committee will take up the issue of increasing funds for both rail projects.
We encourage everyone to attend today’s meeting, which takes place at the MTA Building at 2:30 PM. For those not attending, you can follow us @iwillride on Twitter as we live-tweet the meeting or you can listen live by calling in at (213) 922-6045.
In 2010, MTA'll keep building the Gold Line and Orange Line Extensions
Streetsblog » Metro in 2010: More Rail, BRT and Highways, Less Bus Service
Metro in 2010: More Rail, BRT and Highways, Less Bus Service
by Damien Newton on May 20, 2009Photo: Marco Siguenza/Flickr
Even with Measure R, not even Metro is immune to bus service cuts.
At 2:30 this afternoon, Metro will hold its public hearing on the staff-proposed 2010 budget. The budget will also be heard at next week's Full Board Meeting before being voted on. The budget doesn't contain a lot of surprises, but tucked in the middle of the budget is news that Metro is planning on 120,000 hours of bus service cuts.
But first, the good news. Metro still plans on opening the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line later this calendar year and work on the Orange Line Canoga Extension is also going according to plan. As for the bad news, Metro lists construction of the I-405 Widening as it's top construction accomplishment and of course there are the service cuts.
Metro claims the bus cuts are really just "creating greater efficiency" in their bus operations. In Metro's defense, 120,000 hours is a small fraction of the nearly 7.6 million hours of bus service that will remain. The budget doesn't spell out what lines will see cuts. Given the battle over 200,000 hours of planned cuts that was rejected by the Metro Board and Mayor Villaraigosa in 2008; next Thursday won't be the last time these cuts are debated in public.
But why are their cuts at all? Didn't L.A. County pass a huge transit tax last year, at least part of what is going to bus service? Anyone following Streetsblog or Sacramento politics regularly already knows the answer, but if you don't believe me, consider this email from So.CA.TA's Kymberleigh Richards.
I blame that completely on the state Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger, for canceling the State Transit Assistance account payments.
Given the rejection last night of a series of ballot propositions that would have helped the state balance its budget, it is wildly unlikely that the movement to restore state transit cuts is going to be successful anytime in the near future. While Metro is looking at ways to tighten its belt in the coming months, and elected leaders call on them to reject cuts as they did last year; let's remember that these same Assemblymen and Senators are complicit in the budget deals that robbed Metro of its operating subsidy in the first place.
Olympic West Pico East Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Source: http://www.wncla.org/updates/general_documets/owpe_revised.pdf
Home page of website source: http://www.wncla.org/
On February 14, 2008, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa requested that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) implement certain traffic relief measures along Olympic and Pico Boulevards. The initiative, referred to as “Olympic West Pico East” (OWPE), was developed by the Mayor and Councilmember Jack Weiss and was part of the Mayor’s overall efforts to increase the convenience, reliability, safety and speed of Los Angeles’ transportation system. In response, LADOT, analyzed the Mayor’s request, and on March 25, 2008, approved a revised OWPE initiative (“Revised OWPE Initiative”). The Revised OWPE Initiative differs materially from the original proposal, while still providing significant traffic related benefits consistent with the Mayor’s and Councilmember Weiss’ goals.
Over the past nine months, a total of 27 community meetings have occurred regarding street operations for Olympic and Pico Boulevards, including 13 meetings since OWPE was first announced on November 26, 2007 by Mayor Villaraigosa, Los Angeles City Council members Jack Weiss and Bill Rosendahl, and Beverly Hills Mayor Jimmy Delshad.
The Revised OWPE Initiative will employ the following measures: (i) uniform peak period parking restrictions will be established on both Olympic and Pico consistent with the City’s General Plan and Community Plans; and (ii) traffic signals will be re-timed to improve traffic flow on both streets, in a manner which favors westbound travel on Olympic Boulevard and eastbound travel on Pico Boulevard.
The following frequently asked questions (FAQ) are provided to educate and inform residents, businesses, and visitors about the Revised OWPE Initiative, and to clarify misconceptions which may have been created as a result of revisions to the initiative as originally proposed.
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
2
Q: Is the Revised OWPE Initiative a “one-way street” proposal?
A: No, there will be traffic in both directions, on both streets, at all times, as well as parking on both streets during most hours of the day and night. No existing traffic lanes are being removed, nor is the direction of any traffic lane being altered.
Q. What are the initiative’s boundaries?
A: Centinela Avenue to the west and Fairfax to the east.
Q: Why is the City implementing OWPE?
A: Motorists on Olympic and Pico Boulevards during peak hours can move as slowly as nine or ten miles per hour despite a posted speed limit of 35 mph. This results in delay and traffic congestion. Mayor Villaraigosa, the City Council, and LADOT are committed to managing the City’s streets in a manner which seeks to minimize such adverse traffic effects.
Q: Won’t this proposal create freeways on the Olympic and Pico corridors?
A: No, evaluations by LADOT indicate overall travel speeds can be improved well below the posted speed limits of 35 mph. Faster yes, due to less delay, but within the existing speed limits.
Q: What are the specific implementation steps?
A:
• Implement peak period restrictions in areas which currently do not have such restrictions by installing new poles and “No Stopping” signs
• Change all existing “No Stopping” signs to “7-10 AM” and “3-7 PM” for Olympic Boulevard and “7-9 AM” and “4-7 PM” for Pico Boulevard
• Add lane striping to demark a peak hour curbside lane
• Install new left turn signals at designated major cross streets
• Activate new traffic signal timing to provide progression for traffic westbound on Olympic Boulevard and eastbound on Pico Boulevard
• Temporarily deploy traffic control officers to keep intersections clear and ensure motorist safety
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
3
Q: When will the Revised OPWE Initiative be implemented?
A: Currently, LADOT intends to commence implementation on or after April 30, 2008. However, this date is subject to change as a result of pending litigation challenging the Revised OWPE Initiative. Once implementation of the Revised OWPE Initiative has started, it will take approximately 4 weeks to add the peak period striping and install the appropriate signage It will take approximately an additional 8 weeks to stripe the additional lanes, add the left turn arrows and retime the signals
Q: What happens to vehicles parked illegally during (new) peak period restrictions?
A: LADOT will enforce “No Stopping” restrictions to protect motorist safety and to ensure the efficient flow of traffic. After an initial warning period, those who block a peak period lane will be subject to citation and towing.
Q: How will residents, business, and motorists learn the details of the Revised OPWE Initiative?
A: Information will be posted on the LADOT website: www.ladot/lacity.org and an outreach campaign consisting of flyers, news media, etc. will be used.
Q: Will the Revised OWPE Initiative magically fix traffic congestion in the City of Los Angeles?
A: No, but it is a smart, fast, and reversible initiative that the City believes will improve traffic flow within the existing facilities (streets).
Ultimately, all of us must do our part, including:
• Using public transit or walking instead of driving whenever we can; “Go Metro with the Mayor” challenges all Angelenos to try and use public transit at least once a week
• Scheduling driving trips during less congested off-peak hour whenever possible
• Supporting quality, environmentally sustainable investment and development near rail and busway stations while protecting low density residential neighborhoods
• Supporting expansion of the rail transit and busway system in Los Angeles so that we have fast, reliable alternatives to driving
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
4
Q: Is Revised OWPE Initiative permanent?
A: Not necessarily. If the initiative does not perform as anticipated, the initiative is fully reversible quickly and at minimal cost. LADOT will monitor the operation and performance of both streets after implementation to determine the effectiveness of the Initiative.
Q: What Council Districts are affected?
A: The following Council Districts are directly affected by OWPE:
Council District 5 – Jack Weiss
Council District 10 – Herb Wesson
Council District 11 – Bill Rosendahl
Contact information:
Ken Husting, Department of Transportation” 213 972-5008
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: 213 978-0600
Councilmember Jack Weiss: 213 289-0353
April 18, 2008
Home page of website source: http://www.wncla.org/
On February 14, 2008, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa requested that the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) implement certain traffic relief measures along Olympic and Pico Boulevards. The initiative, referred to as “Olympic West Pico East” (OWPE), was developed by the Mayor and Councilmember Jack Weiss and was part of the Mayor’s overall efforts to increase the convenience, reliability, safety and speed of Los Angeles’ transportation system. In response, LADOT, analyzed the Mayor’s request, and on March 25, 2008, approved a revised OWPE initiative (“Revised OWPE Initiative”). The Revised OWPE Initiative differs materially from the original proposal, while still providing significant traffic related benefits consistent with the Mayor’s and Councilmember Weiss’ goals.
Over the past nine months, a total of 27 community meetings have occurred regarding street operations for Olympic and Pico Boulevards, including 13 meetings since OWPE was first announced on November 26, 2007 by Mayor Villaraigosa, Los Angeles City Council members Jack Weiss and Bill Rosendahl, and Beverly Hills Mayor Jimmy Delshad.
The Revised OWPE Initiative will employ the following measures: (i) uniform peak period parking restrictions will be established on both Olympic and Pico consistent with the City’s General Plan and Community Plans; and (ii) traffic signals will be re-timed to improve traffic flow on both streets, in a manner which favors westbound travel on Olympic Boulevard and eastbound travel on Pico Boulevard.
The following frequently asked questions (FAQ) are provided to educate and inform residents, businesses, and visitors about the Revised OWPE Initiative, and to clarify misconceptions which may have been created as a result of revisions to the initiative as originally proposed.
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
2
Q: Is the Revised OWPE Initiative a “one-way street” proposal?
A: No, there will be traffic in both directions, on both streets, at all times, as well as parking on both streets during most hours of the day and night. No existing traffic lanes are being removed, nor is the direction of any traffic lane being altered.
Q. What are the initiative’s boundaries?
A: Centinela Avenue to the west and Fairfax to the east.
Q: Why is the City implementing OWPE?
A: Motorists on Olympic and Pico Boulevards during peak hours can move as slowly as nine or ten miles per hour despite a posted speed limit of 35 mph. This results in delay and traffic congestion. Mayor Villaraigosa, the City Council, and LADOT are committed to managing the City’s streets in a manner which seeks to minimize such adverse traffic effects.
Q: Won’t this proposal create freeways on the Olympic and Pico corridors?
A: No, evaluations by LADOT indicate overall travel speeds can be improved well below the posted speed limits of 35 mph. Faster yes, due to less delay, but within the existing speed limits.
Q: What are the specific implementation steps?
A:
• Implement peak period restrictions in areas which currently do not have such restrictions by installing new poles and “No Stopping” signs
• Change all existing “No Stopping” signs to “7-10 AM” and “3-7 PM” for Olympic Boulevard and “7-9 AM” and “4-7 PM” for Pico Boulevard
• Add lane striping to demark a peak hour curbside lane
• Install new left turn signals at designated major cross streets
• Activate new traffic signal timing to provide progression for traffic westbound on Olympic Boulevard and eastbound on Pico Boulevard
• Temporarily deploy traffic control officers to keep intersections clear and ensure motorist safety
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
3
Q: When will the Revised OPWE Initiative be implemented?
A: Currently, LADOT intends to commence implementation on or after April 30, 2008. However, this date is subject to change as a result of pending litigation challenging the Revised OWPE Initiative. Once implementation of the Revised OWPE Initiative has started, it will take approximately 4 weeks to add the peak period striping and install the appropriate signage It will take approximately an additional 8 weeks to stripe the additional lanes, add the left turn arrows and retime the signals
Q: What happens to vehicles parked illegally during (new) peak period restrictions?
A: LADOT will enforce “No Stopping” restrictions to protect motorist safety and to ensure the efficient flow of traffic. After an initial warning period, those who block a peak period lane will be subject to citation and towing.
Q: How will residents, business, and motorists learn the details of the Revised OPWE Initiative?
A: Information will be posted on the LADOT website: www.ladot/lacity.org and an outreach campaign consisting of flyers, news media, etc. will be used.
Q: Will the Revised OWPE Initiative magically fix traffic congestion in the City of Los Angeles?
A: No, but it is a smart, fast, and reversible initiative that the City believes will improve traffic flow within the existing facilities (streets).
Ultimately, all of us must do our part, including:
• Using public transit or walking instead of driving whenever we can; “Go Metro with the Mayor” challenges all Angelenos to try and use public transit at least once a week
• Scheduling driving trips during less congested off-peak hour whenever possible
• Supporting quality, environmentally sustainable investment and development near rail and busway stations while protecting low density residential neighborhoods
• Supporting expansion of the rail transit and busway system in Los Angeles so that we have fast, reliable alternatives to driving
Olympic West Pico East
Frequently Asked Questions
4
Q: Is Revised OWPE Initiative permanent?
A: Not necessarily. If the initiative does not perform as anticipated, the initiative is fully reversible quickly and at minimal cost. LADOT will monitor the operation and performance of both streets after implementation to determine the effectiveness of the Initiative.
Q: What Council Districts are affected?
A: The following Council Districts are directly affected by OWPE:
Council District 5 – Jack Weiss
Council District 10 – Herb Wesson
Council District 11 – Bill Rosendahl
Contact information:
Ken Husting, Department of Transportation” 213 972-5008
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: 213 978-0600
Councilmember Jack Weiss: 213 289-0353
April 18, 2008
Busway extension driving out longtime tenants. Sixty-one of the merchants will be affected.
Busway extension driving out longtime tenants - Los Angeles Times
Busway extension driving out longtime tenants
Ken Hively/ Los Angeles Times
Jose Martin, who must move his Canoga Avenue masonry business after 15 years as a tenant, says: “This couldn’t have come at a worse time. What the economy wasn’t able to do, the MTA will do.”
Businesses displaced by a Canoga Park project connecting Warner Center and Chatsworth Metrolink station worry about surviving in a weakened economy.
By Ann M. Simmons
May 20, 2009
When Jose Martin signed a lease with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to place his masonry business in Canoga Park, he was informed that he might have to move if the agency ever decided to develop the land on Canoga Avenue.
"We were told it could happen someday in the distant future, with a big question mark," said Martin, whose MasonryClub sells a variety of natural stone products, boulders and cobble. "Because some businesses have been here for 40, 50 years, we were hoping that possibly it just wouldn't materialize."
* Busway project
Busway project
* Bus line expansion
Bus line expansion
Fifteen years later, that day has finally arrived.
Martin's masonry business is among 86 firms along the east side of the Canoga Park industrial corridor that were recently notified they would have to relocate to make way for a four-mile extension of the MTA's Orange Line busway.
The busway will use an existing right of way along Canoga Avenue from Warner Center to the Chatsworth Metrolink station.
The $223-million project is due to break ground next month with the construction of a bus bridge and parking lot, said Hitesh Patel, the MTA's director of construction management. Building in the areas where the businesses are located would begin early next year.
"It's going to have a terrific impact," said MTA spokesman David Sotero. "It will provide important linkage with the much larger interurban rail system in L.A. County."
Sixty-one of the merchants that would be affected by the relocation have leases for businesses such as storage facilities, building material and landscaping products. Most of the 25 remaining business are billboard companies, MTA officials said, underscoring that all the tenants have known for months about their need to relocate.
Thirteen business owners had signed long-term leases before the MTA took complete ownership of the Canoga Avenue right of way in 1992, Sotero said. The MTA will help these business owners find new locations and cover some of their moving expenses, said Velma Marshall, an MTA executive.
The business owners who signed leases with the MTA were not entitled to any financial compensation or special benefits because their contracts stipulated that the transit agency might eventually develop the land, Sotero said. Even so, these businesses have been given 90 days to move, as opposed to the required 30 days' notice, Sotero added. And Marshall confirmed that "all of them can get relocation referral and advisory services."
This is little comfort to business owners who must move.
"This couldn't have come at a worse time," said Martin, who worried that his masonry yard, which generates $3 million to $4 million a year in sales, would have to shut down if he failed to find a new venue large enough to house his products. "What the economy wasn't able to do, the MTA will do," Martin said.
Bob Jacobi, owner of Jacobi Building Materials, a family operation on Canoga Avenue that has been in business since 1959, is upset that the MTA wants to encroach onto 24 feet of his property -- an area he uses to store inventory that includes colorful slates, bricks and 70 types of ground cover.
"We need land for most of the products that we sell," Jacobi said as he gave a reporter a tour of the yard. "We can't put everything in a building."
Having less to sell would result in fewer customers and vendors, Jacobi said.
"The way the economy is right now . . . if they take [the land] they want, it will be just a slow death," he added.
Steve Fawcett, co-owner of Fire Rock of California, near Canoga Avenue and Sherman Way, said he was determined to keep his business alive, "but the question is where."
Fawcett worried that his 12 employees might not be able to handle a move or be forced to look for new work if he had to shut down his business, which makes and installs volcanic pumice stone fireplaces.
"You would think they would be trying to support the businesses that are trying to survive right now instead of trying to wipe them out," Fawcett said of the MTA's eviction plan. "It's like kicking you when you're down."
Bill Galvin, Fawcett's father-in-law, who owns Galvin Painting, worried over the pending loss of a parking lot at Canoga and Deering avenues that he uses to store surplus inventory.
"The biggest problem is getting rid of all that paint," said Galvin, who has been based at the location for 15 years. "There's paint for days out there. No matter what, it's going to be costly."
Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis P. Zine, whose 3rd District includes Canoga Park, said he would work with the business owners who must relocate to ensure that they land on their feet.
But he insisted the busway extension would help ease traffic on freeways and area roadways. It would also ensure the cleanup of parts of the Canoga industrial area that have "turned into a junkyard," Zine said.
ann.simmons@latimes.com
More NIMBYism to the Olympic-Pico Plan
Call for Your Help against Pico/Olympic “Plan” « Wilshire Highlands
Call for Your Help against Pico/Olympic “Plan”
February 22, 2008, 8:43 pm
Filed under: Los Angeles, Olympic/Pico, community groups, neighborhood associations, traffic
Dear Neighbor,Many people in the area are upset about the Mayor’s decision to by-pass the City Council and the city’s Transportation Committee and put the Pico-Olympic plan into place by March. Many feel that it deserves further study before being implemented and, legally there MUST be an Environmental Impact Report per California state law.There are others who may not be against the plan as much as they are against the Mayor going around the normal city approval process.
Those who work or have children who attend a school on or near Olympic or Pico (Carthay Center, Saturn and others) may find that getting to and from the school is increasingly dangerous and difficult if the “freeway” conditions that many expect do, indeed, occur.
If you want to cut to the chase, here’s the pitch. If you want to see further study (such as an Environmental Impact Report) done before this plan is imposed on our neighborhood, you CAN do something to help. DONATE NOW. Write a check to help pay for the lawsuit that Pico-Olympic Solutions is filing in order to make sure an Environmental Impact Report is conducted before this goes through. They are trying to reach $20,000 by tomorrow and they are well on their way, but they need more donations.
Pico-Olympic Solutions has retained the law firm which successfully fought the Mayor’s LAUSD takeover bid. No amount is too small. $5, $10, or more (obviously) can help. Make payable to GWLACC (Greater West Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce). Put Pico-Olympic Solutions in the memo line. (GWLACC is a non-profit foundation, so your donation should be tax deductible.) No donation is too small or too large. Let me know if you have a check that you would like picked up. Or you can drop it in my mailbox (either my 1070 Hi Point Street mail slot or the Friends of Carthay Center mailbox at school) and I’ll get it to the Pico-Olympic Solutions organizers.
More info at FixTheCity.org where you’ll find a chronology of events with city reports, emails, letters, newspaper articles, etc. about the issue. You can truly inform yourself. And if you want to read further on the subject, continue.
Opinions below reflect neighborhood leaders, residents, and business owners who feel that the Pico-Olympic proposal will create significant and negative consequences for the areas surrounding Pico and Olympic. In any event, whatever your personal opinion, an Environmental Impact Report NEEDS to be conducted. Everyone agrees that traffic is terrible, we’ve seen it get increasingly impossible over the last few years. But there are many who feel that…
1. making it easier for single occupant cars to get from A to B will be short-lived benefit as additional cars are encouraged to use and then clog the targeted streets of Pico and Olympic (a band-aid with huge repercussions)
2. the cost-benefit (7 minutes shaved off commute in best case scenario, if one is driving from La Brea to Centinela) is not worth the harm it does to the neighborhoods, the mom and pop businesses, and the health and safety of children and residents
3. Santa Monica has developed and approved additional businesses without any thought to the toll it takes on the roads leading TO Santa Monica. Santa Monica is reaping the increased tax revenue without a proportionate piece of the “pain.” Employees of these businesses can’t afford to live in Santa Monica and there doesn’t seem to have been a lot of thought about how all of these employees will get TO Santa Monica.
4. Most importantly, that it is unlawful for the Mayor to push through a pet project without the proper checks & balances of an Environmental Impact Report, approval from the City Council and agreement from the Traffic Committee.
For those who live near Fairfax and Olympic, we’ve all seen how a decision quite some distance away can have a ripple effect on those beyond the anticipated “zone of disruption.” Fairfax traffic became impossible after the Grove opened. All of the Environmental Impact Reports and traffic mitigation solutions were for the immediate area near the Grove. No thought was put into (or no one cared) what the Grove would do to traffic from the 10 freeway leading north to the Grove. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Grove, but its impact reached far beyond its legally defined “impact” zone.
So now they want to push the Pico-Olympic through without even an Environmental Impact Report? When it runs right through residential neighborhoods and small business districts? Nothing? This is madness.
Show me that the small businesses won’t be severely impacted by the loss of almost all of their parking and being on a street that the Mayor has determined should favor cars over pedestrians.
Show me that the speed limit will be enforced 24/7 (already there are multiple cars zooming through a 25 mph school zone at 45-50 mph, and this will suddenly stop because of enforcement? Yet, there’s no money to pay for increased enforcement.)
Show me that air quality will not take a dive as there is an increase in number of cars on Olympic & Pico and idling cars on north/south streets (surely, for this to “work,” the “timing” of the east & west routes will take precedence over the timing of the north/south streets such as Fairfax, Crescent Heights, La Cienega, etc.)
Show me that Olympic/Pico won’t become a mini-freeway.
Show me that the residents and business owners near Pico and Olympic won’t bear the brunt of the City’s failure to properly plan transportation and development (if, about 10 years ago, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky hadn’t derailed the subway construction leading west from its current terminus at Western and Wilshire, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess!)
Hope you are inspired to find out more and get involved, whichever side of the debate you may fall on!
Susan Nickerson
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The city of Los Angeles has to complete a thorough environmental impact study before resetting the traffic lights to make parts of Olympic and Pico boulevards function as something like one-way streets, a judge ruled.
Red light for Olympic-Pico plan - LA Observed
Red light for Olympic-Pico plan
Kevin Roderick • May 5 2008 2:47 PM
The city of Los Angeles has to complete a thorough environmental impact study before resetting the traffic lights to make parts of Olympic and Pico boulevards function as something like one-way streets, a judge ruled. It's a blow to Mayor Villaraigosa, who had made a bit of a show of summarily ordering the project to go forward. From the LAT:
In his five-page ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Torribio wrote that the Olympic-Pico proposal had a reasonable chance of causing impacts that required study. He took particular umbrage with a claim by the city that the project didn't need to be studied because it wasn't a major change to how the streets are managed.
"In other words, the very purpose of the project is to expand the use of the existing streets," Torribio wrote. "To claim that the project will not expand the current use and is therefore exempt" from further study "seems inconsistent with the stated purpose."
An example of the typical knee-jerk NIMBYism so popular on the westside of LA
Mayor evades council roadblock on Pico-Olympic plan - Los Angeles Times
Mayor evades council roadblock on Pico-Olympic plan
Antonio Villaraigosa orders lane and parking changes to ease Westside gridlock, despite opposition from two councilmen.
By Sharon Bernstein
February 15, 2008
Despite fierce opposition from residents and concerns by two City Council members, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has ordered Los Angeles transportation officials to implement a plan to make Pico Boulevard mostly one-way eastbound, and Olympic Boulevard mostly one-way westbound.
Under the mayor's plan, which had stalled earlier this week in a City Council committee, parking would be forbidden on all but a few stretches of Pico and Olympic during rush hour beginning March 8.
Traffic signals would be timed to favor faster eastbound traffic on Pico and westbound traffic on Olympic by April 28. After six months to a year, the two streets would be restriped so that Pico will have four lanes going east and two going west, while Olympic had four lanes going west and two going east, a spokesman for the mayor said Thursday.
The mayor's move comes a day after Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Herb Wesson said they might remove their districts from the proposal because of concerns from local businesses and residents that the changes would harm shops and restaurants by making impossible for customers to park.
On Thursday, the mayor, backed by Westside Councilman Jack Weiss, overrode the council's Transportation Committee, which had postponed action on the plan, saying through a spokesman that the council did not have jurisdiction over such issues as parking regulations or whether streets were one-way.
"The Department of Transportation reports to the mayor," said Matt Szabo, a spokesman for Villaraigosa.
The mayor reduced the size of the project by more than a mile. It was initially supposed to run from the Santa Monica city limits to La Brea Avenue. Now, the idea is for it to end at Fairfax Avenue. The change is apparently a nod to Wesson, because the project no longer goes through a part of his district for which he expressed concerns.
Weiss' strong support for the idea has come despite some heated opposition from merchants in the heavily Jewish Pico-Robertson district.
The mayor's end-run around those council members underscores his effort to do something about Los Angeles' gridlocked traffic, particularly in the Westside.
A spokesman for Wesson said the councilman did not know about the mayor's move late Thursday and could not comment. Wesson just Wednesday said he would submit a motion to make the program's eastern terminus be Fairfax Avenue -- effectively removing most of his district. Villaraigosa's plan seems to address that issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)