Turning Little Tokyo Into Futureland (Source: Curbed LA)

Curbed LA: Turning Little Tokyo Into Futureland

Turning Little Tokyo Into Futureland

Thursday, August 13, 2009, by Neal Broverman


Little Tokyo Blogged has images and video of last week's Metro meeting on the Downtown Connector—a short rail line that will link together a bunch of light-rails and provide seamless travel from places like Long Beach to Pasadena and Culver City to East LA. Metro is exploring options on the Connector now, which would connect mainly in Little Tokyo, and looking at above-ground and subway iterations. LTB has images of the models that Metro provided, and one shows a giant green-blue bird that may spread its wings over Alameda Street (see attached image). The bird looks to be the canopy of an above-ground light-rail station that looks even cooler in the video; very Disney-ish. [LTB]

[Caption]

Edward Glaeser Continues His Assault on HSR (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: Edward Glaeser Continues His Assault on HSR

Thursday, August 13, 2009
Edward Glaeser Continues His Assault on HSR

Part 3 of Harvard economist Edward Glaeser's series on HSR costs and benefits is up at the New York Times' Economix Blog. This week's entry focuses on the environmental impact of trains, and "other social benefits" that are rather nebulously defined. Parts of his entry are less objectionable than in the past, but overall Glaeser's approach to HSR, based on an arbitrarily limited set of factors, continues to produce anti-HSR conclusions that lead me to wonder if that was his goal all along.

Before getting into the meat of his analysis, Glaeser took a moment to defend himself against criticism, including from this blog, about his choice of a Dallas-Houston HSR route:

As in the previous two posts, I focus on a mythical 240-mile-line between Houston and Dallas, which was chosen to avoid giving the impression that this back-of-the-envelope calculation represents a complete evaluation of any actual proposed route. (The Texas route will be certainly far less attractive than high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor, but it is not inherently less reasonable than the proposed high-speed rail routes across Missouri or between Dallas and Oklahoma City.)


This is a totally misleading comparison. It's not Texas vs. the NEC, or even Missouri vs. the NEC. Although the blog post is headed with an image of a California high speed train, Glaeser never once mentions the California route. Nor does he mention the other federal HSR corridors, many of which connect cities with denser populations than the Sunbelt cities he insists on examining. Glaeser's entire argument is basically an examination of Texas HSR, and not of the actual national HSR plan. So his entire exercise is somewhat suspect in my mind.

Glaeser's focus is on carbon emissions, and here he isn't quite wrong:

If I assume, relatively arbitrarily, that one-half of the rail riders used to take cars and one-half used to take planes, and that there is no extra travel generated by the rail line, then each 240-mile train trip eliminates 113 pounds of carbon dioxide for each passenger in our atmosphere. These estimates suggest that trains are green, which differs from the studies, which include the emissions from building the rail system, cited by Eric Morris at Freakonomics.


Which confirms some of what we have been saying on this blog for quite some time. The CHSRA's own studies have predicted that 12 billion pounds of carbon emissions per year would be eliminated. Obviously one can and should debate those numbers, but that's pretty compelling stuff, and it's good that Gleaser understands the role HSR can play in reducing emissions.

Glaeser doesn't stop here. I think it is a sound concept to try and place the reduced emissions in a broader context. But Glaeser hasn't really done this in an effective way:

Combining reduced carbon emissions, reduced congestion and reduced traffic mortality provides an extra $21.63 million worth of benefits a year from the rail line, which increases the $102 million benefit minus operating costs figure from last week to $124 million, which is still far less than the $648 million estimated cost per year of building and maintaining the infrastructure.

The environmental and mortality benefits of rail are real, but the magnitude of the social benefits from switching modes seems is quite small relative to the cost of the system.



I'll let someone else check the numbers here. What bugs me is that yet again Glaeser assesses this on its own. What of the cost of doing nothing? How much savings would the trains be over the costs of building new roads and airports to handle any increased demand?

Also left unstated are the other economic benefits of rail. What of the jobs it creates? And the tax revenues those jobs create? What of the green dividend - the new economic activity created by freeing people from congestion and oil dependence?

Once again Glaeser fails on this. He uses an unrepresentative HSR line and assesses it outside the full context, without discussing the true costs and the true benefits.

Note: I am currently in Pittsburgh, PA for the Netroots Nation meeting of progressive bloggers. My posting may be a bit sporadic, but I hope to keep up with the one-a-day ideal.

Yesterday was a travel day for most attendees, as it was for me, and thunderstorms caused major delays at airports here in the northeastern US. Some were stuck on their landed planes, sitting at the gate, unable to deplane because of the possibility of lightning striking the metal jetway. Friends of mine who came to Pittsburgh from nearby eastern cities frequently remarked how much easier this would have been had there been a high speed train available - one that can operate in a thunderstorm.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 9:38 AM

California bullet train OKs European accords (Source:San Francisco Business Times )

Link: California bullet train OKs European accords - San Francisco Business Times:

California bullet train OKs European accords
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

California’s high-speed train officials have formalized new cooperative agreements with bullet-train operators overseas.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority this week OK’d agreements with bullet train firms in Italy and Germany. Those deals are similar to cooperative agreements the authority already has with Spain, France and Japan.

The foreign entities are offering free advice to California in hopes that their courtesy will give them an edge on future bids once the state starts laying track for the system.

Construction on the state’s high-seed rail system is still years away, but the advice that foreign operators are giving has helped Golden State officials with many technical questions as they plan for the 800 miles of track that may one day link the Bay Area with Southern California.

The interest from foreign bullet-train operators is financially driven. If California succeeds in building its bullet train by 2030 as forecast, it will be one of the largest transportation projects in United States history. It will need millions of dollars’ worth of rolling stock, track, technology systems and maintenance, all of which will be put out to bid. The state’s system will have a $1.1 billion operating surplus, if the project evolves according to estimates.

Email Eric Young at eyoung@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4969.

Another candidate for Expo maintenance yard emerges (Source: Santa Monica Daily Press)

Link: Santa Monica Daily Press: System Print Window

Another candidate for Expo maintenance yard emerges

by Melody Hanatani

August 13, 2009

CITY HALL — There’s a new contender emerging in the small pool of possible maintenance yard locations for the Exposition Light Rail.

That candidate is a roughly 13-acre chunk of land made up of two city blocks bounded by Colorado Avenue to the north, Olympic Boulevard to the south, Ninth Street to the west, and 11th Street to the east, all of which is currently home to approximately 27 businesses, including Jerry Bruckheimer Films.

It was included in a list of 20 properties recently evaluated by a city consultant who combed through potential sites for a work facility after Pico Neighborhood residents came out in strong opposition to a proposal by the Exposition Construction Authority to place the yard at the Verizon site, which is across the street from homes near the corner of Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard.

While the survey concluded that the Colorado option would create safety concerns because its configuration would force trains to make a turn into eastbound traffic, the City Council on Tuesday asked its staff and Expo officials to continue studying it for different siting possibilities.

“The cost of relocating businesses to me is infinitesimal compared to the mitigated impact on residents,” Councilwoman Gleam Davis said. “Relocating businesses to me may be very expensive, but it’s not going to have a negative impact on a neighborhood.”

The council also directed its staff to continue working on a newly conceived hybrid plan that would involve using the Verizon site, adjacent Santa Monica College parking lot and part of the City Yards, separating the facility and the residents with a 120-foot linear buffer.

Behind the buffer will be a car wash, storage tracks, train washing facility, and traction power station. The new plan would require relocating the bike path from the Expo right-of-way.

The hybrid option replaces an alternative proposal that city staff presented last month to spread the facility over several properties, including Verizon, the SMC parking lot and city-owned property at 1800 Stewart St. The plan was opposed by residents, Bergamot Station and the Lionstone Group, which owns the lease at 1800 Stewart.

Both the Lionstone Group and Bergamot Station, which is home to art studios and galleries, backed the new proposal, but the hybrid plan brought out a new opponent — the owners of the Lantana Entertainment Media Campus, which sits immediately to the north.

“We have grown in Santa Monica because tenants can work in an environment that is conducive to their business,” Maggi Kelley, the general manager of Lantana, said. “It is important to us that we are able to continue the same quality of service to all tenants as we have been supplying to them the last 20 years.”

Ted Bischak, the senior vice president of asset management for Maguire Properties, which owns the Lantana campus, said the alternative proposal provided the building a significant buffer from the maintenance facility while the hybrid plan pushes those activities up to the property line.

“The buffer for pedestrians and bicycles is removed and there is no conceivable way in our opinion to fix this,” he said.

Rick Thrope, the chief executive officer of the Exposition Construction Authority, said that there is a sound studio located within 10 feet of the Gold Line tracks in Pasadena and that impacts were successfully mitigated.

Residents spoke against plans to place a facility near their homes, criticizing Expo officials for waiting until the previous evening to hold its first community meeting about the maintenance facility. Expo has pledged to hold another design workshop with neighbors.

Residents also expressed discontent with the screening criteria that the consultant used in its evaluation, which included weeding out properties that were too close to parks and schools and were under the adequate parcel size.

“I’m shocked and disappointed that neighborhoods are apparently not on the same level as schools and parks, neighborhoods that are occupied 24 hours a day,” Michael Storms said.

Darrell Clarke, who serves as the co-chair on Friends 4 Expo Transit and lived more than three years about half a block south of the Verizon site, said the maintenance yard will not produce the same health hazards as the I-10 Freeway or City Yards, which residents said will join the Expo facility in creating a “toxic triangle.”

“This is not a freeway with that kind of noise and air pollution,” he said.

Davis pointed out that the Verizon site is also currently a maintenance yard that probably produces carcinogens.

“They are refueling vehicles on that site and there are few things that create more air pollution than refueling vehicles and they are not refueling them with clean air, it’s gasoline,” she said. “There are things going on at that site now that are probably having a negative impact on the neighborhood.”

There’s some skepticism about whether the Colorado site will be financially feasible given the relocation costs of 27 businesses. City Manager Lamont Ewell said that the hybrid plan is estimated to cost about $100 to $120 million and the Colorado option would be double that figure.

Councilman Bob Holbrook said he has a gut feeling that the site will create a furor in the city.

“It’ll probably be $250 million plus 27 different law firms marching in here with all the employees that work in those places and I just think … that site isn’t going to make it and to go down that long dusty road is concerning,” he said.

California High-Speed Rail Authority institutes 'transparency' initiatives to ensure project schedule, budget and accountability (Source:California High-Speed Rail Authority)

Link: California High-Speed Rail Authority institutes 'transparency' initiatives to ensure project schedule, budget and accountability

California High-Speed Rail Authority institutes 'transparency' initiatives to ensure project schedule, budget and accountability

Last week, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) board instituted “sweeping organizational transparency and accountability measures” with the aim of ensuring that public investment in HSR is “delivered on budget and on time,” according to a prepared statement.

To that end, CHSRA created three standing committees:

• the Executive Administrative Committee, which includes CHSRA Chairman Curt Pringle, Judge Quentin Kopp and Director Fran Florez;
• the Operations Committee, which includes Directors Richard Katz, Rod Diridon Jr. and Russ Burns; and
• the Finance Committee, which includes Directors Tom Umberg, David Crane and Lynn Schenk.

“Our record for accountability continues to be spotless and with this action today, we will use every tool at our disposal to bring about renewed commitment and greater accountability and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely,” said Pringle, adding that the board plans to hold workshops to educate and inform the public on the high-speed system plans.

Other transparency measures include maintaining CHSRA’s Web site, posting all applications and other required documentation.

Light Rail could cause complications for circulation (Source: Santa Monica Daily Press)

Link: Santa Monica Daily Press: Print Window

Light Rail could cause complications for circulation

by Melody Hanatani

August 11, 2009

Editor’s note: This story is part of an ongoing series that tracks the city’s expenditures appearing on upcoming Santa Monica City Council consent agendas. Consent agenda items are routinely passed by the City Council with little or no discussion from elected officials or the public. However, many of the items have been part of public discussion in the past.

CITY HALL — A set of suggestions to stave off anticipated traffic impacts around the Exposition Light Rail terminal in Downtown will get a second look as officials prepare for the arrival of the electric train in 2015.

The City Council tonight is slated to hire Fehr & Peers to conduct a study that will examine the projected increase of pedestrians and cyclists around the light rail station at Fourth Street and Colorado Avenue, which is expected to change traffic patterns near the already congested intersection.

Fehr & Peers’ $89,100 contract is part of an estimated $2.4 million spending package waiting for the council’s approval.

Expo as a system is projected to carry about 62,000 passengers, translating to about 200 to 400 people who will get off each train in Santa Monica, creating a possible circulation nightmare.

These concerns were raised during a council meeting in March when traffic consultants presented several proposals to minimize problems at the impacted intersection, including diverting cars by creating a new street that would go from the I-10 Freeway offramp at Fourth Street, cutting through the City Hall north parking lot and ending at Main Street.

Other suggestions include limiting Colorado between Fourth and Fifth streets to one-way configurations, and creating a “green street” along Colorado from Fourth to Ocean Avenue, which would entail widening sidewalks and reducing travel lanes.

“The circulation analysis is a necessary next step in testing the feasibility and potential effectiveness of possible infrastructure and other circulation measures,” a city staff report said.

Greener biodiesel fuel on the way

When City Hall goes out to bid for a new biodiesel supplier later this year, it will be looking for the greenest option on the market — yellow grease.

In the meantime, the council will be asked to extend its agreement with current supplier General Petroleum Corp. until the end of November at a cost of $1.24 million.

The council requested additional information related to the overall environmental impact of biodiesel fuel when it approved the contract with General Petroleum in December, wanting to ensure that the bidder’s entire carbon footprint was taken into account. City staff met with users of biodiesel, including the Big Blue Bus, about their experiences using biodiesel, finding that yellow grease (mostly recycled cooking oil from restaurants) is considered the most sustainable option, which up until recently was not available in the Los Angeles region.

Studying clean water projects

Following a request for more information about a series of proposed water improvement projects to be funded by Measure V, more money will be needed for consultant time.

That request came from the Measure V Citizen’s Oversight Committee in June about the watershed capital improvement program, asking for additional project scopes, cost estimates and concept reports. Black and Veatch has since last year helped develop strategies to carry out projects under Measure V, a parcel tax which voters passed in 2006 to clean up the ocean and beaches.

The extra work will mean an additional $153,000 to the consultant’s contract.

Lobbying for public transit

The Ferguson Group is slated to receive a $35,000 contract to serve as the Big Blue Bus’ federal representative on matters related to transit funding issues in Washington D.C.

The Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, which consists of various public transportation agencies in the county, has also selected the Ferguson Group to serve as its lobbyist.

The Big Blue Bus is also expected to ask the council to extend a contract with Harley Ellis Devereaux, which is designing the interior of the agency’s operations building on Seventh Street, to cover extra work related to LEED achievement and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Resurfacing Downtown streets

A project to resurface portions of Santa Monica Boulevard, and Fifth and Sixth streets will require extra funding because of the uneven and deteriorated condition of the existing pavement at several locations.

The result will be an extra $77,900 to Silvia Construction, which has already begun work at several streets.

Caltrans will cover about 88 percent of the extra cost while the remaining will come from the general fund.

Handling payroll software

Human Resources is requesting the council approve a contract with Oracle USA to maintain software that handles payroll, benefits and other aspects of the department.

The estimated $578,695 contract will cover the software provider’s services for the next four years. The software was purchased from Peoplesoft Inc. in 1995, a company that was later acquired by Oracle.

“The system is the backbone for all human resources, benefits administration and payroll activity for the city,” the staff said.

Outdoor seating for beach house

While the new Annenberg Community Beach House just opened doors in April, there’s already some new furniture in mind for the future.

The council will be asked to approve an extra $27,293 to JANUS et Cie to supply outdoor furniture for the beach house. The money will cover future furniture repair and replacements.

Moving sustainability liaison

The position of the community sustainable liaison, which for the past few years has helped bridge a gap between the community and City Hall on green matters, will join nonprofit organization Sustainable Works in order to better secure grant funding.

The council in 2007 approved a $150,000 contract with Traci Reitz to serve as the community sustainable liaison with the stipulation that she secure outside funding to continue in that role after the funds run out. The only problem is that grant funding is scarce for such consultants.

Reitz suggested that long-term funding would be possible if her position shifted from being an independent consultant working for the city to one that is incorporated into an established nonprofit organization — Sustainable Works.

The council is expected to approve a transfer of $87,500 to Community Partners, which is the fiscal manager for Sustainable Works, covering the remaining funding for the liaison.

Grants for City Hall

The council is expected to authorize the city manager to accept grants for vehicle replacement and public safety.

City Hall was recently awarded $600,000 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District to cover the costs of buying 24 heavy-duty natural gas vehicles, reimbursing up to $25,000 a piece. The council will be asked to authorize the city manager to obtain those funds.

The council is also expected to enter a memorandum of understanding with the city of Los Angeles to receive more than $248,000 in grant funding from the Department of Justice. The grant requires that one agency in the area serve as the grant administrator, which in this case is Los Angeles.

The money will be used to help the Santa Monica Police Department cover costs of overtime during peak seasons.


melodyh@smdp.com

HSR and TOD (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: HSR and TOD

Monday, August 10, 2009
HSR and TOD

The middle of a severe recession led by collapsing real estate values may not seem like the best time to start talking about developing property around planned HSR stations. But the economy will eventually recover (even on the slow timescale forecast by many economists there will probably be real recovery between now and 2018) and that in turn will mean developers will bring the capital and the will to use HSR stations as anchors of new projects.

The CHSRA has always emphasized their stations as bringers of urban density; you can see it in the NC3D animations produced last year for the Authority. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is one of the strongest selling points for high speed rail, as it will help provide needed new housing in city centers, spur the development of other housing, commercial, and retail properties, and help act as magnets for bringing growth back into the cities and away from the exurban sprawl that characterized California's last period of economic growth (a sprawl which was directly responsible for the current economic collapse).

The question, as the San Diego Business Journal points out, is timing:

“I think not only is it something that is a good thing, it’s certainly going to be a phenomenal planning tool for the next generation of growth,” said Perry Dealy, president of Dealy Development. “The opportunity to take the high-speed stop hubs and convert them to maximize their mixed-use, high-density potential is great. You’d have what I’d call a TOD, transit-oriented design, starting with residential, work-live, retail, entertainment and other kinds of venues that are part of the mixed-use characteristics.”...

Dealy said that the type of project he has in mind would ultimately cost $1 billion to $2 billion. It would entail acquiring land to build on, adding or refurbishing infrastructure, and preparing a master plan.

“There is demand for the region to grow, we’re definitely going to add a million people, maybe not in 10, but in 12, 14 years it’s going to happen,” said Dealy. “Now’s the time to actually get these concepts defined.”


Of course, Dealy will have even more time than that to plan for San Diego, where revenue service may not begin until as late as 2030. But for some of the other stops, such as Anaheim, Fresno, Gilroy and San Jose, now may well be the right time to get TOD concepts under way, especially as cities start evaluating land use rules surrounding the proposed HSR stations.

Some developers aren't convinced there's any rush to get plans started:

Shawn Tobias, project manager at Houston-based Hines, a real estate firm and commercial developer, stated that he doesn’t see that much of a push from the development side to start planning for a project like this immediately.

“I think (development) firms in general right now tend to be shortsighted in terms of their business, just to make sure that they’re weathering the current conditions well enough, but planners are certainly into the future,” said Tobias. “Whether that becomes a reality is a different situation because the real challenge is integrating the plan within the existing municipalities, but it certainly is on Hines’ long-term radar.”

Tobias cited economic factors for the reasons that some developers have chosen to focus on more short-term projects.

“I don’t see a planning rush right now because most people are in survival modes,” Tobias said. “Once the economy starts to heat up and there’s more demand for development, I think you’ll see more firms clamoring for this.”



Of course, Hines isn't really saying anything that different from Dealy - both agree that HSR TOD will make a compelling financial opportunity for developers, investors, and buyers, but they aren't sure whether there is the resources out there right now to get this started given the economic climate.

As HSR TOD plans begin to take shape we'll start covering them in more detail here on the blog. One issue that the HSR stations raise related to development is whether there will be overnight and long-term parking allowed at these stations, a question Rafael brought up in the comments to yesterday's post. If such parking is allowed, Rafael rightly argues, it could mitigate against TOD, especially in lower density locations like the Central Valley.

Parking is a big issue when it comes to development in existing urban centers. TOD and density advocates have increasingly pushed to limit or eliminate city planning codes requiring new developments to provide a fixed number of parking spaces, and more attention is being drawn to the drawbacks of urban parking lots.

On the other hand, overnight and long-term parking would represent a potentially significant revenue stream for the CHSRA. There are many years of studies ahead that will examine this question, which will have an impact not only on how Californians interact with the HSR trains, but how the HSR system interacts with its surrounding urban environment.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 10:46 PM

An Alternative Pink Line through West Hollywood (Source: The Pink Line)

The Pink Line: An Alternative Pink Line through West Hollywood

Thursday, August 6, 2009
An Alternative Pink Line through West Hollywood

Last night at Plummer Park in West Hollywood there was a community forum on the progress of the Westside Subway Extension Project. (You might have noticed drills on Wilshire and Santa Monica beginning to take soil samples.) This project is in environmental review. For more information about this project, please visit Metro's website at http://www.metro.net/westside

There are still three more community forums within the next week and I encourage you to attend to learn more and to communication your support and suggestions:

• Thursday, August 6, Santa Monica Public Library, 601 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica
• Tuesday, August 11, Beverly Hills Public Library, 444 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills
• Wednesday, August 12, Westwood Presbyterian Church, 10822 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles

All the meetings are from 6:00-8:00 PM. The material presented will be identical at each meeting (though the crowds will be different), so pick the one that is most convenient for you.

I am still very hopeful that the Westside Extension will be build with Phase 4, which includes the Santa Monica Blvd. subway through West Hollywood, also known as Alternative 11:

There have been a couple of adjustments to the Santa Monica Blvd. alignment you should know about. As you can see from the above map, there was one alignment at La Cienega and one at San Vicente. The La Cienega alignment has been eliminated because of the inability to design that hard turn. The alignment will run south via San Vicente and the stop will be on Santa Monica Blvd. between La Cienega and San Vicente, right in the heart of West Hollywood. At last night's forum there was lots of comment about how and where to design the Beverly Center area stop. There will be specific Metro forum's this fall around specific stops. If you intersted in how the La Brea, Fairfax and west of La Cienega but east of San Vicente Santa Monica stops or any other stations along the alignments are designed, be sure and attend those upcoming Fall meetings.

This project is current divided into five phases:

1. Extension of Purple Line from Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/Fairfax
2. Extension of Purple Line to Century City
3. Extension of Purple Line to West L.A.
4. Connection of Purple Line and Hollywood/Highland through West Hollywood (The "Pink Line")
5. Extension of Purple Line to Santa Monica beach.

Thank goodness Measure R passed. This will fund Phases 1 through 3. At the Forum, I asked the money question: What will determine if Phase 4 will get built? After all, there is rock support in the community for this project. West Hollywood voted 83% in favor of Measure R.

It basically comes down to money. Heavy Rail Subway is the most expensive form of transportation construction. Can Phase 4 be competitive for federal matching funds? That will be the determining factor to getting funding for this project. So start writing your letters in favor of federal funding for this project to Congressman Henry Waxman and Senators Feinstein and Boxer.

What happens if Phase 4 doesn't get the go ahead? That's pretty sad. A lot of people who supported Measure R and who support this project will be heartbroken.

There is an alternative that I have heard being whispered as a possible backup by various transit advocates. It would involve incorporating the Pink Line through West Hollywood with the Crenshaw Line project under study right now.

For more information about the Crenshaw Line project go to http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/crenshaw/default.htm

Here's a map posted on the Transit Coalitions discussion forum by Darrell:


Instead of a Heavy Rail subway like the Red Line and Purple Line, in this alignment, the Pink Line would be a Light Rail alignment line like Blue, Green, Gold and Exposition Lines. This would not necessarily be all at ground level. Portions of the Blue, Gold and Exposition lines run underground and there will be grade separated crossings at the busiest intersections.

This northern extension of the Crenshw alignment would continue light rail up from Crenshaw/Expo up Crenshaw to San Vicente and then head northwest up San Vicente and resume the Phase 4 alignment in West Hollywood.

The advantage of this alignment is that light rail is cheaper to construct than heavy rail, therefore the numbers would be more advantageous for federal funding. Also, Metro will have already invested millions of dollars studying this corridor, received feedback and comment on station locations and design, and have a whole lot of heartbroken people on their hands. There is also a regional benefit. People in Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills and points south will more easily access LAX. Basically, West Hollywood and the Beverly Center area would be trading easier one-seat access to the Westside for easier access to LAX.

I still fully support Alternative 11 for the Westside Transit Corridor Extension Project. That is why 83% of West Hollywood voted for Measure R. I believe it is the right one for the region's future. However, while this light rail alternative may not be the most preferred or most desirable rail service to this area, it is in my opinion fully acceptable and preferable than the alternative if Phase 4 is not constructed, which is nothing.

Posted by Dan Wentzel at 8:48 AM

Expo Takes Santa Monica For a Bumpy Ride (Source: Santa Monica Dispatch)

Santa Monica Dispatch » Blog Archive » Expo Takes Santa Monica For a Bumpy Ride

Expo Takes Santa Monica For a Bumpy Ride
By: Peggy Clifford
Published: August 7th, 2009

City Hall is counting on the Expo Light Rail Line to eliminate the traffic jam that it created. Many residents look forward to its arrival with great excitement.

Surf Santa Monica reported Tuesday that “After more than a year unsuccessfully scouring the Westside for available land for a maintenance yard for the proposed light rail line to Santa Monica, Expo officials next week will ask the City Council to begin planning for the facility at the Verizon property neighboring residents oppose.

“Expo Construction Authority officials said they will ask the council members to scrap their plan to split up the yard after vocal opposition from area residents and a key land owner at a council meeting last month…

“ ‘There was no support for the hybrid site as was being proposed,’ said Samantha Bricker, the chief operating officer for the Expo Construction Authority…

“Expo officials said they — as well as City officials — have exhausted the hunt for a property adjacent to Phase 2 of the line, which will run from Culver City to Downtown Santa Monica.

“ ‘The City hired their people (consultants), we hired our people, we searched everywhere and didn’t find anything,’ said Rick Thorpe, the Expo Construction Authority’s CEO.

“’…Now I think we’re at the point of deciding on the Verizon site and start planning ways to make it work.

“City officials, who are in constant contact with the Construction Authority, said they are continuing to explore options, but are also moving ahead with plans for the Verizon site….

“City and light rail officials said they would be reaching out to the community next Tuesday, when the council is expected to give the green light to move ahead with the Verizon site…

“The Construction Authority will hold a community workshop to gather input on how to make the site work, and officials have offered to give neighboring residents a tour of a maintenance facility that has operated successfully next to a condominium complex along the Green Line.”

At the July 11 Council meeting, Council members Bob Holbrook and Bobby Shriver both questioned City Hall and Expo claims that there was no better site than the Pico Neighborhood for the maintenance yard in West L.A.— especially since Epxo has the authority to take whatever property it wants.

Having watched this sort of ritual dance too many times, I believe Expo’s claims of “scouring” the Westside, and “exhausting the hunt” is a show, as Expo actually decided on the Pico Neighborhood site sometime ago. It’s at the west end of the line. Check. It’s the right size. Check. It’s in a rundown area. Check. It’s in Expo’s price range. Check. And City Hall is so desperate for the line, it would not get in Expo’s way. Check and checkmate.

At the July11 meeting, someone asked what would happen if a Pico neighborhood site were not available for sone reason. Thorpe said, “That would be a deal-breaker.”

Word is that Expo officials are not enthusiastic about townspeople’s choice of Colorado Boulevard as the line’s route into downtown Santa Monica. They are also said to favor elevated tracks, which residents oppose.

As planning proceeds, no one should be surprised if Expo opts for Olympic over Colorado and prefers elevated tracks. Expo has its own priorities, and they are not necessarily our priorities, and it has the upper hand.

But it’s our town, and the insertion of the stations and tracks, with or without the maintenance yard, into our densely made townscape must be done very carefully, and, to this point, nothing has been done very carefully.

Expo could hinder funding for subway (Source: Santa Monica Daily Press)

Link: Expo could hinder funding for subway

Expo could hinder funding for subway
By Melody Hanatani

August 08, 2009
SM LIBRARY — As officials with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority plan for a subway extension to Santa Monica, one of the questions it will face is whether the western part of L.A. County will have the demand to support two public transit infrastructures, the other being light rail.

Included in the proposal for the Westside Subway Extension, also known as the Subway to the Sea, are three stations in Santa Monica, including one at the corner of Fourth Street and Wilshire Boulevard, which is just half a mile away from the planned terminal for the Exposition Light Rail at Fourth Street and Colorado Avenue.

It was one of several aspects of the subway extension covered during a meeting at the main library on Thursday updating the community on the heavy rail project, which is currently in the draft environmental review phase.

The project is estimated to receive about $4.1 billion from Measure R, the half cent sales tax increase that was approved by county voters in November for public transportation-related projects. The measure is estimated to raise $40 billion over the next 30 years.

Construction for roughly 17 miles of subway however is estimated at $9 billion.

Bulldog Realtors
advertisement
In order to qualify for federal matching funds, the project will have to meet certain cost effectiveness standards, a formula based on construction cost and ridership.

"Because [a] heavy rail subway is so expensive to build, to meet cost effectiveness numbers, you really have to have high ridership to compete for federal funds," Jody Litvak, regional communications manager for the MTA, said. "By the time you get to Wilshire and Fourth, you have another rail line that is not even a mile away.

"As you get further west, those lines get very close to each other."

The second leg of Expo, which will go from Culver City to Santa Monica, is anticipated to begin service by 2015, while the subway extension won't reach the I-405 Freeway for at least another 20 years. Construction will be done in four segments with the area west of the 405 being the final stage.

The MTA is studying two possible alignment options for the subway, including one that would start at the Purple Line connection in Koreatown, heading down Wilshire Boulevard and ending at the Fourth Street intersection in Santa Monica. The second option would include an extension from the Red Line Hollywood/Highland station and travel through West Hollywood, connecting back at the Wilshire/La Cienega Boulevard stop before heading back down Wilshire to Santa Monica.

The preliminary plans show three stops in Santa Monica, including one at Wilshire and 16th Street and another at 26th Street. There is also a stop planned at Bundy Drive and officials are also studying possible stops at Barrington Avenue and at the VA.

The final alignment option is expected to go to the Metro board for approval by the end of next year, after which it will be submitted for federal review.

Construction for each station will take approximately 48 to 54 months to complete, with the most disruptive activities taking place during the first two to five months — for drilling piles along the roadway and installing the decking — and the final two to four months — to remove the deck and restore the street.

"The most disruptive part of constructing a subway is when we have to open the ground," Litvak said.

A tunnel boring machine will be responsible for doing much of the excavation underground. The new generation of the machines maintain pressure in the surrounding earth, which reduces the risk of collapse.

The machines have been used for the 1.8 mile Gold Line Extension and there have been no substantiated property damage claims, MTA officials said.

For Santa Monica resident Juan Matute and his girlfriend Sirinya Tritipeskul, who lives in the San Fernando Valley, the subway can't come soon enough.

It takes Matute about 40-50 minutes to get from Santa Monica to his work at UCLA and Tritipeskul about 70 to 90 minutes to the same destination from the valley.

Neither commute by car and are basing their future residential decisions on the subway.

"It would dramatically decrease travel time," Matute said.

Critiquing Transit and the Job Creation Claims of High-Speed Rail (Source: Reason Foundation)

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Critiquing Transit and the Job Creation Claims of High-Speed Rail

Critiquing Transit and the Job Creation Claims of High-Speed Rail

Samuel Staley
August 9, 2009, 8:45am

The Illinois Policy Institute has published an article by policy analyst (and Chicago talk radio personality) Jerry Agar examining the job creation and economic development benefits of high-speed rail. The article features a dual interview with the Cato Institute's Randal O'Toole and me (Sam Staley).

Here's a quick sample:

IPI: [Michigan] Gov. Granholm says that high-speed rail will create 59,000 permanent jobs in the Midwest. She is quoting the U.S. Department of Commerce which claims that, "every dollar spent on investments in our freight railroads — tracks, equipment, locomotives, bridges — yields $3 in economic output. In addition, each $1 billion of rail investment creates 20,000 jobs." Is she (and the Commerce Department) correct?

RO: I do not believe so. They are freely adding all sorts of multipliers that are unlikely in the extreme. Besides, an investment in rail freight is not the same as an investment in passenger rail. Rail freight is highly efficient, pays for itself, and saves energy over highway freight. Passenger rail is highly inefficient, requires gargantuan subsidies, and saves no energy over highway travel (in fact, it is far less energy-efficient than intercity buses).

SS: Virtually all regional economists recognize that freight rail provides important economic benefits because it (in a competitive environment) reduces transportation costs and improves productivity for industry and facilitates commerce.

Passenger rail does not have similar benefits. Passenger rail riders typically spend more time traveling (not less) and travel greater distances than automobile travelers. Moreover, passenger rail is much more highly subsidized than either private freight rail or passenger automobiles. So, the net impact of public subsidies is to take money out of the productive economy, not add to it.

Passenger rail's benefits are an assumption, not a fact, and the estimates for freight multipliers are not comparable to passenger rail. (Even assuming the freight rail multipliers are valid, which is an arguable point as well.)

I also took this opportunity to highlight a rarely discussed item: transit agency mismanagement and poorly aligned incentives.

IPI: Gov. Granholm is proposing to cut Amtrak funding. Amtrak bleeds tax dollars. Why do they need more money when ridership is up? And why have they never made money?

SS: The transit business model is fundamentally broken. This is self-evident if we look at transit operations objectively. No business can operate when every new customer represents a net loss to the operation. This is where transit ridership is. Since only 20-30% of costs are covered by fares, every new passenger represents costs 3-4 times greater than the revenue she/he generates. That's why transit agencies are even in worse trouble now. They don't have a business model that makes the customer valuable. Their success is based on chasing federal (and state) grant money, and spending dedicated local options sales taxes on capital projects (or expanded routes) that add little to the overall value of the transit systems or productivity of the agency.

This is unsustainable. Rather than focusing on getting more money from Washington, DC, we should be using these events to broker a new discussion on the role of transit in our cities, and how we can fundamentally reform transit planning, operations, and management to make it a viable option again.

This means moving toward a more traditional business model that puts the transit user at the center of the business model.

Transit could have a much bigger impact if management practices were fundamentally re-aligned to focus on the customer--the rider. This can't happen, however, as long as the fare box "recovery" ratio is a paltry 20-25 percent for most transit systems. Broad, institutional reform, including federal deregulation of labor practices, will be crucial for building a productive and sustainable transit industry in the U.S.

Metro Regional Dis-Connect (Source: Little Tokyo UnBlogged)

Link: Little Tokyo UnBlogged: Metro Regional Dis-Connect

Metro Regional Dis-Connect

A hundred Little Tokyo stakeholders gathered last Wednesday evening (8/5) to once again listen to Metro staffers explain why they shouldn’t be too concerned about the impact of the proposed connector that could run through the community, take out an entire block, jam up streets and land-lock business for four years during construction.

The Metro Regional Connector--that would provide “seamless train travel” from Long Beach to Pasadena; Culver City to East Los Angeles--is chugging its way through the environmental impact process and has stakeholders in the 125-year-old community getting angrier with each new Metro presentation. (the MTA analysis update is here in PDF.)

Diego Cardosa, Metro bigwig, told the group that Little Tokyo needs to be a part of this 21st Century train system that will make Los Angeles a 21st Century City.

OK. So we lose an entire block—one of only seven remaining in one of only three remaining J-Towns left in the U.S. Never mind that you can’t rebuild a 125-year-old community once it is destroyed. Because it takes another 125 years.

The community has been chipped away by the World War 2 evacuation and incarceration; but we came back. Then the expansion of the Civic Center in the 1960s taking an entire block to build the LAPD Parker Center and Central Jail; still we hung tough. Then “redevelopment” in the 1970s that destroyed 1,000 units of affordable low-income housing, displaced many family-owned businesses and replaced it w/fancy businesses aimed at tourists from Japan who eventually quit coming to Little Tokyo; and the businesses who accepted the biggest offer, sold their properties and snuck out of town; but we’re still here.

And here we are today, being asked to take yet another “one for the team,” so some hypothetical riders in the future can travel from Long Beach to Pasadena and not have to pay a transfer fare of $1.25 or have to transfer from one train to another--something millions of people do in public transit-oriented cities throughout the world every day. Or, as someone at the meeting pointed out, is Little Tokyo being asked to sacrifice in order to “fix” a gap in Metro’s original vision of “seamless travel “ that ineptitude or lack of foresight created?

One entire block and maybe 20-30 family-owned businesses, who are already hanging on by a fingernail thanks to the current economy. So people don’t have to transfer trains? Buy a transfer ticket? To fix something that shouldn’t have been broken in the first place?

Please.
Posted by auntie michi

CHSRA Project Workshop Presentation Now Available Online (Souce: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: CHSRA Project Workshop Presentation Now Available Online

Sunday, August 9, 2009
CHSRA Project Workshop Presentation Now Available Online

At last week's California High Speed Rail Authority board meeting a project workshop was held to lay out the CHSRA's current approach to project planning, and to lay out what some of the next key steps are. The powerpoint presentation used at the workshop is now available online (PPT file, 91 slides, 6.1MB). The primary purpose is to demonstrate the status of the project planning at the section level, and there is a TON of information on that that I've only now begun to look over.

There is a lot of other interesting stuff, including a mockup of what a morning southbound timetable might look like (slide 14; don't get too attached to it as it's clearly to demonstrate the concept, but may be interesting fodder for discussion in the comments of what an ideal schedule might be); a discussion of the various options for public-private partnerships (slides 69-71); and an in-depth discussion of the construction needs on the LAUS-ARTIC segment as an example of the overall design and planning work that will have to be done on other system segments (slides 76-89), including discussion of the need to move 18 high-tension powerlines, build 49 grade separations, including constructing a 5.1 mile long viaduct over the BNSF Hobart Yard and a big rebuild of the Slauson Ave/I-605 interchange, and discussion of contract requirements.

Should be plenty of conversation starters here. Have fun!
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 9:42 PM

Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail. (Souce: Canwest News Service)

Link: Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail.

Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail.


By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceAugust 7, 2009

In one of the most gridlocked jurisdictions in North America, the prospect of a high-speed train zipping up and down the California coast at speeds of up to 350 km/h has long been ridiculed as a science-fiction fantasy.

It has been 13 years since Curt Pringle was the Speaker of California's legislature when it authorized the creation of a new agency - the California High Speed Rail Authority - that had the mandate to plan, build and manage a proposed system to link the state's biggest cities.

But while other North American jurisdictions are still mired in studies about the merits of high-speed rail, California suddenly finds itself today in the driver's seat, heading toward a system that will be able to offer trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes on a dedicated track.

``I think people will not have as many fast-food sandwiches behind the wheel of their car and, in fact, will be able to sit back and enjoy the travel from one end of the state to the other,'' said Pringle, now the mayor of Anaheim, in an interview.

The California project is among 272 different proposals that have submitted funding requests worth more than $100 billion US to the U.S. administration for the introduction of high-speed trains. All of projects are vying for a piece of President Barack Obama's five-year, $13-billion US plan for high-speed rail that was announced in April as a part of economic stimulus measures.

Despite some opposition and the effects of the economic downturn, California's bid received the backing of its population, which voted in a referendum last fall to free up almost $10 billion in public funding for the project through the sale of bonds. The state's rail agency also warned, through peer-reviewed government studies and estimates, that the cost of not building the system would be much higher, at more than $82 billion, to expand highways and airports to meet future travel demands.

``I think we are in a very strong place to be the first or be right up there in terms of advancing high-speed rail in North America,'' said Pringle, who is also chairman of the agency's board of directors.

Pringle believes that the referendum results, combined with new federal funding available under Obama's plan, have scored a victory against critics who balked at the estimated $45-billion cost of the entire 1,288-kilometre route - from Sacramento and San Francisco in the north, all the way down to San Diego in the south.

The Federal Railroad Administration, which is in charge awarding the federal stimulus money for high-speed rail, said it will now work with states to review the 272 preliminary applications and determine which of the projects can qualify for the limited funding available.

Obama designated nearly a dozen regional corridors for high-speed rail when he announced his passenger-train plan in April. The corridors include routes that link directly or indirectly to Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Windsor, Ont., Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal. Six New England governors have also submitted a preliminary proposal seeking federal funding on a route that would link Boston and Montreal.

But FRA spokesman Warren Flatau said that building the links into Canadian cities would depend on the priorities of the Harper government and its provincial counterparts.

``This is a national policy issue,'' Flatau told Canwest News Service. ``Among the factors that would be taken into consideration is formal backing of the provincial and/or federal governments.''

Meantime, stakeholders say that most of the projects that get funding under Obama's high-speed plan, will not actually be high-speed routes with trains travelling above 250 km/h. Instead, they predict incremental improvements on infrastructure and equipment that would allow trains which now travel at average speeds of 130 km/h to improve to about 200 km/h.

``We're very pleased at the fact that the (Obama) administration has provided an unprecedented amount of money for intercity passenger rail,'' said Ross Capon, president and CEO of the U.S. National Association of Railway Passengers. ``That said, (it) has to be seen as being a relative drop in the bucket compared to what other modes (of transportation) get, and compared to what you would need to get a bullet-train type of service.''

The fastest passenger train in North America, Amtrak's Acela Express, now runs between Boston, New York and Washington, and is capable of reaching a top speed of about 240 km/h. But it often averages speeds of less than 140 km/h because of track conditions, conflicts with freight trains and other safety restrictions.

The electrified train, powered by an overhead wire, was a joint project by Alstom and Canadian-based Bombardier. It was brought into service in 2001 and soon became a money-making route for the government-owned, passenger-rail service.

``Amtrak as a whole is not profitable, but the Acela Express is and has been (profitable),'' company spokesman Clifford Cole said.

The government spent nearly $2.6 billion US to acquire equipment and build new infrastructure for the line, according to figures from a 2004 federal audit, but Amtrak officials estimate they would need billions of dollars in additional investments and agreements with track owners for the train to run at its maximum speeds.

Nevertheless, the improved speed and frequency of the new train allowed ridership on the route to go from 2.4 million passengers in 2000 (before the Acela train went into service), up to 3.4 million passengers in 2008.

Roelof Van Ark, a senior vice-president of Alstom Transport in North America, said that he is optimistic suppliers will soon see an increase in demand for other fast trains on the continent, partially as a result of the Obama administration's plan.

``Today, everyone knows that the European systems are very successful and we are very happy to share our knowledge of why those business cases worked with the future North American users of such systems,'' said Van Ark, who has worked in the transportation industry for more than 25 years.

The France-based Alstom is also promoting a new very high-speed train called the Automotrice a Grande Vitesse (AGV) that recently reached a speed of 574.8 km/h in a test run.

Back in California, Pringle said the pace of progression for its high-speed system will now depend on environmental assessments on the proposed routes. Some of the construction is expected to get underway in segments within three years, he said.

The agency is hoping that the committed funding from state and federal governments will help it attract private investors as part of a public-private partnership. It estimates the route could generate $1 billion US in annual surpluses, eventually serving 88 million to 117 million passengers per year by 2030 and creating up to 450,000 permanent jobs in the state over the next 25 years.

``I think there's a lot more momentum behind it and it will be built,'' said Pringle.

It will also prove a point to anyone who was skeptical about whether the plan was realistic, he said.

``I think they're going to see that the reality is around the corner.''

mdesouza@canwest.com
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

California bullet train OKs European accords (Source: San Francisco Business Times)

Link: California bullet train OKs European accords - San Francisco Business Times:

Friday, August 7, 2009
California bullet train OKs European accords
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

California’s high-speed train officials have formalized new cooperative agreements with bullet-train operators overseas.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority this week OK’d agreements with bullet train firms in Italy and Germany. Those deals are similar to cooperative agreements the authority already has with Spain, France and Japan.

The foreign entities are offering free advice to California in hopes that their courtesy will give them an edge on future bids once the state starts laying track for the system.

Construction on the state’s high-seed rail system is still years away, but the advice that foreign operators are giving has helped Golden State officials with many technical questions as they plan for the 800 miles of track that may one day link the Bay Area with Southern California.

The interest from foreign bullet-train operators is financially driven. If California succeeds in building its bullet train by 2030 as forecast, it will be one of the largest transportation projects in United States history. It will need millions of dollars’ worth of rolling stock, track, technology systems and maintenance, all of which will be put out to bid. The state’s system will have a $1.1 billion operating surplus, if the project evolves according to estimates.

Email Eric Young at eyoung@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4969.

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 9 (Source: I Will Ride Blog)

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 9 « I Will Ride Blog

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 9
Posted by Albert

Lois Gaston, City Councilwoman for the City of Duarte, talks about the traffic congestion problems her city faces because of nearby freeways, the role of the Foothill Extension in solving those problems, the rationale behind equally splitting Measure R dollars, and how the Foothill Extension will help the entire Los Angeles County region.

Mary Ann Lutz, Mayor for the City of Monrovia, talks about her city’s 20 year wait for the Foothill Extension, the excitement surrounding the arrival of the Foothill Extension, and the sustainable development the city has planned around their station. She also leaves a message for the Metro Board of Directors.


“This is essential. If we could reduce vehicle traffic on 210, 10, 60 & 90 fwys by 5%-10% those roadways would be functional again. I would ride the Gold line from my home in Claremont.”


“I intend to use the train from the Del Mar station to the Pomona station once it is built. The purpose of the trip is for commuting to school.”

Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail. (Source: Canwest News Service)

Link: Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail.

Stimulus funding puts California on track for high-speed rail.


By Mike De Souza, Canwest News ServiceAugust 7, 2009



In one of the most gridlocked jurisdictions in North America, the prospect of a high-speed train zipping up and down the California coast at speeds of up to 350 km/h has long been ridiculed as a science-fiction fantasy.

It has been 13 years since Curt Pringle was the Speaker of California's legislature when it authorized the creation of a new agency - the California High Speed Rail Authority - that had the mandate to plan, build and manage a proposed system to link the state's biggest cities.

But while other North American jurisdictions are still mired in studies about the merits of high-speed rail, California suddenly finds itself today in the driver's seat, heading toward a system that will be able to offer trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles in two hours and 40 minutes on a dedicated track.

``I think people will not have as many fast-food sandwiches behind the wheel of their car and, in fact, will be able to sit back and enjoy the travel from one end of the state to the other,'' said Pringle, now the mayor of Anaheim, in an interview.

The California project is among 272 different proposals that have submitted funding requests worth more than $100 billion US to the U.S. administration for the introduction of high-speed trains. All of projects are vying for a piece of President Barack Obama's five-year, $13-billion US plan for high-speed rail that was announced in April as a part of economic stimulus measures.

Despite some opposition and the effects of the economic downturn, California's bid received the backing of its population, which voted in a referendum last fall to free up almost $10 billion in public funding for the project through the sale of bonds. The state's rail agency also warned, through peer-reviewed government studies and estimates, that the cost of not building the system would be much higher, at more than $82 billion, to expand highways and airports to meet future travel demands.

``I think we are in a very strong place to be the first or be right up there in terms of advancing high-speed rail in North America,'' said Pringle, who is also chairman of the agency's board of directors.

Pringle believes that the referendum results, combined with new federal funding available under Obama's plan, have scored a victory against critics who balked at the estimated $45-billion cost of the entire 1,288-kilometre route - from Sacramento and San Francisco in the north, all the way down to San Diego in the south.

The Federal Railroad Administration, which is in charge awarding the federal stimulus money for high-speed rail, said it will now work with states to review the 272 preliminary applications and determine which of the projects can qualify for the limited funding available.

Obama designated nearly a dozen regional corridors for high-speed rail when he announced his passenger-train plan in April. The corridors include routes that link directly or indirectly to Canadian cities such as Vancouver, Windsor, Ont., Hamilton, Toronto and Montreal. Six New England governors have also submitted a preliminary proposal seeking federal funding on a route that would link Boston and Montreal.

But FRA spokesman Warren Flatau said that building the links into Canadian cities would depend on the priorities of the Harper government and its provincial counterparts.

``This is a national policy issue,'' Flatau told Canwest News Service. ``Among the factors that would be taken into consideration is formal backing of the provincial and/or federal governments.''

Meantime, stakeholders say that most of the projects that get funding under Obama's high-speed plan, will not actually be high-speed routes with trains travelling above 250 km/h. Instead, they predict incremental improvements on infrastructure and equipment that would allow trains which now travel at average speeds of 130 km/h to improve to about 200 km/h.

``We're very pleased at the fact that the (Obama) administration has provided an unprecedented amount of money for intercity passenger rail,'' said Ross Capon, president and CEO of the U.S. National Association of Railway Passengers. ``That said, (it) has to be seen as being a relative drop in the bucket compared to what other modes (of transportation) get, and compared to what you would need to get a bullet-train type of service.''

The fastest passenger train in North America, Amtrak's Acela Express, now runs between Boston, New York and Washington, and is capable of reaching a top speed of about 240 km/h. But it often averages speeds of less than 140 km/h because of track conditions, conflicts with freight trains and other safety restrictions.

The electrified train, powered by an overhead wire, was a joint project by Alstom and Canadian-based Bombardier. It was brought into service in 2001 and soon became a money-making route for the government-owned, passenger-rail service.

``Amtrak as a whole is not profitable, but the Acela Express is and has been (profitable),'' company spokesman Clifford Cole said.

The government spent nearly $2.6 billion US to acquire equipment and build new infrastructure for the line, according to figures from a 2004 federal audit, but Amtrak officials estimate they would need billions of dollars in additional investments and agreements with track owners for the train to run at its maximum speeds.

Nevertheless, the improved speed and frequency of the new train allowed ridership on the route to go from 2.4 million passengers in 2000 (before the Acela train went into service), up to 3.4 million passengers in 2008.

Roelof Van Ark, a senior vice-president of Alstom Transport in North America, said that he is optimistic suppliers will soon see an increase in demand for other fast trains on the continent, partially as a result of the Obama administration's plan.

``Today, everyone knows that the European systems are very successful and we are very happy to share our knowledge of why those business cases worked with the future North American users of such systems,'' said Van Ark, who has worked in the transportation industry for more than 25 years.

The France-based Alstom is also promoting a new very high-speed train called the Automotrice a Grande Vitesse (AGV) that recently reached a speed of 574.8 km/h in a test run.

Back in California, Pringle said the pace of progression for its high-speed system will now depend on environmental assessments on the proposed routes. Some of the construction is expected to get underway in segments within three years, he said.

The agency is hoping that the committed funding from state and federal governments will help it attract private investors as part of a public-private partnership. It estimates the route could generate $1 billion US in annual surpluses, eventually serving 88 million to 117 million passengers per year by 2030 and creating up to 450,000 permanent jobs in the state over the next 25 years.

``I think there's a lot more momentum behind it and it will be built,'' said Pringle.

It will also prove a point to anyone who was skeptical about whether the plan was realistic, he said.

``I think they're going to see that the reality is around the corner.''

mdesouza@canwest.com
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Another Peninsula NIMBY Lawsuit (Souce: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: Another Peninsula NIMBY Lawsuit

Saturday, August 8, 2009
Another Peninsula NIMBY Lawsuit

Clem has the scoop over on his blog about a planned lawsuit from an Atherton resident opposed to HSR that argues Union Pacific's consent must be given before the HSR project can proceed. From a Palo Alto Daily Post article:

Atherton resident Russell Peterson said yesterday he will file a lawsuit that will attempt to stop the state High Speed Rail Authority from starting any construction without the full approval of the Union Pacific Railroad....

Attorney Mike Brady, a Menlo Park resident representing Peterson, said the suit will ask a judge to require all plans for the bullet train to receive Union Pacific approval before construction begins.



As Clem lays out, this stems from Section 2.7 of the agreement between Caltrain and the UPRR, which seems to indicate that UP has to give its consent before any intercity trains can use the tracks. It is this clause that Peterson is using as the basis of his suit. I would be surprised if a judge finds Peterson has standing to sue using this agreement as a basis - wouldn't that be UP's place to decide whether or not to uphold their contractual agreement?

But as Clem found, there are other parts of the agreement that suggest Caltrain actually holds the cards here:

8.3.(c) In the event that Owner demonstrates a reasonably certain need to commence construction on all or substantially all the length of the Joint Facilities (including User's Cahill/Lick Line) of a transportation system that is a significant change in the method of delivery of Commuter Service which would be incompatible with Freight Service on the Joint Facilities (other than User's Cahill/Lick Line), Owner may, at its sole cost and expense, file no sooner than nine months prior to the commencement of such construction for permission from the ICC to abandon the Freight Service over the portion of the Join Facilities (excluding User's Cahill/Lick Line) upon which the construction is to occur. User shall not object to or oppose such a filing; however, it shall be allowed to participate in the abandonment proceedings.



Clem's interpretation is that the Caltrain/HSR project qualifies under this provision, although both Caltrain and the CHSRA have preferred to work with UP instead of against them. And that makes sense to me.

Peterson's suit will probably not go anywhere, but it does raise the issue of UP, its trackage rights, and how this affects Peninsula HSR planning. As Rafael has pointed out on several occasions, the tunnel that Peninsula NIMBYs prefer for the Caltrain/HSR corridor would almost certainly prevent freight trains from continuing to use the route.

Although it is theoretically possible that a tunnel could be built south of Redwood City and the Dumbarton rail bridge rehabbed to allow the UP freight hauler to continue to use the tracks, no money has been identified for this option, nor has it been seriously discussed. It's also worth noting that this would do nothing to help the cities further up the Peninsula, like Burlingame and San Mateo, that have also been calling for a tunnel. (Of course, I am quite confident that if Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto felt they could solve their own problems by screwing the other Peninsula cities, they would gladly do so.)

If UP wants to continue running freight along the route, they are best off with an above-grade solution, and one has to assume they are quite well aware of this. Caltrain and the CHSRA are designing the route with UP's needs in mind. So why would UP have any interest in suing? No wonder a Peninsula NIMBY has to go it alone.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 5:47 PM