Monrovia looks to get rail yard (Source: Pasadena Star-News)

Link: Monrovia looks to get rail yard - Pasadena Star-News

Monrovia looks to get rail yard
By Nathan McIntire, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/08/2009 08:23:27 PM PDT

MONROVIA - Plans to put a Foothill Gold Line Extension rail yard in Irwindale near the Duarte border have met with opposition from residents who worry the yard would be too noisy and unsightly.

But a new proposal to put the maintenance yard in Monrovia could quell those concerns and speed up construction of the eastward expansion, Monrovia city officials said.

A site in Monrovia now slated to be part of the 80-acre Station Square mixed-use project could provide the solution, City Manager Scott Ochoa said.

"Metro has decreed the Gold Line cannot move forward until there is a rail yard along this alignment," Ochoa said. "We're looking at locating this site in Monrovia if it means the Gold Line will move forward expeditiously."

Duarte residents have sought to block a proposal to put the yard just east of the 605 Freeway on property owned by Mt. Olive Storage, saying it would be a blight to the community and decrease property values.

Henry Baltazar, who lives in the 500 block of Elkhorn Drive in Duarte, said his residents' group opposed the Irwindale site but welcomed Monrovia's idea.

"We're gung-ho," Baltazar said. "We hope Monrovia takes it, and we're more than happy to give it to them."

Over the next few months, Monrovia city staff will study whether city-owned property at the northeast corner of California Avenue and Duarte Road could work as the rail yard needed for the light-rail system planned to stretch
Advertisement
from Pasadena to Claremont.

The 15-acre site, south of the 210 Freeway near Home Depot, is already in an industrial part of town. However, building the rail yard there would require the purchase of more property by the city to meet the MTA's goal of 20 to 25 acres of space, Ochoa said.

He was confident the city could do it.

"We've talked to every property owner on that block over the last 3 to 4 years" about buying their property, Ochoa said.

Duarte Mayor John Fasana said the Monrovia location would give easier access than its Irwindale counterpart because of its proximity to train tracks. But any decision about the site must wait for detailed environmental impact reports.

"We don't prefer a site," Fasana said. "We just want to make sure we don't lose the line because we haven't identified a site."

Construction on the rail yard at any location would likely start at the same time Gold Line construction begins, Ochoa said.

nathan.mcintire@sgvn.com

(626) 578-6300 ext. 4475

Meet Mariachi Station, LA's Newest Subway Stop (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: Meet Mariachi Station, LA's Newest Subway Stop

Meet Mariachi Station, LA's Newest Subway Stop

Tuesday, September 8, 2009, by Neal Broverman

See article for photo gallery.

Via Transittalk
Courtesy of Metroman on the comment board of The Transit Coalition: Photos of the Mariachi Station of the Gold Line extension, opening possibly in July, August, September, October or November. Looks like a sharp station. The Mariachi Station at 1st and Boyle in Boyle Heights is one of two underground stations on the Eastside extension of the light-rail (the Soto station is the other). When the line opens, one will be able to travel without transfers from East LA all the way to Pasadena and vice versa—authentic guacamole and H&M in one seamless ride.

Billion dollar Crenshaw transit corridor underway (Source: Our Weekly)

Our Weekly - L.A.'s Premier Community Newspaper

Billion dollar Crenshaw transit corridor underway

OW photo by Shirley Hawkins
By Shirley Hawkins | OW Staff Writer | 03.SEP.09

$1.7 billion project will bring jobs,
revitalization

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas hosted a media luncheon Thursday, Aug. 27 to provide an update on the $1.7 billion Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Crenshaw Transit Corridor project.
The goal of the project is to improve public transit service and mobility in the Crenshaw corridor between Wilshire and El Segundo Boulevards by connecting with existing lines such as the Metro Green Line or the Exposition Light Rail Transit, which is currently under construction.
MTA officials hope that the project, funded mostly by last year’s Measure R, will relieve traffic congestion. The MTA will hold public hearings in late September and early October before voting on one of several options that have been proposed.
The supervisor was joined by Dan Rosenfeld, his senior deputy for economic development, sustainability and mobility; Roderick Diaz, project manager for the MTA; and MTA Chief Executive Officer Art Leahy, who all participated in outlining the massive public works project.
One of the options under consideration proposes implementing a Bus Rapid Transit line along Crenshaw which will feature special traffic lanes for the buses. The other proposal is a Light Rail Transit line along the street that would be powered by overhead electrical lines but potentially travel underground. The desire is for both options to link the Crenshaw corridor to the South Bay and to Los Angeles International Airport.
The MTA board is currently debating which option to chose, and whichever one is selected, is expected to be completed in 2018.
Ridley-Thomas stated he has two target objectives: “Quality is one and economic development is the second.”
Stops in South Los Angeles will include stations at Exposition and Crenshaw Boulevards as well as in the communities of Leimert Park and Inglewood. “The extension to LAX at Aviation and Century Boulevards will also be a major hub,” said Ridley-Thomas.
Ridley-Thomas added that the project will undergo an environmental review processes in early September.
“I want to make clear what I’m advocating for, and that is light rail transit,” said Ridley-Thomas. “I think it’s better for a lot of reasons. This alternative will provide relief on the 405 and other north/south routes as well as the western part of the city of Los Angeles. Congestive relief is the key factor in our rationale. It will provide efficiency and clean transportation to improve air quality.”
Rosenfeld, the supervisor’s senior deputy said that whichever option is selected will help economically revitalize the South Los Angeles community. “(The) Bus Rapid Transit project will generate about 3,500 jobs and 2,000 of those will be in construction. The Light Rail project (could create) 7,800 jobs. It becomes immediately clear why long term economic development will play a big part in this project.”
Rosenfeld added that the city of Los Angeles will create workforce training to make sure that high-quality jobs are developed along the corridor.

Will the Subway Get to the Sea? And Other Musings on Moving LA (Source: CityWatch)

Link: CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall - Will the Subway Get to the Sea? And Other Musings on Moving LA

Will the Subway Get to the Sea? And Other Musings on Moving LA
LA Transpo
By Ken Alpern

In the past two weeks, we’ve heard talk about the need to expedite planning, funding and construction for the Wilshire Subway and for the Crenshaw Corridor Project.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa held a press conference to expedite the Wilshire Subway to a faster timeline than 20 years…and I suspect most Angelenos would agree. Similarly, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas held his own press conference and pointed out the need to properly plan for the Crenshaw Corridor Project, which will either be a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or a Light Rail Transit (LRT) that would connect the Green Line to the Expo Line (the current plan … and maybe the Wilshire/Purple Line and even Red Line as well … a proposed second phase).

Simply put, I think that the Crenshaw Corridor Project should be a LRT, and not a BRT, in order to avoid a repeat of the Orange Line mistake that had a cowardly political cadre in the San Fernando Valley let a few NIMBY's spoil the lot for the majority who always, always, always wanted rail. Ridley-Thomas said the same, and I commend him for his visionary stance.
Sample Image
The sudden success of the Orange Line Busway is a long and sordid one that I predict will leave SFV taxpaying commuters very unhappy in years to come as even more-successful higher-quality rail lines (which can carry about four times as much as a Busway) get built throughout the county.

This Crenshaw Corridor Project, should it avoid becoming another Busway and become a north-south rail line that is for the Mid-City and Westside, is the appropriate second chapter of rail that should follow the east-west Expo Line. The only reason it's fallen below the radar is because the political and media-grabbing power of the Mid-City region (through which most of this line runs) is unfortunately much less than other regions of the county.

Do I have concerns that this project isn't being done in the right order, considering the need for the Downtown Connector, the Foothill Gold Line and the Wilshire Subway? Yes.

Do I have concerns that this project is being done in a relatively non-coordinated fashion with the Green Line/LAX and Wilshire Subway? Yes.

However, this Crenshaw Line will, when it's done, not only help connect the Green Line to LAX but also the Expo Line to LAX...because they'll both have the access to Century/Aviation station, which will likely be a HUGE transit hub if the LAX People Mover ever connects there (I suspect it will).

The proposed second stage of the Crenshaw Line to the Wilshire Subway...and perhaps to the Red Line at Hollywood/Highland, would make this Crenshaw Line one of the hugest and most vital north-south rail projects since the Blue Line.

I have been a fan of this Crenshaw project for years, despite its opponents, and I look forward to making the Green and Expo Lines even more helpful and connecting once it becomes a reality. I do not believe for a second that its ridership after the first phase will be poor, and I envision a gigantic ridership if it ever proceeds north to Wilshire and beyond.

I also have been a fan of the Wilshire Subway, although it must be looked at as a project that—like the Crenshaw and Expo Lines will be built in phases and should be conceptualized as such. It’ll get to the Sea all right but in what sort of phasework and timeframe is yet to be determined.

The Wilshire Subway might not get the political and budgetary blessings to move further west than a Fairfax Blvd. Extension by 2015-18. However, it packs a much greater ridership, planning and economic punch if it can be built in a longer first-phase to Century City by that time.

This means that we must stop looking at the Crenshaw and Wilshire Projects as “competing”, because if they connect then they will be as “competing” as the 10, 405 and 110 Freeways, which serve as a vital network for hundreds of thousands of commuters every day.

The same can said for the Foothill Gold Line and the Downtown Light Rail Connector, which like the Crenshaw and Wilshire projects are decades overdue. Thankfully, we passed Proposition R which guaranteed us local monies for these projects…but how FAST we’ll see them done requires two things:

1) The political cooperation from Sacramento and Washington to get past their other competing priorities to get the legal, political and economic cooperation and expedite these projects

2) The local cooperation from politicians like Villaraigosa and Yaroslavsky (patron saints of the Wilshire Subway), Ridley-Thomas (patron saint of the Crenshaw Line), and Supervisor Mike Antonovich (patron saint of the Foothill Gold Line) to ensure that all of these worthy projects get moved forward together

Short-term visioning is vital to fast-track the first phase of the Crenshaw and Active ImageWilshire and Foothill Gold Lines, and the second phase of the Expo Line and the Downtown Connector (I prefer to call it Expo Phase III), and moving these five key projects simultaneously is no small achievement for L.A. County.

But it’s a first, decade-long adventure that will guarantee that the Subway to the Sea actually gets to the Sea, and will guarantee that Red, Purple, Expo and Green Lines all someday get connected with a first-rate Crenshaw LRT to make L.A. City and County a first-rate economic powerhouse to the nation and the world.

(Ken Alpern is Chair of the non-profit The Transit Coalition, co-chair of the grassroots Friends of the Green Line, and co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee, but the views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ,)

Will Wilshire Ever Be Traversable? (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: Will Wilshire Ever Be Traversable?

Will Wilshire Ever Be Traversable?

Friday, September 4, 2009, by Neal Broverman

While it's great news that the Purple Line extension is swiftly advancing, its first extension to Fairfax most likely won't open for at least five years. So there was hope that a planned bus-only lane on the boulevard would ease traffic for crosstown transit riders (and possibly drivers). Well, hold on a sec, reports Streetsblog. Now, a full environmental impact report is being required, one that won't be ready until the summer. On top of that, it seems many Westside homeowners don't like the idea of a bus-only lane on Wilshire—public outreach done in 2008 found both strong support and strong opposition to the project. "At the very least [the lane] now faces more obstacles to overcome than it did in 2008. In addition to needing a green light from an environmental standpoint, the project will need to survive another alternatives analysis and another round of public outreach in some areas where a bus only lane instead of street parking is a scary proposition to local residents." [Streetsblog

The Palmdale (Airport) HSR Station (Source:California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: The Palmdale (Airport) HSR Station

Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Palmdale (Airport) HSR Station

by Rafael

The route CHSRA has chosen for the Bakersfield-Sylmar section runs through the Tehachapis, the Antelope Valley and Soledad Canyon. This is substantially longer than the direct route via Tejon Pass. The primary factors in favor of the longer route were total length of the tunnel system (21 vs. 34 miles), the ease of crossing major faults at grade and geology risk. A secondary goal was HSR service for the half-million people who live in the Antelope Valley.

However, this post will focus on the potential for leveraging HSR to finally turn Los Angeles World Airports' (LAWA) vast Palmdale airport (PMD) property into a viable commercial proposition. It is the only location in all of southern California at which additional runways could fairly easily be added in the future, east of the existing ones.

While it is absolutely not CHSRA's job to also take on regional planning on how best to relieve LAX, there is a need for interface planning if LAWA, an LA county agency, and the city of Palmdale want to at least preserve the option of using PMD for that purpose. As discussed below, simply siting an HSR station in the general vicinity of the airport, several miles removed from it, will not be good enough.

The following map shows current plans for the starter line and station plus alternatives discussed below.

Please see link for map. Map could not be reproduced in this forum.

Right of Way for HSR

First, though, there is the non-trivial issue of securing ROW for laying HSR tracks between the Tehachapis and Soledad Canyon at all. CHSRA's current plans assume a dedicated ROW for HSR in the UPRR/Sierra Hwy corridor (red line).

Palmdale-Mojave is part of UPRR's core ROW from the LA/LB harbors up the west coast. This rail freight corridor is much busier than the one up the central coast. At first glance, it looks plenty wide but UPRR's has in fact already quad-tracked some sections. The Sierra Hwy frontage road runs about 50 feet west of the tracks north of Palmdale Metrolink, where it cuts over to the east. There's a linear park and also businesses to either side of UPRR ROW in Palmdale itself. There are also several freight spurs and the turnoff to Hesperia to contend with.

If UPRR hasn't already informed CHSRA that its own ROW is not available for HSR, expect that it will. This is going to be a recurring theme. The area isn't as densely built up as south San Jose or Gilroy, but actually securing a greenfield ROW in the UPRR/Sierra Hwy corridor could still prove surprisingly difficult. CHSRA's Google Map of the route (pls zoom in) shows the alignment in the Lancaster-Palmdale section as dead straight and entirely at-grade, with no flyovers for the Sierra Hwy nor the UPRR tracks that cross the planned alignment. These are relatively small details, but their omission is noteworthy.

However, given that the Tehachapis route has been identified as the one with the shorter tunnel system and lower tunneling risk, I expect that CHSRA will in the end be able to obtain a ROW, even though speeds will need to be high to compensate for the extra 40 miles the High Desert route entails. Worst case, there's always plan B: the extra-wide hwy 14 median (pink line). That would be longer, limit feasible speed, preclude the desired intermodal with Metrolink and require future detour tracks to connect to the airport at all. However, as we shall see, a wye off the main line might not be a bad idea in any event.

Relief for LAX: Palmdale, Ontario or both?

Palmdale airport began life in 1940 and has always been used by the US Air Force and defense contractors. Between 1966 and 1995, LA county acquired a total 17,750 acres of land east and south of the Air Force property via eminent domain, for the specific purpose of developing a civilian "Palmdale Intercontinental Airport". However, that never came to fruition, precisely because there was no high speed ground transportation link into the Los Angeles basin. In December 2008, United Airlines canceled the only remaining route to SFO in December after subsidies ran out.

LAWA has even surrendered its commercial aviation license for PMD to the FAA, at least for the time being. It is considering using part of the facility for a solar power farm. That's great for the environment, but perhaps not the best location for that technology. As reported in Future So Bright, that could potentially blind pilots. As long as the city of Palmdale remains the only cheerleader for PMD, it is likely to remain a ghost airport, much like SBD.

For now at least, LAWA appears to have given up on ever making PMD a successful proposition and is concentrating on the active Ontario airport to relieve LAX. It is slated for inclusion in the phase 2 spur, but it's not yet clear which ROW will be used to run the tracks. UPRR is not interested in sharing its primary ROW out to Arizona and points east. The alternative, getting to from LA Union Station to I-10/Archibald, is also non-trivial. Among other considerations, the I-10 median is where the Anaheim - Las Vegas maglev line was supposed to run. Using it for steel wheels tracks would officially kill that project, though IMHO that might not be a bad idea. There is absolutely no need nor ROW for two mutually incompatible HSR lines through the San Gabriel valley.

On the face of it, LAWA's preference for Ontario appears sensible enough: there may be not be a need for two relief airports for LAX. That said, perhaps the agency is taking a bit of a gamble in abandoning PMD quite so soon now that the phase 1 HSR starter line is going to run so close to it. More to the point, LA county isn't thinking beyond its borders, given that HSR could mean a fast single-seat connection to Anaheim, Bakersfield and even Fresno. The southern Central Valley is poorly served by airlines and, there are currently no plans for a shuttle train between the Fresno HSR station and FYI airport.

Moreover, if both California HSR and DesertXPress tracks are built and then connected via the existing SR-58 transportation corridor, PMD could even relieve McCarran airport in Las Vegas and eliminate the need for a brand-new airport between Jean and Primm. The potential catchment area for PMD isn't so much a circle based on driving distance as a (set of) very long high speed rail line(s) connecting it to multiple large population centers. That the Antelope Valley has a sizable underserved population in its own right is almost gravy on top, at least if Palmdale is smart enough to prevent encroachment on the airport in the future. The whole point of PMD would be to get away from noise ordinances etc. and run the airport 24/7 for passenger and cargo flights.

LAWA's position illustrates what happens when you allow a single county - albeit a huge one - to make decisions that anywhere but California would be the business of many counties, the state or even multiple states.

HSR is a potential game changer for PMD

With HSR, non-stop line haul time to Palmdale is estimated at 27 minutes from LA and 46 from Anaheim. Those sorts of times are needed to give PMD a fighting chance of ever relieving LAX, but keep in mind they are for non-stop trains and station-to-station. In terms of connecting transit, LA Union Station is already a busy and growing regional transit hub. Anaheim ARTIC is supposed to serve a similar function, but Orange county has no subway, light rail or BRT service. The Disneyland monorail will be extended and OCTA bus service improved.

In Palmdale, the current plan of record is to build the HSR station at the "Palmdale Transportation Center", i.e. the local Metrolink station/bus stop (see map at the top of this post). The city's modest plans for transit-oriented development considered only Metrolink, not high speed rail as that was still a very uncertain prospect at the time. They also did not consider that HSR would need a dedicated ROW to run in. Unfortunately, the Metrolink station and PMD's existing small passenger terminal at 41000 20th St E are separated by a 3.1 mile drive. With zero flights out of PMD, there is of course no shuttle bus to the passenger terminal.

For now at least, the Antelope Valley evidently doesn't have a sufficiently large and/or affluent regional population to sustain any commercial air service at all on its own. The US government forces airlines to offer its employees deeply discounted fares. Therefore, if it wants to revive its airport, the city of Palmdale needs to leverage the HSR project to bring in additional airline passengers for the LA basin and the southern Central Valley. Given that HSR will serve the major population centers within the state and possibly even connect to Las Vegas on day via co-operation with DesertXPress, the whole notion of a strictly regional airport just for LA county needs to go out of the window. Either there is a strategic decision to develop Palmdale into an HSR-centric "LAX East" or, CHSRA has to stop talking about Palmdale as an airport. It takes a lot more than idle runways three miles down the road.

Trips by plane + HSR are still a foreign concept in Southern California. If it is to catch on, the end-to-end experience in Palmdale and/or Ontario must receive high marks from passengers.

Focus on big birds

A well-run and frequent shuttle bus service to and from the existing terminal might seem like a useful loss leader to get the ball rolling, but very quickly further growth would depend on much closer integration with the primary feeder service, i.e. high speed rail. More to the point, it will require a strategic decision to aggressively relieve LAX of certain types of traffic, e.g. the A380 that it simply wasn't built to handle. LAX gets by, but only with special measures that reduce its throughput.

That class of aircraft is intended for transcontinental and transoceanic hub-to-hub traffic, so a large fraction of passengers will transfer to connecting service at one or both ends. Typically, that means connecting short-hop flights, exactly the kind HSR is supposed to replace in California, perhaps - one day - out to Las Vegas. However, connecting flights to other states are also needed, so PMD has a very deep hole to climb out of. In practice, that would mean certain airlines or airline consortia would have to switch from LAX to PMD, at least for part of their long-distance operations in Southern California. Relative to the status quo, that implies low airport taxes, unrestricted night flights, a cargo forwarding facility plus a major leap of faith in the California HSR project. The risk will be much lower once the first trains are up and running.

No airline will fly big birds into PMD solely to serve passengers who want to catch connecting flights. The airport has to be perceived as a destination in its own right as well, there has to be a large "local" catchment area. What HSR could do is redefine "local" to well beyond the Antelope Valley and even beyond LA county.

Note that the upcoming Boeing Dreamliner and Airbus A350 aircraft are intended to provide affordable, direct long-distance flights between secondary destinations, precisely to avoid having to connect to another flight. However, since connecting ground transportation is always necessary for any airport, it's possible airlines would prefer to use PMD - or ONT, for that matter - for flights based on these planes, in conjunction with onward travel by HSR.

New passenger terminal with HSR tracks

Around the world, several airports have heavy rail train stations integrated into their terminal buildings, e.g. Atlanta Hartsfield, London Heathrow, Paris CDG, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, no doubt others as well. Some have standard-speed, some also high-speed train connections.

There is a chance LAX might get a standard-speed heavy rail shuttle along the Harbor Subdivision Transit Corridor, but that will do nothing to relieve air traffic congestion there. Note that in Vienna (Austria), there is a special point-to-point shuttle train service that let airline passengers check in and even drop off baggage at a downtown location. Security screening and baggage pick-up is still at the airport, at least for now. I'm not aware of other examples of integrated baggage handling, though IIRC the Dutch railways used to offer it at selected train stations at one point in time.

Some airports, e.g. Birmingham (UK), have people movers that shuttle passengers between the terminals and a separate but nearby train station on a main railway line. Similar solutions are planned for OAK and SJC, one already exists for SFO though not out to the multimodal station at Millbrae. ONT may also get a people mover but the very remoteness of PMD means nothing less than an HSR station physically inside a new passenger terminal may work there.

In terms of timing, the HSR starter line may well be completed before there's any commitment to invest in any new integrated terminal at PMD. If the HSR connection at ONT pans out, there may never be. To at least keep the option open at this stage of HSR planning, the city of Palmdale could decide to go for broke and move its HSR station to a site further north, where a new terminal could be built right next to it at some indeterminate point in the future.

If CHSRA manages to secure a ROW in the UPRR/Sierra Hwy corridor, the preferred location for such a new terminal is already occupied by the huge USAF plant 42, shown in red on the map. Since that's a major cluster of employers in the area, it's very unlikely it could be moved. Any plan for the airport will have to work around that constraint. There is room for a modest terminal with ~15 JB gates just north of the plant, shown in green on the map. However, its future growth would be constrained on all four sides, since the end of the runway must remain clear for safety reasons. Also, this terminal would be far removed from the airport's other, longer runway, so we'd be back to shuttle buses or people movers for future expansion.

Besides, the north runway is actually part of the USAF property and may not even be available for restarting/expanding civilian aviation. Even the south runway is technically only leased in an effort to kick-start commercial aviation. Future expansion would definitely have to occur east of the existing runways.

Wye for detour tracks

An alternate approach would be for the LAWA/the city of Palmdale to at least reserve land for a future wye off the starter line to an integrated terminal at a site that best serves the needs of airlines, i.e. one with more room for JB gates and shorter taxiways to the longer of the two runway. That would mean either expanding or replacing the existing terminal south of it or else, a new one east of it. The detour would be used only by trains that actually stop at the putative integrated terminal instead of the downtown Palmdale station. This could include High Speed Cargo trains, if CHSRA decides to allow those on its network and plans for appropriate transshipment terminals. All through trains would stay on the main line, bypassing the airport.

Note that this wye would have to be fully grade separated and feature fairly large curve radii on account of the high speeds on the main line. Suggested alignments are shown in yellow for the case of a ROW in the UPRR/Sierra Hwy corridor for the HSR starter line and in orange in a hwy 14 scenario. Where the tracks would run east of the wye depends on where the terminal building would go.

If this concept is selected, grade separation structures need to be designed and built to support such a future wye. The actual rails and switches for it could be but would not have to be laid just yet, they can be spliced in at a later date.

The HSR station on the starter line should be modest and sited at the location best suited to serve the people who live in Palmdale/Lancaster. Where exactly that will be depends on the ROW CHSRA ends up with. If and when a new airport terminal is actually planned, it will be an entirely separate project and need to include the construction of the wye and detour tracks to a second HSR station in the area, located directly at that terminal. Funding for that track work would be outside the scope of the California HSR project as such.

Conclusion

Billing the Palmdale HSR station as "Palmdale Airport" is highly aspirational at this point. Without a strategic decision to invest in a new terminal building with an integrated HSR station, a sufficient number of JB gates and room to grow, the fact that the HSR starter line will run past the airport's runways means exactly squat diddley. Since Ontario is in many ways a more promising candidate for the job of "LAX East" on the back of HSR, LAWA's decision to focus on that is understandable. However, it is also risky, since it's not yet 100% certain that an HSR station close to the ONT terminals will actually be feasible.

The city of Palmdale has a chance to revive PMD, but only if it dares to think big and formulate a bold, credible plan for integrating its airport more tightly with HSR than any other in California (with the possible exception of Lindbergh Field). It needs to sell this not just LAWA but also to the state of California and the cities of Bakersfield, Fresno and Anaheim. CHSRA could be a partner in this effort by giving the city of Palmdale some leeway on where its station on the starter line should go.

If current plans are changed to anticipate a future wye and detour tracks, the siting of any new integrated passenger terminal for PMD would not depend on CHSRA securing a ROW in the UPRR/Sierra Hwy corridor. This option would be minimally more expensive up front and limit CHSRA's involvement with regional/statewide airport planning to creating just an interface point.

If, after a careful integrated planning effort, the decision to abandon PMD is upheld in spite of the HSR project, so be it - go ahead and repurpose the land for a solar power plant. But perhaps, that should not be up to LAWA alone. While the good people of Palmdale would no doubt disagree, the hassle with UPRR plus losing the airport would make many voters around the state wonder if the additional tunneling cost and risk through Tejon Pass isn't worth it, after all. Shaving twelve minutes off the SF-LA line haul time or, creating breathing room for CHSRA to avoid UPRR statewide, would be no small prize.

Upcoming CHSRA scoping meetings for Bakersfield-Palmdale

* Bakersfield
o Where: Red Lion Hotel, 2400 Camino Del Rio Court, Bakersfield, CA 93308
o When: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:00-7:00pm
* Tehachapi
o Where: Stallion Springs Community Center, 27850 Stallion Springs Drive, Tehachapi, CA 93561
o When: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 3:00-7:00pm
* Palmdale
o Where: Chimbole Cultural Center, 38350 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550
o When: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 3:00-7:00pm


Scoping meetings for the Los Angeles - Palmdale section were held in April and quite rightly focused primarily on the sections up to Sylmar and through Soledad Canyon. The discussion of if and how HSR could help southern California leverage Palmdale airport is better suited to the upcoming Palmdale - Bakersfield project-level EIS/EIR process.

Gold Line Lake Ave. Station Upgrade Continues (Source: brighamyen.wordpress.com)

Link; Gold Line Lake Ave. Station Upgrade Continues « Pasadena Real Estate with Brigham Yen

Gold Line Lake Ave. Station Upgrade Continues

September 5, 2009
I quickly snapped a shot of the construction going on at the Gold Line Lake Ave. Station earlier this week. Work was being done several months ago on the west side of the station on Lake Avenue where canopies were being added as well as new bike racks. However, it seemed like work came to a halt for a bit, and now it’s back online across the street on the east side of the street and station. At this pace, I just hope that this station will be done when the Gold Line Eastside Extension is officially open in, hopefully, November 2009.
Upgrades to the Gold Line Lake Ave. Station continues with construction on the east side of the station

Upgrades to the Gold Line Lake Ave. Station continues with construction on the east side of the station

Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fun

The Bus Bench: Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fund

Crenshaw Line's Battle Plans Presented for Measure R Fund

Crenshaw Transit Corridor_study_map The battle is underway for the Measure R funds that are coveted in these times of California state financial failure. Metro CEO Art Leahy and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas presented an update of the $1.7 billion MTA Crenshaw Transit Corridor Study on Thursday, August 27. The public will be invited to comment on the project in late September and early October, and the Metro Board will hold a vote on October 22 to decide which of two options Metro will choose—providing there is an option to be chosen.

The two primary transit options presented for the Crenshaw transit path. One would be the Light Rail Transit, or LRT; the other would be the Bus Rapid Transit option. Both present opportunities as well as challenges. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose Second District neighborhoods would benefit greatly from having the Crenshaw Transit Corridor Project, made clear his endorsement for the LRT option.

The LRT option would have a light rail train running from the Green Line to the Expo Line. The travel time between the two LRT terminals would be 20 minutes. The transitway would assume a number of different forms as it pass along, under and over other thoroughfares, with the anticipation of eventually extending it to Wilshire Blvd. The estimated capital cost would be $1.3-1.8 billion.

The BRT option would be considerably more complicated, with some exclusive lanes as it traveled a greater distance (Metro Green Line's Aviation Station to Wilshire/Western, where the Purple Line currently extends to its western terminus). The time for the segment between the Green and Expo Lines would be at least 28-30 minutes; higher motor traffic would extend travel time. The travel time for the segment between the Expo and Purple Lines would be approximately 40 minutes. The estimated capital cost would be $500-600 million.

Many factors have been studied regarding the two options: ridership, base project cost, travel time, construction jobs, economic development and future motor vehicle traffic congestion. The historically under-served area would, according to Ridley-Thomas, benefit in construction jobs as well as in future commerce and housing. Were the BRT alternative chosen, an estimated 3500 construction jobs would be created; the LRT alternative would bring an estimated 7800 jobs to the area. Commerce would be positively affected once the the transitway was completed, and housing would possibly benefit in higher values owing to the desirability to be near a popular transit option. The 405, which has for many years been recognized as being the largest parking lot in the world, might have some relief. Best of all, the LRT would prompt a serious look at getting the Green Line connected to LAX—an oversight of enormous proportions that has been a debacle for well over a decade.

However, the figures and facts may hold little influence in the race to secure a project that will bring billions to those communities chose to have Metro projects fulfilled. Although the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line is projected to be running before the end of 2009, there is a study to examine extending it to South El Monte or Whittier. The Orange Line is being extended north four miles to Chatsworth Metrolink Station and the Purple Line is being studied to examine extending it to the west side of L.A. In downtown there is a study to investigate the possibility of a regional connector between the Gold and Blue Lines. The Expo Line, while still controversial owing to the neighborhoods through which the at-grade and underground portions are being built, is slated to open in mid-2010. For nearly all these projects and studies, Measure R is the only significant source of funding owing to the severe state and federal budget cuts and constraints made of late. Public transit is not the only aspect of Los Angeles transit seeking funding; there are many agencies involved in road repair and more that seek the same funds.

The larger capital cost of the LRT should not be the primary factor in considering the option. There will be twice as many more construction jobs as the BRT as well as a transit option that will reduce congestion, bring revenue to an area that is shovel-ready to be further developed and help increase real estate in a time of a national fiscal crisis that no one can portend will soon be resolved. Time is also a cost to be considered; the LRT option will save a great amount of time for commuters over the bus"way" option of the BRT. Fewer motor vehicles will cut pollution in an area long over-wrought with vast industry, which will in turn find benefits in lower health care costs and greater job production.

With a few large transit projects nearing completion and several studies underway for future projects, there is only so much funding to be spread round. While certain areas have had chances in the past to have a light rail line, only to scotch them for reasons that are now deemed ridiculous, other areas have never had a chance and have managed to do relatively well. Perhaps it should be the communities that are desiring a first chance, communities that have long wished to be a part of greater Los Angeles, communities that have brought themselves up by their boot-straps, be granted the chance that other communities were offered but refused.

-BusTard

Wilshire Bus-Only Lane Needs Full Environmental Review After All (Source: Streetsblog Los Angeles)

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Wilshire Bus-Only Lane Needs Full Environmental Review After All

Thursday, September 3, 2009 19 Comments
Wilshire Bus-Only Lane Needs Full Environmental Review After All

by Damien Newton on September 3, 2009

Googiesque/Flickr

When we last checked-in on the status of the proposed bus-only lanes for Wilshire Boulevard, Metro staff was conducting outreach needed before the project could receive it's environmental clearance. At the time, staff hoped it would be completing the needed studies in the next couple of months. However, they're now estimating that, at best, the studies won't be completed until June of 2010.

Next Wednesday, the City Council Transportation Committee will hear a request from LADOT to fund the city's half of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the bus-only lanes project. The hearing could prove interesting because the bus only lane, runs through the heart of the districts of both the new Committee Chairman, Bill Rosendahl, and new Vice Chairman Paul Koretz. While Rosendahl has stated support for the project in the past; Koretz has been more vague and has certainly been lobbied by residents in affluent parts of his district opposed to the project.

According to the report for prepared for next week's hearing, there are two reasons that the bus-only plan will require EIR and not the shorter studies originally recommended and already completed.

...a number of intersections along the Wilshire Boulevard and parallel streets would experience traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In addition, public outreach in November of 2008 indicated both strong support throughout the corridor and strong opposition in several communities. Based on these findings, staff at Metro and DOT determined that an EIR should be prepared for CEQA clearance.

In other words, the Wilshire bus-only lanes, a project that might have seemed a virtual lock a year ago might be in some trouble because of car traffic concerns. At the very least it now faces more obstacles to overcome than it did in 2008. In addition to needing a green light from an environmental standpoint, the project will need to survive another alternatives analysis and another round of public outreach in some areas where a bus only lane instead of street parking is a scary proposition to local residents.

The public hearings will be scheduled soon for late this month or early in October. Since I most likely won't be able to attend, anyone interested in reporting from the meeting should contact me at damien@streetsblog.org.

Santa Monica City Council to consider new configuration for Exposition Light Rail facility (Source: The Argo

Link: The Argonaut: Top Stories

Santa Monica City Council to consider new configuration for Exposition Light Rail facility

BY GARY WALKER
(Created: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 3:51 PM PDT)

Following a lengthy public hearing that featured a variety of exhibits and nearly three dozen speakers, the Santa Monica City Council agreed last month to explore alternative sites for a light rail maintenance yard that has been the source of controversy for several months.

The location of the maintenance facility, which will service trains that will run on the Mid-Cities Exposition Light Rail line, has generated an outpouring of anxiety among residents of nearby Stewart Park and the Pico Neighborhood, who say that they will be adversely impacted by the planned facility.

After listening to its constituents, representatives of businesses near Stewart Park and its own city staff, the council voted unanimously to consider a hybrid location of the Verizon site on Exposition Boulevard and a parking area that is used by Santa Monica College.

The Exposition Construction Authority, which is in charge of building the light rail line, had cited the Verizon location adjacent to Exposition along the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)-owned right-of-way as the best possible site due to its proximity to the right-of-way, the size and shape of the parcel and the sale price, among other things.

Prior to the council vote, Kate Vernez, Santa Monica’s assistant to the city manager, mentioned that although city officials had considered several other possible locations, the original site was the one that Metro identified as the preferable choice.

“Verizon is the only site identified in Expo’s DEIR (draft environmental impact report), and Verizon is a willing seller,” Vernez told the council.

A split alternative with Verizon, the SMC parking lot and a city-owned property at 1800 Stewart St., was rejected due to significant costs and neighborhood opposition. Others were deemed not feasible due to their proximity to parks and schools.

City staff recommended that the exploration of a hybrid site be considered, along with a linear buffer of 120 feet that would face most of the residential side, and a joint-use parking structure in the back of the building.

Vernez reiterated to the council that because only the Verizon site is in the current draft environmental report, it would be necessary to secure the transportation agency’s agreement in order for Metro to explore the new hybrid recommendation.

“Without it, we’re literally boxed in,” she said.

Rick Thorpe, the construction authority’s chief executive officer, said that his agency would agree to research the new alternative. But he also indicated that he would like to continue to consider the original proposal of the Verizon site.

“We would also like to continue to dialogue with the community and see if we can move both alternatives along simultaneously,” Thorpe added.

Council members reminded the audience that although they can wield some influence on the eventual placement of the maintenance yard, the final decision rests with Metro.

Councilman Kevin McKeown, who was among the first of the city’s elected leaders to speak out against having the rail yard built near a residential neighborhood, expressed displeasure with how Metro officials had selected the Verizon site without notifying him or his colleagues until it was discovered in the DEIR.

“We in Santa Monica have long been supportive of the Expo Light Rail line, and that’s what makes it particularly galling to have been caught by surprise with the proposal for the Verizon site,” the councilman said. “There’s a feeling of disrespect (among the residents) that is very disturbing.”

Many residents said they supported the city’s efforts to bring the light rail to Santa Monica, but they were concerned about the impacts to the neighborhood with a light rail maintenance facility. Many referred to a belief expressed in public forums that their neighborhoods, located on Santa Monica’s east side, have long been neglected by city leaders.

Longtime residents of Stewart Park still chafe at having the 10 Freeway bisect their neighborhood over 40 years ago, and others spoke at the council meeting of having the city’s refuse transfer station and other light industrial companies adjacent to their homes.

“The Pico Neighborhood should not serve as the city’s sacrificial zone for greater good,” said Linda Piera-Avila.

Piera-Avila, a former City Council candidate, mentioned the trash transfer yard and recycling center, along with the freeway, as past evidence that the community has been shortchanged regarding environmental concerns.

“Now they are being told that they must shoulder another burden with the light rail maintenance yard,” she said.

Eleanor Path, who lives near the Verizon location on Delaware Avenue, said that the same criteria regarding schools and parks should apply to her community.

“New Roads (a private school) is across the street, and Stewart Park is adjacent (to Verizon),” Path said. “There are 30 kids who play outside daily within a three block stretch parallel to the Verizon site, and I would hate to have to tell my kids that they, our families and our homes are not good enough excuses (not to build the rail facility near Stewart Park).”

Darryl Clarke commended the council for its outreach and for reviewing a number of possible alternative sites for the maintenance yard.

“I think that the city staff did a very thorough analysis,” said Clarke, a former Santa Monica planner who lives south of the Verizon location. “The train is not a freeway with the air pollution or a dump transfer station.

“I look forward to moving ahead with the project.”

Christina Lozama of the Pico Neighborhood Association asked the council to postpone deciding on its course of action regarding the light rail facility.

“Doing so would be a complete disservice to our community,” Lozama said of the vote. “No one has taken the time to sit down and talk to the residents who will be directly impacted by the yard at the Verizon site.”

Councilwoman Gleam Davis, after listening to many comments regarding air pollution and environmental concerns, pointed out that the Verizon site is also a maintenance yard.

“There are activities that are going on there that probably generate carcinogens and other noxious things,” the councilwoman noted. “These things probably have a negative impact on the neighborhood as well.”

“We’re talking about one maintenance yard where they are servicing gasoline vehicles and another where they would be servicing electric trains,” Davis told the audience. “I think that the hybrid site is a superior option compared to other alternatives, and I would ask that you keep an open mind.”

Samantha Bricker, the chief operating officer of the construction authority, said that Metro would consider the hybrid alternative.

“We are looking into it to see if it is feasible,” she said.

Bricker said that the authority had conducted community meetings but was limited to a certain extent, after the council indicated that it was not pleased with the original proposal at the Verizon location.

“It’s hard to do a lot of outreach until we knew what we were studying,” she said.

Councilman Bobby Shriver did not attend the meeting due to the death of his mother, Eunice Shriver.

The Mid-Cities Exposition Light Rail is scheduled to arrive in Santa Monica in 2016.

Subway To Sea (Through WeHo) Making Progress (Source: Wehonews.com)

Link: WeHoNews.com:

Subway To Sea (Through WeHo) Making Progress

Monday, August 31, 2009 – By WeHo News Staff, West Hollywood

West Hollywood, California (Monday, August 31, 2009) - As more exploratory drilling takes place here in West Hollywood last night and again tonight, plans move apace to build the Subway to the Sea with a West Hollywood spur that would join the Red Line and Purple Line in what most are calling a “Pink Line.”

Last month five scoping meetings took place, one of them in WeHo, where people affected by the plans gathered to express concerns and to offer ideas on how to complete the $7 - $11 billion extension of the current Purple Line.

Regional representative for the Westside Subway Extension, Jody Litvak and chief planner David Mieger outlined the process so far and explained some major changes that came up since the last round of public meetings.

Chief on that list of changes would be not placing a subway stop on La Brea at Santa Monica Boulevard.

Because of the turn-radius need for a stop there, the platform would have to be place four to five blocks to the east, in Los Angeles.

Ms. Litvak said, “There’s more support for a station between La Cienega and San Vicente Boulevard, say for example at City Hall in the center of town,” she said.

That said, there remains avid support for a Beverly Center/Cedars-Sinai stop, but the Pink Line complicates a Beverly Hills preference for a La Cienega station, she explained, but there is also strong support from the public wants a junction station at La Cienega, not Beverly Drive.

However, this would require the new platform to be pushed between La Cienega and Robertson. Neither Metro nor Beverly Hills care for a Robertson station, Ms. Litvak said.

She said that they continue to study options, but that a La Cienega/SMB station would likely be between La Cienega and Robertson.

Ms. Litvak went into detail about the construction methods that will be used for building the subway.

Tunneling will be deep-bore, and she says Metro will use a new generation of tunnel-boring machines that helps maintain earth pressure and reduce subsidence.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will perform exploratory drilling as part of the planning and Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Westside Subway Extension in West Hollywood on Sunday, August 30, 2009 from 9 p.m. through Monday, August 31, 2009 at 6 a.m. at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Sweetzer Avenue.

During this process, soil samples will be removed and sent to the lab for analysis in order to assess the conditions below the ground surface and prepare the necessary plans for the Proposed Westside Subway Extension.

The next updates will further refine public comment and start finding concepts for station portals.

DesertXpress train aiming for March construction start

DesertXpress train aiming for March construction start - Las Vegas Sun

DesertXpress train aiming for March construction start
Official says 10,500 construction jobs possible with $4 billion project

By Richard N. Velotta (contact)

Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2009 | 12:21 a.m.
DesertXpress


The leader of the effort to build the proposed DesertXpress high-speed train between Las Vegas and Southern California said his company has launched a worldwide search for vendors and suppliers so that construction on the $4 billion project could begin by the end of March.

Speaking at a forum at UNLV sponsored by the Transportation Research Center and the Ward 5 Chamber of Commerce, Tom Stone, president of DesertXpress, also said his project is the only financially viable high-speed train option, a dig at the American Magline Group’s proposed maglev alternative.

A representative of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, which backs the maglev project, said during a question-and-answer session at the forum that maglev backers are in the process of securing an environmental impact statement, a process DesertXpress completed in March. Richann Bender, executive director of the commission, said the maglev proposal is financially viable and that American Magline would make its point at a similar UNLV forum that has yet to be scheduled.

The format of Monday night’s forum enabled Stone to make a presentation about DesertXpress and answer questions from the 75 people in attendance. Organizers say similar forums are planned for the maglev project and for a pilot project for a hybrid system designed to declutter freeways with a maglev-supported vehicle shuttling system called SolaTrek.

But on Monday, the floor was Stone’s.

During his presentation, Stone added some details about the DesertXpress, which uses traditional steel-wheels-on-rails train service on a dedicated track that would be built primarily within the Interstate 15 right-of-way between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif. Under the plan, 10-car trains with a capacity of 675 passengers would run both directions three times an hour at peak periods Fridays and Sundays and once an hour at off-peak times. The average fare would be $50 one way and the trip on the 150 mph train would take 84 minutes.

Stone said the backers of DesertXpress have refined their plan since 2002, focusing much of their efforts on the most controversial aspect of the proposal – making Victorville the southern terminus of the line.

Stone said the Victorville terminus is viable because all Southern California travelers to Las Vegas have to go through there, whether climbing north on I-15 over Cajon Pass or east from Palmdale, Calif. He said it would be too expensive to develop a route that would enable the train to climb the steep grade of the pass and right-of-way acquisitions farther south also would increase the cost.

DesertXpress backers say a rail link between Palmdale and Victorville eventually would make the system even more viable because California’s high-speed train proposal would use similar rail technology to run along the coast from Los Angeles and Orange County to Northern California through Palmdale. Asked if passengers would tolerate changing trains in Palmdale and Victorville, Stone said because the technology would be similar that the DesertXpress train could go all the way to Los Angeles and Orange County along that route and passengers wouldn’t need to change trains.

Other details disclosed at Monday’s forum:

• Stone said construction of the train would result in 10,500 construction jobs and 8,000 jobs indirectly related to the project.

• The company already has had positive feedback from California transportation officials about linking the DesertXpress with a California Department of Transportation bus feeder system to bring passengers from throughout Southern California to Victorville. Similar arrangements are being made to coordinate with Los Angeles’ Metrolink commuter rail system and, in Las Vegas, with the Las Vegas Monorail system.

• Stone said he expects it would take at least three years from when the system begins running to maximize the marketing potential of the line. But he said in the future, he could envision a high-speed train similar to DesertXpress linking to Phoenix.

• Although schedules haven’t been developed, Stone said he envisioned the train to operate between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., every day.

• The location of the Las Vegas station still hasn’t been determined, but there are four proposals incorporated in DesertXpress’ environmental impact statement. Alternatives include just west of I-15 near Mandalay Bay, just north of and just south of Flamingo Road, near I-15, and in downtown Las Vegas.

• While it’s not a part of the DesertXpress plan, Stone said it would be relatively easy to develop a half-mile spur off the main line near Primm to service the planned Ivanpah Valley airport.

• Asked what would happen if the proposal fails, Stone said he is confident that the line would be profitable even under the most pessimistic economic forecast but that if it did run into trouble, taxpayers would not be on the hook for construction bonds that are being financed privately. And, in a worst-case scenario, he said, the system could be sold to another operator.

• Stone also promised to follow all federal diversity guidelines when drafting contracts, a prime concern of the Ward 5 Chamber members present.

Crenshaw Line Meeting: Sort of An Update (Source: Curbed LA)

Curbed LA: Crenshaw Line Meeting: Sort of An Update

Crenshaw Line Meeting: Sort of An Update

Monday, August 31, 2009, by Dakota

 What's the loud noise you hear? Oh, the huge vacuum of silence emanating from the Los Angeles Times ever since the paper laid off transportation reporter Steve Hymon. Goodbye, coverage of transportation issues (big and small). So, let's hit Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas' web site for a smattering of info on last week's meeting for the Crenshaw/South Bay Transit Corridor. It's written in the 3rd person. Probably by an intern. No matter: "The Supervisor, who was joined by Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chief Executive Officer Art Leahy, encouraged residents to make their voices heard before the MTA board votes in late October on whether to use special buses or light rail to carry passengers [Ridley-Thomas advocates light rail]...The project, slated to begin construction in 2012, also will link to existing rail lines." That's pretty much all there is for now in terms of coverage, but a video is expected to be posted soon.