Gold Line Extension Ready for Service in East Los Angeles (Source: The Transport Politic)

Link: The Transport Politic

Gold Line Extension Ready for Service in East Los Angeles


Though originally planned as an extension of the heavy rail Red Line, light rail will be good for East L.A. when it begins operations Sunday.

In most cities, the construction of a $900 million light rail line between downtown and a heavily transit-dependent neighborhood would be seen as a great step forward in the process of expanding the region’s transportation options.

For East Los Angeles, however, the Gold Line East Side Extension’s opening is bittersweet. While it is true that this new six-mile line, an extension of the Gold Line from Pasadena to downtown with eight beautiful stations, will be a boon for people who live in one of the city’s poorest and least-connected neighborhoods, an alternative originally planned more than twenty years ago would have been even more beneficial to the community.

In 1987, Los Angeles transit planners mapped out the city’s future transit system, highlighting a line running east-west from Westwood to East L.A. as the central spine. This heavy rail project, whose first phase opened as the Red Line between MacArthur Park and Union Station in 1994, lost its appeal as costs rose exponentially and after an explosion raised fears about the system’s safety. Los Angeles County Supervisor Zeb Yaroslavsky campaigned to kill more spending on subways in the city, eventually winning a referendum to do just that, despite the fact that the federal government had already committed hundreds of millions of dollars to an East L.A. extension from Union Station. Congressman Henry Waxman put a stake in the project’s heart when he successfully convinced Congress to eliminate future funding for underground trains in the city to please his wealthy Westside constituents who did not want a line under Wilshire Boulevard.

So the plans for an east side subway died, replaced by Metro with a partially federal-sponsored light rail project that runs just 1.7 miles under Boyle Heights, with the rest along the street; construction began in 2004. Now that the city’s citizenry has approved a new funding source and Mr. Waxman has removed his block on subway funding, it looks like the Westside will get its subway after all — but not East L.A.

This comes to the major detriment of transit users in the affected neighborhoods. While the Gold Line light rail trains will require 22 minutes to traverse the six-mile route between Atlantic Boulevard and Union Station (from where it will continue on the existing Gold Line route to Pasadena), Purple Line heavy rail trains can travel from Union Station to Wilshire and Western — about five miles — in just thirteen minutes. It seems reasonable to suggest that heavy rail, operating entirely in a subway, would have saved thousands of commuters ten or more minutes a day over what they’re getting with light rail. This may seem inconsequential, but if the Westside subway and extensions of the East L.A. line to El Monte or Whittier are ever built, those ten minutes could have meant significantly shorter daily work trips for hundreds of thousands of people.

For the moment, planners expect only 13,000 daily users on the line in 2010 — a number that would have been likely higher had the travel time been shorter. Ridership is also limited by the lack of a direct connection between the light rail Blue Line and Union Station, a deficiency that will be solved with the eventual construction of the Regional Connector downtown. That project will also allow through-running from West L.A.’s Expo corridor, all the way to the East L.A. Atlantic Station terminus.

If light rail is not ideal, however, the huge cost savings of running the route principally overground may have been worth it, especially since East L.A., though dense, is certainly no high-rise neighborhood. A heavy rail line through the community may not have ever attracted a sufficient number of users to make it a good idea. On the other hand, experience in cities like Washington, D.C. suggests that heavy rail stations even in less dense areas can attract significant surrounding development and very high ridership. One wonders if it’s fair that the rich Westside gets the best standards of transit, while East L.A. gets something significantly less performing.

The Gold Line will be a successful element of the Los Angeles cityscape, but the project probably could have made a far more serious dent in the region’s car culture had it been designed differently. Yet Los Angeles will be able to build more projects overall because of the savings here. And Metro has a cornucopia of proposals on its plate.

And the Gold Line Eastside Extension, named after America’s first Mexican-American congressman, Edward R. Roybal, is a handsome addition to this neighborhood. Each of the stations was designed by an artist and is distinctive, making each a jewel in a somewhat blighted neighborhood that was partially demolished to make way for the construction of the Pomona and Santa Ana freeways. Those roads remain huge obstacles whose close adjacency to the light rail line’s route may actually reduce ridership, but there’s not much to be done on that account. In addition, current County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who was a major supporter of the project, is upset about the fact that the line is above ground — she fears that trains will run over pedestrians — but her concerns are overstated considering the success of similar projects in other countries and even in Los Angeles itself. There’s nothing to fear from the Gold Line, but it could have been better.

The Eastside's new Gold Line (Souce: latimes.com)

Link: The Eastside's new Gold Line -- latimes.com

Editorial
The Eastside's new Gold Line
After 22 years and $900 million, light rail comes to L.A.'s Eastside.

November 13, 2009

It's hard to build public transit projects in Los Angeles under the best of circumstances, but the Gold Line light-rail spur from Union Station to Atlantic Boulevard in East L.A., which opens Sunday, has a long and bruising history that seems to have left at least one key backer permanently scarred.

County Supervisor Gloria Molina last month called the line "substandard" and worried that it would be unsafe for drivers and pedestrians, despite the fact that it has been vetted and approved by safety experts. "We all struggled so hard to get this into our community," she said. "Now, at the end of the day, I feel like I'm being shortchanged on the issues of integrity, safety and confidence."

On the surface, it was a surprising reaction from Molina, a tireless advocate for her Eastside district who is about to see the opening of a perfectly safe, six-mile light-rail line, a $900-million project that took 22 years from planning to completion. Yet she has never recovered from a process in which what was originally envisioned as a spur of the Red Line subway ended up with only 1.7 miles underground. The subway plans were derailed both because of the enormous price tag and because of public anger over cost overruns and sinkholes during the construction of the Red Line to North Hollywood, which prompted Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to sponsor a successful ballot initiative in 1998 that forbade using county sales tax funds for further subway projects. Molina is still upset that after getting a subway built in his Westside district, Yaroslavsky saw to it that none would be built in hers.

Fortunately, Molina's bitterness doesn't appear to be shared by her constituents, who mostly seem thrilled about Sunday's debut. They should be; the Eastside has a large transit- dependent population, and by the end of its first year, the Gold Line is expected to attract 13,000 daily boardings.

Of course, this doesn't mean the sniping over subways has ended. Not satisfied by a recommendation from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff that an eight-mile project along Crenshaw Boulevard should be a light-rail line rather than a less expensive dedicated busway, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas hopes to drum up hundreds of millions more dollars to make it a subway. Meanwhile, the so-called subway to the sea along Wilshire Boulevard -- one of the only parts of L.A. with the density to justify the expense of subway construction -- is constantly under threat from politicians who want to seize its funding for their own projects.

But those are fights for another day. On Sunday, there will be such a thing as a free ride, with the new Gold Line operating all day with no charge. All aboard.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Q & A The Gold Line opens Sunday (Source: latimes.com)

Link: The Gold Line opens Sunday -- latimes.com

Q & A

The Gold Line opens Sunday

The six-mile light-rail extension, which cost $898 million, will open Sunday with free rides and entertainment.
Gold Line

George Raya is at the controls of a light-rail train as it travels through the underground portion of the new Gold Line Eastside Extension. (Al Seib, Los Angeles Times / November 11, 2009)

By Ari B. Bloomekatz

November 13, 2009

What is the Gold Line Eastside extension?

It's the latest light-rail line in Los Angeles County, running six miles from downtown L.A. through Boyle Heights and into East Los Angeles. When it opens to the public on Sunday, the Gold Line will run from Pasadena to East L.A. The Eastside extension cost $898 million to build. Construction began in 2004.

How many stations are there?

There are eight stations along the extension's route: Atlantic, East L.A. Civic Center, Maravilla, Indiana, Soto, Mariachi Plaza, Pico/Aliso and Little Tokyo/Arts District. The extension terminates at Union Station, where riders can connect to the Red Line subway or the Purple Line or stay on the Gold Line to Pasadena.

Why is the Gold Line not a subway?

From the beginning, residents and politicians on the Eastside pushed for the Gold Line extension to be built completely underground. In the end, transportation planners decided to make a roughly 1.7-mile portion of the Gold Line a subway -- the part that runs underneath Boyle Heights. The majority of the route runs above ground.

What is planned for the grand opening?

Everyone can ride the Gold Line from one end to the other at no cost on Sunday. At the East L.A. Civic Center station, there will be live music, a farmers market and activities for children. There will also be live mariachi and contemporary music -- including the group Quinto Sol -- at the Mariachi Plaza station. The Little Tokyo/Arts District station will host karaoke and food from nearby restaurants. And Santa Claus will visit Union Station more than a month early.

What are the ridership projections?

By the end of the first year it is open, officials expect 13,000 people to ride the extension each day.

What are the safety concerns about the Gold Line?

Some people, including Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, have expressed concern about pedestrians near the light-rail line, which runs through heavily populated areas. Molina has said the line would have been much safer underground.

But MTA officials said the line is safe. They noted that the agency set aside an additional $4.5 million for safety enhancements, including about two miles of pedestrian fencing. Two dozen "safety ambassadors" will help residents navigate tricky spots on the line. Los Angeles police, the California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials will be on the lookout for people jaywalking over the tracks.

What are some basic safety tips when driving in the area?

Here are tips from the MTA: (1) Exercise caution at all times. Watch for the "Train" signal. (2) Always wait for a "walk" signal before entering the crosswalk. (3) Always use the crosswalk. Never jaywalk across the tracks. (4) Never make a left turn on a red arrow. This will be enforced by cameras at each intersection. (5) Right turns are allowed while a Gold Line train is passing through but may be restricted at certain intersections.

Didn't workers digging the subway tunnel find artifacts?

Yes. In 2005, workers found markers of Chinese workers buried near the Evergreen Cemetery more than a century ago. Chinese headstones and burial bricks were found between 2 and 6 feet underground. They were scattered among the remains of the 128 bodies. Chinese American historians said the find shed light on the earliest Chinese immigrants who came to California to help build the railroads and perform other jobs.

What's next for the Gold Line?

Officials are hoping for two new extensions in the coming years. One would go from Pasadena east as far as Ontario International Airport. The other would go east from East L.A. to either Whittier or South El Monte.

ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter rails (Source: latimes.com)

Link: Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter rails -- latimes.com

Schwarzenegger quietly quashed effort to improve commuter rails
The governor ordered officials to seek federal money only for the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego. Rail advocates say the commuter line upgrades should take priority.
Commuter rail funding

A rider boards a Metrolink train at L.A.'s Union Station. Agency officials had hoped to use high-speed rail stimulus funds to improve braking systems. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)


By Dan Weikel and Eric Bailey

November 13, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly spiked an effort last month to win $1.1 billion in federal high-speed rail stimulus funds for 29 projects to improve the safety, speed and capacity of heavily traveled commuter corridors through Southern California.

Instead, he ordered state officials to seek money for only one project -- the proposed bullet train between San Francisco and San Diego.

The governor's decision was intended to increase the state's chances of receiving high-speed rail money, officials said. California is competing with more than 40 applicants from 23 other states.

But the action has sparked debate among rail advocates about whether too high a priority is being placed on the high-speed train project at the expense of the second-busiest rail corridor in the nation, where budget-strapped commuter services have been trying to improve safety, add track and cut travel times from San Diego to Santa Barbara.

Eliminated from the state application for federal funds was almost $170 million for positive train control -- computer-guided braking systems designed to prevent collisions and allow conventional trains to safely travel at 110 mph. Such automated systems, which the federal government wants installed by 2015, would have prevented the Metrolink crash in Chatsworth last year that killed 25 people in the worst rail accident in modern California history.

Also removed was $969 million in railroad crossing improvements, track additions, overpasses and a variety of maintenance projects designed to benefit the busy corridor between San Diego and Los Angeles as well as the main rail line through Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The routes are used by Amtrak, the Coaster, Metrolink and major freight lines such as Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

One major goal of commuter rail services has been to reduce the travel time between San Diego and Los Angeles from about three hours to two hours.

"I am not happy about it," said Art Brown, chairman of the government authority that oversees the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor. "There were lots of projects in the application to improve intracity rail service. The system will remain a slow-speed service, and safety has been one of our big concerns."

The California Department of Transportation's rail division, which had worked with transportation agencies in Southern California to prepare the application, was ready to submit the paperwork to Washington by the Oct. 2 deadline.

But Schwarzenegger quashed the request and told state officials to only seek $4.7 billion in federal rail stimulus funds for the high-speed train project to bolster its chances of getting funding.

Under the federal economic stimulus plan, about $8 billion is available for high-speed train projects, which can include conventional rail improvements to increase train speeds. The federal Department of Transportation is expected to decide which projects to fund by January.

Planners say the high-speed network would ultimately cost at least $45 billion and stretch nearly 800 miles from San Diego to San Francisco, with a branch running to Sacramento. Trains would exceed 200 mph on some stretches, prompting officials to say that a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco could take as little as two hours and 38 minutes.

In the days after learning that Caltrans was pressing ahead with its request to seek money for local projects, members of the California High Speed Rail Authority pushed the governor to keep the focus on winning funding for the bullet train.

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, chairman of the authority's board, talked with the governor by phone. The effort was aided by David Crane, a gubernatorial advisor who also is a high-speed rail board member.

Pringle said that state applications for federal money already ask for more than $1 billion for conventional rail projects -- money that would come from a different pool of economic stimulus funds. About a third of the request -- $390 million -- is for rail corridors in Southern California, state records show.

"California is in the lead position to receive high-speed rail funding," Pringle said in a recent interview. "We should not be competing with ourselves."

Pringle and Crane found a ready audience in Schwarzenegger, who is a big backer of the state's push to be first in the nation with a 200-mph train line, a project that could create up to 130,000 jobs.

"The governor's goal was to submit the most highly competitive application possible to ensure that California receives as much funding as possible," said Camille Anderson, a Schwarzenegger spokeswoman. "California's competitive edge is without question high-speed rail."

Critics say the corridor between San Diego and Santa Barbara was denied an unprecedented opportunity to fund a variety of long-awaited projects in order to favor what they view as a flawed high-speed rail proposal that is surrounded by uncertainty, duplicates some existing service and is decades from completion.

They say the bullet-train project is years from breaking ground and that important conventional rail improvements would be delayed because they wouldn't get enough funding from other federal or state sources.

The governor "took shovel-ready projects and put them aside, " said Rich Tolmach, president of the California Rail Foundation. "Hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown away. Now these rail projects will not get their fair share of federal stimulus money."

Tolmach and other critics said the Caltrans rail division and other transportation agencies would try to seek alternate funding, but those sources are not as large as the federal funds allocated for high-speed rail, and the state has little money because of an unprecedented and ongoing budget shortfall.

"We may never get this money now," said Jim Mills, a former state senator who helped to create commuter rail service between San Diego and Los Angeles. "The lives of rail travelers will be jeopardized by this. One of the major items requested was positive train control, which can prevent the kind of accidents that have occurred on Metrolink."

However, Richard Katz, a former assemblyman who sits on the Metrolink, high-speed rail and Metropolitan Transportation Authority boards, was more optimistic that conventional rail projects, such as positive train control, would not be jeopardized by the governor's concentration on high-speed rail.

For example, Katz said, Metrolink, which serves six counties, needs roughly $200 million to $210 million to install positive train control by 2012.

About $70 million has been requested from other federal sources, and efforts are underway to try to redirect $97 million from state transportation bonds that are earmarked to rebuild the Colton railroad crossing.

If positive train control cannot get enough federal or state funding, Katz said he believes the MTA would lend Metrolink the money.

"We are still in good shape overall," Katz said. "We're applying for everything we can get our hands on. I think we will do well in all our funding requests."

dan.weikel@latimes.com

eric.bailey@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

An Open Letter to Warren Buffett (Source: NewWest.com)

An Open Letter to Warren Buffett | Bill Schneider | Travel & Outdoors | NewWest.Net

An Open Letter to Warren Buffett
One phone call can make something wonderful happen out here in Montana.

By Bill Schneider, 11-12-09
What could be the best bike trail ever and how BNSF uses it--as a dump site for unused railcars. Photos by Bill Schneider
What could be the best bike trail ever and how BNSF uses it--as a dump site for unused railcars. Photos by Bill Schneider

Dear Mr. Buffett:

I read with interest and glee about your recent acquisition of the majority ownership in Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Congratulations on buying a great company--investment wise, I should clarify, because BNSF is a not-so-great company on the public relations front.

Now that you own the railroad, you can change that bad image with one phone call and instantly make your new acquisition--and yourself, of course--a corporate saint out here in Montana.

Like everybody who ever bought a common stock or mutual fund, I admire all you done. Even with your many billions, you drive to work in a regular vehicle and live in a regular house and pay yourself a regular salary. You don’t embarrass the country with an eight-figure salary and the greed we see from so many CEOs.

And philanthropically speaking, everybody knows you’re one of the most generous among us. You could buy a country, but instead, you plan to give almost all of your fortune back to society.

So, to continue your strong tradition of philanthropy and to support your corporate sainthood candidacy, I respectfully request that you have a little chat with your new employees at BNSF about an amazing opportunity we have out here under the Big Sky.

Here’s the deal. For years, people in central Montana have been encouraging, if not begging, BNSF to legally abandon (instead of just not use) a 94-mile section of rail line between Great Falls and Helena. It runs along one of the few undammed sections of the mighty Missouri River and follows part of the historic route of Lewis and Clark. It’s an exceptionally scenic and accessible section of rail line that we locals hope to turn into the best bike trail ever.

Right now, locally and unofficially, we call it the Corridor of Discovery Trail, but we would gladly call it the Warren Buffett Trail.

The bike trail would not only be an economic godsend to several small, struggling Montana communities and greatly increase property values for landowners along the route, but it would be such a green thing for you to do. I know you and your family have contributed generously to worthy causes such as fighting AIDS, curbing illiteracy, and stopping nuclear proliferation. Well, here’s a chance to do something for worthy causes such as saving a slice of small town America, promoting health and fitness, fighting obesity, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and helping to curb the virtual pandemic of Nature Deficit Disorder in the so-called “screen generation” so expertly documented by Richard Louv in his book, Last Child in the Woods.

The trouble is, your new employees at BNSF have not only refused to consider our request, but have been playing politics with our sincere intentions. Last year, to emphasize the point, BNSF befouled the scenic corridor by moving in hundreds of rusty, smelly, ugly railcars. BNSF executives could’ve stored these unneeded railcars anywhere on their system, but they chose the route of the proposed bike trail, perhaps the most scenic section of rail line BNSF controls and definitely one of the most heavily used for outdoor activities.

I wish I could take you down the river in my drift boat so you could see it yourself because you’d likely agree with me that this decision was little more than an “up yours” to those of us who have volunteered our own time and money to make this bike trail happen. Many thousands of people float that stretch of river every year. Instead of enjoying the scenery and the fabulous trout fishing, they’re now treated to a full-frontal display of a powerful monopoly’s surplus garbage and political vindictiveness.

I can’t tell you anything about economic development, since you probably invented it, but I can say that in many places where such a bike trail is built, it becomes the lifeblood of a rural economy. I wrote about one such trail, the Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes in Idaho, which was also built on an abandoned rail line. Little towns along that trail would probably have all but disappeared by now, but instead, they flourish because of bicycle-related tourism. (If interested in more details, check the links at the end of this letter.)

The same economic comeback would follow our bike trail, and I suspect the benefits would exceed those generated by the Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes. Everybody who sees this corridor agrees that it could be among the best bike routes in the world.

All we really need is for you to make a phone call to a BNSF executive to get the abandonment process underway. But if you wanted to really show your stuff, you could actually fund construction of the trail.

I suppose you don’t like hearing this, but it seems like you could afford it. It would only take 50 Berkshire Hathaway’s Class A shares or around 3 percent of the money you invested in Goldman Sachs last September. In fact, based on my amateur calculations, you could built the whole thing with about 5 percent of the one-year profit from the Goldman Sachs investment.

Anyway, Mr. Buffett, I could go on, but I’ve heard you’re a busy guy. I’m sure it wasn’t part of the M&A plan for BNSF, but serendipitously, you’ve landed in a position where you can really help us accomplish something wonderful out here in Montana. Please make the call.

Respectfully and on behalf of many thousands of Montanans,

Bill Schneider

Related commentaries from our archives:

Idaho Hits Tourism Grand Slam
Build the Corridor of Discovery Trail
How BNSF Can Become a Corporate Saint

Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor (Source: www.lawattstimes.com)

Link: Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor

Light Rail Proposed for Crenshaw Corridor
November 12, 2009

By CHICO C. NORWOOD

STAFF WRITER

Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff members have proposed a light-rail line over a busway for the Crenshaw/LAX Corridor, partly due to an effort to help relieve transportation woes in Los Angeles.

During a telephone conference, Metro officials unveiled the recommendation for the proposed $1.7 billion, 8 1/2-mile rail project that would extend from Exposition Boulevard to the Green Line on Imperial Highway.

“The subject of a Crenshaw transit corridor has been discussed in transit circles for decades and has received a lot of attention,” said Dan Rosenfeld, senior deputy for Economic Development, Sustainability and Mobility for Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Rosenfeld said the rail line is being recommended over a previously considered bus line because rail offers the greatest benefit to travel time along the corridor, improves opportunities for economic development, and enables Los Angeles to “catch up with other cities around the country in providing commuter rail service to the airport.”

The proposed line would begin at Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards, going south along Crenshaw Boulevard through the area known as the Harbor Subdivision located near Florence Avenue, said Metro Project Manager Roderick Diaz. The line would then go southwest, running parallel to Florence Avenue, through the city of Inglewood. It would continue south to Aviation Boulevard and connect with the Green Line at Imperial Highway and Aviation.

“From a transportation perspective, this is the first north-south rail project in the Metro system and will begin to bring congestion relief and air quality relief and mobility options to people on the west side of the county, relieving the 405 freeway and other notoriously congested streets,” Rosenfeld said. “It’s a great step forward.”

He said that the hope is to eventually extend the line south to the cities of Torrance, Carson and perhaps Long Beach and San Pedro.

It is projected that the line will have a ridership of 15,000 to 21,000 daily. The project is also expected to generate about 7,600 jobs during construction.

According to Rosenfeld, 400 to 500 letters have been received from the community in support of the project. Among the supporters is the Los Angeles Urban League.

“We certainly support the light-rail option just with regards to economic development and in terms of speed of transit. We do consider it a victory,” said Trevor Ware, senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Urban League. “We are strongly in support of the below-grade options that have been spelled out.”

The project calls for below-grade separations, including one that would be north of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard — at 39th Street and Crenshaw Boulevard — and another one at Crenshaw and 48th Street, south of Vernon Avenue.

Stations along the route would include one at Exposition and Crenshaw and others at Crenshaw and Martin Luther King Jr. boulevards; Crenshaw and Slauson Avenue; Century Boulevard and Aviation; and more.

There are also unresolved alignments that are being proposed, including a grade separation at Exposition and Crenshaw and a potential station at Vernon Avenue and Crenshaw, Diaz said.

Manuel Criollo, an organizer for the Bus Riders Union, said trains are often another scheme for gentrification and said funds should be used to improve the overall transportation system as opposed to one corridor.

“It’s a complicated issue. We’re opposed … based on the real necessity of those who depend on the (public transportation) system,” he said. “The county is so large, job access to different areas is so wide, that if you’re going to invest … a billion dollars on one corridor rather than investing in countywide systems like a bus system that can give you accessibility, then we think it can only recreate what we have right now, which is a lack of access to different parts of the county.”

The proposal will go to Metro’s Planning and Programming Committee on Nov. 18 and to the Metro board on Dec. 10.

If approved, the environmental impact report and final impact statement should be completed by mid-2010, and groundbreaking and construction could begin in 2012, Rosenfeld said.

Construction should take about six years, and the line could open in 2016, he said.

Gold Line Developments Still a Glimmer in Metro's Eye (Source: Curbed LA)

link: Curbed LA: Gold Line Developments Still a Glimmer in Metro's Eye

Gold Line Developments Still a Glimmer in Metro's Eye

Tuesday, November 10, 2009, by Neal Broverman

The wave of press regarding this Sunday's opening of the Gold Line extension is beginning to crest. The Los Angeles Business Journal looks at the planned developments around the line, and according to the paper, Metro had hoped to have six Gold Line-adjacent projects and 275 units of affordable housing under construction at this point. None of these projects have broken ground, with financing the major stumbling block (there are at least a dozen projects, many mixed-use and affordable housing, seeking funding). Not that growth has stopped--a handful of new shopping centers have opened up in the last couple of years to serve the area's 150,000 residents. [Pictured: the killer view at the Mariachi Plaza stop by Francisco Cendejas via Flickr]

Developments planned near the Mariachi Plaza subway stop in Boyle Heights:

-Developer McCormack Baron Salazar wants to build a mixed-use structure on 3.5 acres. There would be 100 affordable housing units and 6,000 square feet of retail.
- JSM Construction is working with another 3.5 acre site, in hopes of bringing 160,000 square feet of retail and office space.
-The Boyle Hotel will undergo a $21 million renovation if the nonprofit East Los Angeles Community Corp. has its way. The redo would turn the hotel into 51 affordable apartments. Financing isn't there yet, but the hope is to have this done by early 2012.

Near the East LA Civic Center stop:

-A former Red Cross building could become 60 housing units fronted by ground-floor retail if developer National Core Community Renaissance can find financing. The project would cost $17 million.

Though it's several blocks south of the Gold Line's terminus at Altantic and Pomona, the LABJ also mentions the attempt by the Charles Co. to turn the 82-year-old Golden Gate Theatre building (on the National Register of Historic Places) into a CVS. Preservationists are fighting this one.

Not everyone is looking for a big redevelopment of this part of town. At the Gold Line media event a week and a half ago, City Councilman Jose Huizar told us he's not interested in large-scale development along the route.

Our View: MTA finally thinking about Valley, future (Source: SGVTribune.com)

Our View: MTA finally thinking about Valley, future - SGVTribune.com

Our View: MTA finally thinking about Valley, future

Posted: 11/10/2009 05:39:05 PM PST

A beef we have with many advocacy groups is that they don't know how to advance the message after they actually get what they have long lobbied for.

They seemingly can't help advocating the same position - full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes - after a fight is already won. Sometimes it seems they don't want to downshift precisely because their approach has been so successful - and it's been a good way to keep donations flowing and staffing levels high.

Since we don't want to fall into that trap ourselves, we would like to commend the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) board for placing the Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2a into its Long Range Transportation Plan last month by unanimous vote.

It's something we've advocated for years for the good of the people of the San Gabriel Valley. In particular, we'd like to give credit to Los Angeles County supervisors Mike Antonovich and Mark Ridley-Thomas, as well as local MTA representative Councilman John Fasana of Duarte. We also give credit to the 14 House of Representative members from our region from both political parties who lobbied for the placement, especially veteran Reps. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, and Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena.

We believe this battle for 2a funding - at times loud and fierce - is now over because the placement will free up Measure R (half-cent sales tax) funds for this purpose. This project, now funded east from Pasadena to the
Leadership & NegotiationNotre Dame Management Training Certificates Online More info... Los Angeles -
station, will begin creating positive economic waves in terms of contracts and jobs beginning now through its completion in 2013.

It is a "major victory" for the San Gabriel Valley, said Antonovich. "It was a watershed moment" for our region, said Fasana. It's clearly a victory.

By extending the Gold Line light-rail tracks from east Pasadena at Sierra Madre Villa Street to Azusa, and then, eventually, to Montclair and maybe even to Ontario International Airport, it will remove many commuters from cars, put them into trains and thereby relieve congestion on the traffic-choked Foothill (210) Freeway. The light-rail system will finally reach east San Gabriel Valley and eventually Inland Empire residents - precisely the neighborhoods where people drive long distances to and from jobs in Pasadena, Glendale/Burbank and Los Angeles. By adding choices for commuters, it will speed up travel and reduce air pollution.

While Phase 2b funding issues remain, for right now the concerted message Gold Line advocates have long adhered to needs to change. Now, it's about attracting the best and the brightest engineers and design teams. It's about making sure construction starts in June as planned by the Gold Line Construction Authority, and that rail cars are running by 2013.

It will take cooperative efforts in this nuts-and-bolts stage to make sure design and construction projects stay on track.

Another positive player is the city of Monrovia, which has stepped up to propose land for a rail maintenance yard near its future Gold Line station. The MTA must see this through to completion.

The authority recently received inquiries from six design-build firms to build a rail bridge over the 210 in Arcadia, one of the first projects in the extension. It will choose a firm later this month.

We envision this phase's construction as successful as the original, which was built on time and within budget. Now is the time to see more cooperation to build other regional light-rail projects throughout Los Angeles County. It's a positive time for transit.

New Transport Plan: Too Westside? (Source: /kcet.org/)

Link: New Transport Plan: Too Westside? - City of Angles

New Transport Plan: Too Westside?

By Brian Doherty
November 9, 2009 8:55 AM

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's new 30-year "Long Term Transportation Plan" has a lot for the Westside, but other constituencies aren't thrilled.

The L.A. Weekly reports on the plan, and the controversy:

when the MTA several days ago approved its eye-popping $298 billion, 30-year Long Range Transportation Plan, with Measure R's $40 billion sales-tax injection as its engine, it was an unpleasant surprise for many. Critics say the day-to-day needs in densely packed Los Angeles County were swept under the bus in favor of vanity projects that include not one, but two trains to Santa Monica....

To some, it reflects Villaraigosa's ego and desire for a monument -- the "subway to the sea" -- to himself.....

The majority of L.A. County's transit users take bus lines, which are far cheaper to expand and -- unlike totally inflexible rail lines -- are extremely easy to reroute when populations and jobs shift. Existing rail in L.A. is already being heavily subsidized, and despite all the hype, existing lines are underutilized.....

The plan remains just that--a plan--and not a done deal, and politicians outside the MTA and Villaraigosa circles are doubtful it's the right move:

The plan is essentially a vision statement by the current politicians on the MTA board; it's also an official hope that the unknown politicians who control the MTA board five and 10 years from now will raise $298 billion by 2040, and will spend that money to fund the current board's vision....

....the Long Range Plan's emphasis on a Westside subway that does not actually go near the sea and a Westside light rail that may not ever reach Santa Monica was so pronounced that members of Congress, Sacramento legislators, and the Bus Riders Union pressured the MTA's board to agree to protect non-Westside projects.

A rare bipartisan delegation of Southern California congressional representatives urged "a more inclusive, regional and long-term strategy" than the Villaraigosa-favored blueprint. Several state senate and assembly members argued in a separate letter that with the new sales-tax bite affecting all county taxpayers for the next 30 years, not just Westsiders and L.A. urbanites, the plan "must be geographically representative of the entire region."

Streetsblog on Villaraigosa's late October announcement that he wants to speed up Measure R transportation spending from a 30-year plan to a 10-year one.

Ted Balaker of the Reason Foundation (which owns Reason magazine, where I work) on how L.A. would be better off spending transportation money on freeways than on light rail.

The image associated with this post was taken by Flickr user Daniel Greene. It was used under user Creative Commons license.

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor (Source: LA Times)

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor -- latimes.com

MTA backs light rail for Crenshaw corridor
Proposed line would run from Exposition Boulevard to near LAX. Rail would be offer a faster, cleaner alternative to buses, supporters say.

By Ari B. Bloomekatz

November 11, 2009

South Los Angeles has won a significant victory as transportation officials recommended this week that a proposed transit corridor along Crenshaw Boulevard be a light-rail line rather than a less expensive dedicated busway.

The recommendation, made by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority staff, gives a boost to the estimated $1.7-billion project, which would run from the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw area to just outside Los Angeles International Airport.

Officials want to build the project with revenues from Measure R, the transportation sales tax that L.A. County voters approved last year.

Supporters of the Crenshaw line argue that it would provide a mass transit system to southwest Los Angeles, Inglewood and surrounding communities that are traditionally underserved by the county's rail network.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League. "We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options. To have a decision made that we will have light rail -- that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact -- we need that too."

The proposed line would run about 8 1/2 miles down Crenshaw Boulevard, starting at Exposition Boulevard, past Leimert Park, shopping centers, through Inglewood and south to a stop near the airport and a connection with the Green Line.

About 2 1/2 miles of the project is proposed as a subway, including the section that would run underneath Leimert Park, said MTA project manager Roderick Diaz.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas called the recommendation a "big victory" and has said he wants to find hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding so that more segments, if not all, of the project can be built as a subway.

The line will "improve air quality and serve as an economic catalyst," Ridley-Thomas said in a news release. "This will also provide an efficient, clean mode of transportation that will connect to Los Angeles International Airport."

Crenshaw line supporters say that the project can be built using revenue strictly from Measure R. Other more expensive rail projects being proposed in Los Angeles would also require federal money, such as the Westside subway, which has a price tag of about $5 billion.

At least one community advocate, Damien Goodmon, said officials need to focus on potential safety problems on sections of the line that would run near areas with children.

"The section on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 60th Street will be a rallying point for our community. The section, which abuts View Park Prep School and is just a block away from Crenshaw High School is currently only being studied as street-level with no option for underground. We disagree with this recommendation by staff," said Goodmon, who is part of the South Los Angeles Neighborhood Council's Joint Committee on Rail Transit.

Gold Line to East Los Angeles to open this weekend (Source: Pasadena Star-News)

Link: Gold Line to East Los Angeles to open this weekend - Pasadena Star-News

Gold Line to East Los Angeles to open this weekend
Posted: 11/10/2009 02:05:24 PM PST

LOS ANGELES - The Gold Line Eastside Extension, which will connect the end of the Gold Line at Union Station to within one miles of the city border of Monterey Park, will be opening this Sunday.

Riders will be able to use the line for free on Sunday, though it will begin charging normal Metro fares on Monday.

It will take about 53 minutes to ride the line from the Sierra Madre Villa Station in Pasadena to the end of the line at the intersection of Atlantic and Pomona boulevards, just south of the Pomona (60) Freeway, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials.

That time will vary will traffic, said Jose Ubaldo, spokesman for the MTA. The new line will go through city streets and will tend to run slower with traffic, he said.

Ubaldo has been riding the line during its test phase from end to end every day, and said he has made the trip in under 20 minutes during low-traffic times, but has clocked it at up to 23 minutes during peak traffic times. MTA has not yet released an official time estimate for traveling on the line.

Local and federal officials will be celebrating the opening of the line with a ceremony on Saturday.

Roundup of articles on the Regional Connector

Link: Curbed LA: Regional Connector: Know All the Possible Downtown Stops

          Roundup of articles on the Regional Connector
          Article 1
          Regional Connector: Know All the Possible Downtown Stops

Monday, November 9, 2009, by Neal Broverman
See link for all photos.
Over the weekend, Metro held the second of four community meetings on the Regional Connector, which would connect the 7th/Metro stop with the new Gold Line stop in Little Tokyo via light rail. Like the Westside subway, which is following a similar timetable, the Connector is in the midst of its environmental review and hopes to open around 2018/19. If it is indeed built, Metro is looking at two options for the connectors: either underground or partly above-ground.

Several new stations would be built for the Regional Connector project depending on which alternative is ultimately selected. For its at-grade emphasis alternative, Metro has identified station locations in the Financial District, Bunker Hill, and the City Hall/Civic Center area. Metro’s underground emphasis alternative also would stop in the Financial District and Bunker Hill areas, and then continue underground. Planners are studying two possible station options on 2nd Street before the line would travel to Little Tokyo.

Specifically, these stops are being considered:

Subway alternative: Stops at 5th & Flower, 2nd & Hope, and Broadway & 2nd or Los Angeles & 2nd

Light-rail option: Stops planned for 5th & Flower, 2nd & Hope, and Main & 1st or 1st & Los Angeles.

The meeting, held at the Wurlitzer Building at 818 S. Broadway this past Saturday morning, went pretty smoothly, with staff explaining that the connector will shorten rides and save commuters—who are now forced to transfer at 7th and Metro or Union Station—about 20 minutes of time. Project manager Dolores Roybal-Saltarelli explained that both those stations are already swamped with commuters during rush-hour, and that the county expects millions more residents in the coming years (and more public transit users, considering new lines are opening every two to four years).

Roybal-Saltarelli was cool-headed when she was asked why the connector couldn't open more quickly. She said the schedule they have now is considered ambitious by most engineers and transit planners. "It's completely feasible that construction could begin in mid-2013," she said.

Most attendees were excited about the line. "It will reduce a lot of the congestion at 7th and Metro," said Gregory Sandoval of Glendale, who rides transit into the city for work. He said the Red and Blue Line platforms were already ridiculously busy. "Just wait until the Expo Line opens [in 2011]," he added.

The one dissenter was John Smythe, who lives Downtown. "I'm for leaving whatever is there," he said. "If you need to transfer, just go to Union Station." He said the money for the connector should be used for other priorities, like new lines.

Little Tokyo residents have been skittish about construction disruption, as well as stop placement, but Ann Kerman, who handles communications for the connector, said she was prepared to assuage fears in Downtown of disruption during the construction phase and density changes to Little Tokyo. "This project will do more to maintain the cultural integrity [of the neighborhood] than diminish it," Kerman said.

Kerman added that the Nikkei Project mixed-use development—near where the connector would link with the Gold Line—is moving forward too, and is in the midst of environmental studies. The Senor Fish restaurant catty-corner to the Gold Line stop will eventually have to be closed for the connector, but there are early discussions of putting another mixed-use development at that corner of 1st and Alameda (development plans like this may be part of the reason Little Tokyo residents are anxious).

Link:Streetsblog Los Angeles » Community Meetings for Regional Connector

Community Meetings for Regional Connector
Article 2
by Damien Newton on October 29, 2009

When
November 5, 2009 6:30 pm November 7, 2009 12:00 pm November 10, 2009 10:00 am November 12, 2009 2:00 pm 6:30 pm

Metro to Hold Community Meetings for Regional Connector Project Nov. 5-12

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) will be conducting five community meetings to update the public on the Regional Connector project the week of November 5 through 12.

Members of the community are encouraged to attend one of the following meetings, all of which are available by public transit:

* Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6:30-8 p.m., Lake Avenue Church, 393 N Lake Avenue, Pasadena
* Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 12-1:30 p.m., Los Angeles Central Library, Board Room, 630 W 5th St., Los Angeles
* Saturday, November 7, 2009, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., Wurlitzer Building, 818 S Broadway, Los Angeles
* Thursday, November 12, 2009. Two meetings: 2-3:30 p.m. and 6:30-8 p.m., Japanese American National Museum, 369 E 1st St, Los Angeles

The project, currently in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R), proposes building a transit line that would link the soon-to-open Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension in the vicinity of the Little Tokyo/Arts District Station and the 7th Street/Metro Center Station, terminus for the Metro Blue Line and future Expo Line. Once completed, transit riders would enjoy increased transit connections throughought the entire system. The Draft EIS/R includes the review of the possible effects of the project and alternatives on the project study area.

The content presented at these meetings will be identical, so those attending a session should seek a time and location most convenient for them.

In March and April 2009, Metro held four Scoping Meetings to obtain public input as part of the DEIS/R. Based on public feedback provided during the scoping process and more detailed technical study, Metro would now like to share some of the results of its ongoing analysis.

Last month the MTA Board voted to pursue long-term funding agreements through the U.S. Department of Transportation to build the Regional Connector project. The MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment late next year.
For additional information or questions, please visit the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study website at metro.net/regionalconnector or contact the project information line at 213.922.7277.

Link: MTA report calls for light rail, not rapid bus line, on Crenshaw corridor | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

MTA report calls for light rail, not rapid bus line, on Crenshaw corridor
November 10, 2009 | 7:56 am
Article 3
A proposed transit line that will run through South Los Angeles should be light rail, not a rapid bus line, according to a report released by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

South L.A. officials and community groups cheered the recommendation from Metro staff and said the project estimated to cost at least $1.7 billion will provide unprecedented transit opportunities for residents who so far have been under-served by the county's rail network.

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

The proposed line would run about 8.5 miles from the intersection of Exposition and Crenshaw boulevards, down Crenshaw, southwest through Inglewood and south to a stop near the airport and a connection with the Green Line.

About 2.5 miles of the project is proposed as a subway, including a section that would run underneath Leimert Park, said Metro's project manager Roderick Diaz.

The recommendation from Metro staff must still be approved by the planning and programming committee and then by Metro's board of directors.

Dan Rosenfeld, a senior deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, said the project could create some 7,800 jobs and that groundbreaking could begin as early as 2012 if funding can be secured.

-- Ari B. Bloomekatz

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders

Mixed Reviews on Crenshaw Corridor LRT Plan from Community Leaders
Article 4
by Damien Newton on November 10, 2009
Community turnout was strong at public meetings on what to do for the Crenshaw Corridor.

In what can only be considered a win for County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas the Metro staff is now recommending that light rail, not Bus Rapid Transit, be brought to the Crenshaw Corridor. Ridley-Thomas has been active behind the scenes and in front of the microphone pushing for adequate funding for light rail for his district.

However, just because a politician supports an idea doesn't mean it necessarily has the support of the communities he represents. For example, remember the vitriolic exchanges between Damien Goodmon and City Councilman, and former Ridley-Thomas opponent, Bernard Parks. So will Crenshaw run into similar opposition as Phase I of Expo? It depends who you ask. While some activists are thrilled to be getting light rail instead of "more buses," others question the proposed alignment.

At the Times' LA_Now blog, the Los Angeles Urban League gives the project a thumbs up:

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

This morning, I exchanged emails with Goodmon, who seemed supportive of the numerous below-grade crossings and stations for the project but also vowed to push on for further below-grade construction:

We applaud the inclusion of options into the Base LRT design, specifically the below grade Hyde Park portion, and the continued study of the remaining options. Our current focus is on getting the EIR to study the remaining portion between 48th and 60th that is not currently being studied for below grade, so as to avoid future delay from a supplemental environmental process.

For a list of all the grade crossings, visit the agenda for next week's Planning Committee meeting and head to page 5.

Goodmon also noted that there are other areas that might concern the community. Namely that the staff's recommended contractor is not from South L.A., undercutting Ridley-Thomas' boast of 8,700 new jobs and that any at-grade alignment is against the stated position of the City of Los Angeles and the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan. The resolution was sponsored by local City Councilmembers Parks and Wesson. A full copy of Goodmon's statement is available after the jump.

STATEMENT ON THE MTA STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CRENSHAW LINE MODE AND CONTRACT

On behalf of the Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line, and
South Los Angeles Neighborhood Council's Joint Committee on Rail Transit
Delivered by Damien Goodmon

We agree with MTA staff's recommendation of light rail over bus rapid transit, the inclusion of the below grade (underground) sections along some parts of Crenshaw, and the recommendation to continue study of underground options and stations elsewhere along the route.

However, the portion on Crenshaw Blvd between 48th and 60th St, in Park Mesa Heights, will be a rallying point for our community. Staff is recommending the section, which abuts View Park Prep School and is just a block away from Crenshaw High School only be studied as street-level with no option for underground. We disagree, and want to avoid the problems articulated by Supervisor Gloria Molina regarding Eastside Extension safety issues, and the tragic record of MTA's Blue Line, America's deadliest light rail line.

Staff's recommendation for street level crossings in the Park Mesa Heights community will increase safety hazards to school aged children and the public at large, result in the removal of hundreds of parking spaces important to the area's commerce, the removal tall median trees that are crucial to Crenshaw Blvd's scenic highway status, increase congestion at heavily traveled cross streets, such as of Slauson and 54th, slow down the overall speed of the line, and impair an otherwise good economic development opportunities. From traffic, parking, safety, economic development and procedural standpoints, it is a mistake. As requested by the community, the neighborhood councils and the Los Angeles City Council, an underground option from 48th to 60th Street must be included among the other options under study, so when funding becomes available it can seamlessly integrated into the Crenshaw Line project without delay. MTA should avoid the mistakes of Expo while building Crenshaw.

Additionally, we disagree with staff's recommendation for the design and preliminary engineering contract. It appears Metro staff wants the board to throw aside a perfectly capable and eminently qualified team that included businesses owned by people who live in the Crenshaw Corridor, in favor a team led out of Orange County. The largest public works project in the history of South L.A. should not be designed from Orange County.

Staff is recommending the Hatch Mott McDonnell's team, over the PB Americas team, which included among others Terry Hayes of Terry Hayes Associates and Roland Wiley of RAW International. These local African-American business leaders have done all the preliminary work to date for this project going back to the early '90s, have deep roots in the Crenshaw area, have volunteered their expertise on numerous community projects, and most importantly have a strong understanding of the pulse of the Crenshaw community, because they live here.

I don't yet know why the PB Americas team was not selected, but the MTA board should overrule the staff recommendation to ensure that the promises made by elected officials to generate more jobs and a leadership role for the community are kept.

We will be working in the coming weeks to persuade the MTA Board to address these issues promptly so our region and the Crenshaw corridor communities can receive what is necessary and what we are due: a fast, safe and reliable alternative to the traffic that is clogging our streets and polluting our air.

Subway extension debated

The Daily Bruin | Subway extension debated

Subway extension debated

Community considers pros, cons of bringing Metro Purple Line to Westwood Boulevard

By Kelly Zhou

Nov. 9, 2009 at 2:17 a.m.
For maps, click here and here.
UCLA students expressed both their encouragement and concern for the Westside subway extension at a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority station-planning meeting on Nov. 5, highlighting students’ current need for more efficient transportation.

“Most of the students (at UCLA) don’t have a car because there’s nowhere to park, so (the subway) would be a great transportation alternative,” said Chris Santiago, a second-year geography student who attended the meeting.

Santiago is a member of Bruins for Traffic Relief, a student group on campus dedicated to giving students more exposure to public transit and getting better public transportation in Los Angeles.

“We understand that a lot of UCLA students have to travel long distances to get to the campus,” said David Mieger, director of the Westside extension project for MTA. “If you can get from downtown to Westwood in 30 minutes by (subway) versus 45 minutes by car or bus, we think that will be a real advantage for folks trying to commute to UCLA.”

While some students expressed interest in a Westwood subway, others disagreed about the need for the project right now, citing the current economic problems the U.S. is facing.

“It would be the wrong time to try to pursue some sort of expensive program that isn’t a necessity, considering that we’re going through an economic tough time,” said Sina Safvati, a first-year history student. “It’s not fiscally disciplined.”

In addition, some Westwood residents who participated at the meeting were concerned about the impact the subway would have on their homes. Discussion became heated in regard to the subway’s location, as residents were worried about the possibility of noise disruption and vibrations in the ground from the subway.

The Westside subway proposal would extend the Purple Line from Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue all the way to Westwood Boulevard. Held at the Wadsworth Theatre, the Metro planning meeting included discussion about the features of the two options for the Westwood/UCLA station.

The first option is to place the station box off-street, below the UCLA-owned Lot 36. The second would locate the station on-street, under Wilshire Boulevard, west of Westwood Boulevard.

While meeting participants seemed to back both options, Lot 36 had somewhat more support from students and the university administration.

“The advantage of the (option) that is on the UCLA property is that it will be much less disruptive during construction for everyone,” said Renee Fortier, director of UCLA Transportation Services.

Mieger agreed, explaining that off-street construction would have much less of an impact on the community. In comparison, if the Wilshire option is chosen, concrete slabs will be placed over the street to allow people to commute while construction is going on.

Furthermore, the parking lot’s proximity to the stop for UCLA’s Campus Express shuttle is an advantage in the eyes of some students.

“I’m in favor of the Lot 36 alternative, because (the city) can concentrate all of the construction in that parking lot,” Santiago said. “(Also), it’s slightly closer to the apartments and the dorms. It’s right next to the campus shuttle and the FlyAway (shuttle to the Los Angeles International Airport).”

Students have a variety of reasons for using the subway, from exploring Los Angeles to commuting home quickly.

Santiago said the subway would not only make trips to Koreatown or downtown easier, but would also make commuting home more efficient. A Diamond Bar resident, Santiago goes home every weekend by car, but does not leave until late at night due to traffic. By public transportation, it can take up to three hours to get home, he said.

“With the subway, you don’t have to worry about traffic,” Santiago said. “It’s independent of the road system.”

However, other students said they did not support the subway extension, specifically due to the increased traffic and disruption construction would cause.

“I think that not a lot of people are going to take advantage of this service and most people are still going to use their cars,” Safvati said. “I think (the subway) will help UCLA students who don’t live on campus and I think they’re going to use it.”

Safvati, who drives every day from West Los Angeles, said he would not use the subway because it is out of his way.

Nevertheless, the concerns about traffic and congestion in Los Angeles are one of the many factors driving the subway project.

“The traffic is getting to really intense levels, so this (subway) is a way we can carry more people without adding more cars to the surface,” Mieger said. “It’s something we need today, but in the future as we get more people and more growth, this would be a way to accommodate more people without bringing a lot more cars into this area that’s so congested.”

For the Purple Line to extend all the way to the proposed Westwood/UCLA station, it will cost about $4.2 billion in 2008 dollars, so the cost will change with inflation, Mieger said. The Measure R sales-tax increase will help fund the project, but MTA is also looking for federal matching funds so that the subway will be built sooner.

“We wouldn’t start construction in Westwood until probably 2026 or 2028,” Mieger said. “We know we have enough money to get it as far as Westwood, but we’re trying to see if we have additional funds so we can get it built sooner.”

Second-year political science student and Bruins for Traffic Relief President Matthew Kroneberger, who worked for MTA as a communications intern this past summer, was involved specifically with the subway project.

“There is no question that the baseline of the Westside extension will always include a Westwood/UCLA station,” Kroneberger said. “It’s not just based on bias, but rather on the projected high ridership, high utility and fundamental need for a Westwood station.”

With 65,000 people coming on campus every day, Fortier expects the subway to affect people’s mobility and that it will be “absolutely critical because L.A. is going to grow.”

Referring to UCLA Transportation surveys conducted every spring, Fortier said that of the staff, faculty and students who commute to campus, 21 percent use public transit.

Considering the vast number of people on campus everyday, the Westwood/UCLA subway station would likely be the third or fourth highest in usage in the entire MTA system, MTA regional communications manager Jody Litvak said at the meeting.

Despite the heavy demand this station would create, Mieger said that in the most optimistic scenario, construction for the Westside extension would not begin for at least four years.

Furthermore, the caveat is that construction would begin on the parts of the subway closer to Wilshire and Western, not necessarily the Westwood/UCLA station.

Without federal funding, the Westwood/UCLA station would open around 2036 on this time frame, Mieger said. However, he added that the subway could be built in 10 years if the money were available today.

Students remain undeterred by the lengthy process demanded in such a complex project.

“When the subway is built, it will not only transform the way we get around, it will change the way we interact with the city of L.A.,” Kroneberger said

CHSRA Initiates Statewide Land Use Planning Effort (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: CHSRA Initiates Statewide Land Use Planning Effort

Sunday, November 8, 2009
CHSRA Initiates Statewide Land Use Planning Effort

San Francisco Chronicle architecture columnist John King writes today of an ambitious state planning project known as Vision California. The project is intended to provide a holistic, statewide model of growth scenarios, with an emphasis on how high speed rail will change the state's growth and land use patterns. It is co-funded by the California High Speed Rail Authority. As King explains:

The official action is modest, a $2.5 million contract to devise a set of detailed growth scenarios for California, from classic suburban sprawl to compact development focused on older cities. The goal is to produce a single "preferred scenario" - one that conceivably could be used to prod local governments to accept or reject new construction.

This sort of top-down planning would alter politics in California, where cities and counties for decades have deflected any initiatives that might crimp their autonomy. The difference now: legislative efforts to reduce the state's carbon emission levels, and voter support of a high-speed rail system that could put now-distant portions of the Central Valley within commuting distance of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Proponents say there's no way to make wise long-term decisions without data to gauge the impact of different patterns of growth when it comes to matters such as energy or water use.


This is a long-overdue and much-needed effort. High speed rail in particular is going to reshape California's urban geography, and will produce significant shifts in population movement and growth sites. It makes perfect sense to evaluate this on a statewide basis - how would high speed trains produce growth in Fresno? What kind of growth might happen? And how would that affect land use in the older coastal metropolitan areas? How would that impact water and energy usage?

It is very good to hear that this effort is being undertake and that the CHSRA is playing a role. Given California's numerous and converging crises, from water to environment to economy to energy usage, we need to start considering statewide planning to solve those crises without one region's solutions undermining those of another region.

As King explains, this isn't the first time such an effort has been tried. Governor Jerry Brown initiated such a study in the late 1970s, around the time he promoted a high speed train for California:

For instance: If townhouses and bungalows are built instead of large single-family homes, how much agricultural land will be saved? If new housing is placed near existing jobs and shopping, rather than in distant subdivisions, what will be the effect on a household's transportation expenses?

"By showing people the results of different futures, you create a different political climate," Peter Calthorpe said. A founder of the influential Congress for the New Urbanism, Calthorpe was working for the Office of Planning and Research in 1978 when then-Gov. Jerry Brown released "Urban Strategies for California," the last serious statewide planning push...

Despite Calthorpe's optimism that things will be different this time, there's another scenario: Things stay pretty much the same.

After all, the sense of looming crisis is nothing new; "Urban Strategies" decried how sprawl chews up "air, water and other natural resources," but the proposals never translated into a formal plan.


It's worth noting that Governor Brown's late '70s efforts didn't just die. They were killed. As I've argued before, the 1978 tax revolt was driven in part by a desire to preserve 20th century suburban sprawl from a perceived attack by Governor Brown. Although Brown recognized the need for a denser California, he ran into a massive amount of opposition from the beneficiaries of the 1950s and 1960s model of land use, opposition that in 1978 wrote itself into the state constitution. Ever since, what I have described as a homeowner aristocracy - a specific group of people who were able to buy homes in the last few decades of the 20th century and who seek to preserve their property values and obsolete concepts of the urban landscape at the expense of everyone else - have fought every effort to produce a smarter, more sustainable strategy for economic growth and land use. Their successful determination to preserve the late 20th century model has left California economically weak, dependent on overuse of water, and vulnerable to soaring oil prices. Their refusal to embrace new solutions, which won't actually cause them much if any personal or economic harm, is a major impediment to proper planning for California's future.

Vision California is not just a useful exercise to help build a more prosperous and sustainable 21st century state. It's a way to ensure that high speed rail does not get used to promote sprawl. Many anti-HSR conspiracy theorists claim, against the evidence, that the CHSRA is nothing more than a vehicle for developers to pave over the Central Valley. They should then be the biggest champions of the Vision California project:

The project has three phases and will continue for about 18 months.

The first phase includes the formation of a working group to set parameters and decide how far into the future the projections should go. Data would be compiled and measurement standards defined.

Phase two would develop a base-case scenario that extends past trends forward - and alternative scenarios that give greater emphasis to mass transit and higher-density development patterns. The scenarios would be tested on "targeted groups of key stakeholders."

The final phase would follow the release of the alternative scenarios with a "preferred vision" - coupled with an outreach campaign to show how the chosen path "can most effectively impact the development of state, regional, and local policies aimed at meeting state climate change and other key goals."


In other words, limiting sprawl and promoting urban density, transit-oriented development, and mass transit connectivity are explicit goals of this planning process, something CHSRA is signaling it is willing to abide by once it is in place.

This is a welcome development, and I wish the Vision California project well. Let's hope it is matched with further statewide legislation in the vein of AB 32 and SB 375 to complement local efforts to change the longstanding local government preference for sprawl. HSR is a major tool in the effort to limit sprawl, but as we've always said, that has to be matched with regulatory changes in land use policy. Vision California is a necessary step in that direction.
Bookmark and Share

Getting bullet train, Gold Line on track (Source: DailyBulletin.com)

Link: Getting bullet train, Gold Line on track - DailyBulletin.com

Getting bullet train, Gold Line on track

David Allen, Staff Writer
Created: 11/07/2009 06:06:59 AM PST

HIGH-SPEED RAIL may one day travel through the Inland Valley, although the process itself is moving at low speed.

By late 2012, a precise route with station locations may be decided upon, with environmental review wrapping up the next year. Construction from L.A. to San Diego could begin in 2015 and end in 2020, with the route to San Francisco done by 2025.

So I wouldn't pack my bags and head down to one of those undecided stations just yet. Still, an 800-mile bullet train linking Northern and Southern California is a neat idea, one voters backed with nearly $10 billion in bonds in 2008.

A session last week in an obscure corner of Ontario International Airport was held to show off various maps and renderings and solicit opinion.

(If you could find the meeting, held off of Avion Drive, you were officially a public transit nerd. They should have given out certificates at the door.)

The rail route is expected to jog east from L.A. to Ontario, and possibly San Bernardino, before heading south toward San Diego.

Where would the local stations be? ONT is almost certain to get one. A San Gabriel Valley station could be built in El Monte, West Covina, Industry, Cal Poly Pomona or downtown Pomona, according to a map display.

If Pomona's got two chances out of five, that's not bad.

But I think the 25 mph Gold Line to Claremont will arrive faster than high-speed rail.

LTCC Opposes Regional Connector Build Alternatives (Source: Rafu Shimpo)

Link: LTCC Opposes Regional Connector Build Alternatives – Rafu Shimpo

LTCC Opposes Regional Connector Build Alternatives

By GWEN MURANAKA

RAFU ENGLISH EDITOR IN CHIEF

===

The Little Tokyo Community Council on Tuesday stated its opposition to the two current build alternatives proposed for the Metro Regional Connector and urged consideration of a new alternative.

Regional Connector seeks to create an almost two-mile transit link between the Gold and Blue Line light rail systems through downtown Los Angeles. On Tuesday at a meeting of the LTCC Transit Committee, a resolution passed stating opposition to both the underground and aboveground alternatives and urged the transit authority continue to explore different options. A majority of LTCC board members were present at the meeting and voted for the motion. It is currently being sent out to the rest of the board for approval.

“It’s a very serious issue for Little Tokyo. We support the idea of transit in this big city, but we are concerned as to what the impact is going to be for the future of Little Tokyo,” said Chris Aihara, co-chair of the Transit Committee. “As proposed, the below grade alignment and how it diverts the traffic, it cuts Alameda off from the rest of Little Tokyo. Bill Watanabe made a point — that so much of Little Tokyo is the small businesses that are currently here. They won’t benefit from this.”

The vote came following more than an hour of discussion by representatives from Nishi Hongwaji Temple, local businesses, property owners, nonprofit organizations and residents. Daryl Garibay, owner of Advanced Parking Systems, said the motion was necessary to show that Little Tokyo is united in its opposition to the current alignments.

“We must have a unified voice and use it as a tool, whether through the media or in Washington,” said Garibay.

The motion follows a series of working group meetings where all four alternatives for the Regional Connector were discussed. The other two alternatives are a shuttle bus system and a no-build option. On Oct. 27 a motion passed stating that LTCC supports further exploration of so-called fifth option which could involve an underground station at Nikkei Center, planned at the northeast corner of First and Alameda streets. The corner is also site of the Little Tokyo Gold Line Eastside Extension station, which opens on Nov. 15.

Earlier in the day, Little Tokyo representatives expressed their concern during a meeting of the Information Technology and Government Affairs Committee, which is overseen by Councilmembers Tony Cardenas and Jan Perry. Perry expressed support for pursuing federal funding for the Regional Connector but had concerns about its impact on Little Tokyo.

In a letter to Cardenas dated Oct. 29, Perry said the Regional Connector concept is “excellent,” but she had problems with its execution.

“The Little Tokyo community has grave reservations about this project and how it will adversely affect their area. They feel as though they are being sacrificed to a larger goal of ‘better public transit,’” Perry stated. “I agree with the community that the project has issues. The natural transfer point for these trains is the nearby Union Station.”

“I see the overall project as a public benefit. I don’t see why one community should continue to be the target of Metro’s planners. I support the concept, but ask for consideration for another geographic solution,” Perry said.

Ann Kerman, a representative of Metro, had not received the latest LTCC motion, but cautioned that Metro is still in the early stages of preparing the environmental impact report.

“There is now what the community is calling a 5th option, based upon some meetings that we’ve had with the developer of the Nikkei Center,” said Kerman. “But it’s still so premature to know if the project can physically work, what the impacts are going to be. Any motion that opposes the existing build alternatives may be premature at this point. As the environmental process is geared to vet out all options impacts and mitigations. We want to create a project that the community accepts and embraces.”

Metro will be holding a series of meetings, including two meetings Thursday, Nov. 12 at the Japanese American National Museum, to provide a community update on the project. The Nov. 12 meetings will take place from 2 to 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Meetings will also be held Saturday, Nov. 7 from 10 a.m. to noon at the Wurlitzer Building, 818 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, and Tuesday, Nov. 10 at the Los Angeles Central Library board room, 630 W. Fifth St., Los Angeles from noon to 1:30 p.m.