Bringing LA Together (Source: City Watch)

Link: CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall

Bringing LA Together
Little Tokyo
By Jerard Wright

With the Thanksgulping and Stress-mas season upon us … sorry, I mean Thanksgiving and Christmas Season upon us, it gives us all the opportunity to be connected together with family and friends living near and far. Which is the main purpose of the Regional Connector (RC) project?

By the way, I don’t do segues—I prefer to walk and weave in and out of things. But back to the concept of Metro’s Regional Connector project, which is to connect separate light rail lines into a cohesive network running through Downtown LA, TOGETHER. One strategy to create togetherness is by understanding past wrongs of communities along the corridor and mitigating these parts together into a cohesive unit.

The hub of implementing this strategy is in Little Tokyo. That community feels a sentiment of past wrongs done by large government bodies and feel they are manifesting themselves in the planning and community meetings on the Regional Connector.

Despite the number of community meetings in Little Tokyo since 2007, businesses, residents and others feel that this information has not been made public—creating communication gaps that foster a sentiment of: “Oh no, not us again!”

The internment camps during WWII, the construction of Parker Center and the growth of LA’s Civic Center all come to symbolize the depletion of the Little Tokyo community at local residents’ expense.

With the opening of the new Police Headquarters, this could provide a symbolic opportunity to return land back to Little Tokyo community.

Questions that may be posed as you’re reading this are: Could this work? Is it feasible? Can everyone work together positively? What does this have to do with the Regional Connector project? The answers to the first three are, “Yes I think it could be done with enough persistence”. The answer to the fourth question is contained in the rest of this piece.
Active Image
City Councilmember Jan Perry, who represents Little Tokyo, questioned in a recent Rafu Shimpo article, “Why is the hub of the proposed Regional Connector in Little Tokyo instead of at Union Station?”

A valid question—however the logistical answer would pose more problems, as the current Gold Line to Pasadena would require major reconfiguring at Union Station that would again impact not only Little Tokyo (because they would be isolated yet again), but it would continue over the LA River into East LA.

However, another community that has echoed similar pains as East LA and Little Tokyo would now be impacted: Chinatown. All of this to avoid Little Tokyo and defer it somewhere else is not the correct approach.

Avoiding Little Tokyo with respect to the Regional Connector (both in not listening to those sentiments and not building the project) simply exacerbates that problem with a network of isolated light rail lines that stall the growth of our transit network.

Thankfully, Metro’s Regional Connector Project team has been steadfast in their efforts to actively listen to the Little Tokyo community to identify solutions to bring people TOGETHER and they should be commended for that.

Also to be commended are developers of the Nikkei Center and the Nishi Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple who are assisting Metro’s Regional Connector project team by providing the flexibility needed to bring about new feasible ideas that weren’t available at the beginning of this project.

Is this coming together a done deal, problem solved?

No, there’s still more work to be done and more information needed to explain the history and logistics of this project … because despite its very direct concept, there are still some that don’t know what this project is and what it is suppose to do.

I strongly believe that constructive positive dialogue - TOGETHER - from all these parties should continue within this vital transit project. Not only for the health and well being of Little Tokyo, but to all of Los Angeles.

For the sake of time I will direct you to the website on the history and current design options at: www.metro.net/regionalconnector.

(Jerard Wright is the Vice-Chair of The Transit Coalition.) -cw

The Expo Line Should Connect, Not Conquer, Neighbors (Source: Citywatch)

CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall

The Expo Line Should Connect, Not Conquer, Neighbors
Moving LA
By Ken Alpern

As both a physician and as a believer in the grassroots process, I’m always inclined to recognize how little I know or how open-minded I must be since I don’t have all the answers. NO ONE PERSON HAS ALL THE ANSWERS.
Still, I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to hear from many parties, both governmental and grassroots, in various planning and transportation issues--which helps me conclude what ideas are the most likely to succeed and what ideas (regardless of their merit) are the most likely to fail.

I believe we should give credit to regions and governmental officials who reach for the higher ground to serve the constituents, and who sincerely come up with ideas that offer more than just criticism.
Active Image
For years, I’ve always proclaimed that being FOR something, and not just against something, is the right way to go.

I’m noting with both fascination and concern how the Metro Crenshaw Corridor and Metro Downtown Rail Connector teams are working with the communities these lines will go through, even suggesting more expensive options (very expensive, in fact) to bypass the inevitable conundrums that will occur with these projects.

For example, Westchester and the Mid-City want more grade separations for the Crenshaw Corridor Project, so they’ll likely get them; Little Tokyo wants a completely underground way for the Downtown Connector/Gold Line link, and it’ll likely get that, too. They’re not NIMBYs, but the residents there do want their quality of life preserved, and their neighborhoods preserved as well.

So I’m also noting with both fascination and concern how this paradigm contrasts with the tone which the Expo Line Authority has taken with West LA and its political leadership, and how the major legal opponents of the Expo Line have appeared to ONLY allow the most expensive option to be allowed.

This confrontational approach bodes ill for all parties, and will probably put a much more bitter taste in the mouths of the Expo Line’s neighbors than the Crenshaw Corridor and Downtown Connector projects will for their neighbors.

I well remember the years of the Mid-City and Westside Expo advocates recognizing how traffic and political strife sundered those two regions from each other in a way that helped neither region, and how it closely worked with Metro staff to figure out how to create an Expo Line—and I also remember how this all changed when the Metro staff was yanked away from the Expo project when the Expo Authority was established to design and construct the line.

Which is not to decry the Expo Authority staff who’ve been very helpful for advice, speaking, discussions, etc. It’s just that their job descriptions—their marching orders, so to speak—are very different than the Metro staff they replaced. This is what changed when the Expo Authority took over the Expo Line from Metro.

I also well remember the years (decades, really) when the West L.A. and Mid-City political leadership, in particular Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke, obstructed the Expo Line—which is why I’m surprised that Yaroslavsky and Burke’s successor, Mark Ridley-Thomas, aren’t recognizing the same West L.A. neighborhood concerns that now exist with the current at-grade design for much of the West L.A. portion of the Expo Line.

After all, both Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas are both ex-LA City Councilmembers, so they should well understand how the City of LA allows rampant overdevelopment that overtaxes transportation and other infrastructure faster than it can be updated and expanded.

Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas both know well how the City of LA Planning Department and political leadership (in ways we’d never see in Culver City, Santa Monica or West Hollywood) to hideously warp affordable housing laws, transit-oriented development, and now the state-authorized Accessory Dwelling Unit proviso to overdevelop faster than the overwhelmed and understaffed LADOT can possibly mitigate.

(The Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, proviso, is being interpreted differently in each city, but in the Los Angeles it might allow EVERY single-family housing lot as low as 5000 sq ft the ability to build a granny flat, or second dwelling--thereby converting virtually every R1-zoned neighborhood into R2 zones)

Furthermore, Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas both also know how offensive it must be to both Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz, the duly-elected CD11 and CD5 councilmembers, as well as their constituents, to not be on the Expo Authority Board as it weighs routing and contracting decisions for a light rail line that will go through two council districts.

So the question of whether the Expo Authority is a design/build entity, or a legal entity merely meant to slam through a region labeled and dismissed as “NIMBY’s”, is a fair one.

Similarly, the question of whether the concerns of these “NIMBY’s” aren’t being proven correct is also a fair question.

Of course, on the other end of the argument …

I fear that those who’ve opposed the Expo Line, particularly in the legal arena, have risked so much with their insistence on building the line in such an expensive way that the state Public Utilities Commission won’t take them seriously. Now they also risk the ability to mitigate and compromise altogether.

In a nutshell, a compromise or mitigation that costs $20-40 million or so will be taken much more seriously by all parties than one that costs $2-300 million. Usually. Certainly the same Mark Ridley-Thomas and Bernard Parks, who will fight to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to create a huge, long Crenshaw Line subway, should figure out how to do the same for the Expo Line Authority on whose Board they now sit.

The Dorsey High School situation (shut down Farmdale and build a pedestrian bridge, or create an Expo Line station there) should have been concluded quite some time ago, and I really blame ALL parties involved, but all that has little, despite the hideously-twisted and politically-correct arguments we’re going to hear, to do with the Westside.

Yes, the Expo opponents’ plan to create a Venice/Sepulveda diversion AROUND much of West LA (one that Zev Yaroslavsky once lionized, and which really would have jacked up the costs and traffic-worsening of the Expo Line) didn’t help their credibility. Furthermore, a $300-500 million plan to have it go UNDER West LA—unless we do the same with Crenshaw—won’t help anyone’s credibility, either.

(By the way, I’ve pushed for years for getting the Expo Line under Overland, longer than any person reading this... but I’m also a realist and am aware of what that probably entails)

So what am I FOR, since I always believe in being FOR something? Well, my scheme is as good or lousy as anyone’s, but based on what I’ve learned and heard from both advocates and opponents of the Expo Line alike—and with the understanding that the majority of West LA residents who questioned Westside Expo opponents are now beginning to sympathize with them, threatening the Expo Line’s future:

1) Sepulveda should be grade-separated with a rail bridge, and paid for either by Metro (which still funds the Authority, mind you!) or by the City of LA, and NOT by the adjacent Casden developers who would more likely be granted a variance to create a megaproject entirely out of character with that neighborhood, if not region

2) There should be more parking at the Sepulveda station, and none at the Westwood station, with the Sepulveda station being a regional station accommodating regional access to the line, and the Westwood station being a neighborhood station with only bus, bicycle and pedestrian access

3) A Regional Transportation Center accommodating rail, bus, car and all other transportation options, belongs at or adjacent to the Sepulveda station

4) An at-grade crossing with a traffic light belongs at Westwood, with lanes narrowed, bicycle lanes established, sidewalks redone and as many trees preserved as possible to retain the residential character of that neighborhood. If automobile commuters want quick north-south access between National and Pico, Sepulveda and Overland are much, MUCH better alternatives to be utilized.

5) With that in mind, Overland MUST be grade-separated, because history has shown that even the most optimistic Authority projections, and even with the widening/lane addition scheme of the Authority to squeak this street below Metro grade separation guidelines, the Authority cannot prevent the City of L.A.’s addiction to overdevelopment and there WILL be a traffic nightmare sooner, and not later

6) Dig a few feet down on Overland (as far as possible), if the storm drains below Overland prove too much of a disaster/nightmare for the Expo Line to go underneath Overland, build a rail bridge and accompanying sound walls for the neighbors, and be done with it; that’s what’s happening on Sawtelle to fit the line below the 405 freeway, so this is not without precedent. Similarly, the rail line might be dropped a few feet and Overland elevated over the line

7) Make the Expo Right of Way between Sepulveda and Overland a “Palms Park West” that is so green, tree-lined and attractive that the region will wonder why the hell anyone ever opposed the Expo Line to begin with.

I still very much believe in the Friends4Expo Transit slogan “Connecting Neighbors”, and I never wanted any neighborhood to feel “conquered” because of this line. I believe that the Expo Line is a quality project, and it deserves quality planning and mitigation for all regions impacted (and, likely, benefited) by this line.

I remain confident that Zev Yaroslavsky, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Bernard Parks, Bill Rosendahl, Paul Koretz and any other elected governmental leaders will do just that in order to properly serve their commuting, taxpaying and voting constituents.


(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) -cw


CityWatch Media Group
Vol 7 Issue 97
Pub: Nov 27, 2009

The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09 (Source:highlandpark.wordpress.com)

link: The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09 « 90042

The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09
2009 November 26
by waltarrrrr

The Cape Horn Cable Car Viaduct over the Southern Pacific Rail Yard (now Los Angeles State Historic Park) 1890. courtesy of the Metro Library and Archive.

On this day after Thanksgiving, comes a photo taken before Thanksgiving Day was even a holiday. In 1890 Los Angeles was a young and growing city with a population that needed to get around town easily with the most advanced transport possible. When they weren’t riding their dandy safety bicycles, they turned to the efficient cable car to get them over the pueblo’s steepest hills.

In this photo is the Los Angeles Cable Railway that traveled from 7th Street and Grand Avenue to Downey Avenue (now North Broadway) and Pritchard Avenue (now Lincoln Park Avenue) from 1889 to 1896. The so-called, Cape Horn Viaduct was an elevated track that traveled over the rail lines of the Southern Pacific Rail Yard, over the Los Angeles River and into Lincoln Heights. The warning sign in the photo seems to indicate that even then keeping vehicle traffic separated was an issue. (Thanks to the Cable Car Home Page for background information.)

The vacant Capital Milling Company with a different elevated train line running past it 119 years later.

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard (Source: Th Daily Breeze)

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard - The Daily Breeze

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard

By Andrea Woodhouse

Posted: 11/15/2009 06:02:19 AM PST

El Segundo city officials are seething over a county pitch to build a train maintenance facility in town as part of an estimated $1.7 billion proposed light rail project.

And leaders of tiny El Segundo, a scrappy town if there ever was one, have all but promised to sue should the Metropolitan Transportation Authority proceed with plans for a rail yard near the corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard.

"I am confident that I'll have full support of my colleagues should litigation be necessary," Mayor Kelly McDowell said.

The facility - envisioned for about 15 acres of a former industrial site now designated as the second phase of megashopping center Plaza El Segundo - is an element of a large-scale mass transit project designed to ease freeway congestion in the Crenshaw Corridor and improve access to Los Angeles International Airport.

Following an MTA planning committee hearing this week, the agency's board of directors is set next month to adopt the plan, giving staff the go-ahead to begin hashing out the project's details before final certification of its environmental analysis in about a year, said Roderick Diaz, the project manager.

Among those details is the maintenance yard's location, which he emphasized has not been finalized.

"The big thing is there is no firm decision being made at this point," Diaz said. "It may require us to have the flexibility to look at another site. Nonetheless, as it is
Advertisement
necessary, we can't proceed forward with the project without (a maintenance facility)."

MTA staffers have recommended the El Segundo maintenance yard location rather than another spot also previously considered near Florence and Manchester avenues that would have displaced the Westchester Playhouse.

But El Segundo officials have argued the proposed site in town is inconsistent with surrounding commercial use, and could have significant environmental impacts, such as noise and air pollution.

"We've got two power plants, a giant sewage treatment plant, and we're next door to an airport," McDowell said. "It's time for government agencies and others to stop dumping these awful uses into the city of El Segundo. We have done our part."

Though the project's draft environmental analysis states that the facility's actual size would be determined later, the stand-alone facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

MTA envisions the facility between two railroad tracks on the northeast corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda - land currently slated for future commercial development.

Dan Crosser, one of the developers of the property, said owners have remained mostly "passive" about the project since the MTA initially expressed interest in the land about a year ago.

He said it is too early to comment on whether owners would be amenable to the sale - though their agreement may be irrelevant in the long run.

"(MTA) might have to make a finding to condemn the property," Crosser said, adding that he was aware of El Segundo's displeasure with the proposal. "I'm not sure we would have a choice."

The first batch of Plaza El Segundo's 425,000 square feet of retail shops - including Whole Foods, Best Buy, Borders and PetSmart - began opening in late 2006.

Since then, smaller chain retailers such as J. Crew and Banana Republic have filled out the development, and others, including Linens `N' Things, have closed.

As part of the project's second phase, developers hoped luxury, upscale boutiques would grace the 110-acre property south of Plaza El Segundo by 2008 - but Crosser said development is indefinitely delayed until the economy improves.

Still, El Segundo would at least like the possibility of eventual revenue from the site, an impossibility with an MTA maintenance facility, McDowell said.

"I would rather see a slaughterhouse than the rail yard because it brings more benefit to the city," he said. "At least it would pay taxes."

After several rounds of public hearings in recent months, MTA staffers have recommended the board move forward with an eight-milelong light rail option, rather than a less expensive bus line.

With at least seven stations between the Baldwin Hills- Crenshaw area and LAX, the Measure R-funded project is touted as a way to provide relief to the San Diego (405) and Harbor (110) freeways, as well as improve airport access by connecting the Metro Green Line to the south and the Expo line to the north.

Expected to generate up to 7,800 jobs, the project's final design and construction would begin in 2011 and last up to six years, with the system operational in 2018.

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose district includes many of the South Bay's inland communities, called the selection of the light rail plan as a preferred option a "big victory" for residents.

Supervisor Don Knabe, whose district includes El Segundo and is currently first vice chair of the MTA board, has not yet taken a position on the maintenance facility's location, a spokesman said.

"It's too preliminary to get into something like that," David Sommers said. "Don's priority is getting the Crenshaw Line built. This is going to connect to the South Bay, to LAX. This is a critical project."

Sommers added that the supervisor would likely take a position on the yard's location once more project details were finalized.

But El Segundo is preparing now for a fight.

No stranger to taking on bigger dogs, the city spent millions of dollars battling LAX modernization plans, ultimately in late 2005 winning more than $70 million to insulate homes against airport noise.

"El Segundo is not afraid of environmental litigation, and anyone doubting that can take a look at our record concerning the airport," McDowell said. "This is the reason that there is no blinking at the City Council level about opposing MTA and this project."

McDowell also hoped to garner support from neighboring Manhattan Beach, which he believes would also be affected by a maintenance yard immediately north of its Rosecrans border.

But neither Manhattan's mayor nor its city manager knew much about the light rail project. And it appeared unlikely that the city would fight to protect El Segundo's commercial development options, considering that Manhattan Beach sued over Plaza El Segundo in the first place.

Though the suit won Manhattan about $3 million in street improvements, a general air of displeasure over the large shopping center sitting just a block away from Manhattan Beach's mall lingers.

"Originally, they were going to steal our retail," City Manager Geoff Dolan said. "That's probably why they are upset."

Coming up?

Here's a look at some of the proposed facility's other features:

A storage yard that can accommodate 60 light rail vehicles, with an adjacent 50,000-square-foot office building with 200 parking spaces.

A maintenance area for five light-rail vehicles, as well as a 5,000-square-foot maintenance building for daily servicing, repairs and other support needs.

A 5,000-square-foot paint and body shop with sheet metal, welding and paint storage area.

As a second floor to part of the maintenance building, a 15,000-square-foot operations center would house rail operations, maintenance and training. This element would have its own 100-space parking facility.

A 4,000-square-foot rail vehicle-cleaning platform, and a 7,500-square-foot car-wash building.

Andrea.woodhouse@dailybreeze.com