Angel Stadium to downtown L.A. in 20 minutes? (Source:The Orange County Register)

Link: Angel Stadium to downtown L.A. in 20 minutes? | rail, speed, anaheim - News - The Orange County Register

Angel Stadium to downtown L.A. in 20 minutes?
By ERIC CARPENTER
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ANAHEIM What do you think about being able to travel from Angel Stadium to downtown Los Angeles in 20 minutes?

The city of Anaheim and the state's High-Speed Rail Authority want to hear from the public about plans to build a high-speed rail line from Anaheim to L.A. – and eventually to San Francisco and beyond.
Article Tab : California High Speed Rail train would run from Anaheim north to San Francisco.
California High Speed Rail train would run from Anaheim north to San Francisco.
COURTESY CALIFORNIA RAIL AUTHORITY


Tonight the Rail Authority will hold its first Southern California open house to discuss plans for the rail line that would speed passengers at up to 110 mph.

The first link is scheduled to run from Anaheim's ARTIC transportation center – to be built across the 57 freeway from Angel Stadium – to L.A.'s Union Station. Initial plans call for that section to run along an existing rail corridor.

Some residents said they plan to attend tonight's meeting to discuss concerns about the route and how it could affect local historic homes.

The meeting is 5 to 7 p.m. Wednesday (with a presentation at 5:30 p.m.) at Anaheim City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.

The plan is to eventually have a high-speed line that would run north to San Francisco – in three hours or less – then on to other major cities such as Sacramento.

The cost to build the first segment is estimated at $4.8 billion – money that would come from federal stimulus funds, matched by a combination of state and local transportation funds.

"This high-speed train project will forever change the way Californians move around the state," Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "But it cannot be successful without the people taking an active role in its development."

Rail officials will discuss the project and impacts on traffic, as well as potential noise and pollution issues.

"We can't know the local communities like the people who would be most affected, so we would like to hear their thoughts as we move forward with planning," said Jeff Barker, deputy director of the Rail Authority.

A draft environmental-impact report is expected

Bullet train backers intensify efforts (Source:San Francisco Business Times)

Link: San Francisco Business Times: Bullet train backers intensify efforts

Bullet train backers intensify efforts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 4:12pm PST

California voters embraced the idea of a bullet train in 2008, passing a nearly $10 billion bond to jump start the project.

But a little more than a year later, some supports think high-speed rail is in need of a lot more love.

Californians For High Speed Rail, a San Francisco-based group, said on Tuesday it is “launching a statewide effort to bring together individual supporters of the HSR project to provide a stronger and louder collective voice in support of HSR.”

The group’s priorities include: Building grass roots advocacy, campaigning for federal funding and building political support.

“There is no better time than now to bring together HSR supporters,” said Brian Stanke, executive director of Californians For High Speed Rail.

Indeed the bullet train is running into more criticism as state planners work on finalizing a route and rounding up additional money for the $42.6 billion project.

Some critics are questioning whether federal money should be spent on high-speed rail. Others wonder if California’s high-speed train will ever make money.

Meanwhile state analysts want bullet train planners to get more explicit with their business plan.

Californians For High Speed Rail is not alone in its efforts to drum up additional support for the project. Bay Area chambers of commerce and labor groups last year formed the Alliance for Sustainable Transit and Jobs to support bullet train planning along the section between San Francisco and San Jose.

Southern California Transit Forum (Source: http://www.octa.net/socalforum_overview.aspx)

Southern California Transit Forum

February 5, 2010

What’s It All About?

The Southern California Transit Forum is a summit for transit agency officials and transit-focused advocates and leaders. The forum offers opportunities to share views and consider potential solutions to meet the current transit funding challenge and preserve the future of transit in Southern California.

Why Attend?

Invited keynote speakers include James Earp, California Alliance for Jobs and California Transportation Commissioner, and Therese McMillan, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration, who will share their perspectives about the transit funding crisis.

Josh Shaw, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, and Will Kempton, CEO of the Orange County Transportation Authority, will provide an overview of the state transit budget crisis. Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is expected to share a special message about federal transit activities.

Curt Pringle, Anaheim Mayor and Chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority, will provide an update on high-speed rail opportunities.

Richard Katz, L.A. Metro and California High-Speed Rail Authority Board Member, will offer his views on the state of transit funding.

Other forum highlights include:

• A dialogue with State leadership moderated by Lucy Dunn, Commisioner, California Transportation Commission, Chief Executive Officer, Orange County Business Council.
• An issues discussion with an eye towards developing transit funding solutions. Speakers include Arthur T. Leahy, CEO of L.A. Metro, and Hasan Ikhrata, CEO of the Southern California Association of Governments, and other state and federal elected officials.
• A message about transit from Patrick D. Kelly, Secretary-Treasurer and Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 952.
• Stakeholder perspectives – real life experiences and impacts of the transit funding crisis with transit advocates and community and business leaders.

Who Should Attend?

Transportation and business leaders, policy makers, labor representatives, transit advocates and members of the general public interested in transportation policies and their impact on the community.

Topics Covered

• State transit funding crisis/legislative and legal options/proposed ballot initiatives
• Federal funding opportunities
• Economic impacts and stakeholder perspectives
• Update on California high-speed rail

When and Where

Friday, Feb. 5, 2010, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m – Paul and Daranne Folino Theater, Chapman University, Orange, California

Orange County Business Council & Disneyland Resort-sponsored luncheon 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Beckman Hall, Chapman University, Orange, California
(Cost is $15.00 per person. RSVP as seating is limited.)

Orange County Business Council-sponsored reception 5:30 to 7 p.m.
Law School at Kennedy Hall, Chapman University, Orange, California

RSVP Today

For the transit forum: RSVP by Feb. 1 to Peggy Wandelear at 714.560.5939 or pwandelear@octa.net.

For the OCBC Luncheon: reservations required; as seating is limited. Cost: $15.00 per person. RSVP with the OCBC.

Californians For High Speed Rail Launches Grassroots Organizing Effort (Source: www.cahsrblog.com)

Californians For High Speed Rail Launches Grassroots Organizing Effort

Jan 19th, 2010 | Posted by Robert Cruickshank

Leave a comment

After a year in which anti-HSR activists began organizing to try and overturn the results of the 2008 election, HSR supporters are finally fighting back. Our vehicle is Californians For High Speed Rail. Founded in 2005, CA4HSR has spent the last few years working behind the scenes in Sacramento to ensure high speed rail gets funded, and has been deeply involved in the planning process for HSR. But now it’s time to organize the Californians who voted for Prop 1A and still support this project into a movement to ensure the project survives and thrives.

Today CA4HSR began that work by launching our statewide grassroots organizing effort. We’re beginning with a letter to the State Senate Transportation Committee:

Dear Senators:

We write to ask you to uphold the will of the voters and get high speed rail built for California. In 2008 a majority of Californians approved high speed rail via Prop 1A because we believed that the planned high speed rail system is critical to the economic future and quality of life for all Californians. Unfortunately some of those who opposed Prop 1A have spent the past year spreading misinformation about high speed rail and trying to create the impression that communities across the state oppose it. We expect you to reject these efforts as being unrepresentative of the true views of California voters.

We continue to support high speed rail and expect you to provide strong leadership by helping the high speed rail project quickly move toward construction and operation. Many elements of project planning need to be completed, and an effective organizational structure must be created to oversee this multi-billion dollar bidding and construction project. We ask you to use your oversight role to help the Authority build up capacity to manage such a large undertaking. With the immediate need for job creation, and the looming threat of rising oil prices and global warming, the economic future of our state is dependent on the success of the California high speed rail project.

We ask you to pledge to work together with the California High Speed Rail Authority, communities across the state, and supporters like us to implement the will of the voters and build high speed rail consistent with the provisions of Prop 1A.

We’re going to deliver this to the committee as a show of support for HSR. Click here to add your name. Certainly one letter won’t change the landscape, but it’s a necessary start for our organizing efforts, which will soon include activism on federal funding and other important HSR topics.

You can help not only by signing the letter, but by becoming a member of CA4HSR. You can find us on Facebook and on Twitter as well.

Certainly there’ll be a lot more for CA4HSR to do, both online and offline. This is just a start. But we are determined to make 2010 the year HSR supporters strike back. We need your help to make it happen.

A Washington DC writer writes on his experiences on MTA's Metro Rapid Service and more. (Source: greatergreaterwashington.org/)

Metro Rapid, or what we could've had if Catoe had stayed

by Dan Reed • January 20, 2010 12:35 pm

It's rush hour in Los Angeles, but I'm sitting on a bus, flying past the BMWs lined up on Wilshire Boulevard.

A Metro Rapid bus on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles.

When we reach an intersection, the light turns green. Cars swing out of the right lane to let the bus pass. And before my eyes is a parade of famous landmarks: Miracle Mile, Rodeo Drive, the beaches of Santa Monica at sunset.

This trip is why I was disappointed that Metro head John Catoe resigned last week, because he'd revitalized Los Angeles' bus system while running its Metropolitan Transit Authority before coming here in 2006. Last summer's accident at Fort Totten had many people demanding his ouster, but I was waiting to see what he could do here with a little more time.

Catoe's tenure with Metro, as Los Angeles calls its transportation authority, was a triumph of organization and marketing. Metro's small but impressive network of rail and BRT lines has been growing rapidly since opening in 1993, but it still barely covers a county with ten million residents. Without rail to my hotel or many of the places I wanted to visit, my sightseeing took place mainly on the bus.

In a city obsessed with image, the LA Metro aggressively brands itself. Billboards across the city show "sexy" Metro Rapid buses and boast of the faster service. Coffeehouse baristas in uber-hip Silver Lake wear Metro T-shirts. And the county's 191 bus routes are broken down into three color-coordinated services. Metro Local buses are painted orange and stop every few blocks. Metro Rapid buses are painted red and have stops about a mile apart. And Metro Express buses, painted blue, run on freeways and make few stops at all.

As a result, 1.2 million people ride the bus each day, or more than the subway and bus in D.C. combined. The agency claims that ridership on the 26 Metro Rapid routes has increased 40%, travel times have dropped by 29%, and one-third of the system's new riders are people who've never used transit before.

Metro Local and Rapid buses pass each other on Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica.

Metro Rapid won't fool anyone into thinking it's a train, but it's a good substitute in places that won't get rail for decades. It's what you might call Bus Rapid Transit lite: it doesn't have special lanes or fancy stations like the HealthLine in Cleveland or Los Angeles' own Orange Line, but it does provide faster service than a typical bus.

On many routes, buses come every 12 minutes or less, making schedules unnecessary; signs at each stop use GPS to tell when the next bus is coming. Bright red livery and specially marked stops distinguish Rapid buses from the rest of the system. And buses have special transponders that keep traffic lights green; when stops are far apart, they can easily reach speeds of 30 to 40 miles an hour.

It's on Wilshire Boulevard where Metro Rapid shines. Running sixteen miles from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, Wilshire is like Wisconsin or Connecticut avenues here, lined with high-rises and posh shopping malls. Traffic is notoriously bad, but walking can be very pleasant in compact neighborhoods like Westwood or downtown Beverly Hills.

Metro Rapid stops have simplified maps for each route.

There are two Metro Rapid routes on Wilshire. The 720 stops every mile or so and is good for short trips. At rush hour, it does the 9.3-mile trip from Wilshire and Fairfax to Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade in 50 minutes, making 13 stops. The commuter-oriented 920 stops about every 3 miles and makes the same trip in just 40 minutes, stopping 3 times.

Both services are faster than a comparable "express" route in this area, the J4 Metrobus between Bethesda and College Park, a corridor with lots of activity and lots of traffic. During rush hour, it takes 56 minutes to go from the Bethesda Metro to the corner of Campus Drive and Regents Drive at the University of Maryland, a distance of 10 miles, making 18 stops.

The J4 was one of the routes that could've seen Metro Rapid-like service as part of Catoe's proposed 100-mile MetroExtra network of rapid buses, first unveiled in 2008. Today, just two of the proposed lines, the 79 on Georgia Avenue and S9 on 16th Street, are up and running while a third on Veirs Mill Road has been delayed. It's unclear whether Metro's next head will expand MetroExtra, especially at a time when the existing system is starved for funding.

I didn't think I'd come back to Maryland with a squishy red toy Metro Rapid bus, but it goes to show how a few small improvements can make public transit both fun and memorable. It's a shame that John Catoe won't have the chance to bring more of his innovative ideas to the D.C. area, but hopefully their time will come soon.

George Takei: Transit Geek

Link: Track Twenty-Nine: George Takei: Transit Geek

Tuesday, January 19, 2010
George Takei: Transit Geek
George Takei is well known for his iconic role as Captian Sulu on the Star Trek television series and films. What is less well known is his role as a member of the board of directors of the Southern California Rapid Transit District for 11 years. In fact, in 1978, he was called away from the set of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to cast the tie-breaking vote to approve the pursuit of a subway system for Los Angeles.

He was recently interviewed on NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!, a weekly news quiz show, in the segment known as "Not My Job."

I'm a huge fan of Wait Wait, and this is my favorite episode. Ever.

Takei talks about Star Trek, gay marriage, and, surprisingly, transit. You really should listen to the whole segment (here, 11:36), but I've transcribed a small excerpt below:

Mo Rocca: Can I just add...? I feel a little left out, because I'm actually not a Star Trek geek.
George Takei: You're not?
MR: I'm not, but I am a rapid transit geek.
GT: You sound like one.
MR: I'm not a Star Trek geek, I just get mistaken for one constantly. But I am a rapid transit geek, and I just wanted to know, is there any future in the monorail?
GT: Here in Los Angeles?
MR: Just anywhere. I love them.
GT: You do? (laughter) Um, no. What we're doing here in Los Angeles is building a network of light rail because that's less costly. And putting the focus on extending the stub-ended Wilshire Line. And we want to extend that to--
Peter Sagal: Is this what other people feel like when we're talking about Star Trek? (laughter)
Adam Felber: Yeah.
MR: I love it.
PS: I'm like 'blah-de-blah-de-blah.'
GT: Sorry about that.
PS: It's all right.
MR: You just don't get it. We have conventions. This is awesome!
PS: You all dress up as conductors...
AF: If the Purple Line is going to be powered by dilithium, then...(laughter)
GT: Dilithium crystals, yes.


I particularly love Peter Sagal's response. I'm an unabashed transit geek, and I certainly know the reaction - when peoples' eyes start to glaze over - but it's totally worth it to meet another transit geek.

Anyway, this episode of Wait Wait totally made my day. I just had to share.

A Sample of Articles on High-Speed Rail that are appearing with increasing frequency all over the state.

Article 1

Link: Public input sought on high-speed rail project - Local - MercedSun-Star.com

News - Local
Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010
Public input sought on high-speed rail project
Public can ask questions at Thursday meeting
By MIKE THARP
mtharp@mercedsun-star.com

The California High Speed Rail Authority said it will hold a meeting here to get public input about the environmental impact of the giant project.

The so-called scoping meeting will be held at the Merced Senior Center on Thursday, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. The center is at 755 W. 15th St., Merced.

Organizers said the open-house format will allow individuals with questions, comments, concerns and suggestions to directly talk to the appropriate experts and planners who are conducting the project analysis.

Merced Sun-Star - no caption

Quantcast

If you can't attend, you can submit written comments through Feb. 26.

The project proposes high-speed train service between Los Angeles and San Diego and to the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. The trains are projected to travel at more than 200 mph and forecast to carry up to 41 million passengers a year over the entire 800-mile network by 2035, backers said.

The Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee has submitted a plan to locate the project's heavy maintenance facility at Castle Commerce Center. The committee's plan was presented last week to the state rail authority.

Last year, the committee hired a high-speed rail engineering consulting firm, Hatch Mott MacDonald. The committee and the firm said they "analyzed the availability of the labor force, the constructability of the site, identified displacements, traffic effects, environmental history and economic incentives."

The committee said site requirements for a heavy maintenance facility include the availability of at least 154 acres located with the mainline track of the system, with connections to highways and utilities. The site at Castle "is ready for groundbreaking almost immediately," the committee said.

Committee members expect the rail authority to make a decision on the facility late this year.

The rail authority said that as lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act process, it had issued a Notice of Preparation of a Project Level Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the Merced-to-Sacramento section of the proposed high-speed train system.

The Federal Railroad Administration, as the lead federal agency under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, said it's also publishing a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register.

The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission is a local partner to the state rail agency.

A scoping meeting is designed to ensure that the issues most important to residents, public agencies and other involved parties are addressed, organizers said in a news release. Authorities use the meetings to get input on alternatives and issues that will be examined in the draft environmental impact report.

The Notice of Preparation, meeting dates and locations are available at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov.

You can give your comments in writing to Don Leavitt, deputy director, Merced-to-Sacramento California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L St., Suite 1424, Sacramento, CA 95814.

You can also submit your comments via e-mail to comments@hsr.ca.gov with the subject line "Merced to Sacramento HSR."

If you require an interpreter, including sign language services or other accommodations at the meeting, please contact (916) 567-8072.

Executive Editor Mike Tharp can be reached at (209) 385-2456 or mtharp@mercedsun-star.com.

Article 2

Why Castle is best site for high speed rail maintenance hub - Opinion - MercedSun-Star.com

Opinion
Monday, Jan. 18, 2010
Why Castle is best site for high speed rail maintenance hub

Imagine taking a train from downtown Merced and arriving in San Jose under 45 minutes or taking a different train and arriving in Disneyland in less than two hours.

When high-speed rail comes to Merced our downtown station will be one of the only three stops in the entire Valley. Imagine how this futuristic station will change not only the entrance to Merced, but how it will completely revitalize our downtown area.

The Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee formed in 2003 is composed of elected officials, educational leaders and private business owners who are now advocating for the system's heavy maintenance facility to be located at the former Castle Air Force Base.

Los Angeles Instant Insurance QuoteStop over paying for car insurance. Submit a Zip Code for fast quote. Visit site... Los Angeles: Local Mom Makes $77/hr Online!Unemployed Mom Makes $6,397/Month Working Online! Read How She Did It.

With unemployment near 20 percent in our community, we must continue to advocate aggressively and pursue the 1,500 jobs this facility will bring to our community.

To accomplish this, the committee hired the engineering firm of Hatch Mott McDonald that has years of experience with high-speed train systems.

After many long brain-storming sessions and numerous rough drafts, we have come up with two very good sites to locate a heavy maintenance facility that fit the state's criteria.

The first site and the one favored by the committee is on the southern corner of the Castle Commerce Center, which is aligned to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way.

The second site is the Mission site located on the Union Pacific alignment.

The Castle site is the only area in the entire Valley that can truly be called an intermodel facility because it is connected to an adjacent airport and a future freeway.

The Atwater-Merced expressway currently in the planning stages already has an existing right of way which can be modified to allow high-speed trains to cross from one alignment to the other.

This property and the future freeway are controlled by a single-public ownership (Merced County).

The Castle site is also uniquely positioned to fly in heavy cargo, which will be necessary since the California High-Speed Rail Authority intends to build and maintain these trains at the site.

The win for Castle is this now gives it a transportation anchor tenant that will employ 1,500 people and allow it to leverage the fourth largest civilian runway in the state to establish a major air cargo facility.

Finally, the competition to land this maintenance facility is just beginning with many cities and private property owners vying to secure the site for the heavy maintenance facility with a final selection due late 2010.

The county and city of Fresno are jointly competing for the heavy maintenance facility, and they believe the facility could pump $1.5 billion into the local economy.

The question many of you are asking is does little Merced stand a chance?

Since 2005, Castle has been the only site mentioned for the maintenance facility in all staff reports and maps.

Our committee believes that after evaluating the criteria put forth by the authority, Merced will continue to be the front-runner based on he following strong facts:

Our site is controlled by one property owner.

We are offering to lease this $21 million site to the authority for $1 a year.

The Castle site is the only proposal which is truly intermodel because of the proximity of having a runway adjacent to our facility as well as numerous economic opportunities and incentives.

Castle offers the authority a shovel-ready site since it has already been environmentaly cleared by the federal government.

Merced County occupies a unique geographic position that no other site in the state can duplicate because our area shows the trains actually splitting in three different sections with one route going north to San Jose, another route going south to Fresno and a third route which is phase II going northeast toward Sacramento.

When adding all of these elements together and realizing the money and time Castle saves California and its taxpayers, the committee believes that the only thing that can stop Castle selection is political decisions devoid of facts and based solely on emotions and politics.

Dr. Lee Boese Jr., a Merced orthodontist, and Dr. Benjamin Duran, the president of Merced College, are co-chairmen of the Greater Merced High Speed Rail Committee.

Our View: Two tracks for Gold Line East (Source: Pasadena Star-News)

Link: Our View: Two tracks for Gold Line East - Pasadena Star-News

Our View: Two tracks for Gold Line East
Posted: 01/16/2010 06:14:07 AM PST

Early battle lines are already being drawn, pitting Pico Rivera, Montebello, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier against a coalition of 60-Freeway cities for a future leg of the Metro Gold Line light-rail train.

It's a healthy competition. Cities recognizing a regional problem - freeway gridlock - rolling up their sleeves to advocate for a local mass transit option.

But the fighting ultimately is unnecessary.

We say, why choose between the two proposed routes of the Gold Line East? Metro should build both.

Arguments are strong for both routes, which are the two remaining alternatives being studied.

The Washington Boulevard route would send the line south on Garfield Avenue to Washington Boulevard through Montebello, Pico Rivera and Santa Fe Springs, ending at the edge of Whittier's Uptown adjacent to Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital, which has some 3,500 employees.

It would link a freeway-less Whittier to the outside world for the first time and open up possible expansion into Orange County.

It would serve the needs of low- and middle-income residents, connecting them to East Los Angeles and jobs in downtown L.A. and through other train connections, to points west. And this route would also provide a boost to Whittier job sites and retail clusters.

Of course the southeast county region, the "Gateway Cities" region, should be connected to the rest of L.A. County.

Likewise, a train extending farther east along the right-of-way of the Pomona (60) Freeway (not in the middle of the freeway but on the shoulder) would connect commuters in Montebello, South El Monte and even El Monte (through a shuttle link) to Los Angeles jobs. Also, by the time funding is awarded and the project is completed in 2037, it could pick up weekend riders at Whittier Narrows (the site of increasingly well attended celebrations for Mexican Independence Day, Cinco De Mayo, Asian festivals) as well as the soon-to-be-built Discovery Center.

But the biggest potential for a weekend trip generator would be the possible extension to Ed Roski's Industry NFL stadium in the hills near the junction of the 57 and 60 freeways. What a plus to have a local train actually go to a destination! That would be a first for Los Angeles County.

Both scenarios - both city coalitions - make strong arguments. To choose between the two rail routes would wrongly leave out one of these scenarios. We believe both areas would have the population and boardings to support rail line extensions by the completion date for one, which is 27 years from now.

What are the other transportation alternatives? There are no new freeways being planned to handle population growth in the region. Carpooling and bicycles can only make a small impact. And Star Trek-like transporting probably will still have a few years to go. Rail lines are the most cost-effective alternative to single-occupancy commuting.

So let the competition continue - for now. It's healthy to have cities working one side or the other. And when new data is released on the feasibility of these routes in 2011, perhaps one route will emerge as the first to be built, and the other as the next.

But until then, we are envisioning both legs of a growing Gold Line East serving these two sub-regions. It's a vision for the future we can get behind.