Expo timetable stays on track, but faces hurdle (Source: www.smdp.com)

Expo timetable stays on track, but faces hurdle

Expo timetable stays on track, but faces hurdle
By Miriam Finder

January 29, 2010

LOS ANGELES — No delays are expected to result from the revocation of a permit that allowed around the clock construction on the Expo Line that will come to Santa Monica in its second phase. However, delays may occur if the second phase's environmental impact report does not pass its Feb. 4 review.

Rick Thorpe, Expo Authority CEO, said he is optimistic that the Expo Construction Authority Board will approve the report, but that nothing is certain until all the public testimony is heard and the meeting is over.

If the board disapproves the report, portions would have to be redone, which could cause delays of eight to 10 months, Thorpe said.

"Obviously, Feb. 4 is a critical juncture in the project," he said.

Although already a year behind schedule, Thorpe said everything now is on schedule to keep the project moving smoothly.

The Los Angeles Police Commission withdrew the construction permit due to noise complaints. Overnight work has been banned.

"Now they're saying they want to know when we're working, how many hours … and that the community has been notified," said Thorpe. "All of which I think is reasonable and doable."

The finished line will run from Downtown Los Angeles through Culver City and possibly along Colorado Avenue ending at Fourth Street in Downtown Santa Monica.

Metro Board to Look at Finances and Begin Search for New Rail Car Contractor

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Metro Board to Look at Finances and Begin Search for New Rail Car Contractor

Metro Board to Look at Finances and Begin Search for New Rail Car Contractor

by Damien Newton on January 28, 2010

Villaraigosa at the groundbreaking for the Orange Line extension in June. We know how Metro pays for construction, but what about the operations? Photo: SLH Photography/Flickr

Later this morning, the Metro Board of Directors will meet for the first time in the 2010 calendar year, and is faced with its biggest challenge since the passage of Measure R...a quarter of a billion operating deficit. While some issues on the undercard are interesting, such as the Board finally moving to find a contractor to construct rail cars ten months after their quixotic quest to hand the contract to AnsaldoBreda kicked off; the largest issues is going to be what to do about the budget. After years of shifting budgets and tapping contingency funds, Metro has to make some hard choices to make.

You can read the full Metro agenda here, and Streetsblog will provide more coverage of the meeting either later this afternoon or tomorrow, but in the meantime; the agenda spells out the economic assumptions that the Metro staff and Board are facing as they prepare the FY 2011 budget that begins on July 1, 2010. This time, I won't be live tweeting, but you can always follow the action as it happens at The Source, or the Gold Line Foothill Extension's twitter feed.

Second Roundup of articles on High-speed rail. The discussion about it are now appearing in local press all over the state. Here are 3 articles.

Article 1

Link: Is second high-speed rail vote on the horizon?» Ventura County Star

Is second high-speed rail vote on the horizon?

* Posted January 25, 2010 at 9:22 p.m.

It would not be surprising if voters who read the latest report of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority feel more than a little bit bait-and-switched.

Let’s look at the ways this report (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library) differs from the way Proposition 1A was hyped in November 2008, when $9.95 billion worth of state bonds for high-speed rail passed by a narrow 52-48 percent margin.

Even then, the bonds were expected to cover less than one-fourth of the cost of this system, which aims by 2035 to carry more than 120,000 riders per day at speeds topping 200 mph. The rest of the money is to come from federal funds, private investors and possible revenue bonds that would be paid off with money from fares.

Less than 18 months after voters approved the high-speed rail system, it’s tentatively planned to run from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco via Pacheco Pass and San Jose, with an eventual spur line to Sacramento and stops in places as disparate as Anaheim, the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, the Antelope Valley and Bakersfield.

Most of that was envisioned in the proposition voters approved. But the latest fare forecast was not. As presented in 2008, fares were to run about $55 one-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco, designed to be competitive with airfares that now often hover just under $60, even though cheaper ones can occasionally be found.

But the new plan calls for a one-way charge of $105, about 83 percent of the $125 the rail authority predicts airfares will run in 2035. That near-doubling of prospective fares would reduce expected ridership by almost one-third.

In short, as much fun as high-speed trains are to ride, they would probably never be affordable for vast numbers of Californians.

Meanwhile, no change is anticipated in the $647 million annual cost of repaying interest and principal on the bonds. This money that will be paid not just by riders and residents of areas the project might serve, but also by nonriders and residents of the vast portions of California who would have to travel as much as several hundred miles just to glimpse a high-speed train zip past.

From the moment the first of the bonds are issued, repaying them will become a higher priority for the next 30 years than any state program except public schools.

And then there are the environmental questions. Cities like Menlo Park and Atherton are already fighting a plan for an above-ground line dividing their cities along the route between San Jose and San Francisco, where 31,000 riders daily are expected to enjoy commute times of 31 minutes or less.

At the time of the vote, the route was known; not the notion of a 15-foot divider splitting many cities on the San Francisco Peninsula. The need to widen existing rail rights of way, spawning likely eminent domain takeovers of an as-yet-unknown number of homes, was also not advertised.

Anyone who’s ridden the high-speed trains of France, Spain, Belgium, England and Japan knows how comfortable and convenient and enjoyable they can be.

But given the revised fare structure and accompanying ridership estimates, it’s fair to wonder whether they should be partially funded in California by tax money from millions of people who may never ride them.

Another question is whether all this is worth it in order to get the flashy transport system that would result and the approximately 600,000 high-paid new jobs the new report says bullet trains would create.

Those issues will hang over this plan from now until the system actually opens. All of which means it might be wise for the Legislature, which put last year’s Proposition 1A on the ballot, to submit the plan revisions to another statewide vote.

That’s never before been done with any bond issue. Once passed, every bond approved by California voters has eventually been sold, one reason the state (not counting local governments) now has a total bond debt of $89 billion and makes yearly debt payments of about $10 billion.

There’s no question in anyone’s mind that having a high-speed rail system would be good for California, taking traffic off freeways, offering a spectacular new tourist attraction and speeding travel for millions of riders yearly.

The question is whether Californians feel the system now planned is the one they voted to pay for and whether they still believe it’s worthwhile after two years of budget problems like no American state has ever endured.

The only way to answer that fairly is to stage another vote. But legislators usually frown on re-dos, so don’t hold your breath waiting for one.

— Thomas D. Elias of Santa Monica is and author and columnist. E-mail him at tdelias@aol.com.

Article 2

Central Japan Railway Aims Bullet Train at the U.S. - WSJ.com

High-Speed Rail Approaches Station
Japanese Firm Pushes Bullet Train as U.S. Prepares to Announce $8 Billion in Stimulus Grants
By MARIKO SANCHANTA

TOKYO—The iconic needle-nosed Japanese "bullet train" could speed through the swampy marshlands of central Florida if Yoshiyuki Kasai, the chairman of Central Japan Railway Co., gets his way.

Mr. Kasai on Monday announced efforts to bring the shinkansen, Japan's bullet train, to the U.S. JR Central's push to enter the U.S. comes as Washington prepares to announce how $8 billion in federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed passenger-train service is carved up.


Central Japan Railway hopes to sell its shinkansen train, seen Monday in Tokyo, for a high-speed rail project proposed in Florida.


JR Central is up against some tough competition, however. Dozens of international companies, including Germany's Siemens AG, Canada's Bombardier Inc., France's Alstom SA and General Electric Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. of the U.S. all are clamoring for a piece of the pie, which is meant in part to create U.S. jobs. The Obama administration is expected to announce as early as this week what projects will receive stimulus funds.

The $8 billion "is oversubscribed by a factor of eight to one," said Richard Lawless, chief executive of U.S.-Japan High Speed Rail, a consulting company JR Central created to market the bullet train. "Of all the corridors we looked at, the one that looks the most promising and immediate is Florida."

The proposed Florida high-speed rail would cost a total of $3.5 billion to construct, including rolling stock, JR Central said.

Congress attached "Buy America" provisions to the stimulus spending aimed at favoring U.S. firms. But JR Central has structured its package in the hopes of meeting those provisions. Officials from U.S.-Japan Maglev, another JR Central consulting company, said they would ask Florida companies to construct the infrastructure for the train, including the signals and track. Part of the rolling stock, or cars, would be built in the U.S. by U.S. companies.

JR Central is marketing two types of high-speed technology: the shinkansen, which travels as fast as 330 kilometers per hour; and the magnetic-levitation, or maglev, train, which can run up to 581 kph , but is more expensive and in only limited use so far.
Speeding Up

Review the routes vying for government funds.
View Interactive. Click here.



JR Central has hired two executives with defense experience to head its two Washington consulting firms, which will lobby on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Japanese rail group. Mr. Lawless worked at the Central Intelligence Agency for 15 years and was deputy undersecretary of defense for Asian and Pacific affairs under President George W. Bush from 2002-2007.

Torkel Patterson, the president of U.S.-Japan Maglev, worked at the National Security Council and was president of U.S. defense contractor Raytheon International Inc.

The Japanese rail system is renowned for its efficiency, speed, punctuality—trains arrive to the minute—and its impeccable, white-gloved conductors who bow to passengers as they board and depart trains.

Until now, there hasn't been a huge push to market the shinkansen abroad. But faced with a declining population and recent reductions in highway tolls during the holidays, which encourage people to drive during heavy travel periods, JR Central wants to expand abroad.

JR Central is one of six former state-owned railed companies that were privatized in 1987. It operates the bustling service between Tokyo and Osaka, which accounts for 80% of JR Central's revenue. But its profit has declined recently, to 126 billion yen for the fiscal year ended March 31 from 159.7 billion yen in fiscal 2008. Profit is expected to fall slightly this year and drop to 85 billion yen for fiscal 2011.

"We have to expand our manufacturing industry," Mr. Kasai said at a news conference Monday.

Mr. Kasai, who is seen in Japan as an outspoken nationalist, is behind the drive to expand overseas. He was appointed in 2006 by then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to a panel aimed to increase the teaching of patriotism in schools, a taboo since World War II.

Mr. Kasai, 69 years old, has described his vision for exporting high-speed rail in political, as much as business, terms. In the past he has expressed concern about exporting, and possibly losing, Japanese technology to China even though it is a fast-growing market. The decision to expand in the U.S. first reflects his view that "bullet-train diplomacy" could help foster broader ties between the two countries.

JR Central hopes to introduce its N700-I Bullet shinkansen in Florida. The train could also be used for travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles or in Texas and the Midwest, though those routes seem further down the line.

Even more ambitious than the shinkansen is JR Central's plans to lobby for its maglev train in the U.S. JR Central's maglev train is the culmination of years of research and development but no commuter maglev line exists in Japan because of prohibitive costs. Nevertheless, JR Central is pushing the maglev train in such corridors such as Baltimore-Washington and Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn.

JR Central's maglev test line in Japan can run at 581 kph. The technology behind it is enormously expensive, however, and JR Central has already spent more than $1 billion developing it.

Maglev trains use powerful magnets that allow the train to skim along its guideway without touching it, reducing friction. JR Central's trains float 10 centimeters above the guideway but need supercooled, superconducting magnets to generate lift. The train still uses wheels because it lifts clear of the guideway only after picking up speed.

Rail-industry observers doubt the commercial viability of maglev technology, given the exorbitant cost of building a track. Apart from a 32-kilometer high-speed line between Shanghai's Pudong airport and its financial district, the only maglev in commercial operation anywhere is the 8.9 kilometer Linimo line opened last year near Nagoya, that reaches only 100 kph because its route is so short.

"For far too long, the U.S. has neglected our passenger-rail system," said Mr. Patterson, of U.S.-Japan Maglev. "Now finally we are bringing it into the twenty-first century."

Write to Mariko Sanchanta at mariko.sanchanta@wsj.com

Article 3

JR Tokai looking for big bullet-train deals in U.S. | The Japan Times Online

Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010

JR Tokai looking for big bullet-train deals in U.S.

By KAZUAKI NAGATA
Staff writer

Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) said Monday it is teaming up with U.S. companies to promote its N700-I bullet trains and maglev transportation system in U.S. states, targeting such corridors as the Tampa-Orlando-Miami route in Florida.

"One of the reasons why we're putting special focus on the U.S. is because it's a region that we think has the best potential to develop Japan's high-speed railway system," JR Tokai Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai said at a news conference in Tokyo with the railway's partners.

Kasai said that unlike European train systems, which value interoperability with existing trains, Japan's bullet trains run on separate tracks.

Because almost all U.S. trains carry freight rather than people, there is a great chance of developing independent railway systems, Kasai said.

He also said the company will team up with U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail and U.S.-Japan Maglev, which are both Washington-based companies founded in 2009, to actively promote the system.

They said they have already selected some target corridors, such as Tampa-Orlando-Miami and Las Vegas-Los Angeles, as well as Texas and the Midwest areas.

Each project could take about two to eight years, said Richard Lawless, CEO of U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail. He said the Florida project is likely to move quickly, as the state is eager to develop the system.

The momentum for high-speed rail development appears to be growing with the Obama administration expected to announce soon how it will distribute $8 billion for high-speed rail development.

"It truly represents what we think is the beginning of a revolution in American transportation," Lawless said.

Bay Area Transit Brouhaha a Harbinger for LA?

Curbed LA: Bay Area Transit Brouhaha a Harbinger for LA?

Bay Area Transit Brouhaha a Harbinger for LA?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010, by Neal Broverman

Today, the Bay Area's transit agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, is voting on whether to dump a proposed BART extension to the Oakland airport (Metro take note: the commuter rail line already connects to the region's main airport, SFO). Like our Metro, MTC is broke, and is now facing anger over their plan to construct the 3.2 mile airport connector while service cuts and fare hikes are being floated. Accusations of civil rights violations are flying, with groups like Urban Habitat saying lower-class people are being sacrificed for the conveniences of wealthier people using the airport (they also call the connector inefficient and expensive—$6 on top of your BART ticket). MTC may decide to take the $70 million the FTA planned to give them for the airport tram and use it to avert the proposed service cuts and fare hikes. A press release from Urban Habitat claims that the FTA found that BART "shirked its civil rights obligations in planning the project" and will deny them money for the project unless they find a way to avoid service cuts. It's a mess, basically. Since LA's Metro is as broke as the Bay Area's, one has to wonder whether there will be calls to divert money for proposed rail and bus extensions and use them to prop up service or avoid fare increases. The fact that LA County passed Measure R, which promised around $40 billion for such extensions, complicates matters. [Airport connector rendering via SF.Streetsblog]

Expo Line hit with another setback After residents complain about nighttime noise, a permit for round-the-clock construction is revoked. Officials hope a compromise will keep neighbors happy but let the work progress faster. (Source: LA times.com)

Link:Expo Line hit with another setback - latimes.com

Expo Line hit with another setback
After residents complain about nighttime noise, a permit for round-the-clock construction is revoked. Officials hope a compromise will keep neighbors happy but let the work progress faster.

By Ari B. Bloomekatz

January 28, 2010


The long-delayed Expo Line was recently dealt another setback when authorities revoked a permit that allowed construction 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Authorities said they revoked the permit last week because of complaints about noise during late-night construction on the line.

The move could further delay construction, which is already more than a year behind schedule, and add to the $862-million price tag to complete the first segment from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

That cost has already grown by more than $220 million over the project's original budget of $640 million. The line is planned to eventually reach Santa Monica.

Richard Tefank, executive director of the Los Angeles Police Commission, which has jurisdiction to issue variances to the noise ordinance in the city of Los Angeles, said the 24-hour permit on one section of the line was revoked after an investigation into noise complaints in some of the surrounding neighborhoods.

"The majority of people [investigators] spoke with indicated that the noise was disruptive for them, impacting their quality of life," Tefank said, adding that one investigator visited surrounding neighborhoods at 2 a.m. one evening and heard loud disruptions.

Without the 24-hour permit, construction is allowed between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, the organization responsible for getting the line built, said he was surprised when the commission revoked the 24-hour permit and that it was important to speed up construction.

In a letter to Police Commission President John Mack, Thorpe wrote that the authority had taken several steps to curb noise during nighttime construction and was instructing the project's contractor to request the authority's permission before doing night work.

Thorpe and Tefank met Wednesday to discuss the project, nighttime construction and noise complaints from area residents.

Tefank said they came to an agreement that the Expo authority would submit 30-day construction plans to the commission, outlining when and where nighttime work is needed and why at those times, and the efforts made to reach out to area residents and mitigate noise. If the authority wants to close down entire intersections or streets over a weekend, that must be a separate request.

Based on the plans, Tefank will decide whether to issue a temporary variance for each 30-day period or weekend closure request.

"We understand the necessity to complete the project, but as we clearly mentioned to them, our interest is for the community's ability to have peace and quiet, as much as can be when you're having this type of construction," Tefank said.

ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

Who comes out ahead in high-speed train derby? French AGV high-speed train

Who comes out ahead in high-speed train derby? | HULIQ

Who comes out ahead in high-speed train derby?
French AGV high-speed train

With the Obama administration set to award $8 billion in grants to jump-start high-speed train projects in several parts of the country on Thursday, perhaps it's time to take a good look at who stands to gain and lose if and when superfast passenger trains finally start running in America.

Among the winners will certainly be the foreign firms that have developed the current state-of-the-art high-speed trains. Canada's Bombardier, which licensed Swedish technology to build the current U.S. fast-train champ, Amtrak's Acela service from Boston to Washington, could stand to gain additional business from one or more of the states and regions that have submitted proposals for the Federal seed money.

Firms in other countries that have advanced high-speed trains, including Germany's Siemens and France's Alstom, will need to find American partners or facilities if their technologies are selected in order to meet Federal rules governing where the trains are built.

The Central Japan Railway Co., owner of the granddaddy of all modern high-speed trains, the Shinkansen, has also entered the fray with a bid to build a proposed high-speed rail line connecting Tampa, Orlando, and Miami/Ft. Lauderdale. That line is projected to cost $3.5 billion to build; the state of Florida has asked the Feds for $2.5 billion of that total. As President Obama is scheduled to announce the grant recipients in Tampa on Thursday, observers expect the Florida proposal to be among the awardees.

The fact that Europe and Japan have eclipsed the United States in developing fast passenger trains, however, has not kept American companies from also bidding on these projects. General Electric Co., which has decades of experience building diesel and electric locomotives, and Lockheed Martin have also expressed interest in building fast trains.

Construction firms in the states through which the trains will run will also stand to win big. For instance, the State of Florida, in its application for Federal money, estimates that the Florida High Speed Rail project will create 15,000 construction jobs. Similar projects being promoted in California and the Great Lakes region would create at least as many construction jobs.

The cities where the trains will stop should also see benefits, as rail transport favors and reinforces dense urban development. These cities, however, will be relatively few in number, because high-speed trains do not stop frequently in order to maximize the performance advantages of high-speed rail over motor vehicles or air transport for short- to medium-distance (up to 450 miles) travel.

The one sure loser in the high-speed rail derby will be taxpayers. While some high-speed rail routes abroad break even or turn a modest profit on operations, none cover their capital costs, which means those will come from the public purse. The American pattern of urban development since World War II, which is highly spread out and suburbanized, also works against these rail lines' attracting the traffic they need to cover their operating costs, even in such promising corridors as San Francisco-San Diego or Tampa-Orlando-Miami. As a result, it's quite likely that these routes will require continuing operating subsidies along the lines of those Amtrak receives now for the overwhelming bulk of its service.

Written by Sandy Smith
For HULIQ.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crenshaw_corridor_jerjoz.jpg

LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LACMTA Crenshaw Corridor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Crenshaw Corridor and regional setting. dashed lines represent possible extensions or alignments

The Crenshaw Corridor project (also referred to as the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor) is a mass-transit project currently being proposed by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority that will serve Crenshaw District, Leimert Park, South Los Angeles, Inglewood and LAX primarily along Crenshaw Boulevard, a main thoroughfare in South Los Angeles. The transit corridor will operate using Light Rail Transit. It will make connections with the Green Line, potential LAX people mover system, Expo Line and Purple Line. Construction of this line is expected to begin in 2012 and is expected to open in 2018.
Contents

  1 History
  2 Alignment
  3 Future Planning Considerations
  3.1 Northern Extension Crenshaw/Exposition to Purple Line
  3.2 Knockout panels at north and south ends of the optional Leimert Park tunnel.
  3.3 Prairie-Hawthorne route option at Southern end of corridor.
  4 References

1. History

The origin of the Crenshaw/Prairie Corridor stems from the results of the Los Angeles riots of 1992, where then California State Senator Diane Watson and County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke saw the need to serve their transit dependent constituents while stimulating needed positive economic growth in South Los Angeles. A Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated in 1993-94 [1]. An architectural design and planning visioning was performed by the USC school of Architecture in 1996. A route refinement study followed in 1999-2000 to improve the shelf life of the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor. With the alternatives narrowed down during the Route refinement study to create a new MIS in 2003. As of today's writing of this article this transit corridor is in the Alternative Analysis phase of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the mode to be determined and will be the next funded project for Metro after Expo Line Phase II is completed.

Currently local community leaders, neighborhood councils, current L.A. County Supervisor Yvonne Burke and Congresswoman Diane Watson have expressed enthusiastic support for the LRT mode, Watson telling Metro in a letter dated November 5, 2007, Comment ID 116-125 in the cited link:[2]

Having advocated strenuously for a light rail ‘spur line’ to carry passengers from the Wilshire Corridor down the Crenshaw Corridor and, ultimately, to LAX for 25 years now, I am delighted to offer continued encouragement, advocacy and feedback for a Metro study (to)…avoid aggravating (the) Leimert Park traffic bottleneck, Coliseum to Vernon;…Wilshire/La Brea station connection to Westside Corridor line, avoiding hydrogen sulfide;…fully consider (the) below-grade option.

2. Alignment

This is the design as of this date taken from the results presented during the Alternative Analysis meetings described from South to North.

The transit corridor will either be designed in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT) mode. Either mode will begin from the existing Aviation Green Line and utilize the Harbor Subdivision Right-of-way until reaching Crenshaw Boulevard. There are design options along the right-of-way for LRT grade separations at the major crossings at; LAX (between 111th and 104th Streets to mitigate the South Runway avionics and at 104th Street to 98th Streets to mitigate heavy crossing traffic on Century Boulevard), the 405 Freeway (between Manchester and the on/off ramps), Downtown Inglewood (between west of La Brea Avenue and Centinela) and Crenshaw Boulevard to transition from the railroad right of way to Crenshaw Boulevard.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Century Blvd-LAX, Manchester-405 Freeway, La Brea-Downtown Inglewood, West Blvd or Prairie Avenue.


From Crenshaw/Right-of-way to Crenshaw/60th Street it was determined that there is a narrow street right-of-way. The BRT would operate under exclusive curb lane; the LRT would operate on a median running restricted to 35 mph. There is a LRT design option that could grade separate this section and tie into the proposed railroad grade separation.

* Potential Station location(s) at: None.

From Crenshaw/60th to Crenshaw/Vernon, Crenshaw Boulevard is a 150’ wide curb to curb landscaped parkway with plenty of right-of-way available to create the dedicated lane for BRT or LRT without disrupting the existing street landscaping along Crenshaw.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Slauson.

From Crenshaw/Vernon to Crenshaw/39th Street has a narrow street right-of-way, carries heavy vehicular traffic, many vehicular turns and it is the heart of community with activity centers at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza and Leimert Park Village. Both BRT and LRT designs would operate with no dedicated lane with traffic and instead operate in “mixed flow”. There is a LRT design option under study for the LRT that could allow the LRT to operate in a short tunnel with stations at either end of this short 0.8 mile Leimert Park tunnel.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Vernon (For tunnel option only) and Crenshaw/Martin Luther King Blvd.

From Crenshaw/39th to Crenshaw/Expo Station, Crenshaw Boulevard returns as a wide landscaped parkway with dedicated lane. At this point the current LRT design will end here. LRT service could continue towards Downtown LA by sharing tracks with the Expo Line. However, there is a design and feasibility study underway to consider continuing the LRT north toward Wilshire to link with the future Purple Line extension. The BRT design would continue down Crenshaw Boulevard and will end at the current Wilshire/Western Purple Line terminal.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Exposition.

From Crenshaw/Expo to Crenshaw/Venice, Crenshaw Boulevard’s narrower curb-to-curb width between 70 to 100 feet and high vehicular traffic means there’s no room to implement a dedicated bus lane in this stretch. The configuration here will be “mixed flow”. For the Northern LRT feasibility study, this entire section would require full grade separation because there’s no room to create a dedicated lane for at-grade running LRT.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Adams or Crenshaw/Washington.

From Crenshaw/Venice to Wilshire/Western (BRT), Crenshaw Boulevard’s narrower curb-to-curb width between 70 to 100 feet and high vehicular traffic means there’s no room to implement a dedicated bus lane in this stretch. The configuration here will be “mixed flow”. For the Northern LRT feasibility study, they determined during the scoping phase to eliminate the LRT running underground at this section due to the poor ridership, poor regional connectivity and environmental impacts of hydrogen sulfide soil which is more toxic to tunnel through than Methane.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Crenshaw/Pico or Crenshaw/Olympic and Wilshire/Western.

3 Future Planning Considerations
3.1 Northern Extension Crenshaw/Exposition to Purple Line

During the Northern LRT feasibility study, Planners will determine whether or not it is feasible to extend the northern route of the Crenshaw Corridor to meet with the future Purple Line extension at Wilshire Boulevard in the Miracle Mile area.

From the Crenshaw/Exposition station the route will follow the current BRT alignment until Venice Blvd except will be fully grade separated due to limited street right of way for at-grade running.

At Venice/Crenshaw, the route would turn west on Venice Blvd to San Vicente. The route will turn diagonally north on San Vicente until reaching La Brea Avenue or Fairfax. This would stay on either street until Wilshire Blvd. Due to limited available right of way, this alignment will be fully grade separated. Major advantages the (La Brea or Fairfax)-San Vicente route option has compared to a direct Crenshaw route to at least Wilshire Boulevard are:

* 1) Greater residential and job density,
* 2) Supportive land-uses for a high capacity subway,
* 3) Stronger regional potential to link this corridor northward towards Hollywood in the future,
* 4) Strong community support in the Hancock Park area and
* 5) Fewer geotechnical soil impacts compared to the Hydrogen sulfide soil along Crenshaw Blvd north of Pico Boulevard.

* Potential Station location(s) at: Pico/San Vicente and Wilshire Blvd Purple Line connection.

3.2 Knockout panels at north and south ends of the optional Leimert Park tunnel.

Knockout panels are false walls that are used to temporarily cover openings inside tunnel walls for future considerations. Throughout the Red/Purple Line subway stations there are knockout panels connected to future station entrances that can be opened when demand and funding occurs.

For the Crenshaw Corridor LRT mode, due to limited transit funding there may be a need to defer the northern section between Expo and Wilshire to a future date when more money becomes available. But building a tunnel once to then have to come in at a future date build in an extension because increasing difficult due to the operations of the rail service, major disruption on the surface to the local businesses not just once for this building but to continue it again and will add time and more importantly expense to the Northern project potentially reducing its cost-effectiveness. One suggestion to remedy this potential headache is to build provisions for the Northern extension by; extending the tunnel past the Crenshaw/39th Street portal to at least Coliseum or Rodeo Road. At the future connection point at 39th Street the knockout panel will be used to cover that extended tunnel when the Northern route is extended to meet the Purple Line.[3]

This provision could also be looked at in the southern end when ridership and traffic considerations between Vernon (at the optional tunnel) and 60th Street increase and there will be desires to grade separate those crossings. This would improve the feasibility of this occurring and reduces operational impacts for the LRT when constructing it.

3.3 Prairie-Hawthorne route option at Southern end of corridor.

From the beginning Study phases a second southern route was considered from then Hawthorne Mall through to Hollywood Park racetrack and then The Forum primarily via Prairie Avenue and Hawthorne Blvd. During the February scoping update this route option was found not to be feasible due to limited right-of-way, high costs and reduced ridership compared to the existing Right of Way. Currently, the City of Inglewood and Metro are working out potential connections.

Second Roundup of articles on High-speed rail. Here are 3 articles.

Article 1

Link: Is second high-speed rail vote on the horizon?» Ventura County Star

Is second high-speed rail vote on the horizon?

* Posted January 25, 2010 at 9:22 p.m.

It would not be surprising if voters who read the latest report of California’s High-Speed Rail Authority feel more than a little bit bait-and-switched.

Let’s look at the ways this report (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/library) differs from the way Proposition 1A was hyped in November 2008, when $9.95 billion worth of state bonds for high-speed rail passed by a narrow 52-48 percent margin.

Even then, the bonds were expected to cover less than one-fourth of the cost of this system, which aims by 2035 to carry more than 120,000 riders per day at speeds topping 200 mph. The rest of the money is to come from federal funds, private investors and possible revenue bonds that would be paid off with money from fares.

Less than 18 months after voters approved the high-speed rail system, it’s tentatively planned to run from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco via Pacheco Pass and San Jose, with an eventual spur line to Sacramento and stops in places as disparate as Anaheim, the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, the Antelope Valley and Bakersfield.

Most of that was envisioned in the proposition voters approved. But the latest fare forecast was not. As presented in 2008, fares were to run about $55 one-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco, designed to be competitive with airfares that now often hover just under $60, even though cheaper ones can occasionally be found.

But the new plan calls for a one-way charge of $105, about 83 percent of the $125 the rail authority predicts airfares will run in 2035. That near-doubling of prospective fares would reduce expected ridership by almost one-third.

In short, as much fun as high-speed trains are to ride, they would probably never be affordable for vast numbers of Californians.

Meanwhile, no change is anticipated in the $647 million annual cost of repaying interest and principal on the bonds. This money that will be paid not just by riders and residents of areas the project might serve, but also by nonriders and residents of the vast portions of California who would have to travel as much as several hundred miles just to glimpse a high-speed train zip past.

From the moment the first of the bonds are issued, repaying them will become a higher priority for the next 30 years than any state program except public schools.

And then there are the environmental questions. Cities like Menlo Park and Atherton are already fighting a plan for an above-ground line dividing their cities along the route between San Jose and San Francisco, where 31,000 riders daily are expected to enjoy commute times of 31 minutes or less.

At the time of the vote, the route was known; not the notion of a 15-foot divider splitting many cities on the San Francisco Peninsula. The need to widen existing rail rights of way, spawning likely eminent domain takeovers of an as-yet-unknown number of homes, was also not advertised.

Anyone who’s ridden the high-speed trains of France, Spain, Belgium, England and Japan knows how comfortable and convenient and enjoyable they can be.

But given the revised fare structure and accompanying ridership estimates, it’s fair to wonder whether they should be partially funded in California by tax money from millions of people who may never ride them.

Another question is whether all this is worth it in order to get the flashy transport system that would result and the approximately 600,000 high-paid new jobs the new report says bullet trains would create.

Those issues will hang over this plan from now until the system actually opens. All of which means it might be wise for the Legislature, which put last year’s Proposition 1A on the ballot, to submit the plan revisions to another statewide vote.

That’s never before been done with any bond issue. Once passed, every bond approved by California voters has eventually been sold, one reason the state (not counting local governments) now has a total bond debt of $89 billion and makes yearly debt payments of about $10 billion.

There’s no question in anyone’s mind that having a high-speed rail system would be good for California, taking traffic off freeways, offering a spectacular new tourist attraction and speeding travel for millions of riders yearly.

The question is whether Californians feel the system now planned is the one they voted to pay for and whether they still believe it’s worthwhile after two years of budget problems like no American state has ever endured.

The only way to answer that fairly is to stage another vote. But legislators usually frown on re-dos, so don’t hold your breath waiting for one.

— Thomas D. Elias of Santa Monica is and author and columnist. E-mail him at tdelias@aol.com.

Article 2

Central Japan Railway Aims Bullet Train at the U.S. - WSJ.com

High-Speed Rail Approaches Station
Japanese Firm Pushes Bullet Train as U.S. Prepares to Announce $8 Billion in Stimulus Grants
By MARIKO SANCHANTA

TOKYO—The iconic needle-nosed Japanese "bullet train" could speed through the swampy marshlands of central Florida if Yoshiyuki Kasai, the chairman of Central Japan Railway Co., gets his way.

Mr. Kasai on Monday announced efforts to bring the shinkansen, Japan's bullet train, to the U.S. JR Central's push to enter the U.S. comes as Washington prepares to announce how $8 billion in federal stimulus money set aside for high-speed passenger-train service is carved up.


Central Japan Railway hopes to sell its shinkansen train, seen Monday in Tokyo, for a high-speed rail project proposed in Florida.


JR Central is up against some tough competition, however. Dozens of international companies, including Germany's Siemens AG, Canada's Bombardier Inc., France's Alstom SA and General Electric Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. of the U.S. all are clamoring for a piece of the pie, which is meant in part to create U.S. jobs. The Obama administration is expected to announce as early as this week what projects will receive stimulus funds.

The $8 billion "is oversubscribed by a factor of eight to one," said Richard Lawless, chief executive of U.S.-Japan High Speed Rail, a consulting company JR Central created to market the bullet train. "Of all the corridors we looked at, the one that looks the most promising and immediate is Florida."

The proposed Florida high-speed rail would cost a total of $3.5 billion to construct, including rolling stock, JR Central said.

Congress attached "Buy America" provisions to the stimulus spending aimed at favoring U.S. firms. But JR Central has structured its package in the hopes of meeting those provisions. Officials from U.S.-Japan Maglev, another JR Central consulting company, said they would ask Florida companies to construct the infrastructure for the train, including the signals and track. Part of the rolling stock, or cars, would be built in the U.S. by U.S. companies.

JR Central is marketing two types of high-speed technology: the shinkansen, which travels as fast as 330 kilometers per hour; and the magnetic-levitation, or maglev, train, which can run up to 581 kph , but is more expensive and in only limited use so far.
Speeding Up

Review the routes vying for government funds.
View Interactive. Click here.



JR Central has hired two executives with defense experience to head its two Washington consulting firms, which will lobby on Capitol Hill on behalf of the Japanese rail group. Mr. Lawless worked at the Central Intelligence Agency for 15 years and was deputy undersecretary of defense for Asian and Pacific affairs under President George W. Bush from 2002-2007.

Torkel Patterson, the president of U.S.-Japan Maglev, worked at the National Security Council and was president of U.S. defense contractor Raytheon International Inc.

The Japanese rail system is renowned for its efficiency, speed, punctuality—trains arrive to the minute—and its impeccable, white-gloved conductors who bow to passengers as they board and depart trains.

Until now, there hasn't been a huge push to market the shinkansen abroad. But faced with a declining population and recent reductions in highway tolls during the holidays, which encourage people to drive during heavy travel periods, JR Central wants to expand abroad.

JR Central is one of six former state-owned railed companies that were privatized in 1987. It operates the bustling service between Tokyo and Osaka, which accounts for 80% of JR Central's revenue. But its profit has declined recently, to 126 billion yen for the fiscal year ended March 31 from 159.7 billion yen in fiscal 2008. Profit is expected to fall slightly this year and drop to 85 billion yen for fiscal 2011.

"We have to expand our manufacturing industry," Mr. Kasai said at a news conference Monday.

Mr. Kasai, who is seen in Japan as an outspoken nationalist, is behind the drive to expand overseas. He was appointed in 2006 by then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to a panel aimed to increase the teaching of patriotism in schools, a taboo since World War II.

Mr. Kasai, 69 years old, has described his vision for exporting high-speed rail in political, as much as business, terms. In the past he has expressed concern about exporting, and possibly losing, Japanese technology to China even though it is a fast-growing market. The decision to expand in the U.S. first reflects his view that "bullet-train diplomacy" could help foster broader ties between the two countries.

JR Central hopes to introduce its N700-I Bullet shinkansen in Florida. The train could also be used for travel between Las Vegas and Los Angeles or in Texas and the Midwest, though those routes seem further down the line.

Even more ambitious than the shinkansen is JR Central's plans to lobby for its maglev train in the U.S. JR Central's maglev train is the culmination of years of research and development but no commuter maglev line exists in Japan because of prohibitive costs. Nevertheless, JR Central is pushing the maglev train in such corridors such as Baltimore-Washington and Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn.

JR Central's maglev test line in Japan can run at 581 kph. The technology behind it is enormously expensive, however, and JR Central has already spent more than $1 billion developing it.

Maglev trains use powerful magnets that allow the train to skim along its guideway without touching it, reducing friction. JR Central's trains float 10 centimeters above the guideway but need supercooled, superconducting magnets to generate lift. The train still uses wheels because it lifts clear of the guideway only after picking up speed.

Rail-industry observers doubt the commercial viability of maglev technology, given the exorbitant cost of building a track. Apart from a 32-kilometer high-speed line between Shanghai's Pudong airport and its financial district, the only maglev in commercial operation anywhere is the 8.9 kilometer Linimo line opened last year near Nagoya, that reaches only 100 kph because its route is so short.

"For far too long, the U.S. has neglected our passenger-rail system," said Mr. Patterson, of U.S.-Japan Maglev. "Now finally we are bringing it into the twenty-first century."

Write to Mariko Sanchanta at mariko.sanchanta@wsj.com

Article 3

JR Tokai looking for big bullet-train deals in U.S. | The Japan Times Online

Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010

JR Tokai looking for big bullet-train deals in U.S.

By KAZUAKI NAGATA
Staff writer

Central Japan Railway Co. (JR Tokai) said Monday it is teaming up with U.S. companies to promote its N700-I bullet trains and maglev transportation system in U.S. states, targeting such corridors as the Tampa-Orlando-Miami route in Florida.

"One of the reasons why we're putting special focus on the U.S. is because it's a region that we think has the best potential to develop Japan's high-speed railway system," JR Tokai Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai said at a news conference in Tokyo with the railway's partners.

Kasai said that unlike European train systems, which value interoperability with existing trains, Japan's bullet trains run on separate tracks.

Because almost all U.S. trains carry freight rather than people, there is a great chance of developing independent railway systems, Kasai said.

He also said the company will team up with U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail and U.S.-Japan Maglev, which are both Washington-based companies founded in 2009, to actively promote the system.

They said they have already selected some target corridors, such as Tampa-Orlando-Miami and Las Vegas-Los Angeles, as well as Texas and the Midwest areas.

Each project could take about two to eight years, said Richard Lawless, CEO of U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail. He said the Florida project is likely to move quickly, as the state is eager to develop the system.

The momentum for high-speed rail development appears to be growing with the Obama administration expected to announce soon how it will distribute $8 billion for high-speed rail development.

"It truly represents what we think is the beginning of a revolution in American transportation," Lawless said.

A representative sample of the latest issues concerning High-Speed rail in California and the emergence of Japanese participation in High-speed rail.

Article 1

Is another high-speed rail vote needed? - Press-Telegram

Is another high-speed rail vote needed?
It would not be surprising if voters who read the latest report of California's High Speed Rail Authority feel bait-and-switched.
By Thomas Elias
Posted: 01/23/2010 08:39:19 PM PST

It would not be surprising if voters who read the latest report of California's High Speed Rail Authority feel more than a little bit bait-and-switched.

Let's look at the ways this report differs from the way Proposition 1A was hyped in November 2008, when $9.95 billion worth of state bonds for high speed rail passed by a narrow 52-48 percent margin.

Even then, the bonds were expected to cover less than one-fourth of the cost of this system, which aims by 2035 to carry more than 120,000 riders per day at speeds topping 200 mph. The rest of the money is to come from federal funds, private investors and possible revenue bonds that would be paid off with money from fares.

Less than 18 months after voters approved the high speed rail system, it's tentatively planned to run from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco via Pacheco Pass and San Jose, with an eventual spur line to Sacramento and stops in places as disparate as Anaheim, the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, the Antelope Valley and Bakersfield.
Higher fares, fewer riders

Most of that was envisioned in the proposition voters approved. But the latest fare forecast was not. As presented in 2008, fares were to run about $55 one-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco, designed to be competitive with airfares that now often hover just under $60, even though cheaper ones can occasionally be found.

But the new plan calls for a one-way charge of $105, about 83 percent of the $125 the rail authority predicts airfares will run in 2035. That near-doubling of prospective fares would reduce expected ridership by almost one-third. In short, as much fun as high speed trains are to ride, they would probably never be affordable for vast numbers of Californians.

Meanwhile, no change is anticipated in the $647 million annual cost of repaying interest and principal on the bonds. That money that will be paid not just by riders and residents of areas the project might serve, but also by non-riders and residents of the vast portions of California who would have to travel as much as several hundred miles just to glimpse a high-speed train zip past. From the moment the first of the bonds are issued, repaying them will become a higher priority for the next 30 years than any state program except public schools.

And then there are the environmental questions. Cities like Menlo Park and Atherton are already fighting a plan for an above-ground line dividing their cities along the route between San Jose and San Francisco, where 31,000 riders daily are expected to enjoy commute times of 31 minutes or less. At the time of the vote, the route was known; not the notion of a 15-foot divider splitting many cities on the San Francisco Peninsula. The need to widen existing rail rights of way, spawning likely eminent domain takeovers of an as-yet-unknown number of homes, was also not advertised.

Anyone who's ridden the high speed trains of France, Spain, Belgium, England and Japan knows how comfortable and convenient and enjoyable they can be. But given the revised fare structure and accompanying ridership estimates, it's fair to wonder whether they should be partially funded in California by tax money from millions of people who may never ride them.

Another question is whether all this is worth it in order to get the flashy transport system that would result and the approximately 600,000 high-paid new jobs the new report says bullet trains would create. Those issues will hang over this plan from now until the system actually opens.
Give voters a second chance

All of which means it might be wise for the Legislature, which put last year's Proposition 1A on the ballot, to submit the plan revisions to another statewide vote.

That's never before been done with any bond issue. Once passed, every bond approved by California voters has eventually been sold, one reason the state (not counting local governments) now has a total bond debt of $89 billion and makes yearly debt payments of about $10 billion.

There's no question in anyone's mind that having high speed rail would be good for California, taking traffic off freeways, offering a spectacular new tourist attraction and speeding travel for millions of riders yearly.

The question is whether Californians feel the system now planned is the one they voted to pay for and whether they still believe it's worthwhile after two years of budget problems like no American state has ever endured.

The only way to answer that fairly is to stage another vote. But legislators usually frown on re-dos, so don't hold your breath waiting for one.

Thomas D. Elias is a syndicated columnist who covers California issues. For more columns, visit California Focus.

Article 2

Link: Dan Walters: California high-speed rail project's flaws publicized - Opinion - SanLuisObispo.com

Opinion

Sunday, Jan. 24, 2010
Dan Walters: California high-speed rail project's flaws publicized
By By Dan Walters | dwalters@sacbee.com

The
first episode of a new network television series, "Human Target," is
set aboard the maiden run of a high-speed train from San Francisco to
Los Angeles. The story involves a plot to kill its designer, financial
chicanery by its contractor, and a fatal flaw in its braking system.

The show concludes with the runaway train demolishing itself, which could be an omen.

By
happenstance, the episode premiered last week just before state
senators delved into the real – or perhaps fictional – California
high-speed rail project.
Call The Bee's Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/walters.

They
examined a report from the Legislature's budget office that's highly
critical of the High-Speed Rail Authority's much-touted business plan
and a legislative staff report that echoes the criticism and adds grave
doubts of its own.

The twin reports provide potent ammunition
for project critics, especially those from the San Francisco Peninsula
who oppose running 200-mile-per-hour trains through their bucolic,
affluent neighborhoods.

Peninsula residents, many of them
experienced managers and financial analysts, lined up to denounce the
business plan's shaky – even outlandish – assumptions about ridership,
fares, construction costs and operational margins.

Curt Pringle,
the Anaheim mayor who chairs the rail authority, found himself on the
defensive as senators used the staff reports to sharply question
aspects of the project, especially its suppositions and what
legislative budget analyst Eric Thornson said is the agency's "wholly
inadequate" consideration of downside financial risks.

Sen. Alan
Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, pressed Pringle on the assumption that the
federal government would pick up half the system's $40 billion
projected cost. "Is that a wish?" Lowenthal asked. "It's a hope,"
Pringle replied.

Even the pro-high-speed-rail California Rail
Foundation found the project lacking, with its representative telling
senators, "We can't believe any of the numbers presented in the
business plan."

At one point in the "Human Target" episode, its
hero, a personal bodyguard named Christopher Chance, is told that the
train cost $80 billion and complains about his taxes paying for it.

One
suspects that the TV show's $80 billion is more realistic than the $40
billion projected by the rail authority, given the immense delays and
cost overruns on other major public works projects in California, such
as the still-unfinished overhaul of the Bay Bridge or any number of
half-baked state government computer projects.

The gaping holes
in the business plan must be filled with hard facts and reliable
numbers – if they can be filled – before we begin selling and spending
the $9.95 billion in state bonds.

It would be better to derail
now rather than plunge California into a bottomless money pit that
would once again make it a global laughingstock.

Article 3

Link: UPDATE 2-JR Tokai targets Florida bullet train deal | Reuters

UPDATE 2-JR Tokai targets Florida bullet train deal
Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:14am EST

By Nobuhiro Kubo,

TOKYO, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Central Japan Railway Co (JR Tokai) (9022.T) will join rivals in competing to develop a high-speed railway line in the U.S. state of Florida, as the former state-owned firm looks to sell its super-fast train systems overseas.

A consulting firm hired by the company said a railway line connecting Tampa, Orlando and Miami in Florida was one of the most promising targets for its Shinkansen bullet trains as the route would be exclusively used by high-speed trains.

"I expect competition for the contract to be fierce in Florida. We will be the last to join the bidding," JR Tokai's Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai told a news conference. "But I believe our Japanese system will be the most suitable for the line."

Kasai did not say which other firms were competing for deal, although JR Tokai's global rivals include Canada's Bombardier (BBDb.TO), Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE) and France's Alstom (ALSO.PA).

U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail, the consulting firm working for JR Tokai, also said that lines between Las Vegas and Los Angeles could be candidates for the company's products.

The world's $165 billion rail market is expected to grow by 2.0-2.5 percent a year until 2016, according to European Rail Industry trade group UNIFE.

The United States' railway market is typically viewed as one of the most promising as President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package includes an $8 billion provision for high-speed trains.

GOOD SAFETY RECORD

"The company's European rivals are competitive and have more experience in selling railway technology overseas," said Ryouta Himeno, transport analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities. "But the good reputation of JR Tokai's bullet trains in terms of safety and punctuality should work to their advantage."

JR Tokai operates Shinkansen bullet trains between Tokyo and Osaka, one of six regional railway operators that were set up after Japan's national railway was privatised in 1987. Shinkansen trains have not suffered any fatal accidents since they started operating in 1964.

The railway company is also keen to sell its know-how on so-called maglev trains, which levitate and are propelled forward by magnetic force. It has already put in motion a 5 trillion yen project to build a maglev railway connecting Tokyo and Nagoya.

JR Tokai said it sees lines between Baltimore and Washington, as well as from Chattanooga to Atlanta as potential candidates for this technology, which allows trains to travel at 500 kilometres per hour, nearly twice as fast as normal Shinkansen.

Shares of JR Tokai, which replaced Japan Airlines Corp (9205.T) on the Nikkei Average after JAL last week filed for bankruptcy, rose 0.9 percent, while the the Nikkei Average was down 0.7 percent. (Reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo, Editing by Joseph Radford)