Regional Connector Transit Corridor (Source: metro.net/projects/connector)

Metro | projects | Regional Connector Transit Corridor

Overview

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is conducting an environmental review of the Regional Connector Transit Corridor, a project that, if built, creates an almost 2-mile transit link between the Metro Gold and Metro Blue Line light rail transit (LRT) systems through downtown Los Angeles.

This Regional Connector will connect the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and the Metro Expo Line, which is currently under construction and will link Downtown to Culver City with other potential new light rail transit projects.

By providing continuous through service between these lines, the Regional Connector will improve access to both local and regional destinations – and help create a true transportation network for the region. The Regional Connector is slated to receive partial funding from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase approved by voters in November 2008.

Benefits

Benefits of the Regional Connector

• The Regional Connector benefits the entire Los Angeles County region — not just Downtown.
• The Regional Connector will enhance Metro Rail service by providing one continuous trip between the Pasadena Metro Gold Line and Metro Blue Line, and between the Metro Eastside Gold Line and Metro Expo Line.
• The Regional Connector will minimize the need for transfers, reducing one-way light rail trips across the County by 10 - 30 minutes or more.
• The Regional Connector will reduce station crowding, especially at peak hours.
• The Regional Connector will provide new access to Downtown attractions as well as regional destinations.
• The Regional Connector will increase regional mobility.

The Regional Connector will enable all Los Angeles County rail and bus transit, as well as all intercity transit service, to operate more efficiently and attract higher ridership, thus reducing roadway congestion, improving regional air quality and reducing the region’s carbon footprint.

Project Area

The project area encompasses approximately two square miles of downtown Los Angeles and includes the communities of Little Tokyo, the Arts District, the Historic Core, the Toy District, Bunker Hill, the Financial District, the Jewelry District, and the Civic Center

Study of Underground Regional Connector Passes Metro Committee (Source: blogdowntown.com)

Study of Underground Regional Connector Passes Metro Committee :: blogdowntown

Study of Underground Regional Connector Passes Metro Committee
By Eric Richardson
Published: Thursday, February 18, 2010, at 03:30PM

Regional Connector Render: 2nd Street Looking West Metro

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — An underground option for the proposed Regional Connector light rail link was approved for further study by Metro's Planning and Programming committee today, but project team members warned that savings would need to be found to keep the project within the original $700 - $900 million budget.

That could mean that the line ends up with one less station than was initially planned. The project currently has stops proposed at 5th and Flower, 2nd and Hope, 2nd and Broadway and 1st and Alameda. Project staff did not specify which stop they would consider cutting.

Metro staff said that the underground option could provide relief from operational issues built in to the other two options. Those issues include tight curves and traffic impacts.

The underground alignment's inclusion got unanimous support from a long list of public speakers that included staff from the offices of Councilmembers Jan Perry and Jose Huizar and from Little Tokyo stakeholders.

Assuming the full Metro board adopts the committee action, all three alternatives will now move forward in the project's Alternatives Analysis document. That should be published by summer, at which time the preferred option will be chosen by the Metro board.

The Regional Connector would link the two pieces of the existing light rail network, bridging the gap between the 7th / Metro terminus used by the Blue and Expo lines with the Gold Line's Little Tokyo / Arts District station.

Little Tokyo underground station option added to DEIR (Source: //thesource.metro.net)

Link: The Source » Little Tokyo underground station option added to DEIR

Little Tokyo underground station option added to DEIR

Two Metro Board of Director committees voted on Thursday to add the study of an underground station in Little Tokyo to the draft environmental impact report for the regional downtown connector project.

To be clear: this doesn’t mean it’s getting built. Just that it will be studied.

The issue in a nutshell: Earlier plans for the connector called for it to cross Alameda Street at street level with Alameda being reworked to cross the tracks in a new underpass. That met a lot of community opposition in Little Tokyo, so Metro planners went back to the drawing board and came up with a way for the tracks to go underground on the east side of Alameda.

This means that the environmental study will consider a regional connector that would travel underground between 1st and Alameda and Metro Center at 7th and Figueroa. The study will also consider a street-level version of the connector. A decision on what will get built will come later in the process and ultimately be up to the Metro Board of Directors.

The cost of an underground station at Little Tokyo and moving the tunnel entrance east of Alameda is estimated to be $200 million. At the Board’s Planning Committee, Metro CEO Art Leahy encouraged staffers to try to find cost savings in the project to help pay for that station should it be the one to get built.

The full Board of Directors will consider adding the underground station to the DEIR at its meeting next Thursday. The Board often follows the lead of committees.

-- Steve Hymon

Foothill agreement delayed (Source: The Source)

Link: The Source » Foothill agreement delayed

Foothill agreement delayed

The Board of Director’s Measure R committee delayed voting until next month on an agreement with the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority over how to transfer funds between Metro and the Authority.

The Authority is a separate agency set up to build the first phase of the Foothill Extension between Pasadena and Azusa. Authority officials are unhappy because they are gunning for a June groundbreaking on the project and say that’s in jeopardy without an agreement.

Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky said he just got the agreement on Wednesday. “There are a lot of unanswered questions in this report,” he said, specifically mentioning the issue of whether the agreement commits Metro to spending money on phase 2b of the Foothill Extension from Azusa to Montclair. Phase 2a is a Measure R project but Phase 2b is not.

Committee chair and Board Member Pam O’Connor said that she didn’t even know the item was going to be on the agenda. Meanwhile, Metro CEO Art Leahy told the committee that a delay wouldn’t impact the project and that the issues could be worked out.

Foothill Construction Authority CEO Habib Balian said afterward that a delay could mean pushing the groundbreaking on the project from June to July. The first structure to be built is a bridge in Arcadia that takes tracks from the middle of the 210 to south of the freeway and he can’t solicit bids from construction firms without an agreement in place.

This is all a long way of saying that the item will be back for the committee to review in March.

One other thought on politics. The reason this is important is that San Gabriel Valley officials have fought for many years for the Foohill Extension. Metro is currently going to Washington to secure federal funds for a number of transit projects. Squabbling in L.A. County over this project — which some members of Congress are closely watching — or any other project ikely won’t help in Washington.


-- Steve Hymon

Mayor’s 30/10 Plan for Measure R Transit Projects Explained (Source: Streetsblog Los Angeles)

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Mayor’s 30/10 Plan for Measure R Transit Projects Explained

Mayor’s 30/10 Plan for Measure R Transit Projects Explained

by Damien Newton on February 17, 2010


Joel Epstein, a communications and public policy expert who writes at the Huffington Post, has written a column on the need for Los Angeles to get behind the "30/10" plan proposed by Move L.A. and backed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to accelerate the Measure R transit projects so that all of them are completed in the next decade. For those of us that have never completely grasped how the Mayor was going to pull off spending thirty years worth of revenue twenty years before it was completely collected, Epstein breaks down a daunting laundry list of all the policy changes that would be needed to achieve Move L.A. and the Mayor's goals.

Move LA has a laundry list of important encore projects it will need to achieve if it wants to see the benefits of the Mayor's 30/10 initiative realized. These include a national infrastructure bank committed to supporting mass transit projects like the Subway to the Sea, enhanced Federal funding for regional mass transit projects through the Federal transportation re-authorization bill, a set of guidelines for public private partnerships for mass transit development; and a State constitutional amendment that enables agencies like Metro to seek voter approval of new taxes for mass transit by a 55 percent vote rather than a two thirds majority of the electorate.

The bad news is that a lot of the policy changes that Villaraigosa would like to see are outside of his powers as the chief executive for Los Angeles. The good news? A lot of those changes can occur with a new Federal Transportation Bill that focuses on transit expansion more than highway expansion and two of the people that can make those changes happen are going to be in town this Friday.

Valley counties vie for bullet train maintenance station (Source: The Fresno Bee)

Link, click here.

Valley counties vie for bullet train maintenance station

By Tim Sheehan, The Fresno Bee, Calif.

Feb. 15--With at least 1,500 jobs -- and perhaps thousands more -- at stake, a maintenance station for California's proposed high-speed rail system is the object of increasingly intense competition among central San Joaquin Valley communities.

Up and down the Valley -- in counties where the economy has been derailed by high unemployment, real-estate woes and farm-water shortages -- 13 sites are being pitched to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Only one can be home to a "heavy maintenance facility" where the futuristic bullet trains would be outfitted, tested, repaired and stored.

"This is an economic game-changer," Fresno County Supervisor Henry Perea said. "This will be the biggest economic development project this county has seen in the last 40 or 50 years."

A 2008 economic study estimated that $6 billion to $16 billion would be spent in the San Joaquin Valley to build the high-speed train system.

Perea and officials from Atwater to Bakersfield say that investment and jobs at the maintenance facility can go a long way in helping counties diversify their labor forces beyond an agricultural base.

"No matter where it goes, the economic engine it creates will be significant," said Ronald Brummett, executive director of the Kern County Council of Governments.

"This will span all stratas of employment, everything from janitorial all the way to computer technicians," Brummett added. "There will be blue-collar jobs, white-collar jobs, and some very technical jobs -- the entire gamut of people."

So far, a $45 billion system of bullet trains that can speed passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in just 21/2 hours remains firmly on the drawing board.

But a recent $2.25 billion injection of federal stimulus money for California's high-speed rail plans, combined with the $9 billion or so approved when voters passed Proposition 1A in 2008, are giving officials more reason than ever to believe the 220-mph dream will come true.

"It's coming," Perea said. "The very first thing that's going to be built is this maintenance facility ... and the competition is on."

The heavy maintenance facility would support operations on the Merced-to-Bakersfield section of the high-speed line, part of the first phase of the system between San Francisco and Los Angeles/Anaheim. Smaller terminal maintenance and storage facilities are being planned near San Francisco and Los Angeles for first-phase operations.

California's application for the federal stimulus money earmarked the largest chunk of money for the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim run. The Southern California segment has a great deal of financial support and is well along in the planning and approval processes.

But the rail authority's latest business plan indicates that the Valley stretch of the system -- the only area where the trains can reach their top speed -- would become operational for paid passenger service in 2019, perhaps six months ahead of the rest of the first phase.

Later segments of the system will stretch north from Merced to Sacramento and south from Los Angeles to San Diego through San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Proposed locations

Fresno County is putting its weight -- and $25 million in Measure C transportation funds -- behind a site south of Fresno in the high-speed rail corridor that parallels the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line.

While Fresno officials are confident about their chances, so are backers of other sites.

Three have been proposed in Merced County, including one at the former Castle Air Force Base near Atwater. In Madera County, where several prospective routes remain in consideration for the high-speed trains, Madera County officials are pitching five sites, mostly clustered near Chowchilla.

The Kings County Economic Development Corporation has proposed a site just southeast of Hanford, while property near the rural Tulare County town of Allensworth has been suggested by a developer.

In Kern County, two sites have been proposed -- one near Wasco, the other near Shafter.

Not only are the project's 1,500 or so jobs coveted, so too are the economic ripples as more people have more money to spend in a community. In its proposal, Fresno County estimates the annual payroll at the maintenance station at more than $110 million.

"We feel very strongly that these jobs will be relatively high-paying, on a par with a good manufacturer," said Jay Salyer, economic development manager for the Kings County Economic Development Corporation. "We think it will boost the education level and boost consumerism, and hopefully we'll be able to get our housing started up again around here."

There are potentially thousands more jobs expected from related industries to support maintenance operations -- as many as 5,000 jobs within five years.

"The facility itself will bring a lot of jobs, but that's not the whole story," said Tom Skinner of Valley Planning Consultants, working for the city of Chowchilla. "It's the engine that's going to run all those small businesses that will gravitate around it."

"Everything that train will use -- from toilet paper to wires to windows and seats -- will all be replaced or repaired here," Skinner added. "Suppliers will want to be near it ... rather than shipping from the Bay Area or Los Angeles."

Other officials have even more ambitious hopes. As California aims to take the lead in high-speed rail in the U.S., some backers see the potential for the train-builder itself to build a factory near the maintenance hub rather than ship equipment overseas.

Companies from countries where high-speed trains already run -- Japan, Korea, France and Germany, among others -- are likely to compete for the contract to build California's trains. "We want to create partnerships with those players to manufacture the trains here," Perea said.

All told, with jobs from the maintenance station and related industries, Perea said the total payroll effects could be more than $200 million a year.

When will it happen?

It's unclear how soon such economic benefits could be realized. The California High-Speed Rail Authority offered no firm goal for when the maintenance hub would be operational.

Seeking site proposals from the Valley was the start of an elaborate evaluation process, said Medhi Morshed, the authority's executive director.

"No final selection of maintenance facility sites will be made until the completion of the environmental review process, which at the earliest will be next year," Morshed said.

But the authority's business plan indicates that construction could start sometime in 2012. For the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment of the rail system, nearly $900 million is programmed for buildings and structures in 2012 and 2013. In addition to touting the advantages of their sites, many of the proposals include economic lollipops dangled in front of the rail authority.

In Fresno County, it's $25 million from the county's half-cent sales tax for transportation projects. "The one thing we have that no other jurisdiction has is Measure C," Perea said.

Perea said that money is being offered to the rail authority to use for land acquisition, infrastructure or construction.

Perea said Fresno County's other advantages are its location at the north end of the 110-mile stretch to Bakersfield that will serve as a test track for the electrified rail system; and its ability to draw an ample labor force from Fresno and neighboring counties.

One of the five proposals in Madera County comes with an offer of free land.

And officials in Merced County aren't putting up cash, but they are offering the rail authority a long-term lease at $1 a year at the Castle Commerce Center -- the former Castle Air Force Base.

"We believe that will save the authority a ton of money," said Dr. Lee Boese Jr., a dentist who co-chairs the Greater Merced High-Speed Rail Committee.

Both the Castle site and a second site near Highway 99 and Mission Avenue south of Merced have ample room for industrial development.

But Boese said Castle has the advantage of extensive environmental study because of its past use by the U.S. Air Force.

"This thing is going to be a massive industrial structure, and we couldn't think of anyplace else in Merced to put something that's going to be as loud and as dirty as this," Boese said. "Whichever site gets its environmental clearances done first is where [the rail authority] is going to spend its money."

Other areas don't have cash or land, but are pitching redevelopment or enterprise zones that could help offset the cost of property improvements such as roads, water lines or storm drains.

A unified front

Another thing that both Fresno and Merced counties say they have going for them is unity of purpose within their communities.

"The more together we are on this, the better chance we have," Perea said in a presentation last week to the board of the Greater Fresno Chamber of Commerce.

Steve Geil, president of the Fresno County Economic Development Corporation, said recently that he's never seen Fresno County agencies so unified behind one project.

"We're not going to let what happened with UC Merced happen this time," Geil said, referring to the perception that local disharmony contributed to the state's decision 15 years ago to put a new University of California campus in Merced County instead of Fresno County.

It's something that Merced officials are mindful of, too.

"I think we learned a lot [from the UC selection process]," Merced Mayor Bill Spriggs said. "It was all about the site, it was never about competing with the other sites."

"This is a similar situation," he added. "We're not going to concern ourselves with what the other sites are up and down the Valley. We have two very viable sites with significant attributes, and we'll focus on selling the attributes of those sites."

The reporter can be reached at tsheehan@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6319.

Moving LA: There's a Train a Comin' (Source: Huffington Post)

Link: Joel Epstein: Moving LA: There's a Train a Comin'

Moving LA: There's a Train a Comin'


Nothing good, or bad, lasts forever. Which is why we're seeing Toyota, whose reputation had long been for quality, torn down by a widespread recall. Over 4 million cars and trucks at last count. If this keeps up we'll soon be confusing Toyota with GM and Detroit with Tokyo.

It's times like this that as a fan of John Updike and his brilliant American family saga about Harry Angstrom I feel adrift. Without the great writer around I don't know whether Toyota the company will weather the storm or like Toyota the dealership that made Rabbit rich go down in flames under the tutelage of the new generation. I'm like a tourist in LA without a Metro bus map.

Will the Harvard Business School case study-worthy company bring back its customer base with fire sale prices on the superior, fuel efficient cars Toyota became known for, or is the company's condition fatal? As someone who will need to buy another car in ten or fifteen years I'm saddened by the prospect that Toyota's demise would leave the consumer that much poorer. With fewer reliable models to choose from and the greatest thorn in the side of a still poorly performing Motown gone from the scene, we'd all be goners.

Of course, like the fortunes of Toyota's leaders guilty of hubris, ideas change too and that can be a good thing. Take for example Los Angeles and its attitude toward mass transit. In November 2008 the City and County, known for decades as a great big freeway in an unassailable romance with the car, approved a half cent sales tax to pay for long overdue mass transit improvements. Move LA, a smart coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups, actually came together and worked to convince 68 percent of the electorate to open up the spigot on $40 billion in transit funding. Measure R, which will provide the transit funds over a thirty year period, shows that even Angelenos have come to realize that the always packed freeways have become a powerful octopus slowly tightening its unforgiving grip around the heart of this city.

Mass transit, as the voters proclaimed in passing Measure R, has to be expanded if we ever want to leave the house after breakfast and get home from work before the kids have logged off Facebook and put themselves to bed.

And it's not just a new tax for mass transit that says Angelenos have had it with the traffic. Just look at the explosion in the number of locals riding bikes, motorcycles and scooters that can weave between the stagnant flow, the growth in telecommuting at least part time and the number of people moving closer to work or, if they own the store, moving work closer to home.

As anyone who leaves his or her crib before sunrise to commute to work can tell you, LA's traffic hurts more than just the commuter. In a big city like this economic prosperity, never easy to achieve but especially hard to find in recessionary times like now, goes hand in hand with mass transit. Trains and rapid buses help get workers to their jobs as quickly and efficiently as possible or at least on time.

Just talk to the thousands of business owners, large and small, who know they are losing their competitive edge, as their hard working employees look for work closer to home or in less traffic clogged cities, and clients opt for less logistically challenged suppliers.

With Measure R passed, as tempting as it is to kick back and wait for the train to come, the hard work has only just begun. Now we actually have to build the dozen train lines and other transit improvements that Measure R funds are earmarked for. And perhaps most importantly, we have to accelerate the process - 30/10 as the Mayor's dubbed it - to complete within 10 years the transit system LA needs today not three decades from now.

The campaign for 30/10 will need volunteers and dedicated activists, concerned citizens who get involved; motivated by their exasperating experience commuting in this endless suburb of a city.

It will take people like C, a Masters graduate student in City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley concentrating in transportation who wrote me following my last blog about how he wants to do something about mass transit in his hometown; or M, who describes himself as one of those who for now waits patiently on the Metro 761 bus but is up for the fight to get a train or rapid busway built through the Sepulveda Pass; or K, who works in reality TV and has to drive the dreaded 101 through the San Fernando Valley instead of riding a comfortable train back and forth to work.

Move LA has a laundry list of important encore projects it will need to achieve if it wants to see the benefits of the Mayor's 30/10 initiative realized. These include a national infrastructure bank committed to supporting mass transit projects like the Subway to the Sea, enhanced Federal funding for regional mass transit projects through the Federal transportation re-authorization bill, a set of guidelines for public private partnerships for mass transit development; and a State constitutional amendment that enables agencies like Metro to seek voter approval of new taxes for mass transit by a 55 percent vote rather than a two thirds majority of the electorate.

A comprehensive mass transit system for Los Angeles constructed within a decade will help the region address its crushing traffic problems and will be an economic lifeline to the poor, middle class, and rich alike who try to live and work here.

If you like living here, it's time to join with the chorus in working for the train a comin'. Together we can move LA.

To read more of Joel Epstein's excellent articles, please click on the following link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein

Supervisor won't drop his call for MTA audit (Source: LA Daily News)

Link: Supervisor won't drop his call for MTA audit - LA Daily News

Supervisor won't drop his call for MTA audit
INVESTIGATION: Ridley-Thomas going it alone on request.
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Updated: 02/10/2010 08:42:34 PM PST

Undeterred by his failure to authorize an audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's legal costs, county Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas said Wednesday he plans to ask the agency's own board to investigate the issue.

Ridley-Thomas had authored a motion Tuesday for the Board of Supervisors to approve an audit of Metro's legal costs, which include $30 million spent on a Red Line contractor lawsuit. His proposal died, however, when none of the other supervisors would second his motion so it could be brought to a vote.

Several supervisors said they believe the county will eventually win the Red Line case, even though an earlier judgment in favor of Metro was overturned on appeal. All five supervisors are Metro board members.

Ridley-Thomas now plans to introduce a similar motion directly to the Metro board later this month.

"It's hard to understand how such a significant amount of money could be expended without proper oversight and controls," Ridley-Thomas said. "It's clear that these controls were not in place and they should be. The MTA is responsible for the prudent management of our scarce resources."

According to Ridley-Thomas, the Metro board did not authorize about a third of the $30 million spent litigating the case.

The joint venture Tutor-Saliba-Perini sued Metro in 1995 to recover $16 million in change orders denied by the transit agency in its contract to build three Red Line stations and corridors along Wilshire Boulevard.

Metro countersued in 1999 claiming violations of the false claims act. After a two-month jury trial, a judge terminated the trial, saying Tutor-Saliba had failed to turn over crucial documents. The jury awarded $30 million in damages, which grew to $63 million with other costs and attorneys fees. In 2005, the state Court of Appeal overturned the jury award to the MTA.

During Tuesday's hearing, Eric Shabsis, a spokesman for the newly formed Taxpayers for Integrity in Government, said his organization is concerned about what appears to be a lack of controls in Metro's legal costs.

"Metro needs to get a handle on this serious problem and the wasting of millions of taxpayer dollars," Shabsis said. "It is clear that an independent audit is the only solution and the best way to shine a light on Metro's wasting money on lawsuits and a culture of dragging out lawsuits for years. Metro cannot afford such lavish and excessive legal fees."

Assistant County Counsel Charles Safer, who handles Metro litigation, did not return calls for comment.

During the hearing, several of the supervisors told Shabsis and other speakers that Metro could win $63 million in the Red Line case - money that could be used on other transportation projects.

"Does it at all bother you that it's possible the MTA was defrauded?" Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky asked.

Supervisor Gloria Molina said Metro had no choice to litigate the lawsuit for 15 years because "you can't let somebody kick you around."

Metro CEO Art Leahy Talks Budget, Operations, Capital Projects (Source: www.planningreport.com)

Link: The Planning Report - Metro CEO Art Leahy Talks Budget, Operations, Capital Projects

Metro CEO Art Leahy Talks Budget, Operations, Capital Projects

Art Leahy spoke to the Westside Urban Forum about traffic issues on the Westside, as well as the regional issues affecting Metro’s management and operations strategy.

Having taken on the job after Los Angeles County voters approved the Measure R half-cent sales tax and during the worst recession since the great depression, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Art Leahy’s tenure has been one of feast and famine thus far. Heading into 2010 with serious budgetary issues looming and major capital projects ready to begin construction, Leahy recently spoke at the Westside Urban Forum about the current state of investment and planning for the transportation system for the region and the notoriously congested Westside. David Abel moderated the discussion, excerpted here by TPR/MIR.

Measure R is Metro’s big-ticket item—a promise of $30 billion over 30 years. What might the Westside reasonably expect in congestion relief from Measure R investments?

It’s a wonderful opportunity for Los Angeles. I worked in Orange County the last eight years, and I had a great time there. We had great projects going; we had consensus and alignment. The reason I came to MTA is because of the wonderful opportunity to contribute to one of the biggest, most important urban areas on the planet. Measure R is part of that. It delivers large sums of money for a big raft if projects: the 405, the subway, and other projects. There’s a lot that we’re doing now to mobilize the MTA and the private sector toward those projects. At the same time, the situation is complicated by the recession, by significant reductions in the sales tax, by the state influence on transit operations, and by uncertainty. As always, there are opportunities and challenges, but right now we are moving forward in the initial stages on all the projects that the measure covers.

Talk a little bit about the projects included in Measure R that affect the people in this Westside Forum room.

The base that we’re building on is the Red Line and the Purple Line subway. That will be extended out to Westwood. We have the Gold Line up into Pasadena. The Expo Line is under construction right now. We just opened up the Eastside extension. Expo will be extended out to Culver City in the future. We just got the board to approve a light rail option for Crenshaw... There are really some wonderful opportunities.

The dialogue in Los Angeles is very different than even in the mid-’80s. I grew up in the city of L.A. On the Westside it’s been kind of a big village for a long time. My father was from New York and in the 50s he would say we should move from to L.A. if it ever gets like New York. Well it’s not. But in the national consciousness it is. It’s a big city on a worldwide scale. That’s now recognized. People are now competing for transit dollars for projects, that’s a very different scenario than we had in the mid-’80s.

You have said that what’s missing in Measure R is psychological counseling to deal with regions’ and sub-regions’ competitive spirit over this money. Elaborate a little bit about the difficulty of scarcely allocated tax dollars in a county with 4,000 square miles.

There is a well-developed sense of victimhood all over the place—for people in the San Gabriel Valley, southeast L.A., West L.A., and the San Fernando Valley. Everybody feels like Measure R shorts them. That leads to contentiousness and rivalry. I understand that everybody wants their project first. Where it becomes destructive is if we have contests and rivalries in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento. That really compounds problems. Success in Washington can lead to projects all over the county. To the degree that we hurt each other and then it ends up in Washington, we increase competition for Measure R dollars...

If we can create a coalition of business and all the sub-regions in Los Angeles County, we would have a very powerful voice in Washington, D.C. Now is a really good time: We have a couple of very supportive senators, the speaker of the House, and important members from Los Angeles County. If we don’t work together to back there and get grants for Los Angeles, we are really making a serious mistake. We should learn to be much more collaborative and cooperative—San Gabriel Valley, San Fernando, the Westside, the harbor, the southeast L.A. County area. If we can do that, we can really have a powerful impact.

There’s been an effort at play here to try using financial wisdom in our ranks to get the 30 years of revenue and forward it 10 years so we can put things into the ground and fund them. Talk a little bit about that plan and where it stands.

It’s initially from the Mayor of Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa. The underlying emotion is that we should treat Measure R as an economic stimulus package. Moreover, we should tell Washington that there is no national recovery without a California recovery and there is no California recovery without a Los Angeles recovery. So the idea is if we can get low or no interest loans of some kind from Washington, D.C., we could then accelerate Measure R projects, trying to get them done in 10 years—the idea being that we achieve the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions, congestion reduction, all the associated health benefits, and we create jobs in a shorter period of time.

The MTA Board has not endorsed that; I expect them to discuss it in the next month or so. But it’s kind of exciting; it really is big thinking like New York would do. We need to go back there and talk about big projects and big concepts. We need to tell the delegation on behalf of Southern California to do these types of things. The MTA is preparing for the potential that this might be successful. Right now we have a number of projects in early project development, environmental clearances and the like, and we are assuming that there might be an acceleration. If not, that’s okay, the work is important anyhow.

The message is about a lot more than rail. What are the other things you’re doing related to congestion on the Westside?

There’s the 405 widening that’s just started. We started that project somewhat at risk because of the state budget situation; it’s a very serious problem. We had about $180 million of stimulus money on that project so we wanted to start the project so we wouldn’t lose those federal dollars. We’re well underway, by the end of this year we need to try to make sure the state is up on their obligation to funding the remainder project. We’re also working on a project that’s not quite so immediately on the Westside, which is introducing congestion pricing in HOV lanes on the Harbor Freeway and out on the San Bernardino Freeway.

The rap on the work on the 405 is that nobody will be able to get from the North Valley to the Westside for about 20 years now? What is the challenge, why is there gridlock?

West L.A. is extraordinarily busy; there are a lot of cars on the 405, as we all know. It’s tough out there. It’s going to be very difficult—we will probably never build another freeway in Los Angeles. This widening on the 405 may be the last project on the 405. We will not be able to stay mobile if we rely exclusively on freeways and cars, as you all know.

We’re talking about the promise and hope for each of the new projects. The nitty gritty is operations. Talk a little bit about the challenge of operations in light of the projects being discussed that will create new burdens of operations. How do you find the operating ability to actually deliver?

We may be through with the consent decree and the lawsuit from ten years ago by the bus riders union. Their basic thesis is that our bus service is inadequate because of a conclusion by faulty analysis, which excludes from the discussion about transit the rail service that we now offer, none of which existed 20 years ago. They exclude all the lines that we’re building in the future; they exclude Metrolink. So the analysis is defective.

In addition to that, over the past 20 years the municipal carriers, such as LADOT, have increased their service by more than four times. When you add those to the stock of services you get a very different picture. Actually ridership on MTA buses is down a third from what it was 20 years ago. That’s not because they did something wrong, it’s because LADOT grew, Foothill grew, and overall the rail systems grew. So we have a very different situation. At the same time we are running more bus service than 20 years ago.

The real negative impact of the consent decree is we have an operations staff that thinks in terms of moral service; they think in terms of quantity not quality. I am trying to refocus on the basics—an on-time bus that is clean with a courteous operator. We need to do a better job of that. We can find some deficiencies in the bus system that will help us deal with some of the budget problems. We can do so while consistently offering better service.

Metro’s budget is a roadmap to the challenges you and the board have. As you grapple with Metro’s budget, what are the underfunded project operation costs at Metro to which Westsiders must pay careful attention?

Measure R is a good thing. The bad thing is that sales tax is down and the state’s funding for transit operations largely goes down because of job loss, and therefore revenue is down. Those are all serious problems. In the context of SB 375, which links project approvals with regional transit services, the state has added policy while they defunded transit operations. That really tightens the problem that we have in the coming year. We are talking with the board about how we deal rationally with a very serious budget problem that is going to be millions of dollars—very large sums of money.

What’s the nexus between land use, transportation, and this new state effort to link them—SB 375? The Westside has always been interested in the relationship between land use and transportation, but what is expected on the ground?

We’re kind of into new territory here, so I’m not sure anybody know exactly how it’s going to work. The state requires sub-regions, there’s about nine of them in Los Angeles County, and there are 14 in the SCAG region, to come up with a series of plans for how they are going to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions and how they are going to link transit services with development. The MTA doesn’t have a statutory role in that process. But what we’ve done is offer to meet with SCAG, the AQMD, and all the subregions, so we can sit down and go through what are each of them doing, the specific plans: Are they aware of what MTA is doing? Are we sufficiently integrating SCAG and the subdivisions and the MTA and the AQMD? That process is just starting now. A few years from now, if we haven’t made some progress, I’m worried that in fact there might be some penalties, so I think it’s very important for us to try to figure out what it means. No one will argue that we should reduce greenhouse gases, but how we do it, how we measure it, and what steps we take, especially given the difficult budget situation, are going to be important questions.

There seems to be a new budget crisis in the state of California. I don’t know what the source of the problem is or how big the problem is, but they want to take your money. Talk a little bit about that.

There was lawsuit a few months ago that resulted in a decision that that money is dedicated to transportation. The governor has a proposal that would change the way things work so that he could nullify that lawsuit. At the same time the state is delaying the Prop 1B bonds that were approved in 2006, which includes money for the 405, Expo, and a lot of other projects. We don’t know when they’re going to sell those bonds. So we are stalling on many major capital projects. We’re losing out on $75-100 million dollars next year in operating funds. That means that we will have a serious problem keeping the transit system operating at its current level even with Measure R.

What does it mean to operation to lose that amount of funding?

It means we are going to have a hard time paying for the current system. We are going to be facing some tough choices between how fast we deliver capital projects, how much bus service we offer, and how we manage the bus system. I don’t mean, at all, to offer a picture of gloom and doom. What I am saying is that if we manage better and manage our resources better, we can do a better job and at the same time confront some of the financial challenges.

Lastly, the MTA just adopted a long-range plan. What does it mean for these people here?

That means we have a board-approved long-range transportation plan, which creates a multi-decade roadmap, for which projects are approved, planned, and sequenced. So, for example, the Gold Line with assistance from Measure R is the first project. The deal for that will be the Expo Line and the subway extension.

The Long Range Transportation Plan creates a business plan for Metro to establish what projects are approved, in what order, and on what order of magnitude. The Long Range Transportation Plan becomes the fundamental basis for SCAG to approve their regional plans and it becomes the basis for our outreach in Washington D.C. It allows us to go back to Washington and say that we have a board-approved plan that includes the subway, for example, and the Downtown Connector. The first thing they are gong to ask in Washnigton, D.C., is, “Do you have consensus?” We now have that. For the first time in six or seven years we have a basis for making the case for funding.

Roundup of articles on high-speed rail

Article 1

Link: The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - Korea, California Sign MOU for High-Speed Railway

Korea, California Sign MOU for High-Speed Railway

The Korean government signed a memorandum of understanding with the California state government on Thursday promising continuous cooperation in construction efforts of a high-speed railway system.

The signing took place in the state capital, Sacramento, between Choi Jang-hyun, vice minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and California High-Speed Rail Authority board member Quentin Kopp.

The MOU will allow information sharing between the two governments on the state's passenger rail service, which was granted $2.2 billion to $5 billion in investment from the federal government's $8 billion mass transit program.

The Californian project is anticipated to shorten travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles to as little as two and a half hours from the current driving time of around six hours.

Backed by Korea's high technology in the field since the construction of its own high-speed railway, Korea Train eXpress (KTX), in 2004, the Korean government says it will put utmost efforts into winning the construction deal and prove its competitiveness by providing quality maintenance services.

In response, the California High-Speed Rail Authority said that the U.S. is aware of Korea's outstanding economic success and hopes that the railway project will further strengthen ties between the two countries.
Arirang News / Feb. 16, 2010 10:53 KST

Article 2

Link: High Speed Trains in US to be Slower Than Those in Europe, Asia | American Life | English

High Speed Trains in US to be Slower Than Those in Europe, Asia

Zulima Palacio | Washington 15 February 2010
The fastest train in the US, known as Acela, reaches speeds of 241 kilometers per hour and only operates between Washington, New York and Boston

The fastest train in the US, known as Acela, reaches speeds of 241 kilometers per hour and only operates between Washington, New York and Boston

Europe and Asia have enjoyed high speed passenger trains for years, but the United States has lagged behind, holding on to older and slower trains, except for one route between Washington, New York and Boston. But things are about to change. President Obama announced plans to develop high-speed rail corridors in the United States, dedicating an initial $8 billion dollars to begin the work. Producer Zulima Palacio looks into one of the largest US transportation projects in years. Debora Tate narrates.

A high-speed French train can reach 574 kilometers per hour, but the record was set a Japanese train with a speed of 581 kilometers per hour. China is also catching up.

Meanwhile in the U.S., the fastest train, known as Acela, reaches less than half those speeds (241 kilometers per hour) and only operates between Washington, New York and Boston.

Only half the trains in the U.S. can travel up to 170 kilometers per hour, but American trains are about to change, according to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

"The day will come when you can see travel between Los Angeles to San Francisco in under 3 hours going 220 miles per hour [354 kph]," said LaHood.

Construction of California's high-speed train could start in 2012. Experts say service may begin by 2020.

And conditions might be right for a high-speed American train. President Obama recently announced that $8 billion in stimulus funds would go to developing high-speed rail corridors.

The president presented the project as a vehicle for job creation.

John Risch is with the United Transportation Union, the largest union representing railroad workers in the United States.

"In California alone it is estimated that 160,000 construction jobs could be created just to build those two high speed rail corridors," said Risch.

The project will develop 13 corridors between heavily populated areas, but only the ones in California and Florida will be truly high speed because, says Amtrak's Steve Kulm, those states will be the only ones to build tracks exclusively for high speed trains.

"There is a difference between Europe and Asia and high speed here in America. In Europe and Asia they are dedicated tracks where only high-speed trains operate on. Here in America our passenger trains share tracks with slower freight trains," explained Kulm.

And most of the federal funds will go for improving infrastructure and service on slower trains. Kulm says Amtrak's Acela is already competing with the airlines.

"Before, between Washington and NY the passenger train only had about 20 percent of the market. Today, Amtrak has 61 percent of the market compared to air flights. Same thing happens in the north part of the corridor between NY and Boston," added Kulm

Environmental groups have applauded the project. Howard Learner is executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, which advocates for the development of eco businesses.

"At a per-passenger-mile basis, rail is about three times as efficient as travel by car, in terms of fuel efficiency, and six times as efficient as travel by air, so there are pretty substantial pollution reduction benefits both in terms of greenhouse gases and other pollutants," noted Learner.

John Risch of the United Transportation Union says there are more benefits.

"Passenger trains are the safest form of transportation available with the exception of the elevator. Trains are fuel efficient, they relieve traffic and airport congestion and they also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making passenger trains the safer, cleaner, greener transportation option," said Risch.

Critics say $8 billion will start many small projects but won't finish them. Supporters of the plan say that, nevertheless, it will lay the foundation for a new kind of mass transportation in the United States.