LA to start studying north-south transit connections in the San Fernando Valley

Link: LA to start studying north-south transit connections in the San Fernando Valley « Be A Green Commuter Home

LA to start studying north-south transit connections in the San Fernando Valley

April 12th, 2010 by Sirinya Tritipeskul


It’s always good to hear that LA is making good on its promises.

On Friday, LAist reported that the Los Angeles City Council approved a directive to begin studying options for improving north-south transit options in the San Fernando Valley. These options include a busway on Van Nuys Boulevard and extending rail service from the North Hollywood Red Line station to the Northeast Valley.

According to the Long Range Transportation Plan, this project is slated for completion by the year 2018.

There will be scoping and public outreach, so I look forward to asking how this might lower travel time for our Valley commuters. I’m also looking forward to stressing the importance of improving travel times and connections to the Westside from the Valley.

Even though an I-405 Sepulveda Pass rapid transit way is not slated to open until the late 2030s under the Long Range Transportation Plan, it does need a little bit of love.

Ken Alpern of CityWatchLA reminded me of this this need today (The Elusive 405 Corridor Rail Line, CityWatch, Vol 8 Issue 28 Pub: Apr 9, 2010), as he noted there isn’t presently a grassroots advocacy group to shepherd such a project.

Effort under way to repeal high-speed rail bond measure (Source: San Jose Mercury News)

Link: Effort under way to repeal high-speed rail bond measure - San Jose Mercury News

Effort under way to repeal high-speed rail bond measure

By Mike Rosenberg
San Mateo County Times
Posted: 04/14/2010 06:15:16 PM PDT
Updated: 04/14/2010 11:09:34 PM PDT

Officials in five cities will consider whether to throw their weight behind an effort to ask California voters to repeal the bond measure that launched the high-speed rail project.

Such an endeavor would be difficult and time-consuming, and local officials and residents should instead strive to make sure the project is done right, rather than not at all, said Menlo Park Mayor Rich Cline, who heads the group that will consider the idea.

Cline agreed to place the item on the agenda for the Friday meeting of the Peninsula Cities Consortium, which also includes the mayors of Burlingame, Belmont and Palo Alto, and an Atherton councilman. The cities formed the consortium one year ago to unify their high-speed-rail concerns.

Cline said he has noticed a small increase in the number of local residents who want to try to repeal Proposition 1A, the $9.95 billion high-speed-train bond approved in November 2008 with 52.7 percent of the vote. He received a letter from Menlo Park resident Morris Brown asking for the consortium to discuss whether to form a subcommittee that would consider trying to change or repeal Proposition 1A.

"There's more people whispering about it," Cline said. "There's a growing group of people who feel they're not alone in their concern."

But he noted that in the year since the consortium was formed, none of the city leaders on the panel have asked the group to consider repealing Proposition 1A. Personally, although he is willing to allow his colleagues on the consortium to discuss the idea, Cline does not see the value in trying to nullify the bond.

"We have to continue to look at how to form this thing when it comes rather than look at ways to undermine it," said Cline, who was an opponent of Proposition 1A. "That's always been my position; I am respectful of elections."

It would be an uphill battle for a Proposition 1A appeal to reach the ballot.

It is too late to gather signatures for the measure to make the November election, and even an overwhelming Peninsula movement would require significant aid from across the state to gather enough signatures to make the next election, in 2012. Backers of a measure that would overturn a prior approved measure currently must get nearly 700,000 registered voters to sign their petition to make the ballot.

Brown, though, said he has been getting many e-mails since he broached the idea.

"We feel there's a lot of people upset with the way the project is going along," said Brown, who figured a signature-gathering campaign would cost $1 million. "I don't know how you start something like this. The idea is to at least take a look at it and see how much grass-roots support you could get for it. But it is daunting, to say the least."

It appears unlikely that the Legislature, which put Proposition 1A on the ballot, would ask residents to revote on a measure they already approved.

There is a bill in the Assembly, however, that, if approved, would essentially strip the high-speed train project of its Proposition 1A funding. AB 2121, by Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-San Juan Capistrano, is scheduled for its first hearing in the committee on transportation Monday.

Contact Mike Rosenberg at 650-348-4324.

Planner Calls For ‘Fight’ Against High-Speed Rail Sharing Track With Freight

Streetsblog Capitol Hill » Planner Calls For ‘Fight’ Against High-Speed Rail Sharing Track With Freight

Planner Calls For ‘Fight’ Against High-Speed Rail Sharing Track With Freight

by Elana Schor on April 12, 2010

As federal and local officials plot out the future of U.S. high-speed rail, a prominent speaker at this week's American Planning Association conference is urging fellow urban planners to "fight" the prospect of high-speed rail sharing roadbed with freight lines -- a significant dilemma for Amtrak, which must split an estimated 70 percent of its track with freight.

371487850_3908ba93fb_thumb_461x500.jpgAmtrak's Acela can feasibly top 100 miles per hour, but is often relegated to lower speeds by the need to share roadbed. (Photo: Flickr/pgengler)
Leslie Pollock, a principal at the Chicago-based firm Camiros, today outlined his high-speed rail presentation from the conference for reporters, focusing on two issues that he depicted as major obstacles to a successful domestic high-speed rail network.

Pollock noted that two of the three bullet train plans receiving the bulk of early federal funding -- California's and Florida's -- would build dedicated new track for high-speed service, while the midwest initiative would attempt to share track with freight companies.

"As soon as you begin to" rely on track where freight and passenger rail coexist, Pollock said, "you begin to slow down travel and start to create inefficiencies. Indeed, one of the problems underlying Amtrak for many years has been it that it has to operate at the pleasure of freight lines on its road bed."

The limiting effect of shared track on new high-speed service was felt most acutely in the northeast corridor between Washington and Boston, where Amtrak has acknowledged that trains are forced to share an "overcrowded, and often overwhelmed, track."

The northeastern area got just 1.4 percent of the first round of Obama administration high-speed grants, a move that prompted blowback from some Republicans but ultimately was acknowledged to be a consequence of local planning deficiencies and aging track.

The shared-tracking approach, according to Pollock, is a "challenge" that "you have to fight" -- and he outlined another problem facing high-speed rail planners: "Frankly, you have to fight political demand for stops, because everybody wants a station."

The location of stops along Florida's planned line has drawn particular criticism in recent days. A recent New York Times report identified weak links in the state rail system's connections with local Tampa and Orlando transit, as well as its failure to include the Tampa airport as a stop.

Despite his warning of the risk inherent in splitting track between passenger and freight rail, Pollock did highlight the value of an improved rail network in the northeast, one of the few areas in the nation where train travel times are competitive or more attractive than those for air trips.

The planner closed by emphasizing the importance of a long view in gauging the success of U.S. high-speed rail. "These things take time" to be integrated into the culture of travel, Pollock said, warning that five or ten years would be too short of a period to truly expect bullet trains to remake American infrastructure.

Bring Your Shovels to the Groundbreaking – It’s Official (Source: I Will Ride Blog)

LinkK: Bring Your Shovels to the Groundbreaking – It’s Official « I Will Ride Blog

Bring Your Shovels to the Groundbreaking – It’s Official
Posted by Albert

The Citrus College owl and Bob Davis knew this day was coming.

UPDATE: CHANGE IN GROUNDBREAKING DATE – to better accommodate the schedules of many San Gabriel Valley residents, the Authority has moved the groundbreaking to June 26, 2010 (previously on June 19). So save this date. Remember it. Leave post-it notes everywhere, as far as the eye can see. Write it on both palms on your hands. If you’re that forgetful, maybe key it onto the side of your car.

It’s going to be that big.

In what has been the biggest day for the San Gabriel Valley since the Long Range Transportation Plan was approved last October, the Metro Board of Directors unanimously voted yesterday to approve the funding and master cooperative agreements that would officially allow the Authority to move forward with the groundbreaking and construction of the Gold Line Foothill Extension this June. The effort to officially become the first Measure R light rail project to break ground may have seemed like an eternity for some folks, but the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority had been working with Metro staff through countless meetings in the past three months to hammer out these agreements. Great job to both sides.

The funding agreement sets in stone (or paper) the transfer of nearly $700 million from Metro (via Measure R tax revenue) to the Authority over a 10 year period towards the construction of Phase 2A (Pasadena to Azusa), and provides for an additional $110 million to be used in later years for Phase 2B (Azusa to Montclair). The master cooperative agreement basically sets the oversight rules between Metro and the Authority – since it is Metro that will be running the line after the Authority completes construction.

While there was a little bit of a tug of war between the two bodies to find the right level of review and approval over every aspect of the design and construction of the Extension, both sides were able to come to an agreement in the end that satisfied the needs of both agencies. Another significant aspect of this agreement is that, in addition to being applied to the Foothill Extension, it will serve as a framework for similar agreements in future transit projects throughout Los Angeles County.

Enough of this dry jibberish. What does this really mean?

The timely approval of these two agreements means that the Authority’s construction schedule… will be on schedule. There are currently six teams vying to win the design-build contract to begin construction of the Iconic Freeway Structure this summer, and four more teams turned in Statements of Qualifications earlier this week, looking to be pre-qualified to design, build and finance the Phase 2A Alignment work.

This also means that:

* thousands of construction workers (one of the worse hit job sectors) will be put back to work
* almost $1 billion in economic benefits will come to the region as a result of the construction
* thousands of non-construction jobs will be created as a result of the Extension
* in 2014, the cities of Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, and Azusa will be connected via light-rail to Metro’s rapidly-expanding transit network
* more San Gabriel Valley residents will be able to skip the 210 gridlock to and from work
* more San Gabriel Valley residents will have some extra change in their pockets
* and more! (if you can think of something, you’re probably right)

See you on June 19 June 26!