Great article on the history of West Hollywood. Please use link below. Thanks.
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/west-hollywood-at-27-how-the-town-of-sherman-became-weho.html
Friday, December 2, 2011
Rethinking Streets in Northeast Los Angeles; An new Comprehensive Approach to Transportation Planning
Source: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/12/02/rethinking-streets-in-northeast-los-angeles-an-new-comprehensive-approach-to-transportation-planning/
(Photos not shown on blog. Please go to original article for photos.)
by James Rojas on December 2, 2011
Nowhere else in LA area are individual street routes as important than in the Northeast. Because of the area’s hills there is no grid. Streets wind their way up hills and cut through valleys creating public space and connecting the community to places beyond.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
Sixteen Occidental College students are rethinking designs for York Boulevard in Highland Park and Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock as part of Urban and Environmental Policy Institute transportation class.
I facilitated a workshop to have the students to approach transportation planning from a non-traditional approach. Rather than ask the students the typical question. “How would you improve transportation on Colorado and York Boulevards?” I asked a different question.
Usually, the first question would have created answers such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, bus service, more parking or faster traffic speeds. These are all great but they fail to understand how people want to use the street as public space.
Instead we took a comprehensive approach to the street design. I asked the students how would they envision these streets in 50 years? From this point we can plan backwards and find create the right mobility and land use patterns for the streets.
By having the students investigate how they envision the role of streets in their lives in 50 years we received creative, innovated, in-depth comprehensive answers.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
The students sat at four tables with a sheet of colored construction paper. On a separate table was a pile of thousands of non-representational, materials. These materials were buttons, plastic parts of toys, Popsicle sticks, pipe cleaners, small fabric flowers and much more
The students were instructed to use the construction paper and materials to build a diorama of their ideal street in 50 years. I told the students that they were no wrong or right answers. The students had twenty minutes to finish this first task.
The students walked over to the table of objects and started searching for the apppropiate materials or in some cases by inspired by the materials. These colorful, tactile, objects triggered the student’s emotional connections to the environment. By seeing, seeking, and touching the objects the student’s emotions increased. This process mimicked how they experienced the city.
Once the participants secured their materials they began building. During this time I asked the students if they needed help and walked around the room. Some of the students wanted to create the right answer from the material covered in the class but the instructor and my self insisted we want their personal preferences on street use.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
After the twenty minutes they were gave a one-minute presentation to the group on their ideal street. They stated their name and explained their model. One minute was good time limit because it allowed for every one to participate and kept the pace of the exercise. The shy students were less intimidated as well.
The students used the models to present their ideas by pointing to objects on the construction paper. The materials used are random to force creative thinking and create an equal/non-judgmental playing field where participants of all backgrounds can create non-traditional spaces and learn from one another.
The connections between objects and what they represented were fascinating to hear as they maneuvered through their models.
Since the students interjected their own personal experiences, memories, and random thoughts of places real and imagined, this became the most interesting part of the process. It was powerful to watch the students explain with so much enthusiasm and conviction about their ideal street.
The student ideas varied. Each participant created his or her streets in his or her own terms. Some designs were ideal based. Some designs are specific, and literal.
Here is the list of the students’ concepts for their ideal street:
Mixed Use/Complete Street
Small Regional Plan
Public Space
TOD/Public Space/Complete Street
Parking Management/Mixed Use
Food on Streets
Better Corridor Design
Times Square/Streets for Entertainment
Better Neighborhood Street
Multi-use Neighborhood
Better Land Use Planning
Social Streets/Ped Friendly
Michigan Ave
Human Scale/Street Cars
Eco-lodge/Nature in the City
Before the models were dismantled which sadden the students, they were documented in photographs. This also led to next exercise where the students were placed in groups of to envision York, Colorado, and Occidental transportation. They students were tasked to bring together their best ideas to these places this was going to be done by each group discuss their ideas. They were given a twenty minutes to complete this activity.
When the time was nearly over everyone gathered around the three tables to hear design solutions for York, Colorado, and Occidental College. Each group introduced the team members and walked us through their solutions. Each location had a different set of physical challenges that each group had to deal with. After each presentation the floor was opened up for questions from other students.
Many of their ideas from the groups seemed to focus on land use patterns and social activies on the streets. They created green zones, mixed-use, and ped/bike friendly streets. They also seemed to create streets that were destinations where you could patronize local businesses, take advantage of a community garden or places to hang out with friends to sit, rest, or linger. Moving quickly through the streets was not a goal of the students, which would be for a transportation planner. The student’s ideas expressed a longing for a sense of community.
When some says they want a “nice street” that can mean many different things. This kind of exercise helps participants use specific adjectives and references which allows the facilitator(s) to understand the needs, desires and habits of individuals who live in a community. In this case, the Occidental College Students envisioned different streets than the Boulevards that currently cross Northeast Los Angeles. Their ides aren’t that different than advocacy efforts underway for North Figueroa Street by a group of community activists and businesses. Residents and students are ready for change, is Los Angeles?
(Photos not shown on blog. Please go to original article for photos.)
by James Rojas on December 2, 2011
Nowhere else in LA area are individual street routes as important than in the Northeast. Because of the area’s hills there is no grid. Streets wind their way up hills and cut through valleys creating public space and connecting the community to places beyond.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
Sixteen Occidental College students are rethinking designs for York Boulevard in Highland Park and Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock as part of Urban and Environmental Policy Institute transportation class.
I facilitated a workshop to have the students to approach transportation planning from a non-traditional approach. Rather than ask the students the typical question. “How would you improve transportation on Colorado and York Boulevards?” I asked a different question.
Usually, the first question would have created answers such as wider sidewalks, bike lanes, bus service, more parking or faster traffic speeds. These are all great but they fail to understand how people want to use the street as public space.
Instead we took a comprehensive approach to the street design. I asked the students how would they envision these streets in 50 years? From this point we can plan backwards and find create the right mobility and land use patterns for the streets.
By having the students investigate how they envision the role of streets in their lives in 50 years we received creative, innovated, in-depth comprehensive answers.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
The students sat at four tables with a sheet of colored construction paper. On a separate table was a pile of thousands of non-representational, materials. These materials were buttons, plastic parts of toys, Popsicle sticks, pipe cleaners, small fabric flowers and much more
The students were instructed to use the construction paper and materials to build a diorama of their ideal street in 50 years. I told the students that they were no wrong or right answers. The students had twenty minutes to finish this first task.
The students walked over to the table of objects and started searching for the apppropiate materials or in some cases by inspired by the materials. These colorful, tactile, objects triggered the student’s emotional connections to the environment. By seeing, seeking, and touching the objects the student’s emotions increased. This process mimicked how they experienced the city.
Once the participants secured their materials they began building. During this time I asked the students if they needed help and walked around the room. Some of the students wanted to create the right answer from the material covered in the class but the instructor and my self insisted we want their personal preferences on street use.
Photo:Latino Urban Forum/Flickr
After the twenty minutes they were gave a one-minute presentation to the group on their ideal street. They stated their name and explained their model. One minute was good time limit because it allowed for every one to participate and kept the pace of the exercise. The shy students were less intimidated as well.
The students used the models to present their ideas by pointing to objects on the construction paper. The materials used are random to force creative thinking and create an equal/non-judgmental playing field where participants of all backgrounds can create non-traditional spaces and learn from one another.
The connections between objects and what they represented were fascinating to hear as they maneuvered through their models.
Since the students interjected their own personal experiences, memories, and random thoughts of places real and imagined, this became the most interesting part of the process. It was powerful to watch the students explain with so much enthusiasm and conviction about their ideal street.
The student ideas varied. Each participant created his or her streets in his or her own terms. Some designs were ideal based. Some designs are specific, and literal.
Here is the list of the students’ concepts for their ideal street:
Mixed Use/Complete Street
Small Regional Plan
Public Space
TOD/Public Space/Complete Street
Parking Management/Mixed Use
Food on Streets
Better Corridor Design
Times Square/Streets for Entertainment
Better Neighborhood Street
Multi-use Neighborhood
Better Land Use Planning
Social Streets/Ped Friendly
Michigan Ave
Human Scale/Street Cars
Eco-lodge/Nature in the City
Before the models were dismantled which sadden the students, they were documented in photographs. This also led to next exercise where the students were placed in groups of to envision York, Colorado, and Occidental transportation. They students were tasked to bring together their best ideas to these places this was going to be done by each group discuss their ideas. They were given a twenty minutes to complete this activity.
When the time was nearly over everyone gathered around the three tables to hear design solutions for York, Colorado, and Occidental College. Each group introduced the team members and walked us through their solutions. Each location had a different set of physical challenges that each group had to deal with. After each presentation the floor was opened up for questions from other students.
Many of their ideas from the groups seemed to focus on land use patterns and social activies on the streets. They created green zones, mixed-use, and ped/bike friendly streets. They also seemed to create streets that were destinations where you could patronize local businesses, take advantage of a community garden or places to hang out with friends to sit, rest, or linger. Moving quickly through the streets was not a goal of the students, which would be for a transportation planner. The student’s ideas expressed a longing for a sense of community.
When some says they want a “nice street” that can mean many different things. This kind of exercise helps participants use specific adjectives and references which allows the facilitator(s) to understand the needs, desires and habits of individuals who live in a community. In this case, the Occidental College Students envisioned different streets than the Boulevards that currently cross Northeast Los Angeles. Their ides aren’t that different than advocacy efforts underway for North Figueroa Street by a group of community activists and businesses. Residents and students are ready for change, is Los Angeles?
Lawmaker insists California bullet train plan complies with law
Lawmaker insists California bullet train plan complies with law
December 1, 2011 | 2:53 pm
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/galgiani-california-high-speed-train-funding-analysis-.html
California high-speed train
An Assembly member who strongly supports the California high-speed rail project on Thursday criticized a new state report that questions the legality of building the first leg of the 520-mile system in the Central Valley.
Cathleen Galgiani, a Stockton-area Democrat and author of the successful ballot proposition that authorized the bullet train, attacked the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which she called “unqualified to provide a comprehensive analysis of this complex project, which the state has been working on for 15 years.”
The analyst’s office--an arm of the Legislature that researches policy and the use of state funds--issued a report earlier this week. It concluded that the project’s most recent funding plan does not comply with the 2008 voter-approved measure, Proposition 1A, because high-speed trains will not initially run on the first stretch of track to be built next year between Merced and Bakersfield.
Before state bond financing can be requested for the project, the report states, rail officials must identify a segment that can be used by bullet trains. Until more funding can be secured, the high-speed rail agency wants to run conventional Amtrak trains on the initial 130-mile leg.
Defending the legality of the plan, Galgiani said the project will take a blended approach that will first provide slower-speed passenger service between population centers, with high-speed rail service coming later. “Their report is fraught with inaccurate and misleading information, irrational opinions and faulty conclusions,” Galgiani said. “It raises the question of whose agenda they are promoting.”
Galgiani said she is suspicious about the timing of the analyst’s report, noting that it comes after the Central Valley segment was selected over routes in the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin. Critics, including some legislators, have said those alternatives are better than the Central Valley.
Galgiani said the most appropriate and qualified body to assess the project is its own peer review panel, which was approved by the Legislature and the voters.
However, during an Assembly hearing earlier this week, Will Kempton, who heads the peer review group, testified that, like the legislative analyst, he and other panelists are concerned about whether the Central Valley segment complies with Proposition 1A.
He also said that the Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin alternatives might be more cost effective than the Central Valley route if the entire high-speed rail system is not built. Kempton added that a better initial investment might be a route between Bakersfield and the San Fernando Valley, which would link two urbanized areas.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
A bullet train to nowhere?
SACRAMENTO
November 29, 2011 10:03pm
• New analysis questions if it will ever be built
• ‘The draft business plan … portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted’
Source: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=19883
The initial segment of the proposed California high-speed passenger train system – from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield in the Central Valley – may be the only part of the vaunted system that’s ever built, warns a new report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The report says that the flow of federal funds has been stopped by Congress and that “it appears doubtful that substantial additional federal support will be forthcoming anytime soon.”
This makes it “increasingly likely” that the Central Valley segment – too short for high-speed trains – “may be all that is ever built,” the report says.
There remain a number of unanswered technical questions regarding whether the segment may be used to improve the existing San Joaquin Amtrak service, as suggested in the business plan, the report says.
The LAO report also questions fundamentals of the recently released draft business plan.
“Our preliminary review of the economic analysis in the draft business plan is that it may be incomplete and imbalanced, and therefore portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted. For example, the plan does not estimate economic loses from negative impacts to business from right-of-way acquisition and rail construction activities or from increases in urban traffic congestion around train stations,” it says.
It also faults another aspect of the high-speed rail’s draft business plan – how many people would ride the trains and how the cost of the system might compare with the costs of more highway and airport capacity.
“The draft business plan compares the estimated $99 billion to $118 billion cost of constructing high-speed rail with an estimated $170 billion cost of adding equivalent capacity to airports and highways. This comparison is very problematic because $170 billion is not what the state would otherwise spend to address the growth in inter-city transportation demand. The HSRA (High-Speed Rail Authority) estimates that the high-speed train system would have the capacity to carry 116 million passengers per year but their highest forecasted ridership is significantly less than that amount—44 million rides per year (roughly 40 percent less than capacity),” the report says.
The report has been presented to the California Assembly Transportation Committee.
November 29, 2011 10:03pm
• New analysis questions if it will ever be built
• ‘The draft business plan … portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted’
Source: http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=19883
The initial segment of the proposed California high-speed passenger train system – from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield in the Central Valley – may be the only part of the vaunted system that’s ever built, warns a new report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The report says that the flow of federal funds has been stopped by Congress and that “it appears doubtful that substantial additional federal support will be forthcoming anytime soon.”
This makes it “increasingly likely” that the Central Valley segment – too short for high-speed trains – “may be all that is ever built,” the report says.
There remain a number of unanswered technical questions regarding whether the segment may be used to improve the existing San Joaquin Amtrak service, as suggested in the business plan, the report says.
The LAO report also questions fundamentals of the recently released draft business plan.
“Our preliminary review of the economic analysis in the draft business plan is that it may be incomplete and imbalanced, and therefore portrays the project more favorably than may be warranted. For example, the plan does not estimate economic loses from negative impacts to business from right-of-way acquisition and rail construction activities or from increases in urban traffic congestion around train stations,” it says.
It also faults another aspect of the high-speed rail’s draft business plan – how many people would ride the trains and how the cost of the system might compare with the costs of more highway and airport capacity.
“The draft business plan compares the estimated $99 billion to $118 billion cost of constructing high-speed rail with an estimated $170 billion cost of adding equivalent capacity to airports and highways. This comparison is very problematic because $170 billion is not what the state would otherwise spend to address the growth in inter-city transportation demand. The HSRA (High-Speed Rail Authority) estimates that the high-speed train system would have the capacity to carry 116 million passengers per year but their highest forecasted ridership is significantly less than that amount—44 million rides per year (roughly 40 percent less than capacity),” the report says.
The report has been presented to the California Assembly Transportation Committee.
Can Someone Please Loan California $98 Billion So We Can Have Our High-Speed Rail System? Thanks.
Source: http://laist.com/2011/11/30/california_high_speed_rail_system_analysis.php
"Originally, the price tag for the shiny new rail system totaled $43 billion and was slated for completion in 2020. Now, the estimate has exploded to an uncertain $98 billion; the completion date has been postponed just a few years to 2034 (if ever)."
Image caption: Mission Bay - An illustration of a high-speed train northbound along I-5 in adjacent to the existing railroad right-of-way. Image via Facebook.
Californians have had their fingers, toes and eyes crossed for a high-speed rail system that connects NorCal to SoCal, promising a more convenient and efficient means to travel the Golden State without ever preparing for take off. But recent news from the state's legislative analyst indicates that this transportation dream may be merely that - a dream.
The analyst says that the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plan for the $98 billion system does not comply with certain parts of the 2008 ballot measure approved by voters to provide seed money for the project.
Huffington Post says that "Proposition 1A required rail officials to identify all sources of committed funds for a usable segment of the line and to clear all environmental requirements before the $9 billion in bonds could be sold." The Authority's latest proposal aims to install a 130-mile stretch of track from Merced to Bakersfield. Serving as a test track for 220mph (!!!) trains, the stretch could also be used by existing Amtrak routes until the high-speed rail's next segment is completed.
However, the Legislative Analyst's Office issued a report on Tuesday claiming that the Central Valley stretch would not be a stand-alone operating segment of the high-speed rail, as outlined in Proposition 1A.
The analyst's office dropped another bomb on the plan, saying the 130-mile stretch "may be all that is ever built." Citing abating federal funding and speculative financing for many of the rail plans, the report said, "It is highly uncertain if funding to complete the high-speed rail system will ever materialize."
On November 22, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced in a press release that they signed a cooperative agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration that will provide $928 million in federal funding for the construction of the Central Valley segment. The release says that construction will begin in the fall of 2012 in Fresno.
Originally, the price tag for the shiny new rail system totaled $43 billion and was slated for completion in 2020. Now, the estimate has exploded to an uncertain $98 billion; the completion date has been postponed just a few years to 2034 (if ever).
Aside from the escalating budget, the House so kindly passed a spending bill on November 17 that squashed federal funding for the high-speed rail system. California Watch says Republicans want to focus on funding Amtrak's busy Northeast corridor linking Boston, New York and Washington. Oh, it's on, east coast.
Need a little pick-me-up after that sad trombone? Watch Mad Men talk high-speed trains. "America always makes the right investment."
Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
New MTA Project Makes Subway Navigation Easier For Hard Of Hearing
New MTA Project Makes Subway Navigation Easier For Hard Of Hearing
By: Kafi Drexel
Source: http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/health/151567/new-mta-project-makes-subway-navigation-easier-for-hard-of-hearing?CFID=111186&CFTOKEN=22893902
New York City is very noisy, making it difficult for those with hearing problems to get around. But there is a high-tech solution being tested in the subway system that could be a major game changer for those with hearing aids. NY1's Health reporter Kafi Drexel filed the following report.
Directions from a station agent used to be nearly impossible to understand for 17-year-old Arielle Schacter, who has severe hearing loss.
"It would be like I knew sound was happening but it's like a silent movie where everything's going on and you don't understand it, except when someone gives you a little bit of a hint," Arielle says.
That silent world is now becoming audible, with the introduction of a device called the "hearing loop" into more public spaces throughout the city.
In large part due to the work of Arielle's mother, Janice Shachter Lintz, who runs the advocacy group Hearing Access Program, it is in more than 400 subway booths around the city.
"We know there are 36 million people with some form of hearing loss and we know that number is growing," says Lintz.
The technology, known as an induction loop, is already common in some European countries. The loops, placed around the perimeter of a room or window, sends out electromagnetic signals that can jump to a receiver called a telechoil or "t-coil," which is already in most hearing aids or cochlear implants.
When the t-coil is switched on, it picks up only what comes through a microphone or loudspeaker and cancels out the background noise.
The $13.5 million subway hearing loop project is the largest in the country.
"Induction loops were a federal stimulus project. It was a project we were considering and had completely designed, so the project came directly from the federal government," says Marc Bienstock of MTA NYC Transit.
Advocates say the technology is so advanced that the sound can actually come across more clearly than what New Yorkers without any hearing loss might normally hear.
"It's gaining attention now but it's not even new. I seem to recall back 20, 25 years our hearing aids had t-coils on them. You used them for the telephone. Nobody talked about it," says Arlene Romoff of the Hearing Loss Association. "To put this infrastructure in looping systems, where it can actually do some good aside from just hearing on a phone or sitting in a looped room, to finally literally get light shown on this, it's enormous."
By: Kafi Drexel
Source: http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/health/151567/new-mta-project-makes-subway-navigation-easier-for-hard-of-hearing?CFID=111186&CFTOKEN=22893902
New York City is very noisy, making it difficult for those with hearing problems to get around. But there is a high-tech solution being tested in the subway system that could be a major game changer for those with hearing aids. NY1's Health reporter Kafi Drexel filed the following report.
Directions from a station agent used to be nearly impossible to understand for 17-year-old Arielle Schacter, who has severe hearing loss.
"It would be like I knew sound was happening but it's like a silent movie where everything's going on and you don't understand it, except when someone gives you a little bit of a hint," Arielle says.
That silent world is now becoming audible, with the introduction of a device called the "hearing loop" into more public spaces throughout the city.
In large part due to the work of Arielle's mother, Janice Shachter Lintz, who runs the advocacy group Hearing Access Program, it is in more than 400 subway booths around the city.
"We know there are 36 million people with some form of hearing loss and we know that number is growing," says Lintz.
The technology, known as an induction loop, is already common in some European countries. The loops, placed around the perimeter of a room or window, sends out electromagnetic signals that can jump to a receiver called a telechoil or "t-coil," which is already in most hearing aids or cochlear implants.
When the t-coil is switched on, it picks up only what comes through a microphone or loudspeaker and cancels out the background noise.
The $13.5 million subway hearing loop project is the largest in the country.
"Induction loops were a federal stimulus project. It was a project we were considering and had completely designed, so the project came directly from the federal government," says Marc Bienstock of MTA NYC Transit.
Advocates say the technology is so advanced that the sound can actually come across more clearly than what New Yorkers without any hearing loss might normally hear.
"It's gaining attention now but it's not even new. I seem to recall back 20, 25 years our hearing aids had t-coils on them. You used them for the telephone. Nobody talked about it," says Arlene Romoff of the Hearing Loss Association. "To put this infrastructure in looping systems, where it can actually do some good aside from just hearing on a phone or sitting in a looped room, to finally literally get light shown on this, it's enormous."
LA's subway and train stations were sold as locations for pedestrian malls
The Trouble with Pedestrian Malls
Once popular, these car-free zones are slowly disappearing from the urban landscape.
Tod Newcombe | December 2011
Buffalo’s 25-year-old pedestrian and transit-only mall has a problem: As in so many similar spaces across the country, there just aren’t enough pedestrians. So the city in upstate New York has applied for a federal grant to turn the mall back into a road. Exit people. Enter cars.
Buffalo isn’t the only city to toss in the towel on car-free streets. Sacramento, Calif., which has a shared pedestrian and transit mall that dates back more than 40 years, has recently let cars back onto K Street. In recent years, many mid-sized cities like Eugene, Ore., and Raleigh, N.C., have turned away from pedestrian malls, as have big cities, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C.
America’s first downtown pedestrian mall appeared in Kalamazoo, Mich., in 1959. At their height, more than 200 cities blocked off traffic in prime downtown business districts in hopes that by removing cars and trucks, people would flock to the city and bring life to retail and business districts facing decline.
But many of the pedestrian malls were ill-planned and had little purpose. Because so few people lived downtown, the malls became lifeless after work, attracting crime and loiterers, rather than large crowds. According to some estimates, of all the pedestrian malls that have dotted American cities in past years, fewer than 15 percent remain today.
Not all malls have failed. Denver has a thriving pedestrian mall, as do the smaller cities of Charlottesville, Va., and Burlington, Vt. New York City’s pedestrian mall in Times Square was initially viewed as temporary, but became permanent after it proved popular with pedestrians and successful at cutting Midtown car congestion. Overseas, European cities like Barcelona have had great success with car-free zones.
“I don’t think the idea of separating people from cars in cities is a failed concept,” says Yonah Freemark, who has written extensively about pedestrian malls for various publications. Cities that have growing residential populations in downtown areas as well as hubs of activities can generate the kind of traffic that makes a mall thrive. Cities that lack downtown populations have also found that creating temporary pedestrian places can bring a buzz and excitement that people expect to find when they visit a city. Malls can work, if done the right way, explains Freemark. Just don’t take the cookie-cutter approach to building malls as so many cities have -- with disappointing results.
“Cities that are taking out malls now will rethink their decision 30 years from now,” predicts Freemark. “We have to learn that having cars on all streets is not the right idea for cities.”
This article was printed from:
Once popular, these car-free zones are slowly disappearing from the urban landscape.
Tod Newcombe | December 2011
Buffalo’s 25-year-old pedestrian and transit-only mall has a problem: As in so many similar spaces across the country, there just aren’t enough pedestrians. So the city in upstate New York has applied for a federal grant to turn the mall back into a road. Exit people. Enter cars.
Buffalo isn’t the only city to toss in the towel on car-free streets. Sacramento, Calif., which has a shared pedestrian and transit mall that dates back more than 40 years, has recently let cars back onto K Street. In recent years, many mid-sized cities like Eugene, Ore., and Raleigh, N.C., have turned away from pedestrian malls, as have big cities, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C.
America’s first downtown pedestrian mall appeared in Kalamazoo, Mich., in 1959. At their height, more than 200 cities blocked off traffic in prime downtown business districts in hopes that by removing cars and trucks, people would flock to the city and bring life to retail and business districts facing decline.
But many of the pedestrian malls were ill-planned and had little purpose. Because so few people lived downtown, the malls became lifeless after work, attracting crime and loiterers, rather than large crowds. According to some estimates, of all the pedestrian malls that have dotted American cities in past years, fewer than 15 percent remain today.
Not all malls have failed. Denver has a thriving pedestrian mall, as do the smaller cities of Charlottesville, Va., and Burlington, Vt. New York City’s pedestrian mall in Times Square was initially viewed as temporary, but became permanent after it proved popular with pedestrians and successful at cutting Midtown car congestion. Overseas, European cities like Barcelona have had great success with car-free zones.
“I don’t think the idea of separating people from cars in cities is a failed concept,” says Yonah Freemark, who has written extensively about pedestrian malls for various publications. Cities that have growing residential populations in downtown areas as well as hubs of activities can generate the kind of traffic that makes a mall thrive. Cities that lack downtown populations have also found that creating temporary pedestrian places can bring a buzz and excitement that people expect to find when they visit a city. Malls can work, if done the right way, explains Freemark. Just don’t take the cookie-cutter approach to building malls as so many cities have -- with disappointing results.
“Cities that are taking out malls now will rethink their decision 30 years from now,” predicts Freemark. “We have to learn that having cars on all streets is not the right idea for cities.”
This article was printed from:
Jumpstarting the Transit Space Race 2011 Interactive Map
Link:
http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/jumpstarting-the-transit-space-race-2011-interactive-map/#Top
Reconnecting America spent several months in late 2010 with the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation gathering the most current transit plans available from the 100 largest regions around the country, as well as some known projects from smaller regions. Through this cataloging effort, Reconnecting America found 643 transit projects in 106 regions. Click on a region in the map below to see what projects are in your area. To find more information on each project, visit the linked website or use our project spreadsheet. (Note: These projects were on the books as of December 2010, costs and details for some projects have likely changed)
http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/jumpstarting-the-transit-space-race-2011-interactive-map/#Top
Reconnecting America spent several months in late 2010 with the generous support of the Rockefeller Foundation gathering the most current transit plans available from the 100 largest regions around the country, as well as some known projects from smaller regions. Through this cataloging effort, Reconnecting America found 643 transit projects in 106 regions. Click on a region in the map below to see what projects are in your area. To find more information on each project, visit the linked website or use our project spreadsheet. (Note: These projects were on the books as of December 2010, costs and details for some projects have likely changed)
High-Speed Rail Authority: The Draft 2012 Business Plan and Funding Plan
Link to HRSA's Business and Funding Plan:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2011/HSRA_Business_Funding_plan_11_29_11.pdf
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2011/HSRA_Business_Funding_plan_11_29_11.pdf
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
A Century City Station at Constellation? You Betcha!
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/a-century-city-station-at_b_899971.html
Joel Epstein
Posted: 07/18/11 05:24 PM ET
Last week, just after a large deer decided to make itself a hood ornament on our car, I got to thinking about what a great country this is. In spite of our political and social divisions and the still phlegmatic economic recovery, this special land is full of beauty and ingenuity and upbeat hardworking citizens willing to pitch in and build their community, raise a barn or tend to two strangers nearly killed in a run in with the local wildlife. And then there is that pesky sky-is-falling handful of opponents of a Century City subway station at Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars. What side of the bed do they get up on? But more on that in a minute.
About the accident, we were lucky and came away unscathed; while the car and deer, not so much. Totaled, our beloved carriage now rests in peace at Ron's Towing in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, while the accident propelled the buck in velvet we collided with skyward to the heavens.
Suddenly stuck without wheels in the beautiful northwestern corner of Nebraska, we found that the people of Scottsbluff could not have been warmer, more upbeat and helpful. Thanks to them, by the next morning, we were back on track heading west in an affordable rental car. Do you think any of the Nebraskans we met would be complaining if a county agency announced plans to spend billions of dollars hiring local people to extend a much-needed rail line through their community? Not a chance.
By contrast, the vocal Beverly Hills opponents of a station at Constellation Blvd remain perpetually full of bile about the right station for the right location. Unable to look beyond their noses, these Pinocchios can't talk about Constellation and Metro without foaming at the mouth and revealing themselves to be the chronically grumpy and visionless Babbitts that they are.
Instead of joining with local civic leaders and ordinary citizens working for a better and more mobile LA, the leaders of the No on Constellation campaign appear hell-bent on sticking it to the regional transportation agency and the tens of thousands of Angelenos who will be better served by a station at the center of the center in Century City.
I will never forget the generosity and thoughtfulness of those I met in Scottsbluff and out on that country road just south of Crawford, Nebraska, where car and deer met their untimely deaths. Which is why I find it so hard to reconcile that Midwestern caring, selflessness and can-do American spirit with the damage being done to our community by a few dour Beverly Hills School Board and City Council members.
With their grumpy and mean-spirited proclamations about the havoc a subway tunnel dozens of feet underground will cause, these folks are out to stop the train from coming through no matter how good it is for LA. Like the luddites who stopped the subway from coming to Fairfax and beyond years ago, they whine and shout and do their best imitations of the boy who cried wolf.
It is a big, beautiful and optimistic country. What makes the members of the School Board, presumably people who this country has also been very good to, so shameless in their arguing against a station where it should be located?
If only the Beverly Hills School Board and Council Members could put aside their contempt for progress and disdain for the people of Los Angeles, what a better place LA could be. Then they too might join in the spirit and common mission that makes America great.
Still I am not bitter or discouraged and I hold out hope that things will change. And do I believe the No on Constellation camp can put aside its threats of a lawsuit and tiresome PR and lobbying campaign to derail the station where it belongs? You betcha!
Yours in transit,
Joel
Joel Epstein
Posted: 07/18/11 05:24 PM ET
Last week, just after a large deer decided to make itself a hood ornament on our car, I got to thinking about what a great country this is. In spite of our political and social divisions and the still phlegmatic economic recovery, this special land is full of beauty and ingenuity and upbeat hardworking citizens willing to pitch in and build their community, raise a barn or tend to two strangers nearly killed in a run in with the local wildlife. And then there is that pesky sky-is-falling handful of opponents of a Century City subway station at Constellation Blvd and Avenue of the Stars. What side of the bed do they get up on? But more on that in a minute.
About the accident, we were lucky and came away unscathed; while the car and deer, not so much. Totaled, our beloved carriage now rests in peace at Ron's Towing in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, while the accident propelled the buck in velvet we collided with skyward to the heavens.
Suddenly stuck without wheels in the beautiful northwestern corner of Nebraska, we found that the people of Scottsbluff could not have been warmer, more upbeat and helpful. Thanks to them, by the next morning, we were back on track heading west in an affordable rental car. Do you think any of the Nebraskans we met would be complaining if a county agency announced plans to spend billions of dollars hiring local people to extend a much-needed rail line through their community? Not a chance.
By contrast, the vocal Beverly Hills opponents of a station at Constellation Blvd remain perpetually full of bile about the right station for the right location. Unable to look beyond their noses, these Pinocchios can't talk about Constellation and Metro without foaming at the mouth and revealing themselves to be the chronically grumpy and visionless Babbitts that they are.
Instead of joining with local civic leaders and ordinary citizens working for a better and more mobile LA, the leaders of the No on Constellation campaign appear hell-bent on sticking it to the regional transportation agency and the tens of thousands of Angelenos who will be better served by a station at the center of the center in Century City.
I will never forget the generosity and thoughtfulness of those I met in Scottsbluff and out on that country road just south of Crawford, Nebraska, where car and deer met their untimely deaths. Which is why I find it so hard to reconcile that Midwestern caring, selflessness and can-do American spirit with the damage being done to our community by a few dour Beverly Hills School Board and City Council members.
With their grumpy and mean-spirited proclamations about the havoc a subway tunnel dozens of feet underground will cause, these folks are out to stop the train from coming through no matter how good it is for LA. Like the luddites who stopped the subway from coming to Fairfax and beyond years ago, they whine and shout and do their best imitations of the boy who cried wolf.
It is a big, beautiful and optimistic country. What makes the members of the School Board, presumably people who this country has also been very good to, so shameless in their arguing against a station where it should be located?
If only the Beverly Hills School Board and Council Members could put aside their contempt for progress and disdain for the people of Los Angeles, what a better place LA could be. Then they too might join in the spirit and common mission that makes America great.
Still I am not bitter or discouraged and I hold out hope that things will change. And do I believe the No on Constellation camp can put aside its threats of a lawsuit and tiresome PR and lobbying campaign to derail the station where it belongs? You betcha!
Yours in transit,
Joel
California's High-Speed Rail Mistake
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/californias-highspeed-rai_b_957386.html
Joel Epstein
Posted: 09/13/11 01:44 PM ET
This is the piece in which I out myself about California's high-speed rail mistake. Let's face it, now is not the time to be spending a decent size country's GDP on a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Instead we should be spending that fortune completing much needed regional mass transit systems for Los Angeles, San Diego, Anaheim, Irvine, San Jose, the Bay Area, Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. Given the astronomical estimated cost of the high-speed rail project I doubt I have overpromised California's major population centers on the regional transit construction.
I had this epiphany while riding the Bolt Bus between 911-memorial soaked New York and Philadelphia. True, the bus took two hours instead of the one it might have taken on Amtrak's Acela Express. But the $13 I paid left a much smaller hole in my pocket than the $105 the Acela would have cost. And like my Bolt over Acela decision the choice facing the dysfunctional California legislature is whether it wants to spend the California taxpayer's money on critical regional mass transit that we need every day vs. the shiny, fast business travelers' sometimes choice when heading to a trade show in San Francisco. Wanna accelerate the regional transit construction process? Pass a law like the special one the Legislature is writing for AEG, a private company, so it can build Farmer's Field, a transit-oriented football stadium in downtown LA.
Why this change of heart for someone who is on record in support of the concept of high-speed rail in California?
It's simple arithmetic that even this mediocre math student can understand. In an ideal world there would be enough money to build both the high-speed rail and all the regional mass transit California needs. But we don't live in that Emerald City.
I doubt my friends at the big infrastructure construction firms and AFL-CIO are going to swoon upon reading this but I hope they don't get me wrong. Because the plan I'm proposing involves as much if not more work for them and the union iron workers and sandhogs than the high-speed rail. But instead of having to fight for months for a lousy motel room in Shafter or Bakerfield, the first leg of the proposed high-speed rail, the engineers and laborers will be able to head home for dinner or to one of their favorite loncheras after work building the subway. Sure, Central Valley workers need jobs but far more are out of work in LA and the state's other big cities.
Our need for transit infrastructure construction hasn't gone away. It's just that we need to be smarter about it. As a public infrastructure investment high-speed rail just can't hold a candle to the Wilshire subway, a rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) option for the Sepulveda Pass and a dozen other overdue light rail and BRT projects along LA's existing transit rights of way and many broad, made for bus-only lane, boulevards. And that's just my recipe for LA. There are of course similar transportation planner dreams for California's other urban agglomerations.
Hard choices are the name of the game in this era of bickering over public infrastructure spending. But as Measure R, the half cent LA County transportation sales tax demonstrated, local voters are willing to spend on themselves when it comes to public transportation. Let's put that logic to work by changing the construction plans and building the Metro, Muni and BART trains and buses we need everyday rather than the sometime convenience we long for when we think of inter city travel in France, China and Japan. That train too will come but not until we make regular regional transit riders of most Californians.
Yours in transit,
Joel
Joel Epstein
Posted: 09/13/11 01:44 PM ET
This is the piece in which I out myself about California's high-speed rail mistake. Let's face it, now is not the time to be spending a decent size country's GDP on a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Instead we should be spending that fortune completing much needed regional mass transit systems for Los Angeles, San Diego, Anaheim, Irvine, San Jose, the Bay Area, Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento. Given the astronomical estimated cost of the high-speed rail project I doubt I have overpromised California's major population centers on the regional transit construction.
I had this epiphany while riding the Bolt Bus between 911-memorial soaked New York and Philadelphia. True, the bus took two hours instead of the one it might have taken on Amtrak's Acela Express. But the $13 I paid left a much smaller hole in my pocket than the $105 the Acela would have cost. And like my Bolt over Acela decision the choice facing the dysfunctional California legislature is whether it wants to spend the California taxpayer's money on critical regional mass transit that we need every day vs. the shiny, fast business travelers' sometimes choice when heading to a trade show in San Francisco. Wanna accelerate the regional transit construction process? Pass a law like the special one the Legislature is writing for AEG, a private company, so it can build Farmer's Field, a transit-oriented football stadium in downtown LA.
Why this change of heart for someone who is on record in support of the concept of high-speed rail in California?
It's simple arithmetic that even this mediocre math student can understand. In an ideal world there would be enough money to build both the high-speed rail and all the regional mass transit California needs. But we don't live in that Emerald City.
I doubt my friends at the big infrastructure construction firms and AFL-CIO are going to swoon upon reading this but I hope they don't get me wrong. Because the plan I'm proposing involves as much if not more work for them and the union iron workers and sandhogs than the high-speed rail. But instead of having to fight for months for a lousy motel room in Shafter or Bakerfield, the first leg of the proposed high-speed rail, the engineers and laborers will be able to head home for dinner or to one of their favorite loncheras after work building the subway. Sure, Central Valley workers need jobs but far more are out of work in LA and the state's other big cities.
Our need for transit infrastructure construction hasn't gone away. It's just that we need to be smarter about it. As a public infrastructure investment high-speed rail just can't hold a candle to the Wilshire subway, a rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) option for the Sepulveda Pass and a dozen other overdue light rail and BRT projects along LA's existing transit rights of way and many broad, made for bus-only lane, boulevards. And that's just my recipe for LA. There are of course similar transportation planner dreams for California's other urban agglomerations.
Hard choices are the name of the game in this era of bickering over public infrastructure spending. But as Measure R, the half cent LA County transportation sales tax demonstrated, local voters are willing to spend on themselves when it comes to public transportation. Let's put that logic to work by changing the construction plans and building the Metro, Muni and BART trains and buses we need everyday rather than the sometime convenience we long for when we think of inter city travel in France, China and Japan. That train too will come but not until we make regular regional transit riders of most Californians.
Yours in transit,
Joel
Bruins, Trojans and Getting Mr. Mirisch Back on Track
Source:http://www.citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-right/2492-bruins-trojans-and-getting-mr-mirisch-back-on-track
11.17.2011
Matthew Hetz
TALK BACK - What does one do when one’s name is in a headline? I find myself in this situation when Beverly Hills Councilman John Mirisch commented in CityWatch on my speculations of his support for a subway station closer to UCLA than to the office towers along Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards.
My previous CityWatch article was in response to Mr. Mirisch’s article of October 10, which uses the rivalry between UCLA and USC to ask why the later has a light rail station on the soon to open Expo Line but the former may not have its own subway station. It is due to history.
The Expo Line in that part of the city was built on the old Santa Monica Air Line rail line. This right-of-way (ROW) was later purchased by Metro in a move of foresight which was initiated by a grass roots movement. This right-of-way goes back to 1895, and while the last train to use the line was in the 1960s, the ROW with trains has always run along USC (see photo above). The USC station is reinstating the past. UCLA does not have an existing ROW slated for future transit construction, and obviously there is no previously existing subway ROW.
I remain curious why Mr. Mirisch has devoted so much time in writing about a proposed Westwood Station when the main thrusts of his arguments have been the opposition of a subway station for Century City at Constellation Blvd., a station favored by me and many others. He supports the station nearer to Santa Monica Blvd.
To Mr. Mirisch’s dismay, I called it a diversion, perhaps I was not completely on-base. But why this concentrated focus on the Westwood Station, within Los Angeles City limits, which is not within his purview as a representative of Beverly Hills?
Mr. Mirisch states that he’s written enough on the Century City station, and tips his hand by writing that the matter will probably wind up in court. On what would this be based? Would the subway passing under Beverly Hills High School for the Constellation Station be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit?
Does this eventually-end-up-in-court argument need backing, so the concentration is now on Westwood: if the Westwood/UCLA Station is not located near the office towers similar to the Century City/Constellation Blvd. Station, but is placed away from them closer to UCLA, then the Century Station should be located along Santa Monica Blvd. away from the greatest concentration of office towers. But this is only my speculation.
As transit rider since 1992 (Bus, light rail and subway.), in my trips to Century City, I have used a number of bus stops around the site. Entering Century City as a pedestrian from Santa Monica Blvd. is to confront the epitome of bad urban planning with thought only given to cars.
It is like a fortress, with limited points of pedestrian entry and exit, most with stairs. This creates a series of impediments for transit riders/pedestrians getting into and out of the compound, especially from a Santa Monica Blvd. subway station.
The Constellation Blvd. station would be ideally located. It would sit in the middle of Century City to better serve the entire site with businesses and offices north and south of the station and is much closer to the Century City Westfield Mall.
A station along Santa Monica Blvd. would favor the northern part of Century City, and to the north of that station is the golf course of the Los Angeles Country Club with limited membership and no access for transit riders.
Metro posts photos and reports on the various stations along the Wilshire Subway. Pages 63-65 pertain to the Century City Station Alternatives.
It seems there are many mistakes in my opinions. Mr. Mirisch’s writes, “Hetz notes the similarities between Westwood and Century City. How does he know there are similarities? His answer: he once took a bus down Westwood to Wilshire and Sepulveda and noted that both areas have high-rise office buildings.”
As stated here and in my previous article, I am a transit rider since 1992. I cannot begin to count how many bus rides I’ve taken. Some days I ride five buses or more. I cannot begin to count how many times I’ve taken a bus to and from Westwood Village during the day or night.
My comment on the similarities between Westwood and Century City was based upon my transit riding since 1992, not a onetime bus ride. It was based on the many different bus stops I’ve used, and which ones do and do not serve the transit rider.
In one mistake I did indeed call the Purple Line the Red Line, and while that is embarrassing in (cyber) print, it is not nearly as frustrating as mistaking the Purple Line for the Red Line when travelling west from Union Station up to the Wilshire/Vermont Station. I am not the only transit rider to get on the wrong subway train and end up on the Purple Line and not the Red Line which share the same route.
Metro should have never indicated in colors so close in the spectrum for these two lines which share routes. It is confusing. The color for the Purple Line needs changed to another, contrasting color.
With the subject Metro, Mr. Mirisch says I am not so much as “transit advocate” as I am a “Metro advocate.” Just because I may be in agreement with some positions from Metro that does not mean I carry their water. I have disagreements with some of the projects.
I strongly oppose placing any more light rail lines down the center of freeways. Why? Ride the Green Line and get out at the stations which are in the middle of the Century Freeway. The noise, immediate proximity to vehicle exhaust, and being locked into a station in the middle of the freeway is why. Some Gold Line stations are in the center of a freeway, and I did not support the placement of those stations.
Mr. Mirisch in his second article becomes specific on his location in Westwood Village, “How can Hetz possibly know that ridership on Wilshire and Westwood would be greater than it would be on, say, Westwood and Le Conte, which to me seems to be the logical location for a UCLA/Westwood station? Yes, logical: Westwood/Le Conte is actually a gateway to both UCLA and Westwood Village.”
How would Mr. Mirisch know that the Westwood/Le Conte station would have higher ridership than a Wilshire/Westwood station? As I previously stated, UCLA has very large seasonal changes of population dependent upon when the university is in session. The office towers would retain year round a large number potential riders, dependent, of course, upon the economy and employment trends.
This is the similarity between the Wilshire/Westwood and Century City stations. These are large centers of year round employment, and a plus would be that the Constellation station would be closer to the Century City Mall.
Le Conte is not the gateway to Westwood Village, that is Wilshire and Westwood Blvds. The traffic patterns, and gridlock at Wilshire and Westwood Blvd. bear this out. An incredible amount of traffic approaches Westwood and UCLA from the east and west on multi-lane Wilshire Blvd, and four lane Westwood Blvd to the south. These are the major entry points into Westwood. Le Conte is nowhere close in carrying capacity to compare to Wilshire Blvd.
At the Le Conte Station, subway riders wishing to get to the east and north parts of the campus would still need to transfer to a bus. To walk to those areas of the campus from Le Conte and Westwood would be very time consuming.
Mr. Mirisch says I’m mistaken in my real-world transit riding experience of taking buses into UCLA, such as from the Westwood/UCLA Station at Wilshire and Westwood. “Ultimately, Mr. Hetz's solution to those wanting to use public transit to get to UCLA is similar to Metro's. It's an admonition to "take the bus." Is that really the best we can do?”
We should be better, but the current reality is that it is buses which carry people into Westwood and UCLA.
Is this perfect? No. I would be happy as a clam if instead of taking a bus to Westwood and Wilshire Blvds, as thousands of current transit riders do, I could instead take a subway or light rail.
But funding for this is years away, and then there is always opposition, that familiar, repeating refrain, further slowing the building of new subway and light rail lines.
If the station was at Le Conte, questions arise on how the area would handle the large of number of buses serving this station. Would this require the construction of a transit center to handle the buses?
The much wider and greater carrying capacities of Wilshire and Westwood Blvds are superior in serving the subway station than Le Conte.
The reality is that buses will remain the backbone of transit in Los Angeles. So it’s not so much my “admonition to ‘take the bus,’ ” but the stating of reality. Unless there is a subway station close to one’s home or work, it will be necessary to take a bus to get to a subway or light rail station.
Some will want to drive to the subway station. I would recommend trying to be fully transit, and taking a bus to the subway. This would be ideal in reducing traffic and the pollution from vehicles. But people will want to drive to the subway station though a robust transit network may eventually move people from their vehicles to transit.
With parking lots built around subway stations so people could drive there, where would these parking structures be built to serve the Le Conte/Westwood station?
The existing office towers along Wilshire and Westwood Blvds have large parking garages. These are ready to also serve those who would drive to the Wilshire/Westwood station, park, and then take the subway.
Mr. Mirisch asks for my opinion on tunneling under a cemetery. This pertains to matters of the dead, and religious, moral, metaphysical and theological issues which are too lengthy to include in this discussion.
There have been subways built under cemeteries, and for some it has created controversy. This would probably be no different considering the history of opposition to the subway and light rail lines in Los Angeles.
This is also an answer which would involve not only the Wilshire Subway, but could also affect an underground rail line underneath the Sepulveda Pass to finally connect by rail West Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.
If I understand Mr. Mirisch’s “ ‘transitive law of subway station location’ on the basis of noting there are high-rises in both places would be considered the height of transit-planning prowess” correctly, it means that subway stations should be built around densely populated areas. I think that’s accurate.
Mr. Mirisch then comments that a subway station at the VA with its open spaces does not fit this law. No, it would not. However, I do support this station because it would serve Veterans.
I see Veterans on the buses, going to the VA. I hear them talk of the physical pains they still suffer of which they seek relief. There are also the Veterans’ emotional and psychological scars which need care.
In this month of remembering our Nation’s Veterans with Veterans Day, I feel it is the least we can do to repay the Men and Women Veterans who served our nation by having a subway station at the VA. Mr. Mirisch?
I agree with Mr. Mirisch that discussions on transit planning are good. My question remains what is the basis for this discussion, is it for the entire Los Angeles region, or is more local for Beverly Hills?
Indeed, Beverly Hills once had rail lines within its city limits, and world still turned. This time they will be underground, but the world will still turn. Perhaps it is time for Beverly Hills to regain its past.
(Matthew Hetz is a bus rider and transportation advocate. He lives on LA’s Westside.) –cw
11.17.2011
Matthew Hetz
TALK BACK - What does one do when one’s name is in a headline? I find myself in this situation when Beverly Hills Councilman John Mirisch commented in CityWatch on my speculations of his support for a subway station closer to UCLA than to the office towers along Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards.
My previous CityWatch article was in response to Mr. Mirisch’s article of October 10, which uses the rivalry between UCLA and USC to ask why the later has a light rail station on the soon to open Expo Line but the former may not have its own subway station. It is due to history.
The Expo Line in that part of the city was built on the old Santa Monica Air Line rail line. This right-of-way (ROW) was later purchased by Metro in a move of foresight which was initiated by a grass roots movement. This right-of-way goes back to 1895, and while the last train to use the line was in the 1960s, the ROW with trains has always run along USC (see photo above). The USC station is reinstating the past. UCLA does not have an existing ROW slated for future transit construction, and obviously there is no previously existing subway ROW.
I remain curious why Mr. Mirisch has devoted so much time in writing about a proposed Westwood Station when the main thrusts of his arguments have been the opposition of a subway station for Century City at Constellation Blvd., a station favored by me and many others. He supports the station nearer to Santa Monica Blvd.
To Mr. Mirisch’s dismay, I called it a diversion, perhaps I was not completely on-base. But why this concentrated focus on the Westwood Station, within Los Angeles City limits, which is not within his purview as a representative of Beverly Hills?
Mr. Mirisch states that he’s written enough on the Century City station, and tips his hand by writing that the matter will probably wind up in court. On what would this be based? Would the subway passing under Beverly Hills High School for the Constellation Station be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit?
Does this eventually-end-up-in-court argument need backing, so the concentration is now on Westwood: if the Westwood/UCLA Station is not located near the office towers similar to the Century City/Constellation Blvd. Station, but is placed away from them closer to UCLA, then the Century Station should be located along Santa Monica Blvd. away from the greatest concentration of office towers. But this is only my speculation.
As transit rider since 1992 (Bus, light rail and subway.), in my trips to Century City, I have used a number of bus stops around the site. Entering Century City as a pedestrian from Santa Monica Blvd. is to confront the epitome of bad urban planning with thought only given to cars.
It is like a fortress, with limited points of pedestrian entry and exit, most with stairs. This creates a series of impediments for transit riders/pedestrians getting into and out of the compound, especially from a Santa Monica Blvd. subway station.
The Constellation Blvd. station would be ideally located. It would sit in the middle of Century City to better serve the entire site with businesses and offices north and south of the station and is much closer to the Century City Westfield Mall.
A station along Santa Monica Blvd. would favor the northern part of Century City, and to the north of that station is the golf course of the Los Angeles Country Club with limited membership and no access for transit riders.
Metro posts photos and reports on the various stations along the Wilshire Subway. Pages 63-65 pertain to the Century City Station Alternatives.
It seems there are many mistakes in my opinions. Mr. Mirisch’s writes, “Hetz notes the similarities between Westwood and Century City. How does he know there are similarities? His answer: he once took a bus down Westwood to Wilshire and Sepulveda and noted that both areas have high-rise office buildings.”
As stated here and in my previous article, I am a transit rider since 1992. I cannot begin to count how many bus rides I’ve taken. Some days I ride five buses or more. I cannot begin to count how many times I’ve taken a bus to and from Westwood Village during the day or night.
My comment on the similarities between Westwood and Century City was based upon my transit riding since 1992, not a onetime bus ride. It was based on the many different bus stops I’ve used, and which ones do and do not serve the transit rider.
In one mistake I did indeed call the Purple Line the Red Line, and while that is embarrassing in (cyber) print, it is not nearly as frustrating as mistaking the Purple Line for the Red Line when travelling west from Union Station up to the Wilshire/Vermont Station. I am not the only transit rider to get on the wrong subway train and end up on the Purple Line and not the Red Line which share the same route.
Metro should have never indicated in colors so close in the spectrum for these two lines which share routes. It is confusing. The color for the Purple Line needs changed to another, contrasting color.
With the subject Metro, Mr. Mirisch says I am not so much as “transit advocate” as I am a “Metro advocate.” Just because I may be in agreement with some positions from Metro that does not mean I carry their water. I have disagreements with some of the projects.
I strongly oppose placing any more light rail lines down the center of freeways. Why? Ride the Green Line and get out at the stations which are in the middle of the Century Freeway. The noise, immediate proximity to vehicle exhaust, and being locked into a station in the middle of the freeway is why. Some Gold Line stations are in the center of a freeway, and I did not support the placement of those stations.
Mr. Mirisch in his second article becomes specific on his location in Westwood Village, “How can Hetz possibly know that ridership on Wilshire and Westwood would be greater than it would be on, say, Westwood and Le Conte, which to me seems to be the logical location for a UCLA/Westwood station? Yes, logical: Westwood/Le Conte is actually a gateway to both UCLA and Westwood Village.”
How would Mr. Mirisch know that the Westwood/Le Conte station would have higher ridership than a Wilshire/Westwood station? As I previously stated, UCLA has very large seasonal changes of population dependent upon when the university is in session. The office towers would retain year round a large number potential riders, dependent, of course, upon the economy and employment trends.
This is the similarity between the Wilshire/Westwood and Century City stations. These are large centers of year round employment, and a plus would be that the Constellation station would be closer to the Century City Mall.
Le Conte is not the gateway to Westwood Village, that is Wilshire and Westwood Blvds. The traffic patterns, and gridlock at Wilshire and Westwood Blvd. bear this out. An incredible amount of traffic approaches Westwood and UCLA from the east and west on multi-lane Wilshire Blvd, and four lane Westwood Blvd to the south. These are the major entry points into Westwood. Le Conte is nowhere close in carrying capacity to compare to Wilshire Blvd.
At the Le Conte Station, subway riders wishing to get to the east and north parts of the campus would still need to transfer to a bus. To walk to those areas of the campus from Le Conte and Westwood would be very time consuming.
Mr. Mirisch says I’m mistaken in my real-world transit riding experience of taking buses into UCLA, such as from the Westwood/UCLA Station at Wilshire and Westwood. “Ultimately, Mr. Hetz's solution to those wanting to use public transit to get to UCLA is similar to Metro's. It's an admonition to "take the bus." Is that really the best we can do?”
We should be better, but the current reality is that it is buses which carry people into Westwood and UCLA.
Is this perfect? No. I would be happy as a clam if instead of taking a bus to Westwood and Wilshire Blvds, as thousands of current transit riders do, I could instead take a subway or light rail.
But funding for this is years away, and then there is always opposition, that familiar, repeating refrain, further slowing the building of new subway and light rail lines.
If the station was at Le Conte, questions arise on how the area would handle the large of number of buses serving this station. Would this require the construction of a transit center to handle the buses?
The much wider and greater carrying capacities of Wilshire and Westwood Blvds are superior in serving the subway station than Le Conte.
The reality is that buses will remain the backbone of transit in Los Angeles. So it’s not so much my “admonition to ‘take the bus,’ ” but the stating of reality. Unless there is a subway station close to one’s home or work, it will be necessary to take a bus to get to a subway or light rail station.
Some will want to drive to the subway station. I would recommend trying to be fully transit, and taking a bus to the subway. This would be ideal in reducing traffic and the pollution from vehicles. But people will want to drive to the subway station though a robust transit network may eventually move people from their vehicles to transit.
With parking lots built around subway stations so people could drive there, where would these parking structures be built to serve the Le Conte/Westwood station?
The existing office towers along Wilshire and Westwood Blvds have large parking garages. These are ready to also serve those who would drive to the Wilshire/Westwood station, park, and then take the subway.
Mr. Mirisch asks for my opinion on tunneling under a cemetery. This pertains to matters of the dead, and religious, moral, metaphysical and theological issues which are too lengthy to include in this discussion.
There have been subways built under cemeteries, and for some it has created controversy. This would probably be no different considering the history of opposition to the subway and light rail lines in Los Angeles.
This is also an answer which would involve not only the Wilshire Subway, but could also affect an underground rail line underneath the Sepulveda Pass to finally connect by rail West Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley.
If I understand Mr. Mirisch’s “ ‘transitive law of subway station location’ on the basis of noting there are high-rises in both places would be considered the height of transit-planning prowess” correctly, it means that subway stations should be built around densely populated areas. I think that’s accurate.
Mr. Mirisch then comments that a subway station at the VA with its open spaces does not fit this law. No, it would not. However, I do support this station because it would serve Veterans.
I see Veterans on the buses, going to the VA. I hear them talk of the physical pains they still suffer of which they seek relief. There are also the Veterans’ emotional and psychological scars which need care.
In this month of remembering our Nation’s Veterans with Veterans Day, I feel it is the least we can do to repay the Men and Women Veterans who served our nation by having a subway station at the VA. Mr. Mirisch?
I agree with Mr. Mirisch that discussions on transit planning are good. My question remains what is the basis for this discussion, is it for the entire Los Angeles region, or is more local for Beverly Hills?
Indeed, Beverly Hills once had rail lines within its city limits, and world still turned. This time they will be underground, but the world will still turn. Perhaps it is time for Beverly Hills to regain its past.
(Matthew Hetz is a bus rider and transportation advocate. He lives on LA’s Westside.) –cw
Second EXPO Facility Workshop to be Held Tuesday
Source: http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2011/November-2011/11_29_2011_Second_EXPO_Facility_Workshop_to_be_Held_Tuesday.html
By Lookout Staff
November 29, 2011 -- Santa Monica residents will get a chance to weigh in Tuesday night on the future use for a buffer zone the City will create adjacent to the EXPO maintenance facility.
The meeting co-sponsored by the City and the Pico Neighborhood Association provides residents with an opportunity to help shape the area facing Santa Monica's poorest and most diverse residential area.
The meeting held at Virginia Avenue Park's Thelma Terry Center will include a brief overview of the project and a discussion of the community's expectations for the buffer zone, City officials said. Participants will help "create a vision" and "define the next steps."
The meeting also will include a recap of the first meeting held in September, where residents weighed in on two redesigned versions of the Expo Line maintenance facility that will soon go up in their backyard.
At that meeting, Metro representatives asked residents to “identify a preferred site scenario” for the facility, which residents opposed when the site at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard was first proposed in 2009.
The also presented two designs that moved the main and service entrances off of Exposition Boulevard, directing traffic to enter from Stewart Street or Centinela Avenue. The new designs also moved the “buffer” zone to Exposition Boulevard from Stewart. In both plans, none of the facility's buildings would be taller than 30 feet.
The Expo Light Rail is expected to roll into Santa Monica in 2015.
To ensure accurate accommodations email lindsey.haley@smgov.net or call 310.458.8301. Virginia Avenue Park is served by Big Blue Bus line 7 and Rapid 7. Visit www.BigBlueBus.com for times.
There is limited free parking and plenty of bike parking available.
By Lookout Staff
November 29, 2011 -- Santa Monica residents will get a chance to weigh in Tuesday night on the future use for a buffer zone the City will create adjacent to the EXPO maintenance facility.
The meeting co-sponsored by the City and the Pico Neighborhood Association provides residents with an opportunity to help shape the area facing Santa Monica's poorest and most diverse residential area.
The meeting held at Virginia Avenue Park's Thelma Terry Center will include a brief overview of the project and a discussion of the community's expectations for the buffer zone, City officials said. Participants will help "create a vision" and "define the next steps."
The meeting also will include a recap of the first meeting held in September, where residents weighed in on two redesigned versions of the Expo Line maintenance facility that will soon go up in their backyard.
At that meeting, Metro representatives asked residents to “identify a preferred site scenario” for the facility, which residents opposed when the site at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard was first proposed in 2009.
The also presented two designs that moved the main and service entrances off of Exposition Boulevard, directing traffic to enter from Stewart Street or Centinela Avenue. The new designs also moved the “buffer” zone to Exposition Boulevard from Stewart. In both plans, none of the facility's buildings would be taller than 30 feet.
The Expo Light Rail is expected to roll into Santa Monica in 2015.
To ensure accurate accommodations email lindsey.haley@smgov.net or call 310.458.8301. Virginia Avenue Park is served by Big Blue Bus line 7 and Rapid 7. Visit www.BigBlueBus.com for times.
There is limited free parking and plenty of bike parking available.
Pasadena Has Big Streetcar Plans But No Money For Them
Tuesday, November 29, 2011, by James Brasuell
Source: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/pasadena_has_big_streetcar_plans_but_no_money_for_them.php
Streetcars are totally hot right now. The planning for a streetcar in Downtown LA is starting to heat up and West Hollywood is exploring a shuttle to move clubgoers among party destinations there. Now Pasadena is moving toward its own streetcar--last month the City Council approved a preliminary proposal for a streetcar system through Old Pasadena, Paseo Colorado, the Playhouse District, South Lake Avenue, and the Civic Center, making it one of the "project priorities for the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area," reports the Pasadena Weekly. The city and local business groups commissioned a pair of studies from consulting firm Strategic Economics, which were released in 2010 and recommended ways to link the neighborhoods of Pasadena's Central District (a streetcar was first suggested a few years ago) However, a Pasadena streetcar is still a long ways off. Erlinda Romo, executive director of the Playhouse District Association, tells the Pasadena Weekly that they still need money: "There's no funding identified; it's more like a wish list."
The line would run at the speed of traffic in a continuous loop, "traveling west on Union Street from Lake Avenue to Pasadena Avenue, south on Pasadena Avenue to Green Street, east on Green to Lake, south on Lake to California Boulevard, and north on Lake to Union"--a total of 4.1 miles. Officials hope it can unify the city's shopping areas to help them compete with nearby Glendale and Arcadia (at the time the Strategic Economics reports came out, Rick Caruso's Shops at Santa Anita were still in play in Arcadia).
The Pasadena Streetcar would cost about $79 million. However, "if the route is extended along Green Street to Pasadena City College and along California Boulevard to Caltech, the costs would increase by $18 and $11.5 million, respectively, for a total cost of $108.5 million," according to PW. Strategic Economics thinks Pas can expect some money from the federal government, but will still have to come up with a good chunk of funding on its own.
High-Speed Rail in a Low-Budget Era
11.28.2011
Ken Alpern
GETTING THERE FROM HERE - Ours is an era where all of our expectations will need to be pared back, and the need to do things cheaper and more efficiently will have to take precedence over our desire to want something simply because we believe it’s a good idea. Whether it’s education, defense, safety/security, social services or transportation, painful decisions lie ahead.
And to paraphrase Mark Twain, anyone who tells you differently is a liar, or a politician…but then again, I repeat myself.
And to paraphrase the parting address of (unfortunately) outgoing Times business columnist Tom Petruno (link) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/26/business/la-fi-1126-petruno-markets-20111126), this current deep recession is a bit more threatening than all the other previous doom and gloom recessions because of one key element: The Debt.
Enter the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) plan, initiated decades ago by the man who just got re-elected for governor. While it’s clear his political bent and reliance on public sector labor unions pulls him to the left, it’s also clear that Governor Jerry Brown knows when to be fiscally conservative—as his past budget cuts and proposed state worker pension reforms illustrate.
The argument can be made that Brown’s budget-balancing efforts are too little too late, but he’s made some bold choices that many of his critics believed he was incapable of making, and he’s going to have to do the same for his beloved CAHSR.
The long knives are out in Washington, DC for cutting social services, defense, Medicare, education and just about everything else, so it’s not that surprising or unfair that the CAHSR is being targeted even before construction begins. (Link) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/23/local/la-me-high-speed-money-20111123 After all, now that the projected costs for CAHSR have jumped from $35 billion to $98 billion, it’s not a stretch to suggest that many Californians (including high-speed rail supporters like myself) have become disenchanted with CAHSR.
And we may have the opportunity to find out whether Californians have changed their mind on CAHSR, should current opposition lead to a proposed ballot initiative that reverses previous funding efforts. The opposition is growing to CAHSR,
(link) and although the $98 billion is really “just” $65 billion in today’s dollars with inflation counted in, the cries for revisiting CAHSR are growing ever stronger.
Of course, the question of what Washington, DC is willing to spend on the Acela line from Boston to Washington (link) versus the CAHSR raises the old specter of unfair bias towards different geographies (with California always coming in last), but it should be acknowledged that the Acela line started relatively small ($5 billion) and slow…but is now being recognized as a bipartisan priority.
Similarly, the CAHSR will need to think smaller and slower, not only because of our economic and debt problems, but because CAHSR simply isn’t being successfully sold as a high priority—even to those who favor rapid transit in our state.
A very good question is whether an anti-high-speed rail ballot initiative would pass right now; I’m guessing it would, despite my support of high-speed rail).
Yet an equally good question is whether a ballot initiative to redirect the $10 billion in California voter-approved funds to critical rail corridors (even to corridors outside of the original CAHSR routing) in megadense regions (such as that through which the Acela traverses) would pass. I’m guessing it would, too.
It’s hard to know what the fiscal, legal or engineering realities are for this proposed redirection of the $10 billion, but it’s easy to conclude that federal support of the CAHSR is anything but assured—it’ll pass the Senate, but the House has said “no” to the $3-4 billion that President Obama wants to spend for the CAHSR’s central Californian portion. Meanwhile, the private sector has said it’ll show more interest if the CAHSR focuses construction first at its northern and southern portions.
The northern and southern termini are not nearly as “shovel ready” as central California is for CAHSR, but the political will to enhance higher-speed rail (if not truly “high-speed” rail of 200 or more mph) already exists with the growing Caltrain and Metrolink networks in the Bay Area and the Greater L.A. region, respectively.
Furthermore, Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara to San Diego is Amtrak’s #2 train route nationwide with respect to ridership, and the ridership of Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor from San Jose to Sacramento ain’t too shabby, either.
I’d hate to lose the $10 billion of Californian bonds for CAHSR altogether, and if “higher speed rail” is all we can realistically do then perhaps we should follow the lead of the Acela model and recognize that the Perfect really IS the enemy of the Good.
So perhaps the right thing to do is to just have a geographically- and politically-balanced effort to reassign federal and state (and, maybe, private) funds to rail routes that are already popular in order to upgrade, speed up and increase the service and ridership of those currently-popular routes, and thereby create a better fiscal case for future rail upgrades and extensions.
But if Governor Brown and those of us who still support CAHSR of some sort really want to have any kind of high-speed rail within our lifetimes, we’ll need to really confront innovative ways to fund public works projects:
1) Make deals with various Native American tribes to allow legalized gambling on the trains for segments of rail routes that run through or near the boundaries of their tribal reservations.
2) Determine whether non-violent prison inmates can perform some of the unskilled yet necessary labor to expedite the construction and lower the labor costs of this large project.
We can always just throw in the towel on CAHSR altogether, but if we want to embark on a major public works project at a time when budgets and political will for this project are shrinking, we’ll have to do right by taxpayers and private investors alike if we’re committed to get anything done at all.
(Ken Alpern is a former Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Vice Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) –cw
Tags: high speed rail, California, Washington DC, CAHSR, Jerry Brown, Governor, Governor Brown
Ken Alpern
GETTING THERE FROM HERE - Ours is an era where all of our expectations will need to be pared back, and the need to do things cheaper and more efficiently will have to take precedence over our desire to want something simply because we believe it’s a good idea. Whether it’s education, defense, safety/security, social services or transportation, painful decisions lie ahead.
And to paraphrase Mark Twain, anyone who tells you differently is a liar, or a politician…but then again, I repeat myself.
And to paraphrase the parting address of (unfortunately) outgoing Times business columnist Tom Petruno (link) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/26/business/la-fi-1126-petruno-markets-20111126), this current deep recession is a bit more threatening than all the other previous doom and gloom recessions because of one key element: The Debt.
Enter the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) plan, initiated decades ago by the man who just got re-elected for governor. While it’s clear his political bent and reliance on public sector labor unions pulls him to the left, it’s also clear that Governor Jerry Brown knows when to be fiscally conservative—as his past budget cuts and proposed state worker pension reforms illustrate.
The argument can be made that Brown’s budget-balancing efforts are too little too late, but he’s made some bold choices that many of his critics believed he was incapable of making, and he’s going to have to do the same for his beloved CAHSR.
The long knives are out in Washington, DC for cutting social services, defense, Medicare, education and just about everything else, so it’s not that surprising or unfair that the CAHSR is being targeted even before construction begins. (Link) http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/23/local/la-me-high-speed-money-20111123 After all, now that the projected costs for CAHSR have jumped from $35 billion to $98 billion, it’s not a stretch to suggest that many Californians (including high-speed rail supporters like myself) have become disenchanted with CAHSR.
And we may have the opportunity to find out whether Californians have changed their mind on CAHSR, should current opposition lead to a proposed ballot initiative that reverses previous funding efforts. The opposition is growing to CAHSR,
(link) and although the $98 billion is really “just” $65 billion in today’s dollars with inflation counted in, the cries for revisiting CAHSR are growing ever stronger.
Of course, the question of what Washington, DC is willing to spend on the Acela line from Boston to Washington (link) versus the CAHSR raises the old specter of unfair bias towards different geographies (with California always coming in last), but it should be acknowledged that the Acela line started relatively small ($5 billion) and slow…but is now being recognized as a bipartisan priority.
Similarly, the CAHSR will need to think smaller and slower, not only because of our economic and debt problems, but because CAHSR simply isn’t being successfully sold as a high priority—even to those who favor rapid transit in our state.
A very good question is whether an anti-high-speed rail ballot initiative would pass right now; I’m guessing it would, despite my support of high-speed rail).
Yet an equally good question is whether a ballot initiative to redirect the $10 billion in California voter-approved funds to critical rail corridors (even to corridors outside of the original CAHSR routing) in megadense regions (such as that through which the Acela traverses) would pass. I’m guessing it would, too.
It’s hard to know what the fiscal, legal or engineering realities are for this proposed redirection of the $10 billion, but it’s easy to conclude that federal support of the CAHSR is anything but assured—it’ll pass the Senate, but the House has said “no” to the $3-4 billion that President Obama wants to spend for the CAHSR’s central Californian portion. Meanwhile, the private sector has said it’ll show more interest if the CAHSR focuses construction first at its northern and southern portions.
The northern and southern termini are not nearly as “shovel ready” as central California is for CAHSR, but the political will to enhance higher-speed rail (if not truly “high-speed” rail of 200 or more mph) already exists with the growing Caltrain and Metrolink networks in the Bay Area and the Greater L.A. region, respectively.
Furthermore, Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner from San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara to San Diego is Amtrak’s #2 train route nationwide with respect to ridership, and the ridership of Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor from San Jose to Sacramento ain’t too shabby, either.
I’d hate to lose the $10 billion of Californian bonds for CAHSR altogether, and if “higher speed rail” is all we can realistically do then perhaps we should follow the lead of the Acela model and recognize that the Perfect really IS the enemy of the Good.
So perhaps the right thing to do is to just have a geographically- and politically-balanced effort to reassign federal and state (and, maybe, private) funds to rail routes that are already popular in order to upgrade, speed up and increase the service and ridership of those currently-popular routes, and thereby create a better fiscal case for future rail upgrades and extensions.
But if Governor Brown and those of us who still support CAHSR of some sort really want to have any kind of high-speed rail within our lifetimes, we’ll need to really confront innovative ways to fund public works projects:
1) Make deals with various Native American tribes to allow legalized gambling on the trains for segments of rail routes that run through or near the boundaries of their tribal reservations.
2) Determine whether non-violent prison inmates can perform some of the unskilled yet necessary labor to expedite the construction and lower the labor costs of this large project.
We can always just throw in the towel on CAHSR altogether, but if we want to embark on a major public works project at a time when budgets and political will for this project are shrinking, we’ll have to do right by taxpayers and private investors alike if we’re committed to get anything done at all.
(Ken Alpern is a former Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Vice Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) –cw
Tags: high speed rail, California, Washington DC, CAHSR, Jerry Brown, Governor, Governor Brown
Expo Handed Over to Metro, Now In Final Pre-Opening Stage
Tuesday, November 29, 2011, by Neal Broverman
Source: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/expo_handed_over_to_metro_now_in_final_preopening_stage.php
Per the Expo Line's Facebook page, and now The Source too, the light rail's construction authority has handed the line over to Metro to begin pre-revenue operations, the last stage before you can ride the darn thing. This last step simulates regular service, but without picking up passengers. Posters on the Transit Coalition boards believe Sunday will be the first official day of pre-revenue, which would mean the line could open around mid-January as the last step takes about a month to complete. However, The Source stresses that no official dates have been set for either pre-revenue testing or a grand opening.
An interesting note on The Source's post indicates that it's not yet clear whether the line will initially open to La Cienega or go all the way to Culver City--the latter station is not yet finished, as it's waiting on a commuter parking lot and bike amenities.
As for the potential speed of a trip from Culver City to Seventh/Metro in Downtown, it's estimated to be about 25 minutes--The Source bloggers took the train for a test ride last week and Steve Hymon wrote that there were some amazingly fast portions, especially between Western and Crenshaw, and a sloooow section near Farmdale, where locals fought for a tunnel but got an at-grade station with several safety precautions.
Source: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/11/expo_handed_over_to_metro_now_in_final_preopening_stage.php
Per the Expo Line's Facebook page, and now The Source too, the light rail's construction authority has handed the line over to Metro to begin pre-revenue operations, the last stage before you can ride the darn thing. This last step simulates regular service, but without picking up passengers. Posters on the Transit Coalition boards believe Sunday will be the first official day of pre-revenue, which would mean the line could open around mid-January as the last step takes about a month to complete. However, The Source stresses that no official dates have been set for either pre-revenue testing or a grand opening.
An interesting note on The Source's post indicates that it's not yet clear whether the line will initially open to La Cienega or go all the way to Culver City--the latter station is not yet finished, as it's waiting on a commuter parking lot and bike amenities.
As for the potential speed of a trip from Culver City to Seventh/Metro in Downtown, it's estimated to be about 25 minutes--The Source bloggers took the train for a test ride last week and Steve Hymon wrote that there were some amazingly fast portions, especially between Western and Crenshaw, and a sloooow section near Farmdale, where locals fought for a tunnel but got an at-grade station with several safety precautions.
Bullet train funding plan faulted
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rail-report-20111130%2C0%2C977227.story
The Legislative Analyst's Office says the financing plan does not fulfill key requirements of the ballot measure voters approved to authorize the project.
By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
November 30, 2011
The funding plan for the California bullet train does not comply with key provisions of a ballot measure that voters approved to authorize the project and $9 billion in state bonds to help finance it, according to a report released Tuesday.
The study — by the Legislative Analyst's Office, which periodically reviews the $98-billion construction proposal — concluded that the most recent funding plan does not meet important requirements of Proposition 1A because high-speed trains cannot operate on the first stretch of track to be built next year in the Central Valley.
Also
First leg of California's high-speed rail line Graphic: First leg of California's high-speed rail line
Take this bullet train. Please Take this bullet train. Please
Still on board the bullet train Still on board the bullet train
Still no straight route to confidence in bullet train
Before bond financing can be requested, analysts said, project officials must complete an environmental review and identify a corridor, a usable segment, all sources of committed funds and a schedule for the receipt of financing.
"Our review finds that the funding plan only identifies committed funding for the initial construction segment, which is not a usable segment, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Proposition 1A," their report said.
In addition, analysts said, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has not obtained all environmental approvals for any usable segment and probably would not receive the necessary clearances before the start of construction.
High-speed rail officials discussed the report Tuesday with the analyst's office. They contend that the funding plan complies with the 2008 ballot measure and other statutory requirements.
"We have the opinion of counsel," said Dan Richard, a rail authority board member. "We have the resources and the ideas for how one could deal with it" if the report's conclusions become "a real obstacle."
The rail authority plans to build 130 miles of track that would run from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield. It is the first part of a 520-mile system that would eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains traveling at 220 mph.
Stations, maintenance facilities and the electrical system needed to power high-speed trains are not included in the first phase, which is estimated to cost at least $6 billion. Authority officials want to run Amtrak's San Joaquin service on the line until the system can be expanded.
The analyst's conclusions may lend credence to a state lawsuit filed earlier this month by Kings County and two Central Valley residents. They are seeking a court order to halt the Central Valley segment on the grounds that Proposition 1A and related state legislation call for the construction of track that high-speed trains can use.
The report by the Legislative Analyst's Office is a review of the project's draft business and funding plans. Although researchers found that the business plan largely meets state requirements, they concluded that the funding proposals were highly speculative.
Because the availability of funding to expand beyond the Central Valley section remains uncertain, analysts questioned whether operating conventional trains on the initial segment was worth the expense to build it.
dan.weikel@latimes.com
Times staff writer Ralph Vartabedian contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
The Legislative Analyst's Office says the financing plan does not fulfill key requirements of the ballot measure voters approved to authorize the project.
By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
November 30, 2011
The funding plan for the California bullet train does not comply with key provisions of a ballot measure that voters approved to authorize the project and $9 billion in state bonds to help finance it, according to a report released Tuesday.
The study — by the Legislative Analyst's Office, which periodically reviews the $98-billion construction proposal — concluded that the most recent funding plan does not meet important requirements of Proposition 1A because high-speed trains cannot operate on the first stretch of track to be built next year in the Central Valley.
Also
First leg of California's high-speed rail line Graphic: First leg of California's high-speed rail line
Take this bullet train. Please Take this bullet train. Please
Still on board the bullet train Still on board the bullet train
Still no straight route to confidence in bullet train
Before bond financing can be requested, analysts said, project officials must complete an environmental review and identify a corridor, a usable segment, all sources of committed funds and a schedule for the receipt of financing.
"Our review finds that the funding plan only identifies committed funding for the initial construction segment, which is not a usable segment, and therefore does not meet the requirements of Proposition 1A," their report said.
In addition, analysts said, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has not obtained all environmental approvals for any usable segment and probably would not receive the necessary clearances before the start of construction.
High-speed rail officials discussed the report Tuesday with the analyst's office. They contend that the funding plan complies with the 2008 ballot measure and other statutory requirements.
"We have the opinion of counsel," said Dan Richard, a rail authority board member. "We have the resources and the ideas for how one could deal with it" if the report's conclusions become "a real obstacle."
The rail authority plans to build 130 miles of track that would run from south of Merced to north of Bakersfield. It is the first part of a 520-mile system that would eventually link Los Angeles and San Francisco with trains traveling at 220 mph.
Stations, maintenance facilities and the electrical system needed to power high-speed trains are not included in the first phase, which is estimated to cost at least $6 billion. Authority officials want to run Amtrak's San Joaquin service on the line until the system can be expanded.
The analyst's conclusions may lend credence to a state lawsuit filed earlier this month by Kings County and two Central Valley residents. They are seeking a court order to halt the Central Valley segment on the grounds that Proposition 1A and related state legislation call for the construction of track that high-speed trains can use.
The report by the Legislative Analyst's Office is a review of the project's draft business and funding plans. Although researchers found that the business plan largely meets state requirements, they concluded that the funding proposals were highly speculative.
Because the availability of funding to expand beyond the Central Valley section remains uncertain, analysts questioned whether operating conventional trains on the initial segment was worth the expense to build it.
dan.weikel@latimes.com
Times staff writer Ralph Vartabedian contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Clamoring for Crenshaw: Politicians Want 2 Westchester Stops
Monday, November 28, 2011, by Neal Broverman
22
2011.11_crenshaw.jpg
There are now two neighborhoods fighting for stations on the proposed Crenshaw Line, which will hopefully link LAX to the Expo Line around 2018. Aside from Leimert Park locals--who are suing Metro, in part for putting forth a plan that doesn't guarantee a station at Vernon in the center of Leimert Park Village--residents and politicians in Westchester are agitating louder than ever for two stations in their neighborhood, reports The Argonaut. Councilman Bill Rosendahl is now joining the effort, taking over from former Fourth District County Supervisor Don Knabe, whose last act *as supervisor for the area was to pass a motion to include a station at Hindry and Florence in Westchester. "Metro's Construction Committee approved Knabe's motion unanimously Nov. 18 and recommended the motion for approval to the full board," The Argonaut reports. Rosendahl is now asking supporters to sign an online petition to back Knabe's motion. The petition says a station at Hindry would provide opportunities for "urban renewal," and that the stop should be included if it can be built within the line's $1.7 billion budget, or if outside funding is made available.
There were once discussions around a proposed Westchester station at Manchester and Aviation, but when the final environmental impact report for the Crenshaw Line was released earlier this year, Manchester didn't make the cut--Metro says it's because ridership projections were low and some residents voiced opposition. But a station at Hindry, a little bit further east, is proving more popular. The at-grade station would be cheaper than Manchester (approximately $12 million compared to $82 million). Supporters also point out that without the Hindry stop, there would be a three and a half mile gap between the LAX station at Century and Aviation and the next stop near La Brea--most rail lines have a station about every mile.
Bullet train's $98-billion cost could be its biggest obstacle
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1102-bullet-train-20111102,0,4649590,full.story
By Ralph Vartabedian, Dan Weikel and Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times
November 2, 2011
The ambitious plan to connect Anaheim and San Francisco with high-speed trains has encountered plenty of obstacles, including intensifying resistance from wealthy and poor communities lying in the track's path.
But the bullet train's biggest threat could be its ballooning price tag, which this week doubled to an estimated $98 billion.
Backers on Tuesday announced a major strategy shift, unveiling a reworked blueprint for the first leg that would delay completion 13 years to 2033.
Proponents of the project say the higher cost of their proposal represents a more realistic outlook, adding billions of dollars for future contingencies and time for potential delays.
In addition, the new plan initially would blend bullet train service with the existing Metrolink network in Southern California and the Caltrain system in Northern California, stretching out the need for financial outlays and better using existing rail systems.
"This is not a train to nowhere," said California High-Speed Rail Authority board member Dan Richards, a finance expert appointed to the rail agency's board this summer by Gov. Jerry Brown. "It will be a train to where trains are waiting. That is the new strategy."
The extended construction scheme still would begin next year with a controversial spine of track in the Central Valley, leading to initial operation of 220-mph trains to either San Jose or the San Fernando Valley in roughly a decade, officials said.
However, the new construction schedule would lead to dramatically higher costs at a time when California's heavy debt load already has yielded one of the lowest credit ratings in the nation.
Opponents warned Tuesday that the system had become even more objectionable, and they vowed to redouble their efforts to kill the idea.
"The new projected cost to build California's high-speed rail project is astronomical," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the House majority whip, whose district would be served by the rail. "But whether $43 billion or $100 billion, questions persist about the viability of the project." McCarthy is pushing legislation to freeze federal funding until auditors examine the project's feasibility.
The rail project had counted on Congress to provide the bulk of funding, but both the House and Senate in the last month have staunched the flow of money. About $3 billion in federal grants from the economic stimulus legislation is in hand, along with $9 billion
in funding from a bond measure passed by voters in 2008.
On Thursday, the authority is supposed to unveil a separate funding plan that would show how it would pay for the rest of the system.
The lack of certainty about the funding is likely to come under close scrutiny in the next 60 days as Brown and the Legislature weigh whether to appropriate the money to start construction next year.
Brown reiterated his support for the rail proposal on Tuesday, saying, "California's high-speed rail project will create hundreds of thousands of jobs.... The High-Speed Rail Authority's business plan is solid and lays the foundation for a 21st century transportation system."
The rail authority said the new plan's business assumptions were far more conservative than in the past. It includes projections that future inflation will run at 3% annually and includes $16 billion in reserves for contingencies. The plan also calls for having the needed funds in hand before starting each segment of the system.
In an effort to demonstrate deep political backing, the authority put out supporting statements from key political and labor leaders statewide, including the mayors of the largest cities to be served by the rail.
Still, a significant number of Democratic critics, who have said they support a high-speed rail in concept, withheld their support.
In the critical Silicon Valley section, Democrats have been outraged by the rail authority's plan to run trains on elevated viaducts through some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation.
Specific route plans have long triggered local resistance to the high-speed rail project. Although the new proposal addresses some of them, the price tag could be prohibitive.
The shift to blending service with existing commuter rail systems unveiled Tuesday was in large measure a response to that opposition.
The drawback to that approach is that for many years, riders would have to transfer to trains at stations on the edges of either Los Angeles or San Francisco.
Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) said he supports the blended service approach because it will help relieve effects in his Bay Area district. But he isn't convinced that money will be available to finish the project.
"Ninety-eight billion dollars is a hard number to swallow, but it's a particularly hard number when nobody else is going to pay for it," he said.
The new plan projects the cost of a one-way fare from L.A. to San Francisco at between $52 and $123.
The plan claims that the system would be immediately profitable when it begins partial operations.
By 2040, the net operating profit for the San Francisco-to-Anaheim line is projected to range between $2.3 billion and $3.7 billion annually, depending on ridership. That is despite sharply lower passenger projections in the new plan.
Earlier ridership estimates — some predicting up to 117 million riders a year by 2030 — were heavily criticized by researchers at UC Berkeley.
According to the new projections, the 520-mile line between San Francisco and Anaheim will carry between 29.6 million and 43.9 million passengers annually by 2040.
A segment between San Jose and the San Fernando Valley is expected to handle between 16.1 million and
23.7 million passengers a year.
Those estimates underpin a claim by rail proponents that California would have to spend $170 billion on new highways and airport facilities to accommodate growth if the bullet train is not built.
"California needs a way to move people quickly throughout our state and provide relief to our overcrowded roads and busy airports,'' said U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
But calls for such a massive investment in rail bump up against an unpleasant reality facing many politicians: Money is short for other critical needs.
"To start a hole for a shiny new toy with only a few percent of the needed money doesn't make sense to me," said Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, (R-Dana Point), who led an unsuccessful effort to defund the project. "I don't know where we are going to get the money."
ralph.vartabedian@latimes.com
dan.weikel@latimes.com
richard.simon@latimes.com
Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report.
No takers for Japanese bullet trains Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/japanese-bullet-trains-railway-board-india/1/161803.html
The railway ministry's fascination for Japanese bullet trains has not found "realistic" takers. In fact, several former and serving officials in the Railway Board have junked it as "a pipe dream" which is not "economically viable".
A former board member for traffic said: "Is the ministry ready to increase the fare to a minimum of Rs.10,000 per person on the Delhi-Patna and Delhi-Mumbai routes? If not, how will it recover the construction cost of a single track, which would be at least Rs.20,000 crore?"
Japan was in all earnestness promoting the Shinkansen (bullet train) system for the six high-speed corridors proposed in India. After meetings last month in Mumbai, it also organised a day-long presentation at the Rail Bhavan earlier this month. It was attended by railway minister Dinesh Trivedi and senior rail officials.
The Japanese delegation highlighted the zero fatal accident-record of its bullet trains since their introduction in 1964. In this respect, the Japanese are one up on the Chinese, which brought the curtains down on its high-speed projects after a tragic accident on the Shanghai line.
The railway ministry is currently undertaking feasibility studies on the Pune-Mumbai-Ahmedabad, Delhi-Chandigarh-Amritsar, Varanasi-Patna, Haldia-Howrah, Delhi-Agra-Lucknow, Hyderabad-Vijaywada-Chennai and Chennai-Bangalore-Coimbatore-Ernakulam corridors.
Though Trivedi is said to be in favour of the trains, many officials doubt if it is a "profitable proposition" for the Indian Railways, which is not even in a position to invest a few thousand crores to install anti-fog and anti-collision devices on its trains. "The world over, the high-speed corridors are constructed on routes less than 500-km long and on circuits with no air connectivity. Who would pay higher than the air fare to travel longer to Patna, Kolkata or Mumbai?" an official asked.
Some experts also countered Trivedi's bullet train idea on three points: (a) Who will pay for the investment? (b) If it is a soft loan, will the cash-strapped ministry ensure the repayment? (c) Can the ministry ensure the required investment under the PPP mode?
Technical experts say the condition of the existing tracks is not conducive to running bullet or other fast trains, which run at 160 kmph.
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/japanese-bullet-trains-railway-board-india/1/161803.html
A former board member for traffic said: "Is the ministry ready to increase the fare to a minimum of Rs.10,000 per person on the Delhi-Patna and Delhi-Mumbai routes? If not, how will it recover the construction cost of a single track, which would be at least Rs.20,000 crore?"
Japan was in all earnestness promoting the Shinkansen (bullet train) system for the six high-speed corridors proposed in India. After meetings last month in Mumbai, it also organised a day-long presentation at the Rail Bhavan earlier this month. It was attended by railway minister Dinesh Trivedi and senior rail officials.
The Japanese delegation highlighted the zero fatal accident-record of its bullet trains since their introduction in 1964. In this respect, the Japanese are one up on the Chinese, which brought the curtains down on its high-speed projects after a tragic accident on the Shanghai line.
The railway ministry is currently undertaking feasibility studies on the Pune-Mumbai-Ahmedabad, Delhi-Chandigarh-Amritsar, Varanasi-Patna, Haldia-Howrah, Delhi-Agra-Lucknow, Hyderabad-Vijaywada-Chennai and Chennai-Bangalore-Coimbatore-Ernakulam corridors.
Though Trivedi is said to be in favour of the trains, many officials doubt if it is a "profitable proposition" for the Indian Railways, which is not even in a position to invest a few thousand crores to install anti-fog and anti-collision devices on its trains. "The world over, the high-speed corridors are constructed on routes less than 500-km long and on circuits with no air connectivity. Who would pay higher than the air fare to travel longer to Patna, Kolkata or Mumbai?" an official asked.
Some experts also countered Trivedi's bullet train idea on three points: (a) Who will pay for the investment? (b) If it is a soft loan, will the cash-strapped ministry ensure the repayment? (c) Can the ministry ensure the required investment under the PPP mode?
Technical experts say the condition of the existing tracks is not conducive to running bullet or other fast trains, which run at 160 kmph.
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/japanese-bullet-trains-railway-board-india/1/161803.html
California's high-speed rail is slow to gain speed
by Stephanie Paige Ogburn
Fourteen countries have high-speed rail networks; in just a few years, 10 more will. Yet America's primary bullet-train attempt is faltering in California, a state that will add 20 million people in the next two decades and needs to find a way to schlep them around. Estimated costs for the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plan recently doubled, and public relations stumbles, combined with a faltering economy and lack of federal support, are hindering the effort. If California gives up, the U.S. will not only fall behind China, Germany and Japan, but also countries like Italy, Portugal and Turkey, where bullet trains are gathering momentum.
1996 The California High-Speed Rail Authority is created. Its goal: Establish intercity high-speed rail service in the state.
1999 The Authority releases its first business plan. Costs, in 1999 dollars, are estimated at $25 billion; construction is scheduled to take 16 years.
2002 Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill calling for a 2004 vote on a $9.95 billion bond measure to fund the first section of the 800-mile high-speed train system. That vote gets postponed twice, due to California's fiscal worries.
2008 The oft-postponed bond measure finally hits voters, and nearly 53 percent approve it.
2010 January: California wins $2.5 billion in federal stimulus funds for its high-speed rail project, which it will leverage to $4.5 billion with state matching.
2010 The California State Auditor releases a damning report in April, saying the Authority "lacks detail" in its financing plans as well as safeguards to ensure contractors actually complete the work they bill for.
2011 In November: the Authority releases the latest version of its business plan, in which costs -- adjusted for inflation -- jump from a 2009 estimate of $43 billion to $98.5 billion by the time the project, which will break ground in 2012, is completed. The U.S. House kills all funding for high-speed rail, quashing California's hopes for additional future federal support; Obama had sought $8 billion. A Sacramento judge nixes a planned Silicon Valley route for the train.
2017 Completion date for the initial section, connecting Bakersfield to Fresno.
2033 Estimated completion date of Phase One, which will link Los Angeles to San Francisco. Express trip length: 2 hours and 40 minutes. Projected average one-way fare: $81
Fourteen countries have high-speed rail networks; in just a few years, 10 more will. Yet America's primary bullet-train attempt is faltering in California, a state that will add 20 million people in the next two decades and needs to find a way to schlep them around. Estimated costs for the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plan recently doubled, and public relations stumbles, combined with a faltering economy and lack of federal support, are hindering the effort. If California gives up, the U.S. will not only fall behind China, Germany and Japan, but also countries like Italy, Portugal and Turkey, where bullet trains are gathering momentum.
1996 The California High-Speed Rail Authority is created. Its goal: Establish intercity high-speed rail service in the state.
1999 The Authority releases its first business plan. Costs, in 1999 dollars, are estimated at $25 billion; construction is scheduled to take 16 years.
2002 Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill calling for a 2004 vote on a $9.95 billion bond measure to fund the first section of the 800-mile high-speed train system. That vote gets postponed twice, due to California's fiscal worries.
2008 The oft-postponed bond measure finally hits voters, and nearly 53 percent approve it.
2010 January: California wins $2.5 billion in federal stimulus funds for its high-speed rail project, which it will leverage to $4.5 billion with state matching.
2010 The California State Auditor releases a damning report in April, saying the Authority "lacks detail" in its financing plans as well as safeguards to ensure contractors actually complete the work they bill for.
2011 In November: the Authority releases the latest version of its business plan, in which costs -- adjusted for inflation -- jump from a 2009 estimate of $43 billion to $98.5 billion by the time the project, which will break ground in 2012, is completed. The U.S. House kills all funding for high-speed rail, quashing California's hopes for additional future federal support; Obama had sought $8 billion. A Sacramento judge nixes a planned Silicon Valley route for the train.
2017 Completion date for the initial section, connecting Bakersfield to Fresno.
2033 Estimated completion date of Phase One, which will link Los Angeles to San Francisco. Express trip length: 2 hours and 40 minutes. Projected average one-way fare: $81
Long road ahead: high-speed train
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/53005332-82/rail-speed-planning-prices.html.csp
The problem with going to heaven is that you have to die first.
The problem with riding a high-speed train from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas, Denver, San Francisco or Los Angeles — heavenly as that might be for people fed up with high gas prices and frazzled airport security lines — is that you would have to first come up with untold billions of dollars and slog through years of planning, environmental reviews and political battles.
So we’d better get started.
Many political leaders in the Salt Lake City area have joined the Western High Speed Rail Alliance. That group is in the early stages of planning high-speed rail links among the population centers of Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada, linking with a similar network under way in California.
If high-speed rail brings the benefits its backers expect, then our region certainly would not want to be left behind. Moving people out of their cars and out of aircraft and into Euro-style bullet trains could ease congestion and reduce dependence on foreign oil even as it spared the atmosphere the burden of billions of pounds of greenhouse gases annually. Besides, it could create a lot of the jobs that our jobless recovery has so far failed to generate.
But there are also some warning signals ahead. The California dream of a high-speed rail link between Anaheim in the south and San Francisco in the north has been bedeviled by huge cost overruns and other problems. The list price has reached $98 billion and the system won’t be ready until 2030 at the earliest. Last week’s $1 billion grant from the rail-friendly Obama administration will hardly make a dent.
There are also questions of whether the sparsely populated Intermountain West is really such a good candidate for passenger rail, high-speed or otherwise. The popularity of such systems in Europe and Japan — as along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States — is helped along by factors that include a culture that is accustomed to public transit, relatively shorter distances between population centers and, in other countries, much higher gas prices.
The American West has such a car-dependent heritage that there can be less confidence we would abandon our private vehicles for even the sleekest of trains. Especially if such an expensive undertaking would mean giant public subsidies and/or luxury-level ticket prices.
So, by all means, put some sharp minds and sharper pencils into the planning of high-speed rail in the West. Just understand that the road to any Golden Spike moment will be long, difficult and, perhaps, fruitless.
The problem with going to heaven is that you have to die first.
The problem with riding a high-speed train from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas, Denver, San Francisco or Los Angeles — heavenly as that might be for people fed up with high gas prices and frazzled airport security lines — is that you would have to first come up with untold billions of dollars and slog through years of planning, environmental reviews and political battles.
So we’d better get started.
Many political leaders in the Salt Lake City area have joined the Western High Speed Rail Alliance. That group is in the early stages of planning high-speed rail links among the population centers of Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada, linking with a similar network under way in California.
If high-speed rail brings the benefits its backers expect, then our region certainly would not want to be left behind. Moving people out of their cars and out of aircraft and into Euro-style bullet trains could ease congestion and reduce dependence on foreign oil even as it spared the atmosphere the burden of billions of pounds of greenhouse gases annually. Besides, it could create a lot of the jobs that our jobless recovery has so far failed to generate.
But there are also some warning signals ahead. The California dream of a high-speed rail link between Anaheim in the south and San Francisco in the north has been bedeviled by huge cost overruns and other problems. The list price has reached $98 billion and the system won’t be ready until 2030 at the earliest. Last week’s $1 billion grant from the rail-friendly Obama administration will hardly make a dent.
There are also questions of whether the sparsely populated Intermountain West is really such a good candidate for passenger rail, high-speed or otherwise. The popularity of such systems in Europe and Japan — as along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States — is helped along by factors that include a culture that is accustomed to public transit, relatively shorter distances between population centers and, in other countries, much higher gas prices.
The American West has such a car-dependent heritage that there can be less confidence we would abandon our private vehicles for even the sleekest of trains. Especially if such an expensive undertaking would mean giant public subsidies and/or luxury-level ticket prices.
So, by all means, put some sharp minds and sharper pencils into the planning of high-speed rail in the West. Just understand that the road to any Golden Spike moment will be long, difficult and, perhaps, fruitless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)