Pedestrian View Of Los Angeles

Op/Ed: Gold Line Brings Gold to L.A. Region

2011-12-21T17:35:00.000-08:00

Gold Line Construction Authority Chairman Doug Tessitor writes about the economic advantages of the coming Gold Line Foothill Extension.

Source: http://sierramadre.patch.com/articles/op-ed-the-gold-line-brings-gold-to-la-region#photo-6522671

December 14, 2011

From the Rose Bowl to the Fairplex, the San Gabriel Valley is home to public venues and projects that create jobs and generate much-needed economic activity for the entire L.A. region.

With the recent approval of a distinctive final design for a Gold Line bridge over the I-210 Freeway, another of these job-generating projects will soon be visible to the public and will provide a new "Gateway to the San Gabriel Valley."

The $18.6 million bridge, which is already under construction and providing jobs, will feature columns designed to resemble American Indian baskets in recognition of the region’s original inhabitants and the important role they played in the San Gabriel Valley’s development.

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, the agency responsible for the Gold Line’s planning and construction, sponsored an international competition and chose award-winning public artist Andrew Leicester to envision this unique structure to welcome travelers to the Valley.

Caltrans’ and the Construction Authority’s approval of the final design is a significant milestone in one of the region’s largest and most important transit projects—the $735 million extension of the Metro Gold Line light rail line from Pasadena to Azusa. This is the first of two approximately 12-mile extensions that will ultimately connect Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire along the Foothills of the San Gabriel Valley.

The current construction project is expected to generate nearly 7,000 new jobs (2,600 in construction) and $1 billion in economic output for the region during its four-year construction period, according to the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp.

Using a design-build approach, the Construction Authority is moving forward faster than would otherwise be possible. Under this approach, for instance, construction on the I-210 Gold Line bridge began months ahead of the of the final design’s approval.

By using design-build contracting, the Construction Authority is creating jobs when they are most needed and keeping the Measure R-funded rail project on schedule. Approved by two-thirds of Los Angeles County voters in November 2008, Measure R initiated a half-cent sales tax increase to upgrade the region’s transportation system including the Foothill Extension projects.

Long before the voters spoke, the Construction Authority had already completed the first segment of the Gold Line from Los Angeles to Pasadena on time and under budget. That 13.7-mile section opened to the public in 2003, and monthly boardings on the Gold Line have continually increased, now reaching nearly 40,000 average weekday boardings.

The Legislature created the Construction Authority in 1998 for one purpose—to extend rail transit along the Foothills. As leaders of the Construction Authority, we have been single-minded in our pursuit of that goal.

Working together with our elected leaders, state and federal officials, local communities and residents throughout the region, we have continued to move the project forward this year with the final I-210 bridge design approval and the launch of construction.

As we near the end of 2011, we are on track to complete the light rail extension to Azusa in 2015, and are focused on readying the next 12-mile segment for construction - easing traffic woes and helping to ensure a healthier and more prosperous future for all who live, work and visit Los Angeles County.

Doug Tessitor is the Construction Authority board chairman and Glendora mayor.

Metro VS Reason: Agency Calls Foundation's Light Rail Slam 'Factually Challenged'

2011-12-21T17:30:00.000-08:00

Source: http://laist.com/2011/12/14/metro_fires_back_at_reason_foundation.php

Metro has fired back at the Reason Foundation for their recent pro-bus video "17 Miles in Just 78 Minutes! Light Rail vs. Reality in LA."

In the video, viewers follow comedian Watt Smith as he chats with light rail commuters about local public transportation. Informational pop-ups crowd the screen throughout the video, but Metro says these facts, as well as other claims in the video, are largely inaccurate.

Describing Reason.TV's video as "amusing and "a little factually challenged," Metro posted the following corrections and suggestions to its blog, The Source. Watch the video again after skimming through Metro's rebuttal and let us know what you think.

•It’s about 29 miles by road — not 17 — from LAX to downtown Burbank, according to most of the maps that I consulted.

•To the dude in the video: if you seriously got from the LAX terminals to Warner Brothers Studios in Burbank using only buses and rail in 78 minutes, then you’re some kind of Jedi Knight of mass transit. That’s more like a two-hour trip — owing in part to the bus between LAX and the Green Line’s Aviation station.

•It’s hardly a secret that LAX-to-Burbank isn’t terribly well served by transit. As part of the Measure R sales tax increase approved by voters, a transit connection between the airport and the future Crenshaw/LAX Line is under study.

•There might be faster alternatives between LAX and Burbank. One idea: shell out a few more bucks and take the Flyaway bus to Los Angeles Union Station, a trip that usually takes 30 to 50 minutes depending on traffic. From there, it’s possible to take the Red Line subway to Universal City and catch a bus to Warner Brothers. Or take Metrolink from Union Station to Burbank and then bus or taxi to the studio.

•To the bubble suggesting that light rail is less energy efficient than cars…that’s hardly an undisputed fact and there are other considerations such as pollution. The federal government has found that transit produces a significantly less greenhouse gases than single-occupancy vehicles. Here's a good report.

•Transit is heavily subsidized — in Los Angeles County and elsewhere. The correct figures: Metro currently subsidizes on average 72 percent of a bus fare and about 76 percent of a rail fare. See page 64 of this year’s adopted budget.

•We can confirm the video’s keen observation that trains are more crowded during rush hour. However, the trains don’t run all night, as the cute thought bubble alleges.

•A new 40-foot CNG-powered bus costs about $450,000 and a new 60-foot CNG bus about $750,000 — not the $300,000 figure shown in those clever bubbles!

•It’s totally fair to question how much bang taxpayers get for the bucks they invest in any type of transit, rail included. But chew on this: if we got rid of the rail system in L.A. and put everyone on buses and put more buses on local streets and freeways, is there anyone that really thinks traffic or transit would improve?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Manhattan Beach trolley talks trail on

2011-12-21T17:24:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.easyreadernews.com/41984/trolley-talks-trail/

News|December 14, 2011 11:25 am

After years of debating the implementation of a fixed-route trolley system in Manhattan Beach, the City Council decided to pursue the project further by soliciting feedback from residents through a needs assessment.

The proposed trolley system would cost between $562,000 and $633,000 to implement during its first year, and up to $483,000 annually thereafter, depending on its hours of operation, according to Richard Gill, director of parks and recreation.

To fund the trolley, the city would exhaust the $350,000 in available Measure R funds. The city anticipates receiving $279,000 in revenue annually in Measure R funds – still, operating costs for the trolley could exceed these revenues by up to $250,000 per year, according to a city staff report.

Competing projects for these funds include street repairs and the Dial-A-Ride program, Gill said. The numbers do not include revenue from the trolley, which could be gained through a riding fee or by selling advertisements on the trolley.

Councilmember Amy Howorth thought a trolley could decrease traffic throughout the city and provide children transportation to school or summer camp on the beach. “I think we need to try it,” she said. “There’s a community benefit to having public transportation.”

The proposed trolley would offer riders transportation from east to west and back. “I think if we do it right, there will be a demand for it,” said Mayor Nick Tell.

Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Powell and Councilmember David Lesser were opposed to the project. “We all would welcome a free service, but it somehow needs to be paid for,” Lesser said, later adding that while he grew up riding a bus, he is concerned about the viability of the proposal.

Powell drew parallels between the proposed trolley and other transportation options like the Ocean Express, which the city is asked to subsidize each year due to low ridership, he said. “I can’t support something that’s not cost effective,” he said, adding that pedestrian improvements and pothole repairs are among the list of competing uses of the funds. “I believe we have an obligation to spend our taxpayers’ money wisely.”

Resident Patrick McBride spoke against bringing a trolley system to Manhattan Beach. “There’s better ways to spend this money,” he said. “People in Manhattan Beach don’t want to ride public transportation. That is the sad truth.”

Breaking News: High Speed Rail Designed To Achieve High Speeds

2011-12-16T10:02:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/12/breaking-news-high-speed-rail-designed-to-achieve-high-speeds/

Dec 14th, 2011 | Posted by Robert Cruickshank

I have no idea why the LA Times thought it would be a good idea to put Ralph Vartabedian on the high speed rail beat, but the results have been disastrous. The guy has no clue how the project actually works and almost certainly has never actually used a high speed train in his life. The result has been a series of nonsensical articles trashing the project for common-sense things that are not actually newsworthy issues.

Today’s article from Vartabedian is perhaps the worst yet. In it, he actually argues that the requirement that trains connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes was somehow a shocking thing sneaked into the Prop 1A legislation without anybody realizing its intent.

I’m serious. That’s actually the story he filed. Vartabedian basically thinks it’s somehow a major news story that a high speed train is intended to achieve high speeds:

California’s proposed bullet train will need to soar over small towns on towering viaducts, split rich farm fields diagonally and burrow for miles under mountains for a simple reason: It has no time to spare.

In the fine print of a 2008 voter-approved measure funding the project was a little-noticed requirement that trains be able to rocket from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to San Francisco in no more than two hours and 40 minutes.

It was an aggressive goal, requiring cutting-edge technology, and was originally intended to protect the sanctity of the bullet train concept from political compromise. Whether the California High Speed Rail Authority can meet such a schedule is far from certain. Even some backers of the project now say it was a mistake to lock in the strict requirement.

Huh? It wasn’t “fine print” – HSR supporters like me shouted from the rooftops that the trains would connect SF to LA in just over two and a half hours. It was compelling. It was sensible. It was one of the things that generated public support for the project. We put together postcards that fall with the following image on one side and handed them out at train stations across the state, such as Union Station, loudly trumpeting the travel time:

After all, people understood that they were voting for high speed rail. They were voting for short travel times. That’s the entire point of high speed rail – to be something other than Amtrak, to provide fast and reliable transportation between California’s metro areas.

For Vartabedian to treat this as something of a surprise just shows how disreputable a journalist he really is. That travel time is comparable to other successful HSR routes around the world. Spain’s AVE train connects Madrid and Barcelona in 2 hours, 38 minutes. France’s LGV Est operates trains at speeds of 200 mph. Given technological improvements, 220 mph by 2020 is a reasonable expectation.

Instead Vartabedian makes this sound like some hidden trick, and quotes high speed rail opponent Alan Lowenthal to supposedly make his case:

Some state legislative leaders and rail authority officials say the time requirement never should have been put into the law. “It was a mistake,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a key supporter of the project who has asked increasingly tough questions about the cost.

In fact, Lowenthal has always opposed high speed rail, wanting to steal the $10 billion in voter approved funding for slower-speed trains. So it is in his interest to argue that high speeds are not desirable and are some sort of trick.

I don’t understand why the LA Times continues to pay Ralph Vartabedian to mislead their readers about this project. He is a dishonest reporter who is writing hit pieces rather than objective journalism. A reputable newspaper would not continue to have him on their staff.

California voters knew what they were doing when they voted for Prop 1A. They knew it would provide fast train service between SF and LA. That’s the entire point. And it’s the right goal to pursue, even if HSR opponents like Vartabedian want to mislead the public about what they actually voted for in 2008.

Are streetcars the answer to our transit and environmental needs?

2011-12-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

Souce: http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2011/12/12/33753/are_streetcars_the_answer_to_our_transit_and_environmental_needs

By Steven Dornfeld | Published Mon, Dec 12 2011 9:06 am

Cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use.
SiemensCities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use.

Patrick Condon wants to turn back the clock to the streetcar era.

Condon, an urban planner and professor at the University of British Columbia, says bringing back the streetcar is the best thing cities can do to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases and become more sustainable.

Speaking last week at the University of Minnesota, Condon said most North American cities developed out of the agricultural grid system, in which the land was divided into one-mile-square parcels. Streetcars could easily be added back into cities that developed on a grid pattern and many suburbs could be retrofitted to include them, he said.

Congdon said he came to be a "train nut" late in life, and does not readily identify the older guys "in bib overalls hovering over their train layouts in the basement."

But he argued that cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use. Making communities walkable and bikeable also could help.

One major challenge would be getting public buy-in, Condon said. Half of the public "doesn't believe climate change is a problem."

There is, however, a certain amount of nostalgia for streetcars. Many baby boomers and their parents recall the days when it was possible to hop on a trolley and get to just about anywhere in the Twin Cities area.

900 streetcars
Up until the early 1950s, the Twin Cities had 900 streetcars and more than 500 miles of track that extended from Lake Minnetonka to Stillwater. On University Avenue, there were more than 60 cars operating during peak periods.

Annual ridership hit a peak of 238 million in 1920. It began to drop as automobiles became affordable and plummeted after World War II, when GIs returned home, formed families and sought that prized home in the suburbs. (By comparison, transit ridership last year was 91 million.)

The streetcar system came to an unfortunate end in 1954, when the last trolleys were pulled from the streets and replaced with buses financed by General Motors. In the conversion process, the transit system was defrauded by company executives and mobsters, several of whom went to jail.

The last run of the streetcars in Minneapolis on June 19,1954.
Hennepin County LibraryThe last run of the streetcars in Minneapolis on June 19,1954.

The history of the system is recounted in a richly illustrated book, "Twin Cities by Trolley," by John W. Diers and Aaron Isaacs. The Minnesota Streetcar Museum also provides a brief history of the system.

Condon said there are solid environment and economic reasons for bringing back the trolley. A modern low-floor tram [PDF] manufactured by Siemens has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile of all transportation options.

Streetcars also are more affordable, with a capital cost of $20 million to $40 million per mile compared with $60 million to $100 million a mile for light rail transit.

Key density goal
The key, Condon said, is to achieve sufficient density — 10 to 40 residential units per acre — to support the investment. "You could marry transit to land use in a way where you don't have to subsidize it at all," he says. However, he acknowledged that achieving that density goal "is going to be very hard."

In the Twin Cities, the typical urban neighborhood might have a density of seven to 10 units per acre, while the density in developing suburbs is more in the range of two to four units per acre. The Metropolitan Council requires a minimum of three units per acre in areas where communities want regional sewer service.

Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have expressed interest in streetcars, and Minneapolis landed a $900,000 federal grant to explore the idea. The city has embarked on a study of a possible nine-mile line along Nicollet and Central Avenues from 46th Street in south Minneapolis to a transit station just outside of Columbia Heights.

St. Paul failed to win a $200,000 grant to conduct a study of its own, but Joe Campbell, a spokesman for Mayor Chris Coleman, says the city is "pursuing other options" to fund the effort.

Metro Transit, meanwhile, is studying another option — a form of bus rapid transit (BRT) — in 11 urban corridors in the two cities. It is would include such features as distinctive vehicles with traffic signal priority, heated bus shelters, off-vehicle fare collection, real-time travel information, more frequent service and faster trips.

The capital cost for urban BRT would be about $2 million to $5 million per mile, according to Metro Transit planners.

Gabbard: High Speed Rail Route, Business Plan, Deserve a Chance

2011-12-15T11:58:00.000-08:00

Source: http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/12/14/gabbard-high-speed-rail-route-business-plan-deserve-a-chance/
by Dana Gabbard

As a long-time observer of the California high speed rail project who advocated in favor of the 2008 bond, to me one interesting recent trend is that the original hotbed of support (the Central Valley) of late has become much more skeptical and critical. Some of that is due to the dynamics of large projects — early on excitement holds sway whereas when construction begins to approach folks begin to confront the downside impacts of such ventures, causing a backlash. And frankly, until recently, I think it can be fairly said the Authority’s outreach and handling of politically sensitive aspects has been less than stellar.

Click on the report go visit the CAHSR website.

I am well aware a lot of folks are having serious sticker shock about this project. But the improved business plan seems to be attacked for merely doing what critics have long asked for — provide realistic estimates of costs, ridership and the likely timing of private investment. Plus many cities are reeling from the technology’s attributes resulting in many towns being impacted without the benefit of having a station.

All that said, I am not big on second guessing the authority unlike many other rail activists. Having the first segment in the Central Valley seems a reasonable approach, especially since it is a condition of the federal funding they have been awarded. And after many convulsions this latest news of a preferred route seems to auger the project getting back on track with support from those to be most effected.

I am not unaware this is just one step in a lengthy process. And that there are many more obstacles ahead. But I think those predicting loudly of late the bullet train is on life support are being premature.

Gold Line Basket Bridge Getting Its Weave On in Arcadia

2011-12-15T11:56:00.000-08:00

Source: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/12/gold_line_basket_bridge_getting_its_weave_on_in_arcadia_1.php

Tuesday, December 13, 2011, by Neal Broverman

The first column for the iconic Gold Line "basket bridge" over the 210 was poured last week in Arcadia and the other three columns are following as we speak, reports the Gold Line Construction Authority. The above picture shows how the design is embedded in the column--"The remaining segments of the [column] form will be stripped in the next few days, and then crews will install the form on the second column by the end of the year," according to a GLCA press release. "Over the coming weeks and months you will start seeing activity out along the 11.5-mile corridor." The bridge, designed by artist Andrew Leicester and AECOM, will be the first part of the Gold Line extension to Azusa to be finished. According to a Pasadena Star-News op-ed from GLCA board chairman/Glendora mayor Doug Tessitor, the extension remains on track to open in 2015, even with that one resident filing lawsuits like it's going out of style.

Alameda Street Train Tracks Being Removed

2011-12-15T11:38:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/alameda-street-train-tracks-being-removed/article_58c86cd8-25f0-11e1-98fe-001871e3ce6c.html

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - Alameda Street is one of the most heavily used transit corridors in the region. It has also long been one of the bumpiest rides in Downtown, thanks to a surfeit of potholes and uneven pavement.

The culprit behind Alameda's ruddy surface is a section of old, long-defunct rail track embedded in the street. Safety regulations and concerns about potentially hazardous materials made the removal of the tracks cost-prohibitive in the past.

Now, the metal is coming out. Over the past two months, the Bureau of Street Services, in partnership with 14th District City Councilman José Huizar, performed a series of trials and concluded that their system for removing the tracks is safe.

Now the effort is on to remove all remaining track on Alameda between First and Seventh streets, said Huizar spokesman Rick Coca.

The project cost is estimated at $900,000. The track is expected to be removed entirely on that seven-block stretch by spring 2012, and Huizar representatives said they will push for the resurfacing work to be done as soon as possible.

The section of Alameda Street between Seventh Street and the California (10) Freeway is slated for full track removal in 2017.

Union Station Panel Says Area Could Be Downtown's Next South Park

2011-12-12T22:29:00.000-08:00

Source: http://blogdowntown.com/2011/12/6522-union-station-panel-says-area-could-be-downtowns

A panel of land use experts spent the week studying potential uses for the 500 acres around Union Station, which Metro bought this year.

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Union Station could be the center of Downtown's next big development boom, a panel of land use experts told the city and Metro on Friday morning.

The team of eight planners and development experts had spent the week studying the 500 acres around the historic train station, looking for ways in which the city can maximize the benefits it receives from Metro's ownership and development of the station site.

In presenting their results to an audience that included two city councilmembers, the head of the city's Planning department, Metro CEO Art Leahy and top planners from the transit agency, the panel said that the publicly-owned land that surrounds the station presents a tremendous opportunity because it creates a "land bank" for future development.

The nexus of all the transportation options coming into the station and the historic neighborhoods nearby could create a major destination, the panel said. Several talked of the potential for the Union Station area to be Downtown's next South Park, citing the mass of development that sprung up on Downtown's southern edge over the last ten years.

The current uses for that public land, however, is a challenge. Northeast of the 1939 station, roughly 75 acres are dedicated to two jails and a bus maintenance facility.

"The jail's got to go," said Bill Kistler, a senior client partner with Korn/Ferry International in London.

The county, though, will vote later this month on moving forward with a $1.4 billion project to rebuild the Men's Central Jail. While other locations are being studied, current plans call for the new facility to be built on the same site. The three ten-story towers would have 5,040 beds for male inmates.

Councilman Jose Huizar, whose 14th district includes Union Station and the jail site, said that after hearing the experts speak so highly of the area's potential, the city needs to get involved in that conversation.

"Now we have a number of experts telling us, after their review, that it makes sense to look at other options for that jail because of the tremendous opportunities that exist," said Huizar. "This is the beginning. It sounds like we as the city and Metro are on the same page, now we need to lobby the county supervisors to find another location for the jail."

"Right now we're at one of these pivotal points for this region where we're planning and looking ahead 50 years."

"What will this area look like in 50 years? With everything we're seeing and the demand for housing and jobs and transportation in this area—a key hub for that transportation—it makes sense to move that jail somewhere else."

In the short term, the panel advised that the city focus on finding ways to partner with the county to create development on the surface parking lots between Union Station and Hill Street, and that it focus on improving the connectivity between Union Station and the neighborhoods around it.

"We can't just streetscape and put in signs, we need development," said Mary Smith, a senior vice president with Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers in Indianapolis.

The panel also advised the city to push ahead with the development of above-ground retail at the L.A. Mall, a site that has long proved problematic.

Long-term, higher passenger volumes would likely create opportunities for higher-density residential, office space and hotels.

The group, which was put together by the Urban Land Institute, gave the local planners in attendance plenty to think about.

"The value of having outsiders come in and look at a problem is really important," said Martha Welborne, Metro's top planner. "We gave them a list of questions to address, but other than that they had to discover the problems and come up with solutions on their own."

Imagining a City Without Its Public Transportation

2011-12-12T21:34:00.000-08:00

Emily Badger

Dec 12, 2011

Link: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/imagining-city-without-its-public-transportation/690/

LA County Metro delays bus schedule changes until spring

2011-12-12T21:30:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles County Metro has delayed scheduled changes to some of its bus routes that were supposed to go into effect Sunday.

Metro had set the date months ago to ax a few of its bus lines and add new stops to some of its rapid buses. Agency officials say they’d hoped to create easier access to the nearly-completed Exposition Light Rail Line, an eight-and-a-half-mile route that will eventually connect downtown L.A. with Culver City.

But spokesman Marc Littman says Metro yanked planned changes to about 20 bus lines at the last minute. He says engineers need more time to analyze the way those changes will affect riders.

Littman says he expects Metro to settle on bus route schedules before the Expo Line opens in the spring.

Santa Monica Tries to Figure Out What to Do When Bergamot Station Becomes a Train Station Again

2011-12-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Photo by polaroid-girl via the LAist Featured Photos pool
Way back in 1875, the Bergamot Station in Santa Monica was actually a train stop for the Red Line that ran through Los Angeles to the Santa Monica Pier. Now the city of Santa Monica is trying to decide what to do in 2015 when the gallery space again becomes a train stop — this time for the new Expo Line.

The Expo Line will bring big changes: it will require the destruction of one gallery, and it will bring in tons of new riders. Now the Santa Monica Daily Press reports that planning department staff is wondering if the city should try to bring in some new, profitable businesses — like hotels and restaurants — to an area full of galleries that may be culturally rich but require subsidized rent to stay afloat. This talk of revenue around the arts of course makes some on the planning commission a little nervous.

Here are the three main options the planning department is considering, according to the Daily Press:

Option A would be adding a few new two or three-story buildings to the area but mostly preserving the footprint of Bergamot Station

Option B would be divvying up the parcels between a variety of owner-developers to allow the spaces to change organically as new owners come and go

Option C would preserve the eastern portion of the site and open up the western side for development, which could include buildings up to four stories tall, a proposed hotel and underground parking

The majority of speakers at the meeting said they prefer changing nothing at all about Bergamot Station or voting for option A, which would change the site as little as possible.

Ruthann Lehrer, who is on the commission, pointed out that there's already a large-scale development being planned right across the street from Bergamot at the transit village. She suggested that maybe that development will be enough to subsidize the arts across the street.

"I'm looking at the balance between this wonderful complex and the galleries, which we value a lot and all of the development that's taking place across the street," Lehrer said. "They're supposed to provide community benefits. That would provide some of the subsidy and support."
Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Fewer still on board with bullet train Fewer still on board with bullet train

2011-12-12T09:06:00.000-08:00

December 11, 2011 9:30 AM

The Orange County Register

Last week was a bad week for California's touted high-speed rail project. That made it a good week for Californians, particularly for taxpayers.

The best news was a new Field Poll that showed the public has wised up to the boondoggle foisted upon them by a slick public-relations campaign and self-interested types, who want to profit no matter the cost to taxpayers.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they want an opportunity to vote again on the $9.9 billion in bonds voters approved for the project three years ago. Even more gratifying was the fact that 59 percent said they would vote "no" the next time; 31 percent said they would vote "yes."

We have called for undoing the damage set in motion with the 2008 vote ever since it passed with a 52 percent favorable vote. As the proposed 800-mile route to tie together Southern and Northern California ballooned in cost, and its completion date was extended 14 years, public opposition has grown.

Voters and taxpayers have seen the project once estimated to cost $35 billion and to be completed by 2020 inflate to almost three times the original price and to take more than twice as long as promised. And that's if we believe the High-Speed Rail Authority's latest estimates. It's anyone's guess how much will be added to the current estimate of $98.5 billion or how many more years will be tacked on to the present 2034 estimated completion date.

There's no reason to saddle Californians with $1 billion a year burden, which is about the cost to pay off those bonds alone, if they all are sold. The Legislature should refuse to authorize bond sales. There's less reason to beg Washington for more money to backfill what now approaches a $90 billion shortfall.

Also last week there was good news out of Washington, D.C., where Republican lawmakers bashed the Obama administration's handling of $10.5 billion in grants doled out around the country, rather than concentrating the money in the congested northeastern corridor, where rail improvements make more sense.

House Railroads Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said the administration should have funneled a majority of federal funds into one major project "to do it right," and serve as a showcase for other projects to come. Clearly, that one place wouldn't be California, where only $9.9 billion in state funding is assured, only $3 billion in federal funding has been allocated conditionally, and zero private financing has emerged.

The Legislature should put this matter back on the ballot, where voters assuredly would kill it.

Transportation Got ‘US’ Into A Greenhouse Gas Fix, Public Transportation Can Get ‘US’ Out

2011-12-09T09:12:00.000-08:00

Source http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/transportation-got-%E2%80%98us%E2%80%99-greenhouse-gas-fix-public-transportation-can-get-%E2%80%98us%E2%80%99-out

By Alan Kandel

California ranks as high as the world’s 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases (one source says we’re the 15th largest emitter - the most conservative ranking of the bunch). Think about it: Of 194 nations represented at the U.N. climate summit being held in Durban, South Africa, California’s GHG emissions surpass up to 182 of those represented countries. That is neither flattering nor a title to be proud of.

Looking at California more closely, transportation alone contributes a full 38 percent of our GHG emissions. (In some regions this figure is surpassed even). Transportation is followed (in descending order by contributed amount of GHG) by industrial (20%), imported electricity (13%), in-state electricity (12%), residential (6%), agriculture and forestry (5%), commercial (3%) and other sources (3%).

Meanwhile, within the transportation sector, the largest single GHG producer is, you guessed it, on-road light duty trucks and cars, contributing a whopping 74 percent, followed by on-road heavy-duty trucks which contributes 19 percent, according to Environment California Research and Policy Center’s Spring 2008 report: “Getting California on Track: Seven Strategies to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Transportation”. The above was based on 2004 data and numbers may be similar today. (See page 7).

Broadly speaking, “According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 28 percent of the Unites States’ total GHG emissions come from transportation.” And a July 28, 2009 press release from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) stated “Emissions have had the fastest growth in the transportation sector.”

An eye-opener and thought-provoker is the notion that “Expanded public transit strategies coordinated with combining travel activity, land use development, operational efficiencies can reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) by 24 percent, according to the study entitled Moving Cooler,” APTA noted. It estimates that the annual savings in vehicle costs to consumers exceed the cost of enacting these strategies by as much as $112 billion.

“The study shows that from 1996 to 2006, growth in U.S. transportation GHG emissions represented almost one-half (47 percent) of the increase in total U.S. GHG emissions. The research points out that the U.S. cannot reach its emission reduction goals without successful strategies to reduce GHG emissions from transportation.”

Is this likewise true for California?

The California challenge is thus: In order to meet greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets specified in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California must reduce such emissions by 25 percent by 2020 and by an additional 80 percent below that by 2050. Can it be done? Rest assured it can, but will it? That, of course, depends.

I’m thinking that the installation of the California high-speed rail network would be the single-biggest saver GHG-wise. Implementation of high-speed train service here in the Golden State, even though deemed expensive, its immediate, short- and long-term environmental benefits would be far superior to adhering to “business-as-usual” practices. Reducing GHG from both heavy-duty and light-duty trucks as well as from other motor vehicles would definitely help.

So don’t get me wrong. High-speed rail is extremely attractive because legions of commuters and travelers who would typically occupy the roadways and airways and thus adding to the global warming pollution problem might turn to and stay with trains because that would become an available option. The same could be said for urban rail options.

At the same time it is important to keep in mind, in an economy on the rebound, the presumption is the growth in vehicle miles traveled will resume. But, it need not be this way. The recessionary economy forced us to be more frugal with our finances, and as a result driving, and thus vehicle miles traveled were scaled back. When the economy does rebound and the presumption is that it will, it would behoove us to not be so quick to return to our former ways, i.e. getting back on the road in ever-increasing numbers. Having viable transportation alternatives to choose from is paramount. And this can be the best fix among them all to help get us out of our current greenhouse gas fix.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident advocating for new, improved and expanded freight (and passenger) rail service. He is a retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, California.

Expo Line Neighbors Worried About Peeping Riders

2011-12-08T11:19:00.000-08:00

You have to love the creativity of complainers. " a new issue is bubbling to the surface, says Streetsblog. Some people who live along Expo Phase I's route are calling for tall--likely ungainly--privacy screens to be built on top of the soundwalls that surround the train. "

Wednesday, December 7, 2011, by Neal Broverman

We still can't give you any opening date for the Expo Line, but there's lots going on concerning the light rail line that will eventually travel from Downtown to Santa Monica (and from Downtown to Culver City, probably very soon). First, Phase II bike amenities that once appeared uncertain are now coming together, reports Streetsblog. A group of Westside homeowners had sued over the bike path that's planned to run parallel to Expo Phase II, complaining that no environmental studies had been done on the path. Expo spokeswoman Gabriela Collins now tells Streetsblog that environmental clearances have been obtained for the bikeway in both LA and Santa Monica, clearing the way for the path's design stage.

There was also a kerfuffle over bike amenities at Phase I's under-construction Culver City station, which is set to open early next year. The station will initially feature 10 bike racks and eight bike lockers, but a "Clean Mobility Center" (likely a facility featuring more bike space and possibly valet and showers) is in the works. It was delayed because "its location conflicted with the construction staging area for the Venice Boulevard Bridge, which is being built as part of Phase 2," Collins said. "However, the necessary provisions were made at the station site for the addition of the CMC in the future." After some work is done on the light rail bridge over Venice and Robertson Boulevards, work on the CMC can begin.

All the bike news sure sounds positive, but a new issue is bubbling to the surface, says Streetsblog. Some people who live along Expo Phase I's route are calling for tall--likely ungainly--privacy screens to be built on top of the soundwalls that surround the train. Expo Construction Authority board member and new City Council prez Herb Wesson is a big advocate for the screens, saying at the last Expo board meeting, "I want to get it done."

There's no money for these privacy screens, and, some would argue, no point. That is unless of course you're a modest nudist who likes to sit on the edge of soundwalls.

As the High-Speed Rail Debate Rages On, Stanford Historian Becomes Big Critic

2011-12-08T11:07:00.000-08:00

Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford: "The problem with this one is California is a state that is failing to fund its university system and failing to fund K-12 education. I was in LA last weekend, with infrastructure breaking down right and left. So to propose spending $100 billion on this is frankly ridiculous."

Source: http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/12/07/as-the-high-speed-rail-debate-rages-on-stanford-historian-becomes-a-critic/

December 7, 2011, 3:25 pm • Posted by Jon Brooks

Will this ship sink, please?

Source: http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/12/07/as-the-high-speed-rail-debate-rages-on-stanford-historian-becomes-a-critic/

From AP yesterday:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood strongly defended the federal government's nearly $4 billion investment in high-speed rail in California, even as growing expenses and a longer timeline for completion have raised doubts in Congress.

During a congressional hearing Tuesday, LaHood acknowledged that the project will be expensive, with current estimates putting the cost at nearly $100 billion over 20 years. Still, LaHood called the project essential.

``We won't be dissuaded by the naysayers and the critics,'' LaHood said.

Speaking of naysayers and critics, you may have to include the 59 percent of California voters who just told the Field Poll they'd now reject the nearly $10 billion high-speed rail bond package approved in 2008.

"If we're going to run our government by Field Poll, then maybe we ought to just dismantle the legislature and run everything up the ballot any time we do anything," Jim Earp, the chair of the bond measure's campaign in 2008, told KQED's John Myers. "We can either throw [all the money away] and do nothing, or do what we did back in the depression, and build something like the Golden Gate Bridge or the San Francisco Bay Bridge or Shasta Dam."

Still, there are a lot of people who think the high-speed rail project is not only figuratively, but literally something that's going nowhere fast. Adding fuel to their fire are a pair of reports critical of the project from the Legislative Analyst's Office, most recently on November 29.

Another perhaps less-likely HSR pessimist is Richard White, the Pulitzer-Prize-nominated Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford, whose specialty is the American West and whose current book is Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America.

White has become a thorn in the side of high-speed rail proponents for his vocal criticisms of the project, two of which you can read here and here.

KQED's Amy Standen interviewed White in November to find out just why he's so down on high-speed rail. Here's an edited transcript of the interview:

What's your take on high-speed rail?

It will not die, it's impossible to kill it. The state is going to lose money but construction firms are going to make a great deal of money, land developers around these stations if they ever complete them are going to make money. The governor stands to gain real political capital if they can spend 2 billion in federal dollars to improve employment -- the state needs jobs.

But it would be better to dig a very big hole and fill it up again because that won't cost you anything in the future.

The long-term danger is that you're going to create a white elephant in the San Joaquin Valley, which is essentially a line we have no need for and in fact there's no funding currently to put trains on it. It's never going to be able to sustain itself and the state is going to have to pour good money after bad. The plan now is to make it an Amtrak line, not high-speed rail. To spend $2 billion to do that is frankly ridiculous.

Do you think it's just the wrong time to build a high-speed rail system or is it the wrong thing period?

I have no objection to high-speed rail routes. You can make a good case for them between Boston and DC. The problem with this one is California is a state that is failing to fund its university system and failing to fund K-12 education. I was in LA last weekend, with infrastructure breaking down right and left. So to propose spending $100 billion on this is frankly ridiculous. Sometime in the future, if you can afford to fund it and make a good public case for doing so, I wouldn’t necessarily oppose it.

Proponents say people like you are ignoring the cost of not building the system, because we have to accommodate projected population growth.

What will high-speed rail do? It's not going to take pressure off the roads that are most congested. This is a proposal to shuttle people up and down the San Joaquin Valley, between SF and LA, with some stops in between. They've left out Sacramento and San Diego already.

And I don't think it's going to be able to compete with airline routes. We have fairly efficient airline transportation between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. I don't see really what good this is going to do.

But we can't expand Bay Area airports, and flights are often delayed. Those problems aren't going to go away.

You don’t think there will be delays on train routes?

They're talking 30 years from now to complete it. So this will not do us any good in the short or medium term. Then you have to maintain it. The proponents act like if you build something incrementally you will not have to continue to pour money into it. But you have to make sure the rails don't deteriorate, and that the beds don't deteriorate, that storms don’t damage it.

You can't afford to build major infrastructure projects and just have them sit there and deteriorate until you're ready to use them. It's much cheaper to build them when you use them.

So what would the right time look like?

When Californians are ready to get onto trains. Which they're not.

It should be built after you take care of the low-hanging fruit. Why not regional transports around SF and LA, projects that will get people off the freeways where they're the most crowded? I-5 is not pleasant, but I wouldn't say that it is our major problem in California transportation and that's all this is going to fix.

Also, this does nothing about trucks. What railways have been good for is freight. That's what we should be getting off the road. I don’t see passengers as the real problem.

But how can you expect people to want to ride trains if there aren't any trains to ride? Shouldn't California provide an environmentally responsible infrastructure, then encourage people to use it?

Anything you paint green in California is going to get you to support it. Many of my colleagues are shocked I'm against high-speed rail.

But the University of Berkeley looked at what happens to the Obama proposal to build high-speed rail across the U.S., and their analysis indicates a one-percent carbon savings. We couldn’t spend that money more effectively to reduce carbon? What you're falling for is something that looks flashy and people in France and Japan like it. But that's not the best bang for the buck to get serious about fighting global warming.

What do you think is the difference between America as opposed to Japan and France, where high-speed rail has been successful?

When you take a high-speed rail train in France, from Paris to Lyon, you've got an infrastructure of public transportation that gets you to the rail station on time, and when you get off you can simply get on public transportation after. The same goes for Kyoto and Tokyo.
That's not true of SF and LA.

We are building a high-speed rail network without the public transportation at either end of it. You need that because after the high-speed rail ride, people will have to get back in the car and drive a great deal.

The French and Japanese governments subsidize the fares. We have under Prop 1A agreed not to subsidize fares. Those governments also regulate their rail very heavily. We do not have such a great record of giving subsidies and getting public benefits back.

How did you go from history professor to high-speed rail critic?

I reacted to the parallel that's strong between high-speed rail and the transcontinental railroads. Those railroads were about 30 years premature; they did not make money and the US government had to sue the Central Pacific and Union Pacific in the 1890s to get the money loaned to them back.

In this case there's seemingly a bar to that happening – California high-speed rail has written into it that there will be no subsidies.

But let's imagine we have this thing built and no private capital is coming in. What prevents the state from going back to the legislature to say "we need a subsidy to attract private capital?" It will do what all these subsidies do –- guarantee private investors that there will be no risk for their investment. The public will get the risk; the private investors will get the benefit. And I can't imagine how this will attract private capital without going back to the legislature and guaranteeing the subsidy we promised we wouldn't.

What drew me out of history is listening to President Obama and other figures justifying this project as a parallel to the transcontinental railroads. I realized they were right -– this was a parallel, and why would we want to make that mistake again? That's what made me write the first op-ed.

In California we seem to have this idea that we can take on huge projects, that we're almost our own country. Is that changing?

Well, look at the big infrastructure projects that have worked in California. The interstate highway system: They had a dedicated revenue source to pay for that, plus a gas tax. The dams have subsidized major agricultural interests -- in a very unfair way, I think -- but at the same time, they built in a revenue source to pay for it, because dams produce power.

High-speed rail says it will have a revenue source with the passengers paying the fare, but that's laughable. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks fares are going to pay for this.

Once you exhaust the federal money and the rest of this has to be paid for by bonds, you will pay huge interest. We only have a small part of the cost funded so far. They're making up a world in which the federal government will give us more money and the counties and cities will contribute money and then private investment will come in at low interest and absorb the risk. But we'll absorb the risk; they'll take the profit, leaving us with the debt. This is a recipe for catastrophe.

Proponents would say you're making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I'm making the good be the enemy of the impossible. If they could demonstrate that we need these lines where we're going to build them and there was any hope of paying for them I'd cut them some slack. But they've oversold this line so many times I think any California in their right mind would be extremely skeptical of anything the high-speed rail commission says.

You say there's no good public transportation in California, even in a city like San Francisco. Explain.

The secret to a good public transportation system is you don't have a schedule, like in NY and Chicago. You just show up and you know that within 10 or 15 minutes something will come along. When you need a schedule and you miss it and you have to wait 45 minutes or so that's not a real transportation system. In the Peninsula, bus service is for poor people, because they're the only ones who are desperate enough to wait an hour for the buses to come along. It would be a joke to try to use public transportation on the Peninsula. We should be creating a structure where these things work.

If you want to read a refutation of some of these arguments, take a look at this California High Speed Rail blog post, by Robert Cruickshank. Cruickshank says that an independent peer review found that contrary to White's assertion, HSR ridership projections are actually sound.

On some of the other issues Professor White raises, Cruickshank writes:

[White] says that the willingness of private investors to step up was overestimated, but that misreads what is going on. The private sector has shown a great deal of interest in the system. They have been consistent in saying that they will not yet step up until there is a significant state and federal contribution.

White argues that the federal government won’t step up, even though Barack Obama has shown consistent support for federal funding, as have Democrats in Congress, and despite polls showing Democrats are likely to retake the House.

White claims that the system will never cover its costs, even though virtually every other HSR system in the world does so, including the Acela.

Amy Standen also talked to Mike Rossi, chair of the California High Speed Rail Authority. Rossi said a lot of the criticism being levied by op-ed writers is based on a shallow reading of the issues and incorrect numbers. Edited transcript of Rossi addressing some other issues below:

The state is practically crippled under its financial strain right now. We've tripled tuition across the UC system. We're laying off teachers and cops. Is this the wrong time to take on something like this?

The legislature and the governor and in some cases the body politic will have to make their decision as to what they're going to do. I'm not suggesting that high-speed rail is more important than tuition at the University of California. That's not my role.

I'm putting forth, with my other board members, a realistic business plan so that people now can make whatever judgement they make.

We have every assumption, every piece of data that drives this plan on record open to analysis to anyone, and I'm open to standing and having those conversations because if we're wrong better to find it out now rather than later. But we want to have that conversation with people who are as transparent as we are in what we're saying and doing.

What are the consequences of not building high-speed rail?

My view is that if we don’t build high-speed rail, and instead build roads -- aside from the 3.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide that we'll discharge in the air, besides the 148 million hours of standing in traffic and driving more pollution -- trains last for a hundred years and they cover their operating maintenance and capital refreshment. I don't know any road that does that.

The current business plan relies pretty heavily on private investment, which some critics say is unrealistic. What's your response?

I will tell you right now, if people can sell future revenues of Elton john concerts, we can sell future revenues of high-speed rail, and at a better discount.

We built the transcontinental railroad in four years.This project is likely to take decades, in part because of lawsuits from communities along the proposed route. Do you ever start to wonder whether we are past the age where we can build big projects?

Ever watch The Maltese Falcon? At the very end of his life, Humphrey Bogart said the last line in the movie was an ad-lib. He said, in referring to the jewel-encrusted statue, "it's the stuff that dreams are made of." Well let me tell you something, California is the stuff that dreams are made of. This state is still the most innovative economy in the world and the state that still gets the most foreign investment. We Californians can do big things, period.

40 Years Ago: $420 Million Transit Plan Proposed to Link Downtown and LAX

2011-12-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

Many plans have been shelved. Has any of them been completed, they would have cost a lot less than the costs that we must bear today. All the more reason, that the 30/10 plan should be funded.

Source: http://blogdowntown.com/2011/12/6520-40-years-ago-420-million-transit-plan-proposed

By Eric Richardson
Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2011, at 04:22PM

RTD / L.A. Times

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — 40 years ago today, officials from the Rapid Transit District unveiled plans for a $420 million plan to link Downtown to LAX via a line that would include both subway and elevated segments.

Four decades later, many of the pieces of that proposed line have been implemented, but the only ride going from Union Station to the airport is a bus.

To get the effort moving, RTD pledged that it would contribute $70 million of the needed funds, half of what it expected that local agencies would need to contribute in order to get the rest in matching funds.

The proposed line started out as a subway at Union Station, traveling through Downtown and then south to USC before emerging as an elevated near Exposition Park. It would then zig-zag east toward the routing of the modern Blue Line before connecting up with the Century Freeway, at that point still years away from completion.

That east-west corridor would eventually become Metro's Green Line, though its planned airport connection was instead curved south into El Segundo.

In 1971, RTD proposed that construction could start by 1973 and the line could be completed by 1978. The eventual Blue and Green lines took a little bit longer to come to fruition, opening in 1990 and 1995, respectively. Costs also climbed just a bit, with the two costing a combined $1.6 billion.

Urban Retailers Call For More Transit, Less Parking

2011-12-07T12:51:00.001-08:00

Source: http://www.globest.com/news/12_238/newyork/retail/-316347.html

By Jacqueline Hlavenka

NEW YORK CITY-As retailers continue to weave suburban concepts into the urban fabric, more brands—and big-boxes—are going vertical. But as the pendulum swings in favor of transit-oriented development, the nation’s top retailers agreed that the need for mass transportation is beginning to outweigh the need for traditional parking design, according to speakers during day two of the International Council of Shopping Centers’ 2011 New York National Conference & Deal Making event. The convention closed out at the Sheraton New York and Hilton New York Hotels on Tuesday afternoon, where total attendance exceeded 6,000 each day.
During the general session, much of the discussion revolved around the challenges retailers face, running the gamut from site selection, obtaining local approvals, expansion concerns and store formats. The panelists also addressed the paradigm shift of retailers like wholesale clubs and supermarkets—two concepts borne out of the suburbs—that are finding equal strength in cities, especially near subway and bus lines.
“If we could be close to mass transit, it could be absolutely critical,” said Patrick Smith, vice president of real estate at BJ’s Wholesale Club, an operator of 192 clubs and 107 gas stations across 15 states. Smith explained that despite the bulk-quality of BJs merchandise, more city customers are taking the train to its stores. “More people are using mass transit and some people walk,” he said, noting that its parking garage at Bronx Terminal Market is vastly underutilized. “For a BJ’s customer, you may think that is absolutely ridiculous. We never expected people to use mass transit to shop at a wholesale club.”
The same goes for Michael J. Shanahan, vice president of real estate at Burlington Coat Factory, who said mass transit is “absolutely a requirement” when selecting an urban location. “When we opened at Rego Park I this last September, we are right off the subway stop,” he said, explaining that while the store opening started off slow, momentum began to build as foot traffic increased by the E, M and R trains. “We got the word on the street to get people up to the third floor.”
And while mass transit is reducing the need for the amount of parking, Daniel Shallit, director of real estate for the Northeast Region at the Sports Authority, said parking cannot be totally eliminated from the retail model. “Looking at the Philadelphias of the world or the Bostons or other large urban markets, we still need it,” he said, noting that parking changes would affect store sizes. “The logic is, if you buy a treadmill at a Sports Authority, you can’t take that on a bus or a train. You need a car or you need some way to access a car to get that product home.”
Using New York City as an example, Shallit said its Manhattan locations sell less hard goods (like weights and fitness equipment) and more soft goods (like clothing and shoes) due its ease of transport on a bus or train. “But we still want to be close to mass transit because it builds awareness,” he said. “The more people that see us by commuting know that we are there and that’s really, really important to us.”
Supermarkets are also facing similar issues. Dennis P. Bachman, senior real estate representative for Wakefern Food Corp., said a large food shop could be difficult to do on a typical train or bus. “Cabs have certainly become a much more important factor,” he said. “Typically in a city store, especially if you have a lot of customers who would use mass transit, you would tend to have higher customer counts, greater shopping frequency and a lower average order size, so the per trip spend would be less, which adds some additional complications to the business. Learning to handle those additional customers, staffing levels and things like that, parking is still an important criteria.”
But some food retailers are paring back on parking altogether. G. Lamont Blackstone, principal of Mount Vernon, NY-based GL Blackstone & Associates, LLC, worked on the development and leasing of Harlem’s largest Pathmark store. After battling over the normal requirement of parking spaces versus the constraints of the development plot, Blackstone put in 2.3 cars per 1,000 people, lower than the industry standard of five per 1,000. “We are blessed that we live in a democracy, but sometimes there are inherent tensions between the vetting and the public input requirements, particularly as it relates to land use decisions of urban democracies versus the execution of requirements for urban developers and urban retailers,” he said. “That’s why it is critically important for developers from day one right out the gate that they put the best face forward on their projects in order to minimize the potential issues that will come down the pike.”
And due the large expense parking garages can bring, Larry Rose, principal, RK Realty Advisors, explained that urban retailers must understand their demographics before making an investment. Where parking at Bronx Terminal Market averages at 20% utilization, more shoppers are filling up spaces at Sky View Center in Flushing, Queens, where more residents own a vehicle. “Even though the site is at the end of the 7 line, half the people are driving and are beyond where mass transit is,” he said.
Peter Ripka, partner at Ripco Real Estate, a retail firm serving New York City, Long Island, New Jersey, Westchester County and Lower Connecticut, explained that all forms of transportation play into what makes a site successful or not. Using its Target-anchored Sayville-Patchogue shopping center as an example Ripka said the property is centrally located on a major Long Island thoroughfare, Sunrise Highway. “People can easily come from long distances to those shopping centers, and mass transportation does the same thing in the urban environment,” he said. “People are able to come from a large area, and therefore, parking is not as necessary.”
While public transportation has become the “lifeline” for projects to happen, urban consumers should have choices, said panel moderator Ken Narva, co-founder and managing partner of White Plains, NY-based Street Works. “If you provide 30 teaser parking spaces at grade, that can make a store successful,” he said. "It is the same thing that on-street parking plays, which is the quality of the space, the sense of convenience and the sense of activity.”
But overall, Narva said the future of CRE investment is urban. “We live in an experience culture, and downtown is an experience where people interact with each other, and that experience is very important and is not going away,” he said. “As electronic retailing continues to grow, consumers still need to get out and interface with each other.”

TONIGHT: Manhattan Beach examines trolley plan

2011-12-07T12:40:00.001-08:00

Pedestrian View Of LA: As we saw just recently in Pasadena, cities are considering trolley again. In this article, Manhattan Beach is now the latest city to do this. After WW2, many cities moved away from trolleys since they were getting in the way of cars, especially in crowded downtown area. Are we forgetting lessons of the past or is there some new consideration that makes it worthwhile to revisit this transit option? It's also interesting to note that this area had trolleys when the red car was in use.

Source: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19479921

Fixed-route trolley plan
Manhattan Beach. The City Council tonight will revisit a proposal to bring a fixed-route trolley system to town. The idea has been analyzed in a feasibility study that was presented to the council in 2010, but staff members have raised several issues that would need to be considered - including a funding source - before moving forward. The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. at 1400 Highland Ave.

Imagine: Rapid Transit From Sherman Oaks to Lakeview Terrace Metro is considering a Rapidway project running between Ventura Boulevard and Lakeview Terrace, via light rail, streetcar or bus.

2011-12-07T12:34:00.000-08:00

Source: http://shermanoaks.patch.com/articles/imagine-rapid-transit-from-sherman-oaks-to-lakeview-terrace

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which received public feedback on a half-dozen ideas to ease traffic along Van Nuys Boulevard, will present a proposed solution in early 2012. The 10.2-mile project, dubbed the Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway, is part of a plan to improve transit service through the Valley.

Metro held a series of three public meetings in early November to gather public input.The Rapidway project would stretch along Van Nuys Boulevard in Lakeview Terrace south to Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, one of four corridors in the Valley for which improvements are slated. The others are Reseda, Sepulveda and the Lankershim/San Fernando corridors.
Metro is considering five possible transit solutions:

A light rail similar to the Metro Red Line but with overhead electrical power and sets of two cars carrying up to 335 passengers;
A bus rapid transit line carrying 100 passengers per bus similar to the Metro Orange line;
A streetcar with overhead electrical power similar to Portland, Ore.'s, with cars of 140 passengers each;
Improvements such as intersection widening, signal timing and increased bus service;
A “No Build” solution that continues existing transit services and projects funded through 2035.

The meetings were the first step to assess what residents and commuters feel will best ease traffic problems. At the Van Nuys meeting, held in the Van Nuys Government Center in early November, many favored light rail, a sentiment echoed by Tony Wilkinson, vice chairman of the Panorama City Neighborhood Council
“Light rail is more favorable for transit-oriented development than a busway,” Wilkinson said. “With light rail, places along the line will have significant economic development.”
Mikie Maloney, who serves on the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council’s Land Use Committee, was concerned that light rail, streetcars or a busway would reduce parking space, especially in Sherman Oaks, where businesses already struggle with insufficient parking.
“Whatever they build, it will take away lanes from drivers or from parking,” Maloney said. “The street is only so wide.”
Ron Ziff, who chairs the Neighborhood Council's Land Use Committee, expressed similar concerns over reduced parking and added that the real traffic problem is the Sepulveda Pass through which 337,000 cars pour daily on the 405 Freeway or Sepulveda Boulevard.
“There’s a 3 1/2-hour traffic jam every weekday morning,” Ziff said. “We need to fix that first.”
Ziff’s observation is one shared by the Transit Coalition, a Valley-based nonprofit that wants Metro to address Van Nuys and Sepulveda boulevards together.
Bart Reed, the coalition’s executive director, said Wednesday that a more comprehensive solution would involve rail service along Van Nuys Boulevard through a rail tunnel in the Sepulveda Pass, to UCLA.
“My educated guess is they are going to decide on some sort of bus solution [for Van Nuys Boulevard],” Reed said. “Or if they create light rail and heavy rail [along Sepulveda] then you don’t have a one-seat ride.”
Funds for the Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway project come from Measure R, a half-cent increase on the county sales tax, expected to generate $40 billion for transit projects over its 30-year span. But the $68 million targeted for the Van Nuys Boulevard project will likely cover just the planning and environmental assessment stages. Other funds will have to be identified to complete the project by the 2018 target date.
For more information on the Van Nuys Boulevard Rapidway, go to metro.net/vannuys, email vannuys@metro.net or call 818-276-3233.

New Metro Motion TV show explores attractions along Expo Line

2011-12-06T17:24:00.000-08:00

Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2011/12/06/metro-motion-tv-show-explores-attractions-along-expo-line/

With finishing touches being applied to the Exposition light-rail line, the just released winter edition of Metro Motion takes a trip to Exposition Park — one of the first stops on Expo south of downtown L.A. There it discovers a variety of world class museums and attractions. And just in time for Metro Motion, Space Shuttle Endeavour Commander Mark Kelly dropped by to celebrate the arrival next year of Endeavour to the California Science Center, where the shuttle will make its home.

Winter 2011-12 Metro Motion also explores the changing habits of 20 somethings who may be the first generation in recent years to turn away from cars and toward mass transit to help the world’s atmosphere heal itself while they invest in pursuits they see as more interesting than driving.

There’s an interview with artist Sonia Romero, whose beautiful porcelain mosaic mural installation at the Westlake/MacArthur Park Station has been named one of the best public art projects in the United States. Romero talks about her work and explains what inspired her.

Also in the show, Caltrans District 7 Director Mike Miles has plenty to say on the essential unified focus of highway and transit planners and the importance of coordinating the two for the good of regional mobility.

Metro Motion runs quarterly on cable stations throughout Los Angeles County. Check local listings for dates and times in your area.

90 Years Ago Today: Los Angeles Railway Rolls Out “Information Men” Public Service

2011-12-06T17:20:00.000-08:00

Source: http://metroprimaryresources.info/90-years-ago-today-los-angeles-railway-rolls-out-information-men-public-service/2062/

Metro Digital Resources Librarian | December 5, 2011

The December 5, 1921 issue of the Los Angeles Railway employee newsmagazine posed the question: “How would you like to be an information man?”

An article titled “Information Men Help L.A., They’ll Tell The World!” appeared in Two Bells.

Ninety years ago, Los Angeles Railway launched the “Information Men” who served as early Los Angeles’ public information officers.

The article reads as follows:

How would you like to be an information man?

Looks like a pretty interesting job judging by the attitude of George Feller in the picture above.

George is one of the five uniformed information bureaus of the Los Angeles Railway.

This additional service for the public came into being a few weeks ago and has been greatly appreciated.

At the depots and at busy corners downtown the information men are asked all sorts of questions about politics, street cars and Ford spark plugs.

An acquaintance stepped up to C.W. Jordan, the answer man at the Santa Fe depot, and casually asked Charlie, “What do you know today?”

If he had waited for Charlie to tell him everything he knew he would be there yet.

The other men who work with the slogan “I’ll tell the world” are F.A. Christy, formerly conductor of Div. Three; W.R. Boyd, former motorman of Division Four and C.D. Blakeman, formerly conductor of Division Four were motormen at Division One.

All are veterans of street car life and their long service makes them thoroughly acquainted with the city and ideal men for the information jobs.

New timelines for Wilshire bus lane project

2011-12-06T09:11:00.000-08:00

Source: http://thesource.metro.net/2011/12/05/timelines-for-wilshire-bus-lane-project/

When we last checked in with the Wilshire rush hour bus lane project, the completion date that we posted was 2013. But Danna Gabbard at L.A. Streetsblog had a post Friday saying that the completion date for the project is now 2015.

The project will put 7.7 miles of rush hour bus lanes on portions of Wilshire Boulevard in the city of Los Angeles, from Brentwood to just west of downtown Los Angeles. The idea — and I think it’s a good one — is to speed up bus service on Wilshire, which is Metro’s busiest bus corridor.

Metro helped plan the project with the city and Los Angeles County. The city of Los Angeles is taking the lead on constructing the project, which involves pavement reconstruction, some street widenings along Wilshire and updating the traffic signal system, among other upgrades. From an Oct. 9 city report:

Extensive roadway improvements on Wilshire Boulevard, including curb lane reconstruction and selective street widening, will be done before the bus lanes are installed. Design and engineering is scheduled to be completed by June 2013, followed by construction of roadway
improvements, traffic mitigation measures, Transit Priority System upgrades, and bus lane striping and signage. The project is expected to be completed and operational by June 2015.

A spokesman for the city’s transportation agency told Streetsblog that the city will try to finish the work earlier than 2015. One obvious question this raises: will the bus lanes project be under construction at the same time that construction for the first leg of the Westside Subway Extension is getting underway?

Answer: It remains to be seen. The subway project is on track to have its environmental impact studies approved in early 2012. At that point, we should have a better idea of funding and the construction timeline for the first segment, which is supposed to go to Fairfax.

On an unrelated note, Streetsblog also reported that the new Silver Line station at Union Station – here’s a good rendering — will be completed in 2015. That is incorrect. The ExpressLanes project on the San Bernardino Freeway and El Monte Busway is still scheduled to open in 2013, with the Silver Line station scheduled for a 2014 opening, according to Metro staff.

Metro Expo Line begins testing trains ahead of expected 2012 opening

2011-12-06T09:10:00.000-08:00

Source:

Los Angeles County Metro has begun to ramp up testing along the future Exposition Line, a light rail route that will eventually connect downtown L.A. with Culver City.

Most Angelenos know the drill by now. Warning bells sound, red lights flash, safety gates drop and a few seconds later a Metro train passes by. But, starting Sunday, expect to see the occasional train with no passengers, empty except for a couple engineers.

Metro is testing the timing and safety of every train crossing and signal system of the Expo Line. Tests began Sunday but will continue until its eventual opening. Metro has yet to release the opening date, but many expect it to be in early 2012.

Phase one of the Metro Expo Line is 8.6 miles of light rail stretching from downtown to Culver City, with 12 stops in between. The project cost a cool $932 million, but will also serve USC, Exposition Park, the Mid-City communities and the Crenshaw District. Phase two is a further extension from Culver City to Santa Monica.

As tests begin to be a presence on the line, so does Metro's safety campaign. Retired bus and rail operators turned "safety ambassadors" will be placed at various intersections to teach pedestrians about the system. Metro also says that 63,000 safety flyers have been distributed door-to-door within a two block radius of the line.

An additional 60,000 safety flyers will be distributed during the coming months.

Dan Walters: California's high-speed train losing public support

2011-12-06T09:02:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/06/4102223/dan-walters-californias-high-speed.html

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3A

Has California's bullet train project – or pipe dream – finally run off the track? Voters think so.

When the California High-Speed Rail Authority released a much-revised "business plan" for the project that doubled its cost, it won praise in many quarters, including this one, for moving from abject fantasy into at least semi-reality.

The revisions were largely the work of two new rail authority members, Dan Richard and Michael Rossi, whom Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to pull the project back from the verge of political death because of ridership and financing assumptions that were ludicrously unrealistic.

However, the new plan didn't silence opposition among those living along its route. It also continued to draw sharp criticism from the Legislature's budget analyst, and – most importantly – its eye-popping cost eroded an already thin veneer of public support.

That erosion is starkly evident in a new statewide Field Poll that found overwhelming support for resubmitting the project to voters and overwhelming opposition to building it.

More than three-fourths of registered voters said they should be given another chance to vote on the project and, by a 2-1 margin, they want it to be killed.

Or to put it another way, should Brown and the Legislature continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the bullet train, they would be defying the very clear wishes of those who elected them to office.

Coincidentally, the Field Poll results were distributed to its news media clients Monday just minutes before two state Senate committees began a review of the revised business plan, in which legislators expressed both support for the concept and skepticism that it is financially viable.

The projected cost has now ballooned to nearly $100 billion, but the state has only a $9.95 billion bond issue and a few billion in federal funds to build a test track in the San Joaquin Valley.

The rail authority is hoping that more federal money will allow it to build an initial operational segment and that private investors then will be impressed with its potential and put up the rest of the money.

The Legislative Analyst's Office, however, suggests that even with revision, the plan does not comply with conditions of the bond issue on financing and completion of environmental clearances, and that building the San Joaquin Valley segment is probably not worth its $6 billion cost.

Richard, Rossi and other rail authority officials continued to defend the project as lawmakers peppered them with skeptical questions about the bullet train's prospects and mentioned revelations in The Bee and the San Francisco Chronicle about the authority's lavish spending on contracts to political insiders to positively influence public opinion.

The Field Poll's results would indicate that it was money down a rat hole.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/06/4102223/dan-walters-californias-high-speed.html#ixzz1fm7wZNLl

California high-speed rail authority spends millions to polish image Share

2011-12-05T18:01:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/04/4098202/california-high-speed-rail-authority.html

By David Siders
dsiders@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Sunday, Dec. 4, 2011 - 11:55 am
On his way off the California High-Speed Rail Authority board this year, former state Sen. Quentin Kopp ripped into the authority's controversial $9 million public relations contract with Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, urging its cancellation.

Everywhere, it seemed – from community meetings in the Central Valley to legislative hearings at the Capitol – the project was clobbered for its management and cost, and its worsening image, Kopp said in a March letter to Roelof van Ark, the rail authority's chief executive officer, was evidence of Ogilvy's "inadequate performance."

But the rail authority's public relations campaign has in recent years included not only its contract with Ogilvy – which is now being unwound – but also millions of dollars more in lucrative, publicly funded outreach contracts embedded in agency engineering contracts.

One of those agreements was with a company owned by a former aide to Kopp, and Kopp himself sought to bill the authority more than $1,100 for one outreach-related breakfast in San Francisco last year. Another contract went to a former assemblyman.

Last fiscal year alone, the authority spent $7.2 million on regional outreach, ranging from organizing public meetings to distributing newsletters and meeting with local officials, according to agency records obtained by The Bee.

The authority said it budgeted about $2.6 million for regional outreach this year, with 20 subcontractors statewide.

The magnitude of the effort and its many layers come to light at a critical point for the project. Officials plan to start construction in the Central Valley next year, but they must win the approval of a skeptical Legislature first. The regional subcontractors, overseen by engineering firms throughout the state, in some cases retained and billed the agency on behalf of subcontractors of their own.

"I guess the interesting question to me is, 'Why do they have to spend so much effort selling this to people if it has such strong support?' " said Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, a critic of the rail effort. "They've got to put up a wall of, you know, peaches and cream, to make it look palatable to the voters."

Public outreach is required by state environmental rules for public review, and it is necessary to communicate the significance of the project, agency officials said.

"I think we're making a pretty decent effort to do the best public outreach that we can," said Lance Simmens, the authority's deputy director for communications and public policy.

In the Merced-to-Fresno corridor, that outreach has included "efforts geared toward the agricultural community," periodic public information meetings, monitoring local media and updating the project mailing list and "email blast program," according to invoices.

In the Palmdale-to-Los Angeles area, it included meetings with elected officials and "key stakeholders." And in the Fresno-to-Bakersfield area, the rail authority relied on the work of former Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines, whose invoices listed his company's professional services contract at $80,000.

Last fiscal year, regional outreach expenses accounted for about 4 percent of total spending under agency engineering contracts, according to the authority. This year, the budgeted amount accounts for about 2 percent of total expenses.

In the Bay Area, an early battleground for the project because of intense local opposition, Denise LaPointe, an aide to Kopp when he was a senator, billed the authority more than $350,000 for outreach work done from September 2009 to June 2011, when her contract ended.

LaPointe created newsletters, worked on a public participation plan and conducted outreach and "stakeholder meetings & briefings." Her total billings included invoices for work done by a sub-subcontractor.

"There's a lot of work that was done," LaPointe said. "Any big project, I actually think there's pretty important public outreach that has to be done."

LaPointe was working for the rail authority and had done work on other transportation projects in California before Kopp joined the board, LaPointe and Kopp said. Kopp said he was not involved in LaPointe's ongoing engagement.

Kopp said LaPointe was influential in promoting the project in the Bay Area, in part because she "knows City Hall in San Francisco inside and out."

Kopp, a longtime proponent of high-speed rail, involved himself in outreach, too, according to invoices, including organizing a breakfast meeting last year in San Francisco to introduce van Ark to 25 elected officials in the area.

"I wanted everybody to meet van Ark, and I wanted him to just get the lay of the land and get the feel." Kopp said.

He sought reimbursement from the rail authority for the cost, more than $1,100. The authority reimbursed him the state maximum for a breakfast, $6.

"I remember asking somebody in the office if I could get reimbursed, and being told, 'No,' " Kopp said, "That, frankly, annoyed me a little. But what the heck, it's called public service."

The authority was more accommodating of paying for Kopp's transportation to and from his home in San Francisco for meetings at the Capitol on two successive days in November 2009. Neumann Limousine, which dispatched a sedan, charged the authority $240 each way.

The rail authority's bid to build a system connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco has enjoyed a resurgence this fall, after Gov. Jerry Brown put his support behind it. Even as officials revised the project's cost estimate to almost $100 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars over 20 years – more than twice the previous estimate – the projection was seen by many observers as a sign of greater credibility within the rail authority.

But LaMalfa and other critics want the Legislature to ask Californians to reconsider the $9 billion bond measure that voters approved in 2008 to finance the project's construction, and its future remains uncertain.

In the agency's outreach effort, Ogilvy announced this summer that it was quitting its contract, saying it was "unable to develop a solid working relationship" with the authority. The authority since then has been seeking a replacement. Simmens said he expects that contract to be awarded soon.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/04/4098202/california-high-speed-rail-authority.html#ixzz1fiRTHxZr

The Big Fix The Transportation Planning Rule Every City Should Reform

2011-12-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

Source: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/transportation-planning-law-every-city-should-repeal/636/

Completing a major transit project is never a quick and easy process, but if any place should be able to move one swiftly through to completion, it's San Francisco. In 1973 the city adopted a "transit first" policy that gave planning priority to modes of transportation other than the automobile. As the policy expressly states, decisions related to streets and sidewalks "shall encourage the use of public rights-of-way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit."

That's strong support for livability on paper, but in recent years the policy has felt much more like "transit worst" in practice. A 2005 lawsuit postponed implementation of the city's master bike plan for years on the grounds that it failed to consider potential harm to the flow of automobile traffic — an injunction that wasn't lifted until August 2010. The city has considered a bus-rapid transit line along Van Ness Avenue since 2004, but an environmental review on the project wasn't completed until early last month — delayed, in part, by an intense study of the same traffic consideration — and now service isn't expected to begin until at least 2016 [PDF].

The source of the disconnect between San Francisco's transit-first heart and its car-centric hand is an arcane engineering measure called "level of service," or LOS. In brief, LOS suggests that whenever the city wants to change some element of a street — say by adding a bike lane or even just painting a crosswalk — it should calculate the effect that change will have on car traffic. If the change produces too much congestion, then a great deal of time, money, and additional analysis must go toward the project's consideration.

The weight of this hidden hand doesn't fall on San Francisco alone. "Intersection LOS is one of the most widely-used traffic analysis tools in the U.S. and has a profound impact on how street space is allocated in U.S. cities," writes Jason Henderson, geography professor at San Francisco State University, in the November issue of the Journal of Transport Geography. As Henderson argues, it's about time cities addressed the problem, and San Francisco is doing just that. It's currently in the process of drafting a new sustainable transportation metric that will replace LOS and promote livability. Still, the fight is far from over.

"Every city I've ever come across has some use of [LOS]," says Henderson, who has conducted an extensive review of LOS and is writing a book on the politics of mobility in San Francisco. "LOS and the privilege of the car is the incumbent. The way the political process is set up is you have to disprove the incumbent."

• • • • •

LOS may be a rather obscure transportation tool, but it's not a terribly complicated one. The chief function of LOS is to measure the delay each car experiences at a particular intersection. A delay of less than 10 seconds means a street has a "good" traffic flow and earns an LOS grade of "A." As the delay increases the grade moves down the alphabet, report-card style, through an "F" grade, given when the average delay exceeds 80 seconds.

In San Francisco and other California cities, LOS influences transportation or development projects through the state's environmental code, the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires public agencies to determine the possible impact of development projects on the environment. It essentially serves as a screening process for a project's influence on things like air pollution, water quality, and of course transportation. One of the points on the CEQA checklist under the transportation section is "level of service."

Let's say someone wants to build a bike lane in the downtown Bay Area. Under CEQA, the sponsor of this project must consider whether the change to the street will result in a downgrade of LOS. In San Francisco, generally speaking, the threshold for LOS acceptability is a grade of "E" — or a delay between 55 and 80 seconds. If our hypothetical bike lane eliminates a car lane, that could create enough congestion for each car's delay to exceed the 80-second mark. That would bump the street's LOS from an "E" to an "F," and the project would fall outside the acceptable CEQA threshold.

Now that doesn't mean the lane can't get built, but it does make the project more difficult. If LOS falls to "F," for instance, the sponsor of the bike lane project must then perform a costly and time-consuming environmental impact report. If that report confirms the LOS failure, the sponsor may have to mitigate or offset the congestion through some other means. The alternative to all this time and money is to abandon the project entirely — and often that's what happens.

"That takes that $20,000 or $40,000 bike lane and suddenly makes it a $200,000 project, and it takes a project that might have taken a month or two to go from design to implementation and it could make it into a 2- or 3-year project," says Andy Thornley, policy director at the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "In many cases it's not so much that we take the bike lane or the crosswalk all the way through the research and reject it, it's that we don't even go into the environmental review because public agencies don't have the resources to spend the time and the money on these pretty cheap projects. So there is a hugely chilling effect to having to go through all of these hoops."

• • • • •

The influence of LOS comes largely from its inclusion in the Highway Capacity Manual produced by the federal Transportation Research Board. When it was first introduced, several decades ago, the metric harmonized with a broader cultural desire for car travel. Although cities aren't required to abide LOS measures by law, over the years the measure hardened into convention. By the time cities recognized the need for balanced transportation systems, LOS was entrenched in the street engineering canon.

"There was an assumption that there's always going to be driving everywhere, and it's always going to increase, and there needs to be a rational decision-making process to decide where limited transportation dollars should go," says Henderson. "It made sense if you're just assuming there always is going to be driving and in the future there's going to be more cars, and another fuel source, and it's superior to everything else."

There are several quirks about LOS that give it what Henderson calls a "veneer of objectivity." For starters, LOS delay is measured at the peak traffic rush. That reflects the belief that a street's design should be based on its most congested hour or so, rather than configured to handle a wide range of travel modes throughout the day. In addition, the letter grade carries more importance than the numerical delay itself; if a two-second delay nudges a project past an "E" grade, for example, it could be punished more than another project that delays traffic much longer but doesn't drop a letter. And in San Francisco, LOS impact must be determined not just in the present but also decades into the future. A failure 20 years ahead means a failure right now.

There's also a great irony underlying the use of LOS as part of CEQA's environmental impact checklist. It seems self-evident that bike projects are favorable to the environment, but the use of LOS to evaluate them can sometimes imply quite the opposite. The person who filed the 2005 lawsuit against the San Francisco master bike plan, for instance, suggested that because bike lanes raise LOS they also raise congestion and car idling, and thereby cause pollution.

That's not the only contradictory aspect of LOS. Case in point: a developer whose building fails an LOS threshold can mitigate the environmental impact by widening the street, which of course would attract more cars and pollution. So instead of encouraging dense development and lower vehicle mileage — the hallmarks of a transit-first city — San Francisco's use of LOS as part of CEQA actually discourages livable design. In a three-part series on LOS at Streetsblog, one transportation consultant called LOS the "single greatest promoter of sprawl and the single greatest obstacle to transit oriented development" in California.

"In the end compliance with CEQA often causes the transportation system to become even more adverse, more dangerous," says Thornley. "It adds more car trips."

• • • • •

The beacon of hope for livability advocates in San Francisco rests in the flexibility of CEQA review. While CEQA recommends that transportation-related projects consider LOS as an environmental measure, it doesn't mandate a particular metric. Any reasonable measurement of transportation sustainability will do.

That realization has led to a counter-movement against the use of LOS under CEQA by some of the city's transit agencies. In 2003 the San Francisco County Transportation Authority performed a review [PDF] of LOS and concluded that it failed to support the "development of a balanced, multimodal transportation system" — arguing instead that LOS preserved the flow of motor cars at the expense of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian movements. In other words, by upholding LOS, the city was violating its own transit-first policy.

Based on that report, the authority began to investigate alternative transportation impact measures. A 2008 follow-up report recommended replacing LOS with an entirely new measure known as "auto-trips generated," or ATG. Instead of asking how much congestion a project creates, ATG looks at how many new automobile trips it produces. Since bike lanes or bus-rapid transit or the like don't generate any automobile trips, those projects would no longer be subject to a full environmental review. (To be more precise: these projects would be covered by a system-wide environmental review the authority plans to conduct as part of the new metric's implementation.)

In tandem with the ATG measure, the authority also suggested the creation of a new mitigation fee for all projects that generated automobile trips. The fee would go toward a general sustainable transportation fund that would finance transit projects across the city. The upshot would be a faster project approval process, more certainty on the part of project sponsors, and more money for livability efforts. All told, the new idea offers a "higher-level view" of transportation impact, according to the report:

Each new automobile trip added onto San Francisco's transportation system contributes to environmental impacts, especially in terms of pedestrian safety and greenhouse gas emissions. Under the proposed approach, CEQA transportation impact analysis would measure the net new trips generated or induced by proposed projects, rather than changes in automobile delay at intersections. ...

Instead of seeking to preserve system efficiency by expanding capacity for driving, the ATG measure recognizes that constraining the growth in automobile trips on San Francisco streets is critical for maintaining system efficiency on our network of finite automobile capacity.

The proposal has changed in many respects since 2008, says Tilly Chang, the authority's deputy director for planning. For starters, it has shifted from ATG to MTG — or motorized-trips generated. That way a housing development project would be subject to the mitigation fee whether it created auto trips or just caused additional transit delay. Whatever the acronym ends up being, says Chang, the approach remains the same.

"Our way of looking at it is we have a longstanding citywide transit-first policy," she says. "Rather than planning for and identifying minimization of motorist delays, we would be shifting our focus toward transit impact, and making sure that transit performance is maintained."

Currently the authority is performing what's called a "nexus" study that will determine the precise ATG/MTG mitigation fee. That effort will conclude around the start of the new year, says Chang. Then the city's planning commission will hold a hearing about the new metric. Then a complete environmental review will be conducted. Then the planning commission must prepare an official ordinance for adoption. And then, if all goes well, the new metric will be phased in as LOS is phased out.

That's a lot of "thens" between now and then, and probably a couple years. Henderson fears that the established legal precedent of LOS use could lead some livability opponents to file lawsuits once a new metric is adopted. Still, he believes San Francisco can ultimately make the change and serve as an example for other cities — and finally, at long last, fulfill its transit-first stance. Thornley agrees.

"To the extent that a city moves forward and is the precedent setter, I think San Francisco is going to be doing that," he says. "It's very exciting to be at the threshold of finally coming out from under the distortions that auto LOS has presented."
Keywords: San Francisco, Transit, LOS, CEQA, Environment, level of service

Eric Jaffe is a contributing writer to The Atlantic Cities and the author of The King's Best Highway: The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made America. He lives in New York. All posts »

New stats show more readership.

2011-12-05T07:24:00.000-08:00

I have been using "FEEDJIT LIVE TRAFFIC FEED" and get totally different numbers from the numbers that "Google Stats" supplies.

A letter from Councilmember Bill Rosendahl

2011-12-04T16:33:00.001-08:00

LET'S HELP THE HOMELESS FOR THE HOLIDAYS

Dear Friends,

As the holidays approach, the weather has grown colder and harsher, and those who are forced to live on the streets need our help.

During the last week, we opened the Emergency Winter Shelter Program, which will provide more than 200 beds for the homeless on the Westside thru mid-March. But the program - and those it serves - sorely needs your help.

Can you help by donating personal items and supplies for the shelters? The items, listed below, can be left at any of my offices between now and December 16.

Toiletries: razors, soap, toothpaste, feminine hygiene products; foot spray; deodorant; combs; hairbrushes; nail clippers; shower shoes.

Clothing: men's underwear; women's underwear; socks; t-shirts; coats; jackets; hats; scarves; gloves; men's pants; women's pants; shoes; adult diapers.

Personal items: backpacks; reading glasses.

Items for shelter: coffee; creamer; sugar; books; magazines; board games.

These items can be dropped off at either of my offices:

Westchester
7166 W Manchester Ave
Los Angeles CA 90045
310-569-8772
Hours: 9a-5p

West LA
1645 Corinth Ave, #201
Los Angeles, CA 90025
310-575-8461
Hours: 9a-5p

City Hall
Room 415, 200 N Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-473-7011

Thanking you in advance for demonstrating the 11th District is a community that cares. Together we can make this special season a little warmer for those in need.

Happy Holidays,

Bill

http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/west-hollywood-at-27-how-the-town-of-sherman-became-weho.html

2011-12-02T12:18:00.001-08:00

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

Rethinking Streets in Northeast Los Angeles; An new Comprehensive Approach to Transportation Planning

2011-12-02T12:16:00.000-08:00

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?

Lawmaker insists California bullet train plan complies with law

2011-12-02T12:10:00.000-08:00

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.

A bullet train to nowhere?

2011-12-01T10:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Can Someone Please Loan California $98 Billion So We Can Have Our High-Speed Rail System? Thanks.

2011-12-01T10:29:00.001-08:00

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

2011-12-01T10:25:00.000-08:00

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."

LA's subway and train stations were sold as locations for pedestrian malls

2011-12-01T10:22:00.000-08:00

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:

Jumpstarting the Transit Space Race 2011 Interactive Map

2011-12-01T10:13:00.000-08:00

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)

High-Speed Rail Authority: The Draft 2012 Business Plan and Funding Plan

2011-12-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

Link to HRSA's Business and Funding Plan:

http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2011/HSRA_Business_Funding_plan_11_29_11.pdf

A Century City Station at Constellation? You Betcha!

2011-11-30T22:45:00.000-08:00

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

California's High-Speed Rail Mistake

2011-11-30T22:38:00.000-08:00

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

Bruins, Trojans and Getting Mr. Mirisch Back on Track

2011-11-30T09:14:00.000-08:00

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

Second EXPO Facility Workshop to be Held Tuesday

2011-11-30T09:08:00.000-08:00

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.

Pasadena Has Big Streetcar Plans But No Money For Them

2011-11-30T09:01:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-30T08:56:00.000-08:00

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

Expo Handed Over to Metro, Now In Final Pre-Opening Stage

2011-11-30T08:52:00.000-08:00

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.

Map of the first leg of the high speed rail project

2011-11-30T08:46:00.000-08:00

Bullet train funding plan faulted

2011-11-30T08:43:00.001-08:00

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 major theme today is: big plans for high speed rail and no money

2011-11-30T08:38:00.000-08:00

Clamoring for Crenshaw: Politicians Want 2 Westchester Stops

2011-11-29T10:16:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-29T03:34:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-29T03:31:00.000-08:00

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

California's high-speed rail is slow to gain speed

2011-11-29T02:33:00.000-08:00

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

Long road ahead: high-speed train

2011-11-29T02:15:00.000-08:00

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.

Crown city connection

2011-11-24T13:47:00.000-08:00

Crown city connection

a business-friendly streetcar system has Pasadena’s name on it

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/crown_city_connection/10750/

By Rebecca Kuzins 11/23/2011

Like it? Tweet it! SHARE IT!

For many years, Pasadena residents and business owners have considered the possibility of building a public transportation system to link the various communities within the city’s downtown area. This long-discussed proposal may finally become a reality, thanks to recent actions undertaken by city officials and downtown business organizations.

The City Council last month approved a proposal to construct a $100-million streetcar system in the city’s Central District as one of the project priorities for the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area. The feasibility, sources of financing and applicable technology for the system were analyzed in two reports issued in 2010 by Strategic Economics, a Berkeley-based consulting and research firm.

“It’s kind of a far-off proposal,” explained Erlinda Romo, executive director of the Playhouse District Association, one of the business organizations spearheading the streetcar system. “There’s no funding identified; it’s more like a wish list. But as more people get behind it, and if they can figure out a funding mechanism, it might happen.”

Romo and other supporters of the system maintain a streetcar will connect the various downtown business districts and neighborhoods by enabling people to park only once and then hop on the streetcar, easily traveling from one area to another. The city, in cooperation with the Playhouse District Association, the Old Pasadena Management District the Pasadena Center Operating Co., the South Lake Business District, and Paseo Colorado, commissioned Strategic Economics to determine if — and how — a streetcar could “generate synergy” among the five downtown subdistricts: Old Pasadena, Paseo Colorado, the Playhouse District, South Lake Avenue and the Civic Center.

The system outlined in Strategic Economics’ March 16, 2010 report would run in a continuous loop for 4.1 miles along an L-shaped route, 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. The streetcars would run at the speed of traffic on tracks installed on the streets.

“Successful streetcar connectivity,” the report concludes, “could transform Downtown Pasadena from a discontinuous hodgepodge of business districts into a single dining, shopping, entertainment and business destination, dwarfing most others in the entire Los Angeles region.” The synergy created by the streetcar, the report adds, would enable Pasadena to sustain its “economic vitality” and have a unique niche in the regional economy, differentiating the city from neighboring Glendale and Arcadia.

The Glendale shopping district described in the report contains the Glendale Galleria and the Americana at Brand, two large malls located a block away from each other. The Arcadia district included the Westfield Santa Anita Mall in Arcadia, which expanded in 2009, and the Shops at Santa Anita, a nearby mall that was to be developed by Rick Caruso, who built the Americana at Brand. However, a month after the Strategic Economics’ report was issued, Caruso announced he had abandoned plans to build the Shops at Santa Anita.

The report argues that the shopping district in Glendale and an Arcadia shopping area containing both the Westfield mall and the Shops at Santa Anita pose a threat to Pasadena, because their “larger size, easy circulation, easy access, and single destinations create greater selections for customers, thus increasing drawing power.”

However, the Pasadena streetcar would “tie together” the downtown business areas so they could “function as a unified shopping destination” that would be “significantly larger and more diverse” than the shopping districts in Glendale or Arcadia. The streetcar would also “brand” downtown Pasadena as “a unified, very special place, unique in that it has a streetcar.”

The streetcar “would link the downtown districts easily and simply with a transportation system that people actually use,” said Paul Little, president and CEO of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce. “Streetcars have cache, they’re
user-friendly.”

“There’s something more romantic, fun and exciting about taking a streetcar instead of a bus,” agreed Romo. “In San Pedro, there’s a small streetcar route, and at an annual event there people wait an hour and a half to get on the streetcar, even though they can get on a bus every 15 minutes.”

Proponents of the streetcar argue that it will alleviate traffic congestion by encouraging Pasadena residents and visitors to walk, because it will shorten the distances to destinations. Instead of driving from one place to another, pedestrians could shop in Old Pasadena and then ride the streetcar to enjoy dinner at a restaurant along South Lake.

In addition, routing the system along Union and Green would increase the visibility of shops and other establishments located on streets other than Colorado Boulevard, enticing riders to shop at stores they might otherwise ignore.
In its Oct. 4, 2010, report, Strategic Economics estimated the streetcar could generate between $4.2 million and $25.5 million in annual retail sales revenue.

The streetcar could also enhance the tourism market by enabling visitors to cross-attend events and cultural institutions in downtown Pasadena. According to the report, a “modest increase” in hotel stays and rates and more business at the Pasadena Convention Center would garner between $267,300 and $1.1 million in annual hotel revenues.

People who live and work in downtown Pasadena would also benefit from the streetcar. “We don’t have the census data, but about 20,000 people live in the Central District, and about 84,000 people work there,” said Romo. “That’s a lot of people. The streetcar will be a good alternative public transit” and “will move people through the Central District.”

The streetcar could also be a “last mile” connection for workers who commute to Pasadena, but whose workplaces are a half mile or farther away from the nearest Metro Gold Line station. Strategic Economics estimates that only 30 percent of the 61,000 jobs in the downtown area are within a quarter-mile walking distance of the Gold Line.

“I hear a lot of people say that the Gold Line is very convenient, but it’s nowhere near where they work,” said Steve Mulheim, president and chief executive officer of the Old Pasadena Management District. “This [the streetcar] will enable more people to use the Gold Line.”

Mulheim and other proponents concede that many details must be ironed out before the streetcar proposal can get on track. Project supporters will have to decide what type of vehicles to purchase: vintage cars restored from use in the 20th century; vintage replica cars, which are new cars that are built to resemble old ones; or modern low-floor streetcars.

More importantly, proponents will have to determine how to fund the system. The proposed route is expected to cost about $79 million; 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.

“Most cities that do this are utilizing a number of funding sources, including redevelopment funds, federal grants, and private funding,” said Mulheim.

According to Strategic Economics, Pasadena can reasonably expect to receive $25 million to $40 million, or between 25 percent and 50 percent of the total costs of the project, from the federal government, most likely in the form of grants from the Federal Transit Administration.

However, the city will not qualify for these funds unless it makes a “significant local contribution” of between $30 million and $75 million. According to the report, the most significant local contributions to financing streetcars in other cities have come from “creating some type of benefit assessment district” in which property owners pay to fund the project.

Other sources of funding could come from parking revenues, by offering streetcar riders rebates on their power and water bills, or from state redevelopment funds.

However, the future of redevelopment has recently come into question due to two measures signed in June by Gov. Jerry Brown. Assembly Bill 26 effectively eliminates redevelopment agencies, except to allow them to pay off their existing debt; Assembly Bill 27 allows these agencies to effectively continue operating, as long as they make significant “voluntary” payments to the state of California. The California Redevelopment Association filed suit to challenge these measures, arguing they are unconstitutional.

Our first ride on the Expo Line

2011-11-24T13:35:00.000-08:00

Our first ride on the Expo Line

Link: http://thesource.metro.net/2011/11/22/our-first-ride-on-the-expo-line/

Written by Steve Hymon in Projects on November 22, 2011
11 Comments - Leave a comment! - Tags: Expo Line

Carter and I had a nice morning: we were recipients of our first ride on the Expo Line, traveling from the 23rd Street station in downtown Los Angeles to the La Cienega station and back. We’ll post some more pics later as well as video. (Update: Here’s the link to the videos)

As for the obvious question: we don’t yet have an official opening date for the Expo Line.

Why? There’s still parts of the project not yet finished, namely there’s work to be done on the switch on the junction of the Expo Line and Blue Line tracks, the ventilation system in the tunnel under Figueroa near USC and the Culver City station.

Bottom line: Metro officials are adamant about not rushing to open the line until it is completed.

As for the ride, it was smoother and quicker than we thought it would be. A few impressions:

•Even though the train was in test mode and stopping at places it normally would not, it took about 21 minutes to travel from La Cienega to the 23rd Street station. We were both surprised how quick the train was in the sections it could run 55 mph, west of Western Avenue.

•In the street running sections of the line where there are no crossing gates, the train must obey traffic signals but will have traffic signal priority and should get a lot of green lights.

•The train runs very slow — 10 mph — on both sides of the Farmdale Station adjacent to Dorsey High School as part of the deal negotiated between the Expo Line Construction Authority and the LAUSD. It’s a bigger issue going eastbound, because the La Brea and Farmdale stations are very, very close to one another. The train barely leaves La Brea and it’s slowing for Farmdale. Get used to it.

•The mountains views from the aerial stations at La Brea and, in particular, La Cienega, are outstanding. Patrons will be able to take in a wide swath of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Baldwin Hills and the snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains. The only minor complaint: some ill-placed high-tension wires between the La Cienega station and the mountains in the distance will foil some photographers.

•The rain shields now installed at the stations look pretty good and should provide plenty of shelter during inclement weather.

We’re working on uploading the video and will post some later today.

Metro Still Won't Set Opening Date for Expo Line

2011-11-24T13:25:00.000-08:00

Metro Still Won't Set Opening Date for Expo Line

Link: http://laist.com/2011/11/22/metro_still_wont_set_opening_date_f.php

Expo Line map (Metro)

Metro is still working on completing the Expo Line, but they still won't commit to any opening date for the light rail expansion. Why not?

The Source explains:

There’s still parts of the project not yet finished, namely there’s work to be done on the switch on the junction of the Expo Line and Blue Line tracks, the ventilation system in the tunnel under Figueroa near USC and the Culver City station.

Bottom line: Metro officials are adamant about not rushing to open the line until it is completed.

While these kinds of projects do take time (and, boy, do they!) if it feels like the Expo Line has been in the testing phase for a while now, you're right: They first turned the power on for the line in early April of this year. The Source bloggers got to take their first test ride today, riding from the 23rd Street station in downtown Los Angeles to the La Cienega station and back this morning. Some thoughts: The mountain views are great, the ride is smooth and quick, but riders should prepare for some very slow spots where speedy travel isn't possible.

As we await the Expo Line's first phase to be completed and the "all aboard!" call to go out, Metro has already officially marked the start of construction on Phase 2, which will connect Culver City to Santa Monica. That portion of the line is slated to open in 2015.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

San Francisco's Transbay Terminal faces murky future

2011-11-22T01:02:00.000-08:00

San Francisco's Transbay Terminal faces murky future

Link: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2011/11/sf-transbay-terminal-faces-murky.html

San Francisco Business Times

Date: Monday, November 21, 2011, 7:15am PST

Plans for San Francisco's Transbay Terminal are hitting new problems as funding for California's high-speed rail become uncertain, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

San Francisco is continuing to build a $400 million underground train station for the bullet train, part of the $4.2 billion Transbay Terminal project that would create a two-story hub for Caltrain and bus service to the East, North and South Bay -- as well as the high-speed rail station.

But the bullet train system is facing hurdles as the Republican-controlled Congress slashes funding for high-speed rail and more questions arise in California about the project's financial soundness.

One fallback for the station being built is to use it for Caltrain, though that option would cost $1.5 billion, the report notes.

Westside Cyclists Looking to Make the Expo Line Bike-Friendly

2011-11-21T23:20:00.000-08:00

Westside Cyclists Looking to Make the Expo Line Bike-Friendly

Link: http://marvista.patch.com/articles/westside-cyclists-looking-to-make-the-expo-line-bike-friendly

Bike lovers are looking for a Bike Advisory Committee as Expo design plans move ahead.

By Brian R. Bland

Westside residents along the proposed Culver City-Santa Monica section of the Expo light rail line are putting in an order with designers: "We'd like some bikes with that train, please.''

Bike enthusiasts aren't asking for the actual vehicles, of course, but they want the line and its stations to be bike-friendly, with easy station access and secure facilities for bikes.

At Expo's latest public outreach event on Tuesday night in Santa Monica, Expo spokeswoman Gabriela Collins said some people aren't aware of plans for a bike path that will run parallel to much of the Expo line.

"It will run from the Vermont station west of USC to the Colorado/17th St. station in Santa Monica, where it will connect with an existing bike path,'' Collins said.

But Barbara Broide, who lives near Olympic and Westwood boulevards, wonders when the Bike Advisory Committee that Metro promised will be established.

"It's long overdue,'' said Broide, president of the Westwood South of Santa Monica Boulevard Homeowners Association. "The committee was supposed to be appointed in Phase 1 of the Expo project,'' she said.

Expo trains between downtown Los Angeles and Culver City are supposed to roll in early 2012.

Collins said the bike committee will be formed before construction begins on Expo's Phase 2, between Culver City and Santa Monica.

Many of the approximately 100 residents at Tuesday's event had specific concerns about noise and traffic during both construction and eventual operation of the Expo line. But seemingly everyone was in favor of the overall project.

"It's great—something Los Angeles has needed for decades,'' said West Los Angeles resident A.J. Calomay. As a kid, he said played along the abandoned tracks of the old Red Car trolley system that disappeared when the freeways were built. Calomay and his fiancée have a condo near the Expo line.

"I'm trying to make sure it's not going to be too disruptive to my neighborhood,'' he said.''

Michael Deane, who lives not far from Calomay, said he wants to make sure the nearby station is as soundproof as possible.

"I grew up in New York next to a subway station,'' he said. "Expo is a good thing. I'm just a little concerned about how they're handling the impact on those who live along and around the line.''

Santa Monica resident Margaret Mills has an autistic adult son who lives near the line's Colorado/4th St. terminus. She wants to be sure her son's service providers won't face reduced parking or traffic jams on Colorado.

"It's going to change Colorado considerably,'' Mills said. "There will be a lot of people, a lot of movement, perhaps noise.'' Still, she believes, "Everyone needs to get behind `people moving' versus autos.''

As the excitement grows around the Expo Line becoming a reality, Broide said some very big questions are still unanswered about traffic, safety and the decision to forego parking at stations such as Westwood, destined to be one of the line's busiest stations.

Broide said, "How do you get the students from the Expo station to UCLA and business folks to the Village? How do you get commuters from the station to Century City?''

The Expo Line from Staples Center to Culver City has been built. Trains are being tested along the route except for the final mile east of Culver City, where testing is several months behind schedule. Expo officials still say service will begin next year, with the Culver City to Santa Monica stretch getting the "all aboard'' in 2015.

The Projects of the 30/10 Initiative

2011-11-21T10:02:00.000-08:00

Orange Line Extension

Exposition Transit Corridor Phase 2

Gold Line Foothill Extension

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor

Regional Connector Transit Corridor

Van Nuys Bl Rapidway

Westside Subway Extension (to be opened in segments)

West Santa Ana Transit Corridor

Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Green Line LAX Extension

South Bay Metro Green Line Extension

Sepulveda Pass Transit

For more of the specifics of each project, click on this link: http://www.metro.net/projects/30-10/

Subway Planning in the Century City Area

2011-11-21T09:39:00.000-08:00

Subway Planning in the Century City Area

Dear Beverly Hills, Century City & Westwood area neighbors:

Many of you have followed Metro's planning for the Westside Subway Extension. There has been a great deal of interest in your neighborhoods about the studies involving the location of the Century City station and tunnels.

Metro contractors have conducted extensive geotechnical investigations to learn more about soil and seismic conditions, oil well locations, potential noise and vibration, and possible impacts for current or future buildings. Analysis of this information, including all back-up data and material, was recently released in two technical reports. A summary of the reports was presented to Metro's Planning and Programming Committee by a panel of technical experts and an independent review panel comprised of internationally recognized experts in geology, seismology, and engineering.

Please visit us online at metro.net/westside to learn more about the subway, view the reports, videos of the presentation to the Metro Board, and the experts' biographies. A full set of the reports is available at both the Beverly Hills Public Library (444 N Rexford Dr) and the Westwood Public Library (1246 Glendon Av).

This document provides you with a brief summary of the findings of the studies. Please note that no decision has been made by the Metro Board to date. It is anticipated that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FEIS/R) will be released in early 2012 for a 45-day public review period before it is presented to the Metro Board for their consideration.

Overview

In October 2010, the Metro Board asked for a detailed investigation of technical issues regarding the location of the Century City station for the Westside Subway Extension and tunnels in the area. Since then, more than 200 field tests were conducted in the area. The data were analyzed and reviewed and two technical reports produced–the Tunnel Safety Report and the Fault Investigation Report.

Contact us

Please go the "Contact Us" section of metro.net/westside. You can also keep up with subway developments and discussion on Facebook: facebook.com/ westsidesubwayextension, or follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/westsidesubway.

What were the conclusions of the studies?

The studies concluded that (1) there is not a viable location anywhere on Santa Monica Bl for a Century City station due to the presence of two active fault zones; (2) Constellation Bl is outside of active fault zones and is a viable station location; and (3) that the tunnels and stations can be built to be safe and without impacting people or property located above them.

What did the studies find about the fault zones in this area?

Santa Monica Bl lies within the Santa Monica fault zone from west of Century Park West to east of Avenue of the Stars. The originally proposed Santa Monica Bl Station at Avenue of the Stars would be directly within the fault zone. The studies found that the West Beverly Hills Lineament (WBHL) is a northern extension of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. In this area, the zone has several well-defined strands along the eastern edge of Century City and western edge of Beverly Hills. A proposed station location on Santa Monica Bl at Century Park East would straddle the WBHL.

The studies found that the station location on Constellation Bl would not be within an active fault zone and is a viable option for a station location. The Constellation Bl Station site is south and west of both active fault zones.

How could the Constellation site be safe for a station? It's still close to the active fault zones.

Throughout our active seismic region, we have to deal with ground shaking as a result of earthquakes. There is a difference between a location in an active fault zone where ground rupture or deformation could occur and an area where ground shaking occurs. No subway stations have been built in known active fault zones in North America. Modern engineering techniques have been developed to address the ability of structures, including subway stations, to withstand ground shaking.

If it is not safe to build a subway station in a fault zone, is it safe to tunnel through one?

There are numerous proven design and construction methods to ensure that a subway tunnel is safe in a fault zone. These include building a larger diameter tunnel and/or a very strong and flexible lining to withstand several feet of movement. Tunneling at a high angle across a fault zone, rather than along one, limits the risk.

Is there a risk of ground settlement from the tunnel?

The latest technology uses pressurized, closed-face tunnel boring machines (TBMs). As these machines proceed, concrete tunnel liners are immediately installed in the newly excavated tunnel portion. These techniques combine to provide immediate ground support of the tunnel. These machines were successfully used on the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (MGLEE) where ground movement was very limited and, along most of that alignment, there was no measureable settlement.

Will people above the tunnels in Beverly Hills, Century City or Westwood hear or feel the trains?

Metro now operates 18 miles of subway tunnels in downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and North Hollywood running under numerous buildings including homes, often at more shallow depths than the tunnels planned for the Westside Subway Extension. To date, no complaints have been received about noise or vibration from train operations. Noise and vibration tests were part of the recent field tests. Results predict that ground-borne vibration from the trains would not be greater than 64 decibels, less than the 72 to 75 decibel standard established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for residential and institutional uses. Predicted noise levels would be no greater than 33 decibels, lower than the FTA noise standard of 35 and 40 decibels for residential and institutional use. Monitoring of noise and vibration above existing Metro tunnels has shown no detectible noise or vibration above normal background levels. Noise and vibration are created in the tunnels as the train wheels run over the tracks. They are absorbed in the soil and dissipate over distance. The tops of the tunnels are planned to be 50 to more than 110 feet deep in the area from West Beverly Hills to Westwood. They are shallowest close to the stations and generally deepest midway between the stations. It will be 70 feet deep to the top of the tunnels under the south wing of Building B at Beverly Hills High School. The tunnels will be even deeper in some areas between Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards – more than 100 feet deep in some cases. The tracks are about 20 feet below the top of the tunnels.

Is there a risk from gassy ground or oil wells?

Field tests in this area looked for methane and hydrogen sulfide, gases that occur naturally in the ground. Results indicated that methane levels were below those encountered along the subway in downtown Los Angeles. The hydrogen sulfide levels in the Century City area were either very low or not detectable. All subway tunnels and stations are equipped with gas detection equipment and robust ventilation and fire suppression systems. Oil well maps and scans only detected one oil well potentially in the path of the tunnel. It is in Century City and, following further tests, will be properly abandoned if necessary.

Can BHHS still be used as an emergency evacuation center?

The studies determined that the subway tunnels will not impact the availability of BHHS for use as an emergency shelter or evacuation center, even in the event of an earthquake.

Will the tunnels impact future plans to remodel BHHS or build new buildings?

The studies determined that subway tunnels would not preclude Beverly Hills High School's future plans, including in areas directly above the tunnels. This includes the possibility of building multi-level underground parking. In most cases, such construction actually reduces the pressure on the tunnels as the weight of the new building and its contents is less than that of the soil removed.

Who conducted these studies and what is their background?

The individuals involved included engineers, geologists, and seismologists. The Fault Investigation Study and Tunnel Safety Report were prepared by Metro's contractor for this project. They brought in specialists to assist with the fault studies. The work was reviewed by an independent Tunnel Advisory Panel. A separate independent panel then reviewed the studies. Biographies can be viewed at metro.net/westside.

Fault Experts

James Dolan, Ph. D.
Thomas Henyey, Ph. D.
Thomas Rockwell, Ph. D.

Metro's Tunnel Advisory Panel

Ed Cording, Ph. D.
Geoff Martin, Ph. D.
Harvey Parker, Ph. D.

Independent Review Panel

Lloyd Cluff
Lucile Jones, Ph. D.
Paul Jennings, Ph. D.
Thomas O'Rourke, Ph. D.

How does this new information about the Santa Monica Fault or the West Beverly Hills Lineament impact plans for future building in this area?

These studies were conducted as a part subway planning and the data generated was analyzed solely for those purposes. The data has been made public and other regulatory and permitting agencies, as well as other property owners, can evaluate the information to determine if it has any implications independent of the subway.

Keywords: Subway Planning in the Century City Area; Westside
Last Revised: Friday November 18, 2011

18 second test of the Expo Line at the La Brea station! That's all folks!

2011-05-24T23:20:00.000-07:00

Reminder: Construction Authority Board Meeting Tonight (http://www.iwillride.org)

2011-05-24T23:14:00.000-07:00

Reminder: Construction Authority Board Meeting Tonight

reports.

by Rodrigo

Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWillRide/~3/11rfyDyYxjc/

The Construction Authority Board of Directors will be holding a meeting tonight (Wednesday, May 25, 2011) at 7:00 p.m. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Arcadia City Hall, Council Chambers, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. Click here for more information or to view the meeting agenda and reports

GUEST EDITORIAL: RAIL LINE MUST GO UNDERGROUND TO PRESERVE, PROTECT KEY BLACK L.A. BUSINESS CORRIDOR (www.wavenewspapers.com)

2011-05-24T22:07:00.000-07:00

GUEST EDITORIAL: RAIL LINE MUST GO UNDERGROUND TO PRESERVE, PROTECT KEY BLACK L.A. BUSINESS CORRIDOR

By DAMIEN GOODMON

Story Created: Apr 27, 2011 at 8:23 PM PDT

Story Updated: Apr 27, 2011 at 8:23 PM PDT

Link: http://www.wavenewspapers.com/opinion/editorials/Guest-Editorial-Rail-line-must-go-underground-to-preserve-protect-key-Black-LA-business-corridor-120834024.html

On Thursday, the MTA board of directors will be presented with an opportunity to approve Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ motion to keep the entirety of the Crenshaw-LAX Light Rail Line underground on Crenshaw Boulevard. The implications of the motion should concern every Angeleno, for the Crenshaw-LAX Line is a true regional rail project, and the Southland needs its last African-American business corridor.

The current Crenshaw-LAX project from the future Expo Line Crenshaw station to the Green Line by way of LAX is simply the first phase of perhaps the most significant north-south rail project for our region.

Just consider the Crenshaw-LAX Line extensions that have recently finished study or are currently under study, and one can view a rail line that soon after completion would produce the highest ridership of any light rail line in the country.

To the south, MTA has dedicated funding to extend the line deep into the South Bay to Torrance, along a route that parallels the 405 Freeway. Studies have been conducted to take the line even further south into San Pedro or Long Beach.

To the north, preliminary studies have been completed to extend the line to Wilshire to connect with the Subway to the Sea. Also, last year, MTA planning resources were dedicated to studying an extension of the line beyond Wilshire to the Hollywood/Highland Red Line station by way of West Hollywood (a project that is known as the Pink Line.)

Hollywood, West Hollywood, Miracle Mile, Mid-City, Crenshaw District, Inglewood, Westchester, El Segundo, Redondo Beach and Torrance all connected by one rail line to LAX, a line that would have transfer stations with four of the five east-west MTA rail lines. The implications to the MTA system and region as a whole are huge.

In the South Bay, the line would provide an alternative to the I-405 freeway. And in the north from Hollywood to the Expo Line, the line would have a total monopoly on high-speed transportation, because it would be 100% underground permitting trains to travel 55 mph between stations in a section of our region that has no freeway option. The result: Hollywood to LAX in a little over 30 minutes.

Imagine that.

The only impediment to fast, reliable rail service for this entire line is the median street-running segment in Park Mesa Heights from 48th Street to 59th Street. The regional line, serving Southern California’s air traffic hub, would have to compete with an already overburdened roadway. Over 60,000 cars per day travel this portion of Crenshaw Boulevard, and at the major intersection of Slauson/Crenshaw, MTA’s own studies reveal that rush hour congestion is at its worst possible level (Level of Service “F”) and cannot be improved with a street-level crossing.

From 48th Street to 59th street, the train would have to stop at signals and travel with no crossing gates. Of the nearly 900 accidents on MTA’s street-level Blue Line, America’s deadliest light rail line, 76 percent of all accidents and 92 percent of all vehicular accidents are at crossings with no gates.
If one of the goals of the public investment is to convince travelers that they can make their flights on time by “Go[ing] Metro” — that they need not clog the city streets and 405 to get to LAX — surely it is wise to avoid designs that are known to be problematic and create significant delays to passengers.

The historic African-American Crenshaw corridor has been waiting for its rebirth since at least the civil unrest of 1992. There have been piecemeal public and private investments, but none so singularly significant as the Crenshaw-LAX light rail project. At $1.7 billion, it is the largest public works project in the history of South Los Angeles.

In spite of all the challenges, Crenshaw merchants are still standing. In the Park Mesa Heights community institutions like Dulan’s, Nobody Jones Boutique, Crenshaw Yoga and Margarita’s Café remain, if in the case of some, only by the skin of their teeth.

Ridley-Thomas’ motion would connect the two underground portions of the rail line, avoiding the safety hazards and business impacts of a street-level design between 48th Street to 59th Street in Park Mesa Heights.

To fit street-level tracks on Crenshaw in Park Mesa Heights, MTA would impose a variety of roadway changes that would transform the boulevard, which currently features pedestrian-friendly designs (coupled with a specific plan that requires new buildings to be built in a manner that is pedestrian-oriented) into a highway that is far more auto-centric.

MTA’s street-level plan would make it harder for patrons to walk and drive to the mostly black-owned small businesses. The median lined with mature trees that contribute to Crenshaw Boulevard’s scenic highway status would be wiped out, available parking would be cut in half, and left turns at multiple intersections would be eliminated along with mid-block pedestrian crossings. A tremendous economic revitalization opportunity would be hampered. And the impact on current business with 4-5 long years of street-level construction is daunting.

Could Park Mesa Heights merchants withstand it?

It’s highly doubtful. Far more stable business corridors succumbed in the best of economic times.
It would be a death to the last African-American business corridor in Southern California.

The plight of the Crenshaw business community should concern us all. If Los Angeles is a salad bowl filled with a mixture of cultures from throughout the world, Crenshaw must be the dressing. Our region should no more welcome the destruction of the Crenshaw business community than it should Little Tokyo or Chinatown. Crenshaw is as much a part of our unique identity as a multicultural city, as any other ethnic center. We must both preserve it and enhance it with the Crenshaw-LAX Light Rail Line.

The Crenshaw community is ready for the rebirth that will occur if MTA builds the Park Mesa Heights tunnel. With it will come not just a preserved cultural destination and better public transit, but also a stronger tax base for the region.

Goodmon is chair of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition Chair and coordinator of the Fix Expo Campaign.

The Wilshire BRT: LA Metro's Achilles Tendon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

2011-05-23T21:05:00.001-07:00

The Wilshire BRT: LA Metro's Achilles Tendon

Posted: 05/23/11 02:32 PM ET

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-epstein/the-wilshire-brt-la-metro_b_865160.html

A few months ago an injury changed the way I see the need for more bus rapid transit (BRT) in Los Angeles. I'm 50 now and hardly the picture of fitness I was or wasn't when I was younger. And what is it they say? "Exercise will kill you." Well not quite, but it did contribute to my tearing my Achilles tendon. I knew it the minute the real athlete at the front desk of the rec center told me what I'd done. Unmistakable, the telltale "pop" of another middle-aged weekend warrior's brittle tendon tearing.

Thanks to a great surgeon at UCLA and a better-than-average health plan I am on the mend and should be fine. It hasn't been without its inconveniences of course, but in the scheme of things it hasn't been too bad. In two weeks I will have spent over two months in a cast, during which I learned how to "run" for the bus on crutches, and discovered the joys of carrying stuff around without a free hand.

But what the experience really taught me has nothing to do with my age-related vulnerability to a routine sports injury. The lesson of this annoyance has been about the daily lives lived by the thousands of elderly and disabled Angelenos, many of them veterans, who can't run for the bus with or without crutches and won't get to take off their cast and return to a normal life in the next couple of weeks. If you ride Metro you see them every day, struggling to bridge the gap between the curb and the bus or find an open seat near the driver when the designated seats have all been taken up by inconsiderate riders who aren't supposed to sit there.

Being temporarily disabled has helped me appreciate the importance of the kneeling buses that drop down to make it easier to board and the automatic ramps that unfold so that a rider in a wheelchair can more easily access the bus.

I don't know how many of those who rely on Metro and the other local bus operators are elderly or disabled but on many routes the numbers are no doubt considerable. And until we find the fountain of youth we can only expect more Angelenos to become dependent on public transit in the years to come.

Given the mobility challenge older and disabled riders face, they should be the city's fiercest supporters of the rapid public transit solutions like the Wilshire BRT will provide. Which is why it is such a mystery that transit riders throughout the city but particularly in districts with large numbers of older and disabled people don't get the respect they deserve from certain members of the City Council and Metro Board. Maybe it is the silent dignity of older and disabled transit riders that leaves these public officials thinking there is nothing wrong with their seeking special exemptions from the Wilshire BRT project for their districts? Maybe these elected and appointed officials think they are only hurting the city's bus-dependent poor and working class when putting the interests of car commuters ahead of Metro's customers? As if doing so was an acceptable excuse for dissing the region's transit riders.

Like all transit battles in this town there are two sides to every story and the fight over the BRT is no exception. At the end of the day though, there is the story that holds water, and the one that is all wet. Guess which side is which.

With the City Council and Metro Board again revisiting the merits of a true BRT along Wilshire, including Brentwood and the Condo Canyon, the time has come to stop ignoring the transit needs of the tens of thousands of Angelenos who rely on the Wilshire bus on a daily basis.

A Wilshire Blvd without dedicated bus lanes is no longer an acceptable way to treat commuters including our most vulnerable. It's time for the Council and Metro Board members who have been fighting for the Condo Canyon and Brentwood cutouts to stop dissing the riding public.

Yours in transit,
Joel

Blogging (in) LA: Green LA Girl (blogging.la)

2011-05-23T20:59:00.001-07:00

Blogging (in) LA: Green LA Girl
May 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm in Blogging (in) LA, LA

Link: http://blogging.la/2011/05/22/blogging-in-la-green-la-girl/

This post is part of the Blogging (in) LA Series.

Los Angeles, with its vast geography, smog, traffic, and challenging mass transit options, might not be the place one would most expect to find an eco-blogger living and thriving. But Green LA Girl is someone who does just that – lives and thrives in Los Angeles seeking to incorporate eco-friendly principles in her day-to-day life and keeping record of her experiences doing so on a blog that offers a variety of insights and solutions both for Angelenos and for those not fortunate enough to live here in our great city. Covering a wide range of topics–from consumables (fair-trade organic coffee or chocolate) to fashion (eco-friendly panties) to eco-friendly item giveaways (yoga mats, coffee mugs, etc.) to reducing home energy use–Green LA Girl provides a wealth of knowledge of information that can help us strive to live in better harmony with our environment.

Green LA Girl was kind enough to take some time out of her Sunday afternoon to answer some questions for us, and here is what she had to say:

B.LA: You earned your PhD in Literature and Creative Writing here in LA at the University of Southern California. Did you have any inkling as you plotted out your education that you would end up being a blogger?

gLAg: No – and in fact, the blog started when I was in grad school because I felt like working on my degree was so removed from real life. Not that literature doesn’t have relevance in real life, but especially in the academic setting I just felt like there was a disconnect between day-to-day living and the things I was thinking about most of the day. It sort of became a way of connecting what I was thinking about to things that are actually happening in real life. And in my life, specifically.

B.LA: Well that’s a nice segue to my next question, about the subject matter of your blog: can you tell us about how you were inspired to become so passionate and involved in eco-awareness and activism?

gLAg: Well, the first post I wrote, I wrote because my DVD player broke, and I knew it was a bad idea to just throw it in the dumpster, but I didn’t know where I could actually recycle it. To figure that out, I ended up having to do a lot of research, and after I did it I didn’t just want that to let that information disappear. Surely there are other people who, if it were a little bit easier to recycle their DVD player, they actually would. So that ended up being my first post, and it sort of went on from there. A lot of the posts are just about me trying to deal with things in my life, whether its just like finding organic fair trade coffee—which was actually a lot tougher 6 years ago—and things to simplify living and make living more fun, doing that research and putting in on the blog that way other people—I mean, it helps me document my own life, which I find fun for personal reasons, but it also helps other people who might be interested in the same things find information that they want.

B.LA: Right, kind of a public service…

gLAg: Sort of, although that’s more a side benefit. I don’t know that my reasons for doing it are particularly altruistic.

B.LA: For many, Los Angeles isn’t the first city that comes to mind when thinking of eco-friendly living. As a city filled with people who seem always to be busy, on the go, and short of time, there are surely many people living in LA who would like to be more eco-conscious but convince themselves they don’t have time or energy to do so. Short of encouraging people to read your blog (which we do encourage), what would be your top three suggestions to people to reduce their impact on the environment?

gLAg: Well, I guess if you’re just going to pick the top three things that anyone can do, I would always recommend the low-hanging fruit. [One] Having a reusable bag that you have with you all the time—if you’re a woman the kind that is collapsible and fits into your purse is really convenient. [Two] Making sure you recycle. Even in LA you can recycle. Even when you live in an apartment—something you couldn’t do when I started the blog. [Three] I guess the third one would be trying to get to work in a more sustainable way, whether that’s biking, car-pooling, or taking the bus.

That said, those are all very small things and also things that can seem a little bit like a burden to someone who’s just starting out. It’s hard for people to see a personal benefit to doing those three things. Where living a green life becomes more fun and beneficial on a personal level as well as on an environmental level is when you actually make the bigger changes. For example, like moving closer to work. Or moving to a place where it’s just one straight rapid bus line to get to work. That one choice can make so many aspects of your life better, as well as more environmentally friendly. From saving you tons of money on gas and parking and maybe even getting a cash payout from work for not using the parking garage, to brightening your mood because you don’t have to fight with traffic to getting to know your neighborhood better because you’re out and about, walking to work, not in your car going from one garage to the next.

I think it’s when you make those bigger changes, living for example, somewhere that has a lot of the amenities around y ou that you can walk to in a pleasant way and have fun doing it as opposed to, say, breaking your back trying to take a bus long distances to haul extremely heavy organic groceries that cost you a whole lot more in your reusable bags. When you make the bigger changes, the smaller changes come sort of automatically. It is hard to convince people to make those sort of changes unless they get on the bandwagon by making the small ones like toting a reusable bag.

B.LA: So it’s sort of like getting people to think more strategically about how to live in environmentally-friendly ways…

gLAg: Well, and I think making the small changes really becomes a catalyst to thinking about your life more holistically. Say your commute gets a little bit longer because you take the bus—that can be a great catalyst for you to consider, “well maybe I should change where work is,” or “maybe I should change where home is.” Things you never would have considered when you owned a car, or when you drive a car.

B.LA: I know you’ve been active in the blogging community, not just here in LA but throughout the US with involvement in BlogHer, WordCamp, and other blogging-related activities. Based on the breadth of your experience, what observations would you make about the blogging community in Los Angeles?

gLAg: Wow… I’m not sure. Because I’m not sure of the blogging communities in other places, I’m not sure that I can necessarily compare/contrast to other cities. I do think the blogging community in LA tends to reflect the geography of LA itself. There will be bloggers I see a lot, and bloggers I see extremely rarely. And there are bloggers along specific topics I see a lot that don’t necessarily co-mingle. I think that’s sort of the reason I like events like Blogger Prom. As commercialized as it is, it’s a fun place for me to see a whole lot of other bloggers that I may not run into, but who I may have read about, whose work I may have read online. Or, whose work I may be interested in covering. I sort of wish there were more events like that. I feel like there were a few other mixers that have happened, but there haven’t been that many. And there are blogging-related parties all the time, but not so many that are inclusive of all types of bloggers.

B.LA: That’s a good thought—Blogger Prom is great, but more is always better.

Many thanks to Siel for taking the time to share her eco-friendly thoughts with us as part of the Blogging (in) LA series. Please go check out her blog here.

Can a transit line transform South Los Angeles? (wattway.org)

2011-05-23T20:49:00.000-07:00

Can a transit line transform South Los Angeles?

Posted on May 13, 2011 by anlittle

By Anita Little

Link: http://wattway.org/blog/2011/05/crenshaw-light-rail-provides-path-for-urban-development/

In the opening scene of the film Crash, one of the characters laments on how there is “no sense of touch” in Los Angeles. “In L.A. nobody touches you, we’re always behind this metal and this glass.”

The prevalence of driving in Los Angeles is one of its most identifying characteristics. Everyone here drives and in order to survive in the City of Angels, you need wheels to be your wings.

However, some low-income and minority segments of Los Angeles do not own cars. For decades, this has denied them access to goods and employment in other parts of the city. City planners and urban advocates have pushed for the development of more viable mass transit in Los Angeles and with the building of the Crenshaw Light Rail, disenfranchised communities are now on the verge of greater mobility and, perhaps, an enhanced quality of life.

At a relatively short 8.5 miles, each one of the route’s miles carries high expectations that go beyond simply providing people transit options.

“It will have long-term impacts on the community including improved accessibility to other parts of Los Angeles and a connection to the rest of the transportation network,” said Roderick Diaz, the Metropolitan Transit Authority senior planner for the light rail construction. “People who formerly couldn’t get to where jobs are will be able to reach those places and also have better access to recreation and possibility better health care through the new line.”

The Crenshaw Light Rail would run along Crenshaw Boulevard and connect with the already-existing Metro Green Line and the Expo Line. The rail is only one arm of the city’s master plan to make Los Angeles’ public transportation more cohesive. Though it will significantly benefit the neighborhoods and cities south of downtown specifically, this rail can affect everyone, according to Diaz.

“There is no one beneficiary to this new transit corridor,” said Diaz. “Communities in South Los Angeles and Inglewood, commuters trying to get to work without dealing with traffic, people trying to get downtown, to the West Side, to the South Bay, to LAX[...] This rail will mean a lot of things to a lot of people.”

The light rail is being primarily funded through Measure R, a voter-backed $40 billion initiative to fund traffic relief and aid transportation upgrades and also through an anticipated $20 million loan from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Crenshaw Light Rail costs $1.7 billion and will stretch from the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw area to Los Angeles International Airport. The high-price tag project faced fierce opposition from city planners who felt a Crenshaw bus line instead of a rail line would be more cost-effective.

“The rail was chosen as opposed to a less expensive bus option because of the connection it would make to other rail lines and the synergy it would have with the airport connection,” said Diaz in response to detractors. “More bus lines wouldn’t be as time-saving.”

The new transit corridor, a vision conceived shortly after the city’s 1992 riots as a way to serve transit-dependent residents in South Los Angeles, was the result of a nearly 20-year effort by urban advocacy groups like the Los Angeles Urban League, the South Los Angeles Neighborhood Council and the Urban Land Institute of Los Angeles.
View Map of Crenshaw Light Rail by Anita Little in a larger map

The project was then picked up city officials after studies found that there was a substantial loss to the Los Angeles economy stemming from the geographic mismatchbetween where jobs were available and where the unemployed or underemployed lived. The light rail has the potential to increase employment by putting people where the jobs are. Despite these studies, some experts doubt the Crenshaw Light Rail will ever live up to the lofty expectations set by the MTA and advocacy groups.

“There is no evidence that these system do anything for the community. The Blue Line, Green Line and Gold Line light rails have been in operation in L.A. for some years, and I’ve seen very little in the way of serious development impacts,” said Dr. Peter Gordon, a professor at the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development and an expert on urban economics.

“These systems are hugely expensive, and MTA has been shutting down bus service to pay for these rails. As a result, we barely have as many transit riders today as we had back in 1985. Could it be any worse?”

In the face of criticism, the project has still been funded and approved and is now in a stage of environmental review, meaning that the MTA is doing a full environmental analysis of the upcoming project to ascertain what impact the construction could have on the surrounding community. Once the review stage is over, the MTA can break ground on the new line, which most likely will occur in late 2011.

“It’s part of a broad approach to increasing quality of life in South Los Angeles and stabilizing communities,” said Carolyn Hull, the South Los Angeles regional administrator for the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles.

“Over the next twenty years, South Los Angeles will have a completely different transportation system. The light rail will allow people in communities without cars to connect and turn South Los Angeles into a more walkable community.”

Just the mere construction of the rail will create more than 7,800 jobs, according to the MTA; officials expect even more job creation as a result of the economic boost the rail will provide.

“Not only will it create jobs and provide long-term accessibility along with new opportunities for people to get around, it will continue to be an economic asset after its completion,” said Diaz, who studied urban planning and transportation efficiency at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Projections show that additional development would also accompany the new lines. Residential and commercial development occurred along other lines like the Hollywood line and we expect a similar effect here.”

The new rail has a projected completion date of early 2016, and MTA officials expect an initial ridership of 13,000 to 16,000 people a day. The ultimate goal is increased mobility in South Los Angeles; some residents expect that will happen.

“It has the power to make my life easier and the lives of my neighbors easier,” said Danita Blanco, a hairdresser with no car access who lives in Greater Crenshaw with her five-year-old son, De’Ante. “I’ll have more choice of where I want to work, what food I want to buy and where I want my son to play. He needs to know a world exists beyond this block.”

More Nimbyism: Bus-Only Lanes Are A Bad Idea West Of Beverly Hills (http://www.westsidetoday.com)

2011-05-23T20:45:00.000-07:00

Bus-Only Lanes Are A Bad Idea West Of Beverly Hills

By Guest Editorial by Ray Klein, Nancy Freedman and Lauren Cole | May 20, 2011
Link: http://www.westsidetoday.com/m3-5175/bus-only-lanes-are.html

Artist’s rendering of a curbside pick-up area adjacent to a proposed bus lane on Wilshire

Metro is proposing bus-only lanes on Wilshire Blvd. However, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica have chosen not to participate. And Metro has exempted 1.3 miles of the 2.3 mile segment in Westwood between Beverly Hills and the 405. Most of the 1.4 mile segment between the 405 and Centinela (Brentwood) was part of a trial bus lane several years ago that was a horrible failure, but Metro wants to re-institute bus lanes in Brentwood.
In 2005, LADOT said: “The Department’s field observations and data collection have confirmed that traffic has diverted from Wilshire Boulevard. Eastbound traffic on Wilshire Boulevard normally destined for the northbound 405 Freeway appears to have diverted up to Sunset Boulevard to avoid congestion and delays resulting from the reduced capacity on Wilshire Boulevard.” An attached table said that the eastbound 4-7 PM travel time in the car lanes from Centinela to Federal increased 53%.
Metro and LADOT’s current answer to the prior failed experiment is to widen Wilshire to create an additional eastbound lane between Barrington and Bonsall (about midway between Federal and the 405). This won’t work. Even after widening, LADOT estimates that bus lanes would cause a 30% increased delay in year 2012 on Wilshire at Bundy going eastbound at 4-7PM. In 2020, the increased delay caused by bus lanes would be 45%. This increased delay at Bundy will motivate more traffic to get off Wilshire and go north through Brentwood streets to Sunset and the 405.
Moreover, widening Wilshire between Barrington and Federal should not, and probably cannot, be done. There are 5 trees in the sidewalk area on the south side of Wilshire and 4 trees on the north side. There are 3 bus bench and kiosk areas on each side (total of 6), and the distances from the back of the bus bench to the building line is as little as 4’3” and no greater than 5’6”. Tens of children from Uni waiting for a bus after school already spill over into the 7-Eleven parking lot (an even more narrow sidewalk will create an extreme safety hazard). There is a medical office building at the SW Federal corner and another at the NE corner of Barry (halfway between Barrington and Federal). Even if legally possible under Federal and State laws governing access by disabled in wheelchairs, narrowing these sidewalks would create an unsafe and unattractive condition for a major Boulevard such as Wilshire.
Councilman Rosendahl supports contiguous bus-only lanes in the 5.4 miles from the MacArthur Park area to the east side of Beverly Hills. That is a worthy project. The surrounding communities support that project area, and Federal dollars could be used to fix the curb lanes.
Under Metro’s proposal, the bus-only lanes west of LaCienega would not exist in 3 segments (Beverly Hills and two areas in Westwood), they are not supported by the surrounding communities, and the fragmented, on-again-off-again bottlenecks would result in delays, unsafe conditions and more pollution at each squeeze of the bottle.
You can make a difference. City Council will hear this matter on Tuesday, May 24, at 10:00AM, Room 340 at City Hall (entrance on Main Street between 1st St. and Temple). Small but organized and vocal groups from other areas will lobby for bus lanes in Brentwood for misguided reasons based on faulty assumptions. The Brentwood Community Council, the Brentwood Homeowners Association, and the South Brentwood Residents Association support bus-only lanes that are only east of Beverly Hills (Alternative A-2) - - the alternative with the fewest significant adverse impacts on traffic. Sign a “speaker card” at the hearing and make your voice heard. We all complain about traffic - now is your chance to do something about it. If it is not possible for you to be at City Hall, state your position in an email to councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org with a copy to info@brentwoodcommunitycouncil.org.

Biggest Transit Project in L.A. History Still on Hold for NoHo, but Financing Prospects Have Improved (http://northhollywood.patch.com)

2011-05-23T20:34:00.000-07:00

Biggest Transit Project in L.A. History Still on Hold for NoHo, but Financing Prospects Have Improved

Announced in 2007, the $1 billion development is still in the works for the North Hollywood Metro area.

By Laura Sturza | Email the author | May 20, 2011

Link: http://northhollywood.patch.com/articles/biggest-transit-project-in-la-history-still-on-hold-for-noho-but-financing-prospects-have-improved

Though the city’s largest transit project in history was approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in September 2007, economic conditions temporarily ground progress on the NoHo Art Wave to a halt. A Metro official says prospects for restarting the planned development are good now that lenders are opening their coffers again.

Planners are “on the cusp of getting it going,” said Roger Moliere, Chief of Real property Management and Development for Metro.

It stopped moving forward when the financial market froze up. “Every project in the country was unable to borrow,” Moliere said. Though the real estate market had bottomed out, it is on the upswing, he said.

The NoHo Art Wave was designed for construction at Lankershim Boulevard and Chandler Boulevard near Metro’s North Hollywood Station, with an aim of attracting more riders to the Orange line bus and Red line train. Such projects are planned so that people can live, work and shop in one locale, and use public transit to get to their other destinations, Moliere said.

The $1 billion development is slated to feature 562 housing units, three office towers, 1.72 million square feet of retail, a new YMCA community building and 6,200 parking spaces over 15.5 acres.

The property includes a historic train depot that may be reconstructed as part of the project, potentially as a Metro Customer Service Area, Moliere said.

The development contract was awarded by Metro to Lowe Enterprises, based in Brentwood. Under the agreement, the developer get the financing and builds and operates on a lease with Metro, Moliere said.

A timeline for the project has not been announced. “We do not have an update on that project at this time,” said Jann Diehl, Vice President for Lowe Enterprises.

The scope of NoHo Art Wave is substantially broader than the city’s most expensive Metro development to date, which is the $500 million Hollywood and Vine station, Moliere said.

While the land is in the city’s redevelopment area, it is owned by Metro, redevelopment officials confirmed. North Hollywood’s redevelopment, the NoHo Commons, started in 2004. It includes residential properties at the Gallery at NoHo Commons, and commercial and residential space at the Lofts at NoHo.

The most recent additions to NoHo's redevelopment projects include the reopening of the historicPhil’s Diner in April and the 7-screen Laemmle Theater, which broke ground May 10, according to Margarita De Escontrias, Regional Administrator for the East Valley and West Valley Regional Areas.

Though NoHo Art Wave is owned by Metro and NoHo Commons was financed in part with the city’s redevelopment funds, spokespeople for both projects expressed similar goals: to bring about a renaissance in the NoHo Arts District, to revitalize what were previously blighted areas, and to create an attractive, transit-oriented community.