From the Las Vegas Sun: the pros and cons of Mag Lev technology and high-speed rail

Link: Trade-offs between technologies include speed, cost - Las Vegas Sun

TRANSPORTATION:
Trade-offs between technologies include speed, cost
Backers of each project find fault with the way the other one would work

By Richard N. Velotta (contact)

Sun, Jun 14, 2009 (2 a.m.)

It’s a tale of two trains.

One would be a conventional steel-wheels-on-rails model that would move faster than any train operating in the West, powered by electricity or a diesel-electric hybrid locomotive.

The other wouldn’t use rails — or wheels. Its cars would be propelled by magnetic levitation, or maglev, and would float on a cushion of air, propelled by magnetic fields generated by electricity. And it would be really fast.

These are the two technologies that have emerged as contenders to whisk thousands of gamblers from Southern California to Las Vegas on high-speed trains.

Proposals for high-speed trains were aired in the

late 1970s as traffic from the market that supplies one-third of the city’s visitors grew on Interstate 15. Today, about 80,000 vehicles a day use I-15 after traffic peaked at about 97,000 a day in July 2005.

As more people took to the highway, 10-hour drives between Los Angeles and Las Vegas instead of four became common on busy weekends.

A fast train, like Japan’s “bullet train” or Europe’s many high-speed options, seemed a workable solution to the problem.

Maglev technology dates to '60s

A maglev proposal developed by the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission in partnership with American Magline Group took the lead, using technology developed in Germany in the late 1960s.

Germany’s Transrapid’s evolving technology was used to build the world’s only commercial maglev line in operation, a 19-mile-long system linking Shanghai and Pudong International Airport.

That system, now in its ninth upgrade, is what American Magline wants to build between Anaheim and Las Vegas.

The maglev looks like a monorail, but the technology is much different.

In the Transrapid system, passengers sit inside a vehicle that is a part of an electric motor and is levitated over an I-shaped guideway. An onboard computer system controls levitation and adjusts magnetic force of a set of onboard electromagnets as they move along the guideway.

The propulsion concept is built on the basics of magnetism discovered by children: Magnets either attract or repel each other, depending on the alignment. In this case, the magnets are much larger and computers control the timing and power of the electromagnets so that regardless of load and speed, the vehicles maintain a 10-millimeter gap between the vehicle and the guideway.

Because there are no moving parts or friction, maintenance costs are greatly reduced. Most of the electronic parts are mounted in the vehicles or the guideways and can be changed out as easily as changing a car battery.

People who have ridden the Shanghai maglev say it is smooth, quiet and comfortable. Despite speeds of 300 mph, passengers don’t need seat belts and can walk up and down the aisle when the maglev train is in motion.

Because there is no contact between the vehicle and the guideway, it’s quiet along the track as well. When a maglev train passes by, people nearby will hear the whoosh of the vehicle displacing the air around it.

Maglev tracks between Anaheim and Las Vegas would be elevated to prevent grade-crossing mishaps.

American Magline officials say the surfaces of their low-maintenance track could house solar panels that could help power the system. Instead of a sprawling grid of photovoltaic panels, the maglev line could be one long electricity-producing panel. In addition, maglev proponents have said that if a network of

transportation lines could be developed nationwide like the interstate highway system, the guideways could house electric power conveyance as well — a nationwide power grid you could ride.

The fact that the American Magline’s maglev proposal has been on the drawing board for years and hasn’t gotten far is why some backers have switched allegiance to the conventional rail proposal developed by DesertXpress Enterprises.

Earlier proposals sputtered

The DesertXpress plan to build a high-speed line between Victorville, Calif., and Las Vegas has its roots in earlier rail proposals.

At the prodding of Sen. Harry Reid and with a ridership study commissioned by Rogich Communications in hand, an Amtrak subsidiary proposed a fast train to make the Los Angeles-Las Vegas run after Amtrak discontinued its Desert Wind train service in May 1997.

Amtrak West partnered with Talgo Inc., a Washington state-based subsidiary of Patentes Talgo SA of Madrid, Spain. Talgo and Amtrak West proposed a European-style train capable of going 80 mph to run on the existing Union Pacific track between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

But that plan sputtered when lawmakers didn’t fund Amtrak’s request and a key piece of the plan — building a parallel track for the passenger train to pass slower freight trains within California’s Mojave National Preserve — wasn’t built.

But the advantages of conventional rail were affirmed and Rogich backed DesertXpress’ proposal to build a train capable of traveling 150 mph.

The plan is simple: Build an elevated guideway along the I-15 corridor with experienced rail contractors that have established records.

Environmental permitting is nearly complete. One decision that has yet to be made is whether the trains would be all electric or a diesel-electric hybrid. Both involve proven technologies in use nationwide.

An all-electric system would require miles of catenary, the electric cable that runs above the track, or a third-rail power source. A hybrid would use diesel fuel to power the locomotive pulling the train.

As in the maglev train, passengers would be able to roam the aisles despite the high speed. DesertXpress officials envision a party atmosphere on board and the
he potential of casino companies arranging to hand out room keys and take show and dinner reservations during the 84-minute trip across the desert.

Both projects draw criticism

The downside of each system is reflected in the criticisms American Magline and DesertXpress have for each other’s proposals.

The rail project is a throwback to the 19th century while maglev is 21st-century technology, the maglev project’s backers say. The maglev system is unproven in the United States, especially in a harsh desert environment with temperature extremes and wind, sand and dust, the rail backers counter.

Because the high-speed train can’t handle the steep grades of the Cajon Pass, the DesertXpress’ southern terminus would be the high desert town of Victorville. The maglev train, which could run up and down the Cajon Pass, would end at Anaheim, maglev backers say.

DesertXpress officials counters that it has a long-range plan to connect passenger traffic to the west through Palmdale, which would be on California’s high-speed train route between Los Angeles and Sacramento.

DesertXpress officials say the maglev is too expensive to build; American Magline counters that its lower maintenance costs would even things out.

Neither proposal has financing in place, but both have private partners lined up for all the components needed to build and operate.

But now, DesertXpress has a couple of key advantages — a head start in the permitting process and political backing that could funnel federal dollars to the project. American Magline can only hope that when President Obama said he wants to see the fastest train in the world built in the United States that he
meant it and can influence what gets built.

From the official website-Dessert Xpress: Desert Xpress set to debut 2014

Link: Desert Xpress set to debut 2014 | California Excursions

June 10th, 2009
Desert Xpress set to debut 2014

The DesertXpress is a unique project that is based on using proven, steel wheel on rail high speed train technology to connect Southern California and Las Vegas.



A new transportation alternative will alleviate the congestion on I-15 facilitating both Las Vegas-bound and Southern California-bound travelers. Las Vegas has consistently been the fastest-growing large city in the country over the past decade. This growth has only strengthened the demand for travel from Nevada to Southern California. And in the wake of the current economic downturn, hotel occupancy in Las Vegas has remained strong at nearly 90%; and, traffic counts on the I-15 freeway at the CA-NV State Border have shown increases in 2009.

The DesertXpress will travel 184 miles from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV in 84 minutes.
The DesertXpress will travel 184 miles from Victorville to Las Vegas in 84 minutes.

The Route
Link: click here
From Victorville, a completely separate, dedicated two-track passenger railway would be constructed, largely following the north side or median of I-15, making maximum use of excess freeway right-of-way, and minimizing the impact upon the largely undeveloped land alongside the highway. There will be no grade crossings, thereby maximizing speed and safety.

Two passenger stations are proposed, one in Victorville located along the west side of I-15 between the North and South junctions with the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges on about 60 acres of land, plus parking, and the other station in Las Vegas at one of three possible locations designed to interface with proposed extensions of the Las Vegas Monorail™, with shuttles serving the resorts and the central business district.

In Las Vegas, the line will be conveniently located close to the airport, the Strip, and downtown Las Vegas. In addition, if desired by the resort owners at Primm, located adjacent to the state line, a station could be provided to accommodate separate excursion trains operating to and from Las Vegas.


Link: click here.
Why Victorville?

Of course it would be great if DesertXpress could be extended to downtown Los Angeles, Anaheim and Ontario, and someday it might. But for this initial project, it is critical for the station to serve the Southern California market and be financeable without public tax dollars.

Victorville makes a lot of sense because it is the first major population center northeast of the Cajon Pass through the San Bernardino mountain range separating the High Desert from the Los Angeles basin. Victorville is within only a 30- to 45-minute drive for roughly 5 million people who live in the Inland Empire, Antelope Valley, and the eastern portions of Los Angeles County, and only a one to two hour’s drive for most of the rest of the Southland’s 21 million residents—many of whom routinely drive at least an hour to and from work each weekday.
Fares & Schedules

The comprehensive ridership forecasting work that was independently vetted by the Federal Railroad Administration shows that at a $50 one-way fare, which is at the mid-point of the range of fares we have studied, the annual ridership in the first full year of operation is estimated to be over 10 million trips.

Trains would operate between 6 am to 10 pm (or later), daily, 365 days a year, at 20 to 30 minute intervals during peak periods and 1- to 2-hour intervals during non-peak periods.

DesertXpress will operate at a top speed of 150 mph, making the 180-mile trip in about 84 minutes, like clock work, no matter what time of day, every day of the year.
A Fully Expandable System

The DesertXpress line could be extended over approximately 50 miles to interface with the inter-modal facility planned in Palmdale on the voter-approved California High Speed Rail Project. And because the system will use non-proprietary, high quality, standard gauge steel rail technology, it does not tie the hands of the public sector. This ensures that the lowest possible cost can be realized for such expansions.

From I Will Ride: Metro Board Postpones Vote on Long Range Transportation Plan

Link: Metro Board Postpones Vote on Long Range Transportation Plan Until July « I Will Ride Blog

Metro Board Postpones Vote on Long Range Transportation Plan Until July
Posted by Albert

Well the build up to the Metro’s board vote on the Long Range Transportation Plan – including Twitter posts from Metro staff (who we thank for the shout out on Facebook) – fizzled quickly, when Director Richard Katz suggested the vote be postponed until July 23 because the public had very little opportunity to review and comment on the 63-page staff report. Metro CEO Art Leahy apologized for the delay in releasing the report.

Fair enough.

As we reported Wednesday, there is good news in the plan. Metro committed a stream of Measure R funds to build the Foothill Extension. The funds begin flowing in the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1 – the same day Metro begins collecting the half-cent sales for transit projects. We certainly hope the delay doesn’t erode that priority, and perhaps gives the agency more time to consider expediting the opening of the Foothill Extension to Azusa. I Will Ride is requesting the board open the line in 2013.

Now on to the good stuff. There were numerous groups at the meeting – all representing different areas of Los Angeles County and their respective transportation modalities, from light rail to buses to bikes. However, the number of supporters who spoke out during public comment for the Foothill Extension pretty much outnumbered the rest (even more if you include those who supported every light rail project). The group included elected officials and a few of their representatives for those who couldn’t be there, college faculty, heads of San Gabriel Valley economic development groups, organized labor, and members from the local San Gabriel Valley business communities.

Supporters for the Foothill Extension all rallied behind the same end-result in the Long Range Transportation Plan: an operational date for the Foothill Extension to Azusa in 2013. While everyone expressed gratitude over the inclusion of a funding timetable for the Foothill Extension in the LRTP, they also pointed out that the timetable’s current operational date of 2017 was too long. Claremont City Councilmember Sam Pedroza compared the current plan to letting his kids watch TV after they do their homework, only to see that the TV doesn’t work. It makes sense.

Why wait even longer when we can create jobs now, improve the air quality, improve the local economy, and reduce traffic for the San Gabriel Valley?

A representative from Congressman Adam Schiff’s office brought up the issue of federal funding for the extension, something that we hadn’t heard in a while. For those who had followed the development of the Foothill Extension in the past, Congressman Schiff has been one of the drivers in trying to get federal funding for the extension. Schiff’s representative, Yvonne Hsu, made the case that, besides being the only ready-to-build rail project in the county, a consensus among the Board would give the extension a greater chance to receive federal funding.

While we had used the term “Brain Train” before to describe the vast number of students and faculty along the Foothill Extension corridor, University of La Verne Vice President Phil Hawkey pointed out that the San Gabriel Valley has the largest concentration of higher education students in the entire country (save for maybe Boston). That “Brain Train” name seems only more fitting after hearing that.

A group of representatives from organized labor and the local business community made a public comment together in support of all light rail projects in Measure R. Ed Rendon, Director of Public Affairs for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Joint Council 42, told the board that the coalition is especially in favor of the Foothill Extension – seeing as how its shovel-ready status presents plenty of opportunities for jobs and economic development for labor and the cities along the route. Speaking of jobs, Citrus College Board member Dr. Edward Ortell spoke out in favor of the Foothill Extension because of the opportunities for Citrus College to train (and re-train) blue- and white-collar workers.

So now we wait until July 23 for the vote on the Long Range Transportation Plan. Here’s hoping. (For a blow-by-blow of the meeting, visit our Twitter feed @iwillride)

From LA Wave: The future of the proposed Crenshaw Transit Corridor.

Link: Crenshaw Transit Corridor ready for closeup | LA Wave Newspaper | West Edition

Crenshaw Transit Corridor ready for closeup
In the fall, the MTA board will determine whether to pursue light-rail or buses for transportation project to run through the heart of South Los Angeles.

By LEILONI DE GRUY, Staff Writer

Story Published: Jun 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM PDT

Story Updated: Jun 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM PDT

CRENSHAW — This fall, the full Metropolitan Transportation Authority board will decide on a mode of transportation for the Crenshaw Transit Corridor project, which was approved last November by a two-third vote under Measure R.

The north-south oriented project will serve South Los Angeles, Hawthorne, Inglewood, El Segundo, parts of the unincorporated county of Los Angeles and LAX, all by way of Crenshaw Boulevard.

The corridor “is generally defined,” said an MTA report, “as the area extending north to Wilshire Boulevard, east to Arlington Avenue, south to El Segundo Boulevard, and west to Sepulveda Boulevard, La Tijera Boulevard and La Brea Avenue.”

In the first phase, the line would extend to Exposition Boulevard down to LAX. Upon completion of the project, it is expected to connect to the Green Line, Purple Line and the Expo Line — the latter of which is currently under construction — as will it utilize the Harbor Subdivision, a 26-mile stretch of rail track between downtown L.A. and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, that was abandoned during construction of the Alameda Corridor.

Future plans would extend the project north from Wilshire Boulevard to Hollywood, where it would then connect to the Red Line subway in the San Fernando Valley. Currently, there is already a line connecting LAX to Redondo Beach, which under the project could then be extended to Long Beach.

After narrowing down several options, the MTA has devised two alternatives for the project: a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or a Light Rail Transit (LRT).

“One alignment alternative provides for a BRT and LRT line operating south from Wilshire Boulevard or the Exposition LRT line [which is under construction], along Crenshaw Boulevard through Koreatown, the Crenshaw District, and downtown Inglewood on the MTA-owned Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way, where the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway operates some freight service, continuing to the Green Line Aviation Station,” said the study. “A transfer connection would be provided to LAX from the Aviation Station.”

Another alignment alternative “provides for operation of a BRT or LRT line south from Wilshire Boulevard or the Exposition LRT line along Crenshaw Boulevard to the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way,” added the report. “The BRT alternative would then operate along the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way to La Brea Avenue, where it would turn southward to Hawthorne Boulevard and terminate at El Segundo Boulevard. The LRT alternative would operate along the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way south to Prairie Avenue, then turn west to connect with the Green Line Hawthorne Station along the I-105 Freeway and south on Hawthorne Boulevard to El Segundo Boulevard.”

Currently, the project is in what is called the “alternative analysis” phase of the Environmental Impact Report. The latest EIR should be released by the MTA late summer or early fall, said MTA Transportation Planning Manager Roderick Diaz, but it must first be reviewed by the federal government. After which, the board will review and approve what is called a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), or a determined mode of transportation. Another level of environmental review will then be completed with the intent of moving forward with the selected alternative.

According to Diaz, the BRT alternative has “a cost estimate of between $500-$600 million.” The LRT alternative has a “cost estimate that will likely end up between $1.5-$1.8 billion.” This includes construction costs, design and labor.

“It could be completed anytime between 2016-2018 and that’s dependent largely upon the availability of funding,” Diaz added, who cited a declining sales tax receipts due to the recession. “The [completion] date may be affected by the availability of funding by those projections.”

Funds from Measure R, a ballot measure that will make $40 billion available to address traffic and transportation upgrades throughout the county over the next 30 years, and other local sales taxes — such as Prop. A passed in 1980 and Prop. C passed in 1990 — will support funding of the project.

However, the MTA is “still looking to attract more funding for the project just in case the alternative that is selected exceeds what Measure R grants to the project.”

Esperanza Martinez, a Bus Riders Union organizer, said LRTs “are costly projects that historically go over budget and then they have to come back and figure out how they can meet the budget,” which she said causes huge delays.
Martinez added that LRTs take anywhere from 9 to 15 years to construct and operate versus BRTs, which could be up and running within the next five years.

The project has been a subject of debate since the Major Investment Study (MIS) was initiated between 1993-1994. Issues surrounding traffic, safety and impacts on the environment have all been raised by various groups.

The BRT could take away a lane from automobiles on streets along the path and be replaced by a bus-only lane, which may pose right-of-way issues as could it pose traffic. In comparison to the LRT, it is expected to go underground in congested areas and in certain places above ground or at-grade. Since the latter does not have to compete with traffic on the street, according to an MTA report, it would be a faster mode of transportation, beating the BRT by at least six minutes.

The Bus Riders Union, which advocate bus-only lanes, believes that buses should be given priority since they hold a higher capacity of riders per hour. In addition, “We believe eventually … it will really increase the number of people who use public transit,” said Martinez. “And if you reduce the number of autos you also impact public health as well as the climate change crisis.”

In terms of creating more traffic, Martinez said it may initially, “but how else are you going to get people out of their car?” she asked. “You have to give them a viable alternative. So, maybe the first week you’ll have someone like myself driving down Crenshaw Boulevard and you see that bus that’s zooming by you a lot faster than you are, you may think about leaving the car at home.”

To address pedestrian safety for at-grade levels, “standard cross-walk markings, control devices for pedestrian crossings includ[ing] flashing light signals, signs, markings along the outside of the rail line, curbside pedestrian barriers, pedestrian automated gates, swing gates, bedstead barriers and crossing channelization” will be considered. Below grade separations can be achieved by way of bridges, tunnels and trenches and are generally used where this no right-of-way or enough right-of-way for the project.

Advocates of the project say it will attract customers to businesses they may have never visited before due to a lack of mobility and as a result will help local businesses prosper.

According to Transit Coalition Executive Director Bart Reed, the corridor would also connect communities and provide “total flexibility.” He added, “with proper routing , station locations and urban design strategies the corridor to major activity centers, residential areas and job cores, helps ensure that LA is building an efficient and safe transit network that will be a success.”

In addition, either mode of transportation would likely create employment opportunities. If the LRT is chosen, a number of construction workers would be hired to construct the line as would operators. If the BRT is chosen, the number of buses and bus drivers would be increased.

“The manufacturing and the putting out on the street of one bus creates about eight jobs from the manufacturer to the mechanic to the bus operator,” said Martinez. “And these bus operator positions have been historically Black jobs, and those are jobs that we … need to protect and expand.”

From Curbed LA: Good Gold Line News: Lake Station Makeover

Link: Curbed LA: Good Gold Line News: Lake Station Makeover

Good Gold Line News: Lake Station Makeover

Thursday, June 11, 2009, by Neal Broverman



Brigham Yen and his Pasadena Updates blog report that aesthetic upgrades on the Lake Avenue stop on the Gold Line are moving swiftly forward. Work began a few months ago to make the 'Dena station more "visually substantial and pedestrian friendly"—it's above a median in the 210 freeway—with new lighting and canopies. No word on whether "Everyday People," artist Pat Ward Williams' piece within the Lake station, will be gussied up (Metro describes the artwork as "large scale, black & white photo portraits of people caught in everyday gestures [that produce]... a moving dialogue between the actual and the illustrated"). The light and canopy improvements (Metro rendering attached) should be ready in the fall. Hopefully, the Eastside extension should be open by then.
· Lake Avenue Upgrades Continue [Brigham Yen's Pasadena Updates]

From LA times Blog: MTA puts off discussion of transportation, Measure R projects

Link: MTA puts off discussion of transportation, Measure R projects | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

MTA puts off discussion of transportation, Measure R projects
4:27 PM | June 11, 2009

A decision on whether to adopt a $271-billion spending package that will shape the transportation future of Los Angeles County over the next 30 years was postponed today by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

The agency’s board delayed a vote on its Long Range Transportation Plan until July 23 to give local governments and the public more time to study it and comment. Board members also wanted more time to resolve several issues, including whether timelines for projects could be accelerated.

The long-range plan includes scores of highway and transit projects that would be built using state and federal money, as well as proceeds from county sales taxes for transportation such as Measure R.

The listed projects include the Westside subway, light rail lines, bus rapid transit systems and freeway improvements. Here's the report that board members considered today. A draft of the spending package will be available online at a later date.

-- Dan Weikel

From "I Will Ride" Blog: Covering Tomorrow’s Long Range Transportation Plan Workshop (and a Preview of the Unexpected)

Link: Covering Tomorrow’s Long Range Transportation Plan Workshop (and a Preview of the Unexpected) « I Will Ride Blog

Covering Tomorrow’s Long Range Transportation Plan Workshop (and a Preview of the Unexpected)
Posted by Albert

The third time may be the charm, as we’re finally headed for the Metro Board of Directors’ Special Meeting to discuss the Long Range Transportation Plan, which will outline how construction of the Foothill Extension will be funded. We had two previous false calls in the past few months about this elusive meeting (you didn’t hear about it because we removed all references to it – twice). It’s here and is set to take place at the usual Metro Board Room inside the MTA building at 1 PM tomorrow.

While we reported last week that the workshop was going to be a public comment and discussion forum for what projects should be included into the Long Range Transportation Plan, it turns out that may no longer be the only thing happening for that meeting. It is very possible that the board will vote to adopt the plan at the meeting, rather than listen to public comment tomorrow and vote on the plan June 25th.

The problem is that none of the information was made public until late Wednesday afternoon, when Metro posted the staff report on its website here.

For San Gabriel Valley residents, it is important to remember what’s at stake in the plan. Metro has allocated $743 million for the Foothill Extension — $10.3 million in the coming fiscal year that begins July 1, which Metro approved last month. The allocation is larger than what Measure R afforded but it does not account for getting the line open to Azusa in 2013. Metro still needs to fund the operation of the line. That’s a fight for another day.

If you can make the meeting, that would be great, but because Metro was coy about the plan and potential of a vote we understand if you can’t attend. Of course, for those not attending, we’ll be covering the meeting live on our Twitter feed @iwillride. You can also

From Curbed LA: Gold Line Set to Flatten You in August?

Link: Curbed LA: Gold Line Set to Flatten You in August?

Gold Line Set to Flatten You in August?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009, by Dakota



Politicians and MTA officials came out yesterday to go over a safety walk-through at the Metro Gold Line Little Tokyo / Arts District Station, reports the Little Tokyo Blog, noting that the line is now set "for full operation sometime in August." That's the second mention of an August opening in 24 hours. Meanwhile, there is some concern that someone will be run over at this station, according to the Little Tokyo Blog. Fearmongering alert: "Upon walking up to the track crossing at the NE corner of 1st and Alameda, one is immediately struck at how "open" the crossing is, with little to keep a pedestrian from accidentally walking or falling over the tracks at an oncoming train...Many in the group were equally dismayed at the lack of barriers or gates to prevent an accident." Last month, similar complaints were made about this under-construction line and the Blue Line, and here's what Metro spokesman Rick Jager told an NBC reporter: "It's really been an evolving process over the last 20 years. We need a partner here and that partner is the public. They need to be aware that trains have the right of way and they need to stop, look and listen."

From LAist: Metro on the Gold Line Opening: Ignore the Rumors

Metro on the Gold Line Opening: Ignore the Rumors - LAist

Metro on the Gold Line Opening: Ignore the Rumors


It's been heard on the streets, but Metro says no date has officially been set. That's not to say August will end up being the opening date, as rumored, but there's no telling when it will really open, says Marc Littman of Metro in an e-mail: "Ignore the rumors. No official opening date has been announced and won’t be finalized and announced until we complete critical testing of tunnel ventilation and other safety systems and components. The PUC also must give us approval to begin revenue operations. We also need at least a month to do pre-revenue service so our operators and control staff become familiar with the alignment and the eight new stations. We’re still ahead of schedule, within budget and construction has achieved an unparalleled safety record - 4 million hours without a lost time work injury. So stay tuned. If all goes well, we should announce an opening date soon but, again, we need to go through the testing phase first."

By Zach Behrens in News on June 10, 2009 3:29 PM

[Caption]

From the San Gabriel Valley Tribune: Our View: Gold Line is shovel ready

Link: Our View: Gold Line is shovel ready - SGVTribune.com

Our View: Gold Line is shovel ready

Posted: 06/10/2009 04:52:44 PM PDT

Once again, the Gold Line Foothill Extension faces a critical vote today to keep it on track toward crucial commuter service for the San Gabriel Valley.

In that vote, we urge the Metro board of directors to put the extension, or at least its phase 1 from East Pasadena to Azusa, into its Long Range Transportation Plan.

The efficient Gold Line staff has lined up public-private partnerships ready to begin the work by next spring. If we can help secure the long-promised financing to do so, the contracts can be let and service can be opened to the Azusa/Glendora stop, including service to Citrus College and Azusa Pacific College, by 2013, not by 2017, as the MTA's current plans are.

That's a huge time difference in reducing the 210 Freeway gridlock in our time.

In order for that to be accomplished, the Metro board should attach funding from the recently passed Measure R.

This is a classically shovel-ready project that can help relieve congestion and create jobs. And those jobs are not just on the tracks. A number of our cities have station-adjacent development projects hanging fire until the rail line is sure to come to town. Once the commitment is there, credit will loosen up and we'll witness a healthy boost of commerce and housing in the region as well.

We love and share the energy of the citizen Gold Liners who go to iwillride.org and post enthusiastic comments such as: "This would be so useful to those of us living in


the east end of L.A. County. My family travels often to Pasadena, and an extension would be immensely useful to us."

Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who serves on the Metro board, recently told the paper, "I have to give credit to the San Gabriel Valley people who kept showing up to meetings to lobby for this."

Supporters can continue to show that enthusiasm by showing up at today's Metro meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. Easy to get to the MTA headquarters, too - just take the Gold Line from Pasadena to those Union Station-adjacent offices.

Recently, Metro's Budget and Finance Committee unanimously approved a motion by Antonovich to add $10 million in Measure R funding to the Foothill Extension's budget for Fiscal Year 2010. Now, we need to keep that momentum going. As Supervisor Gloria Molina asked Metro CEO Art Leahy: "Why would you allocate more money for (projects with) later start dates and less money for those that have earlier start dates?"

Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard, Claremont City Councilman Sam Pedroza and San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership President Cynthia Kurtz have all testified recently in favor of funding the Gold Line.

Bogaard said: "The Foothill Extension is the only rail project in the county ready to go and it can provide an early success story for the new sales tax under Measure R."

The trains are ready to roll, and so are we, if the Metro board does the right thing for streamlining transit in Los Angeles County today.

From the Las Vegas Sun: Sen. Harry Reid supports conventional high-speed train over maglev train for Anaheim/Victorville, CA to Vegas line.

Link: Maglev train to press on without Reid - Las Vegas Sun

Maglev train to press on without Reid
Planners ‘moving ahead’ despite senator’s defection to rival project
Image

Tiffany Brown

Organizers of a maglev train system linking Las Vegas and Southern California say they are undeterred by the loss of Sen. Harry Reid’s support. From left are Neil Cummings, American Magline Group president; transportation consultant Kevin Coates; and Bruce Aguilera, chairman of a maglev train commission.

By Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Wed, Jun 10, 2009 (2 a.m.)

Washington — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to support construction of a conventional high-speed rail link to California is just a “bump in the road,” promoters of the rival maglev rail line said Tuesday. They vowed to push ahead on a proposal that has existed for years on, if anything, optimism.

Reid’s office disclosed Tuesday that he had thrown his support to the DesertXpress high-speed rail link between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif. For years, Reid had been a major supporter of a competing proposal to build a magnetic levitation train between Las Vegas and Anaheim.

The privately backed DesertXpress is just months away from seeking financing from Wall Street, its backers say. Reid’s support will help in that effort, and with attempts to gain federal funding and low-interest government loans to aid in construction.

According to DesertXpress estimates, the cost of linking Las Vegas to Victorville would be $4 billion, or one-third the cost of building a maglev line from Las Vegas to Anaheim.

The Obama administration has committed to invest an unprecedented $8 billion in high-speed rail nationwide as part of a federal economic recovery package. The guidelines for applying for money will be released next week.

Organizers of the maglev project are requesting $1.8 billion to build the first leg, a 40-mile path from Las Vegas to the state line at Primm, and to plan the rest of the route.

Bruce Aguilera, a casino executive of the Bellagio and chairman of the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission, told the Las Vegas Sun editorial board Tuesday that the maglev group will press forward, seeking support from allies in the White House.

“We’re moving ahead,” agreed Neil Cummings, president of the American Magline Group, the consortium that would build the line. He said backers would complete a required environmental review of the proposed link “and get it built.”

Cummings thinks the two projects can coexist. He said existing rights of way along the I-15 corridor to Southern California provide enough room for tracks for both trains.

The maglev train had been seen as such a front-runner that when Reid shepherded the recovery package through Congress this year, critics denounced the increased rail funds as pork for Nevada. They derisively called the maglev train Sin City Express.

But the DesertXpress project had been quietly gaining traction as a privately funded, lower-cost alternative. DesertXpress is backed by political mogul Sig Rogich, among the Republicans in Nevada who have announced their support for Reid’s reelection.

Aguilera said of Rogich, “He’s got clout. He’s got the ear of a lot of people. He’s been helpful for the DesertXpress, no doubt about it.

Aguilera said he understood Reid has been frustrated with the pace of progress on maglev, noting the senator is up for reelection next year. “He wants to get something done for Nevada and the voters.”

Neither project is ideal.

For all the allure of 300 mph maglev trains, the technology remains controversial among rail enthusiasts and is untried in this country.

Likewise, the main criticism of DesertXpress is its map: The train would run only as far as Victorville, a high-desert outpost more than an hour’s drive north of the Southern California basin.

Last year, Reid sought an independent assessment from the Government Accountability Office that compares systems the world over. A Reid spokesman said Tuesday that after “weighing the two, this is where he landed.”

The senator thinks DesertXpress is much closer to reality and he became less interested in the maglev project because of its heavy reliance on public funding, spokesman Jon Summers said.

DesertXpress has “made more progress in the last couple of years than maglev has made in the past 30,” Summers said. “He wants to see something done.”

Reid’s position was a shift from just last year, when he helped secure $45 million in federal funding for planning the maglev route — money that remains largely untouched because the maglev group has only recently secured necessary matching funds.

At that time, Reid scoffed at a private train whose route to Las Vegas would begin 85 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. Reid questioned whether visitors would drive through L.A. traffic to take a train the last 200 miles to Vegas.

“If it’s going to be really done in a big way, a Las Vegas way, the magnetic levitation would be the way to do it,” Reid said at the time. “If we can get this done, it will be the showboat of the world.”

More recently, Reid had been agnostic on the technology, saying he supports whatever line can be completed first.

Tom Stone, an executive with DesertXpress, saw immediate value in the senator’s position.

“We’re pleased the project has gained momentum, no question,” Stone said.

Since the president signed the recovery bill into law in February, Reid has been in contact multiple times with President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood about the importance of establishing a high-speed route between Las Vegas and Southern California.

Already, 10 high-speed rail corridors established during the Clinton administration are eligible for a portion of recovery money. These corridors connect major cities across the United States.

Reid has talked to both Obama and LaHood about establishing a Las Vegas-Southern California route as a corridor. The Transportation secretary has the authority under existing law to designate an 11th corridor.

Maglev supporters, who met recently with LaHood, have sought a corridor designation specifically for the Vegas-to-Anaheim route.

From WNYC Blog: BRT in L.A.: “The Valley’s New Shortcut”

Link: WNYC - WNYC News Blog » BRT in L.A.: “The Valley’s New Shortcut”

WNYC News Blog
BRT in L.A.: “The Valley’s New Shortcut”
By Andrea Bernstein
June 9, 2009



The orange bus rapid transit line in Los Angeles has been running since 2005. The BRT — as it’s called — runs 14 miles along the San Fernando Valley on abandoned train line. It imitates a train — with station stops, pre-paid boarding, and signal priority at red lights. This month, it will see its 25 millionth rider. Joyce Green and Richard Freelzin are two of them:

Green: “It’s much better than stressing about traffic on the freeway.”

Freelzin: “It’s easier than trying to spend $200-300 a month plus wear and tear on the car.”

But, despite slashing the route from well over an hour to about to 45 minutes, the orange line is still struggling to convince Angelenos to get out of their cars and onto mass transit. WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein spoke with Richard Hunt , who oversees buses for the L.A. MTA.

[Caption]

From Streetsblog: City council shifts

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Council Tips Its Hand on Transit Priorities

Council Tips Its Hand on Transit Priorities

by Damien Newton on June 9, 2009

Sketch of the future Broadway after a streetcar arrives via Bringing Broadway Back.

In addition to discussing Measure R, tomorrow's L.A. City Council Transportation Committee also features a couple of motions that spell out the top priorities for the city's transportation planning in the 2010 Fiscal Year.

The three motions would move just over sixteen and a half million dollars from the city's general transportation funds to advance the Green Line Extension direct to LAX, the downtown Streetcar project for Broadway and pedestrian safety improvements for the Foshay Learning Center after the Expo Line is completed.

None of the new funds will result in project construction in the next fiscal year, but they could help insure that all of these projects move forward and could be part of changing the transit culture in Los Angeles. In the case of the Green Line Extension and the streetcar, the funds will be used for needed environmental and planning documents. For the pedestrian improvements around the Foshay Learning Center, the funds will pay for land acquisition needed to build a pedestrian bridge required by court orders. build a pedestrian tunnel and for other pedestrian improvements.

While it's not a surprise that these projects are moving forward, after all they've been talked to death at City Council hearings; it's always good news to see the city moving forward on transit funds. If there's any major changes to these motions, we'll be sure to let you know.

From LAist.com: Feds Give LA Millions in Transit Money

Link: Feds Give LA Millions in Transit Money - LAist

Feds Give LA Millions in Transit Money


If it hasn't already (photo taken in 2007), this bus stop at Jefferson and La Cienega could use some improvements | Photo by Fred Camino via Flickr

The U.S. Department of Transportation announced that $400 million from the economic recovery package is headed to make capital investments in transit throughout California. It's not going to build us the Subway to the Sea or anything sexy like that, but is headed to more functional improvements, such as seen in the above photo:

* $1,030,644 to Metro for Bus Stations/Stops Improvements
* $225,085,056 to Metro to purchase replacement buses, perform bus overhaul, widen Red Line rail stations egress, replace fiber optic equipment for train stations, replace Metro Blue Line TPSS
* $8,185,197 to Metro for Traction Power Substation Replacements Along the Metro Blue Line
* $4,522,269 to the city of Torrance for the Purchase of 8 Replacement 40-foot Alternative-Fueled Buses

user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on June 10, 2009 10:30 AM

From LA StreetBlog: Metro Board Plans Hearing Tomorrow on 2009 Long Range Plan

Link:  Streetsblog Los Angeles » Metro Board Plans Hearing Tomorrow on 2009 Long Range Plan

Metro Board Plans Hearing Tomorrow on 2009 Long Range Plan

by Damien Newton on June 10, 2009


Tomorrow, the Metro Board will have a special meeting at 1 P.M. to hear public feedback on the yet-to-be-released Long Range Transportation Plan. While it's true that the 2008 draft of the plan is available, a lot has happened since then. Let's take a quick walk down memory lane before tomorrow's meeting.

In February of 2008, ironically around the same time that the City of Los Angeles held hearings on the Bike Master Plan, Metro announced an innovative campaign to receive feedback and opinions on its upcoming Long Range Transportation Campaign, the Imagine Campaign. The message was for Angelenos to think big about what they wanted to see in the future of Los Angeles transportation. They advertised the campaign on billboards, on buses and even on the radio and accepted feedback in person at public meetings, on their website or even on the infrequently updated Imagine Blog. I have to admit that while I was impressed that they were thinking outside the box, I was also miffed that none of their promotional materials encouraged people to think about walking or cycling.

Nevertheless, the campaign helped produce a Draft Long Range Transportation Plan that seemed more about laying the groundwork for what would become known as Measure R than it was about laying out a firm vision for the future. The Draft 2008 LRTP, which is still the most recent draft available to the public and available here, spelled out two visions for LA County, one with new funding and one without.

When it was time for the Metro Board to vote on the plan, they were in the midst of the funding debates over how to allocate potential Measure R funds, should the voters pass the measure. Not wanting to alienate anyone, the Board voted to hold off on placing transit projects in any sort of tier system. However they did manage to pass an amendment to the 2001 LRTP that allowed them to apply for funds for their "Congestion Pricing that isn't in effect during rush hour" plan.

Then, Measure R passed and the project delivery time line was set for them. With cash in hand, the Metro Board now had the framework for its Long Range Transportation Plan. That was over six months ago, and we still don't have a finalized LRTP that the Board can vote on. Heck, the most recent draft plan on the website is still dated 2008 and hasn't been touched since Measure R has passed.

In April of this year, the Metro Board had a discussion of the LRTP on the agenda, but sadly it was discussing more amendments to the 2001 plan. Last month, the Board was stopped from changing its plan on how it was going to spend Measure R, apparently it's against the law to change a timetable approved by voters; but it still advanced various project time lines, including the Gold Line Foothill Extension, without a funding source identified to fund them. Apparently those sources will be identified before the LRTP is passed.

So what do we know for sure about the plan that Metro is holding a hearing on tomorrow? Well, the time line for Measure R projects is set. The 2010 budget is passed. There aren't proposed changes to bicycle or pedestrian funding despite the $40 billion in Measure R revenue and the lofty language in the draft LRTP. Of course, none of that information is compiled in one place as of yet, maybe they'll have a draft plan available at the hearing tomorrow?

Tomorrow's hearing on the now 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan is set to begin at 1 P.M. Metro Standard Time, meaning anytime between 1 P.M. and 1:30 P.M. Pacific, but given the warnings at last week's Metro Board meeting about being on time or not getting to submit public comments (which is also a violation of state law, but we'll save that for another time), I would get there early or on time.

I expect that tomorrow we're going to see contingents from the bicycling community join the "Metro Regulars" of the BRU, Transit Coalition, SoCATA, I Will Ride, Fix Expo and others. I'll actually be live tweeting the meeting for the first time tomorrow, so make sure to follow at twitter.com/lastreetsblog.

From LA subway blog: Metro Board meeting on Long Range Transportation Plan this Thursday

The LA Subway Blog: Metro Board meeting on Long Range Transportation Plan this Thursday

Juan and Sirinya talk about what happened on the way to the Subway to the Sea and other things

Metro Board meeting on Long Range Transportation Plan this Thursday
Monday, June 8, 2009

Thursday is a crucial step in making sure the Wilshire Subway is funded. Measure R provided the funds for additional transit projects like the Subway to UCLA. The Wilshire Subway is currently in second place on a long list of projects to be funded with Measure R funds. On Thursday, the board will finalize which projects make the cut, and how they are prioritized. Having Wilshire Subway supporters will help the politicians make the right decision - to fund the Wilshire Subway, which will have the maximum benefit not only for UCLA and the Westside but all of Los Angeles.

Join Bruins for Traffic Relief on Thursday at 1pm at the Metro Board Meeting adjacent to Union Station. You can take the bus or subway to Union Station. Check Metro's Trip Planner for instructions on how to get there on transit. Just remember that the subway will bring the trip time from Westwood to Union station to around 30 minutes, and enable you to take subway transit to go downtown, Hollywood, and many other places giving you a more holistic experience of Los Angeles and all the things it has to offer.

If you are a UCLA student, staff, faculty, or affiliate, please wear school colors to show your support.

From LA Times blog: Senate majority leader no longer aboard plan for maglev train to Vegas

Senate majority leader no longer aboard plan for maglev train to Vegas | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

Senate majority leader no longer aboard plan for maglev train to Vegas
5:48 PM | June 8, 2009

Lanowtrain

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and an ardent supporter of high speed rail systems, said today he no longer favors construction of a maglev -- or magnetic levitation -- train between Anaheim and Las Vegas.

Instead, the Nevada Democrat said he now favors a conventional high speed train between Victorville and Las Vegas -- a privately funded venture that is farther along in the planning process and cheaper to build than the maglev proposal, which has been studied for almost three decades.

“I”ve been working on this for 30 years," Reid said. "We’ve gotten nowhere. Maglev projects have been abandoned around the world. It’s time to stop talking and start doing something.”

The proposed DesertXpress is a steel-wheeled train that would travel up to 150 mph along the heavily traveled I-15 corridor. It would provide an alternative to motorists who often drive more than six hours one way during weekends to reach Las Vegas from the Los Angeles area. The 183-mile system is estimated to cost $3.5 billion to $4 billion.

In contrast, the system proposed by the American Maglev Group, which would rely on government funding and bonds sold to investors, would run 270 miles and cost at least $12 billion to build. A first leg is planned for Las Vegas to Primm on the Nevada-California line.

Maglev technology uses magnetic force to propel trains on a cushion of air down a guideway at speeds of more than 300 mph.

Citing a recent Government Accountability Office study, Reid said he had lost confidence in the maglev project, which the report stated could cost up to $40 billion -- far more than originally estimated.

“Maglev is not a priority for me anymore,” Reid said. “We need to get people moving. The I-15 is not working.”

-- Dan Weikel

Photo: A prototype magnetically levitated train, or maglev, travels over a bridge at a test center in Tsuru in Yamanashi Prefecture, central Japan, in late 1997. Credit: Kyodo News via Associated Press

Permalink | Comments (2) | Save/Share
Save/Share
Digg | Delicious | Reddit | Google | Mixx | Newsvine | Yahoo | Facebook
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef011570ddbfe5970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senate majority leader no longer aboard plan for maglev train to Vegas:
Comments

Someone explain how this LA-Vegas Hi-greed...er...Hi-speed rail system is a benefit for California. 90+% of the traffic will be Californians heading to Vegas to gamble away their money. Aside from hotels and casinos what else does Vegas have to offer? Win-win for state of Nevada, Not So much for CA.

Posted by: Warren | June 08, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Yay! Now, spend another $2-4 billion of government money to build it to CAHSR system specs and drag the line to the CAHSR station in palmdale and you've got the ability to go from Irvine/LA/Bakersfield/Sacramento/San Francisco without switching trains.

Posted by: KinOfCain | June 08, 2009 at 06:02 PM

Update on Gold Line

From laist.com:
Gold Line Not Open Yet, but Sheriff's Ready to Ticket Drivers - LAist

Gold Line Not Open Yet, but Sheriff's Ready to Ticket Drivers


On a bridge

When the Orange Line opened in the Valley, there was crash after crash. So many, in fact, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa assigned traffic officers to major intersections during rush hour for a time.

Now, as test trains perform along the new Gold Line extension into East LA, Metro is warning that officers from the Sheriff's Department will be keep an extra careful eye out for motorist not following the new traffic patterns along the six-mile route. “These trains can’t stop on a dime," said Villaraigosa. "Look and listen. Pay attention to the signage and be safe.”

And as for its opening day, not yet, says Metro. "Following successful testing and pre-revenue service to familiarize Metro operators with the new service, the line will open but an opening date has not yet been determined," a statement reads.
user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on June 5, 2009 3:30 PM

Dan Evans, LA times editor, uses buses to get to work.

From the Glendale New Press:
Link: Glendale News Press > Archives > Columns > START THE PRESSES:
It was a short, strange trip

START THE PRESSES:
It was a short, strange trip

By DAN EVANS
Published: Last Updated Sunday, June 7, 2009 8:19 PM PDT
I left my house a little past 7 a.m. last week, enjoying the air on my mile-and-a-half bicycle jaunt to the Burbank Metrolink station. I waved to an old man in a Miami Dolphins cap, apparently startled by a business-wear and briefcase-clad man whizzing by before breakfast.

Distracted and sleepy, I nearly rammed into a woman in a red Volvo yammering into her Bluetooth. Oops. Need to remember the helmet.

It is six miles by car from my front door to the office. This is an intense blessing in an era of 90-minute, teeth-gnashing, oh-dear-god-the-101-is-backed-up-again commutes.

On an average day, it takes me about 15 minutes to get from Burbank to Brand Boulevard, and about 20 minutes to get home. If traffic is heavy, it may take a half-hour. Excepting when I lived six blocks from the newspaper where I worked, this is the best commute I’ve ever had.

But, due to the curiosity and masochism that comes with being a journalist, I wanted to see how easy it would be to take public transit.

Both Burbank and Glendale have bus systems, and both cities have made a concerted effort to attract riders. In addition, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority has literally hundreds of bus and subways lines. It’s a dead certainty that some combination of the three will take me where I need to go.

So I started my research. Transit schedules and bus maps cluttered my desk at work, mixed in with the letters, story pitches, freelancer invoices and empty coffee cups that form the detritus of my daily life.

Bus schedules are nearly impossible for the uninitiated, and I went cross-eyed trying to figure it all out. After a bit, I determined two ways to get from my home in Burbank to the world headquarters of the Burbank Leader and Glendale News-Press: One solely utilizes the Glendale Beeline, while the other uses an MTA bus.

There is a way to get between Glendale and Burbank using Metrolink. However, as it costs more than three times as much as any other method — $8.25 for a round-trip — I did not seriously consider it. Additionally, as the Burbank bus does not go into Glendale, I could not use it as part of the experiment.

 

The Glendale Beeline — Bikes, Buses and Blisters

Cost: $1 one way; $2 round trip

Travel time: 62 minutes

Total mileage via public transit: 3.5 miles

Mileage by foot/bike: 2.7

Ouch. I guess business wear isn’t the best for treks down Burbank and Glendale streets. By the time I got to the office, I had biked or walked nearly as far as I had traveled by bus. My choice of footwear was poor, I’ll admit, as office-type shoes are nearly guaranteed to cause blisters after about a mile.

I left my house at 7:15 a.m., jumping on my bike for a pleasant mile-and-a-half jaunt down Victory Boulevard. I got to the Burbank Metrolink station about 10 minutes later, in plenty of time to catch the 7:35 a.m. Glendale Beeline. The line I took, Route 12, waits for passengers from the Metrolink 104 train to arrive before taking off. That train is supposed to arrive at 7:30 a.m., but if it’s late, the Beeline waits.

The day I took it, however, Metrolink was on time, and the Beeline took off on schedule. The Beeline is free with a Metrolink pass. Since I biked to the station, however, I had to pay the $1 fare. The bus dropped me off at San Fernando and Broadway at 7:50 a.m., and it took me 27 minutes to walk the 1.2 miles to the office.

Though this line is convenient for Metrolink users who work along the San Fernando corridor, it’s not especially practical for anyone else.

 

MTA Bus 183 — Going Metro

Cost: $1.25 one way; $2.50 round trip

Travel time: 45 minutes

Total mileage via public transit: 8.1 miles

Mileage by foot/bike: 0.5 miles

This is the winner by quite a bit. The nearest bus stop is less than a 10-minute walk from my front door, and drops me off two blocks from the office. The bus is comfortable and not especially crowded. Amazingly, the bus driver appeared to know all of her regulars by name, something that seems almost anachronistic in a county of 13 million souls.

Now, the downside: The bus runs only once an hour. For me, this means getting to work 15 minutes early or 45 minutes late. And, on the way home, it means sticking around for an additional hour if things run long. Also, the bus runs a weirdly circuitous route in the neighborhoods above Glenoaks Boulevard, adding 20 minutes to what would be a nearly perfect commute for me.

But of course, that’s the point. The bus route is for the public, not for me specifically. If you are willing — or required — to take public transit, you take that as part of the deal.

Looking at the routes of the three systems, it seems fairly clear that the MTA is for travel between cities, while the Glendale and Burbank systems are for intra-city travel. Because of this, I’m not surprised that the MTA turned out to be the best for me.

However, two problems will continue to plague all bus systems: time and convenience. The fastest method I could take via public transit takes three times as long as it would by car. And, since I’m driving only six miles, it’s hard to see how I’m saving much in the way of gas and wear on my car by not driving.

I would love to take public transit more, but right now it seems like it’s still too much to give up. It may make more sense, and certainly fewer blisters, to just take my bike to work. I’ll let you know how that works out.

Former FRA Chief Urges High-Speed Push for Rail Plan

From The Journal of Commerce Online:

Former FRA Chief Urges High-Speed Push for Rail Plan | Journal of Commerce

Former FRA Chief Urges High-Speed Push for Rail Plan
By John D. Boyd | Jun 5, 2009 11:41AM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story

Freight must figure in high-speed rail initiatives, Carmichael says

The United States should quickly begin building high-speed rail systems for both passenger and freight systems, says a former head of the Federal Railroad Administration.

Gilbert E. Carmichael, who was the FRA administrator under President George H.W. Bush and is now founding chairman of the University of Denver’s Intermodal Transportation Institute, said states should take advantage of President Obama’s offer of $14 billion in startup funds.

He said HSR can be a major advance over the biggest public works project of the 20th Century, building the Interstate Highway System. Carmichael said that built a huge transportation system for cars and trucks and linked them with airports.

But he dubbed that massive road system as “Interstate 1” and said Obama’s plan "is a logical and necessary next step forward” to a high-technology version, what Carmichael calls “Interstate 2.0.”

If done right, he said it can produce much higher average speeds for both Amtrak passenger service and intermodal container-hauling trains, drawing more freight and people off highways and saving large amounts of fuel. Carmichael said the system can also be electrified in coming decades for much greater fuel savings.

He made the remarks at the university’s National Transportation Infrastructure & Regulatory Policy Forum.

Carmichael called for Congress to approve large railroads’ request for a 25 percent tax credit applied to new capacity “to encourage them to upgrade and double- and triple-track their main lines to increase speeds and double (their) freight capacity.”

States, he said, should build or lease high-speed track on their highway rights of way “to run new, modern, intermodal freight and passenger trains. These high-speed tracks should be grade separated just as were the interstate highways” so that lanes are kept separate for different types of surface traffic.

He also said equipping those trains with up to date locator and safety technology can make the rail system safer, while taking significant amounts of traffic off roads “will cut highway fatalities at least 50 percent and drastically reduce the wear and tear and cost of maintaining the highways.”

Carmichael also thinks the administration is taking steps that can move the country toward rail electrification for freight systems as well as passenger lines. True high-speed trains that travel perhaps 200 mph need to be electrified, and to the extent they operate in freight rail corridors the power could be shared with freight trains on nearby tracks.

He earlier told Journal of Commerce that Obama’s plans to upgrade the energy grid and develop more alternative energy sources and greener transportation systems all fit with the HSR plans, and could help move the diesel-power freight railroads toward electric systems.

Some railroad officials have begun to explore the potential as well. For more on this, see: “Special Report: Electrifying Freight Rail”

Contact John Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.