Roundup of Rail Developments in South LA

Article 1

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Metro Moves Forward on Harbor Subdivision, Crenshaw Corridor, Hybrid Alternative for Route 2 Terminus and Gating for the Eastside Extension

Metro Moves Forward on Harbor Subdivision, Crenshaw Corridor, Hybrid Alternative for Route 2 Terminus and Gating for the Eastside Extension

by Damien Newton on December 10, 2009
Going north on Indiana on the way to First Street.

Earlier today the Metro Board of Directors unanimously approved the light rail alternative for the Crenshaw Corridor and agreed to study making the light rail run underground for a dozen blocks between 48th and 59th street over the plans of the Metro staff. According to a press release, "The light rail alternative will be 8.5 miles in length from the Metro Green Line Aviation Station to the Expo Line, now under construction, at Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards, with a travel time estimated at 20 minutes. There will be seven new stations plus an option for one more. The final Environment Impact Study/Environment Impact Report could be ready by the end of 2010, with the line scheduled to open in 2018."

The vote today followed a mobilization of the community activists for the light rail option, as opposed to the BRT option, since alternatives for the line were first being discussed. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has been actively pushing for the light rail option since his election last year and today's vote can only be construed as a victory for his efforts. However, just because the underground alignment is being studied doesn't mean that it will be in the final design, but it would head off another prolonged battle between Metro and the South L.A. Community over a light rail line.

The Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail line wasn't the only rail line to move forward. The Board also voted to move forward with an extension of Metro Green Line rail service to the proposed Torrance Regional Transit Center in the South Bay area of the region. The study of bringing transit to the twenty six mile freight rail corridor is in a much earlier phase than the Crenshaw Corridor. At this point there is no "opening" date for the project.

The Board also voted to move forward on quad gates for segments of the Gold Line Eastside Extension. After Metro staff and Board members swore up and down that the line was safe when it opened last month, a car was hit by a light rail car over Thanksgiving weekend and two girls walked into cars claiming they were confused by the crossing signals.

After listening to a parade of speakers berate the Board for pushing the Gold Line Eastside Extension's opening before all safety precautions could be taken, Mayor Villaraigosa chimed in wondering why a full Environmental Impact Review was necessary just to install barrier gates. It turns out the quad gates would cause several intersections to get a failing grade because of the traffic congestion that it would create.

However, Villaraigosa, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina devised a plan to work on a declaration of "no significant impact" for the gate installation that could take less time than an EIR. Just in case the environmental researchers reach the conclusion that there is a significant impact, Metro will be moving forward with an environmental review at the same time.

Noting that even a finding of "no significant impact" would still take a lot of time, Molina joked that they should just find a billionaire in the City of Industry to get the legislature to pass a law allowing Metro to do whatever they want. When Board Chair Ara Najarian asked her if she knew any, she joked that she heard the Mayor had some contacts.

Briefly, the Board also voted to approve the "hybrid" option for the Route 2 Terminus Project, support minority businesses in the Crenshaw Corridor and the Mayor's vision to move and empowered the staff to reach an agreement with Caltrans to widen the 405 through the Sepulveda Pass.

Article 2

Link: MTA approves South L.A.-South Bay light-rail line -- latimes.com

MTA approves South L.A.-South Bay light-rail line
Some officials and residents, worried that problems encountered by other lines could be repeated on the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project, want more of it built underground.
By Ari B. Bloomekatz

December 11, 2009
A new light-rail system through South Los Angeles and the South Bay was approved by transit officials Thursday, but some local politicians and residents worry that the rail line could pose similar problems that have hampered other projects.

The 8 1/2 -mile line is the biggest beneficiary to date of Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects that L.A. County voters approved last year.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said Measure R revenues would provide most of the estimated $1.7 billion needed for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor Project, which would pay for a relatively bare-bones version of the line. But some residents and officials want more of the line underground, saying that it would reduce accidents, ease community concerns and speed up the line.

The MTA has grappled with this issue before.

The Gold Line Eastside extension was criticized by one of its biggest backers, Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, because it is mostly at street level, where, she says, it could pose a risk for drivers and pedestrians.

The Gold Line from downtown Los Angeles to Pasadena is also mostly above ground, and it has struggled to attract riders in part because the numerous at-grade crossings make it a relatively slow ride.

The Crenshaw line would provide commuter rail service to a part of the county that is now served exclusively by buses.

The line would run from Exposition Boulevard to Imperial Highway, following Crenshaw Boulevard and passing through Leimert Park and Southwest L.A. before veering southwest through Inglewood and south to Aviation Boulevard near Los Angeles International Airport.

Officials said they hope to break ground on the project in 2012 or 2013 and open the line in 2018. Some believe the line could be open as early as 2016.

"It's a huge victory for the Crenshaw community and the South Bay community," Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas said. "I expect it will have a highly positive impact on the quality of life in that corridor."

Still, Ridley-Thomas said, he is fighting to get more of the Crenshaw line built underground. He said the Expo Line, now being built between downtown and Culver City, is facing delays in part because of safety improvements required where the train will pass some schools.

"I do not want this to be haunted by the ghosts of the Expo Line," he said, adding that the MTA is going to study building an additional segment on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th Streets underground.

Building underground is much more expensive than at street level, and officials said they don't know where the money for Ridley-Thomas' plans would come from.

The line's project manager, Roderick Diaz, said, "There is currently no budget to cover that" nor is there sufficient funding for some other "big ticket items" included in some of the possible designs.

Ridley-Thomas estimated that the project would need about $400 million in extra funds to build the line as he would like, and said he is going to Washington, D.C., in the near future to speak with members of Congress about other sources of funding.

Officials said the rail line would provide a critical north-south route for commuters between downtown L.A. and the Westside.

Right now, the only north-south rail line south of downtown is the Blue Line, which goes to Long Beach.

The Crenshaw line, planners say, also would make it possible to get to more places by rail, because the line would connect to the Expo Line (service to downtown and the Westside) and Green Line ( service from Norwalk to Redondo Beach).

Officials also hope that the line might take some motorists off the 405 and 110 freeways.

ari.bloomekatz@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Article 3

Light Rail Chosen for Route Between Exposition Blvd. and LAX - LAist

Light Rail Chosen for Route Between Exposition Blvd. and LAX



The Metro Board of Directors today approved using light rail on the 8.5-mile Crenshaw route between LAX and Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards. Other options included doing nothing, beefing up current bus service in the area and developing a bus rapid transit system that would begin at Wilshire Boulevard.

The $1.3 billion project could be completed as early as 2018 with construction expected to begin in either 2012 or 2013. Its terminus at LAX will be the current Green Line Aviation station, meaning getting to the actual airport is still a shuttle bus away. The other terminus will be Crenshaw and Exposition, home to a future Expo Line station, which could be in operation by the end of 2010.

Next steps include studying an underground portion between 48th and 59th streets and finding a space for the rail maintenance yard.

By Zach Behrens in News on December 10, 2009 3:35 PM

Article 4

Let There Be Light Rail | NBC Los Angeles

Let There Be Light Rail
...and it was good.
Updated 6:27 PM PST, Thu, Dec 10, 2009



The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board of directors unanimously approved Thursday a $1.3 billion light rail transit project for the 8.5-mile corridor from Crenshaw to LAX.

"This is a long-awaited outcome," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, noting proposals for the transit corridor were first brought up 25 years ago.

"This project is long overdue and will provide congestion relief, improve air quality and serve as an economic catalyst," said Ridley-Thomas, who is also an MTA board member. "It helps bring a more rational and equitable transportation plan for the county of Los Angeles, and it means 7,800 new jobs."

The vote prompted cheers from hundreds of south Los Angeles residents who packed the Metro boardroom and two overflow rooms.

The light rail line would run through the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo and unincorporated areas of the county before ending at LAX.

At Ridley-Thomas' urging, the Metro board during a previous meeting moved up the timeline for the project, so that completion is expected between 2016 and 2018 -- instead of 2029.

Construction is to begin in 2012, pending results of the final environmental impact report due in late 2010.

This would be the first major transportation project to relieve congestion on the San Diego (405) and Harbor (110) freeways and other north-south arteries in western Los Angeles County.

It would also provide a major connection to LAX, connecting the Metro Green Line to the south with the proposed LAX Automated People Mover System and the Expo Line to the north.

The project would provide connection to the entire Metro Rail system and Metro's more than 2,000 peak-hour buses.

Funding will come from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax initiative approved by L.A. County voters last November to reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and spur economic development.

The Metro board agreed to examine the cost of building a one-mile segment of the light rail line underground on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th streets.

Article 5

Metro to Study Extending Green Line as far as Torrance - LAist

Metro to Study Extending Green Line as far as Torrance



In addition to approving light rail for the Crenshaw corridor to LAX, the Metro Board today approved moving forward with another step for the Harbor Subdivsion right-of-way between LAX and Long Beach.

The move puts a 4.6-mile portion of the transit corridor into an environmental impact report process, which means staff will study a variety of options such as light rail, bus rapid transit, beefing up current bus service in the area and doing nothing. Expect public meeting to be scheduled in 2010 for input on this.

Metro will be considering a couple different route options into Redondo Beach or Torrance where each city is building a transportation center.

One will be using the right-of-way from the LAX/Aviation Station. If chosen, you likely won't be seeing light rail, but rather different train technology that can use old freight train tracks with upgrades under federal guidelines. It would cost an estimated $428 million and see approximately 3,300 daily riders.

The other route option is to continue the Green Line from the Marine Station further into Redondo Beach or Torrance. It would cost an estimated $495 million and see approximately 5,800 daily riders.

Although the Metro-owned Harbor Subdivision right-of-way goes all the way to the Carson-Long Beach border via the Los Angeles community of Harbor Gateway, the current study will not include going beyond Torrance. "We're looking at phased implementation," explained Renee Berlin, an Executive Officer in Metro's planning department, over the phone. "Measure R only included funds for the South Bay Extension."

To continue the route further, Metro would need to secure other funding in addition to updating the recently approved 30-year long range plan, which doesn't include a phase two.

The board also renamed the project to the South Bay Green Line Extension from the Harbor Subdivision.

By Zach Behrens in News on December 10, 2009 5:15 PM

The Western High Speed Rail Alliance Announces Formation Regional Transportation Organizations Unite to advocate for $50 million in Future Corridor Studies (Source:Western High Speed Rail Alliance Announces Formation)

Link: The Western High Speed Rail Alliance Announces Formation

The Western High Speed Rail Alliance Announces Formation

Regional Transportation Organizations Unite to advocate for $50 million in Future Corridor Studies

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, five regional planning agencies throughout the Rocky and Intermountain West formally announced the formation of the Western High Speed Rail Alliance (WHSRA), which will work to support the creation of a high-speed rail system in the Western United States.

"The members of the Western High Speed Rail Alliance share a vision of high-speed rail that provides efficient, cost-effective options for both passenger and freight customers," said Jacob Snow, chairman for the WHSRA. "We believe implementation of a regional high-speed rail plan for the Rocky and Intermountain West is critical to the development of a national high-speed rail system. Corridors must be studied now to lay the groundwork for additional development."

Included in the alliance are the following planning agencies: The Denver Regional Council of Governments (the greater Denver area), the Maricopa Association of Governments (the greater Phoenix Area), Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (Las Vegas, Nevada), the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno, Nevada), and the Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, Utah).

The WHSRA is prepared to request $50 million from the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act that Congress is expected to consider next year.

"Funding these studies is essential for the development of a national high-speed rail plan. We look forward to working with Congress and other lawmakers to assure that these studies are adequately funded," said Snow.

Included in a national plan The Western High Speed Rail Alliance envisions a Denver to Los Angeles corridor via a high-speed rail network with regional "hubs" in Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver and Phoenix as well as linkages from Denver to Salt Lake City to Reno and ultimately connection to San Francisco, CA.

As an example of the need, a recent study conducted by the Brookings Institution states that McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas is one of the busiest short-haul airports in the country, shuttling 3.7 million passengers from Las Vegas to Los Angeles alone in the year ending March 2009.

"Connecting the Western United States with a robust rail network will be a major step towards reducing air traffic and highway congestion, while in turn increasing interstate highway capacity for goods movement and improving air quality by reducing emissions," concluded Snow.

The WHSRA hopes to add both public and private sector members to their alliance in order to assist in developing future corridors that will be built over the next 20 years.

www.westernhighspeedrail.com

SOURCE Western High Speed Rail Alliance

Phoenix exploring high-speed rail link to L.A., Vegas (Source: .azfamily.com)

Link: Phoenix exploring high-speed rail link to L.A., Vegas | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | News

Phoenix exploring high-speed rail link to L.A., Vegas

by 3TV

Posted on December 10, 2009 at 7:40 AM

PHOENIX -- A plan may be in the works to bring high-speed inter-city trains to Phoenix.

City planners say they will seek $50 million from Congress in the next transportation bill to help them further study the idea.

The trains would be an alternative to freeways and offer a quick route between Phoenix and cities like Las Vegas and Los Angeles.

They would travel as fast as 225 miles per hour, getting passengers to both cities in less than three hours.

$1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved (Source: San Jose Mercury News)

Link: $1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved - San Jose Mercury News

$1.7B light-rail line through South LA approved
The Associated Press
Posted: 12/10/2009 04:18:15 PM PST
Updated: 12/10/2009 04:18:16 PM PST

LOS ANGELES—County transit officials have approved a new light-rail system through South Los Angeles and Inglewood that would stop about a mile short of the Los Angeles International Airport terminals.

The light-rail line approved Thursday would run from the Exposition Boulevard line, which is currently under construction, south on Crenshaw Boulevard, then west through Inglewood to Aviation and Century Boulevards.

The construction costs, about $1.7 billion, will be paid for by Measure R, the transportation sales tax approved by voters last year.

Those funds will only cover a mostly above ground line. Some residents say a below ground line would speed trains and reduce accidents.

Officials hope to break ground in 2012 or 2013 and complete construction by 2018.
Advertisement

Our View: Regional Connector will link up our region (Source: Pasadena Star-News)

Link: Our View: Regional Connector will link up our region - Pasadena Star-News

Our View: Regional Connector will link up our region
Posted: 12/09/2009 04:50:51 PM PST

CONNECTING our region by rail line to other parts of Los Angeles County - Downtown L.A., Hollywood, the San Fernando Valley - is the ultimate goal of rail planners. After all, if you can't get there from here by train, you might as well drive.

While we have been advocates of the San Gabriel Valley getting its share of rail lines built, we also see the bigger picture. Now that the Metro Board of Directors agreed in October to fund the Gold Line Foothill Extension's first leg from east Pasadena to Azusa (at Citrus College/Azusa Pacific University), it's time to plan for future connecting light-rail lines.

One of those planned is the two-mile long Regional Connector line, which is aptly named: It will connect to the existing Gold Line at the Little Tokyo Station, moving passengers directly to the Long Beach Blue Line and the under-construction Exposition Line, which by 2011 will run from 7th Street in Downtown L.A. to Culver City.

Why is such a connector line so important for San Gabriel Valley light-rail riders? Because there's a flaw in our region's still young and growing light-rail system. The lines don't always connect. In fact, they rarely overlap. Riders who have ridden rail lines in New York, Boston, Washington, D.C. and even the Bay Area expect rail lines to connect and to reach their destinations without getting out, changing trains, changing lines and platforms.

This is not the case with most of our light-rail and subway
Advertisement
lines. The result is an inconvenient trip, one that often takes longer than if the trip was made by car, which is why many have not switched from car to rail.

With a completed Regional Connector, which will cost a cool $1 billion, a rider can get on a Gold Line Eastside train in Monterey Park or East Los Angeles and get to Staples Center for a Lakers/Clippers/Kings game, or to L.A. Live across the street, site of concerts, museums, movie theaters and restaurants. The MTA is still deciding where the stations will go, but we would recommend stops at the Disney Hall (supported by Los Angeles County taxpayers) and the financial district. This would open up the rail choice to weekday commuters who work in these more far-flung Downtown locations and to weekend riders and tourists who want an easy, convenient way to reach L.A.-area destinations and events without driving and paying for parking.

We support the funding of the Regional Connector in the Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan, which right now would get $160 million. Metro has asked that each of the five subregions of the county served by the Regional Connector pay a one-fifth share of that start-up costs. This is a reasonable and appropriate funding approach. We also support the Metro going after Federal New Starts funding for the balance.

The Regional Connector is a project that would add riders to both Gold Line Eastside and Gold Line Foothill. It fills in some connectivity missing from a nascent rail line system that is behind other big metropolitan areas - but rapidly catching up.




Print Email Font ResizeReturn to Top

Google Chrome Extensions: Blog This! (by Google)

Google Chrome Extensions: Blog This! (by Google)

E5-type bullet train tested in Tokyo East Japan Railway Co.'s next-generation bullet train departs from Tokyo Station for a test run on Wednesday. (Source: Mainichi)

Link; E5-type bullet train tested in Tokyo - The Mainichi Daily News

E5-type bullet train tested in Tokyo
East Japan Railway Co.'s next-generation bullet train departs from Tokyo Station for a test run on Wednesday. (Mainichi)


East Japan Railway Co.'s next-generation E5-type bullet train, which will be launched in 2011, appeared for the first time at JR Tokyo Station in a test run early Wednesday evening, attracting railway buffs and commuters on their way home.

The new bullet train goes into service in March 2011, three months after the extension of the Tohoku Shinkansen Line to Shin-Aomori Station.

The bullet train is expected to become one of the world's fastest commercial trains, with a maximum speed of 320 kilometers per hour. The train has a jet-like cockpit and 15-meter-long nose that helps smooth out air turbulence when entering tunnels.

The train sports a dark green and white livery, separated by a pink line. Test runs were held between Tokyo and Ueno until Thursday.

Three E5-type bullet trains, which will also offer a premium "Super Green" car, will be introduced in March 2011. Maximum speeds will be gradually raised to 320 kilometers per hour by the end of fiscal 2013, finally clearing the Tokyo to Shin-Aomori run in three hours and five minutes. The name for the E5-type bullet trains will be chosen from entries from the public after next spring.

Heavyweights Gather to Discuss Mayor’s Ten Year Measure R Proposal (Source: Streetsblog Los Angeles)

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Heavyweights Gather to Discuss Mayor’s Ten Year Measure R Proposal

Heavyweights Gather to Discuss Mayor’s Ten Year Measure R Proposal

by Dana Gabbard on December 9, 2009

Two years to pass the Metro Board, nut only ten years to build?

Monday Dec. 14 at 6:30 p.m. Move LA and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are co-sponsoring a public meeting on Strategies to Accelerate the Development of the Wilshire Subway and Other Measure R Projects in Los Angeles County--What You Can Do to Help Implement the Measure R 30-Year Plan in 10 Years! The meeting will be held at the Museum's Brown Auditorium, in the Art of the Americas building off the Central Court. The Museum is at 5905 Wilshire Bl. just east of Fairfax.

So far we have only been getting the soundbite that Mayor Villaraigosa has a 30 in 10 strategy. I'm curious to finally hear some more details about just what is being proposed and what role interested citizens can have in making this happen. It is an intriguing concept but as always the devil is in the details. So far the only details are a laundry list of strategies to be studied per the Metro Board motion Villaraigosa co-sponsored with Metro Board Chair Ara Najarian at the Dec. Board meeting. Hopefully the presenters at the event will flesh out the skimpy details that the two page document for tomorrow's Metro Board Meeting offers.

Speakers include:

* Art Leahy, Metro CEO
* Richard Katz, Metro Board member
* Jaime de la Vega, Deputy Mayor for Transportation--city of Los Angeles
* Denny Zane, Executive Director of Move LA
* Metro staff with responsibility for planning and government relations of the projects

The event is free and open to the public . For more information, call (310) 310-2390.

Transit service to the location include Metros Rapids on Fairfax and Wilshire (the 780 and 720), a Wilshire Rapid Express during rush hour (the 920), local services (20 on Wilshire, 217 on Fairfax) plus the Fairfax DASH will be ending service just prior to the start of the meeting.

Gold Line Extension Scrambling to Break Ground By June

Curbed LA: Gold Line Extension Scrambling to Break Ground By June

Gold Line Foothill Extension
Gold Line Extension Scrambling to Break Ground By June
Tuesday, December 8, 2009, by Neal Broverman

The Gold Line Foothill extension, which brings the line from Pasadena to Azusa, was handed a victory at the last Metro board meeting when the transit agency agreed to operate the line in 2013 should financing be worked out now by the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, an independent agency set up to build the line—Measure R money would only allow construction to begin in 2017. Well, the Authority is working to get the money in place now—most likely a loan to a contractor to be paid back with Measure R funds—but the Authority needs to confirm a funds transfer agreement from Metro to the Authority at Metro's January board meeting if they want to hit their groundbreaking target of June 2010. Authority Chairman Keith Hanks is worried that problems involving a Monrovia maintenance facility and the purchase of train cars could mess that up, according to a letter from Hanks to Metro CEO Ara Najarian obtained by The Source. Hanks does say he's "hopeful that these issues can be resolved" and says he has "six world-class" firms pre-qualified to start work on the line. Monrovia station rendering via The Source
· Foothill Gold Line Releases Letter on Funding Negotiations [The Source]
· After the Screams: Metro LRTP Passes [Curbed LA]

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor (Source: 89.3 KPCC)

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor | 89.3 KPCC

Ridley-Thomas wants further study of proposed Crenshaw corridor

Dec. 8, 2009 | KPCC Wire Services
County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas today urged the MTA to build additional sections of the Crenshaw-LAX light rail track underground, citing a negative impact on schools and black-owned businesses.The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board is scheduled to vote Thursday on the $1.7 billion Crenshaw-LAX Transit Corridor study. Ridley-Thomas is an MTA board member as well as a county supervisor.

The one-mile section of the light rail line in question is a block away from Crenshaw High School and would run in front of View Park Prep School, according to community activist Damien Goodmon. He adds that 200 parking spaces serving black-owned businesses would need to be removed to accommodate the trains at street level.

MTA staff has recommended a light-rail train instead of a bus system and set out several parameters. The proposed 8.5-mile line would link the Expo Line at Crenshaw and Exposition boulevards to the Metro Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport.

Ridley-Thomas offered a motion in advance of the meeting asking the board to further study whether the portion of the rail system to be built on Crenshaw Boulevard between 48th and 59th streets should be constructed below ground.

The track north of 48th Street and south of 59th Street is already recommended to be built underground.

"If MTA can spend the money for 13 miles of subway for Wilshire, surely we can get just three miles of subway for Crenshaw,'' Goodmon said.

Once the MTA board approves an alternative, work will begin on a final environmental impact report for the project.

Roundup of articles on the delayed opening of the Expo Line

Articles 1

Link: Over Budget and Delayed: Full Expo Line Route Won't Open Next Year - LAist

Over Budget and Delayed: Full Expo Line Route Won't Open Next Year


The first phase of the Expo Line will be 8.6 miles of light rail track between downtown L.A. and Culver City

A train ride between downtown and Culver City will not happen in 2010, according to a report by the LA Times today. The delayed Expo Line project is $230 million over budget and if anything opens late next year or early 2011, it will open be eight stations from downtown to Crenshaw Boulevard. The remainder of the route--three stations to Culver City--would open on a later date, possibly late 2011 or 2012.

The culprit in this mess? "A variety of change orders, additions and increases in material costs," says the Times. Of that includes the strong opposition from the Fix Expo campaign, which has fought for increased pedestrian improvements.

"They've known that these street-level crossings in our community and next to our schools were opposed by our community since the inception of this project," said Damien Goodmon of Fix Expo to the paper. "The reality is this project was sold as being cheap and built fast, and the fact is neither of those points has come true."

Metro's website still claims the line in full will open in 2010.

By Zach Behrens in News on December 8, 2009 8:59 AM 4 Comments 2 Likes Likes

Article 2

Expo Line project costs and delays are ballooning, will open only to Crenshaw next year

December 8, 2009 |  7:12 am

The Expo Line, the first rail project into the traffic-clogged Westside, is $220 million over its original budget and more than a year behind schedule, with officials saying additional delays and costs are possible.

The line was supposed to open this summer, running from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City at a cost of $640 million.

But the price tag has risen to $862 million, and transit officials say their goal for next year is to open just a portion of the route -- only as far west as Crenshaw Boulevard.

It is unclear what the ridership for such a short line would be, but it probably would be considerably less than the full run to Culver City. Officials are unsure when the Expo Line will reach Culver City or how much the total cost will be upon completion.

Read the full story here.

-- Ari B. Bloomekatz

Article 3

Link: Expo Line Budget Derails | NBC Los Angeles

Expo Line Budget Derails
The $640 million project has skyrocketed to $862 million
By SCOTT WEBER
Updated 2:45 PM PST, Tue, Dec 8, 2009

It was supposed to open this summer with the promise of fixing the congested Westside. Now the Expo Line rail project is $220 million over budget and at least a year behind schedule.

Officials had hoped that the 8.6 mile line connecting downtown to Culver City would be relatively simple and cost effective since it used right-of-way from the Southern Pacific railway. But the plan quickly derailed after a series of construction delays, problems with contractors, and project changes increased costs and delayed the opening.

According to the LA Times, problems included construction delays where the Expo and Blue lines meet on Flower Street, the decision to add a station at USC and safety improvements required next to public schools along the route.

The $640 million project has skyrocketed to $862 million and it may cost tens of millions more, the Times reported. Transit officials hope to open at least a portion of the route to west Crenshaw Boulevard next year.

The Culver City station may be running by the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012 although no official decision has been made, the Times said.
First Published: Dec 8, 2009 2:39 PM PST

Metro Board Preview: Route 2 Terminus, Villaraigosa’s Ten Year Plan, Gates for the Gold Line and the Crenshaw Corridor DEIR (Source:http://la.streetsblog.org)

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Metro Board Preview: Route 2 Terminus, Villaraigosa’s Ten Year Plan, Gates for the Gold Line and the Crenshaw Corridor DEIR

Metro Board Preview: Route 2 Terminus, Villaraigosa’s Ten Year Plan, Gates for the Gold Line and the Crenshaw Corridor DEIR

by Damien Newton on December 7, 2009

Coming soon to the Eastside. Photo:ntbraymer/Flickr
This Thursday the Metro Board meets for the last time in 2009 in a special meeting this Thursday at 9:30 A.M. in Metro's Headquarters next to Union Station. As normal, there's a full agenda, with plenty of controversial and interesting items on the agenda. Some old friends, such as the Mayor's, optimistic plan to build every Measure R transit project in the next decade to some new items such as a debate over whether or not to study building a subway on the Crenshaw Corridor.

As normal, the agenda is divided into three parts, a consent agenda where all items will be voted on at once, a non-consent agenda with the more controversial ones, and a supplemental agenda added later.

Oddly, some of the more controversial items appear on the consent calendar. The Mayor is asking for a full review of Metro policies, budgeting and staffing to analyze the best ways to "speed up" the Measure R timeline so that all transit projects could be completed in ten years. That item is joined by several others, including a proposal to add four "quad gates" to various stations on the Gold Line Eastside Extension to improve on the safety amenities around the rail line.

However, the most odd item to appear on the "consent" agenda is the declaration that the "hybrid" alternative for the Route 2 Terminus Project be labeled the"Locally Preferred Alternative." It's not all that odd that the "Locally Preferred Alternative" is hated by the locals, but it is at least a little strange that the Board Secretary doesn't think that a Board Item that has been fought tooth and nail by local community groups deserves its own debate by Board Members. Maybe they're hoping that the Board won't hear any of the questions on whether or not designating an option that wasn't studied in the environmental documents could be declared a "Locally Preferred Alternative" is legal or not.

For more background on the difference between the "Locally Preferred Alternative" and the alternative preferred by the locals, check out these two stories on the recent history of the project and the community's threat to sue if Metro moves forward with what they're calling the hybrid alternative.

But that isn't to say that the non-consent agenda is a sleeper.

12_7_09_Crenshaw.jpgHow much of the Crenshaw Light Rail project would run at-grade?

Highlighting the agenda is a Metro proposal that outlines plans for and funding for the environmental documents for the Crenshaw Corridor. That may not sound controversial, but added to the agenda is an amendment by County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas that expands the amount of the light rail line that could run below grade, pending the results of the review. Ridley-Thomas' motion already has strong support from the Crenshaw Community and activists will be bussed to the Board Room to voice their opinion.

Community members are worried that a light rail line through the heart of the Corridor would be a safety hazard, would remove too much street parking and hinder revitalization efforts more than help them.

As normal, Streetsblog will "live tweet" the meeting. Whether I'll do it in person or over the phone remains to be decided.

High-speed rail proving ground proposed in North Las Vegas (Souce: Las Vegas Sun)

Link: High-speed rail proving ground proposed in North Las Vegas - Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009 | 9:07 a.m. - Las Vegas Sun

High-speed rail proving ground proposed in North Las Vegas
Researchers want facility to study, test next-generation rail systems

By Richard N. Velotta

Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009 | 9:07 a.m.

Organizations that have worked to educate Southern Nevadans about various high-speed rail systems want to build a research and development center and proving grounds in North Las Vegas that could show transit systems in action side by side.

Representatives of UNLV’s Transportation Research Center and the Ward 5 Chamber of Commerce have approached the Nevada System of Higher Education and the City of North Las Vegas about developing a high-speed rail proving ground on public land north of the Bruce Woodbury Beltway.

The proposal comes as UNLV and the Ward 5 Chamber plan the organizations’ fourth high-speed rail forum Monday at UNLV’s Science and Engineering Building auditorium. Richard Lawless and Tsutomu Morimura, representatives of Japanese high-speed rail interests, will make presentations at the event beginning at 6 p.m.

Lawless is president and CEO of U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail while Morimura represents the JR Central Railway Co., which operates Japan’s famed Shinkansen “bullet train.” The two speakers will take questions from the public and from a panel that includes two UNLV professors and Assemblyman Harvey Munford.

UNLV and the Ward 5 Chamber – which backs the rail forums because of the potential for future jobs – previously played host to forums by DesertXpress, a traditional high-speed rail project expected to begin construction on a Las Vegas-to-Southern California line next year; American Magline Group, which is working to develop a magnetic-levitation train between Las Vegas and Southern California; and three unconventional mass transportation systems.

The Central Japan Railway operates both conventional rail and maglev systems and is angling to sell Japanese technology to U.S. operators developing rail systems.

And that’s where the North Las Vegas research center and proving ground comes in.

Munford, Stan Washington, who heads GreenTech Nevada, a Ward 5 Chamber member, and Dr. Ken Peck of UNLV’s Transportation Research Center conferred with Nevada System of Higher Education officials and made a presentation last week to the North Las Vegas City Council.

Proving ground backers say Nevada could take the lead in positioning itself to be a neutral host to emerging high-speed rail proposals.

Developing a proving ground in Nevada would give rail technology developers an opportunity to test their products in a desert climate, the proposal’s backers say.

The proposal is in the early planning stages and cost estimates haven’t been reached.

Organizers envision the facility would be coordinated by UNLV, the University of Nevada, Reno, the College of Southern Nevada and the Desert Research Institute.

The group wants to develop the testing ground at a time when high-speed rail technology is rapidly changing and next-generation systems are being introduced. They also want to move quickly because President Obama says high-speed mass transportation is a priority for his administration.

Organizers say a test facility could create hundreds of jobs, help put Nevada in a leadership position for mass transportation research and boost the tourism industry because thousands of people would travel to Southern Nevada to see train systems demonstrated.

Two companies already have expressed interest in installing test tracks at a North Las Vegas facility if it is built.

Frank Randak, president of AVT SolaTrek, a car-shuttling freeway-decluttering mass transportation system using maglev technology, and Robert Pulliam, president of Texas-based Tubular Rail Inc., an unconventional rail system with vehicles that pass through a series of O-rings, said they would be interested in building test tracks if a center is developed.

SolaTrek and Tubular Rail made presentations at UNLV rail forums in October.

Expo Line project costs and delays are ballooning. The rail line from downtown L.A. to Culver City is $220 million over budget and a year behind schedule. Officials hope to open part of the route next year.

Link: Expo Line project costs and delays are ballooning - latimes.com

Expo Line project costs and delays are ballooning.
The rail line from downtown L.A. to Culver City is $220 million over budget and a year behind schedule. Officials hope to open part of the route next year.

By Ari B. Bloomekatz

December 8, 2009

The Expo Line, the first rail project into the traffic-clogged Westside, is $220 million over its original budget and more than a year behind schedule, with officials saying additional delays and costs are possible.

The line was supposed to open this summer, running from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City at a cost of $640 million.

But the price tag has risen to $862 million, and transit officials say their goal for next year is to open just a portion of the route -- only as far west as Crenshaw Boulevard.

It is unclear what the ridership for such a short line would be, but it probably would be considerably less than the full run to Culver City. Officials are unsure when the Expo Line will reach Culver City or how much the total cost will be upon completion.

Richard Thorpe, chief executive of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, said that although he hopes $862.3 million will be the final price tag, the project possibly could need tens of millions of additional dollars.

The construction authority, which is building the line, receives its money through the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and has contracted with a group of construction firms to perform the work.

The firms and the construction authority are at odds over which is responsible for some of the project's delays. Depending on how that dispute is resolved, it could further raise the project's cost, officials said.

The 8.6-mile line has been touted by planners as a fast and cost-effective route for rail service to the Westside because it is being built mostly on an abandoned Southern Pacific right-of-way.

But a variety of factors have held up what was supposed to be a relatively quick project and added to the costs. Among them: construction delays where the Expo and Blue lines meet on Flower Street, the decision to add a station at USC and safety improvements required next to public schools along the route.

The problems with the Expo Line come at a difficult time for the MTA, which is now trying to build new rail lines with federal money and revenues from a transportation sales tax that L.A. County voters approved last year.

MTA officials said they do not yet know how the agency will pay for more Expo Line costs if needed or whether those costs would eat into money slated for other projects, which include a subway along Wilshire Boulevard and an extension of the Gold Line east into the San Gabriel Valley.

The delays are prompting concern from communities along the route and elsewhere on the Westside, which was supposed to be a main beneficiary of the Expo Line.

Westside officials said they are reconsidering how to build the western portion of the line given the problems with the first construction phase.

"The contracting process is going to be done very, very differently," said Culver City Councilman Scott Malsin, who is on the Expo Line Construction Authority board.

Officials said they lack a breakdown on what the cost increases could be, but reports from the construction authority have said that "there are a number of areas that pose significant risk to the budget."

One of the more vexing problems is occurring where the Expo and Blue lines meet near the Los Angeles Convention Center. Planners originally believed that tying the two lines together would not be a major effort.

But officials said the section was delayed initially because the design was incomplete and was delayed further when portions of the existing track needed to be replaced because of inadequate Blue Line track insulation, in addition to other changes requested by officials.

The Blue Line segment is crucial because plans call for Expo Line trains to follow the Blue Line route into the downtown Metro Center station, which planners expect would be a key destination for many riders.

The Expo Line route has long had its critics, who have argued that the line is too far south to effectively serve the Westside.

The line runs about three miles south of Wilshire Boulevard, missing major job centers in Beverly Hills, Century City and Westwood.

But MTA planners favored the line in large part because of the cost savings involved in using an existing rail right-of-way.

Some of the projected cost savings are now coming into question.

The project jumped from $640 million to $862.3 million because of a variety of change orders, additions and increases in material costs.

In September 2007, the MTA board approved $22.3 million for extra work on the Blue and Expo line hookup, safety enhancements and a new USC station.

MTA approved another $145 million because of increased construction costs and later approved $54 million to build an elevated station in Culver City. Thorpe said the original plan called for a temporary station in Culver City, with an elevated platform planned for later. Officials decided that it made more sense to build the elevated platform right away.

Though no specific date has been set, officials hope to have the Culver City station running by the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012.

More money probably will be spent on safety improvements. Over the last few years, activists have complained that the route poses risks to students at Dorsey High School and Foshay Learning Center, among other campuses near the line. They have called for costly improvements to protect pedestrians, including running the line above or below street level.

The state Public Utilities Commission, which has regulatory authority over rail lines, is now deciding which safety improvements are needed near Dorsey High.

"They've known that these street-level crossings in our community and next to our schools were opposed by our community since the inception of this project," said Damien Goodmon of the Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line, one of the line's chief critics.

"The reality is this project was sold as being cheap and built fast, and the fact is neither of those points has come true," he said.

ari.bloomekatz

@latimes.com

Meet the Silver Line New line will have frequent direct connections to downtown landmarks (Source: NBC Los Angeles)

Meet the Silver Line | NBC Los Angeles

Meet the Silver Line
New line will have frequent direct connections to downtown landmarks
By SCOTT WEBER
Updated 4:00 PM PST, Thu, Dec 3, 2009

Gold, purple, blue, and now silver.

The Silver Line, a new bus service connecting the San Gabriel Valley and South Bay via downtown Los Angeles, will begin operating later this month, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced Thursday.

Starting Dec. 13, the Silver Line will operate between the El Monte Station and the Artesia Transit Center via the Harbor Transitway on the Harbor (110) Freeway and the El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (10) Freeway.

It will have frequent, direct connections to downtown landmarks such as the Staples Center, Walt Disney Concert Hall, L.A. Convention Center, CalState Los Angeles, and more. L.A. Live, California Science Center, USC, L.A. Coliseum, and other work, school, shopping and dining centers.

It will operate every 5 to 15 minutes during rush hour. Base cash fare is $2.45 one way, $1.15 for senior/disabled cash fare during peak times, and $0.85 cents in off-peak times.

Metro Day Passes will be honored as base fare, and Metro weekly, monthly and EZ transit passes will be accepted with an additional $1.20 charge when boarding.

The Silver Line will replace the Metro Express Bus lines 444, 446/447, 484, and 490, which will be rerouted.

Copyright City News Service / NBC Los Angeles

County plans to seismically reinforce planned Gold Line bridge

County plans to seismically reinforce planned Gold Line bridge - Pasadena Star-News

County plans to seismically reinforce planned Gold Line bridge
Posted: 12/02/2009 09:52:35 AM PST

County authorities approved $205,000 Tuesday to go for seismic retrofits for a Gold Line bridge that will cross Colorado Boulevard in Arcadia. The 739-foot bridge will stretch diagonally across the freeway from Santa Anita Avenue in Arcadia, and will be crossed by Gold Line light rail cars once the foothill extension project to Glendora is built. It will cost $20 to $25 million to build. The bridge project is slated to begin in March 2010 and be completed in May 2010. Local authorities are planning to complete the foothill extension by 2013.

Bringing LA Together (Source: City Watch)

Link: CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall

Bringing LA Together
Little Tokyo
By Jerard Wright

With the Thanksgulping and Stress-mas season upon us … sorry, I mean Thanksgiving and Christmas Season upon us, it gives us all the opportunity to be connected together with family and friends living near and far. Which is the main purpose of the Regional Connector (RC) project?

By the way, I don’t do segues—I prefer to walk and weave in and out of things. But back to the concept of Metro’s Regional Connector project, which is to connect separate light rail lines into a cohesive network running through Downtown LA, TOGETHER. One strategy to create togetherness is by understanding past wrongs of communities along the corridor and mitigating these parts together into a cohesive unit.

The hub of implementing this strategy is in Little Tokyo. That community feels a sentiment of past wrongs done by large government bodies and feel they are manifesting themselves in the planning and community meetings on the Regional Connector.

Despite the number of community meetings in Little Tokyo since 2007, businesses, residents and others feel that this information has not been made public—creating communication gaps that foster a sentiment of: “Oh no, not us again!”

The internment camps during WWII, the construction of Parker Center and the growth of LA’s Civic Center all come to symbolize the depletion of the Little Tokyo community at local residents’ expense.

With the opening of the new Police Headquarters, this could provide a symbolic opportunity to return land back to Little Tokyo community.

Questions that may be posed as you’re reading this are: Could this work? Is it feasible? Can everyone work together positively? What does this have to do with the Regional Connector project? The answers to the first three are, “Yes I think it could be done with enough persistence”. The answer to the fourth question is contained in the rest of this piece.
Active Image
City Councilmember Jan Perry, who represents Little Tokyo, questioned in a recent Rafu Shimpo article, “Why is the hub of the proposed Regional Connector in Little Tokyo instead of at Union Station?”

A valid question—however the logistical answer would pose more problems, as the current Gold Line to Pasadena would require major reconfiguring at Union Station that would again impact not only Little Tokyo (because they would be isolated yet again), but it would continue over the LA River into East LA.

However, another community that has echoed similar pains as East LA and Little Tokyo would now be impacted: Chinatown. All of this to avoid Little Tokyo and defer it somewhere else is not the correct approach.

Avoiding Little Tokyo with respect to the Regional Connector (both in not listening to those sentiments and not building the project) simply exacerbates that problem with a network of isolated light rail lines that stall the growth of our transit network.

Thankfully, Metro’s Regional Connector Project team has been steadfast in their efforts to actively listen to the Little Tokyo community to identify solutions to bring people TOGETHER and they should be commended for that.

Also to be commended are developers of the Nikkei Center and the Nishi Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple who are assisting Metro’s Regional Connector project team by providing the flexibility needed to bring about new feasible ideas that weren’t available at the beginning of this project.

Is this coming together a done deal, problem solved?

No, there’s still more work to be done and more information needed to explain the history and logistics of this project … because despite its very direct concept, there are still some that don’t know what this project is and what it is suppose to do.

I strongly believe that constructive positive dialogue - TOGETHER - from all these parties should continue within this vital transit project. Not only for the health and well being of Little Tokyo, but to all of Los Angeles.

For the sake of time I will direct you to the website on the history and current design options at: www.metro.net/regionalconnector.

(Jerard Wright is the Vice-Chair of The Transit Coalition.) -cw

The Expo Line Should Connect, Not Conquer, Neighbors (Source: Citywatch)

CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall

The Expo Line Should Connect, Not Conquer, Neighbors
Moving LA
By Ken Alpern

As both a physician and as a believer in the grassroots process, I’m always inclined to recognize how little I know or how open-minded I must be since I don’t have all the answers. NO ONE PERSON HAS ALL THE ANSWERS.
Still, I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to hear from many parties, both governmental and grassroots, in various planning and transportation issues--which helps me conclude what ideas are the most likely to succeed and what ideas (regardless of their merit) are the most likely to fail.

I believe we should give credit to regions and governmental officials who reach for the higher ground to serve the constituents, and who sincerely come up with ideas that offer more than just criticism.
Active Image
For years, I’ve always proclaimed that being FOR something, and not just against something, is the right way to go.

I’m noting with both fascination and concern how the Metro Crenshaw Corridor and Metro Downtown Rail Connector teams are working with the communities these lines will go through, even suggesting more expensive options (very expensive, in fact) to bypass the inevitable conundrums that will occur with these projects.

For example, Westchester and the Mid-City want more grade separations for the Crenshaw Corridor Project, so they’ll likely get them; Little Tokyo wants a completely underground way for the Downtown Connector/Gold Line link, and it’ll likely get that, too. They’re not NIMBYs, but the residents there do want their quality of life preserved, and their neighborhoods preserved as well.

So I’m also noting with both fascination and concern how this paradigm contrasts with the tone which the Expo Line Authority has taken with West LA and its political leadership, and how the major legal opponents of the Expo Line have appeared to ONLY allow the most expensive option to be allowed.

This confrontational approach bodes ill for all parties, and will probably put a much more bitter taste in the mouths of the Expo Line’s neighbors than the Crenshaw Corridor and Downtown Connector projects will for their neighbors.

I well remember the years of the Mid-City and Westside Expo advocates recognizing how traffic and political strife sundered those two regions from each other in a way that helped neither region, and how it closely worked with Metro staff to figure out how to create an Expo Line—and I also remember how this all changed when the Metro staff was yanked away from the Expo project when the Expo Authority was established to design and construct the line.

Which is not to decry the Expo Authority staff who’ve been very helpful for advice, speaking, discussions, etc. It’s just that their job descriptions—their marching orders, so to speak—are very different than the Metro staff they replaced. This is what changed when the Expo Authority took over the Expo Line from Metro.

I also well remember the years (decades, really) when the West L.A. and Mid-City political leadership, in particular Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke, obstructed the Expo Line—which is why I’m surprised that Yaroslavsky and Burke’s successor, Mark Ridley-Thomas, aren’t recognizing the same West L.A. neighborhood concerns that now exist with the current at-grade design for much of the West L.A. portion of the Expo Line.

After all, both Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas are both ex-LA City Councilmembers, so they should well understand how the City of LA allows rampant overdevelopment that overtaxes transportation and other infrastructure faster than it can be updated and expanded.

Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas both know well how the City of LA Planning Department and political leadership (in ways we’d never see in Culver City, Santa Monica or West Hollywood) to hideously warp affordable housing laws, transit-oriented development, and now the state-authorized Accessory Dwelling Unit proviso to overdevelop faster than the overwhelmed and understaffed LADOT can possibly mitigate.

(The Accessory Dwelling Unit, or ADU, proviso, is being interpreted differently in each city, but in the Los Angeles it might allow EVERY single-family housing lot as low as 5000 sq ft the ability to build a granny flat, or second dwelling--thereby converting virtually every R1-zoned neighborhood into R2 zones)

Furthermore, Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas both also know how offensive it must be to both Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz, the duly-elected CD11 and CD5 councilmembers, as well as their constituents, to not be on the Expo Authority Board as it weighs routing and contracting decisions for a light rail line that will go through two council districts.

So the question of whether the Expo Authority is a design/build entity, or a legal entity merely meant to slam through a region labeled and dismissed as “NIMBY’s”, is a fair one.

Similarly, the question of whether the concerns of these “NIMBY’s” aren’t being proven correct is also a fair question.

Of course, on the other end of the argument …

I fear that those who’ve opposed the Expo Line, particularly in the legal arena, have risked so much with their insistence on building the line in such an expensive way that the state Public Utilities Commission won’t take them seriously. Now they also risk the ability to mitigate and compromise altogether.

In a nutshell, a compromise or mitigation that costs $20-40 million or so will be taken much more seriously by all parties than one that costs $2-300 million. Usually. Certainly the same Mark Ridley-Thomas and Bernard Parks, who will fight to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to create a huge, long Crenshaw Line subway, should figure out how to do the same for the Expo Line Authority on whose Board they now sit.

The Dorsey High School situation (shut down Farmdale and build a pedestrian bridge, or create an Expo Line station there) should have been concluded quite some time ago, and I really blame ALL parties involved, but all that has little, despite the hideously-twisted and politically-correct arguments we’re going to hear, to do with the Westside.

Yes, the Expo opponents’ plan to create a Venice/Sepulveda diversion AROUND much of West LA (one that Zev Yaroslavsky once lionized, and which really would have jacked up the costs and traffic-worsening of the Expo Line) didn’t help their credibility. Furthermore, a $300-500 million plan to have it go UNDER West LA—unless we do the same with Crenshaw—won’t help anyone’s credibility, either.

(By the way, I’ve pushed for years for getting the Expo Line under Overland, longer than any person reading this... but I’m also a realist and am aware of what that probably entails)

So what am I FOR, since I always believe in being FOR something? Well, my scheme is as good or lousy as anyone’s, but based on what I’ve learned and heard from both advocates and opponents of the Expo Line alike—and with the understanding that the majority of West LA residents who questioned Westside Expo opponents are now beginning to sympathize with them, threatening the Expo Line’s future:

1) Sepulveda should be grade-separated with a rail bridge, and paid for either by Metro (which still funds the Authority, mind you!) or by the City of LA, and NOT by the adjacent Casden developers who would more likely be granted a variance to create a megaproject entirely out of character with that neighborhood, if not region

2) There should be more parking at the Sepulveda station, and none at the Westwood station, with the Sepulveda station being a regional station accommodating regional access to the line, and the Westwood station being a neighborhood station with only bus, bicycle and pedestrian access

3) A Regional Transportation Center accommodating rail, bus, car and all other transportation options, belongs at or adjacent to the Sepulveda station

4) An at-grade crossing with a traffic light belongs at Westwood, with lanes narrowed, bicycle lanes established, sidewalks redone and as many trees preserved as possible to retain the residential character of that neighborhood. If automobile commuters want quick north-south access between National and Pico, Sepulveda and Overland are much, MUCH better alternatives to be utilized.

5) With that in mind, Overland MUST be grade-separated, because history has shown that even the most optimistic Authority projections, and even with the widening/lane addition scheme of the Authority to squeak this street below Metro grade separation guidelines, the Authority cannot prevent the City of L.A.’s addiction to overdevelopment and there WILL be a traffic nightmare sooner, and not later

6) Dig a few feet down on Overland (as far as possible), if the storm drains below Overland prove too much of a disaster/nightmare for the Expo Line to go underneath Overland, build a rail bridge and accompanying sound walls for the neighbors, and be done with it; that’s what’s happening on Sawtelle to fit the line below the 405 freeway, so this is not without precedent. Similarly, the rail line might be dropped a few feet and Overland elevated over the line

7) Make the Expo Right of Way between Sepulveda and Overland a “Palms Park West” that is so green, tree-lined and attractive that the region will wonder why the hell anyone ever opposed the Expo Line to begin with.

I still very much believe in the Friends4Expo Transit slogan “Connecting Neighbors”, and I never wanted any neighborhood to feel “conquered” because of this line. I believe that the Expo Line is a quality project, and it deserves quality planning and mitigation for all regions impacted (and, likely, benefited) by this line.

I remain confident that Zev Yaroslavsky, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Bernard Parks, Bill Rosendahl, Paul Koretz and any other elected governmental leaders will do just that in order to properly serve their commuting, taxpaying and voting constituents.


(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) -cw


CityWatch Media Group
Vol 7 Issue 97
Pub: Nov 27, 2009

The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09 (Source:highlandpark.wordpress.com)

link: The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09 « 90042

The Cable Car Took Us There 11.27.09
2009 November 26
by waltarrrrr

The Cape Horn Cable Car Viaduct over the Southern Pacific Rail Yard (now Los Angeles State Historic Park) 1890. courtesy of the Metro Library and Archive.

On this day after Thanksgiving, comes a photo taken before Thanksgiving Day was even a holiday. In 1890 Los Angeles was a young and growing city with a population that needed to get around town easily with the most advanced transport possible. When they weren’t riding their dandy safety bicycles, they turned to the efficient cable car to get them over the pueblo’s steepest hills.

In this photo is the Los Angeles Cable Railway that traveled from 7th Street and Grand Avenue to Downey Avenue (now North Broadway) and Pritchard Avenue (now Lincoln Park Avenue) from 1889 to 1896. The so-called, Cape Horn Viaduct was an elevated track that traveled over the rail lines of the Southern Pacific Rail Yard, over the Los Angeles River and into Lincoln Heights. The warning sign in the photo seems to indicate that even then keeping vehicle traffic separated was an issue. (Thanks to the Cable Car Home Page for background information.)

The vacant Capital Milling Company with a different elevated train line running past it 119 years later.

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard (Source: Th Daily Breeze)

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard - The Daily Breeze

El Segundo ready to fight proposed MTA rail yard

By Andrea Woodhouse

Posted: 11/15/2009 06:02:19 AM PST

El Segundo city officials are seething over a county pitch to build a train maintenance facility in town as part of an estimated $1.7 billion proposed light rail project.

And leaders of tiny El Segundo, a scrappy town if there ever was one, have all but promised to sue should the Metropolitan Transportation Authority proceed with plans for a rail yard near the corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard.

"I am confident that I'll have full support of my colleagues should litigation be necessary," Mayor Kelly McDowell said.

The facility - envisioned for about 15 acres of a former industrial site now designated as the second phase of megashopping center Plaza El Segundo - is an element of a large-scale mass transit project designed to ease freeway congestion in the Crenshaw Corridor and improve access to Los Angeles International Airport.

Following an MTA planning committee hearing this week, the agency's board of directors is set next month to adopt the plan, giving staff the go-ahead to begin hashing out the project's details before final certification of its environmental analysis in about a year, said Roderick Diaz, the project manager.

Among those details is the maintenance yard's location, which he emphasized has not been finalized.

"The big thing is there is no firm decision being made at this point," Diaz said. "It may require us to have the flexibility to look at another site. Nonetheless, as it is
Advertisement
necessary, we can't proceed forward with the project without (a maintenance facility)."

MTA staffers have recommended the El Segundo maintenance yard location rather than another spot also previously considered near Florence and Manchester avenues that would have displaced the Westchester Playhouse.

But El Segundo officials have argued the proposed site in town is inconsistent with surrounding commercial use, and could have significant environmental impacts, such as noise and air pollution.

"We've got two power plants, a giant sewage treatment plant, and we're next door to an airport," McDowell said. "It's time for government agencies and others to stop dumping these awful uses into the city of El Segundo. We have done our part."

Though the project's draft environmental analysis states that the facility's actual size would be determined later, the stand-alone facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

MTA envisions the facility between two railroad tracks on the northeast corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda - land currently slated for future commercial development.

Dan Crosser, one of the developers of the property, said owners have remained mostly "passive" about the project since the MTA initially expressed interest in the land about a year ago.

He said it is too early to comment on whether owners would be amenable to the sale - though their agreement may be irrelevant in the long run.

"(MTA) might have to make a finding to condemn the property," Crosser said, adding that he was aware of El Segundo's displeasure with the proposal. "I'm not sure we would have a choice."

The first batch of Plaza El Segundo's 425,000 square feet of retail shops - including Whole Foods, Best Buy, Borders and PetSmart - began opening in late 2006.

Since then, smaller chain retailers such as J. Crew and Banana Republic have filled out the development, and others, including Linens `N' Things, have closed.

As part of the project's second phase, developers hoped luxury, upscale boutiques would grace the 110-acre property south of Plaza El Segundo by 2008 - but Crosser said development is indefinitely delayed until the economy improves.

Still, El Segundo would at least like the possibility of eventual revenue from the site, an impossibility with an MTA maintenance facility, McDowell said.

"I would rather see a slaughterhouse than the rail yard because it brings more benefit to the city," he said. "At least it would pay taxes."

After several rounds of public hearings in recent months, MTA staffers have recommended the board move forward with an eight-milelong light rail option, rather than a less expensive bus line.

With at least seven stations between the Baldwin Hills- Crenshaw area and LAX, the Measure R-funded project is touted as a way to provide relief to the San Diego (405) and Harbor (110) freeways, as well as improve airport access by connecting the Metro Green Line to the south and the Expo line to the north.

Expected to generate up to 7,800 jobs, the project's final design and construction would begin in 2011 and last up to six years, with the system operational in 2018.

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, whose district includes many of the South Bay's inland communities, called the selection of the light rail plan as a preferred option a "big victory" for residents.

Supervisor Don Knabe, whose district includes El Segundo and is currently first vice chair of the MTA board, has not yet taken a position on the maintenance facility's location, a spokesman said.

"It's too preliminary to get into something like that," David Sommers said. "Don's priority is getting the Crenshaw Line built. This is going to connect to the South Bay, to LAX. This is a critical project."

Sommers added that the supervisor would likely take a position on the yard's location once more project details were finalized.

But El Segundo is preparing now for a fight.

No stranger to taking on bigger dogs, the city spent millions of dollars battling LAX modernization plans, ultimately in late 2005 winning more than $70 million to insulate homes against airport noise.

"El Segundo is not afraid of environmental litigation, and anyone doubting that can take a look at our record concerning the airport," McDowell said. "This is the reason that there is no blinking at the City Council level about opposing MTA and this project."

McDowell also hoped to garner support from neighboring Manhattan Beach, which he believes would also be affected by a maintenance yard immediately north of its Rosecrans border.

But neither Manhattan's mayor nor its city manager knew much about the light rail project. And it appeared unlikely that the city would fight to protect El Segundo's commercial development options, considering that Manhattan Beach sued over Plaza El Segundo in the first place.

Though the suit won Manhattan about $3 million in street improvements, a general air of displeasure over the large shopping center sitting just a block away from Manhattan Beach's mall lingers.

"Originally, they were going to steal our retail," City Manager Geoff Dolan said. "That's probably why they are upset."

Coming up?

Here's a look at some of the proposed facility's other features:

A storage yard that can accommodate 60 light rail vehicles, with an adjacent 50,000-square-foot office building with 200 parking spaces.

A maintenance area for five light-rail vehicles, as well as a 5,000-square-foot maintenance building for daily servicing, repairs and other support needs.

A 5,000-square-foot paint and body shop with sheet metal, welding and paint storage area.

As a second floor to part of the maintenance building, a 15,000-square-foot operations center would house rail operations, maintenance and training. This element would have its own 100-space parking facility.

A 4,000-square-foot rail vehicle-cleaning platform, and a 7,500-square-foot car-wash building.

Andrea.woodhouse@dailybreeze.com