Free alternatives to freeware utilities

Free alternatives to freeware utilities | The Download Blog - Download.com

May 20, 2009 5:58 PM PDT
Free alternatives to freeware utilities
by Seth Rosenblatt
ols have more-than-adequate competitors out there, but you can never have too much of a good thing. Here are four utilities that you may not have heard of to help you back up your files, take screen captures, uninstall programs, and test your download speeds.

MyUninstaller replaces the default Windows Add/Remove Programs utility, and is a strong alternative to Revo Uninstaller. They both uninstall programs, and that's just about where their similarities end.

MyUninstaller
(Credit: NirSoft)

MyUninstaller feels extremely lightweight compared to Revo and contains none of the system tools extras like Autorun Manager that Revo brings to its game. It's far less customizable than Revo, and with the fewer options comes faster uninstall times. Revo took about 2 minutes to get rid of Adobe Reader at the Moderate setting, while MyUninstaller had the task done in less than 20 seconds.

It's not without its little strengths, of course. You can keep files, copy, change installation, and search your list of installed programs. Change installation lets you alter a program by rerunning the installer. MyUninstaller's interface looks like it hasn't changed since Windows 2000, so those looking for a slicker and more robust program will probably gravitate toward Revo. If you're looking for blazingly fast, you might want to make MyUninstaller yours.
(Credit: AutoVer)

AutoVer backs up your files, and does it from another simple interface. This simplicity, though, belies what the program actually can do.

Commands for adding and deleting files you want to watch and backup are straightforward. Adding new files was as easy as creating and naming a new file, adding the folder you want to backup, and then choosing the backup location. Folder creation happens immediately, and backups can be initiated as soon as you save the record. More advanced settings let you include or exclude specific files from the backup process, time stamping, pausing and resuming specific folder backups, and a search feature that lets you explore your backups.

Big, primary-colored icons give the program a WinZipesque feel, but that's just about the biggest drawback.

DownTester is a portable app that tests download speeds from multiple HTTP and FTP URLs simultaneously. It's unobtrusive and gets the job done, but it also comes with some useful features that make it worth downloading.

DownTester
(Credit: NirSoft)

The Advanced Options menu is well-rounded. You can configure the tests to conclude and move on based on time or bytes downloaded. You can also set the program to retry upon failure and configure the number of times that repetition should occur before moving on, with Passive or Active mode available for FTP. Users have the option to export their test list or import a new one.

Users can't paste directly from the clipboard to the test list. DownTester forces you to open the Add URLs List window first, but that seemed to be just about the only drawback to this utility that anyone diagnosing connection speed problems should check out.

You may not have thought that the world needed another screenshooting program, but GreenShot works pretty well after a half-day of testing.
(Credit: GreenShot)

Like many of its competitors, it lets you take screenshots from your monitor using a user-defined rectangle. It displays coordinates as you draw your capture rectangle, and then opens the captured area immediately in a quick-and-dirty image editor with limited but focused features. You can draw boxes, ellipses, lines, or arrows, or add text. You can save the image as a PNG, JPG, BMP, or GIF. You can change the color of any shape or text you add to your screenshot, and change the line thickness.

There's also a good variety of other options, including toggling the save-to location, naming convention and folder, file format, and hot key hooks. Light on resources, it's surprisingly effective for a beta. The arrowhead implementation could use some work when you choose double-arrowheads, but overall it's a freeware worth keeping an eye on.

If you're using a freeware program that you think deserves more attention, mention it in the comments below.

iLook struggles to make Outlook more social

http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-10251778-12.htmliLook struggles to make Outlook more social | The Download Blog - Download.com

May 28, 2009 5:26 PM PDT
iLook struggles to make Outlook more social
by Seth Rosenblatt

Improving Outlook is no easy feat given that it's notoriously anti-social when it comes to social networking. The free Outlook plug-in iLook Social and Outlook tries to make Microsoft's ubiquitous e-mail client a bit more sociable by including souped-up searching and filtering, Skype integration, e-mail controls, content and attachment exporting, and Facebook support.

Highlighted in red, the iLook Social and Outlook plug-in gives Outlook users more networking features.
(Credit: Screenshot by Seth Rosenblatt/CNET)


For a sidebar pane, it's a good list of features with an interface that integrates smoothly into Outlook 2007. Desktop e-mail clients are going to have to adapt to social networking far better than they have to survive, especially if the future of e-mail is Google Wave. Postbox does a decent job of remixing Thunderbird for social networking, but it's still in beta and lacks the calendaring you can get in Thunderbird using the Lightning plug-in. While iLook's features are worthwhile, their execution leaves plenty of room for improvement.

The search and Skype features are the strongest, but could still be better. Boolean searches are not supported, nor are cross-folder queries, and the nature of Outlook requires you to manually create a new search results folder that iLook doesn't address. Basically, that means you've got to figure out where your search results are going to go before you see what they are--it's counter-intuitive.

The Skype support is strong, with decent chat quality, contact list support, and other Skype features. Like any third-party Skype plug-in, though, it requires Skype to be running, and iLook wouldn't load if Skype was running before Outlook loaded. The Facebook support was far less convenient than it should've been to convince users to utilize it in iLook. Attachment exporting worked well, but that was more of an alternate path up the mountain than introducing a whole new geography to Outlook.

Making use of the entire iLook experience, unfortunately, will put you in for a bumpy ride. Although Outlook itself isn't known for its speed, this plug-in definitely slows it down. Switching between its features often causes error messages, and it's hard to tell if or how those errors affect either iLook or Outlook. The features that iLook Social and Outlook provides are smart choices, but the end experience is buggy and needs to be tightened before it can be considered for daily use.

ULI Sees Hope in Infrastructure Partnerships

ULI Sees Hope in Infrastructure Partnerships

Last updated: May 31, 2009 05:13pm
ULI Sees Hope in Infrastructure Partnerships
By Bob Howard


Perez
LOS ANGELES-A new generation of public-private partnerships could emerge in the coming years as a means of rebuilding California's aging infrastructure, stimulating economic development, creating new jobs and setting the stage for the next round of real estate development, according to speakers at a ULI panel Friday. The event, hosted by the ULI's Los Angeles District Council, explored how planners, developers, architects and contractors can leverage federal economic stimulus funds and the $40 billion in County Measure R funds approved in November into significant growth by rebuilding roads, bridges, public transit, water lines and other infrastructure elements.

As ULI Los Angeles executive director Katherine Perez tells GlobeSt.com, public-private partnerships--in addition to replacing aging infrastructure and aiding economic development--could help set the stage for the next round of real estate development when the economy recovers. "What we're doing now is getting ready for the next cycle," Perez says. Getting ready for the next cycle, she says, "means we've got to put the new infrastructure in place for the new developments to occur."

Perez, who was a vice president of development for Forest City Development before assuming her ULI post last year, explains that public-private infrastructure partnerships differ in a number of respects from the public-private partnerships that have been employed to develop mixed-use and city redevelopment projects in recent years. Most of those developments were designed on a parcel by parcel basis, resulting in a piecemeal approach to upgrading infrastructure, but public-private infrastructure projects would be "a much more integrated, systematic approach to addressing infrastructure," she says.

Friday's ULI event included speakers who described how public-private partnerships have been used for years to build infrastructure in the United Kingdom and Canada--and in fact have become the preferred approach to repairing, replacing and developing infrastructure. The UK has been at it for about 17 years and Canada for about seven to nine years, utilizing the public-private structure to build highways, transit systems, ports, ferries, bridges, toll roads and other public systems and facilities.

As with all development, one of the crucial questions is financing, and Perez notes that speakers from the private sector on Friday expressed both an interest in financing the new generation of public-private partnerships and a concerns about their viability as investments. Among those from the private sector who spoke were former California Treasurer Kathleen Brown, now a senior adviser with Goldman Sachs & Co.; Celeste Davis, managing director of capital markets with the Royal Bank of Canada; and Laurence Pelosi, managing partner with McKinley Partners.

In essence, Perez says, the private sector financial advisers say that they are willing to participate in the public-private infrastructure partnerships but they have some caveats. "They pick their partners very carefully, and they need to be convinced that the projects will provide them with a reasonable return," Perez notes.

The public-private approach is not only welcome but is encouraged at the top levels of state government, according to Dale Bonner, California's secretary of business, transportation and housing. Bonner told the ULI crowd that with the challenges that the state faces, the state is eager to find funding mechanisms for much-needed infrastructure developments. He noted that the state, with a population of 38 million, is getting by with an infrastructure designed for a population half that size.

Perez points out that public-private infrastructure partnerships may not seem appealing to voters who have little faith in either the public or the private sector, but the ULI hopes to foster support for such partnerships through educational forums and discussions. The emphasis is on how such partnerships can help to keep people employed, promote economic development and rebuild crucial systems and facilities throughout the state. A central part of the message is that the water and sewer systems, energy grids, public facilities and other infrastructure projects are "systems that everybody uses and everybody benefits from having," Perez says.

Art Leahy, New Metro CEO, Takes Leadership of L.A. Transit Authority, Measure R Process

The Planning Report - Art Leahy, New Metro CEO, Takes Leadership of L.A. Transit Authority, Measure R Process - Login Required

Art Leahy, New Metro CEO, Takes Leadership of L.A. Transit Authority, Measure R Process
New leadership, new funding, and new projects mark a new era for transit in Los Angeles County.

Newly
hired Metro CEO Art Leahy should be ready to hit the ground running in
Los Angeles County—he worked as a bus driver for the precursor agency
to Metro and is the former CEO of the neighboring Orange County
Transportation Agency. But changes such as Measure R and a newfound
interest in public transit and pricing solutions to Los Angeles
County’s congestion challenges have marked a dramatic shift in the
transportation planning paradigm for the region. The following TPR/MIR
interview details the new CEO’s experiences and aspirations as he takes
the helm at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Published Friday May 29, 2009
Excerpt:

TPR/MIR\'s
April issue included an interview with Metro’s former CEO, Roger
Snoble, and we’re delighted this month to have the opportunity to do a
“Welcome to Metro” interview with you. What, to begin, are the priority
challenges on your plate? What advice did Roger give you on how best
address the difficult challenges ahead?

The challenges are immense, but the challenges were the reason I
accepted the position. I was very happy in Orange County. We
accomplished a strong alignment with the business community, with
various electives, and with other institutions. Throughout my career I
have followed the motto that I should go where the action is. There is
a lot of action here.

Roger’s advice to me was that some days will be an absolute high and other days will be really tough.

Many of the issues are very parallel to what I used to see when
I was with the predecessor to Metro years ago—and the same with
Minnesota and Orange County. They are bigger here, but they are the
same issues. What we need to do is to work with the board to align what
the board wants to accomplish and what the staff is focused on. Then we
go outside to the cities and other groups to bring all of that into
alignment. We want to involve the business community; they have an
important contribution to make.

L.A. County’s passage of Measure R, which could
raise $30 billion-plus over the next three decades for transportation
infrastructure, offers hope to those caught in traffic congestion.
Address the promise and challenges of investing Measure R’s resources
wisely?

Taxpayers have trusted Metro with a large investment. The first
obligation is to show the taxpayers benefit and acts of good faith on
the projects listed in Measure R. Obviously there is a great deal of
work to be done finishing up the Exposition Line. There is the Gold
Line to the east, Crenshaw, the subway, and a variety of other projects
around Los Angeles County.

We have the opportunity to take that money and use it to
leverage federal and state money where it is appropriate. The objective
will be to put together a comprehensive package of projects with the
support of the board that gives the taxpayers the benefits they voted
for.

Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses?

National Journal Online -- Transportation Experts -- Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses?

Monday, June 1, 2009
Time For Feds To Fund Mass Transit Operating Expenses?

Americans are using public transportation in record numbers -- taking 10.7 billion trips last year, an increase of 4 percent over 2007 -- yet because of declining state and local budgets, many mass transit systems are facing the prospect of raising fares, cutting service and laying off staff. Given the contribution that mass transit makes to relieving urban congestion and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is it time to overturn rules that only allow federal funding to be spent on capital projects and not on transit systems' day-to-day operating expenses?

-- Lisa Caruso, NationalJournal.com




Responded on June 1, 2009 9:01 AM
Anthony E. Shorris, Director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University

It's time to re-think the Federal government's failure to support mass transit operating expenses. The reasons are simple: the beneficiaries of mass transit ridership rider extend well beyond the riders themselves. Good old fashioned micro-economics would tell us that when people are affected by a transaction other than the buyer and seller, there need to be ways to capture the value and costs external to the deal. In the case of mass transit, the riders certainly benefit -- and should pay some portion of the cost -- but others benefit too: commuters who gain more road space when people use the train, families who breathe cleaner air, and a nation that finds itself a step closer to energy independence with every rider.

The only hard question becomes which level of government should provide what share of the operating subsidy appropriate for mass transit systems. Since some of the benefits accrue to commuters in the region served by the transit system, they should certainly chip in, as should residents of the areas served (a balance found in the thoughtful pro...

Read More

It's time to re-think the Federal government's failure to support mass transit operating expenses. The reasons are simple: the beneficiaries of mass transit ridership rider extend well beyond the riders themselves. Good old fashioned micro-economics would tell us that when people are affected by a transaction other than the buyer and seller, there need to be ways to capture the value and costs external to the deal. In the case of mass transit, the riders certainly benefit -- and should pay some portion of the cost -- but others benefit too: commuters who gain more road space when people use the train, families who breathe cleaner air, and a nation that finds itself a step closer to energy independence with every rider.

The only hard question becomes which level of government should provide what share of the operating subsidy appropriate for mass transit systems. Since some of the benefits accrue to commuters in the region served by the transit system, they should certainly chip in, as should residents of the areas served (a balance found in the thoughtful proposal for transit system funding made by former New York MTA Chair Richard Ravitch). But there is a national interest here too. First, since the communities that benefit from cleaner air and less crowded roads often encompass more than one state, there is a role for national government. Even more importantly, shifting riders from cars to transit makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign oil. And perhaps most important of all, a more just distribution of transportation services is an appropriate national policy goal, just as is the equitable distribution of educational or health care services. Indeed, as transportation has become one of the largest household expenses, mechanisms to reduce this cost while achieving other important national benefits may prove highly efficient uses of federal dollars.

One last point: the use of federal transit dollars solely for capital as opposed to operating expense can skew local decision-making away from core maintenance towards system expansion. The federal government should be using the power of its purse to encourage rational decision-making at the local level. While, in the end, all dollars are fungible, a more thoughtful use of federal funds could not only advance the national good by creating a more secure and just America over the long-term, but could improve the quality of our existing transportation systems today.


Responded on June 1, 2009 7:54 AM
William Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association

This week’s question is one that is timely and under much discussion in the public transportation industry. This is a time of great opportunities and great challenges for America’s public transit systems. Last year 10.7 billion trips were taken on public transit – the most in 52 years – and a modern ridership record. Since 1995, public transportation use has grown by 38%, a figure that is almost triple the growth rate of the population (14 percent) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on our nation’s highways (21 percent) for that same period.

The paradox of this is that at a time of record demand for public transportation, state and local revenues are declining and many public transit systems are facing severe financial challenges, and America’s transit riders are paying the price. Raising fares and cutting service may seem an odd thing to do in light of record ridership, but fares, both here and abroad, cover only a portion of the cost of operating a public transit system.

Funding from all levels of government – federal...

Read More

This week’s question is one that is timely and under much discussion in the public transportation industry. This is a time of great opportunities and great challenges for America’s public transit systems. Last year 10.7 billion trips were taken on public transit – the most in 52 years – and a modern ridership record. Since 1995, public transportation use has grown by 38%, a figure that is almost triple the growth rate of the population (14 percent) and up substantially over the growth rate for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on our nation’s highways (21 percent) for that same period.

The paradox of this is that at a time of record demand for public transportation, state and local revenues are declining and many public transit systems are facing severe financial challenges, and America’s transit riders are paying the price. Raising fares and cutting service may seem an odd thing to do in light of record ridership, but fares, both here and abroad, cover only a portion of the cost of operating a public transit system.

Funding from all levels of government – federal, state, and local – is essential for maintaining and expanding public transit services for our citizens. Unfortunately, public transportation has been underfunded for years at all levels, and the recent economic hardship is making a bad situation even worse.

The decline in operational revenue is creating budget crises for many public transit systems – leading to fare increases and service cuts. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its members believe that the federal government has two legislative opportunities that could provide funding for public transit system’s day-to-day operating expenses in the short term.

The first opportunity involves the recently passed economic stimulus bill – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). APTA supports a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill, recently passed by the Senate, which would permit transit systems to use up to 10 percent of their ARRA funds for operating purposes. This provision is expected to be considered in a conference committee and by the entire Congress in the next two weeks.

The second opportunity is the climate change legislation, entitled the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), which unfortunately, at this moment, has no reference whatsoever to public transportation. Public transportation is part of the solution to addressing climate change and with an annual savings of 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, should be included in any climate change legislation. Congressional leaders should include an allocation of cap and trade revenues for public transportation in this legislation, including an ability to use this revenue allotment for operating expenses. It is inconceivable that Congress will miss this opportunity as public transportation is one of the most effective solutions to reduce our nation’s carbon footprint.

The bottom line is that additional funding for both capital and operating costs are urgently needed, and that all levels of government – local, state, and federal – must step up and expand investment in America’s public transportation systems to meet our country’s economic, energy, and environmental challenges, while increasing mobility choices.

For questions or ideas, contact transportation@nationaljournal.com.

LaHood Zapatero Visits France, Germany, and Spain to see high-speed rail working first-hand

Ray LaHood’s Expedition to Europe Bodes Well for U.S. HSR Hopes « the transport politic

Ray LaHood’s Expedition to Europe Bodes Well for U.S. HSR Hopes

31 May 2009

LaHood Zapatero Visits France, Germany, and Spain to see high-speed rail working first-hand

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has spent the last week in Europe, where he’s been meeting with French, German, and Spanish officials on a high-speed fact-finding tour. His conclusions — that the U.S. has a model to emulate in European very fast trains — indicates the administration’s seriousness in approaching the development of such transportation technologies in the United States. Washington, it appears, is not going to let the dream for true high-speed rail slip away.

In meetings with French and Spanish officials, Mr. LaHood could hardly restrain his excitement about his trip to Europe, telling AFP that “In America we’re just beginning what you’ve done here in Europe for such a long period of time in such a successful way. This is very impressive.” He is likely to visit Japan, the Asian model for fast trains, later in the year. The United Kingdom’s Transport Minister, Lord Andrew Adonis, made a similar trip two weeks ago.

According to the AP, Mr. LaHood was especially impressed by Spain’s relatively lower-cost system compared to more expensive alternatives in Germany and Japan. I’m not sure whether those differences are a result of the lower-wage Spanish work force or some other factor; the article doesn’t specify. What is clear is that the distinctively Spanish obsession with using tunnel boring machines (TBM) seems to be a model for the Transportation Secretary; these semi-automated devices save on both time and cost in building underground rail corridors. For example, the 3.5 mile tunnel under downtown Barcelona, which is part of a larger project that will allow high-speed trains from central Spain to reach France, will only cost 180 million Euros to build. That’s far cheaper per mile than any similar U.S. tunneling project, and part of the explanation is the efficient use of those TBMs.

By 2020, Spain’s plan is to have 10,000 km of high-speed rail in operation, giving it the second largest network in the world after China. Ninety percent of the country’s citizens will be within 50 km of a high-speed station. Can the U.S. commit itself to an equivalent goal?

I have been a strong proponent of truly fast high-speed rail, and Mr. LaHood’s close inspection of European trains traveling at above 186 mph indicates that he feels the same. California needs a large federal commitment to get moving on its project — the first American example of modern rail investment and a case that is strikingly similar to Spain. Will Washington climb on board?

Image above: Secretary Ray LaHood meeting with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, from AFP

LACMTA, developer complete Purple-Jimi Hendrix-Line, mixed-use project

LACMTA, developer complete Purple-Jimi Hendrix-Line mixed-use project

LACMTA, developer complete Purple-Jimi Hendrix-Line, mixed-use project

Last week, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and KOAR Wilshire Western L.L.C. marked the completion of a joint development project at the Wilshire/Western station on the Purple Line.

The $160 million development features a 22-story, contemporary glass-walled building that includes 186 residential units and a 40,000-square-foot retail plaza. The 2.6-acre development is the second mixed-use project to be built for the Koreatown/Wilshire Center community, which is located in a dense urban area with direct connections to the LACMTA subway system and future subway connections.

HeraldNet: High-speed rail could run from Oregon to B.C.

High-speed rail could run from Oregon to B.C.

High-speed rail could carry trains between Oregon and Vancouver, B.C., thanks to federal stimulus money.

By Bill Sheets
Herald Writer
Imagine being able to hop on a train at Everett Station and be in Vancouver, B.C., in less than two hours, compared with three hours or more now.

Or you could go to Portland, Ore., in 3 1/2 hours, instead of the nearly five hours it now takes by Amtrak.

The countryside would zip by at speeds of 90 mph or more. It would be a smooth ride. The price would be comparable to today's fares.

Obstacles remain, but it might not be far off.

The corridor between Eugene, Ore., and Vancouver, B.C., is one of 10 finalists in the nation for a chunk of $8 billion included in this year's economic stimulus package for high-speed rail.

Anywhere from six to all 10 of the corridors could receive money as soon as this fall, with more possibly on the way later. Work could begin on overpasses and other improvements as soon as next year.

"No question about it, that's our intention," said state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island. She said the state in August plans to ask for $900 million for improvements.

Washington, Oregon and British Columbia have already spent nearly $1 billion on improvements to the Amtrak Cascades line that has run between Eugene and Vancouver since 1994, giving the corridor a competitive edge, advocates and officials say.

"That puts us in good position to compete with the other high-profile corridors," said Bruce Agnew, policy director of the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a Seattle transportation policy group. Agnew also is a former Edmonds resident and two-term Snohomish County councilman.

The Obama administration plans to include $5 billion more in its 2010 budget, which would parcel out $1 billion a year behind the original investment.

Still, $13 billion is a tiny fraction of what will be needed to develop high-speed train lines nationwide, said Larry Salci, a public transportation consultant who spoke at a Cascadia event in Seattle on Thursday.

"This is seed money," he said. He did not give a total estimated price for bringing high-speed train service to all 10 routes.

The major routes include California, where voters have already approved state funds for a line between San Francisco and Los Angeles; Washington, D.C., to Boston, where improvements to a current high-speed line are sought; and a Midwest network centered in Chicago.

While high-speed trains have been running for decades in Europe and Japan, Amtrak's Acela route on the Eastern seaboard is the only one in the U.S. that runs trains at high speed, up to 135 mph, Agnew said.

The Talgo trains operating on the Cascades route are capable of traveling up to 150 mph but are limited to 79 mph because of road crossings and other safety factors.

For trains to travel at full speed, safety requires building expensive new tracks to keep the high-speed trains from sharing tracks used by lumbering freight trains.

Without separate tracks, other improvements can get trains into the 90 to 110 mph range, officials say.

Use of the Cascades route has steadily grown to more than 676,000 riders in 2007 and 775,000 riders last year. One train per day goes from Seattle all the way to Vancouver, B.C.; plans are in the works to extend another train into Canada daily in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics next February.

The goal is to have four or five high-speed trains running every day between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., Agnew said.

The challenge on this stretch is that there's only one track, while between Seattle and Portland there are two parallel tracks, he said. The trains wouldn't be able to travel at high speeds in some stretches, such as in urban areas or along the water between Seattle and Everett.

The money would first go to "siding" -- short stretches of parallel tracks where freight trains could pull over and let faster passenger trains go by, Agnew said. Everett Station, Stanwood, Bellingham and Blaine are likely candidates for side tracks, he said.

Money also would go to overpasses, underpasses and equipment. A GPS system could be used to better coordinate between passenger and freight trains using the tracks, Agnew said.

"That will expand capacity on that corridor tremendously," he said.

Reducing intersections with roads by building overpasses will allow the trains to operate at higher speeds for much more of the route. Marysville is a prime candidate to receive some of the money, likely in the second wave, for overpasses, Agnew said.

In Marysville, Fourth Street, 88th Street NE, 116th Street NE and 136th Street NE each cross the tracks. Marysville Mayor Dennis Kendall said he is all for overpasses at the crossings.

"Every time a train comes through with a hundred cars it just stops traffic at every placement," he said. "I would welcome anything to get folks off the freeway and get traffic out of town."

Bill Sheets: 425-339-3439, sheets@heraldnet.com.
READER COMMENTS
Log in or register to post new comment | Log out
Could.....but won't.
This is like another article from Popular Science Magazine. A dream sheet filled out by dreamers with an endless supply of monopoly money..
ledog 3 | May 30, 2009 8:31 pm | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal
Smart
Infrastructure is always a good choice. By the time this thing is in, hopefully it is quicker and maybe even cheaper. Add to that business opportunities involved in travel, an economy can get developed here.

However, it's time to start paying our bills. The logical way to subsidize this program is to take it from people who use the current transportation system.

Gotta keep people working so all things being equal I'd go with the infrastructure
Bill Middleton | May 30, 2009 7:49 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal
High Speed Rail
KUDOS to our State DOT for showing leadership along the I-5 corridor.
When gas goes back to 5 bucks, then starts its climb to 10, the rest of the nation will be clamoring for alternative ways to get between cities. High Speed Rail, from Eugene to Vancouver BC will fill that need quite nicely.
Trains are comfortable, fast, use less fuel than cars, buses, or planes, AND pollute our air much less.
What's to not like about this?
Mike Skehan, Member, All Aboard Washington
Mike Skehan | May 30, 2009 5:42 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal
Great Idea!
It is good for the govt. to begin the move to sustainable regional rail instead of subsidizing unsustainable regional air service.

Between powerful automotive and air lobbies our rail system has been neglected and become a disgrace. Third world countries have better rail systems than we do now!

Automobiles will eventually be driven by alternative energy as peak oil arrives. Air traffic is going to continue to decline during peak oil because there is not a viable alternative to oil and may never be for aircraft. Rail is the perfect replacement for regional air!
Henry Stephanson | May 29, 2009 8:33 am | 2 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal
Wow! So What?
Last time I drove to Portland it took me 3 hours at the speed limit, Exactly the same time estimated for the "high speed" rail.
I drove at around 70 MPH and averaged around 60 MPH. That's not high speed. To entice those of us who enjoy the convenience of a car on a trip, it's going to take a lot less time (remember that you have to get to the station early, wait for your train, etc., etc.) and a lot less cost to make it a viable alternative.
Andrew Goodstein | May 29, 2009 10:20 am | 0 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal
Passenger trains are a bad idea!
Passenger trains without security measures are another problem for law enforcement. Though similar fears were voiced when BART went into SF Bay area, and found groundless, this is interstate and a different time and place. Though the ludicrous security techniques of the airlines may not be needed, passenger lists, secured locomotives, and surveillance of trackage should all be addressed. That we could have interstate commuter crime with only local law enforcement and a patchwork of local laws, means the engineering might be technically feasible and yet become a social disaster.
jon coulter | May 29, 2009 7:24 am | 2 replies | View all | Post reply | Request removal

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension - The Daily Breeze

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension
By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Posted: 05/28/2009 06:33:50 PM PDT

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board approved $5 million on Thursday to continue studying a South Bay rail extension but cited concerns about the source of the funding.

South Bay leaders are lobbying the MTA in support of the Harbor Subdivision, an old freight rail corridor that could someday link Torrance to the county's passenger rail grid.

While the MTA board approved funding for further environmental studies of the corridor, the MTA's legal staff advised members that the money could not come from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax voters approved last fall.

The board voted to defer that issue to another meeting next month.

"Obviously every time you move forward, even if it's a baby step, it's a good thing," said John Parsons, board chairman of the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. "I see this as staying in play and moving forward."

If built, the South Bay rail line would extend southeast from the existing Green Line station in north Redondo Beach. It would include a stop at the South Bay Galleria and at Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance. It could also extend farther, and some officials hope it could eventually go to San Pedro or Long Beach.

However, under the schedule approved with Measure R, the line would not be completed until 2033-35.

The MTA has begun a very preliminary study of the rail corridor, which it bought in the early 1990s. That analysis is designed to gauge local support for the
Advertisement
line and firm up the route. It is expected to conclude in November.

But in the initial budget for 2009-2010, the MTA staff did not include any funding for additional environmental studies beyond November.

Led by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, about 20 local elected officials attended Thursday's MTA meeting to lobby for the Harbor Subdivision.

At the meeting, the MTA board approved its $3.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year. Many officials from the San Gabriel Valley also attended to press for $10 million for the Gold Line Foothill Extension, which is proposed to run from Pasadena to Asuza.

South Bay leaders are still learning how to exercise their clout on a regional basis.

"It was a valuable lesson for us," said Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay COG. "Everybody else is there making a lot of noise and we're going to have to do the same."

gene.maddaus@dailybreeze.com

MTA grants Italian rail car builder more time in contract negotiations | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

MTA grants Italian rail car builder more time in contract negotiations
1:09 PM | May 28, 2009

Los Angeles County’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority board delayed a decision today on whether to hire an Italian rail manufacturer to build 100 cars needed for Metro’s light rail line extensions.

The delay -- the second since March -- would give MTA officials more time to work out the details of a new offer by the firm, AnsaldoBreda, for a $300-million financial guarantee on the potential 100-car contract. The company says the guarantee would ensure that they deliver the cars on time and to Metro’s specifications.

The decision on whether to go forward with AnsaldoBreda’s contract options or seek bids from other rail companies has been topic of intensive debate at the 13-member MTA Board for months.

Earlier this week, Metro’s new Chief Executive Art Leahy recommended declining AnsaldoBreda’s contract options for 100 additional cars, which were to expire at the end of the month. His predecessor, former Metro Chief Executive Officer Roger Snoble, made a similar recommendation after concluding that AnsaldoBreda’s performance under its current 50-car contract did not merit a new order.


The company, which is backed by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, has increased pressure on MTA board members to approve the deal by offering to build a new plant east of downtown Los Angeles with union labor if it secures the MTA contract.

And city officials have begun negotiating a ground lease with AnsaldoBreda to build the plant on a city-owned parcel that would anchor Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s plans for a clean technology corridor east of downtown.

The 50 cars built by AnsaldoBreda under the base MTA contract are not compatible with other cars in the Metro fleet -- a requirement that AnsaldoBreda says MTA waived -- and the cars are more than 5,000 pounds heavier than specified in the contract. The chief concern for both the former and the new Metro chief executives is that the 50th car in the base contract will be delivered three years late.

AnsaldoBreda Inc. President Giancarlo Fantappie told board members today that the company has put forward a proposal to reduce the weight of the cars and fix the compatibility issue.

A final decision by the board is expected as early as next month.

-- Maeve Reston

Permalink | Comments (3) | Save/Share
Save/Share
Digg | Delicious | Reddit | Google | Mixx | Newsvine | Yahoo | Facebook
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef01156fb842bc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MTA grants Italian rail car builder more time in contract negotiations:
Comments

mike, i was at the meeting and i'm pretty sure i heard that the mta said it waived the compatibility requirements, so it's not really fair to say the cars arent compatible since that wasn't part of the contract.

the real problem here seems to be METRO more than Breda. they've never been good at overseeing contracts and this is no exception. if mta keeps changing requirements, even after delivery, obviously things are going to take more time to finish.

And then, instead of accepting their own mistakes, Metro trries to blame it all on Breda and launch itself into a long procurement process that gives us more expensive cars that take even longer to build? Metro should take the option and spend that extra money on hiring competent people to administer the contract, instead of wasting it on a new bid process.

Posted by: jerry | May 28, 2009 at 05:58 PM

so lets get this straight. they didn't come close to fufilling the origianl contract, the cars they built aren't compatable with the old cars, are significantly heavier (which with "light rail" seems like an issue) and yet they still have a chance to land the next even larger contract? and to top it off we're giving them the land to build the facility to produce the cars? i bet we basically have to use them b/c the 50 cars they made won't work with anything else. we all should expect adn demand better, the author ought to name names and hopefully build some public resentment that might actually lead to accountabilty.

Posted by: mike | May 28, 2009 at 02:37 PM

Magazine: AnsaldoBreda is a possible bankruptcy
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The (British) train magazine Rail Magazine reported in its May issue that bankruptcy threatens the Italian train builder AnsaldoBreda. AnsaldoBreda the Dutch high-speed, which are currently delivered to the Netherlands.

Ultimatum
The Danish Railways (DSB) threatened a claim against hundreds of millions AnsaldoBreda train builder and the end of May for the first set of IC4 trains has delivered. The IC4 trains - with a speed of 240 kilometers per hour can get - were ordered in 2000. In 2002 AnsaldoBreda promised that in 2006 all 83 trains were to be delivered. This is the year 2009 and it has not yet happened. DSB in May 2008 made an ultimatum to AnsaldoBreda: The Italian train builder gets a year to ensure that 14 trains are ready. If not, then the rest of the DSB order will be canceled. At that time AnsaldoBreda was in trouble.

(snip)

NS Hispeed
AnsaldoBreda is notorious for late deliveries. NS Hispeed, the operator for the HSL-Zuid ordered from the Italian train builder. In Dutch politics, there is much criticism with the NS Hispeed trains that AnsaldoBreda ordered. The delivery of the Dutch high-speed - called Albatros / V250 - is also not entirely successful. AnsaldoBreda gave a few years ago in an interview with Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad that the trains by 2010 would operate, and if that did not happen, the plant would just close its doors. Meanwhile, there is only one high-speed train delivered in the Netherlands. It is very questionable whether these trains will be delivered on time. Rail Magazine writes that there is NS Hispeed AnsaldoBreda assumes that the high speed will make up time.

Italian media
Italian media are optimistic about AnsaldoBreda, if the manufacturer is in the race for new orders. Or if really a bankruptcy likely AnsaldoBreda they are not saying, but it is clear that the plant has lost a lot of credit.

http://www.ovwereld.nl/kennisnet/materieel/nieuws/rail_magazine:_ansaldobreda_gaat_mogelijk_failliet

Posted by: Erik | May 28, 2009 at 02:21 PM

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension - The Daily Breeze

MTA will continue to study South Bay rail extension
By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Posted: 05/28/2009 06:33:50 PM PDT

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board approved $5 million on Thursday to continue studying a South Bay rail extension but cited concerns about the source of the funding.

South Bay leaders are lobbying the MTA in support of the Harbor Subdivision, an old freight rail corridor that could someday link Torrance to the county's passenger rail grid.

While the MTA board approved funding for further environmental studies of the corridor, the MTA's legal staff advised members that the money could not come from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax voters approved last fall.

The board voted to defer that issue to another meeting next month.

"Obviously every time you move forward, even if it's a baby step, it's a good thing," said John Parsons, board chairman of the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce. "I see this as staying in play and moving forward."

If built, the South Bay rail line would extend southeast from the existing Green Line station in north Redondo Beach. It would include a stop at the South Bay Galleria and at Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance. It could also extend farther, and some officials hope it could eventually go to San Pedro or Long Beach.

However, under the schedule approved with Measure R, the line would not be completed until 2033-35.

The MTA has begun a very preliminary study of the rail corridor, which it bought in the early 1990s. That analysis is designed to gauge local support for the
Advertisement
line and firm up the route. It is expected to conclude in November.

But in the initial budget for 2009-2010, the MTA staff did not include any funding for additional environmental studies beyond November.

Led by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, about 20 local elected officials attended Thursday's MTA meeting to lobby for the Harbor Subdivision.

At the meeting, the MTA board approved its $3.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year. Many officials from the San Gabriel Valley also attended to press for $10 million for the Gold Line Foothill Extension, which is proposed to run from Pasadena to Asuza.

South Bay leaders are still learning how to exercise their clout on a regional basis.

"It was a valuable lesson for us," said Jacki Bacharach, executive director of the South Bay COG. "Everybody else is there making a lot of noise and we're going to have to do the same."

gene.maddaus@dailybreeze.com

Gold Line to get $10 million

Gold Line to get $10 million - Whittier Daily News

Gold Line to get $10 million
By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/28/2009 10:00:20 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES - Metro board members Thursday approved $10 million for the 24-mile Gold Line Foothill Extension.

The amount is substantially more than the $127,000 Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials originally allocated for the project in next year's budget.

The $10 million will come out of $96.5 million that MTA has committed to rail projects throughout the county. The funds are from Measure R, the half-cent sales-tax increase voters passed last November to pay for transit projects countywide.

County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who sponsored the motion for the additional funding for the Gold Line, credited San Gabriel Valley officials for its success.

"I have to give credit to the San Gabriel Valley people who kept showing up to meetings to lobby for this," he said.

Others cautioned that, while the $10 million was a good start, it means very little if the project does not receive a long-term commitment from the MTA over the next few years.

"This is a good first step - and the first time in 20 years the MTA has given us funding," said Habib Balian, head of the independent Gold Line Construction Authority. "It's not important, though, if we don't get the long-term commitment."

The vote for the funding at Thursday's MTA meeting was unanimous, although several board members were absent, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has in the past has opposed funding the Gold Line extension.

Several other board members who had previously opposed funding before Measure R voted Thursday to approve the $10 million for the Gold Line extension.

In MTA's Measure R plans, the Gold Line was scheduled to start receiving funds next year - a fact that its proponents pushed as the reason it should receive more than $127,000.

Other projects, they pointed out, seemed to be getting more favorable allotments. For example, the Exposition Line light-rail extension from Culver City to the coast, which is also scheduled to start receiving funds next year, is to get $61.1 million.

The proposed "Subway to the Sea" from downtown Los Angeles to Santa Monica, which is still in the planning stages and was listed in the plan to begin receiving funds in 2013, is to receive $11.8 million next year.

Next month, the board will again discuss Gold Line funding to figure out how to allocate the funds, said MTA spokesman Marc Littman. Since Measure R tax revenues will only begin to be collected in July, it will take until at least November to get significant amounts of funding.

Getting the $10 million to the Gold Line might require digging into other funds, he added.

The board is also slated to discuss putting the Gold Line into MTA's Long Range Plan. That discussion will likely entail a completion date and the funding it can expect to receive.

dan.abendschein@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451

Korean companies eye U.S. bullet train project

The Korea Herald : The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper

Korean companies eye U.S. bullet train project

Korean train manufacturing companies and government agencies are eyeing a $45 billion bullet train project by the U.S. state of California, officials said yesterday.

The Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency said it has signed a memorandum of understanding with state-run Korea Railroad Corp. to support about 10 Korean companies planning bids for the project.

"We are planning to put our efforts towards helping Korean companies win the project, acknowledging the size of the project and its impact on enhancing the nation' status," Kotra president Cho Hwan-eik, said.

The list of Korean companies includes POSCO Engineering & Construction Co. and Hyundai Rotem Co., officials said.

The California state government plans to inject billions of dollars into constructing a high-speed railway that would operate train services at up to 350 kilometers per hour.

California is expected to open the bidding process at the end of the year.

Leading countries in the global train market like Germany and Japan have already begun promotional activities, reports here said.

Korea has been seeking business opportunities in the Middle East and Latin America.

The government of Abu Dhabi is planning to hold a public tender for a $30 billion metro train project. The Brazilian government is also looking to build a $9 billion bullet train project.

Transport Minister Chung Jong-hwan has recently visited Brazil and has asked the Latin American government to cooperate in supporting Korean businesses making inroads into the country.

By Cho Chung-un

(christory@heraldm.com)

Peninsula residents grill bullet train officials at meeting

Peninsula residents grill bullet train officials at meeting - San Jose Mercury News

Peninsula residents grill bullet train officials at meeting
By Mike Rosenberg

Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 05/29/2009 12:31:58 AM PDT
Updated: 05/29/2009 09:31:59 AM PDT

High-speed rail officials traveled to the heart of the Peninsula's anti-bullet train movement Thursday and received an earful from frustrated residents worried the rail line would disrupt their communities.

More than 100 residents attended the public meeting in Atherton. Nearly all the people said they were from Atherton, Menlo Park and Palo Alto.

The cities of Menlo Park and Atherton joined environmental groups last year in suing the state rail authority. They challenged the adequacy of the environmental planning document the authority used to justify sending its trains along the Caltrain corridor. Palo Alto recently filed a brief in support of the suit.

The meeting was organized by the Atherton Civic Interest League and was led by officials from the engineering firm HNTB. The rail authority contracted HNTB to perform planning and outreach for the San Francisco to San Jose portion of the rail line.

Atherton Public Works Director Duncan Jones and a tunneling expert from the Hatch Mott MacDonald engineering firm also provided presentations and answered questions.

Residents fired off more questions than officials had answers for: What is the feasibility of putting high-speed rail in a tunnel on the Peninsula? How much money will I get if my home is taken through eminent domain? What exactly will the rail look like as it runs through my community?

John Litzinger, the chief engineer from HNTB who is working on the Peninsula
Advertisement
section, appealed to residents to be patient while waiting for specifics and to trust the process.

The rail authority is working through about 980 pre-planning comments received from January to April on the San Francisco to San Jose portion of the line, HNTB consultant Mike Garvey said.

The authority's consultants expect to soon release a summary of the comments and their response, Garvey said.

Afterward, the planning process would begin, which would lead to a list of specific project alternatives that would be released next year.

Residents also expressed frustration over the absence of vocal rail proponents and local authority board members Quentin Kopp and Rod Diridon.

Many Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton officials and residents — as well as representatives from other Peninsula communities — have expressed preference for the bullet train to be operated in a tunnel.

John Townsend, executive vice president of Hatch Mott MacDonald, said the tunnel would be much more expensive than bringing the trains above ground.

His international firm is also working on the Transbay Terminal and San Jose BART extension.

A tunnel on the Peninsula would likely follow the same model as the San Jose BART extension, Townsend said, because both areas have soft ground. A high-speed rail tunnel would likely cost somewhere between $100 million to $250 million per mile, compared to less than $100 million for an at-grade system, he said.

E-mail Mike Rosenberg at mike.rosenberg@dailynewsgroup.com.

MTA spending plan expands by $500 million with federal stimulus cash

MTA spending plan expands by $500 million with federal stimulus cash - LA Daily News

MTA spending plan expands by $500 million with federal stimulus cash
By Sue Doyle, Staff Writer
Updated: 05/28/2009 08:04:49 PM PDT

Pushing ahead with massive plans for highway expansion and rail projects, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Thursday adopted a $3.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year.

The spending plan is 15 percent, or $500 million, more than last year's budget thanks to new money from the federal stimulus package and anticipated revenue from Measure R, a half-penny per dollar sales tax that kicks in July 1. The tax is expected to generate up to $40 billion over 30 years for transportation projects.

The San Fernando Valley will see two big projects from the plan: a four-mile extension of the Orange Line busway from Warner Center to Chatsworth and a $1 billion car-pool lane on the 405 Freeway through the Sepulveda Pass. Los Angeles County will also get 219 new buses.

"The public will see a lot of positive improvements," said Marc Littman, spokesman for the county's transportation agency, known as Metro. "We're going to get through this budget year in good shape."

The spending plan averts fare increases - a bonus promised to voters if they approved Measure R, which they did in November.

But Littman warned that tougher times lie ahead.

The county transportation agency saw $200 million slashed from the budget after Sacramento officials this year suspended a state transit assistance program for five years. Metro counts on the money to operate its bus and rail system.

So as the agency expands its transportation
Advertisement
Quantcast
system, it is losing out on money to operate it, Littman said.

At the same time, sales tax revenues are down 18 percent across the state because of the recession, according to the state Department of Finance. Metro has reported a 5 percent drop in revenue from two local sales taxes that annually provide about 60 percent of its budget.

To keep this budget balanced, Metro cut $130 million internally, trimmed administrative costs and is not giving employees raises for the fiscal year, beginning July 1, Littman said.

Officials also dipped into reserve funds from one-time deals such as land sales. The transportation agency will likely run out of reserves in 15 months, leaving officials warning that the budget for fiscal year 2011 will be rough.

"Reserves don't last forever," said Terry Matsumodo, Metro chief financial services officer.

Across the county, several multimillion dollar allocations for rail projects were approved in last-minute amendments to the spending plan.

A proposed rail line, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, received $10 million to link Pasadena and Montclair, with stops planned at several cities across the eastern county.

A downtown rail line, the Green Line, received $5 million on Thursday to connect to Los Angeles International Airport.

LACMTA approves FY2010 budget

LACMTA approves FY2010 budget

LACMTA approves FY2010 budget

Yesterday, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) board adopted a $3.9 billion budget for FY2009-2010, which begins July 1.

The spending plan is half a billion dollars, or just under 15 percent, more than the current budget, due in large part to new transit and highway projects. LACMTA will launch $636 million in new programs in the coming fiscal year, funded mostly with federal stimulus dollars and the new Measure R sales tax.

In addition, the authority will begin operating the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension to East Los Angeles, continue construction of the Expo light-rail line from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, and advance planning studies for several new transit projects.

As mandated by Measure R, LACMTA will not raise fares in FY2010. However, the agency is grappling with higher operating costs and revenue cuts. California lawmakers voted earlier this year to eliminate state transit assistance, which in recent years has provided LACMTA about $100 million annually for its operating budget. In addition, local transit sales tax revenue is projected to decline 5 percent in FY2010 because of the recession. The authority will negotiate new contracts this spring with its major labor unions, as well.

To balance its FY2010 budget, LACMTA already has cut expenses by $130 million and plans to dip into its reserves.

MTA adopts $3.9-billion budget

MTA adopts $3.9-billion budget - Los Angeles Times

MTA adopts $3.9-billion budget
The transit agency directs money to new transit and highway projects but calls for minor cuts in agency expenses and bus service.

By Dan Weikel

May 30, 2009

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority this week adopted a $3.9-billion budget for next year that directs money to new highway and transit projects but calls for minor cuts in agency expenses and bus service.

Though the budget for fiscal year 2009-10 is balanced, MTA officials cautioned that the agency would face annual shortfalls of more than $200 million starting next year in funds required to operate and maintain buses and rail systems. MTA's operating budget is now about $1.3 billion.

Amid the state's deepening budget crisis, California lawmakers have eliminated transit assistance, which had provided the agency with at least $100 million a year for operations.

In addition, revenue from two local sales taxes for transportation are forecast to decline by about 5% next year due to the recession, and the agency's labor costs could rise depending on the outcome of pending union negotiations.

MTA officials said there is a possibility of fare increases a year from now if the gap can't be closed with money from Measure R, the county's new half-cent sales tax for transportation that will be collected starting July 1. Congress also is considering whether to allow transit agencies to use federal stimulus money for operations.

"There is a down economy, and sales tax revenue will be off. The loss of state revenue is dramatic," said Art Leahy, the MTA's chief executive. "Next summer, we could be talking about fares and improving efficiency . . . but there will be time to calmly address these issues."

The plan passed Thursday by the MTA's board of directors is $507 million more than the current budget. The increase is largely due to new highway and transit projects, such as construction of a 10-mile carpool lane on the northbound side of the 405 Freeway between the 10 and 101 freeways.

Overall, the budget calls for $636 million in new programs, paid for largely by federal stimulus money and Measure R. Those projects include completion of the Gold Line light-rail extension to East Los Angeles, the purchase of 219 buses powered by compressed natural gas and the continued construction of the Expo light-rail line from downtown L.A. to Culver City.

The MTA also will begin construction of a four-mile extension of the popular Orange Line busway from Canoga Park to Chatsworth and continue planning studies for new transit projects throughout Los Angeles County.

To help balance the budget, the MTA will reduce bus service by 120,000 hours a year, a tiny fraction of the 7.3 million hours now provided annually. MTA officials said they would reduce the frequency of buses, rather than eliminate service, on some routes.

The Bus Riders' Union, which obtained a federal court decree to improve bus service, opposes the cut, which represents the third such reduction in recent years with a total loss of more than 400,000 hours of service. It contends the MTA has the money to prevent the reductions.

"Last year, they cut 200,000 hours. The year before that they cut 90,000 hours. This is a third of the service added under the decree," said Manuel Criollo, an official for the Bus Riders' Union. "There should be no talk of cutting bus service."

dan.weikel@latimes.com

US transport boss: Spain's trains are US' model

The Associated Press: US transport boss: Spain's trains are US' model

US transport boss: Spain's trains are US' model

By HAROLD HECKLE – 1 day ago

MADRID (AP) — Spain's bullet train system is a model to follow as America plans how to spend the money the government is injecting to stimulate the economy, the U.S. transportation secretary said Saturday.

Ray LaHood said the $8 billion allocated for high-speed railways in the United States will spur economic growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

President Barack Obama has cited Spain, France and Japan as countries with systems worth emulating.

The Spanish network is likely to interest the U.S. government because its specially designed, electrified tracks — first devised for the French TGV system — are not as expensive to lay and run as some German or Japanese alternatives.

And Spanish state-of-the-art tunneling technology has proved successful in boring efficiently through mountain ranges to reach the cities of Valladolid and Malaga.

LaHood met with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to discuss how investing in such a train system could stimulate job creation in the U.S.

"Yesterday I traveled on a train at close to 350 kilometers (215 miles) per hour, the fastest I've ever ridden on a high-speed train," LaHood said. He said he had enjoyed a conversation and beverage aboard and found the experience very civilized.

"Our leaders have made the decision that America will have high speed rail," LaHood said.

Of $787 billion approved in Obama's stimulus bill, $48 billion is destined to improving overall transport infrastructure, with rail receiving for the first time an important share, LaHood said.

He said that by the end of the summer there will be American people working in well-paying jobs building high speed rail links in the U.S.

The U.S. transportation secretary also met with Spanish Development Minister Jose Blanco. The two discussed how rail can be tailored to provide "intermodal links" with other forms of transport such as road, air and sea, as well as issues relating to safety on a high speed network.

The secretary said he was scheduled to meet with Vice President Joe Biden next week in Washington D.C. to decide how best to spend the $8 billion allotted to high speed rail. He said there would be "an early infusion of money to get things going."

Spain's high-speed train system began operating in 1992 between Madrid and Seville in the southwest. Since then the network has been extended by nearly 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) to link central Valladolid and Segovia to southern Malaga and northeastern Barcelona.

By 2014 bullet trains are expected to travel from Portugal's capital, Lisbon, to Madrid in under three hours.

High-speed lines will eventually stretch from Portugal's Atlantic coast, through France to Britain and Belgium, providing Europe with fast passenger transport to rival air travel.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserve

Metro Sort of Passes Budget, Punts on Ansaldo Breda, Insults Public. Editorial by Damien Newton

Streetsblog » Metro Sort of Passes Budget, Punts on Ansaldo Breda, Insults Public

Metro Sort of Passes Budget, Punts on Ansaldo Breda, Insults Public

by Damien Newton on May 28, 2009



Photo of poster appearing outside Metro Board Room by Stephen Box.

The big news from today's Metro Board meeting was that after our leaders subjected themselves to the pain of listening to the public, they were able to sorta-kinda pass the FY 2010 budget and put off a decision on whether to abandon their contract with Ansaldo Breda for another two months.

If this article seems at all sarcastic, angry or mean-spirited it's because the level of governmental dysfunction shown by the Metro Board earlier today was out-of-control. Apparently the Board had a lot of really important things to do today besides their jobs so they punted on major decisions and tried to rush the public so they could still be there to show support to their favorite projects or special interests. Picture a science fair where none of the students bothered to research or prepare for the fair. Then picture all of the participants showing up a half hour late. That was the feel of today's Metro Board Meeting.

Hint to the Metro Board: You're more likely to be on time to the meeting if you actually take transit instead of driving there yourself.

The FY 2010 Budget

I have to qualify the passage of the budget because before debate on the slew of budget related amendments could be passed, the Board was informed that the bulk of the motions were illegal. Undaunted, and needing to preserve funding for their special projects, the Board voted to pass the budget in spirit including all amendments that would fund other projects with many of the sources of those funds left T.B.A.

The projects, such as the Harbor Gateway and Gold Line Foothill Extension, that were to receive extra funds from the budget will receive some sort of funds found from some other place in Metro's deep pockets. While these projects are now "funded" the Board will have to vote on their funding again next month. Shockingly, it turns out that the Metro Board can't just change the timetable passed by voters when we approved Measure R last year. Stupid voters and the public will! It keeps getting in the way of our rulers best intentions for us. A full list of all the projects that were sorta-kinda funded can be found under item #9 on today's agenda.

I guess it's a good thing that Metro is running a huge surplus and has money just lying around to fund whatever the Board wants or else I would think that today was an exercise in public relations that had no bearing on reality. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

The debate on the FY 2010 Budget came after public comment, passage of the consent agenda, reports by Board Chair Villaraigosa and Metro CEO Art Leahy, the debate on the fate of Ansaldo Breda, and general confusion by the Board. Pam O'Connor had already left on "city business" and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas seemed outraged that he was being kept away from whatever else was on his schedule. The Board seemed annoyed that the public wanted to speak before their vote, with Villaraigosa warning that he was about to lose quorum if the peasants wouldn't put down their damm pitchforks and let the adults get on with real business. When people still wanted to speak, he relented to state law and Metro's bylaws and let the peasants have their say.

Honestly? If I were either the Bus Rider's Union or the members of Fix Expo, I would have gotten everyone I could to testify in another language, doubling their speakers time for translation, and basically filibuster the Board. If they can't be troubled to clear their calendar to do their jobs, it's really not the public's problem.

Comment on the budget resolutions was dominated by political leaders talking up their favorite local project that was due to sorta-kinda get money; South and West L.A. residents demanding a safer Expo Line and B.R.U. members and supporters demanding that any budget with bus cuts get rejected. While their were some notable exceptions, the Board seemed, well, bored with the process. Villaraigosa and Ridley-Thomas left. Board Members Katz and Fasana stood behind Katz's seat and read their blackberries and chatted. L.A. City Councilman Jose Huizar, Lakewood City Council Woman Diane Duboise and Caltrans representative Doug Failing deserve Gold Stars for at least pretending to care what the public was saying.

The Metro Board will officially pass whatever funding schemes the staff devises for their favorite projects during discussion of the 2009 2010 Long Range Transportation Plan.

Board Punts on Decision on Ansaldo Breda Contract

Personally, I never saw a point in repeating what someone else has already written just to see it appear under my byline. Blogdowntown's Eric Richardson had an article on the debate and vote of the Metro Board's decision to stick with Ansaldo Breda posted within two minutes of the final vote.

After a contentious negotiation, the board instructed Metro's CEO to negotiate the financial guarantee by June 15, and voted 10-1 to extend the contract option until July 31.

The lone no vote was cast by Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who argued that the transit operator's previous problems with Ansaldo Breda demanded a competitive bid. He asked whether the financial guarantee would "provide cab fare for the people who would be riding the line" if the rail cars don't get built on time.

The only thing I will add is that sticking with its "contempt for the little guy" theme in this month's meeting, Board Member Zev Yaroslavsky cut off what was non-relevant testimony by longtime gadfly John Walsh while he was attacking the Mayor for selling out the city. However, he didn't see the need to shut off the microphone nor shout for security to remove the speaker while any of the union members or leaders present testified on how the Board needed to support Ansaldo Breda because of the impact it could have on local jobs.

The Metro Board is legally not allowed to consider where the cars will be built when making the decision to whom to award the contract. Of course, I would bet the mortgage that eventually Ansaldo Breda will be awarded the final contract without it ever going to open bid.

Villaraigosa Leads Board in Showing Contempt for Public

The clear low light of the day was caused by the contempt shown for the public by the Board at nearly every turn.

From the sign greeting the public that stated it would stop accepting public comment cards the moment the meeting began bucking the process at every other Metro Board Meeting I've attended, to starting the meeting with public comment instead of ending it delaying votes on crucial issues while we waited for Villaraigosa to grace us with his presence, to Villaraigosa's hour and a half late arrival compounded by his whining that the public's desire to comment on the budget was going to require him to leave before the vote, to the slew of Board Members that hadn't bothered to clear their schedules for the most important meeting of the year; the Board presented the public a picture of a group of elected leaders completely out of touch with reality who view the public as obstacles to their rule.

Hey, he might not have had time to show up to the meeting on time or stay for a vote on the Budget, but at least Board Chair Villaraigosa was able to grandstand during the "Board Chair's Report" and had time to pose for pictures with Metro's entrants in the transit rodeo.

La Linea de Oro

One thing that came up repeatedly in public comment was the renaming of the Gold Line in Boyle Heights to La Linea de Oro. Despite a Metro press release stating that the renaming had huge public support, a handful of community leaders showed up to wonder who exactly this public was. They opposed the renaming and pointed out that none of their community groups nor the Neighborhood Council had been asked their opinion. Maybe LADOT did their public outreach for them.

Foothill Extension Granted Its $10 Million, Now Has to Determine Where That Money Will Come From

Foothill Extension Granted Its $10 Million, Now Has to Determine Where That Money Will Come From « I Will Ride Blog

Foothill Extension Granted Its $10 Million, Now Has to Determine Where That Money Will Come From
Posted by Albert

Sorting through the confusion and circus that was yesterday’s Metro Board meeting (you can follow the minute by minute coverage on our Twitter feed @iwillride), we came away with the impression that the Metro Board of Directors had chosen to delay any action on the $10 million budget item for the Gold Line Foothill Extension when they approved the 2010 fiscal year budget. That was not the case.

Metro’s Board Secretary confirmed to us after the meeting that Motion 9.4 of the agenda (which directs the CEO to allocate $10 million from the nearly $28 million in unallocated rail funds to the Foothill Extension) was approved by the Metro Board as part of the overall package of budget items that they had voted in favor of.

So now the Foothill Extension is one step closer to that 2013 opening reality. But really, yesterday’s result was more like a toe (not even a foot) in the door.

The $10 million allocation now has to come from a proper funding source, which the Metro staff will try to determine next month before the Foothill Extension can be listed in the Long Range Transportation Plan. We can only assume the proper pot of money will be the Measure R rail funds but we’ll find out when Metro let’s us know. That will be a whole other battle in itself, mainly because Metro will be forced to put up real dollars for the Foothill Extension – something the Board hasn’t done in our two decades and has rejected at every opportunity in the last year.

For those who were at yesterday’s meeting to witness the Board succumb under the pressure of a big agenda and a large crowd of passionate supporters, one can assume that the Board of Directors were saving the real talk about funding for next month. How this pays off for the Foothill Extension remains to be seen. However, upon reading the comments of the Metro spokesperson in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, there appears to be an assurance that the Foothill Extension would get its funding.

Here’s hoping.

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 2 « I Will Ride Blog

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 2 « I Will Ride Blog

Voice of the San Gabriel Valley: Week 2
Posted by Albert

The credit for the favorable outcome of this week’s Metro Board meeting can be given to every San Gabriel Valley resident who has ever uttered those three prophetic words: I Will Ride. (As in, I will ride the Gold Line Foothill Extension when it’s built – hopefully by 2013.) At least that’s what Los Angeles County Supervisor and Metro Board member Michael Antonovich thinks:

“I have to give credit to the San Gabriel Valley people who kept showing up to meetings to lobby for this.”

Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Keep it going San Gabriel Valley.

image
“Hurry let’s it done! More jobs, less cars, less smog, happy faces, the future is here. Let’s ride =) !”

image
“Going to Pasadena used to be a favorite thing to do, until the traffic got to be too much. I would ride, for sure.”

image
“Moving forward with the Gold Line extension creates job(s) that stimulate the economy and cleans up our environment of automotive pollution. It also helps solve gridlock.”

image
“All the great cities have good public transportation systems – except LA. There is no more land to expand freeways but the land for the Gold Line is paid for and ready. It is past time to move ahead.