Monterey Park gets Gold Line extension (Source: Whittier Daily News)

Monterey Park gets Gold Line extension - Whittier Daily News

Monterey Park gets Gold Line extension
By Dan Abendschein, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/27/2009 07:19:48 PM PDT

A $899 million, six-mile light rail extension from Downtown Los Angeles to Monterey Park is nearing completion, officials said Thursday.

The project, originally scheduled to be completed this summer, is now expected to be finished before the end of the year, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Jose Ubaldo.

"We're doing some safety tests and fixing a few problems," said Ubaldo.

The project is under budget and the completion date should be announced within the next few weeks, he said.

The MTA is running trains to test the line, he said.

Officials hoped to open the line this summer, but a contractual deadline gives the agency until December.

Michael Cano, the transportation deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, said the summer deadline was always overly optimistic.

"The timeline was always kind of for December, and at some point they moved it up," said Cano. "They've had some issues, but nothing serious."

The six-mile extension will run from Union Station through Boyle Heights and to Monterey Park, ending at 3rd Street and Atlantic Boulevard, just south of the 10 Freeway. At Union Station it will connect with the Gold Line Foothill track that runs to Pasadena.

Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, the head of the Assembly's Transportation Committee, said he expected the line to have a big impact on his district.

"It's taken a long time to go six miles, but we are very grateful this is going to get done," said Eng. "It's going to connect us to our jobs and our schools."

Eng is also hoping that the line will eventually run further through his district along the 60 Freeway, through Monterey Park, Rosemead and South El Monte, and out to the edge of Industry. Routes through Whittier also are being considered.

There is funding for a project extending the line further in Measure R, the half-cent sales tax passed by county voters in November, though the project is not scheduled to be completed until 2037.

dan.abendschein@sgvn.com

(626) 962-8811, Ext. 4451

Another Defense of High Speed Rail (Source: Curbed LA)

Link: Curbed LA: Updates Coming on Mysterious Crenshaw Line

Streetsblog Los Angeles » Another Defense of High Speed Rail

Thursday, August 27, 2009
Another Defense of High Speed Rail

by Sarah Goodyear on August 27, 2009

Today on the Streetsblog Network, we've got a post from Yonah Freemark at The Transport Politic on the importance of funding both intercity and intracity rail, despite limits on the amount of money available. Freemark takes on the argument that investment in transportation within cities should trump the construction of more efficient rail connections between cities:

High-speed trains in Taiwan. Photo: loudtiger/Flickr.
[I]nvestment is needed in both intercity and intracity corridors. Claiming that we should not fund high-speed rail because urban transit is more important is equivalent to saying that federal subsidies to air travel and non-urban highways should simply end, because metropolitan areas need more investment and travel between cities is less important.

The U.S. certainly has “scarce resources” at the moment; the $9 trillion government deficit over the next ten years will likely force budget cuts and require a reevaluation of spending in all executive branches, including the Department of Transportation. But the question here is not whether to invest in urban or long-distance travel systems. The country continues to grow relatively quickly, and both in-city and intercity travel demand will have to be met. Thus, we simply cannot devote all funds currently designated for the latter type of travel to the former; while we certainly should commit more funds to urban transit, we also need to find new and better ways to move between cities, since more and more people will be doing exactly that.…

Arguing that improving urban transit should be prioritized over high-speed rail is acceptable, but ignoring the needs of long-distance travel is not. The United States has a serious need to invest in both intercity and intracity travel, and for trips of between 200 and 600 miles between large cities, high-speed rail is usually the most appropriate investment. In the pursuit of better transit within a city, we cannot forget that we also need to get between cities.

Be sure to also check out the piece Freemark had Tuesday on The Infrastructurist, in which he sharpened his pencil and re-ran the numbers on Ed Glaeser's unfavorable analysis of high-speed rail on the New York Times website. Freemark writes:

By populating his model with a better set of assumptions, we hope to show how badly the economist missed the mark even on his handpicked example of an HSR link between Houston and Dallas. In reality, a well-designed high speed intercity rail project between the two largest cities in Lone Star State would likely produce a net economic benefit -- not at all the white elephant Glaeser suggests. In this more comprehensive model that takes into account trivialities like regional population growth and a reality-based route, the annual benefits total $840 million compared with construction and maintenance costs of $810 million. Which is to say, our numbers show that HSR pays for itself rather handily.

St. Louis Urban Workshop takes the stuffing out of another HSR hater today. Check out the site's priceless "re-mix" of Robert Samuelson's Newsweek piece claiming the Obama Administration's rail plan is "a high-speed boondoggle."

Plus: How many folding bikes does it take to fill up a parking space? Cyclelicious has the photographic answer, which is sure to especially delight Brompton-lovers.

California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds

Tuesday, August 25, 2009
California Applies for $1.1 Billion in HSR Stimulus Funds

Applications for Phase I of federal HSR stimulus funds were due yesterday, and California's request totaled $1.1 billion, focused on the Transbay Terminal train box:

$400 million of the application sent Monday would go toward a “box” to be built 100 feet below the redeveloped Transbay Terminal that would contain a future station for high-speed rail and Caltrain service connecting San Jose and San Francisco. Proposals for spending the remaining $700 million are scattered around the state for various intercity rail projects, Diridon said.



Note that this is just for one specific, narrowly-focused pot of HSR stimulus - applications for another pot of money with more flexibility what qualifies for funds are due in October. Diridon still believes CHSRA, through the state of California and Caltrans in particular, should apply for $4 to $6 billion in that Phase II round of requests.

It is highly likely that CA will get its $1.1 billion request, and we are still in a very good position to get some of the larger request that will be made in October and decided in early 2010.

UPDATE: The Business Insider says "give all the money to California" (h/t to Streetsblog LA):

One of the biggest problem with building a high speed rail system in the United States, is all the unknowns. That's why we get highly questionable, back of the envelop guess work done by Harvard's Ed Glaeser.

If we built the train system proposed for California, we would get real, measurable, results. If the train is a flop, at least we'll know for sure. If it's a raging success, then we can choose the next part of the country in which to build a better train system....

California is ready to go. It has a plan in place for high speed rail system. California voters approved a $9.95 billion bond sale to fund the rail line. Add in $13 billion from the federal government, and the project is more than half way funded....

We can get a big shiny play thing out of our stimulus. It's the type of project--whether it's successful, or a boondoggle--that we can say came about because of the Great Recession....

Spread the wealth around, and it's just going to look like more of the same.


Were it not for the Congressional politics of funding anything - where people want to ensure their states and districts get a little something - I'd call this not only a very good idea, but a politically sensible approach. Congress and the Obama Administration ought to split the difference and help seed other HSR projects, even if they're not true bullet trains - but ensure that our flagship project here in CA gets the money it needs to be built and built the right way.

Atrios makes this point as well.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 11:53 AM

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing (Source: LA Daily News)

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing - LA Daily News

L.A.-Las Vegas train a good thing
By Michael D. Antonovich Michael D. Antonovich represents northern Los Angeles County on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
Updated: 08/26/2009 09:45:19 AM PDT

I have consistently advocated and supported strong coalitions among private and public stakeholders to address our region's pressing transportation challenges. One such partnership has resulted in the first segment of the DesertXpress high speed rail project that will connect Southern California to Las Vegas - and will feature a rapid extension from Victorville to Palmdale, which will also link with Metrolink and the Palmdale airport. The DesertXpress will also connect with the California High Speed Rail Network that will run between Northern and Southern California.

By combining the technical know-how and creativity of the private sector with the responsible stewardship and policy support of the public sector, we are creating a sustainable, long-term alternative to the severe traffic congestion and environmental challenges facing the region.

Operating on all new, high-quality, fully grade-separated tracks largely within the I-15 right of way between Las Vegas and Victorville, DesertXpress will be the nation's first dedicated, interstate passenger-only electric high-speed rail system. The Palmdale extension will travel primarily within or adjacent to the right of way of the planned High Desert Corridor to Palmdale.

The DesertXpress breaks ground next year, followed by four years of construction and testing. The rail line will have trains departing from both ends every 20 minutes during peak periods and will operate at speeds of more than 150 mph.
Advertisement

The High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority is working in cooperation with colleagues from San Bernardino County, the cities of Victorville and Palmdale, collaborating with the California High Speed Rail Authority. Las Vegas, the congressional delegations of both states and DesertXpress are committed to finalizing the route and completing the environmental clearances required in time to start building the 49-mile Palmdale extension prior to the 2013 opening of the initial leg between Las Vegas and Victorville.

Ready to break ground early next year with private financing, DesertXpress will create thousands of jobs while improving mobility, air quality and convenience. DesertXpress will be the poster child for what can be done when business leaders, elected officials, and community and environmental planners join forces to solve regional problems through public-private partnerships.

Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train Cities sue to change planned 800-mile route (Source: San Francisco Business Time)

Link: Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train - San Francisco Business Times:

Friday, August 21, 2009 | Modified: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 1:01am PDT
Opponents seek to derail $45B bullet train
Cities sue to change planned 800-mile route
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young
Paolo Vescia
“I’m apoplectic over high-speed rail. They have this thing so wrong that’s it’s mind-bending,” says Cobb.
View Larger

California’s proposed bullet train has left the station at the federal and state level.

Now its biggest challenge is trying to get some neighborhoods on board.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority, the state-chartered body in charge of planning and building the $45 billion system, is locked in a dispute with cities along the Peninsula that could delay — or possibly upend — the ambitious project.

Menlo Park and Atherton joined a group of nonprofit transportation and planning groups in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the environmental study — and the rail alignment through Santa Clara County’s Pacheco Pass — for the state’s bullet train.

A ruling on the suit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, is expected by Aug. 27.

The lawsuit alleges the rail authority deliberately slanted an environmental study to lead the authority’s board into selecting a route through the Pacheco Pass instead of through the Altamont Pass in the East Bay.

“We were very disappointed in the environmental document that was ultimately produced,” said Menlo Park Mayor Heyward Robinson. “We felt we needed more meat on the bones.”

Other communities along the planned 800-mile bullet train route have expressed concern about noise and design, but so far none have filed suit.

Some observers question whether the plaintiffs will prevail. Even if the cities win in court, state lawmakers may still decide to push ahead, said Bruce Balshone, a principal at Pacific Resources Engineering and Planning, a land use and civil engineering firm. “This is something really significant to the state of California. I don’t know if the legislature is going to allow some little cities to stop a statewide project.”

Still, if a court ruling goes against the rail authority, it might be forced to complete another environmental study and reconsider the route. That could delay the start of construction, which is supposed to happen by 2012 or it could put at risk federal funds that are likely to be spent on the bullet train.

The battle over the rail route linking the Bay Area to the Central Valley has been waged for years. Altamont Pass backers said that route would attract more riders and allow bullet trains to serve long-distance commuters. Pacheco Pass supporters said that route would provide a more direct way from the Bay Area to Los Angeles, the route expected to provide 70 percent of revenue on the system.

The state’s high-speed rail program has received big boosts lately. In 2008, state voters approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project. Earlier this year federal transportation officials said California is one of two states that are leading candidates to secure some of the $8 billion in stimulus cash for high-speed passenger-rail service. The rest of the money is expected to come from private investors.

“If we don’t stub our toes,” said high-speed rail board member Rod Diridon, “we’re due to receive a lion’s share of that stimulus money.”

The train project’s forward momentum, however, could turn on the outcome of the Peninsula lawsuit.

“I’m apoplectic over high-speed rail. They have this so wrong that it’s mind-bending,” said Mike Cobb, a longtime Palo Alto resident whose house is three blocks from the proposed route. Palo Alto submitted a legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by Menlo Park and Atherton.

Cobb said running the bullet train down the Peninsula will lead to more headaches than benefits. He and other bullet train opponents said they expect that some people living near the line will lose their homes through eminent domain. Many others will have to live with the noise and vibration of the train, Cobb and others said.

Mehdi Morshed, the executive director of the high-speed rail authority, said both concerns are overblown.

Train technology and new rails mean that “there will be considerably less noise (with a bullet train) than there is now” with Caltrain, he said.

The authority has the power of eminent domain. But Morshed said it is unlikely it will be used.

“There are very few places where there is the need for additional right of way,” he said. “Based on what we know there will be very little or no residential taking.”

eyoung@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4969

Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail (Source: Streetsblog Los Angeles )

Link: Streetsblog Los Angeles » Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail

Momentum Builds for CA High Speed Rail

by Damien Newton on August 25, 2009

CBS Looks at CA's HSR Application via California High Speed Rail Blog

Now that the first round of applications to the federal government for the $8 billion in High Speed Rail which means it's more than past time to make the case that California deserves more than its share of those funds. California has two applications in to the the USDOT for two segments of the project that should eventually connect San Francisco to San Diego.

The first is local and would connect Los Angeles to Anaheim. The cost for completing that segment is $3 billion. The second corridor would connect San Francisco to San Jose at somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion. The L.A. to Anaheim line could be completed by as early as 2018.

The case has already been made that California is ahead of the game when it comes to planning for High Speed Rail. In addition to having a route ready to go, last November voters approved a $9.9 billion bond for the project that will cover nearly one quarter of the $40 billion project.

In fact, California is so far ahead of other states, that The Business Insider, a publication that until recently had been questioning the potential success of sending money towards High Speed Rail, suggested that instead of helping every deserving project around the country the federal government should send all of the money to California. They propose that California's High Speed Rail project could be the "interstate system" of this "great recession."

If we built the train system proposed for California, we would get real, measurable, results. If the train is a flop, at least we'll know for sure. If it's a raging success, then we can choose the next part of the country in which to build a better train system.

However, if we give a $76 million to North Carolina, and $28 million to Pennsylvania, what will really learn?

We've seen a lot of controversy created against the concept of High Speed Rail by east-coast columnists who can't think outside of the box. Yesterday, DC Streetsblog's Ryan Avant took apart a Washington Post columnist who used the bizarre argument that America didn't have the density to support High Speed Rail as they do in Europe. While Avant blew that argument out of the water nationally, the California High Speed Rail Blog took it a step further and looked at the density of the counties that would be served by High Speed Rail when it comes to California.

San Francisco County – 9,999
San Mateo County- 1,575
Santa Clara County- 1,303
Merced County- 109.2
Fresno County- 143.1
Tulare County- 76.3
Kern County- 81.3
Los Angeles County 2,344.1
Orange County- 3,607.5

average: 2,138 persons per square mile over nine counties served by HSR.

This is just for the San Francisco to Irvine section, but I think we can safely lay density to rest as an argument.

Stimulus… More Like Stymied (Source: I Will Ride Blog)

I Will Ride Blog

Stimulus… More Like Stymied
Posted by Albert

Three articles in Friday’s editions of the Los Angeles Times and the Los Angeles Daily News focused on the the Subway to the Sea and its federal funding status (status: unknown). Now we support the Subway to the Sea as much as your average West LA folk, so there’s no issue with the project itself. Mass transit options, whatever and wherever they are, are good. The whole county is in dire need of a legitimate public transit alternative to the congested freeways as well as freedom from the polluted air that comes with traffic snarls.

In one Los Angeles Times report, it was revealed that much of the federal stimulus money that California had received for transportation was going to “routine” projects – not toward projects that President Obama had hoped “would both be built quickly and achieve long-term goals such as reducing pollution and congestion.” Now if you’re a Foothill Extension supporter, you can’t help but read this and scream: Oh come on! The explanation for perhaps why the ready-to-go Foothill Extension was stymied and not put up for federal stimulus money can be found in this excerpt:

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority thought about applying for stimulus funds to stretch the Red Line light rail to the sea but scrapped the idea when officials realized the project couldn’t be completed in the timeline the president outlined, said David Yale, MTA’s deputy executive officer of regional programming.
“The president’s charge was to get the economy jolted, so we needed to identify projects that could move quickly and get out to bid quickly,” Yale said.

Source: Stimulus funds in California mostly go to routine projects, study says, Los Angeles Times

The Foothill Extension seems to fit that “charge,” seeing as how with the help of federal funding, the entire line to Montclair can be finished and operating by 2017. Not to mention the thousands of construction jobs that would come with it, the billions of dollars that would jolt the San Gabriel Valley economies, the reduction in congestion on the 210, and the improvements in air quality for millions of residents.

However, all is not lost, as a group of the Subway’s biggest supporters –including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky – are urging “local governments to put aside their differences over planned transportation projects and launch a coordinated effort to secure enough federal stimulus dollars and matching funds to expedite the subway extension as well as other much-anticipated projects to be financed by Measure R, the county’s new transportation sales tax.” The list of projects they want to come along with the ride to the federal government?

Those include the Expo Line light-rail route from downtown to Santa Monica with a completion date in 2015, the Gold Line’s Foothill extension to perhaps Azusa by 2017 and a downtown light-rail line to connect the Blue, Gold and Expo lines by 2025.

Source: L.A. mayor wants to speed up work on Subway to the Sea, Los Angeles Times

Though we’re currently emphasizing the use of federal funds to build out these projects, remember that the revenue from Measure R’s half-cent sales tax increase is still slated to pay for the majority, but not all, of the cost of these lines. And with the Subway to the Sea doing its best roommate-who-raids-your-part-of-the-fridge-without-paying-their-fair-share impression, Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s office seems to be having none of it:

Tony Bell, spokesman for county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, said the subway extension will only serve three of the county’s 88 cities, all of which will be required to “foot the bill.”

“The residents of the San Fernando, San Gabriel, Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys will all be paying for a gold-plated, multi-billion dollar underground subway that will have no impact on our regional transportation crisis,” Bell said. “In fact, it will funnel money away from projects that will improve mobility on a regional basis.”

Source: Subway to sea gains footing, Los Angeles Daily News

We’re encouraging our readers to send their thoughts to the newspapers in 150 words or less by emailing letters@latimes.com and dnforum@dailynews.com. Do it! And please send us a copy at info@iwillride.org when you do.

L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension (Source: www.progressiverailroading.com)

Link: L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension

L.A. authority collects soil samples for proposed subway extension

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) recently completed exploratory drilling in West L.A. as part of the planning and environmental process for the Westside subway extension.

LACMTA collected soil samples at 70 Westside locations over the past two-and-one-half months. The samples will be tested in labs to assess underground soil conditions and help determine an optimal subway route based on drilling and construction techniques. LACMTA needs to complete testing before it can prepare the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.

After the agency completes the environmental review process next year, LACMTA officials will recommend a route, or the locally preferred alternative, that will include the mode, alignment and station locations. The board will need to approve the route before any final environmental analysis, design/engineering or construction can begin.

The agency currently is considering two options: a Wilshire subway that would extend the Metro Purple Line via Wilshire Boulevard and a Wilshire/West Hollywood subway that would incorporate all of the Wilshire subway as well as a spur from the Metro Red Line in Hollywood via Santa Monica Boulevard.

LACMTA estimates project costs at $4.1 billion for a partial Wilshire subway to Westwood/405, $6.1 billion for the full Wilshire subway alternative to Santa Monica and $9 billion for the Wilshire/West Hollywood subway combination. The Measure R county sales tax would partially fund the project.

The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR

Friday, August 21, 2009
The New York Times' Second Punch on HSR

Yesterday we looked at Edward Glaeser's silly attack on HSR in the New York Times' Economix Blog. Today we have another attack on HSR in the New York Times - this time from Eric Morris at the Freakonomics Blog. Ryan Avent summed it up well via Twitter:

Eric Morris closes HSR series by referring readers to Randal O'Toole. You know, in case you thought he and Glaeser were aiming for an honest critique.


Sure enough:

Certainly neither Glaeser nor I pretend to have the last word on this topic. We are looking to start some debate, not finish it. So if you want to learn more on the pros of true HSR, check out the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s site, or this report for the views of an articulate critic, the Cato Institute’s Randall O’Toole.


Either Morris is joking or is even more in the tank against HSR than we ever thought. Randall O'Toole as a credible source on passenger trains?!?! This is the same guy who thinks riding a train is more harmful than driving an SUV and whose difficulties with facts and evidence has been well documented.

But it's not just the company Morris keeps that damns his blog post. Morris has a rather interesting justification for his work on HSR planning:

I have extensive experience planning, designing, constructing, financing, and operating HSR networks; these have spanned the nation and have been terrifically elegant, with state-of-the-art locomotive technology and thousands of miles of flat, straight track to keep speeds high.

However, those HSR systems were built from electricity, not steel. And while the HSR currently being proposed will cost tens of billions, the cost of my HSR network was comparatively modest: perhaps $30 in fixed costs for the purchase of the computer game Sid Meier’s Railroad Tycoon, plus negligible variable costs for the power to run my computer and depreciation on my mouse button. The sum total of the utility I experienced from this kind of HSR paid for those costs many times over.


That's like saying I can run a street gang because I played Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. How ridiculous do economics bloggers for the NYT not named Paul Krugman have to get before we stop taking them seriously?

The primary problem that afflicts Morris's attack on HSR is the exact same problem that afflicted Edward Glaeser's articles as well: they persistently refuse to examine HSR costs in context:

Costs in the real world are quite different. HSR is an exciting idea, and if we could make it appear by magic wand it’d be a terrific addition to our transportation network. But everything has a price, and the way things currently stand, the projected costs look like they outweigh the benefits. If the thought of some ominous budget numbers lurking on a piece of paper in far-off Washington doesn’t move you, consider the opportunity costs of this spending, in terms of health care, education, the economy, defense, or a (more effective) method of slowing global warming. Or if you want to keep the money in the realm of transportation, it could go to address what I consider to be the more serious problem we are facing: moving people around within our cities, not between them.


There are innumerable flaws with this analysis, which is actually the heart of Morris's post. Morris claims to speak of opportunity cost, but where is the estimate of how much it will take to expand roads and airports in California to handle the passenger loads that HSR will handle? Estimates for that range from $80 billion to $160 billion. But nobody aside from Morris Brown thinks California HSR will approach even the lower range of that estimate.

Morris appears to think that air travel will continue to remain cheap, plentiful and affordable. A kind of perpetual 2007. Last year we talked quite a bit about the airline crisis - how rising oil prices have jeopardized the easy air travel that we have come to expect here in the US. Airports in smaller cities have begun bribing airlines to maintain service, and cities like Fresno and Bakersfield have struggled to maintain the airline service they still have.

For Morris to basically ignore the problems of the airlines he has to ignore the all-important question of whether oil prices will remain at the same price they're at now. There is ample reason to believe they will not. Even during a severe recession gas costs at least $3/gal across most of California, the threshold that once crossed in 2006 helped burst the housing bubble. Once growth resumes, whenever that might be, oil prices are widely expected to rise again, especially considering the steady increase in global demand.

HSR is not the same as ongoing expenditures for health care or education. Like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Shasta Dam, it is a piece of infrastructure that enables economic activity to continue and grow well into the future. It enables health care and education spending to continue, rather than become strangled by gridlock.

And yes, Eric Morris, HSR will help intracity transportation just as it will provide intercity transportation. In California HSR will be used by commuters within regions just as it will be used by commuters between regions. The HSR route will serve as a transit spine for the state, with its key nodes (SF Transbay, SJ Diridon, LA Union Station) becoming the centerpieces of local rail. HSR is a rising tide that lifts all transportation boats.

Unfortunately, Morris is so in thrall to Randall O'Toole's anti-rail jihad that he won't stop to consider these aspects. Instead he uses the same arbitrarily limited and therefore insufficient scope to mislead readers about the true costs of projects. The Golden Gate Bridge might not have penciled out in the first 5 years from its opening in 1937, but hardly anyone today would argue the Bay Area is better off without it. 30 years from now, when Californians travel around their state on high speed trains, they too will wonder why anyone thought building it was anything but a sensible and farsighted idea.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 3:13 PM

Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening (Source: ladowntownnews.com)

Link: Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening

Gold Line Extension Targets Mid-October Opening
Published: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:41 PM PDT
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, once expected to open in September, will now debut in mid-October at the earliest, Metro spokesman Marc Littman said last week.

The agency is slated to begin “stress tests” at the end of August, during which all aspects of the equipment and infrastructure is tested. The next and final step is pre-revenue testing, a five-week period when the trains run exactly as they will once the line opens — the only missing piece will be the riders. The $899 million project includes a new station in Little Tokyo at Second and Alameda Streets, and will connect Downtown with East Los Angeles. “We haven’t set a date,” Littman said. “But theoretically, the earliest would be mid-October.”

L.A. mayor wants to speed up work on Subway to the Sea Villaraigosa and other elected officials urge local governments to put aside differences and work to get stimulus funds to expedite the project. Completion is scheduled for 2036. (Source: LA Times)

L.A. mayor wants to speed up work on Subway to the Sea -- latimes.com

L.A. mayor wants to speed up work on Subway to the Sea
Villaraigosa and other elected officials urge local governments to put aside differences and work to get stimulus funds to expedite the project. Completion is scheduled for 2036.

By Dan Weikel

August 21, 2009


As workers finished exploratory drilling Thursday for the planned Westside subway extension, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other elected officials said they want to speed up construction of the $4.1-billion transit project, which has been scheduled for completion in 2036.

An outspoken advocate for the so-called Subway to the Sea, the mayor has long been frustrated by the project's timetable, and that was evident again when he and other officials gathered for a news conference in a UCLA parking lot. There, final soil samples had been drawn for a route that would follow Wilshire Boulevard from downtown Los Angeles to Westwood.

"I'm 56 now," said the mayor, who would be 83 if the extension were completed under the current schedule. "We are here today to make sure that it gets built before I'm 66."

Villaraigosa was joined by Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles Councilmen Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz, Santa Monica Councilwoman Pam O'Connor and Glendale Councilman Ara Najarian, the chairman of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors.

They urged local governments to put aside their differences over planned transportation projects and launch a coordinated effort to secure enough federal stimulus dollars and matching funds to expedite the subway extension as well as other much-anticipated projects to be financed by Measure R, the county's new transportation sales tax.

Those include the Expo Line light-rail route from downtown to Santa Monica with a completion date in 2015, the Gold Line's Foothill extension to perhaps Azusa by 2017 and a downtown light-rail line to connect the Blue, Gold and Expo lines by 2025.

"We need a unified approach to get federal money. We need to bring the MTA board together," Najarian said. "If it all comes together, we will be a force to be reckoned with. We will be able to advance all our projects."

Officials said the subway extension deserves to be given a priority because it would serve one of the most heavily populated areas of Los Angeles and help relieve traffic on some of the region's busiest streets and highways, such as Wilshire Boulevard and the 10 and 405 freeways. MTA officials predict that the subway will generate 75,000 to 116,000 boardings a day shortly after it opens.

Should the project receive adequate federal assistance, Villaraigosa predicted that the subway to the Westside could be finished in 10 years, or about 17 years ahead of the current timetable.

The MTA is considering several alignments that would extend the subway from the Wilshire-Western station to Westwood with additional routes into Santa Monica and West Hollywood.

The estimated cost of the line is $4.1 billion if built to Westwood, $6.1 billion if built to Santa Monica and $9 billion if the project includes routes to West Hollywood and Santa Monica. Selecting a preferred alignment is set for next year.

Part of the money for the subway will come from Measure R, which is expected to generate up to $40 billion during the next 30 years.

dan.weikel@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Villaraigosa Campaigns for Westside Subway’s Completion in Ten Years (Source: The transport politic)

the transport politic » Villaraigosa Campaigns for Westside Subway’s Completion in Ten Years

Villaraigosa Campaigns for Westside Subway’s Completion in Ten Years

August 21, 2009

Los Angels West Side Subway Alignment AlternativesProposed 2036 completion date — without extension to Santa Monica — worries the Los Angeles mayor.

Last November, Los Angeles County voters agreed to increase sales taxes by a 1/2¢ with the passage of Measure R, which will fund new transit projects throughout the region. One of the primary benefits of the new revenue is the ability to fund the construction of a “subway to the sea,” which will extend the existing Red and Purple heavy rail lines to Santa Monica. But the large number of projects on the drawing board have slowed down this west side corridor significantly; partial completion, along Wilshire from Western Ave to UCLA, won’t be done until 2036. But Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is now on a campaign to attract federal funds to push its completion date forward — perhaps to 2020.

For the first time in more than a decade, the west side extension, which has often been included in the city’s transit plans, looks like it might happen. After years of controversy, a loss of federal funds, and gas explosions, the stars have aligned, with local and federal money available and an ambitious transit agency board again willing to risk its political clout for a project that will serve Los Angeles’ densest and most traffic-choked community.

Yet, even with Measure R, Los Angeles will need decades to build this very expensive line. Estimates put total cost in a $4-9 billion range, depending on whether the route extends all the way to Santa Monica, rather than simply to Westwood, and whether a spur north through West Hollywood is included. The full project, with 14 stations, will greatly improve connectivity across the west side of Los Angeles as well as among the cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica; this is currently the preferred choice of most residents of the area and Metro itself. The project, though, is too expensive to build without a massive federal appropriation.

Metro, the local transit agency, initiated the completion of a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the line in January, beginning the first step towards what will be a major construction project. Metro will select a locally preferred alternative next fall and then begin engineering and eventually construction work. In the meantime, the city has been drilling holes across the west side — 70 of them in total, up to 80 feet into the ground — to begin assessing the quality of soil for subway construction. The results were positive, with no danger in sight.

Mr. Villaraigosa, in the meantime, has become a strong advocate of regional cooperation for the benefit of the project. The mayor encouraged politicians from across the County to push for federal funds to complete the line on an accelerated timetable. The U.S. government needs to expedite up to $5 billion to ensure that the full project can be completed. This kind of commitment, however, has been rare in recent American transit policy, which has rarely appropriated more than $1 billion to just one line.

The mayor’s vision is necessary, because a wait until 2036 for just the line to UCLA would be a disappointment and a disaster for the city as a whole. The traffic mess on the west side, even with the completion of the Expo Line, will not improve dramatically; the area continues to be the region’s biggest draw but it is harder and harder to reach. With direct benefits only being accrued in four of the region’s dozens of municipalities, it remains to be seen whether mayors and congressmen from the sprawling region will come together in support of the project.

Image above: Westside subway alignment alternatives, from Metro

Separate but Equal Treatment via Rail Lines in L.A. (Source: LA Eastside)

LA Eastside » Separate but Equal Treatment via Rail Lines in L.A.

Separate but Equal Treatment via Rail Lines in L.A.

by Browne Molyneux

The Rail around Indiana

If you look at this photo you wonder what is this? And how did anyone think this was safe?

Why is the safety method on the Eastside going to be of the “pull yourselves up by the bootstraps” variety via cameras to blame personal drivers and old men in yellow vests reminding people to “be safe,” while the City of Los Angeles west of LaCienega get the “silver spoon” variety of safety with expensive barriers and elevated stations?

Why will there will be no testing out Darwinism theory of survival of the fittest on the Westside?

Only the neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poor people and brown and black people are tested with sink and swim theories.

The rail dips just one mile into the magic dividing line of LaCienega and the people on that side of LA who don’t walk or even use public transit as extensively as people on the Eastside get all of our tax dollars spent protecting them from being hit by a train that most of them won’t even take or even be near outside of driving by its protected barrier.

(This is an excerpt of a very long post entitled “Cameras Aren’t Going to Make Fewer People Die.”)

by Browne Molyneux

One step closer to subway: Electeds and high-level officials gather to celebrate soil sample collection in Westwood parking lot (Source: The LA Subway Blog)

The LA Subway Blog: One step closer to subway: Electeds and high-level officials gather to celebrate soil sample collection in Westwood parking lot

One step closer to subway: Electeds and high-level officials gather to celebrate soil sample collection in Westwood parking lot
Thursday, August 20, 2009





Metro's drilling for soil samples in Lot 36 by Wilshire and Veteran.
Could the subway be here as soon as 2019?

That's what I heard today at a press conference called the mayor's office this morning at Lot 36, which is by Wilshire and Veteran. The occasion? The commencement of drilling for soil samples in Westwood as part of the draft EIR process for the Westside Subway Extension. Metro has already collected over 70 soil samples from various points along the projected subway route(s). The Westwood soil sample collection might have been pegged as significant for a myriad of reasons (for one, I'd like to think it was BTR's rogue grassroots Measure R campaign, which highlighted Westwood and Wilshire...)

Anyway, I'm vaguely trained in hard news writing, so I attempted to write up some of the statements made by Mayor Villaraigosa, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, and many other elected politicians and high-level officials, such as Metro CEO Art Leahy. They called out for the passage of the LRTP (looong delayed); highlighted benefits (expanded mobility, travel time reductions, and job creation); and declared that with federal matching funds, the Wilshire Subway Extension could make it to Westwood in 10 years - meaning 2019.

L to R: Rita Robinson, General Manager at LADOT; Pam O'Connor, Mayor Pro-Templore of Santa Monica and Metro board member; LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (speaking); Metro construction worker; LA Councilman Bill Rosendahl (he's tall).
This assumes many things happen, including...
1) It is safe to tunnel along the projected route
2) The delayed Long Range Transportation Plan is passed by Metro.
3) There is traction in the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank
4) Maybe our subway will even get a direct financial allocation in the renewal of SAFETLU, the federal government's transportation bill, scheduled for September.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragoisa, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, 5th District Councilman Paul Koretz and other area elected politicians and high-level public officials came together today at UCLA’s parking lot 36, by Wilshire and Veteran, to celebrate a major milestone in the path to building the Westside Subway Extension: the start of drilling for soil testing in Westwood, a potential western terminus.


Villaraigosa touted the Westwood soil sample collection as an important step in bringing the subway to fruition, a project that is Villaraigosa said would generate jobs, cut travel times, and end Los Angeles’s vulnerability as the punch line late night jokes about congestion and rush hour traffic.

The Westwood soil sample collection is one of over 70 samples collected this summer by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority for analysis as part of the subway extension’s draft environmental impact report.

At the press conference, Villaraigosa once again thanked voters for passing Measure R, which he and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroskavky interpreted as a mandate from voters to build a rapid transit system which would transport Angelenos around the Westside and across the County.

Villaraigosa stated that with federal matching, the subway extension to Westwood could be completed as soon as 2019. Los Angeles will not see a Westwood subway station before 2036 if the city and Metro does nothing. This led Villaraigosa to call for the Metro Board of Directors to approve the Long Range Transportation Plan, whose passage was postponed to September last month, which would then enable Metro and other subway supporters to lobby for federal matching dollars.

Besides generating at least 32,000 construction jobs, the subway extension would expand mobility for the transit dependent, particularly those coming from the central and eastern parts of the County to job rich areas on the Westside, Yaroslavsky said. “The days when the west county’s transit needs get ignored are over,” Yaroslavsky declared.

Students, staff, and the 10 million annual visitors to UCLA would also benefit from the opening of a subway station in Westwood. “UCLA is the 7th largest employer in Los Angeles,” said UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, “and a subway would eliminate thousands of vehicle commute miles annually.”


UCLA Chancellor Gene Block talked about how UCLA would benefit from the subway

Squeaky Wheels (Source: California High Speed Rail Blog)

California High Speed Rail Blog: Squeaky Wheels

Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Squeaky Wheels

This blog has paid a lot of attention to the debate over high speed rail on the Peninsula here in 2009. So much so that I'm sure folks sometimes wonder whether this is actually the Peninsula HSR blog or whether Clem's is. (In case anyone was wondering - Clem's blog is still the best place for Peninsula HSR discussion by quite a distance.)

That is a function of two basic factors. The first is that I simply don't have as much time to do HSR research as I did in 2008. While I'd like to have had time to develop a new platform for the blog, do some original research, and generate more original discussions, that time simply hasn't existed for me. That's the story of work in 2009 - one is either overwhelmed with it or has none and is desperate to get it. So I remain dependent on other news sources to generate posts here at the blog, with occasional help from folks who send in tips and story ideas (and thanks to you who do that!).

And that leads into the second factor: what remains of the state's media has spent more time on the Peninsula HSR battle than on any other aspect of the project. And that's because squeaky wheels get the grease. Peninsula NIMBYs have worked their media contacts quite well, aided by the existence of several online news outlets in the Menlo Park and Palo Alto communities. Whereas the Innovation Place project struggles to get public attention, the folks filing absurdist lawsuits get plenty of coverage. (And am I the only one who has noticed how these people are working at cross-purposes? If you succeed in giving Union Pacific veto power over the corridor, then a tunnel will never happen.)

Some of this is due to the ingrown bias of the media in this state. Having become familiar with NIMBYism over the decades, they are willing to make it sound as if the only thing that is newsworthy about the HSR project is the folks on the Peninsula who are flipping out about it.

Don't get me wrong - those NIMBYs do have very real power. They represent, alongside State Senator Alan Lowenthal, one of the primary threats to the project's viability. They have the money, skills, and tactics needed to block the project.

But we should not mistake that as a sign of their relevance to the overall project, the mistake John Horgan made in yesterday's Mercury News in his assessment of Quentin Kopp's recent op-ed:

Local folks foresee high-speed rail and Caltrain combining to produce precisely that sort of devastating and grim scenario here, particularly in vital downtown areas, although Kopp and other HSR types have stated that four tracks, not six, would be used on the Peninsula. But even that remains to be seen...

Kopp concluded his essay in a conciliatory tone, noting that engineering and design solutions are "achievable and can be adopted here at home to preserve the character and healthy environment of our communities while supplying California with a sustainable transportation alternative to gridlock."

Let's hope he's right. There is no area of the Golden State with more at stake than this one.


It's that last line which I find so stunning. There are plenty of areas of California with more at stake than the Peninsula. The Transbay Terminal is a key element of downtown San Francisco's transportation plans. San Jose will experience significant new growth - of the desirable centrally located urban in-fill sort. Southern California will have a revolutionized transportation network that will help ease congestion and fuel the growth of more mass transit options.

But if you want to find a part of the state with more at stake than any other when it comes to high speed rail, you need to look not amidst the wealth of the Peninsula. You need to look in the Central Valley. Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield will be utterly transformed by high speed rail. Cities that are struggling with some of the state's highest unemployment rates and some of the world's highest foreclosure rates will have the opportunity to enjoy major and sustained economic growth. HSR will take these cities, currently and unfairly seen as backwaters in a state focused on the two coastal megalopolises, and give them the chance to participate in the 21st century economy. Fresno and Bakersfield will be less than 2 hours away from downtown SF and downtown LA. That's a reasonable commute time, meaning workers in the SF and LA areas can afford to live in the Central Valley, where housing is currently quite affordable. That will in turn bring new jobs and other opportunities to those cities that at present lack other options.

Ultimately, of course, it is the state as a whole that has an enormous amount at stake with the HSR project. It is essential to our future economic security, our energy independence, our strategies to reduce pollution and address global warming, and to our efforts to seed and support urban infill density that we build the high speed rail project as laid out in the voter-approved Proposition 1A.

Squeaky wheels may get all the attention, but it should not lead us to ignore the rest of the train.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 8:04 AM

As Metro Tries to Grow Rail Service, Controversies Grow with Them (Source:Streetsblog Los Angeles)

Streetsblog Los Angeles » As Metro Tries to Grow Rail Service, Controversies Grow with Them

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 21 Comments
As Metro Tries to Grow Rail Service, Controversies Grow with Them

by Damien Newton on August 19, 2009

Metro via Blogdowntown
Three potential Metro rail projects have been in the news recently, and two of them are being dogged by controversy as another continues to cruise during its early phases.

The controversy that might be newest to long-time readers is the objections of Little Tokyo residents to the proposed Regional Connector. Residents are up in arms over the impact that the project will have on their community regardless of whether it is built at-grade or below-grade. The Local Blog, Little Tokyo Unblogged explains the opposition in a harshly worded editorial entitled Metro Regional Disconnect:

And here we are today, being asked to take yet another “one for the team,” so some hypothetical riders in the future can travel from Long Beach to Pasadena and not have to pay a transfer fare of $1.25 or have to transfer from one train to another--something millions of people do in public transit-oriented cities throughout the world every day. Or, as someone at the meeting pointed out, is Little Tokyo being asked to sacrifice in order to “fix” a gap in Metro’s original vision of “seamless travel “ that ineptitude or lack of foresight created?

One entire block and maybe 20-30 family-owned businesses, who are already hanging on by a fingernail thanks to the current economy. So people don’t have to transfer trains? Buy a transfer ticket? To fix something that shouldn’t have been broken in the first place?

A second concern over the impact of construction, which is estimated to take up to four years would have on their community regardless of whether the trains are built at-grade. Little Tokyo blogger Rafu Shimpo explains the concerns:

“It’s quite devastating what could happen over four years (of the construction),” said Akemi Kikumura Yano, CEO of the Japanese American National Museum, which hosted the event.

“Possible massive disruption, in terms of access, not only to the Japanese American National Museum, but to Little Tokyo in general, I think that is a major concern for us… How are we going to survive?” she said, during the Q&A portion of the meeting.

It sounds like an ugly fight is brewing with Metro and rail activists taking on the Little Tokyo community. Hopefully Metro can find a way to work with the community as the Connector is viewed by many as the most important part of Metro's expansion plans.

The other controversial rail project is Phase II of the Expo Line. Having survived attempts to derail the project in South L.A., so far; Expo now faces challenges to the second Phase of the project. However, this time the opposition isn't coming from Cheviot Hills, it's coming from Santa Monica.

Over the last two weeks, a series of articles and opinion pieces from Santa Monica based news papers shows that residents there are readyying for a fight over the location of the rail yard that would house the light rail trains when they aren't on the tracks. The two main arguments are that the yards will be bad for Santa Monica College, and that because of the yard's proximity to lower-income housing, that the yard's construction and operation are an environmental justice violation.

The last rail line that's been in the news is the Westside Subway, aka the Subway to the Sea. A series of informational meetings were held in August, and thus far the controversy over this project has been a funding one that is confined to funding squabbles at the Metro Board level. Streetsblog contributer Alexander Friedman was at the West Hollywood meeting and was thrilled that Metro seems to be embracing a design that would have the Subway run through West Hollywood and the Wilshire District.

It looks like not just the public, but - the MTA - are all in favor of the combined Wilshire with Santa Monica Blvd lines!

This is great news, as both corridors are promising as far as success and high ridership.

Jody Litvak also provided an in-depth report about Construction of subway, including length of times and - how specifically construction is done. This is encouraging, as - for the first time MTA staff was getting into the details of construction itself! - not just planning....
Practically every single person spoke in favor of the combined option (Alternative 11), i.e. construction of both Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd lines. Indeed, it does make sense to construct the two, as - both lines will complement each other, drawing crowds from all over the city, and building both lines will provide an imcomparibly better connectivity throughout the city.

In short, August was a big month for three very different rail projects that are going in three different directions. How the projects move forward could very well depend on how Metro is able to work with the community.

Westside Subway Exploratory Drilling Completed, Villaraigosa Drops the Phrase 'Subway to the Sea' (Source: LAist)

Westside Subway Exploratory Drilling Completed, Villaraigosa Drops the Phrase 'Subway to the Sea' - LAist

Westside Subway Exploratory Drilling Completed, Villaraigosa Drops the Phrase 'Subway to the Sea'


Photo by honeybeejen via LAist Featured Photos

Over the past few months, Metro has been drilling for soil samples throughout the Westside so below ground conditions could be analyzed as plans for the subway route and construction can be made. The Metro Board still has not voted on whether or not to move forward with a subway, but this information is part of the environmental research that must be done before such a decision can be made. Over 70 locations were drilled.

Mayor Villaraigosa, who will speak at an event tomorrow about the drilling, has dropped his slogan, "subway to the sea," speaking in a couple press advisories today. “Every day, 40,000 to 80,000 cars travel along Wilshire Boulevard, coming from all corners of the county," he said in a statement. "From Long Beach, the San Gabriel Valley, the San Fernando Valley, people drive Wilshire to get to work. Bringing the subway to Westwood will help the entire county get here faster, with less pollution every day.”

Villaraigosa used the "Subway to the Sea" phrase in his state of the city address in April of this year. In fact, he's used it a lot in the past, even when Metro cautiously was using "Westside Extension" and was warning over a year ago that it may end at the 405. Even if current plans and funding expectations only allow for the subway to go so far, in this case U-Sea-L-A, it seems the dream to someday subway it over the sea has vanished, at least for now (or in today's press advisories). We hope he continues to fight the good fight to pave the way for that reality, although a bleak one when talking money.

Speaking in terms of the current economy, the cost of extending the Purple Line from Wilshire and Western to 405 Freeway in Westwood is estimated to be $4.1 billion. Add on a West Hollywood hook between Hollywood and Century City and the price tag goes up another $2 billion. Funding will come from Measure R and potentially federal sources and public-private partnerships.

A trip from Koreatown to UCLA is estimated to take 13 minutes. From North Hollywood, 42 minutes.
user-pic
By Zach Behrens in News on August 19, 2009 5:30 PM

Demystifying Legalese in Contracts, Part I

Demystifying Legalese in Contracts, Part I - BusinessWeek

Demystifying Legalese in Contracts, Part I

Posted by: Nick Leiber on August 17

This is a post by guest blogger Jonathan I. Ezor.

jonathan_ezor.jpgOne of the complaints frequently leveled against attorneys is that they speak, and write, a language foreign to all other people: legalese. This tongue, filled with words and phrases like “heretofore,” “hereinafter,” “notwithstanding the foregoing,” “including but not limited to” and “except as otherwise provided herein,” is most commonly seen in contracts, and seems to be best expressed in

very tiny letters.

The phenomenon causes most businesspeople, and even many other lawyers, to give up before ever trying to understand what the contract says.

This is extremely unfortunate and wrong, since a "contract" is also an "agreement," which means that the parties who are actually bound by it are supposed to agree to its terms, which really requires understanding them. The best contracts lawyers are actually good writers, able to turn a variety of business points into a single, comprehensible and consistent document. While there are some words that have specific legal meaning and need to be included in a contract ("warranty," for example, rather than simply "promise"), the rest of the language should be understandable to everyone involved. If the client can't read a contract and figure out what it means, it's a bad contract. Worse still, vague language will more likely lead to a lawsuit than do clear provisions, since misunderstanding is a frequent driver of disputes.

While all attorneys should strive to be better, clearer writers, there are other things that also can help make legalese more understandable to businesspeople. The next few articles in this blog series will be dedicated to demystifying typical contract provisions, using a Web development agreement (a frequent source of misunderstanding and conflict) as a model.

From warranties and representations to indemnification to the specifications to termination and beyond, the goal is to help turn the contracts readers get (and give) in business from gobbledegook into guideposts.

For starters, consider a provision often buried in the "Miscellaneous" (which many translate as "skim or even ignore this") section of a contract: the choice of law and forum clause. It usually looks like this:

This contract and any disputes hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York, excluding any principles of conflicts of laws. The exclusive forum for any disputes hereunder shall be the state and federal courts in the City of New York, State of New York.

There are two important pieces here. The first tells you which laws will be used to explain and interpret the contract, in this case New York's. The "excluding any principles of conflicts of laws" part avoids the logic puzzle caused by looking at New York law about what law applies to a contract: "New York law is supposed to apply, but New York law says that this contract should be governed by Texas law because the two parties are in Texas, but the contract says that New York law is supposed to apply, but..." Most states' laws are fairly similar, but you should still ask your lawyer if one or another has some unforeseen landmines (often regarding consumer or employee protection) that makes the choice troublesome.

The second piece, though, is almost purely strategic: where do disputes get heard? The short answer is often, "in the city where the more powerful party is located." Why? So that, if the parties are in different locations, the one with the power will find it much easier to bring a lawsuit than will the other. Consider if Fredco is in New York and Murrayco is in Los Angeles, and they sign a contract with the New York forum language. If Fredco cheats Murrayco, Murrayco will have to find a New York lawyer, travel to and stay in New York, and lose the services of any Murrayco employees in New York if it wants to sue Fredco. By contrast, Fredco's general counsel can hop on the nearest subway down to the courthouse and sue Fredco, forcing it to come East to defend itself. A New York forum is clearly better for Fredco than Murrayco.

What can Murrayco (or your company) do when faced with a far-away forum demanded by the other side to a deal? One productive approach is to propose the following alternative:

The exclusive forum for any disputes hereunder shall be the state and federal courts nearest the party against whom the dispute is brought.

In other words, if Fredco wants to sue Murrayco, it has to go to Los Angeles.

For Murrayco to sue Fredco, it must come to New York. Equal disincentives to sue, equal encouragement to settle, and it's very difficult for Fredco's lawyer to reasonably object to the suggestion.

The next blog will demystify one of the most important, and least clear, portions of most business contracts: the warranty provision. If you have suggestions for provisions you would like demystified, please feel free to e-mail your ideas.

Jonathan I. Ezor is the director of the Touro Law Center Institute for Business, Law and Technology, and an assistant professor of law and technology. He also serves as special counsel to The Lustigman Firm, a marketing and advertising law firm based in Manhattan. A technology attorney for more than 15 years, Ezor has represented advertising agencies, software developers, banks, retailers, and Internet service providers, and has been in-house counsel to an online retailer, an Internet-based document printing firm, and a multinational Web and software development company.

Metro Presents Regional Rail Connector to a Wary Little Tokyo Audience (Source: LAist)

Metro Presents Regional Rail Connector to a Wary Little Tokyo Audience - LAist

Metro Presents Regional Rail Connector to a Wary Little Tokyo Audience

Metro Conceptual 1st / Alameda Flyover from blogdowntown on Vimeo.

Here at 1st and Alameda in Little Tokyo, here's a Metro conceptual of how trains, vehicles and pedestrians will come together | Video via blogdowntown on Vimeo.

An option for Metro's Regional Connector in downtown won't be officially chosen until sometime next year (probably summer or fall), but Little Tokyo community members are severely concerned over one of the proposals that would bring some major changes to the neighborhood.

The regional connector would connect the Blue, Gold and Expo lines into a more seamless system. Trains would travel from Culver City to East LA and from Long Beach to Pasadena making Metro's rail system more efficient. Currently, the Blue Line and future Expo Line end at the 7th Metro Station and the Gold Line circumvents the eastside of downtown through Little Tokyo.

Two build ideas are on the table: underground and on the streets. In order for the less impactful-to-street-traffic underground option to work, it will have to transition to the Gold Line above ground in Little Tokyo, therefore changing the neighborhood's infrastructure. Last week's meeting with the Little Tokyo community proved Metro has a long way to go to win their support.

The construction period is of major concern, but also the long term effects of local traffic, the concept of a pedestrian flyover structure, access to local businesses and more. Question and answer periods reportedly "got very intense," according to Little Tokyo unBlogged.

By Zach Behrens in News on August 17, 2009 1:40 PM

Innovation Place (Source:California High Speed Rail Blog)

Link: California High Speed Rail Blog: Innovation Place

Innovation Place

Clem has a excellent overview of the tunnel and urban development concepts offered by a group calling itself Innovation Place. You can see some of their award-winning presentation or read more about the plan at Palo Alto Online. Clem's explanation of their ideas:

The crown jewel of Innovation Place is a complete transformation of the University Avenue station area, as envisioned in the team's graphic above. High speed rail or not, this area of Palo Alto is in dire need of a redesign; today, access between three important zones of activity (the University Avenue shopping district, Stanford University, and the Stanford Shopping Center) is a circuitous and dysfunctional jumble that is both unpleasant and time consuming to navigate, whether by foot, bike, car or bus. Neighboring areas just a few hundred feet apart feel miles away from each other.

The remainder of the Innovation Place proposal consists of a 31-acre linear park adjoining Alma Street, featuring a bike and pedestrian path and reuniting the two halves of Palo Alto formerly separated by the train tracks. The additional cost of putting the tracks underground would be financed by selling $700 million worth of air rights for development.


Go over to Clem's blog to read the full details and see some very intriguing designs, along with Clem's thoughts on the concept's strengths and weaknesses.

Personally I think this is exactly the kind of work that Palo Alto residents ought to be producing. Rather than trying to say "no" to the HSR/Caltrain project, the thinkers behind Innovation Place have said "yes" to integrating it into their community. It would be wonderful if Menlo Park and Atherton chose to follow this model instead of wasting taxpayer money on a lawsuit that is doomed to fail.

As to the concept (which should not be described as a "proposal" at this point since it isn't at that level of specificity), I like it. There's the question of the possible roller-coaster effect of a high speed train entering a tunnel for Palo Alto only, and whether $700 million is enough to underground the route. It's also unclear whether Union Pacific will go along with this, as it would pretty much eliminate their ability to continue freight operations over that section of track (although they could theoretically revive the Dumbarton corridor and use the shared tracks along the rest of the HSR/Caltrain corridor north to SF). But this is absolutely something worth exploring.
Posted by Robert Cruickshank at 10:29 PM