[Wright Concept]

http://www.dailynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=5090479&siteId=200

Bigger buses to hit the Orange Line
Sixty-five-foot-long vehicles to allow for additional riders on crowded route
BY SUE DOYLE, Staff Writer
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:01/25/2007 10:09:23 PM PST

A futuristic, 65-foot bus will hit the road this summer on the Orange Line as MTA officials try to provide more room for current riders and entice others to get on board.

With five extra feet, the megasize bus can hold at least nine more seated passengers and up to five more standing in the aisle than the 60-foot buses shuttling residents today from North Hollywood to Woodland Hills.

The extra-long bus could help meet the soaring demand for the 14-mile Orange Line, where ridership is nearing its capacity of 22,000 weekly riders - more than the Gold Line, said Richard Hunt, San Fernando Valley Service Sector general manager.

Just over a year in service, the Orange Line's ridership has surprised Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials who this month began running more buses during peak hours.

"We anticipated it sometime in the future, but we certainly didn't anticipate that we'd have such ridership this soon," Hunt said.

For one year, MTA officials will watch how the 65-foot bus performs on the route. If it handles well, the extra-long bus could slowly replace the 60-footers hauling commuters on the Orange Line today, Hunt said.

Buses are replaced as they age and hit certain mileages. Buses on the Orange Line last year averaged 60,000 miles compared with the traditional 40-foot buses trekking across the city that annually rack up an average 43,000 miles, Hunt said.

But first the MTA will have to push for legislation to use the extra-long bus on the Orange Line, since the state's vehicle code restricts transit buses to 60-feet in length.

The transit agency received a special permit this week from CalTrans to test out the 65-foot bus.

In addition, the MTA will also look at bringing 80-foot buses to the Orange Line. The intent is to mimic rail service as much as possible.

The MTA board on Thursday approved the $100,000 to extend the bus by five feet. The average cost of the MTA's 60-foot bus is $634,000.

As interest in the Orange Line grows, ridership on all MTA bus lines increased by nearly 5 percent in 2006 and follows a trend across the country, according to the American Public Transportation Association, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit agency that represents public transportation agencies.

Nationwide, public transportation use increased nearly 3 percent last year, spurred by higher gas prices, which persuaded many drivers they should leave their cars in the garage.

"Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to start a new habit," Miller said. "But once you start a new habit like public transportation, and you find that it's convenient and affordable and helps you de-stress, you want to stay with it."

[citywatch]

Kevin Hughes is a hypocrite if he suddenly is against transit when it's going to be built near his hood. However, I'd give him some slack if he & his neighbors would support the Expo line if it were a subway. If so, it's another reason why surface trains like the Gold, which has to run too slowly because of complaints about noise, or the future Expo line, which will go through traffic intersections (& probably require crossing guard gates), ultimately really need to be setup as subway systems.



Steve Lopez:
Points West

Something's Wrong With Unused Right of Way
January 28 2007

You want to know where the thought of L.A. traffic will make you feel like crying? Drive to Overland Avenue just north of the Santa Monica Freeway and stop when you see the sign that says: "RR Crossing"

Don't worry about getting hit by a train, by the way. The tracks are still there on both sides of Overland, but they haven't carried a train in nearly 20 years, when freight service was discontinued. Until 1953, there was passenger service too, with trains gliding along on what was known as the Santa Monica Air Line. The rail service was touted in 1920s advertisements as all the more reason to buy a new home in Cheviot Hills, where lucky Angelenos could hop aboard "the airline to the beaches."

Cheviot Hills resident and historian Jonathan Weiss pointed this out as he led me and a neighbor, Sarah Hays, on a tour of the abandoned rail line. We walked from Overland in an easterly direction all the way to the Santa Monica Freeway with Hays' daughter and one of her pals. You can hear the distant whoosh of freeway traffic, but otherwise there's not a sound along the right of way, which is roughly the size of a four-lane highway on this particular stretch and even wider west of Overland.

That's the maddening part. The 15-mile Expo Line, which would run from Santa Monica to USC, was purchased by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 1990. The plan was to run buses or light-rail cars along the route, turning north near USC and heading all the way to downtown Los Angeles. Studies suggested that it would instantly become one of the busiest passenger lines in the country.

But this is Los Angeles, and nothing got done. So you stand out there on the right of way, gritting your teeth, wondering why, at the very least, it couldn't have been turned into a greenbelt and bikeway. Funding concerns, politics, regional and ethnic divisions, the usual lack of imagination and leadership, and frenzied neighborhood opposition have kept an invaluable transit route idle. And even now, with the MTA finally beginning to design the phase of the project that will run from Culver City to the west, the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Assn. voted 14 to 0 on Jan. 3 to oppose use of the right of way.

People in Cheviot and nearby communities along the right of way have expressed concerns about noise and proximity to schools and houses, noting that trains would be within 50 feet of some homes and possibly reduce property values. But don't call them NIMBYs, homeowner association President Kevin Hughes told me. :dunce:

"Cheviot Hills doesn't need light rail as much as Venice and Sepulveda do," he said, explaining that Cheviot homeowners would rather have the line run in a more southerly route along Venice Boulevard and then north on Sepulveda Boulevard.

Those communities are denser, he argued, and in greater need of transit options than their more affluent neighbors to the north. Maybe so, but there's a problem with that logic: There's no preexisting railroad right of way along Venice Boulevard.

Hughes contacted me to compliment me on a column in which I said the city shouldn't have approved two 47-story condo towers and other projects in Century City before having a transit plan in place to handle the increased traffic. Then why is he anti-transit a few miles away in Cheviot?

"It is a bit glib to dismiss an affluent, well-maintained neighborhood as 'rich, selfish NIMBYs,' " he said in an e-mail. "Sometimes the NIMBYs have a point and sometimes the city has an interest in preserving its nice neighborhoods. Cheviot Hills is desirable because the hard-working, friendly, generous people who live there care a lot."

What, and the residents of the communities to the south are a bunch of selfish deadbeats?

"NIMBYism is NIMBYism, regardless of the neighborhood," argued another Cheviot resident. Bob Simon, a physician, received Hughes' e-mail response to me because he's a member of the homeowner association board and Hughes sent it to all 15 members. Simon told me he favors light rail on the railroad right of way but mistakenly voted against it at the Jan. 3 meeting, thinking he was voting on whether they should vote. After receiving a copy of Hughes' e-mail to me, he issued a stinging response in which he called the homeowner association's position hypocritical.

"ALL COMMUNITIES in this city need light rail," Simon wrote. "We are crammed with outrageous traffic and need alternative transportation. To say that Cheviot doesn't need access to transportation is to negate all of the arguments we have used for years against [Century City] development."

He went on to say that preservation of the precious neighborhood is not at stake, because the right of way runs alongside rather than through Cheviot Hills "for less than 1/4 mile."

Hughes called Simon a cheap-shot artist and said the board represented the majority view of residents based on a recent survey. That majority view prevailed through the 1990s as well, with Cheviot residents using their considerable influence on L.A. County Supervisor and MTA board member Zev Yaroslavsky, among others. "Why punish ourselves on a route that has so many problems," Yaroslavsky said in March 2000, when he and the MTA board voted 11 to 1 to study his proposed alternative along Venice Boulevard.

So it'll be more than a little interesting to see Yaroslavsky's next move. Ever since I wrote Jan. 7 that Yaroslavsky has had it with traffic, readers have lambasted him for his long opposition to subways, his approval of massive developments without adequate transit options and for now complaining about the mess they accuse him of helping to create.

We're still several years away from seeing the Expo Line open for business, but some important decisions have to be made soon. Yaroslavsky tells me he won't take a position on the best route for the Expo Line until the MTA completes a study of both routes — probably a year from now.

It's a topic worthy of full-blown public debate, and a former MTA executive and current member of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Assn. offered his two cents' worth in an e-mail to me. "The population density along Palms/Culver, which includes multifamily housing, would make available low-cost transit to thousands of residents along that corridor," wrote Anthony J. Padilla, who thinks the southerly route makes far more sense.

"This does not even consider the hundreds of businesses that would benefit from having thousands of new customers available to them, reduce the need for parking space which could be utilized to more effectively expand a business and an expanded employee pool of qualified candidates who can travel efficiently to work at a reasonable cost."

But we also know that the southerly route would be longer by more than a mile, that it would block traffic at more crossings than would the other line, that it would take longer to get from one end to the other and that it would cost as much as $50 million to $100 million more to build because of its length.

In a perfect world, the Expo Line would have a branch along both routes. But when you walk along the old right of way, it's maddening to think it might never be put back to use in a city choked with traffic and smog. Shouldn't one goal of transit be to get people out of their cars as well as to serve those who have no wheels? If so, what better place to offer rail than in a neighborhood of homes with two-car garages and an abandoned train route the taxpayers have already bought and paid for?

[solongfullerton]

i like how steve lopez is making hughes and the CHHOA out to be the bad guys. I know that some of you are not big fans of mr lopez, but you have to him credit more making light of situations that the public would otherwise never hear about.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Sometimes I like his articles (like that one just posted), and sometimes I think he's a big idiot.

Here's an LA transit related article:

L.A. eyes transit court to boost compliance and fine collections


ASSOCIATED PRESS

4:53 a.m. January 29, 2007

LOS ANGELES – Transit officials are considering creating a special court to deal with passengers who break the rules on buses and trains and often get away with not paying their fines.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority court would handle fare evaders and other scofflaws cited for munching on chips, playing loud music or other offenses.

The proposal would “reduce the burden on local courts” and “provide a more streamlined, focused and efficient method of administering and adjudicating citations,” said Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, a county supervisor and MTA board member.

Los Angeles County Superior Court has not taken a position on whether the transit-related crimes should be diverted into a new MTA-run system.

“It's up to the MTA as to what they decide to do,” said Greg Blair, a court administrator. He said the MTA cases were a “drop in the bucket” of the 1.8 million citations the court processes annually. The court does not get any of the money collected from those fines.

Officials cited New York City's Transit Adjudication Bureau, which greatly increased fine collections, as a model.

The MTA collects about $1 million a year in fines, an average of $12 per citation, mostly from rail passengers who don't buy a ticket. Anyone caught on board without a $1.25 fare ticket faces a fine up to $250 and 48 hours of community service.

According to court statistics, however, most of the 60,000 passengers cited each year never pay up or go to court to fight their citations, resulting in the low collection rate.

For example, sheriff's deputies issued 25,502 fare evasion citations between July 1, 2004 and June 30,2005 on the Blue Line commuter train between downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach, statistics show. Less than one-quarter of people cited paid their tickets or appeared in court.

State lawmakers last fall authorized Los Angeles and San Francisco transit agencies to create administrative offices to go after passengers breaking the rules. MTA board members were expected to decide later this year whether to establish and operate a transit adjudication bureau. It would cost about $1.5 million annually.

Judge John Cheroske, who supervises the Compton court, believes a separate court would be more cost-effective.

“If they were taken out of this system, it would save everyone a great deal of money,” he said.





Information from: Los Angeles Times, www.latimes.com

[RAlossi]

I'm all for it. Being involved in the legal industry, I know that our court system is overburdened as it is. A more targeted approach could really increase the collection of fines.

Regarding eating or drinking on platforms or in cars or on buses, I think that we should allow that. If MTA added some kind of privately funded foodservice retail at stations (even Japan-style vending machines), and collect a portion of revenue and have those businesses be responsible for station / platform maintenance, the MTA could hire more cleaning crews for the trains and buses themselves. It might not balance out completely, but it would make for a nicer experience, being able to eat on platforms without having to face a $250 fine.

[cookiejarvis]

Well the MTA certainly has room to spare in their Taj Mahal building.

And since Mr. RAlossi is doling out free legal advice...what say you of Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association seeking counsel/professional witness to argue against using the MTA owned right of way between Venice/Robertson and Pico/Sepulveda during upcoming scoping events? Should organizations like Friends4Expo or the Sierra Club field legal counsel as well for counterbalance or rely on grassroots input?

[RAlossi]

^ "involved in the legal industry" encompasses a whole range of professions, Mr. Jarvis. Not all are lawyers. And where is this supposed legal advice I gave out?

In any event, I'm interested to know what -legal- basis the CHHOA is using in arguing against the Expo ROW through Cheviot Hills, or is it just a collection of anti-rail NIMBYs? The MTA probably doesn't care which ROW it uses -- as long as they have the funding and can build it (which favors the ROW) -- and I'm not sure the Sierra Club has an official opinion on ROW vs. Venice/Sepulveda (Why would it? But correct me if I'm wrong).

[LongBeachUrbanist]

:previous: I was listening to NPR last night, and they had an article about the Cheviot Hills HOA voting to oppose use of the ROW for Expo.

The reporter said that the vote will probably have little impact, for two reasons.

First is the groundswell of support, among citizens and politicians, for traffic solutions in general, and in particular, for Expo using the ROW, which is the cheapest and easiest to build and is the fastest route.

Second is the fact that this vote has no legal impact with respect to stopping the line.

Expo will be built, I'm sure of it, and it will pass by Cheviot Hills. Expo will not make significant noise, it doesn't even pass through the neighborhood. If those people are concerned about noise, they should have the 10 Freeway torn down.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

At least one Cheviot resident (http://lightrailforcheviot.org) is for using the ROW.

BTW, the best way to counter Cheviot homeowners' fears of light rail is to provide a comparable example. The Blue Line passes right by Bixby Knolls, an expensive neighborhood in the NW of Long Beach. In fact, the train edges by a country club and a community park. It doesn't make too much noise, it just passes by. This should be held up as an example of the level of impact Cheviot homeowners can expect to see from Expo.

[cookiejarvis]

^ "involved in the legal industry" encompasses a whole range of professions, Mr. Jarvis. Not all are lawyers. And where is this supposed legal advice I gave out?

I was just rattling your cage. :poke:

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Can someone PLEASE illustrate a simple example of the two possible routes thru the ROW and the Venice/Sepulveda? Like a google map with just a red line after Culver City to designate where Expo would be going. Cuz it's not very obvious where this "trench" is on the map. This would be VERY helpful!!!

[solongfullerton]

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c314/solongfullerton/exporoutes.jpg

The blue line is long the ROW and the green line follows Venice and Sepulveda

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Thank you solongfullerton! OMG! It's sooo obvious what is the RIGHT CHOICE to make here. I'm glad the CHHOA has no LEGAL power to stop the MTA from choosing a route thru the trench. Has the Friends4Expo group been able to make some kind of presentation to the CCHOA to help convince some nay-sayers to support the Expo thru Cheviot Hills?

[cookiejarvis]

Jonathan Weiss is a very vocal pro-Expo Rail ROW member of the CCHOA board, but apparently not on the "transportation committee" that voted to oppose the rail line that runs along the border of Cheviot Hills for 1/4 mile. There is much more support for the rail line in Cheviot Hills than publically acknowledged because the HOA is some sort of political brass ring that keeps changing hands between the pro and anti rail camps. LABeauty, check out lightrailforcheviot.org to see pictures of this grade seperated right-of-way close up to see how outrageous the NIMBYs claims are.

I am certainly relieved that there is a ground swell of support for more rail transit in L.A. County, but is it enough to turn the tide? I'm still concerned that there are L.A. locals with enough legal, organizational or political pull out there with nothing better to do than throw a monkey wrench into perfectly sensible infrastructure improvements to our urban environment.

[stuckintraffic]

Is the cheapness factor the major reason to choose the right of way route? Because to me it seems the route along Venice/Sepulveda would serve more people. The ROW goes through a very off-the-beaten-path, residential area for the most part--it seems like LRT would be just going through rather than servicing that area. Venice is a huge thoroughfare with numerous businesses, as is that stretch of Sepulveda Blvd.
Thoughts?

[cookiejarvis]

The purpose of these rail lines isn't to zig zag through every destination spot and pick up passengers. What really should happen is have two separate rail lines: one serving Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. via Expo and another along Venice Blvd serving Venice to Crenshaw Blvd (at least). There are many factors that make the Expo Right of Way between Robertson/Venice and Pico/Sepulveda more appealing than a Venice/Sepulveda diversion. A few off the top of my head:

The MTA already owns the Right of Way that is adjacent to Cheviot Hills.
A cost difference of about $100 million (as you mentioned)
Slower runs times along the Venice/Sepulveda diversion of up to an extra 30 minutes between Santa Monica and Downtown.
Quicker construction turnaround
A Motor Ave. stop could still serve the Palms neighborhood (not that the Cheviot Hills NIMBYs would ever allow it)
Engineering nightmare trying to bank and run the rail line up a steep grade at Venice & Sepulveda Blvd intersection. Some additional property would have to be bought to handle the curve and power relay stations.

[Wright Concept]

Is the cheapness factor the major reason to choose the right of way route? Because to me it seems the route along Venice/Sepulveda would serve more people.

It's not only cheaper because the right-of-way is already owned, but much quicker between 4-12 minutes quicker depending on whether the Venice-Sepulveda Diversion is 100% grade separated. And per Culver City laws (since one side of Venice Blvd is in Culver City) and because of the narrowness of Sepulveda Blvd (having a two train tracks AND a station combined with the existing traffic will be a headache and nightmare) That savings of 4-12 minutes can mean the difference between 30,000 riders or 50,000 riders on the opening day of the line. Also the savings in $$$ could mean additional bus service on those two routes to feed the service or add bus-only lanes to speed the connections between them.


The ROW goes through a very off-the-beaten-path, residential area for the most part--it seems like LRT would be just going through rather than servicing that area. Venice is a huge thoroughfare with numerous businesses, as is that stretch of Sepulveda Blvd.
Thoughts?

I agree that Venice is a huge boulevard, so is Sepulveda, but the main thing to consider is the direction of travel and where those riders will be coming from. If the LRT goes down Venice/Sepulveda not too many folks will get on because it's not going towards the destinations it need to go. Around Sepulveda Blvd most of those trips generated or heading towards UCLA and Westwood. That is why there are all of those apartment dwellers in that area because they can find off-campus housing near UCLA. Venice Blvd trips will be facilitated on the boulevard itself or towards the beach and boardwalk. If you're not sure take a hop on local buses down these two streets and you'll understand the logic.

But one other thing to understand is that it is the right of way is just as dense residentially speaking as Venice/Sepulveda Blvd from Overland Avenue east towards Venice. You'll see 3-6 story apartment buildings and condos nessled in that area and more are being built within a short walk of a station in Palms. Also within that right-of-way is the Westside Pavillion and Westwood Blvd which could link said Apt dwellers to UCLA.

Personally I feel that Venice Blvd should have it's own line from the Venice Beach down the boulevard to at least Mid-City. Then either continue on Pico or keep straight all the way to Downtown or even turn northwards to Hollywood down La Brea Avenue. Sepulveda Blvd should create it's own line to parallel that parking lot called the 405 to pick up that existing density and large trip generators that are going up to UCLA, the Valley or LAX.

The other factor behind this whole discussion is political. Originally back in 1999-2000 this Expo Rail line wasn't even going to be rail but a glorified Curtiba busway like the Orange Line in the Valley with Silver and Red Buses trampeding like elephants on close headways. Also factored in that busway analysis was that there were full express routes that were on Venice Blvd from Venice Beach and one on Sepulveda Blvd from UCLA that were going to feed into this busway but these have since been cancelled by the MTA.

The concern for the local area at the time was noise because Bus engines are a lot louder than electrically propelled vehicles. Also adding to the equation was a County supervisors who sits on the MTA board running for re-election and that person had a formitable opponent, s/he didn't want to lose the election on such as narrow issue. So s/he devised a diversion that would by-pass that area and keep the bus lanes on the busier boulevards. This way his/her constiuents were happy and donated to the campaign and needless to say that s/he won that election because of this move.

A year later, the board came to a vote. A motion was added to change the parameters of the study and included LRT which was not included originally. With that in mind LRT became the option for the entire corridor but because of the past issue and vote for the diversion, they must study both options.
I included this in this post to help explain the reason as to why we're having this conversation of right-of-way versus Diversion.

[solongfullerton]

I drive down Overland on near weekly basis between Pico and the 10. I guess safety near the school and the park is a huge issue, but the width of the ROW where it crosses Overland has to be atleast 50 yds. On top of that, the tracks are going to have to be elevated since Overland is a major thoroughfare near the 10. Little kids are not going to be walking on to the tracks and getting hit by trains. Theres no kids anywhere near Overland anyway since it is such a busy street, with cars zipping at by at 50+ mph.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Is there anyway we can stop the CHHOA from ruining Los Angeles? Those selfish fuckers have a lot nerve thinking they're more important than anyone else.

I would like to understand better what the chances are for ROW or Diversion. What are the chances that the CHHOA can actually prevent Expo Line from using the ROW thru Cheviot Hills???? :(

[LosAngelesBeauty]

--I always get very irritated when I read articles like this which seem to point out the obvious without much of a solution--of course being mass transit oriented. There was a quote by Bart Reed, but it didn't EMPHASIZE the NEED to invest most of our energy into subways.

The difference with all the cities listed here in the article (except Seattle) is that they all have decent to good public transit. Where LA is a city that screws you over if you don't have a car, other cities may not be so bad to take transit.

When the fucking hell is LA going to get it? LA Times has been very disappointing so far in "guiding" LA toward the right transit-oriented direction. :yuck:


THE STATE


Take valuables with you

You'll need them to afford the skyrocketing parking rates around L.A.

By Roger Vincent
Times Staff Writer

February 1, 2007

Federal court clerk Chris Sawyer gave up parking in his favorite lot near Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles last summer when the monthly rate jumped to $100 from $55.

"I couldn't afford it," he said, "so I had to go back to Chinatown." But that's where his Jeep had been broken into, and his walk to the courthouse takes twice as long from there. Soon the price at his Chinatown lot climbed from about $60 to $80 a month.

Cheap, convenient parking — as Southern Californians have long known and expected it — is getting harder to find, particularly in high-density places such as Hollywood, Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles.

Two hours in an office building garage in Century City can set you back $28, more than twice what it cost in the early 1990s. Club hopping in Hollywood? It could cost $60 before you even tip the valet.

Commuters who paid as little as $80 a month in downtown Los Angeles in the early 1990s are being hit up for as much as $300 for unreserved spaces. Prefer a prime slot with your name on it? Be prepared to write a check for more than $500 a month.

Basic economics — rising demand and declining supply — explain the parking price surge.

With five years of economic growth adding a stream of new buildings and residents, many lots and garages are filling up or disappearing. Housing developers in particular have converted downtown and Hollywood lots into residential buildings. With downtown land prices now surpassing $300 a square foot, it doesn't make economic sense to buy land just to use it for parking, consultants say.

The rise in prices also underscores the region's transformation from an extended suburbia into a more densely occupied urban center with the kind of parking challenges more common in major metropolises such as New York or Chicago.

Nowhere is the shift more evident than in downtown Los Angeles, where acres of asphalt are giving way to housing, stores and other attractions that people want to visit — by car, of course.

Downtown prices are rising not only on standard surface lots, but also in the garages of fancy high-rise office towers as the buildings finally begin to fill with workers after many years of low occupancy.

The expectation of cheap parking has been kicked to the curb in parts of Hollywood, especially during peak weekend hours for the district's popular nightspots. With 55 clubs in the area, parking lots intended to serve them are frequently overbooked.

"It costs $5 during the day, then $25, $40 or $50 after dark," said Tricia LaBelle, owner of Boardner's, a Cherokee Avenue watering hole since 1942. The scale often slides, she says, because some lot operators charge what they find the market will bear hour by hour.

Sometimes the price even hits $100 to secure prompt valet service, club operator Elizabeth Peterson said, "but $60 is usually about the most on a weekend."

There aren't nearly enough high rollers to go around, though, and business owners worry that high parking costs will drive away the average clubbers who have been flocking to Hollywood.

"We have seen a dip in business at many clubs because people can't get in here," LaBelle said. "After years of dramatic increases, business is leveling off."

Hollywood nightclub owner and restaurateur David Gajda called the high parking prices "an absolute mess."

"People are going to be so frustrated they are not going to come," he said.

Eagle Rock residents Jacob Calvache and Angie Garcia got off comparatively easy late last Friday night, paying $20 to park next to the club Avalon at Hollywood and Vine.

"Everybody needs to make a profit, I guess," Calvache said sarcastically. "It's a little outrageous, but it's not unexpected."

Such price pressures could stunt Southern Californians' storied love affair with their cars, some experts suggest, though most evidence of changes in behavior is anecdotal. Public transportation advocates say that rising costs of driving will push motorists into mass transit, especially if employers stop subsidizing their workers' parking habits.

"People are shifting," said Bart Reed, executive director of the Transit Coalition, a nonprofit organization based in Sylmar. "They don't like to pay for parking. If transit can replace that need, people will choose it."

Thousands of Los Angeles County commuters already ditch their cars at Metro Rail stations every weekday so they can hop a train to work. Although general parking is free, some stops are so crowded that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority offers reserved parking for a price.

Higher prices are translating into fatter profits for parking lot owners. Each stall on the average downtown lot grosses about $10,000 a year, said industry expert Bill Francis of Walker Parking Consultants. So a lot with 100 parking spots would bring in $1 million with very little operating costs.

"Now is a good time to be a parking operator," Francis said.

Even with the increases, downtown Los Angeles parking prices are low compared with other downtowns, parking lot magnate Joe Lumer said. His company, L&R Investments, controls about 100 lots and garages downtown, with more than 10,000 spaces.

"In cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York and Seattle it can cost as much as $40 or $50 to park," Lumer said. "The top [daytime] rate on a surface lot downtown is $10 or $12. There is no lack of parking."

Left to market forces, though, parking prices will continue to rise, said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents much of downtown.

"There won't be a lot of space left in the next five to seven years," Perry said. "I didn't expect this to happen so quickly."

The city's Community Redevelopment Agency is conducting a study that will consider abandoning a requirement, established in 1990, limiting how much parking could be included in new downtown office buildings. The intent was to compel office workers to park in structures on the edge of downtown and ride shuttle buses in. But most of them balked and signed up for cheap parking in nearby surface lots.

Other options include building the kind of massive public garages that have eased the parking burdens in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills and Pasadena.

Santa Monica's success at creating a vibrant downtown, however, has taxed its parking resources and challenged its commitment to environment-friendly planning policies.

With its public parking structures filling up, the city has made some of its garages taller and plans to add 1,700 more spaces over the next decade, said Ellen Gelbard, deputy director of planning and community development.

In downtown Los Angeles, parking is at such a premium in the historic core that the city should enact a moratorium on further developments that take away existing lots, said Michael Delijani, whose company owns three classic but rarely used theaters on Broadway, including the Los Angeles Theater completed in 1931.

"It might even be too late already," Delijani said, to secure enough parking sites to revive the Broadway theater district that was once the West Coast equivalent of New York's Great White Way. Twelve major historic theaters survive, but most have no parking.

Parking lot owners are ratcheting up their fees in the area around Staples Center as that district becomes more desirable.

Maguire Properties Inc. has more than doubled monthly rates, to as much as $130, at its 2,260-space garage at Grand Avenue and Venice Boulevard. The facility was once nearly empty, its gaping floors easily visible from the San Bernardino Freeway, making it one of the city's most notorious white elephants.

But the addition of Staples Center and new surrounding residences have made the garage desirable.

"We would have liked to have seen it happen a little sooner," Maguire Senior Vice President Bill Flaherty said, "but now it's generating a tremendous amount of interest."

Student Michelle Carter walks for blocks around the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising looking for the cheapest parking, which has risen from $3 to $5 a day in the two years she has been studying product development at the campus near Staples Center.

"The closer to school it is, the more expensive it is," she said. "It's crazy."

Elizabeth Berger, an office worker at the nearby Petroleum Building, said her nonprofit employer has moved staff parking four times in the last five years because prices keep going up. Now she has about a 10-minute hike through a neighborhood that still feels dicey sometimes.

Many lots near Staples have flexible pricing that rises with demand created by events at the sports venue and the Los Angeles Convention Center. Before a recent evening Tool concert, for example, the price at one Flower Street lot climbed from $5 in the daytime to $15 before the show.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roger.vincent@latimes.com

Times staff writer Adrian Uribarri contributed to this report.

[cookiejarvis]

Is there anyway we can stop the CHHOA from ruining Los Angeles? Those selfish fuckers have a lot nerve thinking they're more important than anyone else.

I would like to understand better what the chances are for ROW or Diversion. What are the chances that the CHHOA can actually prevent Expo Line from using the ROW thru Cheviot Hills???? :(

That just reminded me, LAB. There was a westside busway/rail transit scoping meeting with the MTA years ago at the Westside Pavilion that included discussion of the Cheviot Hills/Sepulveda routes for a future Expo line. A Sepulveda diversion of the Expo route would mean widing the street and take away parking along the boulevard. This infuriated the people that lived in the Sepulveda corridor that came to the meeting. If there's one thing that mobilizes neighborhoods more than property values, it's losing parking spaces.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

LA residents can be dumber than dumb sometimes. Such a disgrace.

[dragonsky]

New flights in Ontario, Palmdale expected to take load off LAX
Expanded service at Ontario and reopening of Palmdale are aimed at easing burden on LAX.
By Jennifer Oldham, Times Staff Writer
February 3, 2007

Providing lift to a decades-long effort to redistribute air traffic among the region's airports, a new airline will announce Monday the largest expansion in LA/Ontario International Airport's history, with nonstop service to 14 cities not currently served by carriers there.

At the same time, Los Angeles officials will unveil plans to reopen LA/Palmdale Regional Airport with the first scheduled commercial flights in nine years.

Despite past difficulties in spreading out air service and some skepticism in the airline industry, the city's airport agency hopes the additions will ease overcrowding at aging Los Angeles International and entice other carriers to add flights in Ontario and Palmdale. Los Angeles World Airports operates both the Inland Empire and Antelope Valley facilities.

"These are great first steps," said Matt Szabo, a spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has pushed for more service at outlying airports. "It will provide more convenient alternatives for air travel in and out of Southern California."

Starting in April, ExpressJet Airlines Inc. will offer 29 daily nonstop flights from Ontario to cities including Albuquerque; Boise, Idaho; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Fresno; Monterey; and Oklahoma City on 50-seat regional jets replete with leather seats and satellite radio. Daily nonstops to Omaha and Tulsa, Okla. — not currently available at any other Southern California airport — are also on the schedule. Ontario will be the busiest facility in the new airline's network.

"This is a perfect case where you have an airport in a pretty fast-growing part of a big metropolitan area where the service hasn't been developed to a lot of communities," said James Ream, ExpressJet's chief executive.

From Palmdale, United Airlines will offer two daily flights to San Francisco International Airport on 50-seat regional jets starting in June. Airline officials acknowledged they wouldn't be providing service at the unused facility if it weren't for $2.3 million in revenue guarantees offered by the airport agency and the city of Palmdale.

Expanding Los Angeles' far-flung airports is essential for the region's economy. Air traffic in the Southland is expected to double by 2030, even as existing facilities, including those in Burbank, Santa Ana and Long Beach, cannot accept more flights because of noise restrictions or the inability to build new terminals. LAX is also handling 50% more passengers than it was built for, and officials signed an agreement with airport-area communities promising to limit growth there to 78 million travelers annually. The airport served about 61 million in 2006.

Southern California officials tried unsuccessfully for years to figure out how to make the region's airports work as a system, but were hampered by parochialism and the refusal of some communities to build new facilities or accept more flights.

Officials hope new service at Ontario and Palmdale will entice carriers to add flights — in part because new revenue flowing to Los Angeles' airports agency from the new service will help bring down fees for all carriers at both facilities. Yet travelers would have to be willing to make long drives. Ontario is nearly 38 miles from Pasadena, for example, and Palmdale is 44 miles away.

"The first step is the most important step," said Steve Erie, a UC San Diego political science professor who has studied the region's airports. "With the airlines, there's an incredible herd mentality, and they do play follow the leader."

But airline analysts caution that increasing competition could also backfire if other carriers offer flights on larger aircraft with lower fares to cities that ExpressJet serves. They cite the experiences of other regional airlines that stumbled after switching from feeding passengers to larger carriers to offering their own service. ExpressJet will have to overcome its lack of experience in operating a stand-alone airline.

"It's just not a model that works," said Robert Mann, an aviation analyst at R.W. Mann & Co. "These guys don't have a track record operating a full-service airline with all the costs it entails and more risks."

ExpressJet, once wholly owned by Continental Airlines, has about 200 airplanes that feed passengers to its former owner, which spun the company off in 2002. Its new venture will launch with 44 Embraer jets that will serve 24 cities.

Company officials say they will make money by catering to business travelers who want to save time by skipping hubs and flying directly between small- and medium-size towns. Fares will be competitive with low-cost carriers for travelers who book early and run up to $320 one way for a last-minute ticket, said Ream, the airline's chief executive.

The company's jets are more economical to run than bigger aircraft operated by larger carriers, he added, and its strategy of flying "point to point" and skipping hubs will help the firm avoid going head to head with more established airlines.

"I think we can develop these markets, stay out of fare wars, and offer something customers don't have today," Ream said.

ExpressJet's flights will boost the number of daily departures at Ontario by 25% and increase the number of nonstop destinations by 63%. Los Angeles World Airports estimates that up to 750,000 people could use the service in its first year — a number equivalent to the traffic growth at the airport over the last decade.

The facility lost several flights last year.

Ontario business leaders, who long have courted more service at the airport, expressed enthusiasm about the new flights, even though the carrier's identity has been a tightly kept secret up to now.

"You always have this connection you have to make out of Ontario … to go through Salt Lake City, Denver or Dallas," said Connie Page, who owns Rancho Cucamonga-based Escape Plaza Travel and does more than half of her business with corporate clients.

"The weather delays last year really contributed to a lot of discontent with businesses," she said. "I can see that being a very big bonus for businessmen, if they can get from A to Z … they'll be happy."

In Palmdale, officials were cautiously optimistic about new flights at the 35-year-old airport. Repeated attempts by airlines to offer service there over the last few decades never got off the ground. Scenic Airlines, a sightseeing company with flights to Las Vegas, pulled out last February, saying it wasn't making any money.

Although they contend there are enough people who fly in Palmdale and Lancaster to support the new United service, local economists questioned whether the region as a whole is ready to patronize an airport in the Antelope Valley.

"It's all a matter of timing," said Mel Layne, president of the Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance. "My fear is that many things are not in place today to make it a success — such as interconnection with the San Fernando Valley, so they can see the value of coming to Palmdale Airport, rather than going to LAX."

Los Angeles' airports agency says it will aggressively promote the new service to encourage travelers to use the smaller airports. In Palmdale, it plans to hire an agency to place ads for United's service in parking lots of major aerospace firms and at gas pumps.

"This new service by United Airlines represents the last and best opportunity [the agency] has to establish viable nonstop service" at Palmdale, agency officials wrote in a report to airport commissioners.

[cookiejarvis]

There's a good description of the Expo Line on Wikipedia, check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Expo_Line

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The artist's rendering of the Cheviot section is beautiful. I wonder if any other sections would get such special treatment. (The squeaky wheel wins again.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Expo_parkway.jpg/600px-Expo_parkway.jpg

[RAlossi]

I thought there wasn't going to be a station at Overland?

[cookiejarvis]

yeah, I wouldn't bank on that Overland Station just yet. I think it's just the musings of an Expo activist for now.

[RAlossi]

I thought this would have already been posted as it's been up for a day, but here goes....

___________________________________________________
House votes to repeal law blocking subway construction on L.A.'s Westside
Rep. Henry Waxman persuades lawmakers that a ban on federal funding for tunneling, which he pushed in 1985, should now be lifted. The move eliminates an obstacle to extending the line.

By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
February 8, 2007

WASHINGTON — Two decades ago, Rep. Henry A. Waxman wrote into law a ban on the use of federal funds to build a subway tunnel in the Fairfax district of Los Angeles, worried that construction could trigger an underground gas explosion.

On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Democrat — now convinced that new technology could make drilling safe — persuaded the House to repeal his 1985 law, removing a major political obstacle to extending the line to the Westside.

The one-page bill passed on a voice vote.

The Senate is likely to follow suit soon, and President Bush is expected to sign the repeal into law.

Roger Snoble, chief executive officer of Los Angeles County's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said the measure "opens the possibility of securing federal money to extend our subway westward to help alleviate the area's crushing traffic congestion."

A subway extension from its western terminus at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue to the ocean about 13 miles away would cost at least $4.8 billion and require years of planning, design and construction. Securing federal funds at a time of massive budget deficits and fierce competition for dollars will also be no easy task.

"There is still much work to do before the subway can be extended," Rep. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement after the vote.

Waxman sought the tunneling ban after more than 20 people were injured in a methane gas explosion at a West 3rd Street clothing store.

But with traffic congestion growing worse, local officials led by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asked him to reconsider the ban.

"Very few issues affect the quality of life in Los Angeles more than traffic gridlock," Villaraigosa said in a statement. "Getting stuck in traffic is more than just an inconvenience — it keeps us away from our families, it pollutes our environment and it costs our economy. Building a subway to the sea will get Los Angeles moving again."

Villaraigosa noted that Los Angeles ranks first in the country in the amount of time that drivers spend in traffic jams — about 93 hours a year.

Waxman said he agreed to repeal his earlier bill after an independent panel of experts "indicated that technologies have been developed that could make tunneling in the area safe."

A similar repeal measure was approved by the House last year, but died in the Senate in the waning days of Congress.

California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, this week introduced legislation to repeal the 1985 tunneling ban.

"It's time to make this project a reality," Feinstein said of the extension.

[colemonkee]

Well, that's a good first step in the right direction. Now, if we could only find $4.8 million somewhere. I'll start looking under my couch cushions...

[Wright Concept]

$4.8 million for the subway to the sea? Damn, maybe we can do a SSP-LA pool and buy lotto tickets to win the jackpot. Even when taxes are paid that would be enough to do the study.

Hehehe.

[Wright Concept]

President’s 2008 Budget Calls for Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail, Metro Rapid Funding
President Bush’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 includes funding for key transportation projects in Los Angeles County, including the Metro Gold Line Light Rail Extension and new Metro Rapid lines.

The new budget calls for $80 million for the continued construction of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension from downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles. The six-mile extension has eight planned stops before it reaches the heavily transit-dependent area of East L.A. and is scheduled to open in late 2009. The funding is consistent with the funding outlined in that project’s Full Funding Grant Agreement.

“I am pleased that the federal government’s budget for next year includes $80 million for the Eastside Light Rail Project,” said Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor and Metro Board Chair. “Metro will put these federal dollars to hard work as we continue to build a much needed rail link between the Eastside and the rest of Los Angeles County.”

Also included in the budget is $16.7 million for the Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure Small Starts project, which seeks to reduce passenger end-to-end trip times along eight new Metro Rapid Corridors. New Metro Rapid Lines to be established are: West Olympic, Garvey-Chavez, Manchester, Atlantic, San Fernando South, South Sepulveda, Torrance-Long Beach and Central. Metro Rapids typically reduce passenger travel times by an average of 23 percent along 200 route miles now operating in L.A. County.

“Metro’s Rapid Program received a big stamp of approval today from Washington, DC.,” said Roger Snoble, Metro CEO. “The fact that the President’s budget includes over $16 million for expanding the Metro Rapid system is a vote of confidence that we are building an innovative, user-friendly and rapid bus network in our region.”

The President’s budget allocates $175 million for transit security grants nationwide, which is the same amount appropriated by Congress last year, and includes $12 million for intercity bus security grants.

These funding provisions are part of a $2.9 trillion federal budget that is now under review on Capitol Hill. Congress will deliberate the president’s budget later this spring.

For more information, visit WWW.METRO.NET or call 1-800-COMMUTE.

[WesTheAngelino]

Google Maps now show L.A. Metro Stations!!!!! (and other cities' stations too!!!)

[RAlossi]

Google Maps now show L.A. Metro Stations!!!!! (and other cities' stations too!!!)

I don't see them on Google Maps -- do you mean Google Earth? They've shown LA's metro for a while, but they've just recently added the Gold Line's path. How do I get it on Google Maps if it's available?

[cookiejarvis]

I saw `em on Google Maps too, pretty nifty. Wes, why are you looking up maps at 3 in the morning?

[WesTheAngelino]

^Everyone has their own unique porn needs......mine happens to be transit maps

[WesTheAngelino]

I don't see them on Google Maps -- do you mean Google Earth? They've shown LA's metro for a while, but they've just recently added the Gold Line's path. How do I get it on Google Maps if it's available?

maps.google.com Just browse a map and if there is a station it will show up as an M. Per example a map of Hollywood will show the stations there.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Nice to finally see them on Google maps.

Rico, thanks for the post about the Waxman repeal of the Waxman Law. I'll reserve the champagne cork until it has passed both houses and Bush has signed it into law. Because that's the day when the fund-raising can really begin.

It's good to see Boxer and Feinstein are pushing the Senate version forward. I can't see any congressional obstacles now, now that Blue is in the majority.

[cookiejarvis]

^Everyone has their own unique porn needs......mine happens to be transit maps

Hey, whatever floats your boat is fine by me. :tup:

Re: Lifting the Congressional ban on the Wilshire Subway expansion

It'll be interesting to see how this project regains its prominance in the planning and funding phases. Federal funding allotments for transportation don't come round until another year or two, yes?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

President’s 2008 Budget Calls for Metro Gold Line Eastside Light Rail, Metro Rapid Funding
President Bush’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 includes funding for key transportation projects in Los Angeles County, including the Metro Gold Line Light Rail Extension and new Metro Rapid lines.

The new budget calls for $80 million for the continued construction of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension from downtown Los Angeles to East Los Angeles. The six-mile extension has eight planned stops before it reaches the heavily transit-dependent area of East L.A. and is scheduled to open in late 2009. The funding is consistent with the funding outlined in that project’s Full Funding Grant Agreement.

“I am pleased that the federal government’s budget for next year includes $80 million for the Eastside Light Rail Project,” said Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor and Metro Board Chair. “Metro will put these federal dollars to hard work as we continue to build a much needed rail link between the Eastside and the rest of Los Angeles County.”

Also included in the budget is $16.7 million for the Metro Rapid Bus System Gap Closure Small Starts project, which seeks to reduce passenger end-to-end trip times along eight new Metro Rapid Corridors. New Metro Rapid Lines to be established are: West Olympic, Garvey-Chavez, Manchester, Atlantic, San Fernando South, South Sepulveda, Torrance-Long Beach and Central. Metro Rapids typically reduce passenger travel times by an average of 23 percent along 200 route miles now operating in L.A. County.

“Metro’s Rapid Program received a big stamp of approval today from Washington, DC.,” said Roger Snoble, Metro CEO. “The fact that the President’s budget includes over $16 million for expanding the Metro Rapid system is a vote of confidence that we are building an innovative, user-friendly and rapid bus network in our region.”

The President’s budget allocates $175 million for transit security grants nationwide, which is the same amount appropriated by Congress last year, and includes $12 million for intercity bus security grants.

These funding provisions are part of a $2.9 trillion federal budget that is now under review on Capitol Hill. Congress will deliberate the president’s budget later this spring.

For more information, visit WWW.METRO.NET or call 1-800-COMMUTE.

PV? (or anyone else who knows) Is this the 70/370 line? If so, I'd be soo happy! That's the line that runs through Monterey Park! :banana:

And if it is, how would it be better than the 370 line that already acts KINDA like a Rapid by having less stops than the 70? :sly: Basically, would the Rapid Bus have less stops than the 370?

LAST QUESTION: When would the Rapid be implemented?????

[Wright Concept]

PV? (or anyone else who knows) Is this the 70/370 line? If so, I'd be soo happy! That's the line that runs through Monterey Park! :banana:

And if it is, how would it be better than the 370 line that already acts KINDA like a Rapid by having less stops than the 70? :sly: Basically, would the Rapid Bus have less stops than the 370?

LAST QUESTION: When would the Rapid be implemented?????

The earliest would be December 2007 more than likely around June 2008

But then it wouldn't be a straight Rapid down the entire 70 route, since it would miss City Terrace, El Sereno area, but to the mucky mucks at Metro they feel that because the El Monte Busway serves CSULA and County USC that they don't need to duplicate the rapid for an express service that's "Near by".

What they are going to do is combine the Limited on Chavez which is the 368 from Downtown to East LA College (ELAC). From ELAC the route would turn onto Atlantic Avenue-which would require plenty of assistance from the City of Monterey Park because that is where the Bottleneck and delays from turning will occur. At Atlantic/Garvey it would continue the rest of the route down Garvey to El Monte replacing the limited 370 bus on Garvey.

I'm thinking they are creating this route to split it- into two separate Rapid on Chavez the other on Garvey- later on because of the East LA Gold Line opening in 2009 which would have a terminal at Pomona/Atlantic. Also based on the proposals for Metro Connections which would suggest more of a hub and spoke system this would fall in line with what the MTA is trying to do.

I hope this answers the questions.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ So basically, the 70 is gonna still go down Garvey along the same route as today? And the Rapid will just take you to the future Gold Line, so you can transfer to the station at Atlantic/Pomona?

And I don't understand where you said the MTA plans to "split it" into two separate Rapid lines. So you're saying that in the future, they'll eventually get Rapid to follow the 70 line down Garvey thru City Terrace?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

OMG BARF! :yuck: Must be PR tied somehow to Antonobitch. :hell:


Today is Monday, February 12, 2007
Originally published Sunday, February 11, 2007
Updated Sunday, February 11, 2007

'Subway to sea' offers little bang for the buck
In the abstract, a train beneath Wilshire Boulevard between downtown Los Angeles and the Westside sounds great. But in reality, it would take decades to complete, while costing untold billions of dollars.
Daily Breeze editorial

The excitement among Los Angeles political leaders about building a "subway to the sea" suggests that our politicos have lost touch with two concepts that should underlie all public works: priorities and value.

In the abstract, a train beneath Wilshire Boulevard between downtown Los Angeles and the Westside sounds great. It would relieve some of the Westside's wretched traffic congestion while causing minimal blight and pollution.

But in reality, it would take decades to complete, while costing untold billions of dollars, thus tying up funds for countless other desperately needed transportation projects.

Is this really the best way to spend the public's limited funds now?

For instance, what about the planned light-rail connection to the Westside, dubbed the Expo Line, which is scheduled to connect Culver City with downtown L.A. by 2010? The Expo line, which may eventually be extended to Santa Monica, had its groundbreaking ceremony last year.

Is it in the best interest for the region to put such a large share of its resources for mass transit into two Westside systems, one underground and one ground-level?

All this takes us to the matter of priorities.

Subways, especially in earthquake-prone Los Angeles, are outrageously expensive. And putting a subway under some of the region's most expensive real estate -- land that is laden below the surface with explosive natural gas -- would no doubt be especially so. It would take every ounce of L.A.'s political clout to get the necessary funds out of Sacramento and Washington to complete the subway project.

But if all our revenue streams are channeled into the Westside, what becomes of other crucial projects throughout Los Angeles, such as proposals to extend the Green Line to Los Angeles International Airport?

What becomes of our crippled freeways? What becomes of our inadequate bus lines, which are being cut even as L.A.'s leadership fantasizes about a subway to the sea?

That takes us to the matter of value.

The Orange Line busway, which has done wonders to relieve traffic in the San Fernando Valley, cost just $300 million -- a fraction of what the subway to the sea would cost -- and was completed in just a couple of years. Similarly, other much-needed improvements, such as a diamond lane on the northbound 405 Freeway, would cost far less while offering greater, more immediate relief.


The subway to the sea simply doesn't offer enough bang for the buck. And given L.A.'s limited resources and severe traffic problems, we need to get the most out of every dollar.

That means more small projects that accomplish much good quickly, not grandiose schemes that demand more time or money than we have.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

L.A. rethinks open design of subways
The slow response to a mercury spill prompts talk of adding gates, security and other on-site staff.
By Jean Guccione and Andrew Blankstein
Times Staff Writers

February 11, 2007

As Los Angeles transit officials pour millions of dollars into cameras and other high-tech security devices in the wake of 9/11, one major security gap persists: No one is stationed underground to help subway passengers in a crisis.

Unlike most U.S. subways, Los Angeles' works on the honor system. There are no gates to pass through, no turnstiles that open when a fare is paid and no attendants — let alone police officers — stationed on the platforms.

Subway planners designed it that way, hoping the open feel would encourage riders in a place weaned on the automobile but also reduce operating costs.

But now — after Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials were embarrassed by the botched response to a mercury spill that was left on a downtown platform in December for eight hours — the look of Los Angeles' subways might change.

There is growing discussion among MTA board members and other local officials about a major overhaul of how the stations work — adding barriers and possibly gate attendants as well as more security officers. Some officials say the mercury incident proves that the agency's reliance on closed-circuit cameras to show what's going on underground is inadequate.

"If we go to gates, we would have a station attendant there all the time," said Roger Snoble, the agency's chief executive officer, who plans to present a report on the issue in the coming weeks. "They would be there to help keep an eye on things."

Adding security personnel and MTA staff would change the atmosphere of the system as well as boost security. It would also be costly.

An MTA study produced last year found that hiring 500 instation attendants would cost $24 million annually. Installing turnstiles in the subway's 16 stations would cost between $50 million and $150 million. To secure the subway, the report said, three attendants per shift would have to be added at each of the subway's 54 entrances.

Some riders — who are expected to buy tickets though usually they are not checked — say they can go days without ever seeing a sheriff's deputy or any uniformed transit workers on their trains or in stations.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies patrol the subway, riding the rail lines among stations. About 100 deputies and uniformed fare inspectors patrol 73 miles of subway and light rail — leaving parts of the system uncovered for long stretches.

Without full-time transit workers on site, passengers in an emergency must find an intercom to contact operators at a distant bunker. That is the only source of communication with the outside world. There are no pay phones in subway stations, and cellphones don't work that far underground. (Other subway systems have paid to have their platforms wired for cellphone use but the MTA has not.)

Since 9/11, the MTA has touted its increased security measures, which focus largely on adding hundreds of closed-circuit television cameras to platforms and trains. Those efforts cost about $80 million a year.

Though security experts have praised the effort, they also say not having personnel in stations leaves vulnerabilities.

Experts say adding transit workers and law enforcement to Los Angeles' subway stations would be a plus — especially as the number of daily riders continues to increase. Ridership stands at nearly 250,000 weekday boardings for the entire rail system.

But they caution that it could give passengers a false sense of safety in the tunnels.

"It adds a level of security without saying that if you add people you will not have an attack," said Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, chairwoman of UCLA's urban planning department, who has studied transit terrorism around the globe.

Train bombers in London and Madrid killed hundreds after passing through turnstiles under the watchful eyes of gate agents in those stations, as did the attackers who released poisonous sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.

Loukaitou-Sideris and other experts say training employees to respond effectively in a crisis is more vital to passenger safety than where the workers are located.

"If you are going to have people, it's important to have people who are trained and know how to respond appropriately," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at Rand Corp.

Assigning transit and law enforcement personnel to stations would bring Los Angeles more in line with the rest of nation's subway systems.

"Fixed posts at all stations would probably be a good thing," said Sheriff's Cmdr. Dan Finkelstein, who is in charge of transit services. "Any employee in that kiosk is a lot better than we have now."

Washington, D.C., transit workers manning each of the 86 subway stations are responsible for visually inspecting the platforms and watching for suspicious activity.

In New York's subway system, station agents staff information booths around the clock to assist passengers.

In Chicago, the system's 21 subway stations are gated and customer assistants or security guards are present whenever the trains are running.

Security concerns led Dallas officials to assign transit police around the clock to their only underground light-rail station: Cityplace, north of downtown.

Most commuters would welcome the presence of transit workers as they wait for the train, especially at night.

"It would most definitely improve the situation," said Leonel Perez-Roura, 33, of Glendale.

In an emergency, PerezRoura, a paralegal who uses the subway to get from courthouse to courthouse, said he would alert authorities using the emergency intercoms.

"They are supposed to be by the escalator or the fire extinguisher," he said, looking around the Wilshire-Vermont station for one within eyeshot. There were three on the platform: one at each end and one in the center. No signs directed passengers to the intercoms.

Vickie Chatigny, 57, of Llano said she has determined how far up the escalator she must climb to get cellphone reception to contact authorities in a crisis.

"I know in situations you have to rely on yourself," said Chatigny, a supervisor with Los Angeles County Superior Court. "I don't think [transit officials] take security serious."

Such sentiments are fueled in part by the MTA's response in December when a man spilled mercury on the Pershing Square platform. After dumping the hazardous substance, he called the MTA operator on an intercom and reported what he had done. But for reasons that are not clear, no one came to investigate or clean up the spill.

Several train riders touched the substance before a passenger called police eight hours later. Hazardous materials crews eventually removed the mercury.

MTA officials acknowledged that their staff botched the response to the spill — and this has prompted calls for major improvements.

Some have said that, had an attendant or guard been on duty, he might have realized the danger sooner or at least cordoned off the area to prevent riders from touching the mercury.

"It may not be a matter that you can stop people" who commit terrorist acts, said Los Angeles County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, an MTA board member. "But at least you'll have something in place so they realize that they are being seen."

Others are more dubious — especially given the high costs involved.

"What would have been different?" asked county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, an MTA board member. He said he questions the decision to build a barrier-free subway but doesn't know if changing course now is the best use of scarce transit funds.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@ latimes.com

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I have long advocated having station attendants at all Metro stations, or at least at all Red and Purple Line stations. Cameras alone will do me no good as I am stabbed to death for my wallet.

Not that I think we have a dangerous subway system, but I do think having actual people around serves as a better deterrent.

Obviously, it's a question of money. Everything is. Well, an increase in fares would help pay for this. We have practically the cheapest transit anywhere, I think it's about time we stop being so cheap about everything.

[RAlossi]

^ And increased fare collection would be a positive by-product of having turnstiles vs. random checks.

I think the Metro police (Sheriff's deputies?) would be able to cover more ground on a train if they didn't have to check fares and could just focus on keeping an eye on things.

It'll be an investment, but it'll be worth it IMO.

[dragonsky]

Calif.’s future may be paved with fees
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
7:53 PM PST, February 12, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-02/27883701.jpg

SACRAMENTO — In California, birthplace of the freeway, where motorists can traverse all but a small fraction of the state without encountering a tollbooth, the free ride may be coming to an end.

There is emerging consensus in the Capitol that the state should follow the path already blazed elsewhere and look to tollways — public and private — to help bankroll new roads.

Local and state transportation agencies are already planning several such projects on busy urban corridors, and some of the world's largest investment firms are lining up with proposals that could leave them in control of some major new roads.

Voters last November approved billions in borrowing for roads, but that was only a start; the money won't meet all the state's transportation needs and never was intended to. Nor would anything short of a major increase in the gas tax — one for which voters appear to have no appetite. That leaves tolls.

"The existing way of paying for these projects is not going to work," said Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). "We're used to free roads and everything being free. That is a 1950s model. If we want to move forward, we are going to have to head in a different direction."

Under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been pushing for the state to start shifting the cost — and some control — of road building to the private sector, lawmakers last May authorized government agencies to build four demonstration projects in partnership with investment banks, shipping companies and other businesses.

The companies would put up money for the projects, and in return could end up owning a share of them. Or at least be guaranteed some of the revenues they generate.

The Legislature has yet to sign off on what roads would be built under the arrangement, but has stipulated that they must serve the movement of goods. The California Department of Transportation is already suggesting a toll road for trucks that would go from the Port of Long Beach to the Inland Empire, and a toll road for cars and trucks at the Mexican border near San Diego that would have its own border crossing.

State and local transportation planners have joined with the governor's office to lobby lawmakers for authority to broker more deals with private companies.

"This should only be a beginning," Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, said of the projects approved in May. At a recent legislative hearing, Pisano told lawmakers that his organization wants to work with private companies to build a controversial 8-mile tunnel that would link the 710 Freeway to Pasadena, a project estimated to cost at least $2 billion.

Federal transportation officials are cheering these planners on.

"This is the next step," said Tyler Duvall, assistant secretary for transportation policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation. He flew to Sacramento from Washington last month to urge legislators to build more toll roads, preferably in partnership with the private sector.

"Every single private investor cites California as the dream place to invest," he said.

Currently, the state has 82 miles of toll roads — the first of which opened in 1993 in southern Orange County — and drivers make about 590,000 trips on them daily. Tolls vary by route and time of day.

A short hop on the 73 Freeway can cost as little as 50 cents. A one-way trip on the 10-mile-long 91 Express Lanes at rush hour can come to $9.25.

The American Automobile Assn. in California, which has more than 6 million members, does not oppose tolls on new roads. But many drivers do.

"The lifestyle we have in this state is the result of our freeways," said Pete Van Nuys, a San Clemente salesman who says he drives up to 60,000 miles a year. "If I have a small business, I should be able to drive and deliver goods and services without having to pay onerous tolls."

Some taxpayer groups say the state should make better use of existing resources.

"We shouldn't have to resort to toll roads," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "There are a host of studies showing we are simply not using our transportation dollars wisely. Before we dream up new ways to raise revenue, we should get smarter about how we use the money we have."

Democrats have long resisted private toll roads, pointing to problems that have arisen in the state's few experiments with private roadways. California, which once was a pioneer in public-private partnerships, soured on the idea after some high-profile missteps.

Example: In Orange County, to close a deal with a company called California Private Transportation, the state agreed not to make any improvements to public roads within a mile and a half of the company's toll lanes on the 91 Freeway. Congestion in the public lanes grew intolerable, and the state ultimately bought the toll lanes for $207 million.

Meanwhile, a private toll road long ago authorized and finally scheduled to open in San Diego County this summer has been beset by lawsuits and cost overruns. The project's final price tag — $683 million — is 70% higher than planners estimated.

The project initially called for the state to take control of the road after 35 years. Lawmakers last year scaled that back to 45 years so that the private company building it will be able to recoup its money by collecting tolls for an extra decade.

Officials in the governor's office say such setbacks are minor bumps in the road.

"We have learned a lot of lessons" from California's existing toll roads, said Sean Walsh, a senior policy advisor to the governor, "as have the rest of the country and the world."

But, he added, "people who keep going back and looking at them as an example of something that is wrong ignore the fact that it is a model now being used successfully around the world."

Indeed, several states are looking to private companies to take over their roads or build new ones. Indiana has turned over its 157-mile-long turnpike, known in the Midwest as the "Main Street of America," to a consortium of foreign investors. Illinois negotiated a similar deal with its Chicago Skyway. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are exploring similar deals with their famed turnpikes.

Texas, where virtually every major road currently being built will have tolls, is looking to the private sector to construct a 4,000-mile network of car and truck toll lanes that would feed into a port. The project, economists say, would position Texas to compete with California as the entry point for goods shipped from Asia, especially if the 710 Freeway continues to deteriorate.

In all, 21 states have passed laws encouraging public-private road-building partnerships. Many are making the move at the urging of the federal government, which provides financial incentives for involving the private sector.

California's Legislature has stopped short of giving local transportation agencies broad authority to cut deals with private road builders, as other states have. Some planning experts and economists are encouraging them to step things up.

"California is famous for the freeway, and it has been a great thing," said Joel Kotkin, an author of books on demographics and planning. "But it is from a time when the state had a lot of money coming in. We are in a different situation now. You have to start looking at these other options. The alternatives are gridlock or spending the state into bankruptcy."

Others caution that international investment firms are accountable to their shareholders, not the driving public. They say California should seek alternatives that don't give such companies too much control.

Regardless, drivers are eventually likely to be reaching for their wallets more often.

"New construction is going to have to be financed at least in part by tolls," said Lowenthal. "Who will control them is an open question."

[DJM19]

""The lifestyle we have in this state is the result of our freeways," said Pete Van Nuys, a San Clemente salesman who says he drives up to 60,000 miles a year. "If I have a small business, I should be able to drive and deliver goods and services without having to pay onerous tolls.""

BLAH BLAH BLAH. That lifestyle is costly, deal with it!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

these people are really crazy. they think that they should be the only ones on a freeway. this isnt a small town in idaho, its Los Angeles a metropolis of 19 million.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ 17 million, but who's counting :)

[edluva]

^I am. 18 million. ;)

[dragonsky]

From Fastcompany.com:

L.A. Goes Public
After decades of neglect, L.A.'s public transit gets a redesign--and a lot of new fans.

From: Issue 112 | February 2007 | Page 72 | By: Alissa Walker

"Who needs a car in L.A.?" says Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, as he hops onto a 1947 Pacific Electric streetcar. "We got the best public-transportation system in the world!" For Valiant's L.A., that was
true; the Pacific Electric once maintained an efficient electric railway with more than 1,000 miles of track. But public transit here is about to enter another golden age. A focus on design has created a smart new system gorgeous enough to wean even the most addicted driver off the high-test.

The change began in 2002, when the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority consolidated its ambitious public-art program an its in-house design studio into one creative-services department, attracting top design talent from local firms. At their urging, the MTA was nicknamed Metro, and a countywide campaign began to shift public perception. One of the first tasks was to rebrand the buses, and when the fleet began to roll out in eye-popping California Poppy, Rapid Red, and Business Blue, awareness skyrocketed.
The kicker: These weren't even new buses, just better decals and a good coat of paint.

According to Matt Raymond, chief communications officer, that kind of heightened visibility began to win over riders. "In our public surveys, 73% of those responding are more aware that Metro's service is available
to them," he says. "These are key numbers, because even without opening up new markets, our service is now perceived as more far-reaching." And the real proof of design's juju: 83% of riders say the service is improving even though it hasn't really changed.

Now working closely with manufacturers, Metro has pushed for the same extreme customization at all consumer touch points, creating a shiny new identity completely unique to Los Angeles. Metro's creative
director, Michael Lejeune, says the transformation was necessary, but not just to get Angelenos out of their BMWs. "Our goal is to employ design to attract discretionary riders--those who have a choice--by giving
Metro a distinct style," he says. "At the same time, we're giving those who are transit-dependent--those who don't have a choice--a system they can be proud of."

Riding a wave of eco-awareness and exceptionally bad congestion on L.A. streets, Metro's facelift seems impeccably timed. The Orange Line, a dedicated bus route that was the first to be built from the bottom up
using Metro's new design standards, celebrated its one-year anniversary with triple the expected boardings and plans to extend the service. Ground has been broken for the light-rail Expo Line, which will head west
and, eventually, to the Pacific. Even Beverly Hills, traditionally a stronghold of opposition to public transit, looks poised to endorse a rail route through city limits.

Although transplants to the city may bemoan its still nascent system, playing catch-up has its advantages. Whereas other public-transit systems have had to retrofit century-old design in an effort to keep up, Metro
can innovate for today's riders--and learn from other cities' mistakes. In fact, this past October, Metro was named Outstanding Public Transportation System by the American Public Transportation Association.
Even more impressive are surveys that seem to prove design's direct effect in winning over the public: "Eighty-six percent of those surveyed say that Metro's image is improving," Lejeune says. "And when people see our work, the likelihood that they will try Metro doubles. Ridership has grown at more than twice the national average." Those are pretty good numbers for a city that lives behind the wheel. So take that, Valiant--L.A.'s public transportation is a joke no more!

Alissa Walker is a freelance writer and editor of the design blog UnBeige (www.unbeige.com). She lives in Hollywood.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I just realized how Santa Monica may very well become the busiest station outside of Downtown LA in the future if all three lines intersect!

Can you imagine how busy Santa Monica is going to be with pedestrian foot traffic! Finally, it'll put to rest that SM isn't a true urban center!

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1888/untitledck5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[LosAngelesBeauty]

L.A. needs subway extension
Readers comment on editorial questioning a multibillion-dollar investment in the subway extension.
From Daily Breeze Readers

We did not receive any direct responses to this week's Question of the Week: "A federal ban on extending the Red Line subway from downtown L.A. through Santa Monica was lifted last week. Would such a subway line reduce freeway traffic and aid commuters, or would it be another money pit?"

Your opinion that the "subway to the sea" offers little bang for the buck flies in the face of a lot of discussion about Westside traffic. Given the economic activity, jobs, taxes and traffic generated on the Westside, I would not begrudge that area both the subway and the Expo light rail line.

The beneficiaries will include tens of thousands of people working on the Westside but living in far-away communities where housing is more affordable. Many will come from the 50-plus communities connected to the subway by Metrorail. Leveraging all existing transit investments in Los Angeles, the potential benefits of the subway are incalculable.

As a South Bay resident who would love to see some viable transit options, I say stop talking about getting the Green Line to Los Angeles International Airport. The master plan for LAX includes an automated people mover (i.e. train) that connects the LAX terminals with the Green Line at Aviation Boulevard and Imperial Highway. Problem solved, with airport money!

-- ANDREW SHADDOCK

Manhattan Beach



No doubt many will recoil from the cost of building a subway along Wilshire Boulevard, but the reality is that there aren't any better alternatives. Putting rail above ground requires a dedicated right of way and grade separations, or else the railroad will interfere with car traffic. When one adds the cost of grade separations and considers the lower capacity of light rail, the per-trip cost of light rail isn't as inexpensive as one might hope.

Furthermore, before preaching the benefits of bus-only guideways, consider that buses have an even lower capacity than light rail. Within a few years, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will need to upgrade the Orange Line to rail, or its buses will burst at the seams.

If we move to finish the Wilshire subway, we will be in the position within a decade to complete the backbone of our new transit map: perhaps a Green Line extension to Los Angeles International Airport, and from LAX to the Expo Line and Wilshire subway along Lincoln Boulevard? A Green Line extension to Torrance, Carson and Long Beach?

If Los Angeles does not make needed investments in rail in the near future, gridlocked traffic will continue to eat away at our quality of life and guarantee that each day continues to be a fight against the clock -- and each other's cars.

-- JOSH GLUCK

Los Angeles

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

seems like the editors and columnists of our local papers are the only ones that dont get it. The local populace knows way more than these idiots. They think one line (expo) is enough for the whole westside? are you kidding? i hate the argument stating " why does the westside get two lines serving the same area". How the hell does the Expo Line serve the same people as the Purple line? how?

[LongBeachUrbanist]

The only "duplication of service" (by the Purple and Aqua/Expo lines) would be at the far west end, in Downtown Santa Monica (where I work).

Traffic in the Westwood/Brentwood/Sawtelle area the past two nights has been absolutely brutal. To those that think two lines through the Westside is excessive, I dare them to come out here during almost any part of the day.

That said, there are lots of options that don't require two lines west of the 405.

I vote for placing the major Westside transfer station right in the heart of Cheviot Hills!!!

[dragonsky]

Bond money rolls in for L.A. roads
By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer
12:56 PM PST, February 16, 2007

SACRAMENTO -- Relief is coming to drivers on some of Southern California's busiest freeways.

State officials today announced the first set of projects likely to be funded with the bond money voters approved in November and there are some big ones in the Los Angeles area. They include:

• Widening I-5 from the Orange County line to the 605 Freeway.

• A new carpool lane on I-10 between Baldwin Park and West Covina.

• A network of carpool lanes connecting the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

Staff members at the California Transportation Commission, a state panel that oversees funding for highways and mass transit, included the projects in their recommendations for how the state should allocate the first $2.8 billion of $19.9 billion in borrowing that voters authorized for transportation.

The borrowing was approved as part of a $37.7-billion public works bonds package championed by the governor.

The commission staff chose the road projects from a list of 149 proposed by the state Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies. Nearly $3 in spending was proposed for every $1 the commission has to allocate in this first round of projects. The money is designated for congestion relief on busy corridors.

The recommendations will be voted on before the end of the month by the full board, which is composed of nine members appointed by the governor. Construction could begin on some of the projects as early as fall.

The 43 projects recommended by the staff could save motorists statewide some 270,000 hours of sitting in traffic.

Among the projects that did not make the cut in this round were proposals to widen the 91 Freeway and to put more carpool lanes on the 405 and 10 freeways. Officials at the commission suggested that such projects could be approved in another round next year or could be funded through other government transportation programs.

The commission will be involved in the dispersion of some, but not all, of the remaining transportation bond money. Those funds will be designated for specific needs, including congestion relief on local roads, repairs on 400 miles of Highway 99 in Central California, public transportation, goods movement, emissions reduction and transportation safety.

[RAlossi]

^ In other words, just about $0 for LA proper in this first round. Unless they just didn't mention some projects in the city...

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ And $0 for rail.

[dragonsky]

State freeway upgrades bypass much of L.A.
Interstates 5 and 10 would get some attention, but the $2.8-billion proposal is called 'unacceptable.'
By Evan Halper and Dan Weikel, Times Staff Writers
February 17, 2007

SACRAMENTO — Relief is coming to drivers on some of Southern California's busiest freeways, but not enough, according to local transportation planners who say the region is being shortchanged on its share of bond money voters authorized in November.

State officials on Friday announced the first projects likely to be bankrolled with the funds, part of a public works borrowing package championed by the governor. They include widening a portion of the 5 Freeway in the Los Angeles area, adding a carpool lane to a section of the 10 Freeway and installing a network of carpool lanes connecting the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

Left unfunded were several proposals that would have brought more relief to those major roads and to the heavily congested Riverside Freeway and other busy corridors.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board, called the recommendations "an insult to the people of Los Angeles County" and "unacceptable."

Los Angeles County, where 28% of Californians live and which has the most congested highways in the state, has been recommended for less than 12% of the funds on the project list.

The list was released by staff members at the California Transportation Commission, a state panel that oversees funding for highways and mass transit. It shows their recommendations for allocating the first $2.8 billion of the $19.9 billion in borrowing that voters approved for transportation.

The commission staff chose the projects from 149 proposed by the state Department of Transportation and regional agencies. The agencies proposed to spend nearly three times the amount the commission had to disburse in this first round. The money is designated for congestion relief on busy highway corridors.

The bond money, which doesn't cover all costs, will be supplemented with state, federal and local funds.

The full board, whose nine members are appointed by the governor, will vote on the recommendations at the end of the month. Construction could begin on some of the projects by fall.

The list of projects to be funded may still grow. The bond measure authorizes initial spending of $4.5 billion, or $1.7 billion more than the commission staff is proposing. The staff recommended that the board wait until next year to allocate the rest of the money, when planning for some of the projects that didn't make the first cut will be more complete.

There is no precise timetable for allocating all of the bond money. But local transportation planners will be pushing hard for the board to release more of that money now. They will make their case at a hearing before the full commission in Sacramento on Tuesday. The commission staff assumes that some requests will be granted.

The first cut is "a floor, not a ceiling," said John Barna, executive director of the commission. "I imagine as we discuss this over the next week or so the number will grow."

He acknowledged that the southern part of the state received less funding than it is entitled to under state formulas. He said the commission would rectify that by the time all of the funds were doled out.

But Barna defended the initial list, saying the bond money should not be dispensed according to how many people live in an area but on the projects that will do the most to relieve congestion in an overall region. The staff, he said, chose projects based on "readiness for construction, demonstrable congestion relief and connectivity benefits" and "geographic balance."

The bond money that remains after the $4.5 billion is disbursed will also be earmarked specific purposes, among them congestion relief on local roads; repairs on 400 miles of California 99 in the central part of the state; public transportation, including light rail and buses; goods movement; emissions reduction; and transportation safety.

The 43 projects recommended Friday could save motorists statewide 270,000 hours of sitting in traffic, according to commission documents.

One that did make the cut in Los Angeles — at least partly — is the widening of Interstate 5 from the 605 Freeway to the Orange County line.

The 6.7-mile stretch is one of the oldest and least improved sections of the interstate. The highway creates one of the worst bottlenecks in the state near the Orange County line, where it narrows from 10 lanes to six.

Planners estimate that it will cost $1.15 billion to widen that stretch of the 5 Freeway to 10 lanes, including carpool lanes in each direction. They were hoping to receive $387 million in bond money for the project, but the commission staff recommended less than half that amount.

The commission staff declined to fund a $950-million project to add more than 10 miles of carpool lanes to the northbound 405 Freeway between the 10 and 101 freeways. With more than 300,000 cars a day, it is one of the busiest stretches of the 405. The staff was concerned that the start date for construction in late 2011 was too far off and suggested the board reconsider the project next year.

The project list does include funding for carpool lanes along a 10-mile section of the 5 between the 134 and 170 freeways.

It also includes money for carpool lanes on the 10 Freeway from Puente Avenue in Baldwin Park to Citrus Street in West Covina.

In Orange County, projects that were recommended include a network of carpool lanes that would connect the Garden Grove Freeway to the 405 between Seal Beach Boulevard and Valley View Street and from the 405 to the 605 between Katella Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard.

The Orange County Transportation Authority will receive money to widen the northbound side of the 57 Freeway from the Riverside Freeway to Lambert Road.

"It is kind of hard for us not to say, 'Thank you,' " said Arthur Leahy, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Authority, who noted that his county would get more money than much larger Los Angeles County.

But the commission recommended funding for only one of four projects to relieve congestion on the busy Riverside Freeway through northeastern Orange County. Caltrans studies show that commuters using the highway experience some of the worst delays in the state.

In Riverside County, one of seven projects was given the nod: a $62.3-million proposal to add lanes in each direction to Interstate 215 from Interstate 15 to Scott Road.

The county did not get recommendations for $752 million more it had requested for widenings, carpool lanes, interchanges and connectors on interstates 15 and 215 and the Riverside Freeway.

"We are disappointed," said John Standiford, a spokesman for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. "But they have yet to allocate the rest of the money, and there is still the State Transportation Improvement Program."

Standiford said that funding the Interstate 215 project was a "big priority" for the county and would help eliminate congestion caused by merging traffic.

San Bernardino County also got much less than it had hoped: $153 million of $531 million requested.

The money will be used to widen and improve interchanges along Interstate 10 through Fontana, Rialto, Redlands and Yucaipa. New ramps are also planned for the 210 Freeway and Interstate 215.

The commission did not approve funding for widenings and interchange work for Interstate 15 through Victor Valley, one of the fastest growing areas in the Inland Empire and an emerging cargo hub for the region.

"The 15 is a major commuting route and a truck route. But none of the high desert projects received funding," said Cheryl Donahue, a spokeswoman for the San Bernardino Assn. of Governments, a regional planning agency. "We are concerned about that."

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-02/27964412.gif

[RAlossi]

Who else here is pissed about this? They had better be funding a few miles of the Purple Line soon!!

[formersocaler]

I agree, completely ridiculous for LA county to be snubbed like this. hopefully we'll see the public transportation portion of the bond to be awarded soon for which the MTA should get roughly one billion dollars.

[Wright Concept]

I agree, completely ridiculous for LA county to be snubbed like this. hopefully we'll see the public transportation portion of the bond to be awarded soon for which the MTA should get roughly one billion dollars.

Great. Let the political cockfighting begin for those $1 billion dollars in funds.

Will it go to Expo Line to Santa Monica? Will it go for the Gold Line to Azusa? Will it stretch the Purple Line to Wilshire/Fairfax? Oh let's not forget the S.F. Valley they'll want their busways.

[formersocaler]

My guess:
1. Expo to SM
2. Gold line to Azusa
3. Maybe downtown connector or Crenshaw corridor

[RAlossi]

MTA should fund the projects that will get the most number of riders for the money, which based upon their Long-Range Transportation Plan would include the Downtown Connector first, then the Purple Line. Hmm..

Expo to SM isn't ready just yet, and I don't think the studies for the Foothill Gold have been completed.

[Wright Concept]

MTA should fund the projects that will get the most number of riders for the money, which based upon their Long-Range Transportation Plan would include the Downtown Connector first, then the Purple Line. Hmm..

Expo to SM isn't ready just yet, and I don't think the studies for the Foothill Gold have been completed.

The Foothill Gold Line planning studies have been done. Expo Phase 2 is up next everything else would have to start from scratch so those two corridors have a leg up over everything else. Let's not forget that when there's a windfall of money for politicians to spend on, logic is thrown out of the window.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

It's amazing how shoddy the work is being done. First the asphalt for the Orange Line, now the concrete for the Gold Line? How does LA ever want to survive another century? It'll be in complete disrepair. What about even 50 years? The way Americans try to cut corners is just not going to work anymore.


http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-02/27990920.jpg
Nets under the Chinatown Gold Line Station protect pedestrians and traffic from falling chunks of concrete and serve as a nest for pigeons.
(Carlos Chavez / LAT)


http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-02/27990929.jpg
Workers routinely survey the $21-million bridge for signs of new damage. Two more cracks have recently been detected.
(Carlos Chavez / LAT)



Gold Line bridge is in need of repair
The Chinatown span has shed bits of concrete for 18 months. MTA sees no risk to trains, and a net shields pedestrians.
By Jean Guccione
Times Staff Writer

February 19, 2007

For 18 months, small chunks of concrete have been falling from the Metro Gold Line's elevated station in Chinatown and crashing onto the sidewalk several yards below.

No one has been hit by the debris, but transit officials acknowledge the potential danger to pedestrians near the station.

Black webbing has been hung under the Gold Line bridge from Union Station to Chinatown to catch falling rubble (it's also provided a nesting place for pigeons). Workers routinely survey the $21-million bridge for signs of new damage. Two more cracks have recently been detected.

Transit officials don't know what went wrong or how to fix it. But they insist the 14-mile light-rail line linking downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena is safe to ride.

After months of finger-pointing between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Pasadena Gold Line Construction Authority over who was responsible for repairing the bridge, the MTA has agreed to make the necessary repairs.

The joint venture that designed and built the bridge was dissolved after completing its portion of the work six years ago. Neither the Gold Line Construction Authority, which built the commuter rail line, nor the MTA, which has operated the line since July 2003, wanted to take the lead in fixing it. Each said the other was responsible.

No one is sure when the work will begin.

"Until we know what the cause is, we can't really come up with a fix," said Rick Thorpe, the MTA's chief capital management officer.

Whatever the cause, transit officials estimate the repairs could cost as little as $50,000, a small fraction of the railway's $450-million price tag.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who's also chairwoman of the MTA, warned transit officials in October that the falling concrete presented "a grave danger to the public."

The transit agency, also known as Metro, has hired an engineer to evaluate the bridge's design and offer a second opinion. A report is expected soon.

Today, passersby can look up at the tracks from the sidewalk at Alameda and College streets, near the ticket machines, and see pieces of fallen concrete in the netting.

A quarter-mile bridge runs from Union Station to a point several yards past the Chinatown station, where the tracks then run at street level most of the way to Pasadena.

From a technical standpoint, the problem lies in the "shear key," the place where two giant slabs of concrete loosely interlock to absorb lateral movement during an earthquake. The keys are expected to crumble in a temblor — but not from everyday use.

"The cracking that we are getting is beyond what you would normally anticipate," Thorpe said.

The concrete bridge was designed by HNTB Corp. of Santa Ana and built by Modern Continental Co., the Massachusetts-based company that was the contractor for Boston's Big Dig highway tunnel. (A motorist was killed in that tunnel last year when her car was crushed by falling concrete ceiling panels.)

Another joint venture, Kiewit/Washington of Santa Fe Springs, laid the track and built the station on top of the bridge.

On Aug. 23, 2005, two years after the Gold Line opened, transit workers noticed fallen concrete, after spotting a child holding chunks of it in her hands, according to internal MTA documents obtained by The Times.

The concrete had fallen more than 16 feet from the bridge, shattering on the sidewalk below.

The MTA temporarily rerouted Gold Line trains onto a single track, causing minor service disruptions to as many as 18,000 passengers on an average workday.

Both tracks were reopened the next day, when an initial report by HNTB concluded, "It is acceptable from a structural loading standpoint to operate trains."

The report also recommended that more concrete be removed to examine the workmanship underneath. That has not been done.

"It wasn't built the way it was designed," said Mike Kraman, vice president of HNTB.

A visual inspection at that time revealed that Modern Continental deviated from the plan, building the affected shear key 6 inches short of its 18-inch design. The significance of that is unknown: "We don't know if that 6 inches is the total reason for the cracking or if there is some other reason," Thorpe said.

All of the shear keys are short, Kraman said.

In addition, he said, the placement of the steel reinforcing bars appears to have deviated from the bridge design.

Modern Continental officials did not return calls seeking comment.

Cracking also may have occurred because the trains, as they snake along the S-shaped bridge, might exert more lateral force than the track was designed to hold, Thorpe said.

Some transit officials have expressed concern that the movement could cause a dangerous kink in the track. But Thorpe said the rails are inspected daily and repaired as needed.

Since the HNTB report was issued, transit officials have put up webbing under another portion of the bridge to prevent falling concrete from hitting the ground, Thorpe said. They are also monitoring a crack in a third shear key.

The MTA and the Gold Line Construction Authority agree that the now-defunct joint venture that designed and built the bridge should pay to fix it. The company's one-year warranty has expired, MTA officials said, leaving an insurance policy to cover latent defects. There is a $50,000 deductible.

Until recently, the MTA and the construction authority could not even agree on which agency should file the insurance claim: the builder or the operator. Ownership of the railway is in dispute.

MTA officials had argued that this was clearly a construction issue and they did not oversee construction.

But Habib Balian, the construction authority's chief executive officer, said his agency could not make structural changes to the rail line while MTA trains were being run on it.

"MTA is the owner and they maintain the system," he said. "Our right has been given up to the MTA because they took occupancy of the system. MTA has to do its own investigation."

The standoff was just the latest chapter in a long, rocky relationship. State lawmakers created the authority in 1999 to oversee the Gold Line's construction from Union Station to Montclair, stripping the MTA of that authority.

In the months after the first chunks of concrete fell, transit officials consulted with their lawyers — not contractors. Efforts to resolve more complex railway ownership issues took priority.

In fact, more concrete fell in January 2006, prompting one MTA official to inquire: "Did we ever receive a resolution or recommended resolution to this problem from the vendor?"

The answer was no.

Now, months later, Thorpe, who oversaw the Gold Line's construction as that authority's chief executive, is again in charge, this time representing the MTA.

Since October, he has hired an independent engineer to evaluate the design and is working with the structure's designer on a proposed fix. Repairs could begin soon.

He explained the delay this way: "There was no safety issue associated with it, so it didn't get the attention it should have."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jean.guccione@latimes.com

[DJM19]

Wow...HNTB's reputation gets worse and worse

[solongfullerton]

Great job Kiewit Washington!!!!!

[Wright Concept]

"From a technical standpoint, the problem lies in the "shear key," the place where two giant slabs of concrete loosely interlock to absorb lateral movement during an earthquake. The keys are expected to crumble in a temblor — but not from everyday use."

It sounds like they didn't account for how often the trains run and the weight of the vehicles. Or it might be the curing process they used was much quicker than it should have been.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Mayor wants 405 project in fast lane
In a drive to get state transportation officials to fund a long-delayed freeway-widening plan, Villaraigosa asks motorists to speak out.
By Andrew Blankstein and Charles Proctor
Times Staff Writers

February 20, 2007

Los Angeles political leaders on Monday vowed an all-out campaign over the next week to persuade state officials to fund a long-sought widening of the 405 Freeway over the Sepulveda Pass, saying the traffic-clogged Westside is in desperate need of relief.

The project, which would add a carpool lane on the northbound 405 between the 10 and 101 freeways, was left off the list of freeway improvements announced last week by the California Transportation Commission.

Although commission staff recommended a similar expansion project on Interstate 5 between the 605 Freeway and the Orange County line, Los Angeles officials were at a loss to explain why the funded projects didn't include creating the lane on the 405 — especially after years of planning and delays.

The lobbying campaign kicked off Monday afternoon at the Federal Building on Wilshire Boulevard in Westwood with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa darting through traffic — on foot.

The mayor twice waded out into cars stopped at the Gayley Avenue intersection to hand out yellow and orange fliers with the phone number and e-mail address of the state Transportation Commission.

"Hey there, how are you?" Villaraigosa asked as he appeared at the driver's side window of a black SUV, surrounded by a gaggle of cameras. He handed the startled couple inside a flier. "Contact the CTC."

The mayor had less luck with the driver of a black Ford Mustang. In spite of the mayor's pleas, the woman refused to roll down her window. More than 300,000 cars cram through the Sepulveda Pass daily. And long before — and often long after — the traditional morning and evening commutes, an unending line of taillights snakes across the Santa Monica Mountains from the Westside to the San Fernando Valley.

"There is hardly a time, except in the overnight hours, when the 405 is not jampacked," Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. "There is no question, on the merits, that this project is the most deserving in this county, and it's got to rank in the top two or three highway projects in the state."

John Barna, executive director of the commission, could not be reached for comment Monday.

But last week, he defended the commission staff's choices, saying the bond money should not be dispensed according to how many people live in an area but on the projects that will do the most to relieve congestion in an overall region. The staff, he said, chose projects based on "readiness for construction, demonstrable congestion relief and connectivity benefits" and "geographic balance."

The recommendations were for the first $2.8 billion of the $19.9 billion in borrowing that voters approved for transportation. The 405 project — at a cost of nearly $1 billion — could make the cut in the future.

Commission staff recommended nearly four dozen projects across the state for the first round. Big local projects include adding a carpool lane to a section of the 10 Freeway in the San Gabriel Valley and installing a network of carpool lanes connecting the 22, 405 and 605 freeways in northern Orange County.

The 405 carpool lane project would fill the "missing link," by creating continuous carpool lanes from Orange County to the northern end of the Valley, local transportation officials and political leaders said.

Backers say that if funding appropriations for the project are delayed, the state could miss out on $130 million in federal transportation matching funds.

Villaraigosa, along with city, county, state and federal officials, said at a news conference in Westwood that under the commission's proposal, Los Angeles residents weren't receiving their fair share of the funds and hinted that voters would remember that when additional transportation bonds came up on the ballot.

"If they can't fulfill their promise, it's going to be a long, long time before voters in Los Angeles County will commit themselves to any more dollars," Supervisor Gloria Molina, chairwoman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, said as traffic buzzed in the background.

For commuters, the widened 405 can not come soon enough.

Michael Backes, 52, of Glassell Park knows the nightmarish commute over the Sepulveda Pass well. He did it for 10 years from his home in Sherman Oaks to his job in Brentwood before, fed up with sitting in traffic for up to an hour, he moved to a home near Dodger Stadium.

Backes recalled taking winding side streets to get around the 405 in the evening. He even tried driving up a dusty dirt road at the Franklin Canyon Reservoir. "It wasn't so bad," he remembered as he munched on his lunch at a Whole Foods on Gayley Avenue, "if you didn't mind looking like you got out of a rally car event at the end."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

charles.proctor@latimes.com

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Q & A

Why are officials pushing so hard for widening the 405 Freeway north between the 10 and the 101 freeways when there are so many transportation needs across the region?

This stretch of the 405 has long been one of the most congested in the region, and the widening to allow for carpool lanes was long planned. The 101-405 interchange is generally considered to be the busiest freeway crossing in the nation.



People keep saying traffic in the Westside is particularly bad. How bad is it?



It's difficult to compare one region to another when it comes to the worst traffic. But there are several indicators to suggest Westside traffic is more brutal than most. Population on the Westside has jumped 23% since 1990, compared with a 6% increase for Los Angeles as a whole. Job growth has exploded too, especially along the 405 corridor, in Century City as well as Santa Monica. Only about 30% of those workers live on the Westside, according to a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority study. That leaves more than 300,000 people a day commuting to the area.



Has traffic been increasing?

Traffic on the 405 at Culver Boulevard increased to 268,126 vehicles a day in 2005, up from 246,273 a day in 2000, according to the Southern California Assn. of Governments. MTA research shows that during the evening rush on Wilshire Boulevard near the 405 Freeway, it can take as long as 19 minutes to drive just one mile.



Isn't there already work being done on the 405?



Yes. Besides improvements to the 101-405 interchange, carpool lanes are being built south of the 10 Freeway. Officials want continuous carpool lanes on the 405 from Irvine to the northern tip of the San Fernando Valley.

Source: Times reports

Los Angeles Times

[BobbyWLA]

Is anyone going to any of the expo phase 2 community scoping meetings? I got a postcard in the mail regarding this, and here is the info:

Tuesday February 27
18:30-20:30
Culver City Senior Center
4095 Overland Av. Room B45
[free parking available (oh goody!)]

Wednesdy February 28
18:30-20:30
Hamilton High School Cafeteria
2955 South Robertson Blvd.
(free parking off of Robertson)

Tuesday March 6
18:30-20:30
Santa Monica Civic Auditorium
1855 Main St. East Wing Mtg. Rm.
(special event free parking off Main st.)

[suga]

I am furious about LA getting screwed for transit projects, and where the fuck was any rail funding? How the fuck can anyone involved in this nonsensical list call themselves transportation planners with a straight face when this bullshit list has not a penny for rail?

And this smells of bullshit as to how they decided where funding would go:
"readiness for construction, demonstrable congestion relief and connectivity benefits" and "geographic balance."

How many projects are being held only for lack of funding in LA? Isnt LA the most congested metro in the nation for the past decade or so? And how is connecting rural towns more important thatn a 2 million person valley to the LA basin? Do they not realize that LA deals with the freight movement traffic of a whole nation? Do they forget we have half the state's population (and that bullshit about not counting population is absurd, PEOPLE drive cars so if you have half of the state's people you have a hell of a lot of traffic, cars dont drive themselves in Kern and Shasta county)

why the fuck did the OC get mor funding thatn a county with 10 million residents, this shit infuriates me

[DJM19]

Yeah, LA does deserve more transit funding, do to it having the largest port complex, the most origin/departing flights (i.e. people actually have to travel outside the airport, unlike at Chicago where its just a hub), more cars than russia.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

I think it's because LA isn't associated with the United States. Besides Hollywood, it's considered a very much resented city/metro area. People just don't like the place and they would rather see money going toward areas that they feel has "hope." People are very prejudice against LA and its minority groups - esp. the immigrant Hispanics :(

[LongBeachUrbanist]

I think nationally, L.A. gets disrespected largely because of Hollywood. People across America associate Angelenos with Hollywood and the false stereotype of snobby, phony, liberal actors.

But back on topic, I don't think that's what's going on here. From what I have read, all the major cities (incl. San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento) were shortchanged. IOW, project funding was skewed toward rural and exurban areas.

There is good news. From what I read, these recommendations have to be approved by the state legislature, and Fabian Nunez has said that the current recommendations will not be approved in their current state.

[LongBeachUrbanist]

You can relax, suga. This argument has nothing to do with transit dollars.

The money being allocated here is for freeway projects only. Transit money ($4 billion) is in a separate bucket.

[suga]

Thanks for the clarification LBU, I had to take a deep breath and find my "happy place". It still is an appallingly inept list of projects for example: the I-10 carpool lanes are only funded for a portion of what is needed, with the project funded as it is there would be a 2 mile gap between the end of the newly extened EM busway/carpool (that ends at the 605) and puente avenue. So either someone is being sloppy or stupid. So will transit money be allocated at a later time?

[LosAngelesBeauty]

There is good news. From what I read, these recommendations have to be approved by the state legislature, and Fabian Nunez has said that the current recommendations will not be approved in their current state.


That's very good to know! :tup:

[LosAngelesBeauty]

You can relax, suga. This argument has nothing to do with transit dollars.

The money being allocated here is for freeway projects only. Transit money ($4 billion) is in a separate bucket.


That's also VERY good to know!!! :tup:

Perhaps we'll get part of Expo Phase II funded and have the first part of the Purple Line funded to Fairfax.

Expo Phase II ~ $500 million ?

Purple Line to Fairfax ~ $1 billion

Let's get Purple Line moving!!!!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

PV, do you know what "short stop" means and how will the 720 be different by June as opposed to now? Will it actually be a faster ride down Wilshire with less stops than now?

-------------


Metro seeks to cancel Wilshire bus
Alexa Vaughn (Contact)
Published: Thursday, February 22, 2007



UCLA students traveling east on Wilshire Boulevard toward downtown Los Angeles may find they have one fewer bus route option by June 2007.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has proposed a closure of one bus route, line 21, which runs from UCLA’s Ackerman turnaround to downtown Los Angeles.

Because less than 10 percent of the available riding space was filled by passengers from UCLA, MTA officials believe it would be cost-efficient to discontinue the line, said Mark Maloney, general manager for MTA’s Westside/Central Service Sector.

But some students like Nicky Kajiyama, a student at the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, said line 21 can be very crowded during rush hour and she is not sure how many other people it may inconvenience. Kajiyama takes the 21 consistently to teach in southern Los Angeles.

“After 4 (p.m.), (the 21) is usually really crowded,” Kajiyama said. “It depends on what time of the day you’re on it.”

After the change, passengers traveling toward downtown can board either line 20 or 720, which both stop at the intersection of Westwood Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard, according to an MTA document detailing proposed route changes.

The document also said MTA will implement short stops off Wilshire into Westwood and downtown Los Angeles on line 720, which currently runs on Wilshire from Santa Monica to East Los Angeles.

Maloney said though the location of these “short turns” are not set yet, they will not be far from Wilshire Boulevard.

The 720 bus would become an express line, and all buses would be equipped with a bus signal priority device, which coordinates with traffic lights so the bus gets green lights as much as possible.

“This is a service change that will move people quicker,” Maloney said. “There will be more 720 buses now and line 20 will still be in service.”

Because of the high ridership along Wilshire Boulevard, line 720 is also equipped with 60-foot-long buses.

Right now, the main difference between line 720 and the other two lines is that 720 only stops at major intersections instead of at most traffic lights.

The 720 bus would only stop about every half mile after line 21 is discontinued, but line 20 would continue at a slower travel rate and stop more frequently along its route, Maloney said.

“In general, the proposed modifications will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the public transportation system through a better use of resources,” said the MTA document.

But before the proposed changes become official, MTA plans to consider commentary from community members at public meetings that have been held in the past two months.

Maloney said the proposals would then go to the council that governs MTA for approval sometime next month.

Low UCLA ridership probably will not lead to the closure of any other bus lines, Maloney said.

“The Santa Monica and Culver City buses still get good ridership from UCLA,” Maloney said. “We’re just trying not to duplicate routes that other companies and bus lines are already doing. I don’t expect other changes to occur.”

At 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, three people waited to board the 21 bus at Ackerman turnaround.

Two said they had never taken it before and one – Powell Library staff member Madhuri Sri – said she takes the 21 sporadically to go home.

Sri said the cancellation of line 21 probably would not affect her daily life.

“I usually go on the 720, so I’m sure if the 21 is gone I’ll have a lot of other routes to take home,” Sri said.

Nine people came off the 21, including Kajiyama, when it arrived at Ackerman turnaround at 4:35.

Changes to bus routes are part of MTA’s five-point strategic growth plan which started in 2003 to improve workforce efficiency, leadership for the region’s mobility agenda, fiscal responsibility, planning for capital projects, and transit services.

[Wright Concept]

Is there a link to this article? Because there's a lot of inaccuracies in it.

[Wright Concept]

That's also VERY good to know!!! :tup:

Perhaps we'll get part of Expo Phase II funded and have the first part of the Purple Line funded to Fairfax.

Expo Phase II ~ $500 million ?

Purple Line to Fairfax ~ $1 billion

Let's get Purple Line moving!!!!

Based off other areas of the state it would be more like $1 billion of that $4 billion total. Phase 2 of Expo will cost roughly $720M, Then there's the Foothill Extension to Azusa which cost roughly $680M, San Fernando Valley North-South BRT improvements under $150M.

All three projects have their studies/EIRs in the works or near completion which would give it a leg up on every other LA County project because they'll be ready to spend the money. Mind you they won't go for full state funding for it, but they'll have a better shot at getting a taste of whatever portion of the $4 billion is given to LA. With the federal funding hurdle out of the way, it's possible to only need half of that $1.0 B total to get it to Wilshire/Fairfax

[dragonsky]

Hit-and-run on L.A. highway projects jeopardizes voter confidence
February 22, 2007

Sacramento — Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa kept chanting three numbers like a mantra Tuesday as he lobbied the Capitol for more highway bond money.

Every few seconds, it seemed, the mayor would remind anyone listening that L.A. County houses 28% of the state's population, endures 33% of its traffic congestion, but is being earmarked a measly 12% of the initial $2.8 billion being distributed from the $19.9-billion transportation bond approved in November by California voters.

Actually, it's worse than that for L.A. Only $4.5 billion total is available from this particular bond account, designed for "corridor mobility improvement" — like adding a carpool lane on the northbound 405 between the 10 and 101 freeways.

The 405, with 300,000 daily commuters, is the nation's most congested freeway, Villaraigosa says. But that carpool project didn't make the Sacramento bureaucrats' initial cut.

The mayor's numbers are significant, but I also have some others that should be persuasive for anyone with an ounce of political sense:

• L.A. County cast 24% of the total statewide yes votes for the transportation bond, Proposition 1B.

• L.A. was particularly supportive, with 65.5% voting for the measure. It passed statewide with 61.4% of the vote.

• Lawmakers representing L.A. County occupy 33% of the Assembly seats and sit at 35% of the Senate desks.

• Two of the three most powerful politicians in state government live in L.A.: Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The third man — Democratic Senate leader Don Perata of Oakland — also is upset with the proposed initial bond disbursements because they shortchange the Bay Area.

So all this points to a political reality instinctively understood by everyone except, apparently, some officials at the California Transportation Commission. The reality is that L.A. and big urban areas have clout because it's the way the system is set up. One person, one vote, and all that.

When something doesn't go L.A.'s way, it flexes its muscle. That doesn't win friends and may even stir up old hatreds. But occasionally it's OK to be a bully, especially when someone's holding back your rightful share of bond money.

The transportation commission staff Friday recommended against initially funding the 405 carpool lane and other L.A. freeway projects, including widening Interstate 5 from the 605 to the Orange County line.

You couldn't blame voters if they felt victimized by a bait and switch scam.

They were all but promised 405 congestion relief in TV and radio ads last fall. Schwarzenegger, Villaraigosa and Nuñez cited the Sepulveda Pass as a prime example of a bottleneck that could be loosened by the bond. In L.A., the 405 was a poster freeway for the bond campaign.

The MTA was pushing hard for the carpool lane, a necessity to get transportation commission project approval.

When it didn't show on the commission staff's list of recommended projects, officials offered lame reasoning. Mainly, they expressed "confusion" over when the project would be ready to build. They wanted only projects ready by 2009 and thought the 405 couldn't start until 2011.

They didn't do their homework. This project had been fast-tracked by the governor and Legislature. Construction could start in 2009. Indeed, if it isn't begun by then, the project could lose $130 million in federal funding. L.A.'s bond money request is for $730 million.

" 'Confusion.' That's what bugs me," says new Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the budget subcommittee on transportation. "Pick up the phone. 'Hello, MTA, when is the project scheduled to start?' How long does that take?"

But the commission comment that got my attention was from Executive Director John Barna, who told reporters last week that "we've avoided falling into the trap of fair share based on population." The goals were "geographic balance," he said, along with construction readiness, "demonstrable congestion relief and connectivity benefits."

I don't profess to know what most of that means. But I do know he fell right into a political pressure cooker juiced by population.

Bay Area politicians also are perturbed. The commission staff recommended less than half the bond money that Caltrans had urged.

Their cause celebre is a recommended $175 million outlay to build a Highway 101 bypass around tiny Willits in Mendocino County. Willits (population 5,100 at last count) is roughly 140 miles north of San Francisco.

Schwarzenegger, Perata and Nuñez have sent letters to the commission — filled with gubernatorial appointees — asking that its staff be ordered back to the drawing board. It doesn't have much time. Proposition 1B requires the commission to authorize the initial projects by March 1.

One can sympathize somewhat with the staffers. They've received $11.3 billion worth of funding requests for a $4.5-billion pot. But the Willits bypass?

The urban political powers will probably win this fight. They hold the best cards. The bond money ultimately must be appropriated by the Legislature and Nuñez is threatening to block it.

The speaker also is talking about proposing a $5-billion supplemental bond. But good luck talking L.A. or Bay Area voters into borrowing more until they see whether 1B was a rip-off.

"The will of the voters has to be respected," says David Ackerman, a veteran highway construction lobbyist. "If you break faith with the voters, it will be like JetBlue. Here, the voters are the customers."

In fact, this is a lesson that applies to all those $37 billion in Legislature-generated public works bonds passed by voters in November.

There cannot be a complete disconnect between campaign promises and a politically tone-deaf bureaucracy. Or the next significant number will be zero: the number of statewide bonds approved in the future.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Thank you!!! Finally some justice!

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Is there a link to this article? Because there's a lot of inaccuracies in it.

I don't have the link anymore, but I'm assuming the inaccuracies make the entire article pretty much meaningless? But will they add more 720 buses and will it actually have less stops, making the trip faster? It is ABSOLUTELY torture riding the 720 from SM to Downtown LA. It takes on average at least 1hr and 15 minutes. If there was a subway, it could be as fast as 25 minutes to 7th/Metro.

[LAsam]

The 720 is the Metro Rapid, right?

[dragonsky]

Yes. But, it doesn't really matter.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ You're right because they're really not all so "Rapid" since they're STUCK with other cars on the street and I am incredulous that the buses really have any affect on making red lights change to green.

[Wright Concept]

^ You're right because they're really not all so "Rapid" since they're STUCK with other cars on the street and I am incredulous that the buses really have any affect on making red lights change to green.


Believe it or not, they do. But you won't feel the effects of it ON Wilshire. Try waiting at the North-South Streets like La Brea or Wiltern and those little sensors make a big difference on how long the North-SOuth traffic flows.

[dragonsky]

Funds demanded for 10/605 interchange
By Fred Ortega Staff Writer

BALDWIN PARK - The morning traffic along the San Bernardino (10) Freeway on Friday was not quite as heavy as on most days. But the frustration expressed by the state and local officials gathered on a bridge overlooking the freeway was directed at a different type of gridlock: the legislative kind.

The politicians were protesting last week's decision by state officials against funding a $70.5 million upgrade to the 10 and San Gabriel River (605) freeway interchange. The proposed upgrade would create a flyover transition from the southbound 605 to the eastbound 10.

The project was among several in Los Angeles County turned down by staffers with the California Transportation Commission, the state agency tasked with disbursing $2.8 billion in freeway improvement projects from the $20 billion approved by voters last November.

State Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, accused the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of not doing enough to promote the interchange project. She pointed to a legislative alert issued by the MTA over the weekend that argued for funding of a $730 million car-pool lane project on the San Diego (405) Freeway, but did not mention the 10/605 interchange.

"We are outraged our own transportation authority removed this interchange from their priority list," said Romero, the Senate majority leader. She added that the omission of the 10/605 interchange from the MTA memo was a sign of what she called a "great divide" between the politically powerful Westside of Los Angeles and eastern county areas including the San Gabriel Valley.

"We are asking for an end to this great divide," Romero said. "We are not B-list players with B-list needs."

L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who chairs the MTA Board, said the agency is fighting equally hard for both the 10/605 interchange and the 405 carpool lane.

"We need both," said Molina. "While \ is no more important than any other region of the state, we are as important."

Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, chairman of the San Gabriel Valley Legislative Caucus, said an upgrade to the 10/605 interchange is imperative.

"The amount of traffic coming through here is expected to increase by 30 percent in coming years and this interchange already has accident rates

27 percent higher than the state average," Hernandez said.

Duarte Councilman John Fasana, who sits on the MTA board, said the authority had reduced the amount of money it was seeking for other projects rejected by the CTC staff in order to increase the chances of funding for all of the county's projects.

He added that the board is also lobbying members of the CTC directly.

"\ Esteban Torres is working really hard for all of these projects," said Fasana.

Torres, who is from West Covina, is the only representative from the San Gabriel Valley on the CTC. His last day on the commission will be Feb. 28, the day final recommendations are due. With his departure there will only be one other L.A. County representative on the commission, former Glendale Mayor Larry Zarian.

The steadily increasing traffic, he added, is expected to lead Caltrans to give the junction an "F" rating, meaning a complete breakdown in mobility, within the next few years.

Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said that as a region, L.A. County voted to support the transportation bonds at a rate 3 percent higher than the rest of the state.

"It is only fair that the voters in this region see relief in their own neighborhoods," said Huff.

With 28 percent of the state's population, L.A. County is only slated to receive 12 percent of the statewide freeway funding, said West Covina Mayor Mike Touhey.

"It is taxation without representation, and it is about time for us here in the San Gabriel Valley to have ourselves an good old-fashioned tea party," he said.

[munkyman]

I don't know if this story is already known - it may be just old news but I saw the article today in the sf chronicle. Thought I'd post it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/25/state/n130830S92.DTL&type=politics

Proposal to extend subway to Los Angeles airport
Sunday, February 25, 2007

A new government agency would be responsible for extending the subway to the Los Angeles International Airport under a bill introduced in the state Legislature.

The light-rail Metro Green Line currently stops about a mile away from LAX, where passengers have to board a free shuttle to the airport terminal.

The bill introduced last week by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, would create a new agency to oversee the planning, funding and construction of a subway extension into LAX.

"We should be doing anything we can to encourage people to get out of their cars," Lieu said.

Lieu is a member of the Green Line Coalition, a group of elected officials who is lobbying to expand the light-rail line to the airport.

Under the bill, the agency's board of directors would be appointed by the Legislature. The agency would also be responsible for securing local, state and federal funding for the project.

If the bill is passed by the Legislature, the new agency likely won't operate until 2009, Lieu said.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

^ Damn, America works slow!!! 2009? Wish we operated like China or Dubai! FAST FAST FAST

[Wright Concept]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal25feb25,0,930599.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

OP-ED: MODEST PROPOSAL
Give L.A. a free ride
Eliminating subway and bus fares could put local mass transit on the road to success.
By D. Malcolm Carson
D. MALCOLM CARSON, an attorney and urban planner in private practice, is a member of the Los Angeles Board of Transportation Commissioners.

February 25, 2007

CLOSE TO HALF the travel time on most L.A. bus routes is spent at the curb. Bus riders know the frustration of waiting to board while someone coaxes a floppy dollar bill into the fare box. Likewise, plenty of irritated local drivers have been stuck behind that bus in the right-turn lane. Oh, and the despair of the train rider left struggling with an uncooperative ticket vending machine as the train pulls away.

So what would happen if, instead of hiking MTA fares as is currently under consideration, we made all the buses and subways free?

Eliminating transit fares is the logical flip side to the anti-congestion pricing schemes so favored by economists. London, for instance, charges a daily fee equal to about $15.60 to drive in the traffic-chocked central city between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. weekdays. Just as such fees on cars supposedly discourage driving, eliminating fares could encourage public transit use.

A one-way fare that's only $1.25 may not seem to be a big factor in someone's transit decisions. But I wouldn't be so sure. The costs of owning a car — buying, fixing, registering and insuring it — have to be paid in advance, regardless of how much we drive. For the millions of Angelenos barely scraping by, another $40 or $50 a month on transit can be a significant disincentive.

Angelenos don't have to look far for an example of how sensitive transit use is to price. In the early 1980s, L.A. voters approved Proposition A, a half-cent sales tax tied to a drop in bus fares from 85 cents to 50 cents for three years. During this period, mass transit ridership in the county rose 40%, reversing a decades-long decline. Today, there are nearly 1.5 million bus and rail boardings every weekday. That's 482 million car-free trips a year.

Axing fares would lift a drag on the whole transit system. People could quickly get on or off buses at the front and back. Bus drivers could focus on being helpful, as opposed to being fare cops. New riders could give it a try without worrying about having "exact change." The ease and accessibility of a free system might even instill a feeling of "fun" to riding transit — not an insignificant factor in a city where people famously love to drive.

The host of tangential benefits may ultimately prove even more important than reducing traffic — such as better air quality, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and reduced oil dependence. Free transit also would provide a small measure of much-needed economic assistance to the urban poor.

So how would we pay for it? Keep in mind that the $270 million the Metropolitan Transportation Authority collects in fares each year covers only a fraction of the agency's annual operating and maintenance costs. So it really comes down to a policy decision about how much of the cost of public transit should be subsidized.

A countywide sales tax of just one-quarter of one percent would cover the entire amount. In addition, there would be cost savings. The MTA wouldn't need to buy or maintain fare collection equipment. Faster bus travel times would translate into lower labor and fuel costs.

Unfortunately, the professionals, politicians and developers who normally make transportation policy are unlikely to support such a solution — one that promises no major construction contracts, high-profile ribbon-cutting ceremonies or lucrative real estate opportunities. It will be up to the public to demand and then support real solutions to our traffic woes.

[LAsam]

Proud to say Rosendahl represents my City Council District

LA Council member Moves to Create Westside “Rail Network”
By Lookout Staff

February 23 -- Los Angeles Council member Bill Rosendahl called on his colleagues this week to get on board a coordinated "rail network" for the Westside that could help alleviate Santa Monica's traffic woes.

Rosendahl -- who has presented an ambitious transportation agenda since his election two years ago -- introduced a motion Wednesday that would explore creating a coordinated Westside "rail network" by linking east-west mass transit lines.

"When it comes to mass transit and fighting gridlock, we cannot think piecemeal," Rosendahl said."We need a coordinated, comprehensive long-range strategy."

The study -- funded with $200,000 in traffic fees paid by Westside development projects -- would look at where and how to connect the eventual Purple Line subway to the sea, the Exposition Light Rail line and the eventual Green Line extension into LAX.

Among the possibilities that will be studied would be adding a north-south rail line or merging the routes of two of the east-west lines, Rosendahl said.

“The study will also look at how best to link people with activity and employment centers as well as residential and recreational areas,” Rosendahl said.

A connected rail system with a “tremendous capacity to move people,” he said, is a "common-sense approach" to alleviating traffic gridlock on Westside streets and freeways.

Rosendahl's motion specifically requests the council to authorize and instruct the Department of Transportation to add a comprehensive Westside Los Angeles rail corridor and connectivity analysis to DOT's West LA Traffic Study.

In addition, the council would authorize the transportation department to apply for grant funding from other agencies such as SCAG, SCAQMD, Caltrans and Metro. They money would help prepare a comprehensive plan, including environmental and technical studies, for transportation improvements within the West LA Traffic study area.

"The current state of our traffic gridlock requires a detailed and comprehensive analysis of our transportation infrastructure," Rosendahl said. "I want to ensure that the Department of Transportation is well-equipped to provide such a study."

Rosendahl’s motion comes two months after he unveiled an “anti-gridlock plan” that included short-term and long-term projects to relieve congestion and promote mass transit on the Westside. The expenditures, all on the Westside, total more than $11 million dollars and require formal council approval.

Rosendahl's motion, one of many within his spending proposal, was referred to the City's Transportation Committee.

[LAsam]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/

Hey, Damien's rail network diagram is referenced on the LA Times Bottleneck Blog! Look under the "Yellow Line? White Line? Silver Line?" entry. If you click on "someone's dream map" his graphic comes up. Way to go Damien!

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Great job Bill Rosenthal!! we have smart politicians now, ones that can look to the future and now ass backwards to when everyone in LA had a backyard and 3 acres. Hell ya.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Yeah,


I would say your rail hero politicians are:

Tom LaBonge
Villaraigosa
Rosendahl

It seems that even Zev is hopping on the rail bandwagon?

[dragonsky]

State officials expand road funds, relent on 405 Freeway widening
By Dan Weikel and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Times Staff Writer
3:16 PM PST, February 26, 2007

Relenting to the protests of angry commuters, state officials today significantly increased the amount of bond money they plan to allocate this year for road projects, most notably the widening of the 405 Freeway though Westwood and the Sepulveda Pass.

The staff of the California Transportation Commission recommended today that $4.5 billion in bond funds be spent this year on dozens of projects statewide instead of the $2.8 billion initially proposed. The initial rejection of so many projects by the commission staff generated complaints from drivers and politicians, who both noted that voters had just approved a bond measure that will eventually fund $18 billion for various transportation projects.

The protests were the loudest in Los Angeles County, where 28% of Californians live but where only about 12% of the transit dollars in the initial proposal went. Most of the increase in funding will go for carpool lanes on the 405, a project that failed to make a list of 43 highway and road projects deemed eligible for funding from Prop. 1B, the transportation bond measure that voters approved in November.

The carpool lanes for the northbound 405 -- one of the nation's most congested freeways -- would run 10.2 miles from Interstate 10 to U.S. 101. State officials are recommending $730 million in state bond funds for the project.

More funding was also recommended today for Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Those increases ranged from $17 million for San Bernardino to $134 million for Riverside. Those counties had also said they were shortchanged.

[dragonsky]

LAX plans to accommodate jumbo planes
By Jennifer Oldham, Times Staff Writer
2:10 PM PST, February 26, 2007

Responding to a trend in which airlines are taking international flights to newer airports, Los Angeles city officials said today that they will build new parking spots to accommodate larger aircraft at the Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.

At a news conference heralding the groundbreaking of a $732-million renovation at the 22-year-old terminal, officials vowed to uphold the airport's status as the No. 1 gateway to the Pacific Rim.

"Our friends in Northern California are stealing some customers away from us," said Councilwoman Janice Hahn. "We remain committed to being a leader in international travel."

Even so, airlines have expressed concern that the renovation is too little, too late. Renovation of the Bradley terminal won't be complete for three years and will not enlarge the building, industry watchers note.

Meanwhile, San Francisco officials have been aggressively promoting their international terminals to carriers in hopes of luring away business travelers, who currently connect on flights at LAX to the Bay Area.

Next month, Qantas Airlines will transfer eight of its weekly flights from Sydney, Australia, to San Francisco. Its other 42 weekly flights from Sydney and elsewhere to LAX will continue.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

New rail corridor a lifeline for cargo
Freight path designed to relieve congestion in port communities while pleasing neighbors
By Patrick May, MEDIANEWS STAFF
Inside Bay Area
Article Last Updated:

Editor's note: This is the second in a two-part series.
Moving freight efficiently along railroad tracks is a huge challenge, especially in a densely urbanized area like Southern California's Inland Empire. With the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles staggering beneath the weight of Asian cargo, everyone along the shipping chain knew something dramatic had to be done. In April 2002 they had their solution.

It's called the Alameda Corridor, a $2.4-billion 20-mile rail expressway linking the ports to the big train yards near downtown Los Angeles. From there, trains continue their long journey deep into America's heartland, while trucks pick up much of the short-haul cargo. With half of the corridor set into a 35-foot-deep trench, its three tracks now shoot 50 trains a day eastward, and in the process remove8,500 containers that otherwise would have been trucked from the ports along already congested highways.

Like the Capitol Corridor, the Alameda Corridor is another train tale that underscores the promises and perils of an overworked transportation grid, in this case the ports, railroads and communities in Southern California that shoulder 40 percent of the nation's cargo traveling by ship.

While America once relied on rail to move its goods, usually from Eastern ports out West, trains from the 1930s on began losing market share to trucks, thanks to bigger rigs and better highways. The 1980 deregulation of the trucking industry was a further blow. But by the mid-'80s, as the railroad industry got legislative breaks of its own and carriers figured out a system to move two containers on one flatcar, Port of Long Beach spokesman Art Wong says "almost overnight the railroads came back to life."

The Alameda Corridor is the postcard of that renaissance. The streamlined marvel replaces the tangle of street-surface tracks that once took freight trains over four different branch lines and 200 railroad crossings at 20 mph, half the speed trains now move through the trench.

Today, the corridor's chief executive, John Doherty, says, trains "can't compete with trucks on trips under 800 miles. It takes $200 to truck a container 20 miles, but it's $450 on a train. So Las Vegas and the Southern California market are better served by trucks."

For long hauls, though, trains are becoming more crucial than ever, as volume explodes. In 2000, railroads nationwide moved 9.2 million containers. Last year, that number climbed to 12.3 million. California's getting a hefty piece of that action: Between 2000 and 2005, the number of containers reaching the United States from China doubled, with the majority arriving at Southern California ports.

Last year the Alameda Corridor handled 25 percent of the nearly 9 million containers that passed through the twin ports, with the number of boxes expected to more than double by 2020, assuming the ports and railroads can handle them. They're getting ready. Experts say the next generation of cargo ships will carry more than 10,000 containers. That's the equivalent of 21 trains, each a mile-and-a-half long, bobbing and weaving through the increasingly congested Inland Empire.

To keep that cargo moving out of the ports, the Alameda Corridor will be a lifeline. Fortunately, it's now using only a third of its total capacity of 160 trains a day, since most cargo still is loaded directly onto trucks at the ports.

Union Pacific spokesman James Barnes points to "the voracious appetite of the American consumer," this insatiable hunger for cheap goods that nations like China are happy to provide.

The Asian manufacturing boom benefits from an increasingly fluid and "just-in-time" supply chain — larger and larger ships offloading containers directly onto longer and longer trains.

But if American consumerism is an insatiable hunger, the digestive tract starts here on the docks of Long Beach, where Rudy Rael stands on a recent morning, staring up at a canyon of inbound containers awaiting their journey through the Corridor to points east.

"We're bursting at the seams," says Rael, assistant operations director for ITS, one of the port's oldest container terminal operators. "We've doubled our terminal in the past three years and it's already filled up, and this mountain of boxes keeps growing."

So do the trains moving them east.

"Our average train is less than 7,000 feet long, but we're preparing for 10,000-foot trains," says Steve Branscum with Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the state's other major rail carrier. "We're investing more on our transcontinental line to Chicago and hope to have that double-tracked by early 2008."

Railroads are adding track as fast as they can, but there's a limit to their capital-improvement budgets. And, the unexpected demand for much needed rail cars has caused a manufacturing backlog, requiring railroad companies to wait several months to have orders filled.

The Alameda Corridor shows that the transportation system defies easy fixes. Some have criticized it for not getting even more trucks off Southern California's congested freeways, while others say it only shifted the crowding problem 20 miles inland. Because as one train after another is shot from the corridor's cannon, communities in its eastern path have had to scramble to deal with the fallout — noise and shaking, smoke and dust, and worst of all, blocked city streets.

The gridlock is something Sharon Neely and her colleagues at the Alameda Corridor East project are trying to address. By organizing cities along the rails through Los Angeles County, and working with lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington for funding, Neely's group is lobbying for the construction of underpasses or road separations at 20 of San Gabriel Valley's 54 railroad crossings.

But Victor Sandoval, owner of the 2nd St. Bistro in downtown Pomona, says even with the new underpasses, sharing a business district with more and more trains poses problems for an entrepreneur. There are the blaring horns that can ruin a romantic candlelit dinner. "It's hard to create a nice atmosphere with mile-long trains rumbling by outside," he says. And there are the deliveries that show up late because trucks got caught at a crossing.

"Each morning," Sandoval says, "we come in and sweep up the mortar that fell from the bricks in this building because it gets shaken all night long by the trains."

But Neely says the railroads, which historically have tended to wield power with arrogance, remain an obstacle. By law, she says, carriers are required to chip in only 5 percent if a city wants to construct a grade separation to ease traffic, leaving the communities to foot the rest of the bill. Neely points out that while highways get dedicated funding from gas taxes, railroad-crossing projects don't.

The railroads make no apologies. Why should they pay for something benefiting motorists and not trains? says Union Pacific's Davis. "I hate that idea of 'railroads were here first,' but the rail industry did help develop this country, it helps bring the goods that support our day-to-day lives, and it continues to help with the construction of America. Is is right that people continue to build right up against the railroad tracks?"

Neely disagrees.

"Yes, the railroads were here for 100 years and cities developed around them, but they weren't carrying 90 trains a day and blocking intersections for 20 minutes. We want to be a partner with the railroads, because a lot of the clothes we're wearing and food we eat is brought to us by trains. We're trying to find a happy medium."

Good luck. Fred Arm, a retired attorney in Richmond, has spent years fighting the railroads for the establishment of no-horn "quiet zones" at some of the busier track crossings in a city that has seen a sharp increase in passenger and freight traffic.

Arm sees himself as an innocent bystander in what he calls the "global-versus-local" clash. "We all benefit from this cargo," he says. "But especially in California, we're also paying a price for a global economy and this Wal-Mart way of life."


Contact Patrick May at pmay@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5689.