Skip to content

Posts from the Agency Watch Category


Central Ave and Westwood Blvd Bike Lanes Preserved in Mobility Plan

TRUST South L.A.'s Samuel Bankhead giving public comment in favor of Central Avenue bike lanes at yesterday's Planning Commission hearing. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Safe streets advocate and TRUST South L.A. boardmember AsSami AlBasir El gave public comment in favor of Central Avenue bike lanes at yesterday’s Planning Commission hearing. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

At its meeting yesterday, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission unanimously re-affirmed keeping bikeway designations for Central Avenue and Westwood Boulevard.

Unfortunately these facilities are likely to remain in the plan, but not move closer to on-the-ground improvements due to anti-safety positions staked out by City Councilmembers Curren Price and Paul Koretz. Price and Koretz had introduced motions, 15-0719-S9 and 15-0719-S3 respectively, requesting Central Avenue and Westwood Boulevard be removed from the city’s approved Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN).

The City Planning Commission turned down the anti-bike amendments while voting unanimously in favor of a handful of amendments to the city’s approved and contested Mobility Plan 2035. The commission affirmed plan changes to formally acknowledge equity and community outreach, as well as a number of largely technical amendments.

The City Planning Department (DCP) 108-page staff report [PDF] affirmed the need to keep bikeway designations for Central and Westwood:

In response to motions from Council Districts 5 and 9, the second Addendum to the Mobility Plan EIR considered the removal of Westwood Boulevard (from Le Conte Ave to Wellworth Ave) and Central Ave (from Washington Boulevard to 95th Street) from the Bicycle Enhanced Network. While the councilpersons expressed their interest in having these segments removed, staff recommends that these segments be retained in the BEN. Both Westwood Blvd. and Central Ave serve as important north-south corridors for persons who bicycle and it would be premature at this time to foreclose the opportunity of improving these corridors for bicycling in the future. Language has been included in the Mobility Plan […] which reinforces the conceptual nature of these network assignments and further articulates the opportunities that exist in the future to consider alternative corridors. This level of flexibility is intended to provide opportunity to study such corridors as Westwood and Central along with potential parallel alternatives at whatever point in the future the corridors are prioritized for implementation. (emphasis added)

Planning staff opened the hearing affirming DCP’s position that the bike lanes were important to keep in the plan. A representative of the Fire Department (LAFD) spoke in support of the plan, stating that LAFD would further study “any kind of impacts” to emergency response times.

Councilmember Paul Koretz testified before the commission, lamenting Westwood Blvd’s inclusion in the Mayor’s Great Streets initiative, calling protected bike lanes “pretty dangerous” and disparaging thousands of cyclists that use Westwood every day by suggesting, “only the most aggressive people take it.” Councilmember Price sent staff to testify against Central Avenue bike lanes; they asserted that even protected bike lanes there would not be “low stress.” Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo’s staff also testified in support of Price and Koretz, and against bike lanes.  Read more…


Metro Proposes Pilot For All-Paid Parking At Nine Stations

Should Metro parking policies

Metro may soon eliminate wasteful parking subsidies at several rail stations, including Atlantic Station in East Los Angeles. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

The Metro board will hear a promising proposal [PDF] that increases paid parking at nine stations on three Metro rail lines. According to The Source, the proposal will be presented to the Metro board this month, voted on in March, and go into effect in May if approved.

Charging for station parking was recommended under Metro’s 2015 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) review, which states: “Station parking is expensive to build and maintain” and “[parking] costs should be partially recovered to avoid giving park-and-ride customers the largest subsidies, to increase agency revenues, and to effectively manage parking supply.” APTA reviewers further stated that park-and-ride subsidizes higher income riders, decreases transit’s air quality benefits, and that it would be better to invest in convenient, frequent bus service.


Metro graph showing how rail patrons arrive at selected stations.

Metro’s figures, included in the proposal [PDF] show that, even with expensive large parking lots at stations, only 8 to 15 percent of rail riders park at the station. The majority of riders arrive by bus; approximately a third arrive by “other methods” including walking and bicycling.

Metro justifies the pilot on the basis that “non-driving transit patrons are currently under the [accurate] perception that their transit fare is subsidizing parking” with “operations of parking are currently being maintained by Metro’s annual budget without generating any parking revenue to recover a portion of its costs.” Metro estimates the pilot 9-station program is estimated to generate approximately $600,000 in annual revenue.  Read more…


Preliminary Federal Ruling Sides With Beverly Hills Against Metro Subway

Early version of possible Purple Line Subway alignments studied through Beverly Hills. Image via Metro

Early map of potential Purple Line subway alignments studied through Beverly Hills. Image via Metro

Last week, United States District Judge George Wu issued a ruling [PDF] in Beverly Hills’ legal battles against Metro’s plans to tunnel the Purple Line subway beneath Beverly Hills High School.

The Beverly Hills Courier portrayed the ruling as a victory for Beverly Hills in that Judge Wu chided subway proponents for “not properly considering the environmental effects of running a tunnel through an area riddled with abandoned oil wells and pockets of potentially explosive methane gas.”

Though the judge sided with Beverly Hills, agreeing that the subway environmental studies did not fulfill all the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the decision is more of a split ruling with some of Beverly Hills’ winning points more nitpicky than substantive.

There are a couple of lawsuits with multiple parties involved. The plaintiffs include the city of Beverly Hills and the Beverly Hills Unified School District. The defendants include Metro and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). For the purposes of this article, SBLA simplifies the parties to “Beverly Hills” against “Metro.”

The ruling last week is in the federal court case; Metro won the state court case last year.

The lawsuit primarily centers on Beverly Hills’ criticism of Metro’s decision to relocate the planned Century City stop from Santa Monica Boulevard to Constellation Boulevard.

Metro studied numerous subway alignments, and ultimately chose a route that places the Century City station at the intersection of Constellation Boulevard and Avenue of the Stars. Though Constellation and Santa Monica are one block apart, Metro found that Santa Monica Boulevard would not work due to earthquake faults. The Constellation alignment effectively necessitates tunneling under Beverly Hills High School.

All in all, Beverly Hills raised nine issues where it asserted that Metro’s environmental studies (Environmental Impact Statement – EIS) failed to meet NEPA requirements. The court sided with Beverly Hills on half of those issues. In effect, though, Beverly Hills effectively only needs to prevail on one issue to find that Metro failed NEPA.

The conclusion of the 217-page ruling [PDF] reads:

The Court concludes that [Metro] failed its disclosure/discussion obligations … in connection with [Beverly Hills’] comments concerning the effects of tunneling through gassy ground and the risk of explosions; that it failed its disclosure obligations regarding incomplete information concerning seismic issues; and that it should have issued [additional environmental studies]. The Court also concludes that [Metro] failed to properly assess “use” of [Beverly Hills] High School under [recreational land law] due to the planned tunneling. In all other respects, the Court rules in favor of [Metro].

Metro, via spokesperson Dave Sotero, issued a statement on the ruling:

After a thorough review, Metro concludes that Judge Wu’s tentative rulings uphold the approved plans to build the Century City subway station at Constellation and to tunnel safely beneath Beverly Hills High School. Some of the findings are procedural, requiring the FTA to perform additional environmental analysis and provide a further opportunity for public comment. The majority of extensive environmental work was deemed sound. If the ruling holds, Metro will support FTA in meeting these additional procedural requirements. Time is of the essence. Any significant delay resulting from this case could jeopardize the timely delivery of this critically important transit project for all L.A. County residents.

After the jump are summaries of the nine specific areas of dispute in the lawsuit. Following those are possible next steps in the case.  Read more…


More Housing — Especially the Affordable Kind — Is Exactly What the Westside Needs

Metro's bus yards at Sunset and Main Street in Venice.

Metro’s bus yards at Sunset and Main Street in Venice. Image from Google Street View.

L.A. City Councilmember Mike Bonin has begun championing the redevelopment of an obsolete Metro bus yard in his district into something that the westside of L.A. County is desperately short of: affordable housing.

The 3.5 acres of prime Venice land — located at Sunset and Main — is a mere stone’s throw away from the Boardwalk in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country, which is exactly why Bonin, who also sits on the Metro board of directors, says this is the spot for affordable housing.

But, of course, not everyone agrees. In a recent op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Conor Friedersdorf argues that the project is a “wildly inefficient,” mostly symbolic approach to addressing the growing housing affordability crisis.

It won’t really make a dent in the housing shortage that is driving down vacancy rates and, consequently, driving up rents, Friedersdorf argues.

“Does it make sense to build affordable housing in Venice?” he asks in his piece “Why not sell to a developer and use the money to build many more units a half-mile inland?”

It’s a reasonable question, but there are few very compelling reasons why Bonin’s plan is exactly what the westside needs.

Undoing decades of exclusionary planning

One point that Friedersdorf makes is undeniably true. This proposal will not solve the housing crisis facing the region. Decades of under building housing have caught up with Los Angeles County, especially on the cost, driving rents and home prices to some of the highest levels in the country.

“If eight-story apartment buildings were allowed on Venice Boulevard west of the 405; if they rose up on Venice’s stretch of Lincoln Boulevard too, displacing the auto repair shops and carwashes; if homeowners could legally rent their alley garages to lower-income tenants; and if developers weren’t forced to set aside so much land for parking, rents would come down. And enough non-rich people would live here to sustain a diversity of businesses to serve them,” Friedersdorf writes.

But, it’s clear that the process of densifying neighborhoods where density is most needed will be a long and painful process. In the meantime, affordable housing is essential for undoing the planning trends that have turned Los Angeles into one of the most economically segregated cities in the country.

The concrete versus the theoretical

Friedersdorf asks wouldn’t it be better to sell of this land and build affordable housing elsewhere where it’s cheaper. In a recent story about Bonin’s plan, The Argonaut reported that Metro estimates the value of the property to be between $30 and $50 million.

While it theoretically sounds like a good idea — simply taking the cash from selling the bus yards and finding a cheaper location — the reality is that it’s not that simple.

“Projects are getting harder and harder to do because of the cost of land. On the Westside in particular, it’s very difficult to make affordable housing pencil out. … Take away the land acquisition cost and now you’re only talking about development cost, which is a very different equation,” Bonin told The Argonaut.

Recognizing this fact, Metro recently updated its joint development policy to assure that it used the land it owned to help get some affordable housing located in transit-rich areas. As Metro CEO Phil Washington noted that if lower-income households continue to be displaced farther and farther from the transit network, he would have to build the transit network out to them.

“Workers who earn less than $25,000 and live within half a mile of a transit station are three times more likely to take transit,” Washington told The L.A. Times last October. The Venice bus yards site is actually in the service area of two transit agencies: Metro and Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus.

At this point, the planning for the Venice site is in the very preliminary stages. But, Bonin has outlined a vision that is very much in line with Metro’s joint development policy. L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who also sits on the Metro Board of Director and whose district the property is in, has cosponsored the plan.

It’s also worth noting that the parcel isn’t currently zoned for residential; it’s zoned for commercial use. Bonin has said that as a result, if the parcel were sold off, it would likely result in a commercial development. Housing, especially affordable to those people who may be commuting to work into Venice, could actually take cars off the street. A commercial development, however, could lead to more cars as more people commute to work.

Concentrated poverty is the problem

It’s unlikely that land costs a mere half-mile from the former bus yards are cheap enough to make a swap worth it, like Friedersdorf claims.

However, it is exactly in the places where land costs are so high that affordable housing is needed. Concentrating affordable housing exclusively where where land costs are cheaper — usually because they are less desirable places to live — can prevent lower-income families from accessing high-quality jobs and better schools for their children.

Venice, as well as its surrounding neighborhoods, have seen major growth in quality jobs over the decades and while adding some affordable housing on a site in the middle of an economically booming neighborhood won’t help every household in need in Los Angeles, it can make a world of difference for those who do get to live there.

Affordable housing is necessary, but not sufficient

Even so, Friedersdorf hits the point home that the proposal isn’t going to solve the region’s housing crunch alone.

With vacancy rates in the region hovering below three percent, people who are looking for places to live are placed at a tremendous disadvantage compared to those who are already comfortably housed.

In a place like Venice, where relatively few new homes get built each year, it means wealthier renters are going to beat out middle- and lower-income renters for coveted apartments simply because they can pay more. Adding a couple dozen more units to the market won’t tip the scales. Still, adding some homes is better than adding none in the midst of a housing shortage.

“It’s fair to ask what the most effective things are to make a community more affordable,” said Mott Smith, principal of the development and planning firm Civic Enterprise.

Real change will mean rethinking our land-use policies, reducing parking requirements, and densifying.

“But if part of your strategy is subsidized low-income units, then building on public land is probably the most efficient way to deliver them,” he said.

The plan to redevelop the Venice bus yards with desperately-needed housing may be, in part, symbolic. But, it is a step in the right direction and, hopefully, an indication of things to come.


Phil Washington Announces Metro’s “Operation Shovel Ready” Initiative

Metro Operation Shovel Ready Transit Projects map - including rail, bus, and bike projects

Metro Operation Shovel Ready Transit Projects map – including rail, bus, and bike projects

Does Phil Washington know something we don’t?

Well, I am sure he knows a lot of things I don’t know about. In any case, last week CEO Phil Washington announced Metro’s “Operation Shovel Ready.” According to the January 27 board communication [PDF], this initiative will bring “projects to a ‘shovel-ready’ state” to allow Metro “to take advantage of potential opportunities that may develop.” Getting these projects from the preliminary plan stage to the ready-to-build stage “does not necessarily mean that they will all move into the construction stage” but if there is another, perhaps, federal stimulus package, it’s good to have ready-to-go projects lying around just in case. Perhaps Washington is anticipating that a new president or an ambitious governor could again turn to transportation investments to stimulate the economy. We’ll see.

The initiative includes two project lists. The first is transit projects, which is predominantly rail, but also includes some Bus Rapid Transit and bikeway projects. There is also, unfortunately, a long list of highway projects, mostly widening existing freeways and interchanges. Projects are broken out based on whether they have some measure R funding or not.

Many of these projects will be familiar to transportation watchers; some of them will require quite a bit of work, including environmental clearance, which could take several years.

The full Operation Shovel Ready project lists appear after the jump.  Read more…


Coalition Grows in Opposition to Proposed No-Growth Ballot Initiative

The Meridian Apartments would replace a commercial building and surface parking less than a block from the Vermont/Beverly Red Line station. The proposed ballot initiative would put an end to similar projects.

The Meridian Apartments will soon replace a commercial building and surface parking less than a block from the Vermont/Beverly Red Line station with 100 affordable homes. The proposed ballot initiative would put an end to similar projects.

Communities United for Jobs and Housing, a growing coalition of affordable housing developers, community leaders, climate activists, transit advocates, and elected officials, has formed to oppose efforts by no-growth activists to pass a November ballot measure that would severely curtail, among other things, the city’s ability to address Los Angeles’ worsening housing shortage.

Nearly 40 people and organizations have begun to coalesce around stopping this initiative, spearheaded by AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, which seeks to  freeze in place the auto-centric and sprawling growth model of yesteryear

(BREAKING: Father Gregory Boyle, director of the nonprofit Homeboy Industries, was quoted as a high-profile endorsement of the initiative in a recent L.A. Times story. He has rescinded his support of Weinstein’s initiative, according to the L.A. Times).

“If this initiative passes, construction of affordable housing in the city of Los Angeles would grind to a halt,” said Robin Hughes, president & chief executive officer for the affordable housing provider, Abode Communities.

“This measure strips away essential and established processes and procedures for the approval of vital affordable housing developments, and would significantly contribute to the ongoing affordable housing deficit here in Los Angeles,” she said.

In addition to seeking a two-year moratorium on all development, one of the main goals of the proposed initiative is to eliminate the practice of city officials granting individual projects general plan amendments, usually for additional height and density or parking reductions. But without that practice, Hughes said about half of Abode’s projects, which provide homes for households making 60 percent or less of L.A. County’s area median income, would never get built.

To get a better idea of what that means, in 2015, L.A. County’s area median income for a household of four people was $64,800, according to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. In order to qualify to live in one of Abode’s projects, a household of four people would have to make less than $38,880 a year.

Providing housing for working people to be able to live near to the jobs where they work is vital, said Hughes, and preventing affordable housing from being built in jobs-rich areas would only result in increased commute time for workers and more time away from their families, not to mention more congestion on the streets.

What’s more is that the measure would also continue to squeeze the middle-class by severely restricting the amount of housing that could get built in L.A. in general, Hugh said.

“The way in which the measure is written now and its constraints… would have a significant impact on residential construction overall,” she said. Read more…


What Factors Are Causing Metro’s Declining Ridership? What Next?

The Los Angeles Times graph of Metro ridership over the past 30 years

The Los Angeles Times graph of Metro ridership over the past 30 years

In my circles, there has been a lot of discussion swirling around Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times article, Billions spent, but fewer people are using public transportation in Southern California, by Laura Nelson and Dan Weikel.

The Times’ authors cast a disparaging light on recent downturns in ridership: “Despite a $9-billion investment in new light rail and subway lines, Metro now has fewer boardings than it did three decades ago, when buses were the county’s only transit option.” The article further asserts a number of causes for declining ridership including “a changing job market, falling gas prices, fare increases, declining immigration and the growing popularity of other transportation options, including bicycling and ride-hailing companies” and also immigration patterns and new drivers licenses for the undocumented.

The internet has already responded to the Times:

  • Steve Hymon at Metro’s The Source, responds citing national trends and touting transit’s promising future, though Hymon ultimately concludes that Metro can do better.
  • KCRW’s Which Way L.A.? hosted a discussion with Loren Kaye, Denny Zane, and Brian Taylor. Taylor blames a lack of agreement on policy goals that results in a “distorted” system that favors cheap car travel.
  • Railtown author Ethan Elkind notes that the Times graphic misleadingly emphasizes Metro’s 1985 peak ridership.
  • Jarrett Walker criticizes the Times for identifying an “accelerating” trend out of what is actually “very noisy” but largely flat ridership data. Walker emphasizes that the current one-year decline in ridership is not a “trend” yet; labeling it one is presumptuous.
  • Matt Tinoco at LAist echoes Elkind and Hymon and questions the role of changing demographics, including gentrification in L.A.’s core.
  • Eric Jaffe at CityLab points to new research that disputes the article’s claim, made by transit critic James E Moore that, “It’s the dream of every bus rider to own a car.”

At yesterday’s Metro board meeting, CEO Phil Washington asserted that transit ridership is cyclical and that L.A.’s decline is in line with national trends. He also stated that he would be responding via a planned Times guest editorial.

There are a lot of keystrokes already stricken on this, but, nonetheless, I’d like to weigh in with some ideas and some questions, and to further hear from SBLA readers on what you think. Like the Times list, I don’t think that there is one smoking gun cause, but plenty of interacting and overlapping factors that influence ridership.

Decades of government capital spending favor cars. Graph via Frontier Group

Decades of government capital spending favor cars. Graph via Frontier Group

Overall Investment – Transit vs. Cars

My first thought upon reading the article was to blame declining ridership on a disparity of investment between transit infrastructure and car infrastructure. The U.S., California, and Los Angeles continue a long pattern of spending huge budgets to support driving, and not so much for transit. Governmental regulations, including parking requirements, also require massive private investment to serve cars, with little to no provisions for transit. Collectively, we pay people to drive, and so people drive a lot.

I am skeptical that even Measure R’s significant transit investments will move L.A. County toward a greater transit share because Measure R also provides billions of dollars for highway and road expansion.

Yonah Freemark touches on these disparities in his study showing that light rail investment did not increase transit mode share. Read more…


Garcetti, LADOT and Xerox Announce New GoLA Multi-Modal App

Mayor Garcetti announcing the GoLA app this morning. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Mayor Garcetti announcing the GoLA app this morning. Photo: Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Los Angeles has a new transportation app that helps Angelenos choose ways to get around. The GoLA “Mobility Marketplace” App shows various transportation modes, including bicycling, transit, taxi, ride-hailing, driving, and parking and allows users to compare modes to see what is fastest, cheapest, or greenest. The app is a collaboration between Xerox and the city of Los Angeles, shepherded by the Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Chief Innovation Technology Officer, Peter Marx.

Mayor Garcetti demonstrated the new app this morning at a press event in the city’s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) bunker, four floors below City Hall East. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield described the app as a “magic blender” combining transit schedules, Thomas Guide maps, traffic, and more.


Xerox Senior Vice President David Cummins stated that the app includes a broader spread of multimodal options than typical transportation apps, such as Google Maps. Cummins expressed enthusiasm about future features planned, including not just viewing multi-modal trips, but booking and paying for them via GoLA. Cummins also announced anticipated future features including gamification, “comparing your carbon footprint with your Facebook friends,” and possible Vision Zero features.


VerdeXchange Day One Highlights: Phil Washington, Earl Blumenauer

Day one of this year’s VerdeXchange conference is over. By the time you read this, the second and final day is already underway; Tuesday will feature discussions on the Los Angeles River, sustainable buildings, the sharing economy, new mobility models for cities, and much more! The full program schedule is here. Streetsblog L.A. is a media sponsor; follow @StreetsblogLA on Twitter for updates throughout the day.

Below are a couple of highlights from the first day.

VerdeXchange's 21st Century Transit panel (left to right) Jeff Morales, CA High-Speed Rail Authority, Deborah Flint, L.A. World Airports, Phil Washington, Metro, and Renata Simril LA84 Foundation. Photos by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

VerdeXchange’s 21st Century Transit panel (left to right) Jeff Morales, CA High-Speed Rail Authority, Deborah Flint, L.A. World Airports, Phil Washington, Metro, and Renata Simril LA84 Foundation. Photos by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

Metro’s CEO Phil Washington spoke alongside the CEOs of L.A. World Airports, Deborah Flint, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority, Jeff Morales. All these leaders spoke the need to build seamless, complementary, balanced transportation systems. Washington decried the “three-decade infrastructure vacation” throughout the United States where the nation has neglected to build and maintain the transportation infrastructure needed for future generations. The Metro CEO emphasized that local jurisdictions and private industry have played their roles, but that the federal government has been weak in dragging its heels to pass its re-authorization bills.

Washington made two important announcements:

  • The second phase of the Metro Expo Line will open in May. A mid-2016 estimate has been expected since Metro took control of the substantially completed rail line ten days ago, but no opening date has been publicized.
  • USDOT approved phase three of Metro’s Westside Purple Line Subway for expedited treatment. This should speed up the federal processes to all for an accelerated schedule, potentially extending the subway to UCLA in time for a possible 2024 Olympics.

Congressmember Earl Blumenauer

Congressmember Earl Blumenauer

Streetsblog caught up with Oregon Congressmember Earl Blumenauer. Blumenauer is a leader on livability issues, especially bicycling. At VerdeXchange, he was speaking on a sustainable agriculture panel. Below is a very brief interview.  Read more…

No Comments

#DamienTalks SGV2: Albert Ho on IWillRide and Wes Reutimann on the Puente Hills Landfill Park


A view from the future Puente Hills Landfill Park.

This week, #DamienTalks with Albert Ho of the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority. Albert has been a booster of the project dating back to the mid aughts, helping to found the IWillRide campaign as an interested college student, managing the website early in his career and then working for the Construction Authority.

Albert talks about his experiences advocating for the project, touches on some of the highlights of the line extension, scheduled to open on March 5. Towards the end, we reminisce about our days of yore, sitting in the back of Metro Board meetings together, trying to come up with the wittiest tweet about the meeting.

Next, #DamienTalks with Wes Reutimann, the executive director of Bike SGV. Reutimann discusses the upcoming scoping meeting for the Puente Hills Landfill Park. The park promises to be one of the largest tracts of open space on the Southland. There will be an environmental scoping meeting this Wednesday, January 27 (for more information on the hearing and the park click here.)

Bike SGV is hoping that there we be a safe network of bicycle lanes leading to the park and a network of bike facilities within the park to create the largest bike park in California. If you can’t make the scoping meeting, click here to read and sign Bike SGV’s petition.

If, like me, you are unfamiliar with what a bike park is, here are examples in Marin County and Fresno County.

We’re always looking for sponsors, show ideas, and feedback. You can contact me at, at twitter @damientypes, online at Streetsblog California or on Facebook at StreetsblogCA.

Thanks for listening. You can download the episode at the #DamienTalks homepage on Libsyn.

#DamienTalks is supported by Foothill Transit, offering car-free travel throughout the San Gabriel Valley with connections to the new Gold Line Stations across the Foothills and Commuter Express lines traveling into the heart of Downtown L.A. To plan your trip, visit “Foothill Transit. Going Good Places.”