Plan B? Photo: Home Depot, Canada

“I want to get it done,” Wesson argued.  While staff ultimately agreed to comply, they raised questions about whether they would need to raise the screens for the entire route and where funding would come from.

“These screens can be placed on top of the soundwalls to address concerns about privacy issues for homes immediately adjacent to the ROW,” explains Construction Authority spokesperson Gabriela Collins.  ”These are not included as part of the baseline project and are not required by the environmental document.  We have done some preliminary design work to ascertain the cost and whether or not the screens could be added to the soundwalls, but have no designs at this time.”

Even with Wesson’s backing, there are two reasons that the addition of these soundwalls is a long shot.

The first is politics.  With the handoff of Phase I of the Expo Line from the Construction Authority who built the line to Metro who will run the line, it would take a vote of both the Expo Board and the Metro Board to approve such a project.

Even with enough votes rounded up to pass the proposal, there is still no money to pay for these “privacy screens” and there’s no obvious third party that would be interested in providing such funds.

The other reason that the screens are a long shot is that even if the political will and funding were available, adding the screens doesn’t make a lot of sense.

A recent video of Phase I that appears on The Source makes it look nigh impossible to see anything that would be considered a violation of privacy over the existing soundwalls.  If the concern is that the “privacy shields” would reduce the train noises for residents, the accompanying bells and whistles that would come with the reduced visibility would most likely cause more noise than the train would ever produce.

But while privacy screens for the rail line are a long shot, a walled-off bike path in Santa Monica for Phase II of the Expo Line is looking like a surer bet.

On Monday the Air Resources Board heard a request from the Lantana Center and Media Campus to build a 1,370 foot wall right alongside the proposed bike path that will parallel the Expo tracks in Santa Monica.  This would mean that for a full quarter mile, bicyclists would be trapped between trains and a 12-foot sound wall.

What a difference a few weeks make.

Before the Thanksgiving break, Streetsblog reported on how many Westside bicyclists were concerned about bike planning for Phase II of the Expo Line.  While planning for the second phase of the light rail portion of the Expo Light Rail project is nearly 60% complete, the bicycle planning hasn’t really begun.   One of the main reasons for the delay is that Caltrans had not certified environmental documents needed before the bike planning could begin.  To make matters worse, the Culver City Bicycle Coalition complained that a planned bike-transit center for the Culver City station seemed to be dropped from the plans.

But much of that has changed.  Caltrans has granted the Categorical Exclusion (CE) needed for bikeay construction to begin, a prerequisite for the Expo Construction Authority to begin planning the bikeway.  The Authority also announced that it will soon create a long-promised bicycle advisory committee to help with the bicycle plans for Phase II.

To top it all off, a bike parking plan for the Culver City Station was presented, although advocates want to see a greater commitment to bring a bike-transit facility to Culver City.

“Both the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica have obtained environmental clearance for the bikeway project,” begins Gabriela Collins, spokesperson for the Expo Construction Authority.  ”Once the funding from both cities comes through, Expo plans to contract the bikeway design and construction to Skanska Rados, a Joint Venture, the current design-build contractor for the guideway.  The Bicycle Advisory Committee will be brought to the Expo Board for approval at that time.”

While many bike advocates cheered the news that the CE has been finalized, there are still some lingering concerns that the Expo Construction Authority wasted time waiting for environmental clearances for bikeways while the rail project planning moved forward.

Will this design ever become reality?

“The bikeway was inevitable, so it is unfortunate that preliminary engineering of the bikeway was not done at the same time,” says Jonathan Weiss, a member of the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee.  ”How many bikeway options have been foreclosed because of this avoidable delay?  Thankfully, the City of L.A. has ramped up its support and unstuck the bikeway design.”

Federal funding for the bikeway project has already been guaranteed, so it would seem that the bikeway project could finally be moving forward.  However, there’s still one more hurdle that could be placed in front of the Bikeway.  There’s no guarantee that the group of homeowners that have sued to stall the bike project thus far could bring suit against the new CE as well.

Meanwhile in Culver City, a small campaign to urge the Construction Authority to bring a bike plan to the Culver City Expo stop has met with success.

“The Culver City station will have 10 bike racks and 8 bike lockers available to the public when the station opens in early 2012,” explains Collins. “The Clean Mobility Center (CMC) was deferred because its location conflicted with the construction staging area for the Venice Boulevard Bridge, which is being built as part of Phase 2.  However, the necessary provisions were made at the station site for the addition of the CMC in the future. “

Jim Shanman with the Culver City Bicycle Coalition wrote a letter to supporters after the last meeting of the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors noting that staff said that, “the CMC could conceivably begin (construction) as soon as the bridge is far enough along that the area in question won’t be affected by the construction, maybe as soon as 12 months.”

It may not have happened as quickly as some would want, but bikeway planning is finally underway for Expo Phase II in the City of Los Angeles.  Whether it’s in time to create the bike infrastructure cyclists want and deserve remains to be seen.

The bike lanes for Phase I of the Expo Line was disappointing, but at least it happened...

One year later, the story hasn’t changed much.  The city is still involved in a back and forth with Caltrans over the city’s efforts to get an ironclad CE from Caltrans, but at this point there is no time frame for the documents to be approved.  A pair of anonymous sources has confirmed that Caltrans won’t issue it until legal issues with the local homeowners are resolved.

Needless to say, there is no timeline for that, either.

So while no timeline is in place for environmental approval of the bike path nor a timeline to hire a contractor to design it, ground has broken for Phase II of the Expo Line and the bike path remains in limbo.

“For some agencies, this is the old story about cycling being an afterthought,” fumes Jonathan Weiss, a member of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Perhaps even worse than the delay is that decisions are being made on the design of Phase II routing, crossings, and stations without bicyclists input.  Despite Expo CEO James Thorpe’s promise to Westside Councilman and Expo Construction Authority Board Member, Bill Rosendahl, that a bicycle advisory committee would be formed, none has.  Expo staff say that the committee will be formed when a contractor is brought on for bikeway design, but with design and construction work underway now for the light rail line, it seems as though cyclist input could be useful.

“As we have learned at recent Expo Urban Design Committee meetings, design work is underway that will impact bikeway planning,” explains long time Expo bikeway advocate Kent Strumpell, who also chairs the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Planning.  ”In light of this, it makes no sense to suggest that a bicycle advisory committee would be of no use at this time.  Decisions could be made that will compromise the optimal integration of the bikeway, possibly missing important opportunities to get it right.”

But for now, no bicycle advisory committee, no agreement on when the bikeway is going to receive environmental clearance, no bikeway design plans being drawn up.  2011 was a great year for the Expo Light rail project, maybe 2012 will be a great one for the bikeway.

Even though CPUC is supposed to look at projects on their merit and not consider politics, both opponents and supporters of the Expo Line were lobbying the Commissioners.  The Transit Coalition published a draft letter urging Commissioners to ignore letters by opponents.  At the same time, the Expo Construction Authority itself sponsored a letter writing campaign urging the commission to approve the crossings.

A coalition of community leaders calling themselves Neighbors for Smart Rail were urging the Commission to hold off on an approval vote until they’re appeal of the Expo Phase II environmental documents could be heard.  Their lobbying effort fell short.

Commissioner Simon was one of the Commissioners who had supported forcing a newly designed rail crossing and rail station for Phase I of the Expo Line and explained his change of heart to CPUC staff.  ”You forgot one thing. I was an assigned commissioner for Phase 1. I was a much younger man back then.”  The Commission had twice delayed votes on Phase I of the Expo Line and when they did rule ordered an overhead pedestrian bridge for the Farmdale Crossing which later turned into the station built at the intersection of Exposition Boulevard and Farmdale Avenue.

Unless and appeals court overturns a previous ruling supporting the Expo Phase II rail environmental documents, there are no further obstacles preventing construction from beginning.  Phase II of the Expo Line will connect to the soon-to-be-opened Phase I which runs from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.  Phase II will complete the first rail line between Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Santa Monica.

One of the key concerns of Neighbors for Smart Rail is that cars trying to access the 405 will get backed up along Sepulveda Boulevard causing paralysis for motorized traffic throughout the Westside. The Expo Construction Authority says these claims are overstated.

The Expo Construction Authority is anxious to stop history from repeating itself.

When clearances for the first phase of the Expo Line appeared all but certain, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), a regulatory agency which regulates privately owned public utilities in the state of California, including electric power, telecommunications, natural gas and water companies, threw them a curve ball.  The last government body to look over the environmental documents for Phase I, CPUC ordered substantial new reviews of two rail crossings which led to an additional rail station at Farmdale Avenue near Dorsey High School and a pedestrian bridge elsewhere.  The new studies were championed by the Fix Expo campaign which compiled a large technical comments document and produced hundreds of letters of concern.

“The Westside of Los Angeles has waited too long for the arrival of mass transit and the community wants an alternative to the gridlock and congestion of the I-10 freeway,” writes Gabriela Collins of the Expo Construction Authority.   “CPUC approval of the Resolution on November 10, 2011 is an important step in keeping this project on track.”

As Expo Phase II heads towards its date with CPUC on November 10, the Expo Construction Authority has set up a website for people to easily send comments to the Commission.  Comments are due on Friday of this week, but supporters of the project won’t have to comb through the environmental documents themselves, the Expo Construction Authority has already written the support letter outlining the clearances that the rail crossings have already earned and the outreach that Expo has done on Phase II.  You can read the letter and submit it to CPUC if you wish by clicking here.

For it’s part, the Authority believes that Expo Phase II deserves quick apporval from CPUC.  

“Phase 2 of the Expo Line has had extensive public participation as over 9,000 comments were submitted and responded to during the environmental process and hundreds of people have attended hearings and meetings to provide input and comments on the project,” Collins continues. “The Authority conducted an extensive study to environmentally clear the grade crossings, and the crossings have been deemed safe by the cities of LA and Santa Monica, Metro and CPUC staff. This petition, coupled with individual letters of support, will enable the community to express their strong support for the Resolution pending before the CPUC Commission.”

Neighbors for Smart Rail, a Westside coalition of homeowners and community groups has argued in court that several of the crossings at major intersections are both unsafe for all road users and will create massive traffic backups.  Opposition to final approval of the crossings at CPUC is expected, although a spokesperson from NFSR declined to comment for this story.

I'm really getting good use out of this photo shoot of NFSR signs I did last August.

As promised, Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) is appealing the decision of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas McKnew to dismiss their lawsuit alleging that the Expo Construction Authority violated state environmental law when doing their studies of the future light rail lines route.  The appeal was filed nearly two weeks ago, on September 15, to the California Court of Appeals

“NFSR is looking to prevent West L.A. gridlock by protecting access to the 10 freeway through West L.A.,” writes president Terri Tippett in a press statement.  ”Trains blocking Overland and Westwood 24 times per hour will have a devastating impact on the existing area traffic, and all evidence shows that Expo didn’t properly study it.”

At first glance, their legal filings don’t appear to be much different in substance than the arguments McKnew rejected earlier this year so NFSR isn’t arguing anything new, just that McKnew erred in ordering the case dismissed last year.   Their main point is that the recently decided  Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council shows that traffic studies should examine the impact a new project will have on current conditions, not on conditions at the end of the “life of the project.”   In Sunnyvale, a state superior court ruled that the city’s environmental review of a road extension violated state law because it based it’s review on traffic projections for 2020 instead of current conditions.

In other words, NFSR is arguing that the Expo Construction Authority should be using conditions between 2007-2010 for its traffic modeling instead of modeling of what conditions should be in 2030.  McKnew rejected this argument last February ruling that the two cases are apples and oranges.

Meanwhile it could be months before we know the fate of this appeal.

Expo’s Response to the Appeal is due October 17 but could be extended to November 1 if the agency requests. Then NFSR has another three weeks to reply to the Authority’s brief.  Sometime in the 90 days after the filing of the last brief, the court will hear oral arguments before making it’s decision, sometime in the 90 days after that.  All in all, it could be mid-May before a final ruling is issued.

In the meantime, the Authority is continuing work on the line as McKnew’s decision allowed.  If NFSR is successful in stopping the project until a new environmental study is completed, it could lead to Expo actually deconstructing portions of the line.  (Update: Bart Reed points out that if the lawsuit is completed by May, then almost no construction will actually be underway, so there’s very little that would happen if the judge ruled for NFSR and gave a cease work order.)  McKnew also ordered that NFSR pay the legal fees for the Construction Authority related to this case.  That ruling is also under appeal.

Neighbors for Smart Rail is is supported in part by West of Westwood Homeowners Association, Westwood Gardens Civic Association, Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association, and Tract 7260 Homeowners Association, and other community based organizations mainly located in West Los Angeles.

A "bicycle freeway" probably won't look like this turn of the 20th Century wooden highway connecting Los Angeles and Pasadena. Photo: Wikimedia

When people try to describe the future Expo Bikeway that will provide a bike connection from Downtown Los Angeles to Downtown Santa Monica they reference the Orange Line Bike Path as the example. The Orange Line Path runs parallel to the Bus Rapid Transit Line in the Valley and many people are at least aware of it, even on the other side of hills.

As currently planned, the future bike path runs onto the street in several places most notably at major intersections such as Sepulveda, Sawtelle, Pico/Gateway and Barrington.  The problem of the bike path running on and off the congested Westside roads is well put in blogger/activist Gary Kavanagh’s Raise Some Red Flags Bike Advocates, Expo Line Bike Path/Route Not Looking So Good.

But the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) has a different vision for the Bike Path, a vision first described by BAC Planning Subcommittee chair Kent Strumpell (previously, a 10-year LACBC board member).  Another BAC member, Jonathan Weiss, who led the surprisingly successful campaign to create additional green space at the Westwood Blvd. Station, is going to Neighborhood Councils on the Westside asking them to support a study of a “bicycle freeway” design to elevate the bikeway at the intersections of Sepulveda, Sawtelle, Pico-Gateway and Barrington, roughly three quarters of a mile.

In a letter to the Westside Neighborhood Council, who ultimately voted to ask the Expo Construction Authority to study elevating the listed Westside intersections, Weiss make that a mini-bicycle freeway will keep cyclists safe, and car traffic moving.  

Elevating the bikeway would encourage and facilitate cycling by providing a safe, convenient route over a series of intersections that otherwise entail circuitous, time-consuming and potentially hazardous crossings. It would also ease the flow of automobile traffic in the area by reducing the need for special bicycle accommodations within the roadway and additional signal phases.

Strumpell hopes that, even if the highway is not built now, the train bridges will be engineered so that they could hold a bikeway in the future.  But the environmental documents for the bikeway make no mention of an elevated bikeway, so it’s wildly unlikely that Metro, or the Expo Construction Authority which is building light rail and the bikeway for it, will take this issue seriously without strong political support.

And that support is growing.  The Westside Neighborhood Council is the first Neighborhood Council to join the Bicycle Advisory Committee asking for the study.  Weiss’ next target is the West L.A. Neighborhood Council who’s Chair, Jay Handel, is on-board with Weiss’ concept.Weiss’ next target is the West L.A. Neighborhood Council who’s Chair, Jay Slater, is on-board with Weiss’ concept.

I fully support the study of the elevated crossings for the EXPO bikeway.

Building these elevated sections are integral to the safety of cyclists who will use this new east/ west corridor across our city. Along with the rail line it will be another element in decreasing traffic congestion on the west side.

We should note that despite the opposition to the Expo Bikeway by some members of the Westside Neighborhood Council, their vote was done in good faith.  Some members of the Council who are also members of Neighbors for Smart Rail abstained from the vote to avoid any appearance of conflict.

Construction on the Culver City Station as of March of this year. Photo:Friends 4 Expo

In November of 2007, the Expo Construction Authority and Culver City agreed that instead of building a “temporary” station at the terminus of Phase I of the Expo Project, that the Authority would build the permanent aerial station in time for the grand opening of Phase I.  As part of that agreement, Culver City agreed to pay the Authority $7 million to cover some of the construction costs.

The deal seemed a classic win-win for everyone.  Culver City moved forward not just with the most ambitious “Transit Oriented Development” project slated for the line, but also on a public health grant to connect the station to the Downtown through a safe and attractive pedestrian walkway.  For once, everything was going smoothly.

Until last week’s Expo Construction Authority Board Meeting.

Culver City officials are withholding payment of $7 million, $4 million of which is for station construction, they promised the Authority in large parts because the city feels the station that is being constructed is not the one they were promised in the M.O.U.  The Construction Authority doesn’t dispute that plans for the station have changed and have been somewhat downsized, but that they didn’t promise a certain station to Culver City in the M.O.U., just that they promised an aerial station for Phase I.

At the meeting, much of the confrontation was between Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Culver City staff.  

The bikeway between La Cienega and Washington Blvd. Thanks, Curbed.

As recently as August of last year, the Expo Construction Authority was dropping hints that Phase I of the Expo Line would be open by now.  Instead, the delays that have hampered the project from the beginning have continued as the Line moves towards its elusive opening date.

Yesterday, another delay was announced.

Longtime Expo supporter Gökhan Esirgen reported that FCI/Fluor/Parsons (the contractor team for most of Phase I of the Expo Line) sent a notice to Expo Authority stating that the projected substantial completion, that is the completion of all construction work, was delayed by two more months to August 23, 2011.

Delaying of the substantial completion by two months at this point makes the earlier reported November opening for the Expo Line less likely. If everything goes very well and if the testing is sped up, it might still be possible to open the line to La Cienega in November, but given the history of new delays appearing and the chance of encountering problems during testing, 2012 seems a more likely option.

There is a silver lining for those anxiously awaiting Expo’s opening.  Karen Leonard, the Chair of Light Rail for Cheviot and Hello Expo, writes “Too bad, we’re all waiting!  But maybe now the line can be opened all the way to Culver City when the two contractors complete their segments – one testing sequence and one opening ought to be more efficient.”

Friends for Expo’s Darrell Clarke agrees, stating succinctly, “Opening all at once to Culver City could be good.”

Esirgen also agrees that a full opening for Phase I in 2012 is likely.  “Since the Culver City Station is being built by a different contractor (Balfour Beatty Infrastructure and Balfour Beatty Rail) and it’s ahead of schedule, it’s now a possibility that it might be more practical to open the line to Culver City as a whole, instead of having two openings within a month or two.”

Audio for the Expo Construction Authority Board Meeting can be found here. The portion of the meeting pertaining to the new delays, starts at 13:40.

Image via Friends 4 Expo

Earlier this afternoon, the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors approved a $541.7 million design-build contract to the Skanska/Rados team, a no-commuter parking option for the Westwood Station and an aerial station for the Sepulveda Boulevard Station.  Earlier in the day, the Los Angeles City Council had unanimously backed the Rosendahl/Koretz motion funding the Sepulveda aerial station.

Reporting from the room, longtime Expo backer Gökhan Esirgen described the scene:

Today the feeling in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors hearing room could be best described as ecstasy. After the Phase 2 design – build contract got awarded, cheers and applauses were shaking the the room.

Votes on all items were unanimous, with each board member expressing their happiness and strongly emphasizing the= importance of the day.

The full press release from the Expo Construction Authority can be found after the jump.

EXPO LINE ON TRACK TO SANTA MONICA

Board of Directors Approves Funding Agreement and Design-Build Contract

Moving forward to connect the Westside to the county’s existing rail network, the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors approved two major milestones today. The Funding Agreement and Design-Build contract approved by the Board clear the way for design and construction to begin on Phase 2 of the project, which extends the nearly complete light-rail line between downtown Los Angeles and Culver City to its terminus in Santa Monica.

The $1.5 billion Phase 2 Funding Agreement between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and the Exposition Construction Authority (Expo Authority) provides the guidelines by which Metro will fund the project through Measure R half-cent sales tax revenue as well as state and local funds.   The $541.7 million design-build contract was awarded to Skanska/Rados to design and build Phase 2 of the Expo Line.  The Board of Directors approved incorporation of a Project Labor Agreement into the contract, which includes local hiring provisions and will help ensure that the project will be delivered on time and on budget. With this contract in place, the Expo Authority will kick off the design-build process with a series of community meetings along the project corridor in early May.

The Board also gave direction to carry forward previously cleared design options for a grade separation and aerial station at Expo/Sepulveda and the no parking option at the Expo/Westwood station.  The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion today which commits to funding the estimated $5.3 million cost differential to add the Sepulveda grade separation and aerial station to the project.

The Expo Line will bring more transportation options to Westside communities traditionally underserved by public transit and who experience some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation. Phase 1 of the Expo Line, between downtown Los Angeles and Culver City, is 88% complete and expected to partially open later this year.  Pre-construction work and utility relocation on Phase 2 is expected to begin later this year, with service to Santa Monica scheduled to start in 2015.

###

Looking east at Exposition and Sepulveda. It's hard to imagine a light rail and elevated train station will be here in five years. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Tomorrow 2:30 P.M. today, at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors will meet and vote on several major issues, not the least of which is awarding the Phase II “design-build” contract to Skanska/Rados Expo 2 Joint Venture.

But first there’s two issues that need to be dealt with.  In the February 2010 meeting where the Board decided to proceed with Phase II of the line, the Board approved construction of a parking lot at Westwood and an at-grade station at Sepulveda and Exposition.  In the case of the parking lot, the Board directed staff to continue to study removing the station parking from the plan for the Westwood Station.  Similarly,the Board asked staff to study constructing a “flyover” at the Sepulveda intersection.  In both cases, the staff is now urging the Board to reverse their decisions for Westwood parking an and at-grade station at Sepulveda.

Both Los Angeles City Councilmen who represent the area near the crossing of Sepulveda and Exposition have been long-time advocates of an above-grade station  for the intersection.  City Councilman Bill Rosendahl threatened to vote against any Expo alignment that had any at-grade crossings in the Westside, although he later relented because he didn’t want to vote against the first rail project for his district.  Koretz would have voted against the plan for Phase II, but because of a quirk in the rules creating the Expo Board, he was denied the chance to vote.  Now, both Council Members are sponsoring a resolution that would use City of Los Angeles dollars to pay for the grade-separated crossing for Sepulveda.

Even if the Expo Board approves the elevated station, if Rosendahl and Koretz can’t get the rest of the Council to go along with this plan, then the design would revert to the original at-grade station design. The Rosendahl/Koretz motion will also be heard tomorrow by the Los Angeles City Council.

We’ve already discussed the debate over whether or not the Westwood Station have parking, and it now appears that the station will only have twenty spaces for local parking and none for station riders.  The environmental documents for the project show that a parking permit system can protect the neighborhood from a flood of station commuters looking to “park and ride.”  How Expo will fill the open space, be it green space, some form of retail or something else, has yet to be determined.  We should note that the motion asking for further study of this option came from County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who has been the target of some criticism in recent months on Streetsblog.  The parking free design actually costs less than the design with the parking by just short of $80,000.

But if you’ve become addicted to debates over the Expo Line, there’s still a few wrinkles to  be ironed out.  The controversial maintenance facility in Santa Monica, the Venice Boulevard light-rail bridge, Exposition/Stewart maintenance facility, and the Phase 2 bicycle path are all issues that have yet to be resolved.  The final design for the Venice Boulevard light-rail bridge is underway.  The bicycle path is undergoing a second environmental review in response to a lawsuit.

We’ll be live tweeting the meeting, and will announce the results of the final votes here when the vote is completed.

This City of Santa Monica sketch (5/18/09) shows how the terminus station could look from 4th and Colorado. Image: Friends for Expo

Some of us from Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends4Expo just met with Expo Authority leaders and relevant political staffers to ask when community input on the design of the stations will be solicited and on what particular features of the design it will be sought.

In late April or early May, Expo will hold community meetings to introduce the Project Manager for the Design/Build contractor and the proposed designs.  At these meetings and later ones as well, public input will be solicited about, for example, the design of the Kiss and Ride feature and of the 20-space Residents’ parking lot. Earthern berms and/or sound walls, the height of sound walls (taking into consideration not only noise mitigation but appearance), bus stop details, tree savings or replacements, lighting and landscaping features within and beyond a 300 foot radius station area -these and other issues will be open for discussion.  In some cases, Expo will be working with LADOT or LAUSD on particular configurations (having to do with trees and sidewalks or the visual barrier/sound wall by Overland School).

The Westwood station has been designed with a center platform and pedestrian access from Westwood; pedestrians approaching from Overland will follow the pedestrian/bikepath to that ramp. (There will be an emergency exit to the east of the platform and, in future, if Cheviot Hills residents flock to the station in great numbers and press for PUC approval of a “betterment” regular access from the east, that can be achieved.)

There will be, as in Phase 1, an Urban Design Committee, and some 6 new appointments will be made to that committee.  That committee improved Phase 1 considerably, and the Phase 2 Design Committee meetings will, as before, be open to the public (one will need to check the Expo website to find the schedule of meetings).  Another opportunity to weigh in on final details will come with a Bicycle Advisory Committee, to be appointed in the next month.

We hope you find this information helpful, and, if you want to work more closely on these or other issues, please contact us.  We will notify you of future meetings focusing in on final design details of the Expo Line.

Cheers, Sarah Hays/Karen Leonard, Light Rail for Cheviot

Rendering of Westwood Station without car parking. Image via presentation by Expo Authority posted online by Gökhan Esirgen.

Now that the Expo Construction Authority has the legal green light to begin construction of Phase II of the Expo Line, it can move on to other issues.  Responding to a motion at the February 5, 2010 meeting of the Expo Construction Authority by Zev Yaroslavsky, Expo staff have put together a presentation listing the pros and cons of having station parking at the Expo Station at Westwood and Exposition.  The “no-parking” option has been endorsed by many of the groups backing the Expo Line such as Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo Transit.  The Construction Authority Board is expected to vote on whether to provide commuter parking  at their March 18 meeting.

By removing commuter parking from the design, the Westwood/Exposition Station is surrounded by open space.  At the north side of the station, an additional 54,000 square feet would be created.  As staff notes, that is roughly the same size as a football field.  The south side would have “only” 23,750 square feet and a “kiss and ride” drop off area.  While the above rendering shows a gigantic brown squares, this space could be filled with amenities such as coffee shops, food trucks or other features one associates with first class transit station.

There would be some parking with the station.  20 spaces would be reserved for people visiting or living in the community, to replace some of the street parking lost by the station.  Very short-term parking will be allowed in the Kiss-and-Ride area for people waiting to pick up an Expo passenger.

By comparison, the option with parking wouldn’t have space for any of those things.  But, it will have lots of low cost car parking.

That's a lot of asphalt.

The plan with parking calls for 170 parking spaces, with access to the stations from Westwood, Overland and Selby Avenues.  As you can see, there is room for landscaping in the project, but not really room for much else.

So here’s the decision that has to be made, does the Construction Authority value 170 parking spaces over station amenities, open space, maintaining a permeable surface around the station, limiting the environmental damage caused by increasing car trips to the area and encouraging people to walk and bike to the station.

When the Expo Board posts their agenda, Streetsblog will post it.  In the meantime, if you have an opinion on which station design you like best, you can email the Board of Directors for the Construction Authority through this website.

Is it just me, or does this sign suggest that grade separation is bad for kids?

Yesterday, Judge Thomas McKnew gave a victory to Expo Phase II by issuing a tentative ruling that, if he doesn’t change his mind in the next couple of weeks, would dismiss the lawsuit challenging the environmental review for the second stage of the Expo Line by Neighbors for Smart Rail.  Going into the hearing, most advocates were predicting dismissal based on the quality of the mitigations that the Expo Construction Authority has proposed at places where the light rail line will cross north-south streets.

After  NFSR lawyer John Bowman introduced case law that was decided five days ago, Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council, things changed.  In Sunnyvale, a state superior court ruled that the city’s environmental review of a road extension violated state law because it based it’s review on traffic projections for 2020 instead of current conditions.  The mitigation plan for Expo are based on traffic projections for 2030.

McKnew gave both sides a chance to present briefs on Sunnyvale explaining their side’s view on the ruling.  Attorneys for the Construction Authority refused so the judge will make his ruling after studying the case himself, without the “aid” of either side outside of what was presented today.  Yesterday’s case was the entire public trial.  The judge will issue his final ruling without more testimony, probably in January or early February.

Proponents of Phase II are undeterred in celebrating yesterday’s decision.  The Tentative Order is now hosted on Friends 4 Expo’s website.  Pro-Expo bloggers are openly mocking NFSR and their attorney.  The mood at the Transit Coalition message boards is positively ebullient.  But a Tentative Order is just that, tentative.  If McKnew sees something in Sunnyvale that changes his mind, that would change everything. Regardless of the judge’s ruling, an appeal is almost assured as Sunnyvale provides hope for NFSR and allies.

But as to whether or not Sunnyvale changes the legal landscape, you’re probably not going to be surprised in who thinks it does, and who thinks it doesn’t.

Damien Goodmon explains Bowman’s argument:

The NFSR attorney argued that Sunnyvale supports their argument that the Expo EIR is invalid and violates CEQA because the Expo Authority used an improper baseline (2030) to evaluate the project’s impacts, and that CEQA requires them to have used some period between 2007 (notice of preparation) and Feb  2010 (the date of the board action certifying the DEIR).  There was also some discussion that this date may even be liberally allowed to 2015 (the projected date of operation), but focus and arguments were mostly on the need for the baseline to be sometime between 2007 – 2010.

He then sent along excerpts from the Sunnyvale decision that state, at least 13 different times, that an environmental review using projected traffic studies from the distant future as a baseline are a violation of CEQA.  For example:

An approach using hypothetical allowable conditions as the baseline results in ‘illusory’ comparisons that ‘can only mislead the public as to the reality of the impacts and subvert full consideration of the actual environmental impacts,’ a result at direct odds with CEQA’s intent. (Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 358․)

I should note that Goodmon wasn’t predicting that McKnew will change its ruling, just that such an outcome is not unthinkable.  At the same time, an appeal from NFSR would probably be based on Sunnyvale if McKnew holds his ground.  LA Weekly even quotes one of NFSR’S leaders, Colleen Heller, promising an appeal.

“This is just the prolongation of a fight that we’ve committed to until the end result,” said Colleen Heller, vice president of NFSR. “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”

Meanwhile, proponents are dismissing the impact this new case law could have as a last gasp effort after the Tentative Order rejected every other possible argument.  McKnew reportedly even joked with Bowman that the lawyer was trying to throw every argument he could out there and see what sticks.  There’s a lot of people who wrote me about the decision that were Expo supporters, but since Gokhan Esirgen called most of the judge’s Tentative Order correctly in Monday’s article, we’ll give him the last word on why he, and most other Expo supporters, aren’t worried about Sunnyvale.  Once the judge issues his Final Ruling, we’ll report it here:

Back to the Sunnyvale case, what the City of Sunnyvale had done was that they assumed all-out development in 2020, which brought considerably more noise, traffic, and pollution, and then measured the environmental impacts of extending the street against this baseline. Of course, this was plain cheating for at least two reasons. The reason one was that environmental impacts of such all-out development weren’t really within the scope of the EIR for the street extension. Therefore, there was no good way of predicting such impacts by an all-out development. Second reason, which was even more important, was that there was not even the slightest guarantee that there would be all-out development in Sunnyvale by 2020. In fact, it was far more than likely that there wouldn’t be. By using the all-out development as their baseline, City of Sunnyvale was lowering their environmental standards significantly and unjustifiably. The superior court had easily caught this cheating and rejected the EIR and the appeal court upheld the decision five days ago.

In the case of the Expo Line, the situation was completely different. The EIR never assumed all-out or anywhere near that extent of development and the place in the EIR where 2030 was used as a baseline was primarily in the grade-crossing analysis. Moreover, using 2030 as the baseline actually raised the environmental standards, not lowered it like in the Sunnyvale case. What was done in the Expo EIR was to assume about 15% more cars on the road in 2030, which resulted in the environmental criteria for grade separation and traffic mitigation being more strict because more cars on the road meant it was more difficult to run at-grade rail crossings.

It's not over, but Expo supporters are warming up their closer.

I just got off the phone from the courthouse in Norwalk and the news is good for supporters of Phase II of the Expo Line, although the case brought by Neighbors for Smart Rail was not completely dismissed by the judge.

Judge Thomas McKnew gave an initial ruling to dismiss the lawsuit brought by NFSR, but then John Bowman, representing the plaintiffs argued that the traffic figures used in the environmental documents was flawed because it should address the current traffic patterns and not just the ones predicted for 2030.  Attorneys for the Expo Construction Authority declined to ask for more time to file briefs, instead opting for a quicker decision by the judge.

What this means is that while it’s possible McKnew will change his mind, his preliminary research favors Expo’s argument that their environmental studies are adequate to begin construction.

A final ruling that would dismiss the case or allow it to go to trial is expected in January of February.  While it’s probable that NFSR will appeal.  However, unless they get an order staying construction while the trial moves forward, they could end up litigating against a rail line that’s already being built.

The section from Overland to Westwood is 200 feet wide between back fences.

For transit supporters, all eyes are going to be set on a court room in Norwalk today for the hearing that will determine the short-term future of light rail in West L.A., but as they’re traveling to the Courthouse the Times has given them some reading material.

An op/ed by Karen Leonard and Sarah Hays, the pair of Cheviot Hills residents who have been pushing back at the image of Cheviot Hills as an enclave opposed to transit, makes the case that a silent majority of their neighbors support light rail transit, at-grade or otherwise.   The duo base their claim on an exhaustive history of going door-to-door to promote Phase II of the Expo Line.  They write:

One weekend we knocked on 60 doors. We found 15 active supporters of the rail line at grade as currently proposed, three vehement opponents and 14 who had no opinion one way or the other. (The others weren’t home.) And so it goes every weekend: We’ve never found the opponents in the majority. At this point, we have talked with more than half of the 1,400 households in Cheviot Hills, giving priority to those who live closer to the line.

Politicians have already caught on that the bark of Westside Expo opponents is not representative of their numbers.  How else could you explain Zev Yaroslavsky, who’s wearing a pair of black hats with transit advocates for his views on the Westside Subway and Wilshire Bus-Only Lanes, being such a strong supporter of the project?  But for Westsiders, who see a sea of those orange and black lawn signs blasting “the train,” it could appear that their neighbors are fighting against the train.

Conceptual design of the Farmdale Station, West nearside-stop split platform. Image: Gokhan Esirgen/Transit Coalition Forums.

Last week, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Farmdale Station for the Expo Line, clearing the Expo Construction Authority to begin construction of the station.  The Notice of Availability for the FONSI can be found at the end of the article, or you can link to the relevant documents at the Expo Construction Authority’s website.

As one might expect, supporters of the Expo Line were happy with the result.  Darrell Clarke, the co-chair of Friends for Expo Transit explains, “The FTA’s Finding of No Significant Impact re-affirms the safety of the Farmdale crossing, and allows the station there to finally begin construction.”

Of course, a FONSI is not just about safety.  By issuing this approval, the FTA determined that construction and operation of the station will not increase the risk for crashes nor cause large increases in traffic congestion.  Combined with the station’s approval from the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year, the station has now passed the every administrative hurdle and only a judicial act or reversal by the Expo Construction Authority Board of Directors could halt or postpone construction of the station.  Tracks have already been laid across Farmdale, but now the rest of the station can move forward as well.

Will we see a legal response to the FTA’s filing?  At publication time, it was too early to say.  Although Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line has promised a response later today.

As is often the case with the Expo Line, the FTA’s ruling creates new questions.  But these questions will be more comfortable for supporters of Expo.

The first is whether this means that Farmdale Station will open with the rest of Phase 1 “sometime in 2011?”  If the station’s construction is not halted by a judge, it is now conceivable that it would not need a special opening date.

A rushed opening of the station is unthinkable.  With the Gold Line Eastside Extension, Metro was still tinkering with safety features months after the station opened.  Given the attention paid this particular station and crossing, it’s unlikely that Metro would open it unless the station was as safe as safe can be for an at-grade light rail station.

Another questions is whether or not the FTA’s thumbs up will impact station design and the timeline for completion of Phase II of the line?  Expo activists seem to think so.

In an email statement, Karen Leonard of Light Rail for Cheviot writes, “Some of us from Cheviot Hills sent comments and spoke in favor of an at-grade crossing at Farmdale, and we welcomed the Expo Authority’s proposal of a station there.

This is great news, we hope there will be no further delays, we need the Expo Line and we need it as soon as possible.  This is a good precedent for Phase II of the line.”

However, there is one thing we do know for certain.  No matter how many “Last Battles” or landmarks the Construction Authority and their allies complete, the fight over the Expo Line won’t be over until the trains are running.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued a determination of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the improvements at Farmdale Avenue and Exposition Boulevard that include the Farmdale Avenue station.

Click here to view the Notice of Availability

The FONSI and Final Supplemental EA are available for public review at the following locations:

1) Baldwin Hills Library, 2906 S. La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90016

2) Jefferson Library, 2211 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90018

3) Exposition Construction Authority, 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 34th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017

Click here to view the Final EA and FONSI online

For more information on the Farmdale Station please visit the project website at BuildExpo.org or call the Expo Hotline at 213-922-EXPO(3976).

The future home of Bergamont Station in Santa Monica. Photo: Darrell Clarke/Friends for Expo

Expo supporter Gökhan Esirgen attended a special meeting of the Westside Neighborhood Council last night featuring a presentation by the Expo Construction Authority.  Esrigen sent an email afterwards to other supporters and media, which can be read after the jump, but here are some of the highlights of Expo’s presentation.

• Expo believes they can open the line all the way to 4th and Colorado by “early 2015″
• Two teams are bidding on construction.  The winning bid will be announced at the February 2011 Board Meeting
• The Bike Path is a separate contract but construction will be coordinated with the light rail construction
• There’s still a lot of details to be worked out at crossings and involving parking

Given some of the delays that have plagued construction of Phase I, it’s hardly a sure bet that Phase II will be running smoothly five years from now.  Still, for those Westsiders hungry for their first rail line, the end is in sight.  Conversely, those hoping to block construction until the line can be built below-grade have a ticking clock to contend with.

Yes, guys, you heard it right. There was a lot of discussion around, some mentioning of memos by Metro pointing to opening dates in 2016 or even 2017. But tonight, at the WNC meeting, Expo officially announced that they are aiming for an early-2015 Phase 2 revenue-operations start to 4th and Colorado in Santa Monica.

The bids by the two competing teams will be announced at the December Expo board meeting. The winning team will be announced at the February 2011 board meeting. Notice to proceed will be issued in March and that’s when the final design and utility relocation will start.

It was said that the main risk for delay for the project would be third parties, such as the City or utility companies, not timely assigning permits or doing the necessary work.

Venice bridge will be a separate contract, not part of the contract that will be made with one of the two competing teams. It’s a possibility that Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc, who are building the bridge east of Venice, will also build the bridge west of Venice. The construction of this bridge could start in a few months.

The bike and pedestrian path will also be a separate contract as well but it will be jointly coordinated with the LRT contract.

There was a lot of detailed discussion of the grade crossings, how much delay there will be, how the lights will be synchronized, how the queue cutters will work, etc. (The queue cutter at Overland is electromagnetic loops in the ground detecting cars and connected to a traffic signal at the pedestrian crossing north of the tracks, cutting the queue so that the cars don’t back up to the tracks).

Under the no-parking option, the tracks will be shifted to the south side of the 200-ft-wide right-of-way between Overland and Westwood and the 100-ft-wide area north of the tracks will be left as vacant land for whoever wants to build a park there in the future.

Because of the new relocation of the tracks (such as in the no-parking option), the contractor will restudy the sound impacts when they’re doing the final design.

Partial opening of Phase 2 (such as to Palms) is not a possibility. Testing was said to be very expensive and not worth for a mile-long segment. In addition the EIR didn’t study phased openings. Last but not least, there are concerns that partial openings will delay the final opening to Santa Monica.

Virtually no one showed up from NFSR, certainly none of their leaders. Apparently their lawyers advised them not to interact with the Expo Authority.

Will a bike path go here? Time, and a judge, will tell...

Homeowner’s whose houses abut the future Expo Bike Path have filed suit to force a full environmental review of the bikeway.  The lawsuit charges that LADOT and Caltrans didn’t provide a complete view of the bikeway while applying for and granting  a Categorical Exclusion (CE), a designation which exempted the project from a full federal environmental review.

Or, in plane English, a group of homeowner’s who don’t want part of their yards used an easement for the Bikeway are doing their best to slow down its construction.

The lawsuit has already had an impact.  The state has retracted the CE and LADOT is reworking its environmental documents to meet some of its complaints.  LADOT declined to comment for this article, stating only that “The City does not comment on matters under litigation and that LADOT and other agencies involved, hope to work with all concerned stakeholders on this issue.”

Given that construction of the bike path isn’t scheduled until 2011 at the earliest, the long-term impact of this lawsuit could be minimal if LADOT  can produce a strengthened environmental report in a timely manner.  If the lawsuit is successful and the bike path goes under a full NEPA review, it could kill the bike path because construction costs would increase if the bike path isn’t built at the same time as the light rail.

To earn a categorical exclusion, agencies need to show that a project would have minimal environmental impacts and would be non-controversial.  Faced with a lawsuit that challenges everything from the impacts the new pavement would have to the ecosystem to the effects of the new lighting would have on the neighborhood; those basic assumptions are under attack.

The lawsuit also wants traffic studies for the areas where the bike path moves on to the street.  The separated bike path along Phase II has a gap between the intersection of Motor Avenue and National Boulevard and the area just North of the I-10.  The unhappy homeowners want to know how the plan will be extended into the street and how those bike lanes would effect traffic.  The lawsuit could create an interesting precedent.  To some, it seems obvious that the LADOT is trying to segment the project so that traffic impacts of the on-street portion of the bike path don’t have to be studied in the environmental process.  To others, it could provide a legal basis for more legal challenges to bike lane projects.  After all, if a road diet isn’t occurring for the lanes, then any impact to car traffic should be minimal.

I wonder if kids and bikes don't mix too.

Unsurprisingly, the position of locals on the lawsuit seems to depend on how they feel about the Expo Light Rail project.  The email that alerted me to the lawsuit grumbled about the role that Neighbors for Smart Rail, the organization fighting against the Expo Line as currently configured, had in getting this lawsuit off the ground.  On the other hand, Sarah Hays, one of the co-chairs of Light Rail for Cheviot writes:

…it is outrageous that a few people can block a project that will benefit not only our neighborhood, but the entire city.  I have been walking the neighborhood recently, and the majority of the folks I talk to are looking forward to using the Expo Line and the bike path.  It gives us a way to take a bike ride with our kids without the fear of being run over on the city streets.

But popularity and politics doesn’t play as strong a roll in court as it does with the Expo Construction Authority.  We’ll keep you updated on any further legal developments.

The first round of the "Last Battle of Farmdale" has been decided, and it appears to be a rout for those supporting the creation of a new station for the Expo Line at the intersection of Farmdale and Exposition Boulevard in front of Dorsey High School. Yesterday afternoon, California Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge Maribeth A. Bushey ruled that the construction of an at-grade station satisfies C.P.U.C.’s safety requirements for the intersection. The full C.P.U.C. Committee can overturn Bushey’s decision after public comment, which ends on July 13, but Bushey’s ruling is a blow to those fighting for a grade-separates Expo Line.

You can read the full proposed decision here, but here’s the key part:

On balance, the Farmdale crossing station proposal substantially diminishes the safety issues created by a pedestrian at-grade crossing, without adding new safety and aesthetic issues. The station also adds to the neighborhood convenience by providing walkable access to the Expo line for residents and students and retains the vehicular crossing. We, therefore, conclude that the Farmdale station alternative is superior to the pedestrian overcrossing, vehicular crossing closed option.

As you would expect, at-grade opponent Damien Goodmon isn’t happy with the decision. He tells the Times:

It is clear that the commission has pulled out its rubber stamp and doesn’t care about the safety of Dorsey High School students.

When a date is announced for the final CPUC hearing on the issue, Streetsblog will report it here.