Streetsblog Los Angeles

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. Read more…

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.   Read more…

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.   Read more…

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. Read more…

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. Read more…

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.

Read more…

Yesterday, we showed some of the possible designs for the Westwood/Exposition station of the Expo Line and called the decision “what’s next for the Expo Construction Authority.”  However, there’s a lot more on the table than just the station design for one station.  Karen Leonard, one of the Chairs of Light Rail for Cheviot, checked in with Expo staff on the community outreach process for Phase II including an “Urban Design Committee” and “Bicycle Advisory Committee.”  Her letter to community leaders can be found below. – DN

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.) Read more…

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. Read more…

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: Read more…

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.