For the full image, visit The Source.  If the page doesn't load, it's their server, not my link, that's the problem.

First announced at The Source, then covered at Blogdowntown, Metro staff unveiled a draft of what the Downtown Connector would look like if it were entirely below-grade.  Previous drafts, including a plan referred to as "the Underground Emphasis Option" had the train spending a lot of time at-grade in Little Tokyo.  Even the most underground option had The Connector coming above ground near First and Alameda before connecting to an at-grade station.  Blogdowntown explains the new alternative:

The new alternative would instead place a station underneath the Office Depot site, with trains continuing under the intersection as tracks split to emerge via portals along Alameda and in the middle of 1st.

The Alameda portal would be located north of Temple street, while the 1st street tracks would rise just east of Alameda, leveling off just past Hewitt. Some temporary track on 1st would allow the newly-opened Gold Line Eastside Extension to continue operating throughout construction.

Of course, there are still significant barriers before such a design becomes a part of the final plan.  Most importantly, it needs to be included in Metro's environmental review, a step the agency has yet to announce.  Second, the new plan would cost a cool $200 million more than the most expensive of the currently studied options.  Not surprisingly, even the expanded price tag didn't bother the Little Tokyo community that saw the design last night and voted unanimously to encourage further study.

Meanwhile, in Santa Monica, the City Council voted to endorse a location for the maintenance yard that will house Expo's light rail cars when they're not active on the line.  The surrounding community had argued that a residential neighborhood was a poor location for the yard, but as Curbed reports, via the Argonaut, there were some compromises.

Concessions have been made: A city official tells the paper that the "new planned location had been redesigned to eliminate 'wheel squeal' from the train and a car wash and cleaning platform would be relocated north of the Verizon property. A 110-foot sound barrier is also proposed to reduce noise from the train and the light rail yard."

Again, two issues remain before the light rail yard is a done-deal.  First, it's Metro, not the City of Santa Monica that decides where the yard goes.  Second, the station's new neighbors aren't done fighting.  Now they're concerned with a higher-than-originally reported level of methane gas in the area.

Last week, LA Eastside decided to take a poke at Metro and posted a series of fake signs in "local lingo" to help keep Eastsiders safe from the Gold Line Extension trains.  One look at the above example, and you can probably guess that the signs at LA Eastside are a parody.  However, not everyone got the joke, as evidenced by commenters at LA Eastside and the lecture posted today at The Source.

After explaining the situation, and before showing what real Metro safety signs look like, Fred Camino delivers Metro's stance:

Here’s the thing, Metro actually does takes safety very seriously and safety signage is there to inform and educate people about the risks around train tracks. You’ll find safety signage everywhere on the system, from the street running Gold Line to the underground Red Line.

The bloggers over at L.A. Eastside would do right by their readers and community by informing them that the signs are indeed a hoax. No one at Metro thinks we’re above criticism — but we would like to be criticized for things we’ve actually done.

Personally, I can see Metro's point if they're getting complaints about these fake signs.  But LA Eastside's point, that Metro didn't take every precaution for the communities through which the train now runs, is certainly fair game.

At 1:00 P.M. down at Metro Headquarters Board Room, the Metro Board Planning and Programming Committee will vote on a staff proposal to accept a "hybrid alternative" to the Route 2 Terminus project.  Last week, Streetsblog discussed the broken process that led to the "hybrid" where the community proposed a design that would have calmed traffic and added open space to the road but LADOT rejected that proposal because it didn't do anything to add capacity to the road.  Basically, all three agencies had to agree on a design, and despite Metro's approval of the local design, it had to "compromise" with the LADOT on what is now being called the "hybrid option."

There's just one small problem.  The "hybrid option" has never been studied, yet Metro now seems determined to push this option as the "locally preferred alternative."  Not only was this option not included in any environmental documents, it doesn't appear on Metro's project website and doesn't even appear on a documents on the alternatives that are being considered on the project website.

Unfortunately, Metro isn't just violating its contract with the community to have an open and transparent process by pushing an alternative that hasn't been studied; it's also possibly violating state law concerning environmental review.  After all, if agencies can just add an alternative at the end of the environmental review without studying it and declaring it the "preferred alternative;" then what is the point of the review in the first place?

The local community, which had worked hard on its own alternative that increased open space and viewed the road as a public resource, not a sewer to flush cars through, isn't going to give up without a fight.  The following excerpt is from a letter they sent to Metro staff and board members in advance of today's meeting.

Today's vote provides an interesting challenge for the Metro Board.  What is more important to them?  Voting to preserve the public process, empower a community and follow environmental regulations; or bending over backwards to widen a street and funnel even more traffic into a community that doesn't want it.

I wonder if it's still too soon to criticize the concept of digging a tunnel to connect the 710 Tunnel to the I-210.

To the absolute surprise of nobody that's ever dealt with a freeway agency, a study completed by Caltrans gives the green light, at least scientifically speaking, for California to have its very own big dig.  A geological study of the area determined that digging the tunnel is scientifically possible, although it does not give a recommendation on what of the five routes studied would be the best place to bury our taxpayer dollars in the ground.

The Times gives an overview of the problems with each zone. For example:

Zone 4 (San Marino/Pasadena): Active faults that cross the zone are the Raymond and Alhambra Wash faults.

There is one Superfund site in the southwestern end of the zone.

There are also six other sites with various levels of soil contamination.

Add in some public opposition and you have a challenge!  There's nothing that transportation agencies like more than dealing with a challenge!  So the project is an unpopular, environmental disaster that's going to require tunneling around some fault lines and super fund sites.  That's why we employ traffic engineers who know how to move cars.

Public hearings will be held early next year before the report is finalized.  Hopefully we'll get the word from Caltrans that it's ok to start criticizing the project sometime before then.

In the summer of 2008, when Streetsblog first announced its "1% for bikes, 1% for peds. campaign" in what would later be known as Measure R, we never thought that a year and a half later we would still be fighting that fight nor that we would be close to a partial victory.  

Tomorrow, the Los Angeles City Council Transportation Committee will be discussing how the city will program its share of the Local Return funds from Measure R.  Following the mayor's promise that Los Angeles would set aside a portion of its Measure R funds for non-motorized transportation; the LADOT and Council Members have been living up to Villaraigosa's promise by programming 10% of the city's Local Return funds for these modes in every version of the budget that has come to light.  Building on the campaign launched here last summer, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition has been organizing transportation, public health, and environmental groups to keep the 10% set-aside alive.

However, the process of actually allocating those funds has been a slow one.  It was back in May when Council Members Bernard Parks and Jose Huizar first proposed projects to be funded by Measure R and later in the month when then Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel outline for the city's Measure R share.  Over the next six months, different reports from the Chief Legislative Office have arrived spelling out a dire economic climate and different proposals for the city's Measure R funds.  Tomorrow, the city departments working on the proposed budgets are asking for another sixty day extension.  A copy of the proposal, with a project list to be funded at the end, can be found here.

So what's the hold-up?  Unfortunately, the sad state of the city's finances have complicated the issue of what to do with a new funding source.  The CLO's report notes that the city is expecting shortfalls in various transportation funds and has to raise a "local match" for some Measure R projects within city limits.

When it comes to raising funds for "local match," the city has to raise 3% of funds for construction of:

• Crenshaw Transit Corridor
• Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit
• Green Line Extension to Los Angeles International Airport
• Regional Connector San Fernando Valley 1-405
• Corridor Connection San Fernando Valley
• North-South Rapidways (Canoga Corridor)
• San Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways Westside Subway Extension

According to the CLO, that comes to a cool $200 million.  Given the mayor's stated goal of completing all transit projects within ten years, the LADOT and Council will be under pressure to front-load transit funding which could lead to a reduced ability to set aside bicycle and pedestrian funds.

In addition, the city is expecting shortfalls from the two transit taxes that make up the bulk of the city's transportation budget which could lead to a delayed time lime for some projects and a combination of fare hikes and service cuts for the D.A.S.H. buses.

On top of that, remember those first motions by Parks and Huizar mentioned above?  Each of those motions directs Measure R funds towards specific projects.  In Parks' case it would fund intersection improvements near the Foshay Learning Center.  Huizar wants further study for the Downtown Streetcar.

Despite all of these projects pulling what are quite honestly a limited amount of Measure R funds, just under $21 million dollars for the current fiscal year, it's honestly surprising that the bicycle/pedestrian set-aside has lasted this long.  Maybe the tide is turning when it comes to setting aside money for non-motorized transportation at 200 Spring Street?  I guess we'll have to wait another 60 days to find out for sure.

I owe an apology to any Streetsblog readers that ride Metrolink.  While I was obsessing about bicycle and pedestrian access to the Gold Line, the Metrolink Board of Directors voted to delay a decision on a 6% fare hike.  After receiving thousands of complaints on the proposed hike, which would have been the agency's second in six months, to try and figure out how to make the cuts needed to maintain the current fare structure.  Congratulations, Metrolink riders.  You spoke out and the agency heard you.

Metrolink, which is the most expensive transit ride in the county, has bucked the trend of growing ridership in large part due to its high fares.  In its article about the Board's decision, the Times notes:

Ridership and ticket revenue on the five-county rail system have tumbled about 15% from last year because of job losses across the region and lower gas prices that enticed commuters back into their cars. Ridership is now below levels of four years ago, officials said. Ticket revenue is forecast to be $7.7 million below what had been expected in the current year's budget.

The agency also has increased expenses for safety improvements after last year's head-on wreck between Metrolink and Union Pacific trains that killed 25 and injured dozens more in Chatsworth.

Some early ideas that were floated at the meeting were renegotiating deals with contractors and trimming parts of the agency's budget.  The Daily News, showing its supply side, argued that the agency should consider cutting fares and it would increase revenues by bringing back former riders priced out of the service.

Streetsblog may be a couple of days late to the story, but that doesn't mean we can't help.  Leave your suggestions for the Metrolink Board to hold off a fare hike, and I'll make sure they get in the right hands.

I usually don't pull story ideas directly from The Metro Library's daily headlines page, but this one was just too good to pass up.

Urban Insights L.A. reports on Other New Urbanisms, a symposium held last week by the Southern California Institute's School of Architecture's (SCI-Arc) ”New Infrastructure: Innovative Transit Solutions for LA” design competition.  Urban Insights focuses on the second place winner in the contest, who proposed building agricultural villages along freeway embankmnets throughout Southern California.

The Fletcher Studio, which won second place, proposed urban agricultural villages that would convert freeway embankments into terraced hillsides. Affiliated bungalow housing would be built alongside. These developments would be a new source of “green” jobs, employing farmers on a rotating, seasonal basis. Fletcher calculated that along LA’s 527 miles of freeway, there are approximately 960 acres of largely unused land that could be reclaimed as a productive landscape.

Predictably, many on the panel scoffed at the thought of Caltrans giving up that much space.  Unspoken in the article, and perhaps in the panel, is that if freeway embankments became regional job centers it would be a lot harder, politically, for Caltrans to continue its destructive attempts to widen first and ask questions later.  But in the same way that cyclists are no longer focusing their reform efforts at LADOT and have moved on to elected leaders; perhaps the target audience for this idea shouldn't be bureaucrats at Caltrans but the supposedly Green Governor to whom they report.

Oh, and Urban Insights, welcome to our blogroll.

During our ride on Friday, Steven Frien wondered a couple of times why there wasn't talk of having a bicycle lane on 1st Street running parallel to the Gold Line on First Street .  Later in the day, during The Source's review of our review of the Gold Line, Steve Hymon upped the score by asking why there wasn't better bike planning along the entire route.  After all, we know how much bike parking there is at every station, wouldn't it be nice to have a bike network to keep those racks full?

A look at the Draft Bike Plan shows a lot of opportunities for the area around the lane.  Those yellow dotted lines are "potential bike lanes," the purple one is a "proposed bike route," and the blue dotted lines are for "potential bicycle friendly routes."  However, dotted lines on a map are just dotted lines on a map.  LADOT confirms there are no timelines for any of these street improvements in East, L.A.  Now, we can rely on LADOT to work with Metro to do the right thing, or we can put some pressure on the agencies ourselves.

The first thing we can do is to use the public comment function at the Official or Unofficial Bike Plan websites to let the city know that East L.A. deserves a transportation system that is truly multi-modal and that the plan should move from paper to pavement quickly surrounding the extension.  However, just sending comments to city staff isn't going to get the job done.

Fortunately, the Gold Line has two representatives on the Metro Board of Directors, Councilman Jose Huizar and Supervisor Gloria Molina.  A little pressure on their offices will lead to a little pressure on Metro to get more involved in providing funding for a bike network for the Eastside Extension.  You can find contact information for Huizar and Molina at their official websites.

Of course, L.A. County has its own Bike Plan and public process.  We'll be back with a look at that plan and what the next steps for the Eastside Extension should be.

The BikeStation in Washington D.C., which provides parking and services for bicyclists who use transit. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The FTA's new rules, released for public comment on Friday, replace the previous definition of the so-called "structural envelope" surrounding a transit station.

In the past, regulators had tended to use 1,500 feet as the distance which "most people can be expected to safely and conveniently walk to use the transit service." But the Obama administration, stating plainly that the current radius is "too short," has proposed expanding it to a half-mile for pedestrian improvements and three miles for bicycle projects.

In its explanation of the new proposal, the FTA wrote:

The most successful and useful public transportation systems have safe and convenient pedestrian access and provide comfortable waiting areas, all of which encourage greater use.

Distances beyond the walkshed of public transportation stops and stations may in fact be within the range of a short bicycle trip. Providing secure parking and other amenities for bicycles and cyclists at public transportation stops or stations can be less expensive than providing parking for automobiles.

The proposed regulation also codifies a U.S. DOT definition of "livability" that Streetsblog Capitol Hill took note of when it was first mentioned by Transportation Secretary LaHood: "If people don't want an automobile, they don't have to have one."

The reviews are in on yesterday's opening of the Gold Line: the day was a rousing success.  Press accounts were universally positive.  Sometimes they focused on what a glorious and succesful day yesterday was by itself.  Other times they took a more universal view.  I wasn't at the opening, I'll make a point to ride the line during business hours sometime in the next two weeks, but I know you were so feel free to fill the comments section with your stories and opinions from yesterday's Golden party.

If you were like me and skipped the party, here's a sampling of the press coverage from yesterday.

• After Decades of Waiting, Their Train Has Arrived (Times)
• Video of Different Sites from Yesterday (The Source)
• Photoes of Different Sites from Yesterday (The Source)
  
• A Golden Reality (LA Opinion) 
• Why Are People Still Talking Subways (Human Transit)
  
• Workday Commuters Piling on Gold Line (LA Now)
  
• Times Editorial Takes a Shot at Molina Before Going Into Celebration Mode

(Editor's note.  Some people are asking why there isn't more on the bike amenities at the station.  The Source did such a good job on the lockers and racks issue that we didn't think it was necessary.  Read their review here. )

As many of you know, the Gold Line Eastside Extension is scheduled to open on Sunday stretching from the Little Tokyo Arts District to Atlantic Boulevard in Monterey Park.  Because of some controversy over the safety measures taken by Metro, a team of six cyclists including myself, Carlos Morales, Renee Morales, Browne Molyneux, Steven Frein, and Andrew Didia headed out to check out the new stations, and the area around them, for ourselves.  Andrew deserves some sort of prize for doing the ride on his birthday.  Browne's review of the ride will be available on The Bus Bench next week.

Overall, we had a favorable impression of the future Gold Line and see how it will be a boon for the communities through which it passes.  However, there were some safety concerns we had, especially at the Little Tokyo and Indiana Stations.

For the record, we're going to set-aside the issue of whether or not stations should be grade-separated with the exception of Indiana Station.  Indiana is the first station not separated after the two that are. 

Also, I timed every intersection to see if the timing was appropriate for pedestrians to get across the street.  The farther east that we went, the worse the signal timing was.  Our recommendation is that the city or Metro should do a study of all the crossing times at these intersections and re-time several of them.  In the meantime, the short signals on the east are going to create pedestrian/car conflicts.

There was also a general concern that there are no gates separating the trains from the pedestrian crossings.  For a pedestrian crossing the street, the site of a train coming at them, even if it stops, with nothing between them is a daunting one.  Without gates, pedestrians are in a more vulnerable position.

Last, we didn't look at the intersection from a driver's perspective.  If that's what you're looking for, call AAA.

We also noticed that there were workers installing signs and doing cleaning at every stations.  Some stations had power tools and even construction materials.  The best analogy I can give is that Metro is acting like I did in college when I was cramming for exams at the last second.  Maybe Sunday is too soon to open?

You can read our station by station review after the jump after a surprise impromptu interview with Los Angeles City Councilman and Metro Board Member Jose Huizar who happened to be giving an interview to a Metro camera person at Mariachi Plaza.  For all of my pictures, check out the LA Streetsblog Flickr pool.  Before the jump, let's here from Councilman Huizar on the state of the $4.5 million that the Metro Board put towards safety improvements along the Eastside Extension.

Honest question, if all the safety improvements aren't going to be done for a couple of months, why are we opening the station in two days?

We began the ride at Union Station and headed South to the Little Tokyo Station, where we had a series of concerns with the pedestrian crossing at Alameda and Temple Street. 

For pedestrians going east on the North side of the street, a wall creates a blind intersection for trains traveling South.  Mercifully, the tracks that are running feet from the crossings are going north so the pedestrian does have some space.

However, for everyone walking along the east side of the station, the northbound rail cars travel feet from you at all times.  You can literally reach out and touch the cars as they go past.

On the south side of the intersection, there is a pedestrian island separating the station from the street for pedestrians.  Unfortunately, the island is only a couple of feet wide.  A group of people standing on the island could easily spill out into the rail area.  Worse, a family, with the parents looking forward, could easily miss someone behind them taking a step backwards into the tracks.

As a whole, that intersection needs improvements.  Widening the island or using pedestrian gates to help keep people off the tracks are two solutions.  No matter what, this intersection is going to need some help.

The good news is this intersection was one of the worst we saw the entire trip.  I was a little worried when we had so many complaints from the first intersection we saw...

The intersection at the South side of the station was an improvement, although trains taking a right from first onto Alameda again cross so very close to the sidewalk.  There is another pedestrian island, but this time it's a much larger island.

It should be noted that both crossings had flashing "train approaching" signs along with wide, brick crosswalks and yellow uneven entrances to the crossings so vision impaired pedestrians have a warning before crossing the tracks or a street.  All of these amenities appeared at every intersection affected by the Gold Line.

From there we traveled east to the Pico/Aliso Station in Boyle Heights.

This hard hat had plenty of times to cross the six lanes of traffic and transit. </sarcasm>

Maybe we were distracted because the staff on hand at this station were the only ones that let us get up into the station of the raised ones.  From where we were standing, the intersections looked good.

We continued on first street down First Street to Mariachi Plaza.  The station itself blends beautifully with the iconic architecture around the plaza.  It looks great and enhances the plaza area.  Good work, architects.  Sadly, there were no mariachi's present at the time of our arrival.  Instead, we had Councilman and Board Member Huizar.

That's Browne, not the Councilman

Generally, we found both ground level stations for below-level rail to have adequate amenities.  Many of the problems that we note at stations are caused by adding a third mode of transit to an already busy street.  As I said earlier, we don't intend to make the argument that the line needs to be built below grade.  From a safety standpoint, it can't be a coincidence that the stations we felt most comfortable and safe around were the same ones that didn't have the train running on the street.  Even the crossing signal times seemed adequate.

Our next stop was Soto Station.

Soto station through steel.

Soto station has a huge plaza surrounding the station, but is sort of charmless.  Especially after the beauty of Mariachi Plaza, the giant empty plaza surrounded by fence architecture style seemed more like a prison than a transit stop.

Of course, by Sunday the fence should be down and according to some the plaza will be full of street vendors.  At the south side of the station were some benches so we assume that there's going to be something for those sitting to do in the rest of the plaza.  The layout of the station plaza reminded me of the Santa Monica/Vermont Station on the Red Line, and that station features a handful of street vendors selling hats, sunglasses, and food.

From there, we returned to at-grade stations stopping at Indiana.

Fencing on the far side

Our first reaction was, "why isn't this station built below grade?"  The poor quality of the street and sidewalks had us concerned.  When you add in the experience our friends at Curbed had here a couple of months ago, and there are larger problems.

The light rail, not at-grade again, comes down first and turns right into Indiana station.  After traveling south through the station, it then takes another right onto third.

In the middle of the station, passengers have the option to cross the tracks to get to the center island or to get back onto the street by crossing through a series of gates that you can push open.  True, there are large flashing lights when a train is coming, but at the least this crossing should be below or above grade and the fences should be closed.  Having gates that can be opened that easily is a recipe for disaster.

However, there's a larger issue with this station that would be best addressed by bringing in some progressive transportation engineers and changing the character of the three streets, First, Third and Indiana, that surround the station.  Even with large crosswalks, the area had a bad feeling to it, with traffic racing along the street and trains moving through the station just feet from the sidewalks.

Our next stop was the Maravilla Station.  The station itself, like the other raised stations at Pico/Aliso and the two that end the line, are located in the street so pedestrians have to cross the street to get to the station.  It seems that at all of these stations there is going to be conflict between pedestrians trying to get to the station and catch a train and cars, who may have a green light at the time, not looking for them.

Of particular interest at this station was the bike parking.  I'm standing in a circle with racks and lockers.  The Christmas tree is the start of the station.  See any issues?

Another note is that it was nigh impossible for seniors that we saw to cross Third all the way.  A pedestrian trying to get across from the north to the south might miss a train while jogging across the street, even with the signs.  Especially with the giant Christmas tree.

From here we moved the East L.A. Civic Center.  The Civic Center stop is going to have the same issues as the others with a mid-street station, but other than that we found the crosswalks to be wide and the signals to be strong.  A wide street again creates an issue for pedestrians.  Maybe the city should have a task force to address pedestrian signal timing around the stations?

For our car driving friends. Be careful making a left out of the Eastside Civic Center. The train is partially blocked.

Our last stop is the Atlantic Station, where the crosswalk signalization problem kicked into over-drive.  Because each intersection had a series of islands, there were times were it would take over five minutes to cross the street, and that was for Browne who is young and healthy.  A senior might well just give up on crossing altogether.

It may be the end of the line, but our friend the bus moves forward.

On the east side of the station, you actually have to cross a lane of traffic to get to a signal-call box.  I've never seen that before.

From there, we got back on our bikes and headed west toward Little Tokyo and Union Station.  To summarize our views and impressions:

1) The Gold Line is going to be a positive for the community.  The route was well chosen.

2) Our general concerns with the intersection timing should be addressed across the line by LADOT

3) Metro doesn't seem ready for the opening.  There was work being done on every station, and sometimes it involved construction equipment.  Maybe by tomorrow it will all be fine, but today it seems not yet ready.

4) There still needs to be a lot of work done around Indiana Station.  The crossing within the station should also be improved somehow.

5) The intersections around Little Tokyo also need to be addressed.  The one at the North side of the station seems particularly dangerous.

6) First could use a bike lane.  It's wide enough and it's a good idea to combine modes.

 It's not often that we cover news out of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), but a recent study funded by the City of Los Angeles and SCAG on the "last mile" problem has led to a report sponsored by the city that is all about getting people out of their cars. The report was presented by LADOT Chief Rita Robinson and Planning General Manager Gail Goldberg at a meeting this morning, then again by SCAG to regional stakeholders this afternoon.

While the report is progressive, it's rare to see a report talking about getting people out of their cars with a "City of Los Angeles" crest on it, it's just a report. While Robinson may like many of the ideas in the report, it's still up to advocates and elected officials to get these ideas off the paper and onto the streets.

Just after this morning's presentation ended, Robinson was speaking in front of the Transportation Commission about the massive cuts coming to LADOT. Even for a department that has the goal of moving as much automobile traffic as possible, now seems the perfect time to investigate low cost alternatives to get people out of their cars instead of expensive and time-consuming highway and road expansions.

The study team, led by consultants from Nelson Nygaard, was charged with focusing on the "last mile" problem. For those of you unfamiliar with the "last mile" problem, it is a term created to describe the barrier many car commuters feel to taking transit or other options to single-passenger vehicle commuting. Informally I call it the, "I would take the train but the closest stop is so far away from my house/office."

Broadly, the strategies studied should:

1. Get people out of their car
2. Provide incentives to help households avoid needing multiple cars
3. Help cities meet the standards of SB 375

From there the team came up with thirteen strategies that would help cities, especially Los Angeles, meet those goals. They then narrowed down the list of thirteen to a list of six strategies that aren't already being studied by another organization. The six transportation modes that SCAG, City of L.A. and their consultants want to expand are: casual carpooling, taxi's, car sharing, short-term car rental, bike sharing, folding bikes.

For a full copy of SCAG's presentation, click here. For a synopsis of the six strategies and some editorial commentary, read on after the jump.

Casual Carpooling - I honestly had never heard of this before, but apparently it's all the rage in the Bay Area. Areas are set up where people can meet to form a carpool in lots and other areas near freeways to decrease the amount of cars coming into the city. In other words, there would be space where I get on the I-10 on my way to Church on Sunday where I could pick people up that were heading to the Whole Foods which is close to my destination. With these strangers on board, I could use the carpool lane on my entrance ramp.

Taxi's - The study identified that the main fear people have towards using taxi's is the unknown cost of taking the vehicle. The report recommends requiring taxi's to charge based on distance traveled, "zone fares," instead of time traveled so that passengers would know the cost ahead of time. There was a concern on the SCAG call that drivers, already underpaid for their work, would balk at this sort of change.

Car Sharing - I think we're all familiar with ZipCar and its history. We've talked about it at length. However, the report recommended studying city-supported car sharing that would lead to reducing the city's vehicle fleet and save the city money. While that strategy is something that Streetsblog has discussed a couple of times; this is the first time we've seen it in print in a government document.

Short-Term Car Rental - Is similar to car sharing except you rent a car as though you were going to Hertz instead of being part of a membership organization such as ZipCar.

Bike Sharing - Who wants to bring a Velib to Greater Los Angeles? Wendy Greuel did at one point, but LADOT balked at both the price and the state of bike infrastructure in the city. The study identified several ways to encourage bike sharing in the big city. First, Los Angeles should clarify city code to allow bike share lockers and locations on government property. Second, they could allow developers to build in bike, or car, share locations instead of putting aside funds for road mitigation. Third, the city could embark on its own program and off-set the cost with advertisers.

Folding Bikes on Transit - Metro is studying a program that would subsidize the cost of folding bikes for transit users to get more bikes on trains and buses. Currently it is legal to bring a folding bike into buses or trains at any time. Not so for regular bikes.

The issues that sparked the most discussion were car sharing, short term rentals and bike sharing.  Because a public partner would be needed to bring, or in the case of car-sharing, expand, the program; each of these three ideas are low-cost to the local government be it a goliath such as Los Angeles or a smaller city such as Walnut.

Of course, the big issue is whether or not any of these ideas will ever see life outside of a presentation.  Hopefully, the city's involvement in the presentation will lead to taking the lead on implementation.

The community preferred Alternative D via The Eastsider

However, the progressives in Echo Park are pushing a plan that would actually increase open space and beautify the community. By changing the freeway bridge crossing above Glendale Boulevard into a public space with greenspace, enhancing the area around the historic Tommy Lasorda Field of Dreams; the community is pushing a third-way to deal with traffic instead of just looking at "expand" and "do nothing." The community-preferred-alternative, Alterntative D, was not included in the early environmental studies done by "transportation professionals" on behalf of Metro and were only included because of a massive community effort.

Earlier this summer, the residents seemed to have convinced Metro staff that their alternative was the best alternative and the agency pledged support at a community meeting. However, the community's plans were dashed last week when Metro held a presentation that The Eastsider dubbed, "(a meeting where) MTA officials will explain why the agency can't get behind the residents' proposal and will need more time and money to study yet another idea to untangle what's officially called the State Route 2 Terminus." Instead of sticking with "Alternative D," Metro is proposing a "hybrid" alternative that takes pieces from many of the proposals outlined in the environmental documents. The only community meeting, besides the Metro Board process which will begin at next Wednesday's Planning and Programming Committee Meeting, was the one held last week.

So what does the community think of the new proposed "locally preferred alternative?" According to The Eastsider, not much:

The idea, as presented to Lassen and other residents, keeps the bridge over Glendale Boulevard for motorists and realigns some other lanes. That would fall far short of what Lassen and others have wanted.

So what happened? Why the change in heart from backing a progressive community design to where we are now? Would you be surprised to discover that the black hat in the story is riding a horse named LADOT?

The Echo Park Community Action Committee's most recent newsletter laid out the positions and logic of all of the transportation agencies that are part of the Terminus Study. While it knocked Metro for supporting an alternative in public but not pushing it with the other agencies, and Caltrans for backing the hybrid; it reserved its harshest criticism for the asphalt-lovers at LADOT. Directly from the newsletter:

In addition to just ignoring the wishes of the community, the new design also ignores the initial purpose of the study which was, as local blog Red Car Property tells us was, "removing vehicle traffic from the southbound flyover ramp at the Terminus." Instead, the new plan could add traffic to a stretch of road that then-Council Woman Jackie Goldberg described as dangerous and unsafe.

Could you imagine the reaction if a similar plan were proposed for a street on the Westside? Residents there will go to the mat over removing some parking, bringing in their Council Members and making a key issue in a local council race. All of that begs the question, where is Eric Garcetti?

In what can only be considered a win for County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas the Metro staff is now recommending that light rail, not Bus Rapid Transit, be brought to the Crenshaw Corridor. Ridley-Thomas has been active behind the scenes and in front of the microphone pushing for adequate funding for light rail for his district.

However, just because a politician supports an idea doesn't mean it necessarily has the support of the communities he represents. For example, remember the vitriolic exchanges between Damien Goodmon and City Councilman, and former Ridley-Thomas opponent, Bernard Parks. So will Crenshaw run into similar opposition as Phase I of Expo? It depends who you ask. While some activists are thrilled to be getting light rail instead of "more buses," others question the proposed alignment.

At the Times' LA_Now blog, the Los Angeles Urban League gives the project a thumbs up:

"We do consider it a victory," said Trevor Ware, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Urban League.

"Look at the transportation options that we have now. We have buses on Crenshaw and we see other neighborhoods that are developing other types of transportation options," Ware added.

"To have a decision made that we will have light rail - that's so much faster and will have so much more of an economic impact - we need that too," he said.

This morning, I exchanged emails with Goodmon, who seemed supportive of the numerous below-grade crossings and stations for the project but also vowed to push on for further below-grade construction:

We applaud the inclusion of options into the Base LRT design, specifically the below grade Hyde Park portion, and the continued study of the remaining options. Our current focus is on getting the EIR to study the remaining portion between 48th and 60th that is not currently being studied for below grade, so as to avoid future delay from a supplemental environmental process.

For a list of all the grade crossings, visit the agenda for next week's Planning Committee meeting and head to page 5.

Goodmon also noted that there are other areas that might concern the community. Namely that the staff's recommended contractor is not from South L.A., undercutting Ridley-Thomas' boast of 8,700 new jobs and that any at-grade alignment is against the stated position of the City of Los Angeles and the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan. The resolution was sponsored by local City Councilmembers Parks and Wesson. A full copy of Goodmon's statement is available after the jump.

Because the news broke on a weekend, the press reports on the dissolution of the talks between Metro and AnsaldoBreda on extending the exclusive contract to build rail cars for the agency were less-than-complete.  Before the news of the verdict in the Christopher Thompson case broke, I was working on a F.A.Q. that would answer all of the questions that are being asked about AnsaldoBreda, the future rail car contract, and what's next for Metro and AnsaldoBreda.  The full F.A.Q. is available after the jump.  If you have any questions not answered, leave them in the comments section and I'll do my best to answer them by the end of the day.

What happened?  I thought the Board and AnsaldoBreda agreed to a contract extension at the September Board Meeting?

While the Board had agreed to extend its exclusive contract with AnsaldoBreda for the construction of light rail cars, that extension came with some pretty hefty conditions.  The most contentious of those was the requirement that AnsaldoBreda deposit hundreds of millions of dollars into a bank account that Metro could draw against everyday that the Italian Rail Car Company was late delivering vehicles.  At the last moment, AnsaldoBreda requested that there be hard limits on how Metro could draw against the account.  Metro didn't agree.

What happens to Metro's rail car contracts now?

Metro will need to open the bidding process for any rail car company to make a run at getting the contract for constructing the "Measure R Cars."  We expect the contract competition to be announced at the next Metro Board Meeting.  Back in March staff "warned" that it would take six months for the bidding process to come to its conclusion, so we can expect a contract to be signed early in the summer of 2010.  If Metro had cut bait with AnsaldoBreda in March, we would have known for months who was going to be building our rail cars for the future by now.

Will this effect the Measure R Time Lines?

Maybe, but we don't know how.

On one hand, the ten month delay in putting the contract out to bid is a disaster.  Cars will cost more and we basically wasted half of a year.

On the other hand, AnsaldoBreda's working relationship with Metro was so terrible, they were years behind on delivering cars that were too heavy to be used properly, that it's probably a good thing that they probably won't be making the cars for all of the Measure R projects.

So That's It?  No More AnsaldoBreda in L.A.?

Like the villain in a horror-serial that won't go away; we haven't heard the last of AnsaldoBreda.  First, they still have to complete their current rail car contract which should have been completed years ago.  Second, Board Member Richard Katz, who was a supporter of AnsaldoBreda during some Board Meetings, blasted the Metro contractor in the press claiming they owe Metro some "free" light rail cars as reparation for their late performance in their current contract.  AnsaldoBreda offered the cars as an attempt to soothe feelings and doesn't seem interested in following through on that commitment now.

Last, there is nothing to stop AnsaldoBreda from submitting a proposal in the open bidding process.

What About the Rail Car Plant Promised to Los Angeles?

The rail car plant, and the "good high-paying jobs" were only promised to Los Angeles as a bribe to earn approval from the Board.  Poster Erik G. did yeoman's work tracking down the history of these promises, and I would bet that L.A. doesn't see a rail car plant built by AnsaldoBreda anytime soon.

Are There Any Winners in This Story?

In short?  No.

The Mayor, his supporters, and unions were basically used by AnsaldoBreda to force a long-term extension of their exclusive rail car contract even though their performance level on their current contract is terrible.  There has to be some egg on their faces.

AnsaldoBreda didn't get the contract, so they can't be viewed as winners.

Someone mentioned "taxpayers" as winners, but we lost in this debacle on two fronts.  First, the cars will be "six months more expensive" than they would be if Metro had went to bid in March.  Second, Metro can't legally consider where rail cars are built when awarding a contract.  However, Villaraigosa repeatedly mentioned the carrot of created jobs as the top reason to move forward with AnsaldoBreda.  He even put it in the statement announcing AnsaldoBreda and Metro weren't going to come to terms.

Let's hope the people reading the grant contracts in Washington, D.C. for the Mayor's ten-year plan don't read L.A. Streetsblog or any Los Angeles news source.

After all that drama, the ongoing soap opera between AnsaldoBreda and Metro ends with a press release.  There's a lot more to say about this, but that will have to wait until Monday.  After the jump you can find statements from Mayor Villaraigosa and Metro release can be found after the jump.(update: AnsaldoBreda's statement can be found at the bottom of the page as well.)

MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA ISSUES STATEMENT ON THE EXPIRATION OF ANSALDOBREDA OPTION

LOS ANGELES  - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa issued the following statement today on the expiration of the option for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority's purchase of rail cars from AnsaldoBreda:

"In these tough economic times, it was important to make every effort to bring good jobs to LA and simultaneously exercise due diligence to protect public funds in pursuing this contract.

Unfortunately after months of negotiations, at the last minute satisfactory financial guarantees were not provided and the deal was not signed.

We will continue to work to see that rail cars can be built in LA using local funds to reap the job and environmental benefits that a manufacturing plant can bring to the region."

METRO STATEMENT RE: UPDATE ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH

ITALIAN RAIL CAR MANUFACTURER FOR OPTION RAIL CARS

     Italian rail car manufacturer AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. has declined to sign a contract with Metro to exercise an option to provide 100 additional light rail cars to meet the agency’s operating needs for new rail lines in Los Angeles County. As a consequence, Metro will proceed with seeking industry bids on a new rail car procurement.

     Good faith negotiations between the two parties have gone on for more than a year. The Board of the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority had set a deadline of midnight Oct. 30 to reach agreement on exercising the rail car options. But within hours of the deadline last night, AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. required changes to the agreement that were inconsistent with the Board’s direction, including financial penalties for late deliveries. Considering AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. has been late in delivering its base order of 50 cars, Metro officials declined to accept this last minute change.

     Last week the agency’s Board of Directors gave AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. additional concessions including a guaranty financial cap and agreed to accept the company’s offer of two free rail cars because it couldn’t deliver rail cars within the weight limits specified in the contract.

      With half a dozen new rail projects expected to open in the next decade, thanks to the Measure R transportation sales tax, Metro needs more than 100 rail cars manufactured and accepted in time to operate those lines. To avoid losing valuable time while negotiations with AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. were ongoing, the Board directed Metro staff to simultaneously prepare for soliciting bids for new rail cars. Industry experts have been advising staff  in drafting the package. If all goes according to schedule, the transportation agency’s Board next spring will award a contract for new rail cars. AnsaldoBreda S.p.A. would be eligible to bid on this new contract along with manufacturers from around the world.

Metro-178

ANSALDOBREDA STATEMENT ON THE NEGOTIATION OF THE CONTRACT WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF 100 LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES

AnsaldoBreda agreed to provide financial guarantees that included an Irrevocable Letter of Credit, a Performance Bond and a Parent Company Guarantee totaling a value well above that of the contract. However, AnsaldoBreda, in accordance with Company policy, required to restate the provision of the original contract, contemplating a cap on the liquidated damages. Therefore AnsaldoBreda proposed a solution which specified a cap for maximum delays and stated that if the threshold of the cap was ever reached, MTA could terminate the contract for reasons of default and avail itself of the above mentioned guarantees which would cover the total value of the contract.  Unfortunately, on this last point, despite multiple efforts to negotiate in good faith on both sides, no agreement was reached. AnsaldoBreda would like to thank Mr. Leahy and the staff of MTA for the trust extended to them and for the dedication demonstrated in trying to reach a positive conclusion.  Despite this turn of events, Los Angeles continues to represent a focal point for our strategy in America.

Ride it all the way to Santa Monica in 2020?  Image:Ted Soqui/LA Weekly.

At a meeting of business leaders earlier today, Mayor Villaraigosa officially announced his plan, previewed earlier today in the Times, to aggressively pursue private and federal funds to complete all rail projects included in Measure R within ten years.  Villaraigosa has often talked about completing his favorite project, the Subway to the Sea.

Basically, Villaraigosa is hoping to build a county-wide coalition to begin finding new sources of revenue for rail projects.  Whether these funds come from public or private sources has yet to be determined. 

One part of the plan that is sure to be controversial is his plan is to front-load funding for transit projects over the next ten years.  By pushing transit first, the Mayor hopes to attract more federal and private investment.  Villaraigosa is hoping to avoid a fight amongst rail activists by moving all projects quickly at once.  Metro estimates he's going to need to find another $12 billion in funds, in addition to the $13 billion of Measure R funds that are available for rail projects, to meet his ambitious goal.  All of this is assuming he can convince the Metro Board to go along with his plan in the first place.

The full text of the advisory, helpfully provided by Neon Tommy, is also available after the jump.  If more details become available later today, this post will be updated.  (update: I just replaced the advisory with the release.  Not a lot of new news, but still a big thanks to Neon Tommy.)

MAYOR ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
City of Los Angeles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009

Contact:
Lisa Hansen
213-978-0658
-or-
Press Office
213-978-0741


MAYOR PLANS TO ACCELERATE PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS

“30/10” Will Push to Accelerate Use of Measure R Transit Funding

LOS ANGELES – Promoting his vision for sustainability and an improved public transportation system, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today announced
that he is beginning to build a coalition to support the acceleration of the 30 years of transit projects included in Measure R into 10 years.  The “30/10” program would leverage the $13 billion approved by voters for 12 transit projects to expedite construction and bring jobs
and environmental benefits to LA sooner.

"Thirty years is too long to wait when we can build all twelve projects in the next decade,” said Mayor Villaraigosa. “When we have workers
hungry for high quality jobs, companies that are ready to hire, the dirtiest air, and the worst traffic congestion in the nation, thirty years is just too long.”

In a speech at the Los Angeles Business Council’s Annual Mayoral Housing, Transportation, and Jobs Summit held today at UCLA, the Mayor
outlined his plan to build a coalition of transit advocates, environmentalists, business, labor, health advocates, and community
groups to support the “30/10” program.

The “30/10” Coalition would draw on the same groups that last year helped pass Measure R, the local half-cent sales tax, by 68% during a
recession.

"This is about transforming a region, increasing access to and efficiency of public transit and creating sustainable communities and a
thriving economy,” Mayor Villaraigosa added.

Preliminary projections of the sustainability benefits of “30/10” include:

●       1.8 times more carbon dioxide removed from the air
●       2.4 times more nitrous oxides removed from the air
●       2.2 times fewer miles driven
●       4.2 times more new rail boardings
●       The creation of over half a million jobs through 2020.

Because Measure R will provide approximately $13 billion for transit projects over the next 30 years, the MTA will have the ability to repay
funds with guaranteed local sales tax revenues. This unique local match capacity is expected to open opportunities for advancing the funding and
paying it back over time.

Once a strong coalition of support for “30/10” is built, they will reach out to Congress, the Obama Administration, and others to build
support and develop a financing plan for the acceleration of the projects.

Last week the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority approved its Long Range Transportation Plan for the next 30 years.  The
12 projects are estimated to cost $20 billion and include $6.8 billion in non-Measure R funding.

The Measure R transit projects Villaraigosa plans to accelerate include:

●       The Westside subway extension
●       The Regional Connector light rail connector in Downtown Los Angeles
●       The Crenshaw corridor transit project
●       The Foothill Extension of the Metro Gold Line
●       The Expo light rail line on the Westside Phase 2
●       The Green Line connection to LAX
●       The Green Line extension to the South Bay
●       A San Fernando Valley 405 Corridor Connection
●       The Orange Line Canoga Extension
●       West Santa Ana Branch Corridor
●       San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways
●       Eastside Extension to El Monte or Whittier

###

Two years ago I poked the LADOT and LAPD for not putting out safety tips for Halloween.  Sure enough, last year an email arrived in my inbox announcing the Department's advice to parents, children and drivers on All Hallows Eve.

The LADOT released some very similar looking advice for this year. After a list of good for young pedestrians and their parents; there's a quote from General Manager Rita Robinson encouraging parents to take the safety of their children seriously.

While there's nothing to argue with in the content of the release, there is something to say about what the release is missing.  There's eleven suggestions for parents and children and just a sentence for drivers.  The release should have spent more time on driver safety, after all it takes two to make a crash and distracted drivers are more of a menace tomorrow night than any other night of the year. 

To help out for next year, here are some suggestions for the Halloween 2010 release:

On Halloween evening, there will be more children walking the streets than any other night of the year, some of whom will be wearing dark colored clothing. The LADOT reminds drivers to:

1. Drive even more slowly than usual on surface streets and residential street
2. Have your lights on even if it's not dark
3. Pay attention to the road at all times.
   

Any other suggestions?  Feel free to leave them in the comments section.  The release can be found after the jump, which is a especially helpful because the link to the release from the Watch the Road website doesn't work.  (update: they've updated the link, it works here: ttp://www.ladot.lacity.org/pdf/PDF170.pdf)

TRICK-OR-TREATERS ON HALLOWEEN
LOS ANGELES (October 28, 2009)—

The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) wants to remind parents that Halloween is a great time to teach children about pedestrian and traffic safety.

LADOT has issued simple guidelines that will help safeguard children on Halloween night and whenever they walk in their neighborhoods at night.
1.    Adults should accompany children to make sure safety rules are followed.
2.    Cross streets only at intersections and look both ways before crossing a street.
3.    Walk within crosswalks.
4.    Wear white or reflective clothing so that costumes are bright enough to be seen at night by motorists.
5.    Add reflective tape to bags to collect treats.
6.    Choose costumes that are flame-retardant.
7.    Children should carry flashlights.
8.    Walk in well-lit areas.
9.    Remove any masks before crossing streets.
10.    Look before crossing driveways to make sure vehicles are not backing up.
11.    Never cross a street in the middle of the block or between parked vehicles.

The best safety lesson parents can teach to their children is to model the correct pedestrian behavior.
“Halloween is a great time to start,” said Rita L. Robinson, general manager, LADOT. “When children see their parents are cautious and looking both ways before crossing the street, children will internalize the value of being safe citizens,” said Robinson.

LADOT wants to remind drivers that pedestrian safety is their responsibility too and they should drive carefully whenever children are present. Every school day, LADOT crossing guards or traffic officers are assigned to monitor elementary school crossings for student volume, motorist traffic and other factors.

LADOT is dedicated to moving Los Angeles forward as quickly and safely as possible. Drivers, bus riders, bicyclists and pedestrians are encouraged to visit LADOT’s website at www.ladot.lacity.org for information about DASH, Commuter Express, bicycling in the City and an array of transportation services.

For more information about pedestrian safety, visit the Watch the Road website at www.watchtheroad.org.

Area commuters can visit the Department’s website for real-time traffic and parking facilities information. Real-time traffic reports are a product of LADOT, innovators of the Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control System (ATSAC) technology.
###

The passage of Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan last week has helped heat up a national conversation about Los Angeles, how it grows, how it moves and the future of our Metropolis.  Of course, Diane Meyer's "World Without a Car" exhibit has people locally thinking outside the auto; but others are picking up the conversation such as the Transport Politic and Think Progress' Matt Yglessias. However, that debate shows us one critical missing link in our transportation planning.

We still don't know how Angelenos move from place to place.  For the most part, we're still reliant on census figures that only ask about commuting trends, traditionally under-count people of lesser means and definately under-count immigrants.  Recently, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, in their most recent report on how the city is going to spend its Measure R funds, reported that combined, 3.6% of Angelenos commute by bicycle or by walking in Los Angeles based on figures provided by the Southern California Association of Governments.  Outside of major projects or reports that require them, the city does not do bicycle or pedestrian counts leaving planners reliant on bad statistics or guesswork based on personal observations and biases.

When commenting to the Council on the report, I wondered how 96.4% of people commute without walking at all; but of course I realize that they are referring to the dominant mode in the commute.  However, that number shouldn't be used as an excuse to under-fund pedestrian improvements.  After all, the city worker that drives from the Valley to the large parking lot to the West of City Hall is reliant on safe crossings to get from his car to the office, just as the dedicated pedestrian is reliant on a series of safe crossings to get from place to place.

But if the city is reliant on census figures that over-count the number of car-reliant transportation trips, then advocates for car alternatives are always going to be behind the game.  For example, my wife is a car commuter when she's not on maternity leave, but I would estimate that less than half of her total trips involve getting in her car.  Trips to the store, park, Farmer's Market, gym, and around the neighborhood are done on foot or on bike.  The census, the data source relied on by the city, completely discounts those trips because it only measures commuter trips.

What do you see? A city transportation study would see one van. Photo: aisipos/Flickr

The situation has become so dire that the Los Angeles County Bike Coalition has begun measuring its own bike counts, and news organizations have begun running their own polls to try and get a picture of what's actually happening on the street.  While a recent poll by the LA Downtown News' results were similar to those completed by City Planning, the unscientific method of asking one's readers how they commute, will certainly lead to those results being dismissed.

Speaking of City Planning, the process that created the new Downtown Street Standards included bicycle and pedestrian counts and those standards are amongst the most progressive ones in the county.  The standards promote bike lanes, sidewalk widenings and open space.  When an agency bothers to actually check what's happening, the results are planning documents that favor "non-motorized transportation."  For more on the street standards, listen to Streetsblog interview the Urban Design Studio's Emily Gabel-Luddy.

As the city moves forward with it's Bike Plan and other community plans, it's past time that it begins gathering data on it's own about the effected areas.  Relying on the census and the guesswork of engineers who have looked at their job as finding the best way to move cars is only going to lead to wider roads, unhealthy communities and a rising Car Culture, even as that way of planning wanes in the major cities around the United States.