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.

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 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.

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

###

(Editor's note: Originally, this was going to be a post written by Dana Gabbard about Metro placing their public Gold Line Eastside Extension documents online.  As I was writing the introduction, the story got away from me.  A deep hat tip to Dana for his help with this article and you can see the Metro presentation on the extension at the Transit Coalition Website.)

As was noted in Streetsblog's coverage of the Metro Board Meeting, and more with its own article at The Source, yesterday County Supervisor Gloria Molina held the floor for roughly a half hour, delivering a powerful rant against Metro staff concerning the soon-to-be-opened Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension.  Molina accused staff of pushing for the opening of an unsafe line for political reasons, and only doing work for certain favored members of the Board.  Meanwhile her fellow Board members, and L.A. County voters, received a lesser tongue lashing for intentionally short-changing the Eastside.

While I admit that I find Molina's monthly displays of self-pitying on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley, where admittedly I don't live so I'm hardly an expert on the area, to be an exercise in self-promotion; this time she came armed with reports and concerned locals to raise the question:  Is the Gold Line Eastside ready to be opened as a safe line?  The evidence seems to say that it is not.

Yesterday's rant was hardly the first time people have raised questions about the Extension.  Safety concerns have been raised by residents from Little Tokyo through the Eastside and into L.A. County.  This summer, Metro began to go into communities to explain why and how the Eastside Extension would be safe.  A good example of their public presentations can be found at Little Tokyo Unblogged. 

Many in the group were equally dismayed at the lack of barriers or gates to prevent an accident. MTA staff assured us, however, that gates are being evaluated, and that a study on the issue will be released in July or August...and there will be an opportunity for public comments.

The other questions that came up time and again were the lack of language-appropriate signage (some of the signs that were up did have Spanish translations). Many in the group expressed concerns over how local Japanese and Korean residents, most especially seniors, would be able to read the warnings. The MTA is also going to take into account the timing of pedestrian lights to enable seniors sufficient time to cross sidewalks.

The safety issued remained a simmering local issue as rumored opening dates came and went, but the arguments became more heated after Dakota Smith, the editor of the pro-development blog Curbed, which referred to the above quote from Little Tokyo Unblogged as "fear mongering," almost got hit by a train that was testing the tracks while she touring the future Eastside train stations.  Dakota seemed even more annoyed by the somewhat bemused attitude of Metro staff even as they tried to explain how the incident was her fault and the crossings are completely safe.

While Curbed was annoyed, local concerns were still being raised causing Metro to bring in a group of rail safety experts from San Diego, San Francisco and Arlington, V.A., to review the preparations being made for the opening, currently rumored to be November 15.  Their somewhat confusing findings could be summarized as: this line is safe, but here's what needs to be done to make it safer.  For example, the safety experts noted that ""no trespassing" signs were placed in appropriate places but advised that the wording on the signs be larger.  Yesterday, Molina admitted that she had no idea the status of these proposed changes, which undercuts her overall message that the staff isn't addressing safety concerns; especially since staff claims that they're working on it and the Board passed $4.5 million in funds to complete the improved safety standards earlier in the meeting.  The major fix will be miles of fencing separating the tracks from the community.  How they were planning on opening that line without fencing is beyond me.

Molina ended her rant by making the somewhat bi-polar claim that she would be at the opening of the line, whenever that will be, to share that moment with her community and assure them the line is safe.  However, she isn't sure the line is safe and called the line "sub-standard" several times.  If Molina had kept her comments focused her comments on just the Gold Line and the safety issues, and stayed away from re-airing her grievances for perceived slights going back over a decade; she could have pushed her message without the monthly beating of a dead horse and perhaps scored more points with Board Members, and advocates beyond her San Gabriel Valley Base.

In truth, Molina is still angry that back in the 1990's voters approved a transit funding plan which excluded an Eastside Subway, yet the same pols fought against an Eastside Subway are enthusiastically supporting the Westside Subway.  Her attacks on the Gold Line and staff are a fill in for calling out Zev Yaroslavsky or ranting against voters across the county for not following her sage advice to vote against transit funding plans, such as Measure R.  While transit advocacy groups and blog writers can decry her obstructionism tactics, the reality is; they have been somewhat effective. 

While she has been unable to move voters outside her base to vote against transit taxes, she was successful in getting what are now called "FAST Lanes" and the hundreds of millions of dollars of transit improvements off the I-210 in her district and on the I-110.  Hooray?  The problem is, that in cases such as this, her sense of victim hood, combined with other substance-free grandstanding from the state and congressional delegations, and outrage actually cost her constituents hundreds of millions of dollars in transit improvements for a "congestion pricing" plan that won't actually change traffic patterns at rush hour and actually increase capacity at other times of the day.  Is that really the sort of advocacy that the San Gabriel Valley needs on the Metro Board?

A good day for the Gold Line Foothill Extension who's future Monrovia Station is depicted in this image from the Bottleneck Blog.

(editor's note: For more of a blow-by-blow from today's meeting visit the twitter feeds for LA Streetsblog, Soap Box and I Will Ride)

When the process to get from public meetings to a final vote takes over a year and a half, you can't expect the final vote to come without a fight and without some theatrics.  With people in costume actually outshining uber-gadfly John Walsh, Board-Member-for-a-Day Tom LaBonge pinch hitting for his colleague on the City Council Jose Huizar and perhaps strangest of all a short, supportive completely non-snarky comment by Stephen Box the meeting took over five hours but ended with a result most were happy with: a finalized Long Range Transportation Plan.

But the stars of today's hearing were not the people in the audience and those testifying, but a pair of County Supervisors from opposite ends of the County: Gloria Molina and Mark Ridley-Thomas.  Each found an effective way to advocate for their favored local project.  Per their styles, Molina used a "woe-is-me" strategy combined with a level of histrionics while Ridley-Thomas refused to back off his amendment to the plan which, while hardly earth shattering, could lead to accelerated time-lines for two of Metro's more controversial projects.

The key provision of the Ridley-Thomas ammendment mostly are aimed at protecting funding for buses, require staff to aggressively pursue federal funds for the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor Project, require Metro to provide operations dollars for the Foothill Extension whenever it is completed and required quarterly updates on three highway widenings.  The aptly named The Source has the original wording of the amendment or you can find it on the Metro Board Agenda if you feel the urge to scroll through it.  However, you need to go to the Supervisor's website to get the final wording of the amendment that passed.

So what does this mean?  It means that the highway and rail projects that were approved in Measure R are now officially part of Metro's plans for the future.  A time-line was adopted, that you can read here, but as Metro earns federal funds and projects complete their environmental phases those time-lines can be amended.   You can find a quick outline of those time-lines here.  Also passed today were rules protecting the 20% of Measure R dedicated to buses and a $324 million projected budget for bicycle and pedestrian projects over the next 30 years.  And, as the Bus Riders Union tried just about every way imaginable to warn us, it means future fare hikes.

Now that the plan is approved, Metro can officially lobby the state and federal governments for the money to build the highway and transit projects within the plan.  If the plan had not been passed, supporters argued that it would be a disaster for Metro and Los Angeles County.  That bold declaration makes me wonder why they didn't pass it any other time in the past twenty months since they held public hearings.

On its twitter feed, I Will Ride announced that the Gold Line Foothill Extension and Crenshaw Corridor were placed as a priority ahead of the Westside Subway for "New Starts" funding, but given the unanimous passage of the LRTP and the Mayor's fixation on the Subway to the Sea, I'll believe that those projects get dollars ahead of the Subway when I see it.  (editor's note: In the comments section Dan Wentzel explains that Crenshaw and Foothill were moved ahead of only Phases IV and V of the Subway to the Sea.  The Subway extension from Wilshire-Western to Westwood remain ahead of Foothill and Crenshaw.)

As for Molina's part, she took the floor for the better part of a half hour with other local stakeholders concerned with the safety for the Eastside Extension, due to open in November.  In an angry rant in which she accused the Metro staff of favrotism and outright lieing to her, Molina channeled both Damien Goodmon and the Bus Rider's Union as she went on the warpath against just about everyone on the dais except Metro CEO Art Leahy who she felt was trying to help make the line safe as best he could.  The strangest part of her rant was where she said she would be at the opening, assuring her constituents the line was safe, even though she wasn't sure that it would be.

While I give Molina a hard time, her criticisms sound similar to those voiced by former Board Member and City Council Transportation Committee Member Richard Alarcon, who has also been vocal that he doesn't trust Metro staff.  That makes two prominent Latino officials who have intimate knowledge of the Board expressing district and concerns.  I can't help but wonder if maybe Metro has a Latino problem.

The first option is to just go to the meeting.  It's in the Metro Board Room in the huge building right behind Union Station.  You can't miss it.  But be prepared for staff to not allow you to comment because you weren't there by 9:30 A.M. even though the Board won't have a quorum yet and it's a violation of the Brown Act regarding public meetings.  Also, you'll probably have to listen to the proceedings in an overflow room.

If you do have the time to listen to the meeting, you can do what I'm going to do and listen in on the telephone.  The number to listen in is 213-922-6045.  Metro still hasn't gotten around to broadcasting their meetings on the Internet, so this is the next best thing.

Third, you can follow the twitter feeds of Streetsblog, http://twitter.com/lastreetsblog or I Will Ride, http://twitter.com/iwillride. You can follow the Streetsblog twitter feed without leaving this page on the right hand side of the screen.

While they don't have a twitter account set up, I imagine Steve Hymon will be updating The Source regularly during the meeting as well.

And of course once the meeting is over I'll post the results here at Streetsblog and fill in the details as time allows.

Tomorrow the Metro Board will meet and is widely expected to finally pass the Long Range Transportation Plan, which just like the city's Draft Bike Plan, was the subject of public hearings in the early winter of 2008 and hasn't been subject to much public scrutiny since.  Many Board Members are already offering amendments to the plan to protect and advance their preferred local projects.  The goal of moving projects in the plan is to better position them to receive federal funds to hopefully get them off the design table and on the ground, or under the ground, as quickly as possible.

And, we have a chance to say goodbye to AnsaldoBreda's monthly appearance on the Board Schedule.  Last month the Board approved an extension to the exclusive contract for building rail cars to the Italian company, so they'll never truly be gone; but an update on the contract is on the agenda providing gadflys and opponents one more chance to blast Board and AnsaldoBreda, for now.  To read the full Board Agenda, click here.

But the big ticket item will be the Long Range Transportation Plan and the battle to advance local projects.  At The Source, Steve Hymon has a handy F.A.Q. that answers some of the basic questions but only covers the politics in general terms.  For a breakdown on some of the issues the Board will discuss tomorrow, read on after the jump.  To just dive in to the 54 page Draft Long Range Plan, click here.

But first, let's speak to the issues that don't seem to have a champion on the Board.  It's something of a surprise that the LRTP document doesn't include the words "bicycle" or "pedestrian" so we're back to having no firm number for how much funding is included for "non-motorized transportation."  I've got a call into Metro to make sure that's just an oversight and that the funding remains at the increased level of $324 million for each mode over 30 years.

More photoes at BRU/Flickr

The Long Range Transit Plan calls for 14 fare increases over 35 years, a reduction of the overall bus fleet, a draconian "33% fare recovery ratio" that cuts public subsidies for bus riders of color. The LRTP will also undermine the environmental sustainability of the region, as car use in the region cannot significantly be reduced with it recommendations to: 1) significantly expand highways in the region, 2) expand subway and rails: LA's failed rail experiment has meant that the region has the same amount of transit riders since the early 1980's, and 3) provoke reduce transit riders rider ship, as service deteriorates and increased transit fares will drive more people out of public transit and into autos (as shown by the 2007 fare increase).

The BRU has been hard at work lobbying three Board Members in particular, South L.A. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Downtown Councilman Jose Huizar and Mayor Villaraigosa.  We'll see if their efforts pay off tomorrow.

Speaking of Ridley-Thomas, he offered the first amendment to the LRTP which is designed to protect the funding for the Crenshaw Corridor, be the final project BRT or LRT.  Given the political pressure from Mayor Villaraigosa to push up the opening date for the Subway to the Sea, he again mentioned opening the line in ten years instead of 27 earlier this week, and the push for the Gold Line Foothill Extension, Ridley Thomas wants to protect his turf.

And speaking of Huizar, he could present the second motion.  It's no secret that the Downtown Streetcar has been a favorite project of the Councilman and he is seeking to get the project added to the "unfunded" portion of the LRTP.  While the streetcar wouldn't fight for any currently allocated funds, its presence in the LRTP might qualify it for additional federal and state funds that it doesn't qualify for today.

But the biggest debate will be a motion put forward by Board Members Dubois and O'Connor that would instruct staff to create a list of all projects available for a variety of federal funds.  The long-term purpose of this motion is to get the Board to advance projects for immediate federal funds besides the Downtown Connector and Westside Subway, both of which the Board forwarded last night.  The Foothill Extension advocacy blog I Will Ride explains the logic and politics behind this motion.

Also up for debate tomorrow are two motions having to deal with how Measure R Local Return and bus funds are allocated.  Currently, my link to these documents aren't working, but Streetsblog will provide full coverage of these motions later this week.

While I was on paternity leave there were a lot of stories that I would have covered if I had been writing.   I didn't want to let them pass without any commentary or coverage beyond a sentence in Today's Headlines.  H

AnsaldoBreda

After half a year of debate, numerous reports from Metro's new CEO staff begging them not to continue the contract and one of the most ethically challenged public relations campaigns I've ever seen; the Metro Board of Directors decided to extend their exclusive contract with Italian Rail Car manufacturer AnsaldoBreda.  You may remember that the company "promised" to build a rail car manufacturing plant in Greater Los Angeles if they got the contract, a fact that couldn't legally be considered by the Metro Board.

However, every month that went by since the debate erupted last March brought more reasons to not trust the rail car company.  Board Members Zev Yaroslavsky, the Westside's representative to the County Board of Supervisors, and Santa Monica Council Member Pam O'Connor were among the rail car manufacturer's harshest critics, but that wasn't enough to stop Mayor Villaraigosa and his allies from pushing the contract extension through.

At least Villaraigosa, who bent over backwards to keep his union supporters happy, didn't insult our intelligence by pretending the decision was made in the best interest of Metro or its riders.  One day after they extended the contract, Villaraigosa held a press conference announcing all the new jobs coming to L.A. with the new factory.

For our full coverage of the AnsaldoBreda controversy, click here.  Note that the coverage started neutral and became more negative as time went on.

Alarcón, City Council Offer Reward for Information on Deadly Hit and Run.

Earlier this week, Councilman Richard Alarcón succeeded in getting the City Council to allocate $50,000 dollars for any information on the deadly Hit-and-Run that killed Judy Ramos on July 28.  In a city where too often there seems to be a lack of energy on finding Hit-and-Run drivers, this is an encouraging sign of elected officials and the LAPD taking this instance seriously.  What would be more encouraging would be harsher fines for Hit-and-Run Drivers.  Under current law, there are harsher fines for drunk driving than hit-and-run driving.  This encourages murderous drivers to flee the scene of the crime.

For more information on the crash and how to inform the LAPD, visit this article in the Daily News.

OCTA Wants Ideas on How to Improve Transportation

h/t to Spokker and Transit Rider OC

The Orange County Transportation Authority has an online survey to solicit feedback from residents on how to improve transportation behind the Orange Curtain.  Naturally, the majority of the questions are about freeways and capacity enhancement, but at least this time they mention buses several times.  You can take the survey here.

Mel Gibson Gets DUI Expunged

I was shocked to find out that Mel Gibson was able to get his 2006 DUI Conviction expunged from his record; but I was even more outraged to read that such an act is routine in California.  The Times reports:

As a first-time drunk-driving offender, Gibson was eligible to have the conviction removed from his record after completing the terms of his probation. The expunging request and procedure is routine and took place before Judge Lawrence J. Mira during a 90-second hearing.

I guess it's a good thing that you have to drunkenly hit people with your car twice before hurting them or else this law would make no sense.

A New Bike License Controversy Brewing in Santa Monica?

We have yet to hear a report for someone getting ticketed, but our friends the Santa Monica Police Department are at it again.  Blogger Gary Kavanaugh noted that the SMPD is flyering about the need to have your bike licensed before you can ride in Santa Monica.  Long-time readers may remember that the LAPD was taken to task for abusing a state law that allows police departments to create licensing programs to help cyclists recover stolen bicycles.  The LAPD had to back off after it came to light they were handing out illegally high fines and repeatedly running out of licenses when cyclists asked for them.

Is Santa Monica going to copy one of LAPD's less than inspiring attempts at law enforcement?  The city has somewhat of a Jekyll and Hyde reputation with cyclists.  On one hand, the city has more and better bike facilities per capita than any city in the county save Long Beach.  On the other, the SMPD are known to harass group rides to the point of comically over-policing Santa Monica Critical Mass and of course became national laughing stocks for taking a principled stand against people who exercise in public spaces.

Controversial Bike Lane Stays in Santa Clarita

Way back in August we discussed the angry reaction of some in Santa Clarita to new bike lanes on Decoro Avenue.  The City Council eventually reached a compromise after lengthy debate.  The bike lanes stayed and the road was re-striped to increase automobile capacity.  Hooray?

More TAP Problems

On the Metro Rider discussion forums, writer J Marino writes about how he was falsely accused of trying to evade TAP fares because the TAP readers were broken:

Fare officers started checking tickets about 7 stops in. They check my TAP card and tell me that it hasn't been used since June, 2009! This is clearly not true, but I have no way to prove it. Officers march me through the train like a criminal and escort me off the train at Imperial station. This is in Compton. I will probably catch hell for this, but I should mention that I am a 5'1'', 100-pound girl. And I'm stranded, alone, in Compton. Awesome. I also hold in my hand a citation that will cost me several hundred dollars to correct.

I bought another day pass (paper this time, no way will I trust the TAP card again), and headed right back home. As soon as I could, I called the number on the TAP card and spoke to a wonderful customer service agent, Rita, who verified that I had indeed bought and used a day pass through TAP that morning. She had me send copies of my citation, bank statement showing the $5 deducted for the fare, and ID to TAP customer service, stating that she would have the citation voided. Super!

When reader Erik Griswold wrote to Cubic and Metro about the issue he was told that monthly pass holders can avoid these kinds of problems by carrying their receipt with them.  Uhm, wasn't the point of TAP cards that Metro would move to paperless ticketing?  Now we're supposed to carry around a paper receipt?  I think I'll stick to day passes, thanks all the same.

It's no wonder that Foothill Transit announced they were opting out of the TAP system.

Photo: Duncan Rawlinson via The Last Minute Blog

(editor's note: Dr. Michael Cahn is a lecturer in book history at UCLA. There is also someone with the same name affiliated with some bike group in town, but that is another chapter.  This story has received very light editing on my part and is re-printed with no change in content to give you an honest feel for the author's view.  Streetsblog remains excited about the changes occurring in Long Beach and cautiously optimistic about the value of bike-sharing programs in L.A.'s future.)

In 2001, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition released A Blueprint for a Bike-Friendly Los Angeles County. One specific demand outlined in this document was for Metro (MTA) to fund Bike Education and Promotion projects at five million dollars per Call For Projects (CFP) cycle. CFP is a competitive process through which METRO awards money for Transport Demand Management projects to cities and other agencies in the county.

The bicycle coalition realized ten years ago that the bicycle needs a firm place in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) process which aims at reducing the number of Single Occupancy Vehicles on the road. Metro apparently saw this differently, and in the last few years, the Call for Projects process, despite some inspiring presentations by Todd Litman and Michael Woo, remains an arcane and bureaucratic process, from which the bicycle programs has been effectively excluded. The money is awarded only to a cities, and other agencies or non-profits are not admitted to the process. As it happens, this process puts bicycle work at a most serious disadvantage.

With the new SB 375 (editor's note: for more Streetsblog's coverage of SB 375 click here, here or here.) regulations around the corner, new expectations are being created that the elite of TDM experts can somehow reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by a mighty 40% per a presentation by Metro's Michael Turner. But as long as the CFP process remains the same, the results are likely to remain the same, - small, little steps that actually get more people into one car; while Metro's Robin Blair sitting at the helm and encouraging us to be innovative, and start something new. I have seen him in this mode for two years now, and I am not happy with it. If you do not change the process, you will not change the results.

Which brings us to this year's Multi-Mobility Forum, a Metro-sponsored, invitation-only, event billed as a chance to work together in an effort to develop and implement effective multi-mobility strategies  in Los Angeles County. Calstart's Fred Silver delivered a compendium of Sustainable Community Transportation Strategies, in which the plain vanilla encouragement of cycling is suspiciously absent. We read about Ciclovia as a TDM strategy, and the old red herring called bike sharing.  Yeah, people don't bike because someone has forgotten to put in a bike sharing program? Exactly!

His list of 10 options flexible and easily inflateable and on one of his slides he brags about "20 to 30" options available. I don't care how the numbers go up, but if you don't fund simple bicycle encouragement programs, driven by cyclists, using cyclists, rewarding cyclists, then you are swimming with one arm only. Feels like drowning in cars?

William McCarthy from the School of Public Health has his affiliation misspelled on the program, but delivers a powerful reminder of the limited agenda of those TDM experts who work the transformation of Single Occupancy Vehicles to High Occupancy Vehicles and forget the body. He reminds us of the solid health benefits of the non-car friendly city. This public health expert is still stunned by the success of the anti-smoking movement, which became unstoppable when it focused on passive smoking. He exhorts the audience to lead the TDM work into a similar area: Stop focusing on the "sacrifice" of the driver, and start talking about damage created by car, and how to protect the whole community from it.

Then follow a few presentations by recipients of last years program. Jane Choi speaks for City of LA and Jay Kim for LADOT, both offering a compelling proof of how broken the Call For Projects process is. Both projects pretend to be studies of some kind, but not exactly by academic standards. Some strange and costly exercises which raise many questions and pretend to be useful for someone. Oh dear. Oh dear. I probably failed to get the point, but to me these "studies" seemed a sheer and utter waste of money. Painful, very painful, if you ever wondered how much it would cost you to get one friendly cyclist to convince and assist his colleague to try the bike on the way to work. Sterling work, just get it done, and don't waste my time with more studies which wait in vain in some drawers. Sitting in the 15^th floor, looking down on the broken landscape of what could be Los Angeles, tears come to my eyes as I see Jay Kim burning precious MTA dollars, compiling a list of difficult questions, instead of engaging cycling commuters, rewarding them for the encouragement work they all would love to do.

Then comes the City of Long Beach, dancing around some assumed and probably fraudulent attributes involving words like "most" and "bikefriendly". No doubt good things are happening there. But is this TDM money that is spent on encouraging cyclists? I am not sure. This matters, because we are here not to hear about sustainable transportation successes in Santa Monica (LUCE) or Santa Clarita, we are here to learn how Metro CFP will deal with the bicycle in the future. Or will they continue the habitual and all-Californian injustice of discounting the bicycle option right from the start. Injustice it is, and sheer stupidity, or something else I do not understand. Perhaps it is politics.

A strange and pathetic spectacle: Metro seems to encourage the multi-mobility audience to offer new programs, raise new options, but always knowing in advance what to do with the bicycle: Nothing. 30% of all trips are less than 5 miles, but METRO CFP somehow cannot support bicycle encouragement programs. A scandal for which I have not words. The drama is all in the person of Robin Blair, who presides over these proceedings as clown, sage and questioner, with a small band of ill trained soldiers. Has he invited us to teach us, to get our input, to feel the pulse of the time, to have a dialog with his own preconceptions? Has he invited us to remind us of the challenges of SB 375, so that we remind him of the exclusion of the unjust bicycle? Questions, questions.

How to improve the process? I'd say start with formalities and procedure. Make the invitation process public and put aside the old boys network of "you have been selected to participate." Inviting a distinguished speaker (McCarthy) two days before the event is striking proof how little importance Metro invests in serious TDM work. Circulate the program in advance of the event. Put it on the internet. Answer emails. This is good practice, but apparently very difficult at Transit Plaza. Even the speakers were left in the dark about the program and their time slot. This lacks respect and betrays the fatal arrogance of an institution which has grown too powerful. Be clear about what Calstart is doing in this process, and what their role is. Why is their logo on the program? Be clear about the nature of the event: Was that the "task force committee to develop the structure and objectives" for which an invitation was sent out in May 2009, and for which a meeting date was never divulged to the bicycle advocate who expressed an interest. Have we missed something?

An alien invasion and the Eastside Extension are coming in November.  Photo: Randall Fleming

Several trains have been added to compensate for the longer runs. On the Union Station to Pasadena run, there are normally 20 trains assigned-although not all are running constantly. According to Gold Line spokesperson José Ubaldo, there will be 36 trains assigned to the entire Gold Line in the same fashion. During the five-week pre-revenue testing phase, there will be 7 more trains running to compensate for the non-passenger testing stretch beyond Union Station. Gold Line passengers are being urged to disembark at Union Station as if exiting at any other station, as the trains continue south and east to Atlantic. Save for the absence of straphangers, the trains are running as they are planned to perform when the MGLEE is opened for public transit. The opening date is set for November and will be announced sometime in October, according to Metro spokespeople.

All except two of the stations are above ground. The exceptions are Mariachi Plaza and Soto stations. The rest of the line is along at-grade track that maintains various distances from sidewalks and motorways. Much of the MGLEE's path is through working class neighborhoods with heavy pedestrian traffic, and there are some portions that run very close to where school children tend to walk as well as cross the tracks. These segments have concrete berms on either side of the track but no railings nor gates; all of the stations have special traffic lights to warn of oncoming trains. Metro has declared that safety remains a top priority for the MGLEE's operation, but the tight turns on either side of the Indiana station are the ones to watch. Portions of the steel fence surrounding the platform and nearest the intersection and pedestrian gates had to be removed owing to the train operators' severely limited vision.

Metro CEO Art Leahy requested an independent panel of three rail transit safety experts whose experience was gained working at Muni (San Francisco), Tri-Met (Portland), Federal Transit Administration's office of Safety and Security and the San Diego Trolley as well as several tri-state rail agencies in NY, NJ and PA. The panel concluded that "the new Metro Gold Line to East Los Angeles has been designed and built to operate safely."

Nevertheless, the panel of three "suggested additional safety enhancements such as installing fencing in areas where frequent jaywalking is observed, installing raised buttons or rumble strips and reflective pavement markers so motor vehicles don't accidentally intrude on the trainway, reduce warning sign clutter" among other suggestions.

As the tests near the end of the first week's testing, Metro states that the trains are running as planned and that there are no problems.

Last Saturday night, transportation activists Stephen and Enci Box arrived at the Hollywood and Western Metro Red Line station and found the station in shambles.  A homeless encampment had moved onto the top floor, five of the six escalators were out of order and the "emergency intercom" was broken.

After assisting an elderly "reluctant pedestrian" up the steps, the Box's began a series of phone calls to try and get some rectification to the situation and discovered a bureaucracy that is unable to deal with problems on a Saturday night.

I called the LASD Watch Commander at Metro Rail HQ to let him know of the five inoperative escalators, the broken emergency intercom, the stench of urine and feces, the overflowing trash cans, and the homeless encampment, pointing out that they all indicate a significant failure on the part of the LASD.

Sgt. Bedogne explained that staffing was thin on Saturday nights and that their focus was fare evasion. I pointed out this seems to be in sharp contrast with the Metro’s position as articulated by CEO Art Leahy who has indicated that public safety and customer service are his priorities for the Metro.

Crickets chirped.

It took 28 minutes for the LASD to arrive at Hollywood & Western, four cars with five Deputies. They descended into the station, returned to street level, chatted with the two armed Metro Officers who joined them, hung out some more, and then they all left. Net result of the visit, 22 minutes of scratching, spitting and huddling together on the mean streets of Hollywood and Western.

Anyone that's read one of Stephen's postings at either Soap Box or City Watch knows that every story reveals a larger lesson.  In this case he hammers the point that nobody is willing to take responsibility for the land surrounding Metro train stations that is owned by Metro.  The LAPD wipe their hands of all Metro property and the Sheriff's, who operate as Metro's private para-military security firm, seem to think that their responsibilities only include the stations.

I'm going to take a different angle.  While I found my interview with Art Leahy an enjoyable conversation, the proof of Metro's priority is in their actions and the actions of their contractors.  If the Sheriff's have the staff to do "random" bag searches at stations and to watch people try and figure out what to do with the turnstiles being seemingly randomly placed; they should undeniably have the staff to respond to emergencies on a Saturday night.

When we last checked-in on the status of the proposed bus-only lanes for Wilshire Boulevard, Metro staff was conducting outreach needed before the project could receive it's environmental clearance.  At the time, staff hoped it would be completing the needed studies in the next couple of months.  However, they're now estimating that, at best, the studies won't be completed until June of 2010.

Next Wednesday, the City Council Transportation Committee will hear a request from LADOT to fund the city's half of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the bus-only lanes project.  The hearing could prove interesting because the bus only lane, runs through the heart of the districts of both the new Committee Chairman, Bill Rosendahl, and new Vice Chairman Paul Koretz.  While Rosendahl has stated support for the project in the past; Koretz has been more vague and has certainly been lobbied by residents in affluent parts of his district opposed to the project.

According to the report for prepared for next week's  hearing, there are two reasons that the bus-only plan will require EIR and not the shorter studies originally recommended and already completed.

...a number of intersections along the Wilshire Boulevard and parallel streets would experience traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance.  In addition, public outreach in November of 2008 indicated both strong support throughout the corridor and strong opposition in several communities.  Based on these findings, staff at Metro and DOT determined that an EIR should be prepared for CEQA clearance.

In other words, the Wilshire bus-only lanes, a project that might have seemed a virtual lock a year ago might be in some trouble because of car traffic concerns.  At the very least it now faces more obstacles to overcome than it did in 2008.  In addition to needing a green light from an environmental standpoint, the project will need to survive another alternatives analysis and another round of public outreach in some areas where a bus only lane instead of street parking is a scary proposition to local residents.

The public hearings will be scheduled soon for late this month or early in October.  Since I most likely won't be able to attend, anyone interested in reporting from the meeting should contact me at damien@streetsblog.org.