Earlier this week, the public records office of Metro refused a request by Los Angeles Streetsblog for a copy of the recording made by a Metro bus camera during the January 9th confrontation between a special needs woman and sheriff that led to the woman getting punched in the face.

A video caught by a “citizen journalist” shows the sheriff striking the woman with his fore arm while the woman is restrained by the sheriffs partners.  However, witnesses vary on what degree the woman instigated the incident.  Some claim the sheriff’s attack was unprovoked.  Others claim the woman was acting violently.  A copy of a tape that starts when the sheriffs enter the bus could tell a more complete story of what actually happened that day.

If the Sheriffs presence on Metro vehicles and stations is to keep us safe, Streetsblog believes the public has a right to know what happened in that incident and what actions are being taken to address that behavior.  Streetsblog will stay on top of this issue until we can report on the full story.

In the meantime, here’s the text of the legal code used to justify the rejection.  Sounds as though Metro and/or the sheriffs are facing a legal challenge.

6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the California Emergency Management Agency, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

6255. (a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

Beverly Hills Civic Center

(Note, the Beverly Hills Courier points out that they had the story first on Thursday evening despite my call that Patch broke the news. You can read their coverage, here. – DN)

Last Friday, word broke on Patch that a review of the geological studies on the Westside Subway commissioned by the city government of Beverly Hills came to different conclusions than the conclusions authored by Metro’s team of experts.  Exponent-Failure Analysis Associates concludes in the executive summary that:

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the public comment period.

In summary, it is Exponent’s opinion that additional effort is needed to accurately identify,  quantify, rank and mitigate the potential hazards posed by the proposed Westside Subway  Extension Project before one of the two presented alternatives, or a third alternative, are selected  for implementation.

A more detailed analysis of the 70 page study (available here) can be heard at tomorrow’s “Study Session” of the Beverly Hills City Council.  Those that don’t want to wait for tomorrow’s presentation can seemingly engage with City Councilman John Mirisch on the validity of the study by commenting on the Patch article.

Predictably, any action by either side in the on-going grudge match between advocates of the Westside Subway and government representatives in Beverly Hills was met with praise from one side and scorn from the other.  As both sides attempt to work through the other sides’ writings here are a few suggestions.

First: Let’s Agree That Neither Metro’s Experts nor Exponent Consulting Are on the Take

Somehow, it seems to have become a slur for expert geologists, seismologists and engineers to get paid to do studies or give opinions.  First, the NUMBY’s slurred Metro’s experts as being on the take, a charge that went all the way to the pages of L.A. Weekly.  But in return, subway-friendly publications made the exact same charge against Exponent.

Let’s say this, it’s highly unlikely that Metro’s distinguished review panel, which includes Dr. Lucy Jones, a federal employee not compensated for her work, or a publicly traded company that relies on a reputation as non-biased evaluators would risk their reputations for one project.

I’ll admit, that when I read the Patch article on Friday, my first reaction was “of course it says that the Metro report is flawed,” but fortunately I took the weekend to take a beat.  My assumption that the report is flawed because of who paid for it is just as uninformed as the comment from the Unified School District’s Board Chair article assuming the Metro study is based on bad data.

It’s certainly not unheard of for experts to disagree.  Saying “our experts are unbiased researchers; but their experts are bought and paid for” doesn’t really say anything.

Second: Beverly Hills Has the Right to Put Metro Studies Under Thorough Review

Whether they’re concerned about the impacts during construction, the rattling that could be caused by an active subway or whether it “just doesn’t feel right to dig under our school,” as one columnist offered; the City of Beverly Hills can and should submit every study to rigorous review.  At the same time, opponents of digging a tunnel under the school should wait until Metro has a chance to review the review before deciding that Metro’s studies are flawed.

Exponent had three months to review Metro’s documents, it’s only fair to give Metro a chance to review what Exponent wrote.

Third: The Back and Forth Is Going to Get Worse Before It Goes to Court

This is just speculation on my part, but I would posit that whenever the environmental reports are released by Metro that the public relations spin on both sides won’t deviate from what’s already been said.  I’ll also speculate that this whole thing is going to be determined by a court, not by geologic experts or Metro itself.  Judges tend to look down on super-heated rhetoric so it behooves everyone to remain calm.

Eddie Solis leaves the Metro Red Line, which serves as one part of his hour-long commute from his day job in Hollywood to his home in Boyle Heights. Much of the inspiration for his band It's Casual comes from his observations from being car-free, a bus and subway rider, and a skateboarder. Photo courtesy of Eddie Solis.

A few weeks ago, the hardcore band It’s Casual posted “The Red Line” music video on Youtube and quickly caught the attention of local and national blogs for it’s simple yet creative critique of Los Angeles freeways. A current resident of Boyle Heights, guitarist and vocalist Eddie Solis sat down with Eastside Streetsblog to talk about how his car-free lifestyle inspires his music and how he encounters on his morning walks the smell of Boyle Heights tortilla factories.

You do a lot of music that’s very transit oriented; can you explain why you went that route?

Sometimes I think there’s a lot of content out there that’s too, I want to say, too fiction. Kind of make believe. And I notice all my favorite music that hits home to me in my heart and that I kind of step back and see these bands still going  . . . are bands that write timeless music with timeless contact that basically come from the truth of actual events and someone’s perspective. So I said I really want to find an avenue and report on it. And I go, wait you know what, my daily commute. I see LA different because  . . . I take the bus and subway everywhere. And the freeways are just sitting there, and people are in their cars just frustrated about it, but I’m just like sightseeing everyday. So I took that concept and said, “You know what, I’m basically going to report on what I see and interpret it.”

What kind of message were you trying to evoke when you were making “The Red Line” and then making the video?

For one thing, the lyrics explain the feeling I had. I remember one particular summer I would maybe catch a ride with a friend to go places, and I always noticed we were always stuck in traffic. And it was always to get from Hollywood to Downtown or in between. And I was like, “ Man, you have to ride the Red Line with me.” I validated my opinion by taking him on there and I remember seeing the 101 being a parking lot, and another freeway would be a parking lot. And I’m like “I’m able to get from downtown to Hollywood in 17 minutes, and it would take an hour for some people (or) 45 minutes.” My intent or my message was from real life experiences, and if I name check all the freeways, I’m going to identify the region within LA and people will get it.

So when we made the video, Rick Kosick, he’s the director, he scouted the locations, he had the vision, the video is all him. He really wanted to create visually what I’m saying vocally, verbally. The whole video took six months. I mean, keep in mind though he has a job, I have a job, and he went out and scouted locations and said here are the way we are going to do things. Rick wanted to create exactly what I’m saying but with full energy and movement.

Did you have any trouble shooting on the subway? What were the kind of reactions you got?

It’s funny you say that. We went in there, we were kind and courteous to everybody, and we didn’t have no problems. There was times on Saturdays at Union Station, where you know, the sheriffs were patrolling, and they talked to us: “So what are you guys doing?” And we told them the truth. He’s like, “Ok, well, do your thing.” Really I don’t know if that’s good or bad I’m saying that after letting us off. Cuz I don’t know.

As a resident of Boyle Heights, what kind of opportunities and challenges do you see for public transit users in Boyle Heights?

I would say from experience, and being hands on with public transportation, the opportunities first would be the (Metro bus) line 18 runs on the main artery in Boyle Heights, which is Whittier Boulevard. And to me that’s amazing because it’s 24 hours. And not only that, it runs so often and I believe like between the hours of (6 am – 12pm), they’re like every 10 minutes, 12 minutes. So you don’t need a schedule. You just get to a stop and they come.

As far as the challenges, the fact that after a certain time the 18 runs very infrequent. It runs once an hour. And that’s kind of rough. And I think the MTA should be a little more mindful because there are a lot of working class people out there that need to get form point A to point B. You need to serve them a little better because these people are using it to earn a living and keep themselves above water. Some of these people have to work over night, so make it every 30 minutes.

Take us through a walkthrough of a day in Boyle Heights for you. What do you see, smell, or hear?

On a regular weekday I get up and do a morning walk. And I grab my cup of coffee at the La Mascota Bakery which is like an institution for their tamales and pan dulce and stuff like that. And I’ll walk to Soto (Street) and, I gotta say that not only what I see but what I smell, is a key component, because there are so many tortilla factories and bakeries and it’s just like this, the aroma is just like an epic for your taste buds. I’ll walk back down Whittier Boulevard past east of Camulos (Street) toward Indiana and Lorena and I see a lot of exciting things. Independent businesses, I see different things coming in, skateboard shops which I think is very cool.

One change at Metro can impact everything else. Photo:wn.com

The first is a new shuttle between East L.A. College and the Metro Gold Line Indiana Station along Atlantic Boulevard and 1st Street which began January 11th. This new line is in response to concerns expressed by eastside residents that I wrote about previously. John McCready in comments on The Source asks “Of ALL changes that have ever been made to MTA bus lines, how many were ever made by ACTUAL RIDERS that GOT IMPLEMENTED?” (capitalization in the original). Well, Mr. McCready here is an example of rider input resulting in new service.

Meanwhile it was political influence that led line 201 to be re-extended to serve Glenoaks Park as of January 9th. The whole history can be viewed on the Kymbereligh Richards’ Transit Insider website.  The ridership to Glenoaks Park was and continues to be pitiful. Richards notes the 201 when it served the Park through 2006 had a ridership of “9 per day to/from the final Glenoaks Park stop.”

Glendale Beeline started a replacement service (Route 13) when Metro cut back the 201 in Dec. 2006. By the following August, Beeline had reduced this to two round trips in morning and afternoon peak hours and one round trip at the noon hour, weekdays only.  Ridership continued to be so poor they sought to discontinue the route.

Maybe the 9 Glenoaks Park riders threw a snit to their local electeds. Nothing else explains why political pressure was applied to have the 201 re-extension occur, even though by every measure the segment has virtually no ridership demand. Metro’s service change hold forced the Beeline to continue operating its route 13 after they had announced it was cancelled and replaced with the 201. But now that Metro has extended the route 201 Beeline have not only discontinued Route 13 but posted a link to the 201 schedule on their website as the explicit replacement.

All in all a sorry state of affairs.

Did no one speak up against this, you wonder? Well, actually Kymberleigh Richards did at the November meeting of the Westside/Central Service Council.

S*I*G*H

Borja Leon. Photo: Mayor's Office

Now, on the eve of announcement of a new federal transportation bill from leadership in the House of Representatives, the Mayor’s office is pursuing three different options to leverage the expected $40 billion in sales tax revenue over the 30 years between 2009 and 2039.  Besides the pursuit of federal dollars, there is also the possibility of asking L.A. County voters to tax themselves again and working with equity firms in China to finance the projects.

Last week, Streetsblog talked to Deputy Mayor for Transportation Borja Leon about the different options being pursued and where the city is in the process.

Plan A: America Fast Forward Née 30/10

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the next 30 days.

“Plan A” is still the 30/10 or America Fast Forward plan to change federal law to reward communities that choose to tax themsleves to expand transit.  If enacted, the Mayor’s proposal would create interest free loan programs that would allow projects to get started earlier and would re-prioritize federal grant programs.  When Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and Democratic leadership in the Senate announced proposals last year, both included major increases in the TIFIA loan program which is a major provision of America Fast Forward.

The Mayor’s Office appears confident that this increase will remain.  ”We have been working with the Federal Government and have a great partnership,” explains Leon.  ”A lot of things have been moving in the last week with America Fast Forward.”

We should find out if the confidence, and Mayor’s lobbying efforts, have paid off this week.

When considering the prospects for Measure R+, it's important to remember the role that highway expansion planed in selling the "transit tax" in 2008.

Plan B: Measure R+

Earlier this month Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a close ally of the Mayor when it comes to transportation expansion in Los Angeles, announced new legislation that would allow L.A. County voters to vote on extending the Measure R transit tax, creating opportunities to speed up the construction time of projects through bonding and perhaps add to or improve existing projects.  Supporters of transit expansion have dubbed the proposal “Measure R+.”  But it could also be dubbed, “Plan B.”

Getting “Measure R+” from legislative proposal to passage by L.A. County voters is a tall bill.  First, AB 1446 must be approved by a pair of committees in the State Assembly before moving to final passage on the Assembly floor.  Then the process has to repeat itself in the Senate.

On this front, Leon is confident that Feuer can shepherd the bill through the process. “Assemblymember Feuer has been a great partner; he helped the Mayor with Measure R at the State Legislature. If its the Extension or anything else to accelerate Measure R, the Mayor will fight hard to get it done,” Leon says.

From there, passage of a sales tax still has a long road to go.  The bill has to be signed into law by the Governor, the same Governor that hopes to have a statewide tax to balance the state budget on the ballot.  Some tax experts believe that the more tax initiatives on the ballot, the less the chance that they will pass.  It’s also possible that funding for High Speed Rail could be on the ballot.  Will Jerry Brown want to risk one his statewide projects to allow a local sales tax proposal?  With this governor, it’s hard to predict.

Even if the Governor signs the bill into law, then the Metro Board of Directors and L.A. County Board of Supervisors has to act to put a measure on the fall ballot.  Even then, it would take a two-thirds vote of L.A. County voters to pass the measure.

The stars were in alignment to pass Measure R in 2008.  Are they similarly aligned in 2012?

Many were surprised when L.A. Times transportation writer Ari Bloomekatz reported that Mayor Villaraigosa was talking to Chinese investors about financing a front-load of Measure R transit projects a mere ten days ago.  Leon writes that negotiations began in the fall of last year and are ongoing, but are still in the early phases.

“In Ocotober 2011, the MTA was approached by several parties concerning unsolicited offers of low-interest financing. Soon after, the CEO released a memo to the Board explaining the interest from Sovereign Wealth Funds. If there are parties that offer financing terms that are below current U.S. market rates, we should be willing to explore them. If the Chinese and/or any Sovereign Wealth Fund is willing to provide such terms we shouldn’t automatically discount it,” he explains.

There are several barriers to bringing this proposal to reality as well.  Working with investors in a foreign country is never easy, even if the investors have experience working in other countries.  Even if the county, Metro and the investors are all in agreement, there’s always the chance that such a deal could become politically problematic.

The other question is whether there will be other “add-ons” to a proposal with the Chinese that could make the loan less valuable than one from a more local equity firm.  Will L.A. have to buy passenger cars or other technologies from Chinese manufacturers?  Will L.A. County actually get a better deal by getting a higher interest loan from an American firm that has less strings attached?  All those details remain to be worked out.

Going Forward

Denny Zane, the executive director of Move L.A., the organization most known for pushing the original Measure R believes there is merit in all three proposals, but sees “Measure R+” as the key to getting the eight transit projects that aren’t under construction, under construction.

As the clock is ticking on Villaraigosa’s term, which ends in June of next year, there’s clearly a lot of work to do to see the Mayor’s transit vision become reality in a near-term timeline.  And as if these three ideas weren’t enough to pursue, Leon hints that there could be another surprise proposal come our way.

“We’re always looking for our next Plan B,” the Deputy Mayor concludes.

Fearless prediction: April. I'll bet Mitt Romney $10,000 Expo Phase I opens in April without Culver City Station. That will open in August. Note, these are just predictions!

Earlier this morning at the Metro Board Meeting, CEO Art Leahy announced that pre-revenue operation of the Expo Line Phase I will begin on Monday.  ”Pre-revenue operation” is usually the last phase of tests a new fixed rail transit line undergoes before the line opens to the public.  The agency will run trains on the line as though service has begun although there won’t be any passengers on the train other than the crew and any special guests.

The beginning of pre-revenue while construction of the station in Culver City is ongoing means that if no other problems pop up, Phase I will open sometime this Spring but end at the station located at La Cienega and Jefferson Blvd.  An opening for the completed line will come a couple of months after the station is completed in Culver City.

While this is good news for supporters of the Expo Line, the question most people still have is, “when will Phase I open?”  Pre-revenue operations usually run somewhere between six and eight weeks, so an opening in April isn’t out of the question.  According to The Source, the agency is playing it close to the vest and hasn’t announced an opening date yet.

Consent Agenda (most items approved in a block vote at start of meeting):

Advertisement: click on the image to visit the Regional Connector EIS/EIR website.

• Agenda Item 5 – Planning for stations that aren’t funding, it’s not just for Crenshaw anymore.  A motion by City Councilman Jose Huizar allocates $500,000 for a station design for the Regional Connector’s Broadway Station that has entrances on both Broadway and Spring St.  Funding for the larger station has not been allocated.
• Agenda Item 7 – Metro finally seems ready to move on the Expo Phase II Bike Path.  The agency is ready to accept over $11 million of federal and local dollars to take the lead on the project and is authorizing engineering work to begin.
• Agenda Item 14 – Apparently there’s no such thing as too much money to spend on a highway project that is reviled around the country as one of the biggest environmental catastrophes in the country.  Metro is authorizing $4 million to a public relations firm and allocating another $125,000 internally to manage the public affairs for the I-710 Big Dig Project.
• Agenda Item 17 – Bike Share!
• Agenda Item 55 – Metro wants to buy 100 clean fuel buses to upgrade its fleet in the 2013 fiscal year.

Non-Consent (there is guaranteed to be some debate):

• Amendment to Agenda Item 10 – Would require Metro to develop the technical travel demand modeling capability to estimate travel demand by bicycle and, if possible, in conjunction with other active transportation travel such as walking in areas around transit stops and areas where new development will occur on Metro property.  This could be an important motion because it would give Metro’s planners a boost in doing planning for transit users (and all residents) that aren’t reliant on their car.
• Agenda Item 40 – Is the Construction Careers Policy we discussed yesterday.
• Agenda Item 70 – Metro would take an official position in favor of Asm. Mike Feuer’s legislation to give the same expedited legal review under CEQA lawsuits to transit projects as stadium projects and other mega-projects.

Robert Zardaneta, executive director of La Causa Youth Build. discusses how Metro's Construction Careers program would change the lives of thousands of youth workers who don't currently have access to middle class jobs. Photo: Sahra Sulaiman

In September of last year, the Metro Board of Directors ordered staff to create a program to insure that Los Angeles’ most disadvantaged workers and disadvantaged communities benefit economically from the Measure R construction projects.  In response, Metro negotiated an agreement with the Building Trades Council that will apply to all Metro construction projects.

The agreement sounds simple.  Forty percent of all workers on the projects have to be from areas where the median household income is below $27,500 and another 10% from communities where the median household income is below $40,000.

The motion, championed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas was partially the result of community pressure brought by communities surrounding the future Crenshaw Light Rail project.

The motion will be heard at Thursday’s meeting of the Metro Board of Directors.

A coalition of community and labor organizations have thrown their support behind the proposed Construction Careers Policy including the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, Transportation for America (T4A), La Causa Youth Build, and Strategic Concepts in Organizing Policy & Education.  Last week at a press conference in front of Metro Headquarters organized by LAANE, a parade of workers testified how the program could change their lives by offering them an opportunity for a middle class job that might otherwise be impossible.

According to LAANE’s analysis of similar policies at other agencies such as the Port of Long Beach, the Expo Construction Authority (for Phase II) and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), this program could provide job access for 27,000 Los Angeles County residents of lesser means.

Supporters of Measure R and other transit project have made the argument that  job creation is one of the major reasons that L.A. County residents support the transit sales tax and transit expansion in general.  Supporters of the Construction Careers Policy that Metro is proposing point to this program as a needed step to make sure that the created jobs have the biggest impact in a county with a 13% unemployment rate.

“For our national economic recovery to take hold and lead to sustainable economic growth we have to look beyond simple unemployment numbers,” writes Ryan Wiggins,  Southern California Field Organizer for T4A. “We must create good jobs that provide career pathways for those hardest hit by the recession. As we work to establish similar programs on the federal level we will once again look to Los Angeles, and this program, for inspiration.”

(Kris Fortin and Sahra Sulaiman contributed research to this story.)

The scene at Beverly Hills High School. Photo: Joel Epstein

Local news outlets in Beverly Hills reported last week that with 80% of the trenching completed on the Beverly Hills Campus that thus far the trenching has found no active faults anywhere on the Beverly Hills campus. The remaining trenching will be completed on the northern part of campus along Heath Avenue.

Before a final report can be read and analyzed it’s too soon to say anything definitive about the current study, but that hasn’t stopped supporters and opponents of the Westside Subway alignment under the high school from weighing in.

For proponents of the route under the high school, they see victory in the preliminary findings. After all, if there are no faults under ground surrounding the high school, and there are faults along the alternate route on Santa Monica Boulevard, then there’s only one sensible place to put the subway…right under the high school.

But the Beverly Hills Unified School District has smartly abandoned the argument that the train should run under Santa Monica Boulevard, recognizing that Metro’s report on faults along the Boulevard have insured that Metro won’t be tunneling in that area. Rather than arguing for a route away from the High School, the plan is now to either kill the subway or get Metro to pay the school richly for the tunnel.

Because Metro’s geologic report found faults inside the Beverly Hills School property the School District is assuming that the value of the property would be appraised lower than what the BHUSD feels it should be and concluded the school would not be able to do any future expansion. Thus, the compensation Metro would owe the school for building the tunnel would be relatively small. However, if Metro was incorrect in assessing the faults, than the compensation to Beverly Hills would be quite a bit larger.

Metro’s initial reports actually claim that the tunnel for the subway won’t impact the school’s expansion plans, but the school district’s fears about the tunnel’s impacts on their ability to expand has been at the core of their opposition to a route under the high school.

The Beverly Hills Courier, the public relations arm of subway opponents the most read newspaper in Beverly Hills, explains:

The new trenching shows no evidence that the site is impaired for future building. However, if the tunnel is built new construction will be prohibited. The MTA would not only have to pay BHUSD for the impairment, but if the tunnel renders the school site unusable for the future that alone could prohibit MTA from building the tunnel.

When more detailed results are available, Streetsblog will be sure to cover it all. In the meantime, it’s become clear that the battle over the subway has reached a new level. It’s no longer about routing, but about the survival of the project.

Today begins the public comment period on the Regional Corridor Environmental Impact Statement.  You can read the final environmental documents, by clicking here.

Streetsblog will feature ads for the Regional Connector Final EIS/EIR throughout the next 30 days.

Wait a second, I thought the environmental documents were released last week?

They were. The documents were released last Friday, but the public comment period didn’t begin until today. They didn’t want to begin the comment period right before a three day weekend, so the extra week gave people interested in commenting a little more time.

Comments may be submitted via email to regionalconnector@metro.net. Alternately, comments can be sent by U.S. mail to: Dolores Roybal-Saltarelli, Project Manager, One Gateway Plaza, 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA, 90012. The public may also comment on Metro’s website by clicking on “Contact us.”  Comments are due by February 20.

What does this mean for the project timeline?

Once public comment on the document is completed, staff will have a chance to respond to comments before the Metro Board of Directors certifies the documents.  Assuming there is no legal challenge, Metro could be ready to start hiring design contractors by the spring of this year.  The Board is expected to vote on the documents at their February 23rd Board Meeting, but could easily delay the final decision.

What does the documents say about routing and stations?

The route is entirely underground and will have five stations, three of them are new.  The route begins in the Little Tokyo Arts District, runs down to second street and heads west.  It cuts south on Flower Street before ending at Metro Center.  There is still some talk of adding a station at 5th and Flower, but no funding has been identified for this station.

I Don’t Live Near the Downtown or Little Tokyo.  Why should I care?

As its name implies, the connector will connect all of Metro’s rail lines.  The connector is the difference between having a lot of rail lines and having a rail system.

Is there any opposition to the Regional Connector?

It’s a rail project in Los Angeles.  Of course there’s opposition!  In this case, the opposition comes from businesses in the Little Tokyo area that are worried that construction will cause too much noise and chaos for the businesses to remain open.  Metro created a committee to work with impacted businesses and provide some sort of compensation for business lost.

This is one long document, I need help finding what I want to read!

Email your questions to regionalconnector@metro.net

If you have another question, leave it in the comments section.  We’ll do our best to get you an answer, so check back throughout the day.

Coming soon to a street near you? B-Cycle (pictured), Bixi and Bike Nation present in front of Metro headquarters. Photo: Dave Sotero/Metro

Will Los Angeles County have an integrated bike share system in the next five years?  Metro is taking the first steps to become a coordinator for bike share efforts already underway so that L.A. County could have one integrated bike share program instead of many local bike share systems.

Earlier today, Metro’s Planning and Programming Committee approved a bike share strategy for the agency that would create a mechanism for municipalities and cities to work together and create a county-wide bike share plan.   Metro’s bike share strategy needs to be approved by the full board before it becomes policy.

Cities that have bike share programs funded and on the way, such as Santa Monica, and that are hopeful to bring bike share at some date in the future, such as South Pasadena, attended the hearing to voice support for the motion.

Before the hearing, B-Cycle, Bixi, and Bike Nation put on a demonstration of what bike share is and how it works.  Through a bike share program, people can rent bikes at a docking station and ride it to another station located somewhere else.  Systems can be publicly or privately owned and sometimes require renters to be members of the bike share program.

Bike sharing systems have been installed in many of the most progressive cities around the country.  Modeled after Velib in Paris, France Washington D.C. is widely credited for having the first bike share program in America.  New York City will launch a large bike share program of its own later this year including a GPS program that will be used to inform transportation planning decisions.

Locally, Long Beach, Los Angeles and Santa Monica all have plans and funds set aside for bike share programs.  Los Angeles’ is mainly planned for the Downtown sometime in the next two years.  Long Beach has two phases planned, 160 bikes and 16 statsions within the next two and a half years with another 500 bikes and 50 stations coming in the next five years.  Santa Monica plans for 250 bikes and 25 stations in 2016 or 2017.

Above chart from handouts from today's committee meeting.

Los Angeles has larger plans for bike share, but the funds for that plan were won by the Community Redevelopment Agency, the embattled agency that will fold either by the end of the month or April 15.

Los Angeles has been discussing bringing bike share to Downtown Los Angeles and Hollywood since then Transportation Committee Chair Wendy Greuel attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention where Bikes Belong had created a temporary demonstration project to show delegates and elected officials what a bike share program could look like.  In July 2011, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky penned a motion for Metro to consider creating its own bike share program that led directly to today’s demonstration and committee vote.

The day after video surfaced of an L.A. County Sheriff punching a woman in the face while his partner restrained her on a Metro Bus, the story had been told around the world.  Strong arm of the law: Video shows shocking moment cop punches woman, screamed the headline of the Daily Mail in England.  LA County Sheriff’s Deputy Elbows Woman in the Face [SHOCKING VIDEO] exclaimes the headline at the International Business Journal’s Website.

Closer to home, the Los Angeles Times managed a full seven paragraphs on the attack in its print edition, five of which were excuse making from the Sheriff’s Department (LASD), despite the story being featured on every local English and Spanish language news show in Los Angeles.  Even though the assault occured on a Metro Bus, The Souce hasn’t seen fit to even mention the incident.

To its credit, the paper of record has been following the story in its blog section LA_Now.  Despite it’s rather lame headlines, these four stories give enough background to get a clear picture of the story.

On Wednesday morning, the story broke that an L.A. County Sheriff has punched a woman in the face on a bus.  Included with the story was a video shot clearly showing the woman was partially restrained and offering minimal resistance when struck.  Apparently, the police recognized the woman as they knew that she had a record of assaulting LASD deputies.  LASD has not released her criminal record.

Making the matter worse, the deputies then allegedly tried to intimidate the citizen journalist, Iraq war veteran Jermaine Green, into giving up his phone.  The attempt clearly failed.  Despite their actions, both sheriffs remain on active duty.

Later that day, after enduring a barrage of terrible local, national and international press, LASD released the 911 call that prompted the deputies to board the bus and confront and later attack the woman.  The 911 caller called from a bus stop complaining that a special needs passenger was threatening other passengers…that she was literally “trying to pick a fight with everyone.”  The videographer of the confrontation claims the woman was acting pleastently towards other passengers on the bus itself until the Sheriffs boarded.

The second article also revealed that Sheriff Lee Baca stated that the attacking officer would be held accountable, but stopped short of saying he would be disciplined.  Because apparently there are other ways of holding people accountable besides disciplining them.

Yesterday morning, the Times printed its seven paragraph story that was more excuses and explanations than a description of what happened.

The Times updates the story online covering the events of the day before, and including this gem from Baca.

“If the individual deputy who swung an elbow at the lady is looking at that as a sensible solution, we need to retrain that individual,” he told KNX-AM (1070).

Later, KNBC tracks down the victim to get her side of the story.  The woman claims she never assaulted an officer, but doesn’t deny spending time in jail for something.  She also claims she was being harassed at the bus stop and that her verbal threats to another passenger were really self-defense.

So here’s where we are.  A woman was acting strange or aggressive enough at a bus stop for someone to call 911.  After the woman boards the bus and it goes a stop, the Sheriffs board.  The woman, who was behaving normally on the bus itself, curses the Sheriffs.  While the confrontation is going on, a man is filming the entire issue.  Knowing he was being filmed, a male officer strikes the woman while his partner partially restrains her.  He then tries to get the man to turn over his phone through verbal imtimidation.

That LASD Sheriff Baca believes this to be a training issue is alarming.  Rather than come down on an officer whose out-of-control behavior shocked viewers around the world, the LASD is engaging in spin control.  Meanwhile Metro, the agency who pays for the Sheriffs to police its buses and trains is deafening everyone with their silence.

Vermont Station, looking west today...

In October, the day after CicLAvia, I pedaled west from Downtown to the Westside on Exposition Blvd. to test the bike lane that run parallel to Phase I of the Expo Line.  I was surprised by the absolutely terrible state of the road and the impact it had on the quality of the ride.  Less than two months later, the city repaved a lot of the route.  Details of the repaving can be found on the Bureau of Street Services website.  For a chart of what segments of the route were repaved, see the chart at the bottom of this article.

While I’ve ridden on the route once since then, I didn’t have my camera with to do a story.  However, Greg Spotts with the Mayor’s Office was kind enough to provide a couple of pictures he took while visiting the site and we’ve included those with this article.

The route is a lot easier and smoother than it was before with some areas still having spotty road conditions.  The repaved areas are smooth, even in the parts of the road where the repainted bike lanes are partially in the gutter.  Spotts explains that blocks paved in concrete weren’t eligible for resurfacing when the road was repaved.  So while the conditions are improved, the project doesn’t feel completely completed just yet.

Catalina Street, looking west and looking nice. Photo: Gregg Spotts

I wasn't able to find the exact location again, but given the rough location of "West of La Brea" this area was not repaved. Prior to the November resurfacing by BSS, most of Expo Blvd looked like this, in that new asphalt on the south side of the street was joined with existing concrete or asphalt on the south side.

The bad news is while the route is much improved, the absolute worst parts of the route in my experience were/are the concrete areas of the roadway.  The picture to the right was taken just west of La Brea in October, which is part of the roadway that was not repaved.

The other knock on the resurfacing is that while the pavement conditions are improved, the “gutter bike lanes” issue also remains where the portion of the roadway used as a gutter seems to be included as part of the bike lane in areas where the street doesn’t have automobile parking.  (See picture above.)

The repaving was completed at the direction of the Mayor’s new Transportation Project Delivery Team, the same group being partially funded through Measure R dollars.  Last fall they toured the Expo Phase 1 alignment and came away with a similar view of the road that I did.  In September they talked to the Bureau of Street Services to evaluate the pavement condition of Jefferson Blvd from Hauser to La Cienega and Exposition Boulevard North Roadway from USC to La Brea.

“The Mayor believes that improvements in public transportation must be coupled with attractive and up-to-date road conditions for all modes of commuters,” writes Deputy Mayor for Transportation, Borja Leon.

So that’s the good news, that the dissapointing ride on Exposition Boulevard is much improved from my bumpy ride three months ago when I wrote my review.  If my first ride on the lanes was now instead of then, my review certainly wouldn’t have been as harsh as t was then, but as I said above.  The route is improved, but it doesn’t feel quite complete yet.

One day after Mayor Villaraigosa’s emotional interview that described the horrors of watching his mother get beaten, a YouTube video has surfaced showing an L.A. County Sheriff punching a woman in the face on board a Metro Bus.  The officer did this knowingly in view of a man recording the incident on his camera phone and then proceeded to attempt to intimidate the man into handing over the phone.

The woman is still in custody, undergoing a psychiatric screening after witnesses claimed she behaved aggressively and escalated the incident by shoving the police.  Witnesses also say that the woman had entered the bus a stop earlier and gave no signs of trouble before the Sheriffs entered the bus.

NBC L.A. has a full response by Sheriff Lee Baca.  At this point, Metro has yet to release a statement and The Source hasn’t mentioned the incident.  The officer’s conduct is under investigation.  Streetsblog will stay on top of this story moving forward.

At first glance, the motion creates more questions than it answers, so to that end Streetsblog talked to staff with Councilman Rosendahl’s office, the Mayor’s Office and Metro to get some answers.  Here’s a quick F.A.Q. on the motion.

Why does the Mayor’s Office need Measure R Dollars to better coordinate with Metro?

The City of Los Angeles is the largest partner that Metro has.  Metro staff has quietly complained that working with the city can be a tough process, especially when permitting is involved.  LADWP is somewhat notorious for this, although nobody was willing to go on the record.  Having a central contact person in the Mayor’s office to manage schedules and follow-up with various departments

Where is the money coming from within Measure R?

The money will come from the 1.5% of Measure R that is set aside for “Administrative costs.”  The funding will not come from Measure R’s local return and will not impact the funding of any project.

Why does the City have to pass a motion to accept money from Metro?

Because the city’s budget has already been passed, the city needs to accept the funds as an increase to the general fund and then allocate to the Mayor’s Office.  This motion does that.

Will new staff be hired?

No, this will fund a couple of existing positions.  Attendees at our December fundraiser might remember Gregg Spotts, is one of those hired by these funds.

Streetsblog will have an update on this motion and the rest of the City Council Transportation Committee on Thursday morning.

If video of a flash mob on Metro Rail became a hit on transportation blogs, the above punk rock video by It’s Casual is sure to become a viral hit. (Even as I’m proofreading this, I see Alissa “Gelato Baby” Walker has beaten me to the punch posting this video.)

The song and video itself is a mashup of anger directed at Los Angeles’ freeways and the benefits of finding other ways to travel around. The singer screams his rage while shots of congested traffic and a physically divided city assault the senses before shouting in pleasure “THE RED LINE” over and over again while rocking out in a subway car.

The best part of the video is that lead singer Eddie Solis is legitinamtely car free, or “unlicensed” as the band’s myspace page says. In addition to a “hard plastic seat,” Solis also travels around on his trusty skateboard. There’s some pretty awesome imagery of the singer pushing his board with guitar strapped on his back in the video too.

If you’re at work, and don’t have headphones, you might want to wait until you get home to check this out. If you’re not, I bet you end up spending the rest of the day with, “THE FREEWAYS…ARE NOT SO NICE! THE RED LINE!” pounding through your head.

“A new draft definition of a major service change for all service (Bus and Rail) has been drafted. The new major service change policy defines when a Title VI and EJ analysis must be done. The definition, together with a definition of fare changes requiring an equity analysis will be taken for public comment and feedback during December 2011 and January 2012.” (see p.6 and attachment #4)

This occurs as the Federal Transit Administration is in the midst of promulgating a proposed revision of the Circular outlining Title VI requirements and a new Circular of Environmental Justice guidance. The presentation notes the policy revisions reflect the updated guidance proposals which it dubs “more clear and unambiguous”.

Metro promises public outreach on the policy proposals including meetings and social media activities. As the Service Council presentation was delayed a month I expect the outreach will start in February. Just another part of Metro’s response to the Title VI compliance review.

Here we go again.

The publicity wing of the Beverly Hills Unified School District, known as the Beverly Hills Courier (pgs. 1 and 24), is using the new tests being completed by the School District in an attempt to discredit the seismic tests completed last year by Metro.  Apparently, Beverly Hills’ paper of record isn’t done it’s groundbreaking reporting on the issue of “Beverly Hills vs. Metro” as this story follows their expose on Metro sending secret mailings throughout Beverly Hills that you could also download off Metro’s website.

To read the Courier's full coverage, or any of the excitement from last week's issue, just click on the image.

For those of you just joining this debate, studies unveiled October by a team of Metro paid for geologists and seismologists revealed that faults that run running underneath Santa Monica Boulevard made planning the Westside Subway along the route too dangerous to try.  After implying that Metro’s team was lieing, the Beverly Hills Unified School District announced that it was hiring its own team to determine whether it is safe to tunnel under their high school.

Fair enough, although I’m not sure what the end goal is here for the School District.  Do they really want to prove that it’s dangerous to do more development on school property?  Wouldn’t such a finding also endanger the same expansion plans that might be endangered by the subway?

Once the Beverly Hills Courier realized the School District was doing different studies than Metro, and doing more extensive studies at that, they wrote an editorialfront page article declaring that Metro’s studies were deficient.  Most damming of all, a statement by Metro showed that the agency even conceded their study was lacking.  Thus the headline at the Courier, “Metro Admits Santa Monica Blvd. Seismic Work Not Adequate.”

It’s little wonder that the article was authored by “Courier Staff.”  I wouldn’t want my name attached to that reporting either.

First, Metro admitted no such thing.  In fact, the statement that they provided the Courier, helpfully posted at The Source, barely mentions Santa Monica Boulevard and says the opposite of what the Courier says it says:

Metro’s initial fault investigations focused on the Santa Monica Fault on Santa Monica Boulevard and were appropriate for subway planning at this stage. Urbanization, including the presence of subsurface utilities, traffic and permitting precludes trenching in that location.

In other words, Metro can’t trench on land it doesn’t own without a permit which would be inappropriate at this stage of testing.   As for the big reveal that the BHUSD tests will be more accurate than the one’s completed by Metro’s team, Metro doesn’t argue this point, even conceding that “Trench information is useful because a continuous “face” can be mapped to more accurately locate the fault(s).”  So why didn’t Metro trench for its studies?  The BHUSD wouldn’t allow them to, giving Metro staff only one weekend to complete their work compared to the weeks of work access given to their team for trenching.  While Metro staff was allowed weekend access to the campus for studies, weekday access was more guarded presumably to allow students a better atmosphere for their studies.

Some other notes from the Courier article:

• The Beverly Hills Unified School District is not allowing Metro or independent consultants to be on-site during their trenching study.  No reason is given, but the Courier makes it sound as thought the BHUSD’s decision is based partly on their own frustration getting information from Metro.
• After Metro was refused access to the facility or to data, the Beverly Hills City Council asked for the same data.  This somehow proves collusion between the two against the School District.
• The trenches being dug on high school property will be over 100 feet long and 20 feet deep.  Some of the trenching will be done while school is in session.  One of the reasons for BHUSD’s opposition to the subway is that construction 75 feet underground might be disruptive to exchange students from Krypton.
• BHUSD Lead Consultant Tim Buresh sounds reasonable, articulate and competent.  A google search of his name finds him to be well qualified to do this sort of research.
• “Courier Staff” have reading issues.  Their article states, “The MTA refused to respond to The Courier’s request to explain why the more accurate trenching process was not used in the first place except to blame it on “urbanization.”
  Metro’s statement reads, “Metro’s initial fault investigations focused on the Santa Monica Fault on Santa Monica Boulevard and were appropriate for subway planning at this stage. Urbanization, including the presence of subsurface utilities, traffic and permitting precludes trenching in that location.
  For the tests conducted at Beverly Hills High School, BHSUD gave Metro limited access to the school property — initially one weekend only which was then extended to other weekends due to rain. Scientific analysis of trenches excavated to the proper depths (at least 15 feet) and spanning the entire width of the fault zone would take a minimum of 14 days and probably more.”
  I count three different reasons that Metro didn’t do a trenching study: the presence of subsurface utilities, the permitting involved in closing Santa Monica Boulevard for two weeks, and limited access to BHUSD property.

While both Metro Staff and staff for Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas have hailed the FTA’s decision as a “milestone,” one would expect the Crenshaw Subway Coalition (CSC) which is suing the project under environmental justice concerns to have an opposite reaction.

Instead, CSC President Damien Goodmon sees an opportunity for Metro and CSC to work together even as the community group’s lawsuit against the line moves forward.

While the FTA’s decision wasn’t popular with proponents of a grade-separated rail line, instead of railing against the decision, a decision that could be overturned by a federal judge, opens an opportunity for Metro to begin studying the proposed “subway option” for Crenshaw where the twelve blocks.

Now that Metro has its Record of Decision, it can continue on its current track while beginning a second track to integrate the tunnel Goodmon argues.  Assuming the tunnel is cleared, it would allow contractors to include the tunnel in construction bids, an option they currently have for “optional stations” in Westchester and Leimert Park.

“At the end of the day, it cost Expo Construction Authority more to fight us than it would have to put an overpass or underpass at Farmdale,” said Goodmon referencing his past battles over the Expo Line.  ”Metro shouldn’t repeat that mistake.”

When the Metro Board approved stations for Leimert Park and Westchester without funding, it also cleared those projects to undergo an environmental review.  Goodmon is basically arguing that Metro repeat those decisions for the “Park Mesa Tunnel” which would complete the grade separation of the Crenshaw Line along the Crenshaw Corridor.  While the Metro Board, and now FTA, have approved these stations, the budget for the line has not increased from $1.7 billion.

Goodmon argues that the first step for agency would be passing “The People’s Motion” unveiled at a November community meeting that called for study of the Park Mesa Tunnel.  At this point, no Board Member has shown interest in formally introducing the motion, but the CSC moves forward undeterred.

“Studying the tunnel puts us in a situation to succeed.  Not studying it puts us in front of a judge,” Goodmon concludes.

Bringing the band back together? Measure R never would have happened without Mike Feuer, standing to the left of Supervisor Yaroslavsky at this Measure R victory party. PhotoMetro Library/Flickr

Yesterday was the first day that state legislators could introduce new legislation and Assemblyman Mike Feuer wasted no time introducing a pair of bills designed to speed up Los Angeles’ rail expansion plans.  In 2008, Feuer introduced and tirelessly lobbied for legislation that allowed the Measure R transit tax to be placed on the ballot.

Feuer’s first transit speed-up bill, A.B. 1446, would allow L.A. County voters to vote on an extension to the Measure R transit tax which is slated to expire in 27 years.  This extension would enable Metro to bond against future Measure R proceeds and build those transit projects much sooner than originally contemplated, without relying on federal or state funding.

“If you like Measure R, you’re going to love Measure R plus,” says Move L.A. president Denny Zane in a phone interview.   Move L.A. led a coalition of transit backers, unions and other groups to support the Measure R transit sales tax in 2008 and rail planning acceleration for the last three and  half years.

In 2008, rail expansion advocates believed they had the perfect storm at the voting booth to earn the two-thirds support needed to pass a tax increase.  The same two-thirds super majority would be needed to extend the tax this year, but it remains to be seen if the same perfect storm exists.  In addition to the uncertainty concerning whether or note President Obama will turn out the same number of younger and transit-savvy voters that Senator Obama did is one factor.  The increasing unpopularity of High Speed Rail, which could also be on the ballot in some form, could also work against what one transit advocate termed “another train proposal.”

But Zane remains optimistic.  ”Tax extensions generally fare better at the ballot box than tax increases,” he notes.  ”In the past couple of years similar extensions have passed in Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernadino County and those areas aren’t as transit friendly as Los Angeles County.”

There’s a lot that has to happen before the tax can reach the ballot.  First, Feuer’s legislation has to be approved by both the Assembly and Senate in Sacramento and receive the backing of the unpredictable Governor Jerry Brown.  Then an extension proposal has to be approved by the Metro Board of Directors.  Only then will voters get a chance to weigh in themselves on whether they want to pay a half cent sales tax for transit for the next 27 years or sometime longer.

And all of this says nothing of 30/10 or America Fast Forward, the Mayor’s plan to change federal funding formulas to benefit areas that can fund portions of their own transit expansion.  The proposal has been popular with politicians, but Washington seems unable to move forward on any real transportation funding proposal.

In the meantime, Feuer and transit backers have proposed a heck of a “Plan B.”  Last Summer, Villaraigosa laughed off a question about whether or not there was a backup plan if 30/10 and he laughed, “there’s always a Plan B, but I’m not going to tell you what it is now.”  Well, now we know.

Feuer’s second piece of legislation, A.B. 1441 would take the benefit from Governor Brown’s legislation that allows for expedited legal challenges to environmental reviews for large projects and applies them to transit projects as well.

Under CEQA, environmental impacts of development projects must be identified and mitigated.  The Act also guarantees the public an opportunity to review and comment on the environmental impacts of a project and to participate meaningfully in the development of mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental impacts. AB 1441 would maintain these protections while reducing the timeline for judicial review, thus allowing more environmentally friendly projects to be built more quickly.

“This bill would create thousands of desperately-needed jobs, and give commuters and residents environmentally sound transit options as alternatives to sitting in stopped traffic,” said Feuer. “We’ve got to reduce the congestion that chokes our metropolitan areas,” said Feuer.

A.B.1441 is probably a surprise to Senator Alex Padilla who claimed that the legislation he introduced on Brown’s behalf that allowed for expediated legal challenges for large projects such as stadiums also applied to transit projects.  Streetsblog readers argued that Padilla didn’t understand his own legislation.  Apparently, those readers were right.