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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The community preferred Alternative D via The Eastsider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the past two days at the Congress for the New Urbanism Project for Transportation Reform conference, attendees have called for transportation reform at local, regional, and national levels. In a panel debate about the future of transportation funding and the role of regional planning through MPOs, several speakers argued that the foundation of transportation and development funding had to be systematically overhauled.

Photo: gwenturnerjuarez

Reforming the Transportation Bible

Another topic that has long been on CNU's radar for reform is AASHTO's "Green Book," the bible for traffic engineers. As we reported, CNU Chief John Norquist has been working with the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) to add urban street concerns to the comprehensive roadway guidelines. Rick Hall, of Hall Planning and Engineering, in a plenary session yesterday elaborated on changes that would benefit pedestrians.

"There's not a single mention of pedestrians in the entire first chapter of the AASHTO's green book," said Hall. "It's all about cars." He argued that AASHTO's street classifications (arterials, collectors, locals) do not account for walkability inputs that make urban streets comfortable and livable. 

In Hall's opinion, MPOs and traffic engineers should start by indentifying cities that work for pedestrians, then use computer modeling and simulations to simulate urban forms in those cities, not just the travel and movement of motor vehicles.  For Hall, the most important walkability design parameters are, in order of importance:

• Small block size
• Buildings fronting the street
• Mixed-land uses
• Lower traffic speeds
• On-street parking (pedestrian buffer)
• Interconnected streets
• Narrow streets
• Quality Sidewalks
• Lower traffic volumes
• Street Trees
  

Hall called for a change to AASHTO's guidelines, including the creation of a new classification he called "compact urban," where speed limits would be lower and a number of pedestrian factors would be considered in conjunction to road characteristics.  In compact urban areas, he said, road design should not allow for speeds greater than 25 mph, versus AASHTO's current urban low-speed of 45 mph. MPOs could determine that they want to alter development patterns to add compact urban areas to suburbs and re-design streets accordingly.

CNU President Norquist told the audience he anticipated positive additions to the Green Book by 2010.

Throughout the day Friday, CNU participants have broken out into working groups to discuss the various proposals put forth in the conference and bring them together into the working document, Sustainable Transportation Network Principles [PDF], which the organization will take to policy makers in Washington D.C.

Anyone that reads Streetsblog knows that one issue that makes this blog different than your run of the mill news source is that we have opinions on how a transportation system should and shouldn't be built.  Some people charge that this bias taints our writing.  Other times, it's clear that bias helps us ask questions that traditional journalists don't ask.  That is especially true when it comes to the dubious value of highway widenings.

For some reason journalists, even ones we enjoy reading because they challenge government officials more often than not, tend to believe government officials when it comes to the alleged "benefits" of widening a highway to relieve congestion.  One might think that in a region that has tried to widen itself out of congestion and failed miserably; that at some point the press would start asking, "Hey, does any of this make sense?"

If the coverage of the nearly $48 million widening of Route-91 from Route-241 to Route-71 in Orange and Riverside Counties is any indication, we haven't reached that point yet.

Today's Times features an article by the usually tough Ari Bloomekatz that reads more like a Caltrans press release than a story in the local paper of record.  The article begins by celebrating that some people's commutes are about to get easier and ends with some ideas for the next great place to widen.  Nowhere in the article is there any mention of "induced demand," "sprawl," or even an analysis of how much traffic and congestion will be created during the construction phase.

Here in the "biased" Livable Streets Blogosphere, we would take the time to point out that for some reason widening Southern California's freeways hasn't led to reduced commuting time and a sustainable transportation system.  We might also note that the theory of "induced demand," which is embraced by urban and state DOT's across the country, posits that new travel lanes will be filled by new traffic within a couple of years of being built.  In other words, the "improved commutes" for those traveling the I-91 won't be long-lived.  In fact, considering the congestion that will be created by a year of construction, OCTA planners can't even prove that there will be a "net gain" in congestion reduction.

Just in case you thought I was just picking on Bloomekatz, the Orange County Register had a similarly themed story last week.

Opponents of expanding the I-710 near Pasadena to connect the road to the I-210 received a double dose of bad news in recent weeks from both the courts and our environmental governor.  First, Governor Scwarzenegger, between lecturing his wife about safe driving, found time to veto Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation that would have required any highway expansion in this area to take the form of a tunnel.  Second, a state court ruled against the lawsuits brought by South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge against the inclusion of funding for the I-710 expansion in Measure R.

First, let's check in with our Greenhouse Gas fighting Governor.  Senator Gil Cedillo's legislation, SB 545, would have required that any expansion of the 710 for the purpose of connecting to the I-210 would have to be below ground.  In addition to saving homes, there was a strong political reason for the legislation; it would have ended a fifty year old dispute between South Pasadena and Alhambra.  Alhambra has been one of the leading communities fighting for the expansion, hoping that the increased freeway would reduce traffic on its surface streets.  South Pasadena is one of the cities strongly opposing the project.

Despite the overwhelming local support for the legislation, the Governor vetoed the legislation saying:

This bill is unnecessary. The project development process currently being undertaken by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is the appropriate vehicle to determine the scope and feasibility of a project to address the transportation needs in the I-710 corridor. This process provides ample opportunity for public involvement and input. There is absolutely no need to enact statutory restrictions that would mandate certain project design options or remove others from potential consideration.

While I'm sure Metro appreciates the vote of confidence, it should be noted that the transit agency supported SB 545 and sent representatives to Cedillo's press event celebrating the bill's passage.  Opponents and proponents of the project both viewed Schwarzenegger's veto as a bad thing.  Supporters wanted to quell the opposition of South Pasadena and opponents wanted one less thing to worry about.

One last note, neither Schwarzenegger or Cedillo cited the environmental benefits of the massive expansion in their statements.  Perhaps the 2004 report by Environmental Defense that labeled the expansion "one of the dumbest highway projects in the country" is getting through.

Meanwhile, a judge in Santa Barbara dismissed a lawsuit from the cities of South Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge that the inclusion of the 710 expansion in Measure R was illegal because the project did not have a selected route or needed environmental clearances.  The judge ruled that the $780 million set aside for the project did not require Metro to build the project, especially if it never receives the needed clearances.  If the project doesn't move forward, the $780 million would most likely move to another highway project so it didn't change the allocation by mode that was part of the compromise that created Measure R.

The rejection of the lawsuit caught officials with the plaintiff cities off guard.  Representatives from South Pasadena testified at last week's Metro Board meeting, a day before the lawsuit was rejected, that they expected the 710 project to be removed from Measure R's expenditure plan.

Photo of the I-405 as it pases the John Wayne Airport: Treotography/Flickr

The four alternatives are basically a one-lane widening in each direction, a two lane widening in each direction, a two-lane widening that would be one HOT Lane and one general purpose lane, and just widening parts of the 405 in Orange County as funding allows.  No mention of trains, buses, bus-only lanes, or anything of the sort appear anywhere inside the Register's article or on the OCTA's project page.

To make matters even worse, the OCTA has already stated its preference for the two traditional widening alternatives. It should be noted that the I-405 in Orange County is already five travel lanes in each direction, so it is more than feasible that the final design for this project could be creating a mammoth 14-lane highway designed to connect Orange and San Diego counties. 

I can't think of a better sprawl acceleration project than that.  For a quick reminder of what a fourteen lane highway looks like, visit this article on the proposed I-710 widening in Long Beach.  Is that really what we want our roads to look like?

In case you're wondering, there is no place on the survey to ask how the project conforms with state mandates limiting sprawl or to improve air quality.  For a complete list of public outreach opportunities on this project, please visit the I-405 Improvement page at OCTA.net.

"That ain't Change, it's more of the same!" was an applause line used frequently during last fall's presidential campaign by Senator Joe Biden to critique many of the proposed policies of Senator McCain and Governor Palin.  Watching how stimulus funds are spent in California, transportation reformers and Livable Streets advocates could use the same battle cry when critiquing how federal transportation dollars are being spent under President Obama's watch.

The most recent example is the I-91 widening in Orange County.  The OC Register explains the project before it mindlessly recites Caltrans talking points about the benefits of highway expansion:

The 91 eastbound will be widened by one lane from the 241 toll road to the 71 in Riverside County, reducing congestion and improving travel time by 15 minutes, California Department of Transportation officials say.

A poll we discussed last week by the Public Policy Institute of California, illustrates that most Orange County residents prefer their transportation agencies to focus on improving transit over widening highways.  In the Orange and San Diego County region, spending on transit projects out-polled spending on highway projects by a 75% to 22% margin.  This is an especially relevant point since the Orange County Transit Agency is picking up the "rest of the bill," i.e. the millions of dollars for the project that aren't coming from Washington, D.C.

It's hardly a surprise to see a newspaper not bother to critique massive highway spending plans.  When given the chance to press Governor Schwarzenegger and Mayor Villaraigosa about highway widenings in our own backyard, the Times brushed off the chance so they could reprint our elected leaders talking points.  Maybe if we print the question that should have been asked of Caltrans and OCTA officials enough, reporters will start to add it to their notebooks.  Here's the question I'm dieing to hear an answer for:

Since other major road widening projects in Southern California are causing congestion during their construction, and because transportation agencies are reporting that additional highway capacity actually brings more cars to the road, are commuters going to see any net reduction in commuting time?  Or will the delays caused during construction actually outweigh the short amount of time that there will be congestion relief?

When we start seeing "mainstream" reporters asking questions like that one, we'll be well on our way to holding politicians accountable for wasteful highway spending.

A traffic analysis published by the City of Glendale projects that the "completion" of the I-710  by building a tunnel under South Pasadena would cause an increase of 30,000 vehicles daily on the I-210 north of SR-134.  The report was included as part of a packet to Glendale City Council Members with a resolution affirming the town's traditional opposition to the project.  In one of the non-surprises of the year, the Council, which includes Metro Board Chair Ara Najarian, voted to oppose the project.

So, how does the state propose to deal with all of these new vehicles, less than 10% of which would be trucks?  The report quotes the Draft Traffic Study for the plan that stating:

"Consider additional capacity on 1-210 between SR-134 and SR-2, if the Missing Link is constructed, to preserve the operation conditions on this freeway segment. Construction of the fifth lane in each direction may he considered."

If widening of the I-210 is going to be needed after the completion of the tunnel, Caltrans shouldn't study the environmental impacts of the two road projects separately but together.  If the 710 Tunnel is going to necessitate the I-210 widening we shouldn't treat them as separate studies.  If the studies are done separately, we're going to hear from Caltrans officials about all of the increased traffic "requiring" a widening of the I-210 and this second project would end up being a foregone conclusion.  Thus, the sprawling wheel of highway capacity enhancements would continue to turn.

Glendale joins the towns of La Cañada Flintridge in opposing the project.

The Senate's transportation bill, shepherded by senior appropriator Patty Murray (D-WA), provides $1.2 billion for the Obama administration's high-speed rail initiative -- $200 million more than the White House's budget request, but significantly less than the $4 billion that the House set aside for that purpose.

Highways, by contrast, got $41.1 billion from the House but $1.4 billion extra from the Senate, for a total of $43.5 billion in spending. Transit would get $480 million more than the White House requested, along with a $150 million infusion for the cash-strapped D.C. Metro system.

Senators matched their House counterparts on funding for the administration's inter-agency "livable communities" project, which is aimed at encouraging transit-oriented development. And the Senate outdid the House on rail safety, providing the $50 million in grants for technology upgrades that was sought by two senior Democrats after the D.C. Metro crashed  last month.

While environmentalists and smart growth advocates focus on the I-710 Tunnel Project, the one that would "complete" by closing the 4.5 mile gap between the current end of the freeway and the 210 Freeway; another massive expansion project for the I-170 is more quietly moving though environmental review.

A task force of agencies including California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Caltrans, Gateway Cities Council of Governments, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority and the City of Long Beach is sponsoring a project that seeks to expand the 710 from the Port to the I-60 Freeway. The City has been a part of an inter-agency task force with Caltrans that is seeking ways to alleviate congestion and improve air quality. Thanks to a report posted on Metro's website outlining the alternatives, we can see that unless they decide to go with the "no build" option, the 710 is going to be widened from eight lanes to at least 10, but probably 14 lanes. The four alternatives that will be evaluated in the environmental studies are:

• Alternative 1 - No Build
• Alternative 5a - Widen to 10 General Purpose Lanes
• Alternative 6a - Widen to 10 General Purpose Lanes Plus 4 Freight Movement Lanes (Conventional Trucks)
• Alternative 6b - Widen to 10 General Purpose Lanes Plus 4 Freight Movement Lanes (Zero Emission Trucks)

The task force states that their preference is Alternative 6a, which in the backwards world of California transportation planning is naturally the one that would increase traffic and air pollution the most and be the worst for the environment. The argument supporting such a massive widening is that congested highways cause more pollution than ones with traffic moving freely. While it's hard to argue against that point, this theory ignores the reality that wider highways attract more traffic and that new highway capacity on congested roads are filled to capacity within years of completion.

By increasing traffic lanes from 8 to 14, those supporting this plan are all-but assuring that those living near the 710 and connecting highways are going to be choking on fumes. Imagine the highway pictured above choked with traffic with four of those lanes packed with trucks. Then compare that image to the current I-710 pictured here.

It's hard to see how building such a highway meets the objectives of the City of Long Beach, who outlined their goals for improving the freeway in this 2004 document that lists as one of it's major goals finding an alternative to highway expansion.

Before the environmental studies can begin, the alternatives need to be approved by the I-710 Executive Committee which is tentatively scheduled to meet on July 23. More details on this meeting will be posted here as they become available.

Last week, community forums were held in Glendale and La Cañada Flintridge on the proposed project that would construct a tunnel connecting the I-710 and I-210 freeways in Pasadena.  The Glendale News Press reported, in two separate stories, that opposition to the project is as strong as ever and that Caltrans isn't happy that the opposition is speaking up now.

Joining residents in voicing his displeasure was Glendale Councilman Ara Najarian, who claims that the project would cause "tremendous damage" to his constituent's quality of life.  Najarian also sits on the Metro Board and is scheduled to Chair the Metro Board for the 2010 Fiscal year, beginning in 29 days.  Nearly 250 people attended the two hearings, and most of those in who spoke raised questions about the project's impacts on their lives or opposed it altogether.

The main concern voiced was that completing a connection between the two highways will not only increase traffic on the roads, but also push some of that traffic onto local streets.  In other words, while it may temporarily provide some relief on the highway, it would do so by permanently congesting their local streets.

Caltrans wasn't impressed.  The next day a second article appeared in the News Press with District Director Doug Failing urging those in opposition to what Environmental Defense has called one of the worst highway projects in America, to hold their opposition until Caltrans can complete it's study that will tell it whether or not to proceed with an environmental study.  Basically, Caltrans wants those in opposition should trust Caltrans to do what's best for everyone.

Failings call for opponents to cease fire would carry a little more weight if he were calling it for both sides.  Oddly, while Najarian is urged to hold his fire while Caltrans does its studies, the same calls weren't made when speeding traffic advocate Asm. Mike Eng taunted Smart Growth advocates that the 710 would be extended "whether they liked it or not."  When government agencies are asking opponents to calm down and not doing the same for proponents, it creates the image that the decision has already been made.

Of course, once the decision's announced, then I'm sure opponents can voice whatever opinions they like.

Trumpeting the dubious claim that the answer to regional car congestion is funding highway expansion, Orange County politicians and press are celebrating the federal government's decision to allocate $68 million in stimulus funds for the expansion of the I-91 between Riverside County and the 241 Toll Road.  As we've seen in the past, the governments claims that road widenings are good public policy go completely unchallenged in the press even as the state tries to devise no ways to battle sprawl development.

This short story from Inland Today follows the typical template for a piece on road widening, a couple of facts about the issue are surrounded by claims that the widening will make everyone's life better.  In this case, the facts are some information about how stimulus funding is allocated sandwiched between two paragraphs about how great the 91 widening is for everyone.

The great irony is, that even as the OC Register declares in its headline, "Feds approve $68 million to help drivers unclog the 91;" the Sacramento Bee reports that drivers really are helping to unclog California freeways.  Of course, we're doing it by driving less, not by...ok, I'm not really sure how "drivers" are helping unclog the 91 in the Register's world.

Last Friday, local media outlets participated in a rally for the Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, that would widen the I-405 to connect carpool lanes between the I-10 and I-101, with Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Villaraigosa and various other union and public officials.  Using an uncritical media to amplify their claims, our elected leadership promoted the largest road widening project to use stimulus funds as a Godsend to not just I-405 commuters, but also the environment, the economy and even alternative transportation.

Doing little more than copying press releases and recording public statements, the LA Times, Daily News, CBS and LA Now promoted the project and either didn't ask or didn't receive answers for the questions that would have challenged the local conventional wisdom that America Needs More Highways, even though we can't maintain the ones we already have.

Instead of uncritically passing along the press release ready estimate that the project will save 7 million travel hours, the press should have asked questions such as:

Since other major road widening projects in the area are causing congestion during their construction, and because transportation agencies are reporting that additional highway capacity actually brings more cars to the road, are commuters going to see any net reduction in commuting time?

Governor, since you're standing here promoting this project, should we assume that you're going to guarantee that the state is going to supply $614 million passed by voters in bonds for the project so that it doesn't lose the $200 million in federal dollars currently allocated?

Mayor, do you see any contradiction between your professed desire to get people out of single occupancy vehicles and your promotion of the largest freeway widening to receive stimulus funds?  After all, this project is going to make it easier for single-occupancy vehicles to commute by removing other cars from the regular traffic lanes.

Any other questions I'm missing?  Feel free to leave them in the comments section.

Via LA Observed

Journalist and New America Foundation Senior Fellow Joe Matthews has a unique idea for how President Obama can rebuild the country's infrastructure and stimulate the economy: build the I-710 Freeway Extension:

The 710 is the main transportation artery out of America's largest port, the Port of Long Beach. It'd be a big boost for commerce if the freeway didn't abruptly end before its destination. Truckers are instead forced onto other freeways, clogging traffic - and slowing the business and personal lives of others. And with the country requiring an economic boost, there's no better time than right now to get construction started. This isn't a bridge to nowhere-it's a vital transportation link in the middle of a metropolitan area. And you want to talk shovel-ready? The 710 has been waiting for shovels to finish it for 50 years.

If you're wondering how a representative of a group that claims to "invest in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States," can push a massive road expansion project when progressive thinkers understand that highway expansion has failed as a long-term answer to congestion, you're not alone.  And let's also be clear, if Matthews is serious about this project being a part of the president's stimulus plan, then he's talking about the widening plan that would devestate downtown South Pasadena to say nothing of the environmental damage and welcome mat for truckers.

To make this whole opinion piece even more bizarre, the New America Foundation is pushing rail as an alternative to highway expansion in the country's freight plans. 

Matthews calls for Change We Can Believe In, when it comes to this highway project.  To paraphrase Joe Biden; pushing a project dubbed by environmentalists as "One of the Worst Highway Projects in the Country" against the will of the locals ain't change.

It's more of the same.

Photo: Big Mike Lakers/Flickr

First is the Subway to the Sea, which many people felt was the jewel of the promised Measure R projects.  The timeline for the project looks like this:

Subway to La Cienega -- 2019

Subway to Century City -- 2026

Subway to Westwood -- 2032

The timeline was panned by everyone: first by LAist which noted that less than a year ago Metro officials opined that the line could be open in five years,  later by Curbed who noted that the Expo Line would be 22 years old by the time it was completed, and lastly by Mayor Villaraigosa who called the timeline "too long."  How long is too long?  Metblogs notes that by the time it is competed, "you could be dead."

Expo Line light rail phase II, Culver City to Santa Monica -- 2015

Gold Line light rail extension -- 2017

Westside to San Fernando Valley transit project along the 405 Freeway -- 2038

The Bus Bench notes that the "usual suspects got bent over."  Using numbers crunched at Metro Rider, Browne Molyneaux shows that voting for more transit doesn't equal getting more transit.  The Gold Line Foothill's Extension will be completed by 2015 or 2017 but the Gold Line Eastside Extension won't be done until 2035.  The communities benefitting from the Foothill extension voted for the project with about 55% of the vote.  Eastside communities voted for Measure R with about 75%.

Wilshire Boulevard bus lane in city of Los Angeles -- 2015

Crenshaw Boulevard light rail or bus rapid transit -- 2029

Damien Goodmon, who wrote to me and others about the project list on Monday night,  was particularly incensed that South L.A. residents, who voted overwhelmingly for Measure R, were actually seeing a major delay in the completion of the Crenshaw line.  In the first draft of the Long Range Transportation Plan unveiled last year, the completion date for the Crenshaw project was listed as 2025.

In his email, he wrote, "And I will remind all parties, that the Crenshaw project was in the dedicated funding plan in the 2001 Long Range Transportation Plan and the Draft 2008 LRTP, meaning, the project was to be funded, built and operational well before 2029, EVEN IF MEASURE R FAILED."

Green Line to LAX -- 2016 to 2018

Regional Connector downtown light rail -- 2018

Back when Measure R was being debated by the Los Angeles City Council, that Councilman Bill Rosendahl announced that Metro had promised him that the Green Line extension would be accelerated under Measure R.  I guess that's one promise that Metro has been able to keep.

So what are Measure R funds going to be used for in the short-term?  The Whittier Daily News has the answer with the timeline for highway projects that will be funded based on their start dates and total cost:

Ready immediately: Alameda Corridor East road/train track separations, $1.12 billion

2012: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from 605 Freeway to Puente Avenue, $198.6 million

2013: 5 Freeway, interchange at Carmenita Road, $379.7 million

2014: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from Puente Avenue to Citrus Avenue, $182.8 million

2015: 10 Freeway car-pool lanes from Citrus Avenue to 57 Freeway, $192.1 million

2015-2017: Gold Line extension eastward from Pasadena, $905 million

Rendering of Project Produced by the Save San Onofre Coalition

Yesterday, the United States Commerce Department surprised both detractors and supporters of the plan to build a $1.3 billion, six to eight lane extension of California 241 in Orange County, when it decided to uphold a decision of the California Coastal Comission to halt the project.  The appeal to the Bush Administration drew more than 35,000 written comments following a hearing that attracted more than 6,000 attendees.

The Commerce Department's decision, while great news for highway construction opponents isn't a condemnation of giant highway construction projects in general.  Rather, because there were other options to build other highway projects the Department could find no reason to overturn the state's environmental board.

Nobody was more surprised than Jerry Amante, the Chair of the partially-publicly funded Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency which had pulled out all of the tricks to try and get the project passed including smearing opponents in pieces produced with agency funds.  He tells the Times:

"I'm stunned that any right-thinking secretary of Commerce could make this disastrous a decision," Amante said. Anti-road activists have "been able to throw a roadblock in the path of progress . . . and to mire our residents in a poor quality of life for the sake of their interests."

While the decision was cheered in many quarters, including the Times' editorial page,  this matter is by no means settled.  While playing coy with his options, Amante has vowed to keep fighting to build his highway project of choice.  When other giant road projects, such as a 8.7-mile extension of the Foothill South through San Clemente that would join with arterial roads to connect with the I-5, isn't a big enough highway project for your needs, Jerry Amante is your man.

New York's Sheridan Expressway, which traverses 1.25 miles of Bronx River waterfront (right), comes in at number two. Thanks to the advocacy of the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance, the state DOT is considering a proposal to replace the lightly-traveled, Moses-era Sheridan with housing and parks. As the Tri-State Transportation Campaign reported last month, preserving it is becoming harder and harder to justify.

Here's the full "Freeways Without Futures" list, issued as part of a joint venture between CNU and the Center for Neighborhood Technology called the Highways to Boulevards Initiative:

1. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA
2. Sheridan Expressway, New York, NY
   
3. The Skyway and Route 5, Buffalo, NY
   
4. Route 34, New Haven, CT
   
5. Claiborne Expressway, New Orleans, LA
6. Interstate 81, Syracuse, NY
7. Interstate 64, Louisville, KY
8. Route 29, Trenton, NJ
9. Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, ON
10. 11th Street Bridges and the Southeast Freeway, Washington D.C.

Previous highway-to-boulevard conversions have succeeded in cities from New York to San Francisco to Seoul, often in the face of opposition from carmaggedon-predicting doomsayers. More from CNU President John Norquist on why freeway removal makes sense, after the jump.

CNU President and CEO John Norquist says that compared to the prospect of completely rebuilding aging freeways -- something that’s inevitable after 40 or 50 years -- highways-to-boulevards projects are real money savers. "There’s a whole generation of elevated highways in cities that are at the end of their design life. Instead of rebuilding them at enormous expense, cities have an opportunity to undo what proved to be major urban planning blunders," said Norquist, Mayor of Milwaukee when it replaced the Park East Freeway with McKinley Boulevard in 2002. "The Federal Highway Fund just received a short-term bailout. The money that does exist can be invested much more efficiently in surface streets and transit. The development that results is walkable and close to jobs and city life. It helps residents keep a lot of money in their wallets that they’d otherwise spend driving."

Yesterday, Orange County Planners and Toll Road advocates had "their day in court" at a public hearing in front of federal officials who they hope will overturn a state decision stopping construction of $1.3-billion extension of California 241 in Orange County.  After the California Coastal Commission sided with opponents of the road stopped the project, which would cut through San Onofre State Beach, the state created Transportation Corridors Association appealed to the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to overturn the state decision.

Over 6,000 people attended yesterday's hearing, and the Times reports that the federal officials had difficulty controlling the crowd as the day was dominated by chees and boos.

The Save San Onofre Coalition charged in a press release that the 241 extension would cause irreprable damage to the local environment, especially some of the nations most beautiful beaches, and that any proposed traffic benefits will be more than outweighed the catastrophic damage to the environment.  Opponents also scoffed at the claim that the road would improve national security pointing out that the Marine Corps. is against the proposal because it would cut through Camp Pendleton.

In addition to the "usual suspects" of environmentalists and surfers, politicians and community leaders also arrived to testify against the project.  California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer; State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego); Santa Monica Councilman Bobby Shriver; Irvine Councilman Larry Agran, who as a TCA board member cast a vote against the proposed toll road alignment; and San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye all spoke against the road extension.

Proponents of the road argue that the Save San Onofre Coalition are lieing liars and represent a minorty of the residents of Orange County and San Diego.  Citing "overwhelming evidence," a press release attacked the "7 myths" that road opponents are using to attack the project.  These myths are:

-- Myth One -- TCA is running a six-lane road through the park and beach.

-- Myth Two -- The road will ruin 60 percent of the park.

-- Myth Three -- The road will ruin the camping experience at one of the most popular parks in the state and one dedicated to perpetuity by the late President Ronald Reagan.

-- Myth Four -- The 241 will ruin the surf at Trestles beach.

-- Myth Five -- The 241 is permanent one of the most environmentally destructive projects in California history and will decimate endangered habitats.

-- Myth Six -- The toll road will do little to alleviate traffic congestion.

-- Myth Seven -- Widening I-5 is the best option.

Photo: Don Bartletti/Los Angeles Times