Residents near the Crenshaw Corridor came out in force to try and get a station at Leimert Park and a subway for the entire route. We

Regardless of the timing of the vote on the final plan for the light rail line, the emergency letter that has been widely distributed to community groups, Metro staff, and Metro Board staff shines light into the planning of the Crenshaw Subway Coalition’s strategy.

An email signed by former City Council Candidate Forescee Hogan-Rowles (viewable here, although Hogan-Rowles signature is missing) is asking community members to come to a meeting tonight to discuss the plans to potentially approve the Crenshaw Line this month and that members should bring a checkbook so the Coalition can afford the legal help it would need to mount a challenge to the plan arguing that the agency is in violation of state environmental laws, specifically the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In the community letter, Crenshaw Subway Coalition doesn’t spell out the specifics of their challenge, but they do believe that a flawed environmental study has led to the exclusion of a below-grade alternative between 48th and 59th streets and the station for Leimert Park.

Simply, MTA’s draft document is legally flawed, the basis for Metro staff, Mayor Villaraigosa and wanna-be Mayor Zev Yaroslavsky’s opposition to the Leimert Park Village station and Park Mesa Heights tunnel is flawed, and if MTA had conducted a proper environmental study both designs would be in the project.

Nobody was willing to comment on a potential lawsuit, although Supevisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ office did promise to fight for the best project for the community through Board action.  ”Until the tunneling machine arrives, it’s a work in process,” commented staff for the Supervisor, tacitly arguing that EIR certification isn’t the last word in the process.

But that isn’t enough for the Crenshaw Subway Coalition which sees a lawsuit as strengthening their negotiating hand,

As has become clear both in our fight with MTA on the Expo Line crossing at Dorsey High School and in other project fights with MTA by other communities, the agency/board does not begin taking communities seriously until lawyers get involved.

With the final vote on the environmental documents not happening for over two months, there’s a lot that can happen between now and the filing of a lawsuit.  The only thing that is for certain is that the Crenshaw Subway Coalition is getting ready, and the experience with Expo and the Farmdale Station shows that they aren’t bluffing.

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority is co-sponsoring workshops with the cities in the 12.6-mile corridor between Azusa and Montclair along which the Authority hopes to extend the Gold Line. The subject of the meetings are proposed station sites in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair. The meetings begin this coming Monday.

Meeting details can be found in a flyer posted on the Authority’s website.

Some folks are gung-ho for this extension. Others of us much less so. But I will acknowledge the Authority has been quite pro-active in its public outreach, which these workshops are an example of.

In the coming months, the Authority will host tours of the Metro Gold Line light rail line between Pasadena and Los Angeles. Streetsblog is going to sign up for one of those tours, and we want you to come along.  Contact Damien at damien@streetsblog.org if you’re interested in riding the rails with a group of Streetsbloggers.  The Authority claims that the tours will provide an opportunity to experience how light rail interacts within communities, the design of stations and street crossings and the various train sounds.

The Orange Line is the proposed light rail line to be built instead of the 710 Connector Project. The other lines are the same color as their name. Image by Carlos Vazquez

The never-ending debate over whether or not to “complete” SR-710 so that it connects with the 210 provides a  great opportunity to create a sustainable option for the 710 Tunnel.  Instead of a tunnel designed to move trucks and cars, we need to create a light rail alternative that connects the region’s biggest job centers with the poorest, transit dependent communities.  Yes, let’s build a light rail alternative between Long Beach and Pasadena!

This public transportation line will connect Pasadena, Alhambra, Monterey Park, East Los Angeles, City of Commerce, Maywood, Bell, South Gate, and Long Beach. This is a much needed North-South connector that can rival the Long Beach Blue line, one on the heaviest used light rail lines in the nation. This rail line will connect the Blue Line, Green Line, and East Los Angeles and Pasadena Gold Lines.  Moving around the region via transit would be much easier and more people would be attracted to our transit system.

This Long Beach/Pasadena North-South light rail line can connect to the San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange County Metro Link Lines.  In addition the rail line can also connect to the Anaheim and San Diego future high-speed stops, alleviating some of the pressure from Union Station.

A closer look at the Northeast part of the line. Image by Carlos Velasquez

Los Angeles is not a centralized city.  It is a spread out city and our public transportation system should reflect the way it’s residents move around the region. It’s silly to tell people to come downtown for public transportation connections when most of LA County residents have never been there!  This is one of the failures in LA is that all the public transportation rail connections are at Union Station.

Instead of building a four-mile tunnel for cars at the cost of billions, we should build a light rail line regional light rail line to service more people at half the cost.

This will bring much need investment through public transportation through the poorest part of the Los Angeles County. It can position Alhambra, Monterey Park and City of Commerce in becoming regional jobs centers by providing regional public transportation because of their central location in Los Angeles County.

This rail line will service LA’s County’s Asian, Latino, and African=American communities and create a multi cultural transit line.

With the price of gas reaching four to five dollars, driving a car will no longer be a sustainable option fiscally or environmentally.  Let’s create a sustainable, pedestrian, bike friendly system that is also good for the environment.   Let’s scrap the car tunnel and create light rail for everyone instead.

Farmdale Station appears to be a "go," but will Metro's grade crossing policy be a victim of the Battle of Farmdale?

A proposal by County Supervisor and Metro Board Member Mark Ridley-Thomas could create major changes in how Metro decides which grade-crossings are designed at-grade and which will have grade separation.  Ridley-Thomas represents the communities fighting for a grade-separated Expo Line in South L.A. and much of the area that will be covered by a rail line for the Crenshaw Line.  The proposal would greatly increase the power of neighborhoods in deciding the design of grade-crossings in their community.  Some rail advocates worry that the motion would effectively derail the Measure R light rail projects.

The Supervisor has a dual reputation among rail expansion advocates.  On one hand, as a State Senator he was a champion of Measure R and helped steer the legislation through the Senate.  On the other, his constant criticism of Metro’s grade crossing policy has led many to believe he’ll endanger rail projects at the behest of the surrounding communities.

The resolution, which passed the Planning and Programming Committee this week and will head to the Metro Board next week, would make two major changes.  The first change allows for “subjective” information such as community concerns about redevelopment or safety to enter into the equation.  Second, the Metro Board will be tasked with examining all of the information and making a grade-crossing decision.  Under the current grade crossing policy, staff makes a decision which is then certified by the Board.

Both of these changes can be found in points four and five of the Ridley-Thomas resolution.

4. Analyses of grade crossing alternatives shall include thorough consideration of non-traffic and non-rail issues affecting each crossing. These analyses shall be in narrative form, with special attention to schools, parks and social service facilities, areas of high pedestrian activity and anticipated changes in land use or demographics. These analyses will allow for community input, and for the evaluation of subjective community considerations, such as safety and economic development, which do not lend themselves easily to quantitative analysis.

This clause is certainly a mixed bag.  On one hand, pedestrian activity and the distance between a crossing and parks or schools should absolutely be considered when deciding whether a light rail crossing should be built at-grade.  On the other hand, how in the world does an agency measure “analysis in the narrative form?”  Are grade-crossing debates going to be determined by how many public comments are submitted?

Another concern for rail advocates has to be what Ridley-Thomas would consider a “community concern about economic development.”  Early this year the Supervisor wrote that the Expo Line would Doom South L.A. to Second Class Status because of its impact on development

The other major change would be to give greater responsibility for deciding whether a crossing should be at-grade given to the Metro Board

5. Final determination of each grade crossing or grade separation decision shall be made by the Metro Board of Directors, based on a balanced evaluation of technical considerations, such as traffic flow and queuing, and community- based considerations, such as public safety and economic development.

So instead of decisions on crossings being made by professionals, subject to the approval of the Board; now the Board would be presented with hard data and “analyses in the narrative form” and “subjective community considerations” and asked to make a decision on each crossing.  On one hand, the thought of the occasionally-dysfunctional Metro Board being tasked with making these decisions makes me nervous.

On the other hand, the Board has disregarded concerns of communities and activist groups before when they deemed their arguments species, so I also wonder if this change will actually make any difference in how crossing decisions are made.  Even if this policy existed for the Expo Line, given the politics of Villaraigosa and Westside representatives on the Board, I doubt the outcome would have been any different.

Yesterday was a rare treat for me, as Streetsblog had two writers at the press event in the Crenshaw District’s Leimart Park celebrating the $545 million loan from the federal government to accelerate construction of the Crenshaw Line. Since Carter Rubin did the yeoman’s work of writing the story, I had a chance to capture as much video footage of various political figures praising the USDOT, Crenshaw Community, transit and most of all, each other.

While Antonio Villaraigosa served as master of ceremonies, it was Senator Barbara Boxer who seemed to be the focus of attention. Her speech to the audience is above. Speeches by Villaraigosa, Congress Woman Jane Harman, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson, USDOT Undersecretary of Transportation Roy Klienetz, and Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas can all be found after the jump.

Before the event, Damien Goodmon joked with me that the Leimart Park was an ironic place to hold a press conference celebrating the funding of the Crenshaw Line because the Leimart Park Station is “optional” in the current environmental studies. If you watch closely, it seems like most of those speaking yesterday weren’t aware of that. However, it’s always great to hear so many political leaders talk about the transformative power of transit and clean transportation options.

Yesterday, the New York Times published a piece on the coming Expo Line and what it's going to mean for development in South L.A. and West L.A.  In truth, you should find time to read the entire article, but here's a quick summary in the mean time.

1. Developers are a lot more excited, and the development plans are a lot farther along, for Phase II projects along the Westside than for projects within Phase I in South L.A.
2. A focus of the article is how transit and T.O.D. (even though the article avoids that term) will change Los Angeles from a sprawling car-town to a dense transit-town.  However, there's a lot of places that want to avoid density, especially amongst the people who complain most traffic on the Westside.
3. Supervisor Ridley-Thomas believes development along Expo and the future Crenshaw Line are crucial to the development of South L.A.
   
4. The development that will run adjacent to the Expo in Culver City is five stories high which makes the residents happy; but many development experts, including those at Metro, think it's too small.
5. Westsiders want bike parking.
   

Starting last night and continuing tomorrow, Metro began a series of outreach meetings for the "scoping" of the potential Green Line Extension to Torrance. Before we get into the details of the study, let’s put down some basics on the project. No, this is not a competing project with the Green Line extension to LAX. Yes, this is a Measure R and "30/10" project, with $272 million in Measure R dollars already set aside for the project.

While Metro already identified a preferred alternative for the Green Line Extension, extending the current Green Line light rail along the route to Torrance that appears on the right was selected as the "Locally Preferred Alternative" in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) study; the meetings that are currently underway are a chance for the public to help Metro identify the issues and concerns that need to be examined throughout the environmental process. Metro also has to weigh other alternatives to the preferred one, which include a "no build" option, an option of improving the streets instead of the rail, and using an abandoned freight right-of-way and new tracks to get from LAX/El Segundo down to Torrance.

The goal of the extension is to provide an alternative to driving on the I-405 in this area. The proposed alignment to Torrance seems a good alternative, as it runs parallel to the I-405. The extension isn’t just to provide access to the Green Line, but by the time construction is underway it will be easy to connect the Green Line to the completed Expo Line and provide access from Torrance all the way to Downtown Santa Monica or Los Angeles. For transportation planners that have been waiting for decades for a truly connected rail system for L.A. County, this is an exciting step.

So what issues might arise during the scoping and planning for this project? While there’s no entrenched opposition to the extension, there are always some areas that are ripe for debate. Fore example. the current design calls for a train similar to the North County Transit District’s Sprinter trains, which might have trouble ingegrating with the existing Green Line Service.

Both The Source and Daily Breeze have written articles on the hearings. Feel free to check them out, or for more information on the meetings, read on after the jump.

• Wednesday, April 28, 2010 (6-8 p.m.) North Redondo Senior Center, Perry Park, 2308 Rockefeller Lane, Redondo Beach.
• Saturday, May 1, 2010 (10 a.m. – 12n) Lawndale City Hall, 14717 Burin Avenue, Lawndale.
• Wednesday, May 5, 2010 (6-8 p.m.) Automobile Driving Museum, 610 Lairport Street, El Segundo.

(Photo: Model D Media)

APTA President William Millar portrayed the new ridership figures as a win for transit, given the economic recession and the fact that fuel prices declined last year relative to their 2008 highs.

"Considering that nearly 60 percent of riders take public transportation to commute to and from work, it is not surprising that ridership declined in light of the many Americans who lost their jobs last year," Millar said in a statement.

Since 1995, APTA has reported a 31-percent increase in transit ridership nationwide, compared with a 15-percent increase in population over the same period and a 21-percent increase in highway miles traveled.

Nine cities reported light-rail ridership increases to APTA: Baltimore; Oceanside, CA; Memphis; Seattle; Philadelphia; Tampa; San Francisco; Portland; and New Orleans. Heavy rail networks in Los Angeles, D.C., Chicago, and Philadelphia also saw more riders last year.

After years of debates, threats of lawsuits, contentious community meetings and even heated discussion on Streetsblog message boards; there was a feeling that yesterday's meeting of the Expo Board to debate the certification of the environmental documents for Phase II would be a momentous meeting.  Predictions of a 4-3 vote either for or against certification seemed a safe bet; with the exception of the Transit Coalition's Bart Reed who predicted a "blowout," everyone I talked to thought it would be close.

After nearly five hours of public comment and debate, the Board voted and the final tally was six in favor, zero against, and one abstention.  The abstention wasn't even made by a fully-vested Board Member, but a staff member from the office of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas who was empowered to vote in place of the Supervisor.  There was a vote on a Ridley-Thomas motion to delay, not reject, certification for three months that failed by the somewhat closer vote of 2-5, with Rosendahl joining Ridley-Thomas in support.

Instead of a close vote, the most controversial thing that occurred was a procedural move by Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks who blocked fellow Councilman Paul Koretz from voting on the measure.  Technically, until Phase I is completed, Parks and Council Woman Jan Perry sit on the Expo Board.  However it was widely believed that Parks and Perry would yield to their successors, Councilmen Koretz and Bill Rosendahl who's districts would be most directly impacted by the construction and operation of Phase II. 

While Perry yielded to Rosendahl, Parks decided to hold on to his seat for the meeting to, in his words, defend the grade crossing policy at Metro that was under attack from opponents to Phase II and Ridley-Thomas.  Whether that was the real reason for Parks' maneuver, or  a more political one such as wanting to prevent the expected "no" vote from Koretz or even to spite his formal rival Ridley-Thomas is unknown.  What is known is that Koretz was one unhappy Councilman.

After public comment closed, Los Angeles Councilman Herb Wesson, who chairs the Expo Board, allowed Koretz unlimited speaking time as though he were a seated board member.  Koretz took advantage with a strong attack on many of the parts of the environmental documents, especially the traffic study, that Cheviot Hills residents had spent hours attacking during public comment.  While he couldn't vote, some of Koretz's concerns were later addressed by County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Rosendahl.  Koretz railed against the quality of the traffic studies at intersections, especially the crossings at Sepulveda, Westwood, and Overland.

Supervisor Yaroslavsky made a pair of motions that somewhat addressed Koretz's concerns.  The first requires further study of whether or not to elevate the crossing at Sepulveda Boulevard, which would cost an extra $17 million.  The second addresses the concerns of the group Expo Greenway and put off the decision on whether or not to have a parking lot or park space at Westwood Station.  Rosendahl seconded both motions, although he seemed ready to just support "park over parking" at Westwood Station.  Each motion passed unanimously.

Rosendahl's support was somewhat of a surprise to people closely watching the Board.  The Councilman had been a very vocal supporter of grade-separated intersections, but ultimately supported certification of environmental documents without elevating rail at the intersections.  He did use his vote to get assurances from the Construction Authority staff that they would create a Bike Advisory Committee to help with issues such as crossings, access to the bike path, and parking and an Urban Design Committee to help with the station design.  Some opponents of certification of the environmental documents focused their comments at Rosendahl for not sticking to his guns, but with the vote going against grade-separation with or without his vote, his political pragmatism might pay dividends for cyclists and residents in the future.

The major question that remaining, is whether or not there will be a legal challenge to the Expo Board's decision to move forward?  It's long been assumed that with the amount of money being raised, and their forceful public statements, that Neighbors for Smart Rail will move quickly to challenge the Board's decision in court.  The Times raised the issue in their coverage of the meeting, and while a final decision hasn't been announced, it does seem all-but-certain:

Robert P. Silverstein, an attorney representing a coalition of Westside homeowners' associations called Neighbors for Smart Rail, said his clients support extending the rail line but feel strongly it can be made better.

"I want to be clear that my client is not opposed to the project, but is opposed to it being built without below grade, grade separation between Overland and Sepulveda," he said at Thursday's public hearing of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority board. "Build it, but build it right."

If an announcement on a lawsuit is coming, you'll be able to read about it here at Streetsblog.  In the meantime, given all of the complaining I do about Board and Chair conduct at Metro Board meetings, I should note that not only did Councilman Herb Wesson do a superb job chairing the meeting and respecting everyone's views, but the Board didn't act like a group of school children who were eying the clock waiting for the recess bell.  Even with Mayor Villaraigosa announcing his layoffs, the City Councilmen didn't threaten to bolt the meeting if the public would just shut up and let them do their job and waited nearly five hours to cast their votes.  It's a positive sign that all seven Board seats cast votes, even if Ridley-Thomas needed a surrogate to do so.  The Metro Board would do well to follow their example.

Atlantic Station. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

There have been a fair number of folks making comments on this site and
elsewhere on the internet about the recently opened Gold Line Eastside
Extension and safety. This coming week the advisory committee that
provides input to Metro on such issues is holding a meeting near the
Indiana Street station (Alma is the next street east of Indiana, and
the School is midway between 1st and 3rd Streets) in the evening.
Certainly worth checking out if you want to share such comments directly .

Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension Review Advisory Committee
Thursday
Jan. 14, 2010
6 p.m.-8 p.m.
Ramona Opportunity High School
231 S. Alma Ave.
Los Angeles CA

(This is the first in a four part series following up on stories that have run through the year but aren’t yet finished.)

Just because the word "Final" appears in the document name doesn’t mean that the battle over the routing and crossings for the Expo Line have ended.  While the Final Environmental Impact Report predictably contained good news for supporters of getting the light rail line completed quickly, even the most enthusiastic supporters know that there are still opponents of the project that still have some arrows left in their quiver.

Karen Leonard, the co-chair of Light Rail for Cheviot, writes, "I’m very glad that the Expo Authority took neighborhood comments seriously and discussed the grade separation possibilities at Overland and Westwood at length and in detail.  Since LADOT now concurs with Expo that these
crossings should be at-grade, given the mitigations proposed, one hopes that NIMBYs in several homeowners’ associations do not succeed in funding litigation and delaying the line significantly."

While Leonard is choosing her words carefully, she’s referring to the coalition of affluent Westside neighborhoods that have rallied together under the banner of Neighbors for Smart Rail.  Friends 4 Expo member "Gokhan" takes a less-nuanced approach to defining NfSR’s position in the Streetsblog comments section:

NFSR comes next. Terri Tippit, the veteran Westside neighborhood
politician, Head of the West of Westwood Homeowners’ Association and at
times the President of the Westside Neighborhood Council, is the
President of Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR). Collen Mason Heller of
the Cheviot Hills Homeowners’ Association is the Vice President of
NFSR. Her husband Larry Heller is the attorney for NFSR. NFSR has been
collecting a lot of money in order to launch a lawsuit within 30 days
of the certification by the board of the Expo Authority of the final
environmental-impact report on the first Thursday of January. (editor’s note, the date for approval has been moved to February 4)

Officially, the position of Neighbors for Smart Rail is not that the line shouldn’t be built, but that the line needs to have safe (i.e. not at-grade) crossings near Westside schools as it rolls by.  Legal actions against the Expo Construction Authority in South L.A. have forced the agency to add additional pedestrian amenities near Dorsey High School.  However, thus far Neighbors for Smart Rail is playing it close to the chest.  The group is not quoted in any of the press accounts of the FEIR release and emails requesting comment for this article have not been returned.  I’m sure there will be a lot more on this story in the coming year.

The Expo Construction Authority has finally released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Phase II of the Expo Line with some key changes.  I'll spend more time reviewing the document and talking to some of the key players in the drama over the weekend and will be back with a longer story on Monday.  But for those of you that can't wait to start talking, here are the key changes from the press release, which can be read in its entirety here.  Or you can read the environmental documents in their entirety on the Expo Construction Authority Board website.

Meanwhile, here are the key changes from the Draft EIR per the Construction Authority's Press Release.

Inclusion of a design option that removes the park-and-ride lot at the Westwood station;

A Maintenance Facility design option which includes Santa Monica College and Verizon properties with a 100-110 foot buffer, providing additional protection from the residential community to the south of the proposed facility;

Accommodation of a continuous bikeway from the Phase 1 terminus to Santa Monica;

An additional grade separation at Centinela;

Addition of a 3rd northbound lane on Sepulveda for the at-grade crossing;

Inclusion of a design option for grade separation at Sepulveda if outside funding sources become available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's Browne, not the Councilman

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

Our next stop was Soto Station.

Soto station through steel.

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

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

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

Fencing on the far side

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of Clarke's email, and the videos are available after the jump:

Here is the view through operator's window during a preview ride in a Breda train on Los Angeles' Eastside Gold Line, last Friday, 11/6/09. The line
opens to the public next Sunday, 11/15/09. Go to YouTube and use the full screen and HD for the best ride!

Part 1 of 2 is Union Station to 1st & Lorena:

Part 2 of 2 is the rest of the way to 3rd & Atlantic:

The video skips time stopped in stations; total travel time was about 22 minutes for the six miles. Signal priority / synchronization was working well, with little or no train delay at most intersections. The most significant was waiting about 35 seconds to turn onto 3rd from the Indiana station.

For a series of recent construction photos and a map see my recent post at the Light Rail Blog.

One week from today the Eastside Bike Club, Streetsblog and the Bus Bench will meet at the Union Station Entrance to bike the six-mile Gold Line Extension to document what we see concerning crossings and safety.  I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the ride, so I’m going to answer as many of them as I can here.

If you have other questions, put them in the comments section, and I’ll answer them in the body of the article.

What’s the point of doing this ride anyway?

There’s been a lot of controversy over safety issues with the opening of the Gold Line Extension.  When there’s a complaint or suggestion, the answers have either been that they’re going to fix that before the opening or that the person complaining was probably doing their nails and breaking the law.  We’re going to ride at street level, witness what the crossings look like at rush hour and come to our own conclusions.  

Why so close to the line’s opening?  Won’t that minimize the impact of your findings?

This isn’t planned as an advocacy ride, more of a fact finding mission.  By riding so close to the line’s opening we’re giving Metro as much time as we can to make all the improvements that they can.

When did you start hating/stop trusting Metro?

I don’t hate Metro.  I actually think light rail is one of the safest forms of transit.  But, that doesn’t mean we have to take everything they say at face value.  I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up really liking all the improvements and changes that have taken place over the last couple of months.

What’s the route?

The route is super simple.  We’ll ride south to the Little Tokyo stop then head east on 1st Street all the way to the Indiana stop.  Then we’ll head east on Third until the light rail ends at the Atlantic Ave. stop.

What do I have to do to join the ride?

Nothing.  Just show up at the entrance to Union Station by 7:30 next Friday.  If you’re under 18, you’re required to wear a helmet.  Other than that, I trust you to decide how to protect yourself and if you’re ready to ride East L.A. at morning rush hour.

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

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

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

What happens to Metro's rail car contracts now?

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

Will this effect the Measure R Time Lines?

Maybe, but we don't know how.

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

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

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

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

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

What About the Rail Car Plant Promised to Los Angeles?

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

Are There Any Winners in This Story?

In short?  No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYOR ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
City of Los Angeles

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2009

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


MAYOR PLANS TO ACCELERATE PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Measure R transit projects Villaraigosa plans to accelerate include:

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

###