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

###

Two weeks from today, November 13, a group of activists will pedal out from Union Station for points east to see for ourselves whether the soon-to-be-opened Gold Line East Side Extension passes our safety check.  The extension will open two days later on the fifteenth.  The ride is currently supported by L.A. Streetsblog, the Bus Bench and the L.A. Eastside Bike Club and will begin promptly at 7:30 A.M.  We'll cover the whole route of the extension, stopping at every stop to take pictures and discuss what we see.  Later in the day I'll post the "findings" of our ride here and I'm certain Browne will have plenty to add at the Bus Bench as well.

Anyone interested in doing some research before joining us on our rush-hour tour has plenty of ways to research the history of the project.  Metro held a "press only" ride earlier this morning that I'm sure will get significant coverage; even if they gave their own bloggers a pre-preview. Many of the complaints mentioned by Supervisor Molina at last week's Board Meeting can be found in this report, put together for Metro by independent consultants.  Whether or not Molina's attack had anything to do with the resignation of Rick Thorpe, one of Metro's executives signaled out in her presentation, is up for debate.  However, on his way out Thorpe responded to Molina's concerns in this report.

Or, if you want to read all the official information, you can find the Metro website for the extension here.

The ride is free, but I recommend bringing your own refreshments and safety gear.  If you're with a group that would like to co-sponsor the event, drop me a line at damien@streetsblog.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Metro via Blogdowntown

The controversy that might be newest to long-time readers is the objections of Little Tokyo residents to  the proposed Regional Connector.  Residents are up in arms over the impact that the project will have on their community regardless of whether it is built at-grade or below-grade.  The Local Blog, Little Tokyo Unblogged explains the opposition in a harshly worded editorial entitled Metro Regional Disconnect:

And here we are today, being asked to take yet another “one for the team,” so some hypothetical riders in the future can travel from Long Beach to Pasadena and not have to pay a transfer fare of $1.25 or have to transfer from one train to another--something millions of people do in public transit-oriented cities throughout the world every day. Or, as someone at the meeting pointed out, is Little Tokyo being asked to sacrifice in order to “fix” a gap in Metro’s original vision of “seamless travel “ that ineptitude or lack of foresight created?

One entire block and maybe 20-30 family-owned businesses, who are already hanging on by a fingernail thanks to the current economy. So people don’t have to transfer trains? Buy a transfer ticket? To fix something that shouldn’t have been broken in the first place?

A second concern over the impact of construction, which is estimated to take up to four years would have on their community regardless of whether the trains are built at-grade.  Little Tokyo blogger Rafu Shimpo explains the concerns:

“It’s quite devastating what could happen over four years (of the construction),” said Akemi Kikumura Yano, CEO of the Japanese American National Museum, which hosted the event.

“Possible massive disruption, in terms of access, not only to the Japanese American National Museum, but to Little Tokyo in general, I think that is a major concern for us… How are we going to survive?” she said, during the Q&A portion of the meeting.

It sounds like an ugly fight is brewing with Metro and rail activists taking on the Little Tokyo community.  Hopefully Metro can find a way to work with the community as the Connector is viewed by many as the most important part of Metro's expansion plans.

The other controversial rail project is Phase II of the Expo Line.  Having survived attempts to derail the project in South L.A., so far; Expo now faces challenges to the second Phase of the project.  However, this time the opposition isn't coming from Cheviot Hills, it's coming from Santa Monica.

Over the last two weeks, a series of articles and opinion pieces from Santa Monica based news papers shows that residents there are readyying for a fight over the location of the rail yard that would house the light rail trains when they aren't on the tracks.  The two main arguments are that the yards will be bad for Santa Monica College, and that because of the yard's proximity to lower-income housing, that the yard's construction and operation are an environmental justice violation.

The last rail line that's been in the news is the Westside Subway, aka the Subway to the Sea.  A series of informational meetings were held in August, and thus far the controversy over this project has been a funding one that is confined to funding squabbles at the Metro Board level.  Streetsblog contributer Alexander Friedman was at the West Hollywood meeting and was thrilled that Metro seems to be embracing a design that would have the Subway run through West Hollywood and the Wilshire District.

It looks like not just the public, but - the MTA - are all in favor of the combined Wilshire with Santa Monica Blvd lines!

This is great news, as both corridors are promising as far as success and high ridership.

Jody Litvak also provided an in-depth report about Construction of subway, including length of times and - how specifically construction is done. This is encouraging, as - for the first time MTA staff was getting into the details of construction itself! - not just planning....

Practically every single person spoke in favor of the combined option (Alternative 11), i.e. construction of both Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd lines. Indeed, it does make sense to  construct the two, as - both lines will complement each other, drawing crowds from all over the city, and building both lines will provide an imcomparibly better connectivity throughout the city.

In short, August was a big month for three very different rail projects that are going in three different directions.  How the projects move forward could very well depend on how Metro is able to work with the community.

At today's Metro Board hearing, the Board punted again on deciding whether to continue it's exclusive contract for Light Rail cars with AnsaldoBreda.  Metro first decided to postpone a decision on the contract in March, partially because it would take less time to stick with AnsaldoBreda than it would to put the contract out to bid.  Three months later, they're still punting because the politics of the contract remain mired in controversy. 

The argument against renewing the contract is because Breda is already late and delivering cars that are thousands of pounds overweight.  In favor of renewing the contract is Metro's long-standing relationship with the Italian rail company and their promise that with an extended contract they can afford to build a plant in the Greater Los Angeles area.  Of course, the Board can't consider where the cars are built in making their decision based on federal law, but if you don't think there's a relationship between this promise and the Board's backflips, I have tickets to Game 6 of the NBA Finals I want to sell you.

I'm not sure how long a bidding process would take if they had went to contract, but bending over backwards to keep the contract in Breda's hands has cost four months, and counting.

For Streetsblogs' complete coverage of the ongoing AnsaldoBreda controversy, click here.

Everyone knows that Phoenix has a huge sprawl problem. But now transit-oriented development is on the upswing in this Sun Belt metropolis. In December, the Phoenix region opened one of the most ambitious transit projects in recent U.S. history: a 20-mile light rail line with 28 stops serving three cities (Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa). Future plans include an extension within three years, with several new corridors being studied. 

The Valley Metro vehicles are handsome and comfortable, and thus far ridership has far exceeded initial projections -- with as many as 40,000 riders per day, compared to the expected 25,000. Each station features amenities and art installations. In addition, with many folks using the light rail as an intermodal step in their commutes, bicycles are welcome aboard. 

With meetings already announced to advance the Subway to the Sea and the Regional Connector, Metro could be forgiven if they held off on any other major announcements; but that's not the way things work.  Late last week, Metro announced another set of meetings to gather information on the four possible routes for the second Eastside Extension for the Metro Gold Line.

Everyday, 50,000 commuting trips to Downtown Los Angeles from the cities of Bell, Commerce, Downey, El Monte, Industry, Los Angeles' Eastside, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte, Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County; and with both jobs and residency expected to balloon in the coming years, an increase of transit options is needed.  Thus, Metro as designed four possible routes to extend the Gold Line into this area to better meet the current and future demand.

During the current round of public outreach, Metro is seeking comments on these four routes, one would utilize SR-60, another would run glide along Beverly, another would split time on Beverly and Whittier and the last would run on Washington. Each route would service different cities, and each is sure to draw different supporters and detractors as people clamor for better transit in their community.  As a matter of fact, one of the first posts I ever wrote back at Street Heat was about the Latino Urban Forum's public support of the alternative along Route 60.

For a full list of the upcoming meetings, check out our calendar section, Metro's press release, or just read on after the jump.

he meetings and open houses will be at:

• City of Montebello, Wednesday, April 8, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 1600 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA 90640
• City of South El Monte, Tuesday, April 14, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 1415 S Santa Anita Av, South El Monte, CA 91733
• City of Pico Rivera, Tuesday, April 14, 6 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 6615 Passons Blvd. , Pico Rivera CA, 90660
• City of Monterey Park, Wednesday, April 15, 7 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 320 W Newmark Av, Monterey Park, CA 91754
• City of Commerce, Tuesday, April 21, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 2535 Commerce Wy, Commerce, CA 90040
• City of Rosemead, Tuesday, April 28, 7 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 8838 E Valley Bl, Rosemead, CA 91770
• City of Whittier, Tuesday, May 12, 6:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, 13230 Penn St, 1st Floor, Whittier, CA 90602

Metro is ready to hit the ground running in 2009.  Staff is prepared to offer 4 alternatives to extending the Gold Line at this month's Metro Board meeting following the formal unveiling at next week's Planning and Programming Committee Meeting.

With the Alternatives Analysis now completed, we are one step closer to seeing the Gold Line penetrate deeper into the Eastside than its current alignment.  The next step would be for Metro to select a locally preferred alternative from one of the four routes remaining.

The four routes still being considered, hot off Metro's press release presses, are:

• SR-60: This alignment generally follows the southern edge of the SR-60 Freeway within the existing right-of-way. It would terminate just west of the I-605/SR-60 interchange. This alternative would follow the slope of the freeway and become elevated over freeway ramps.
• Beverly: This alignment follows SR-60 for a short stretch before traveling south on Garfield Avenue to connect with Beverly Boulevard. On Beverly Boulevard, this alignment continues east, using the Whittier Greenway to terminate at Whittier Boulevard. This alternative is primarily at-grade (street level) with short elevated structures along Garfield Avenue and at the San Gabriel River.
• Beverly/Whittier: This alignment is the same as the Beverly alternative until reaching Montebello Boulevard where it heads south to Whittier Boulevard. Once on Whittier Boulevard, this alignment becomes elevated to cross two rivers and the I-605 freeway, ending at-grade in the city of Whittier.
• Washington: This alignment follows SR-60 to Garfield Avenue, traveling south to Washington Boulevard. From there, the alignment continues east to the city of Whittier. This alternative is elevated along parts of Garfield Avenue and all of Washington Boulevard to eliminate conflict with truck traffic in the Washington Boulevard corridor.

In addition to Los Angeles, the study also includes 12 municipalities and parts of unincorporated L.A. County.