LOS ANGELES | Transportation News & Discussion

[pesto]

CityKid: Sounds like you are ready for Big Brother. Not following the orders we give does not hurt you; it just helps your competition that does what we want them to.

Sure some will pass up on the extortion but they will have to watch others get free money. It's just one more instance of the government telling retailers how to run their own businesses on their own property.

Would you look with favor at that if you were a businessman? Only if you have a failing business with no parking available. And that's the real point here; bail out the slums of LB by making retailers with more parking space less attractive. Maybe a better approach would be to actually improve the slums instead of hurting everyone else.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by pesto

CityKid: Sounds like you are ready for Big Brother. Not following the orders we give does not hurt you; it just helps your competition that does what we want them to.

Sure some will pass up on the extortion but they will have to watch others get free money. It's just one more instance of the government telling retailers how to run their own businesses on their own property.

Would you look with favor at that if you were a businessman? Only if you have a failing business with no parking available. And that's the real point here; bail out the slums of LB by making retailers with more parking space less attractive. Maybe a better approach would be to actually improve the slums instead of hurting everyone else.

Considering the government already regulates the number of parking spaces that developments are required to have and in doing so passes on the costs of providing parking to consumers and further, provides free street parking through taxes, I'm assuming that you're also ready for Big Brother. That is what Big Brother stands for, right? Government regulation?

You seem to assume that businesses would be getting the money directly if they "follow orders." However, from what I can tell from the LA Times article, it will be the local governments who receive the financial incentives and not the businesses. So I don't understand your point about being worried as a business owner about not--as you put it--"passing up on the extortion" and "making retailers with more parking space[s] less attractive." For the same reasons I don't understand your comment: "actually improve the slums instead of hurting everyone else."

If a local government decides to reduce parking, the way in which they will be--to use your own words--"telling retailers how to run their own businesses on their own property" is something the government already does with zoning. They would just be reducing the parking. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt local governments will be going around to shopping malls and changing the parking requirements on existing developments overnight or even over an extended period of time just to cash in on the financial incentives. You wouldn't have very many happy business owners and unhappy business owners make for mean constituents. What you would probably see is more metered street parking in commercial areas. You'd probably also see more new developments with fewer parking. Is that so scary?

[Quixote]

Only four months away!

With June Ground-Breaking the Target, Gold Line Foothill Extension Asks for Construction Bids

By Steve Hymon
February 1, 2010

Officials with the Gold Line Foothill Extension light rail project are aiming to break ground on the Pasadena-to-Azusa line this year and took a step forward last Thursday by announcing that they are seeking bids from construction firms to work on the project.

Their plan is to break ground on a bridge over the 210 freeway in June (the bridge takes the tracks from the middle of the freeway to its south side toward downtown Arcadia) and then the rest of the line in September.

The Foothill Extension is due to receive $851 million in Measure R sales tax funds and Foothill officials want to get the line built and open by 2013. This is where it gets a little tricky. Under Measure R, money would flow to the project over the next several years and the line would open in 2017.

But Foothill officials are trying to speed that process by striking a financing deal with construction firms and repaying them later with Measure R receipts. The idea is that it will cost less to build the line now than it will later and, besides, the planning process is complete.

The Metro Board of Directors agreed in October to begin operating the line in 2013 if it’s done. Toward that end, Metro and the Foothill Extension Construction Authority — an independent agency created to build the project – have to sign on on something called a “funding transfer agreement” and a “master cooperative agreement.” That’s basically a fancy way of saying Metro and the Authority have to agree on how and when Measure R funds will be dispatched to the project.

So far it sounds like negotiations between the two agencies are going well, judging from the press release posted after the jump. And both Foothill Extension CEO Habib Balian and Metro Board of Directors Chair Ara Najarian sounded as if they were on the same page in a story published Saturday in the Pasadena Star News.

...

[202_Cyclist]

President’s Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2011, California Implications

http://www.calinst.org/pubs/Budget2011.shtml#TOC1_3

This is from the California Institute for Federal Policy Research

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In FY11, the President proposes $77.5 billion in total discretionary resources for Transportation programs, compared to $76 billion estimated FY10.

The Budget documents state "The Administration is developing a comprehensive approach for surface transportation reauthorization. Consequently, the Budget contains no policy recommendations for programs subject to reauthorization. . . . Instead, the Budget conservatively displays baseline funding levels for all surface programs."

Transportation Planning Research and Development

For necessary expenses for conducting transportation planning, research, systems development, development activities, and making grants, the President's Budget proposes: $9,819,000. This is a major decrease from the $16,168,000 estimated for FY2010 This funding is used to finance research activities and studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information development needed to support national transportation policy formulation.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The President's Budget requests $9.34 billion in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) budget authority, including $3.3 billion for grants-in-aid for airports; and $180 million for research, engineering and development. $6,208 million would be provided from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for FAA activities.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

The 2008 Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Budget includes $41,883 million in new budget authority and $53,448 million in outlays.

Orange County (CA) Toll Road Demonstration Project Program Account

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records for this program the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 1992 and later years as well as administrative expenses of this program. The Department provided these lines of credit for two toll road projects in Orange County, California. Each year, $24 million of these lines of credit expire if not used. No budget authority is granted to the program in FY 2010.

Federal-Aid Highways (FAH)

A total of $5,739 million is requested for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs for FY 2009.



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The 2010 Budget requests $0 for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Again, the budget states that the Administration is working to develop a comprehensive approach for surface transportation re-authorization. Consequently, the Budget contains no policy recommendations for surface programs subject to re-authorizations, including Motor Carrier Safety Grants. Instead, the Budget conservatively displays baseline funding levels for all surface programs.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

$708 million is appropriated for this agency. These funds are split with $82 million proposed for operations and research expenses, allocated from the HTF, while $626 million is set aside for grants to states to fund targeted highway safety projects and initiatives.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

The President proposes $1.6 billion to support FRA programs, this includes $780 million for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), although funds for Amtrak would be limited to efficiency incentive grants and debt servicing costs. The FY10 Budget recommends $5 billion to support the development of high speed rail.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Reauthorized under SAFETEA-LU, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding to transit operators, State and local governments and other recipients for the construction of facilities; the purchase of vehicles and equipment; the improvement of technology, service techniques, and methods; the support of region-wide transportation planning; and transit operations. FTA also provides financial assistance to help implement other national goals relating to mobility for the elderly, people with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Transit funds are split between formula/bus and capital investment discretionary grant accounts. The 2010 Budget proposes $10.33 billion for the FTA.

Research and University Research Centers

The Budget proposes a $68 million allocation for transit research programs, an increase of $1 million from prior funding.

Formula and Bus Grants

The Budget document states: "To reflect the growing imbalance between projected Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues and baseline spending in the most transparent manner, the Budget shows only the HTF funding that can be supported while maintaining positive annual cash balances in the trust fund. The remaining spending compared to the baseline for the program is shown as discretionary budget authority from the General Fund. Specifically, for 2010 the Budget includes $5 billion in contract authority and obligation limitation in the existing Formula and Bus Grant account and $3.3 billion in a new Formula and Bus Grants, General Fund Share account. Again, this presentation does not represent the Administration's recommended funding levels or a budgeting approach for the upcoming reauthorization. Rather, it is intended to accurately depict the condition of the HTF and recognize that, under current law, maintaining baseline spending would require support from the General Fund."

The HTF funding for the program is estimated at 8,631 million in FY11.

[202_Cyclist]

The oil-funded hacks at the Reason Foundation such as Wendell Cox and Robert Poole have zero credibility. According to them subsidies for toll roads are fine but subsidies for high speed rail is wasteful government spending.

"Orange County (CA) Toll Road Demonstration Project Program Account

As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records for this program the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans obligated in 1992 and later years as well as administrative expenses of this program. The Department provided these lines of credit for two toll road projects in Orange County, California. Each year, $24 million of these lines of credit expire if not used. No budget authority is granted to the program in FY 2010."

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by pesto

Big Brother at work. Just reading something like this probably gets 200 businesses that were considering moving or staying in California to move somewhere else. "Look, Fred, in California the government even tells you how much to charge for parking."

Free parking isn't free, but no one is asking the government to pay for it either. Go work on the friggin' budget and failed school system instead.

I would not worry about influencing 200 businesses with 20 employees each from remaining in Iowa, Texas and S Carolina and the alike.... 'cause 20 with 500 employees just began looking with more interest! Driving and parking is a bad thing.. lots of folks know that now.

[pesto]

bmfarley: Super news! Could you send me a list? Even better send a note to Austin Beutner, the new assistant to Mayor V. and ask him how many of the potential businesses they talk to ask if they will be allowed to charge parking for their customers.

If you have never worked in corporate retail, you may find it interesting to know that large retailers calculate the value of the parking spaces near the store, based on the revenues they generate. The best ones are worth more than you or I make in a year. That's why employees are not allowed to park there.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Only four months away!

With June Ground-Breaking the Target, Gold Line Foothill Extension Asks for Construction Bids

[202_Cyclist]

Making tracks to the Westside

Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2010


Some Cheviot Hills residents might have a nasty commute Thursday afternoon when they converge on downtown, where the board of the Exposition Construction Authority is scheduled to decide whether to green-light a planned light-rail line through their neighborhood. Too bad they don't have a slick new rail route to whisk them across town -- and if they get their way, they never will.
New rail lines often attract community opposition, but Westsiders, perhaps
because they tend to be able to afford attorneys or they have particularly
strong neighborhood associations, are unusually successful at blocking projects. This is why the region still doesn't have a subway connection even though it's high on the list of the most traffic-congested communities in the United States.

The proposed "Subway to the Sea" might have been built long ago, but Westside residents, fearing blight, crime and even underground explosions, successfully derailed a planned route down Wilshire Boulevard.

Transit planners are still struggling to get the Westside subway back on
track, but meanwhile the first leg of the Expo Line light-rail route, from
downtown to Culver City, is expected to be completed this summer.

The $1.5-billion second phase would run seven miles from the Phase 1 terminus at Venice and Robertson boulevards to the intersection of Colorado Avenue and 4th Street in Santa Monica. Most of the planned line lies along a set of abandoned railroad tracks, but neighbors fret that the train will clog traffic at intersections and afflict their streets with noise, vibrations, parking
problems and safety issues. They'll bring those concerns to the Expo board
Thursday as it meets to discuss the project's final environmental report.

Though we sympathize with the residents -- few people would want a train
running past their backyards -- the impacts of the line would actually be minor, and its benefits would be great. Planners expect the Expo Line to carry about 64,000 riders a day by 2030, relieving traffic, boosting the economy and cutting pollution. The agency is building sound walls to reduce noise, grade separations to lessen traffic delays, and parking facilities. That's not enough for residents, who are demanding unnecessary additional grade separations that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and make the project financially unfeasible. The board must politely turn them down.

Traffic congestion is among the most common complaints in West L.A., where
residents can either stew on the freeway at rush hour or take the bus, which is usually far slower. With funding finally available to change that, there's only
one thing in the way of relief for Westsiders: themselves.

[202_Cyclist]

I am shocked at how few people use ZipCar. This seems like an error. I would have guessed that ZipCar has several thousand (or tens of thousands of members) not 400 nationwide.

Los Angeles might expand use of Zipcars

The pilot car-sharing program, primarily in use at UCLA and USC, is deemed enough of a success that the city wants to take it farther.

Los Angeles Times
By Esmeralda Bermudez
February 4, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-...+Local+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

On the traffic-clogged streets surrounding UCLA, Nina Viakhireva, a car-less art student from San Francisco, had learned to navigate the bus routes or rely on friends for rides. Her parents did not buy her a car, afraid Los Angeles traffic would be too dangerous and time-consuming.

Then the 21-year-old found the Zipcar program, a car sharing service that provides affordable transportation and gives her a new sense of freedom.


Michelle Sirois in the Zipcar she says she frequently rents near the campus of USC. The program that lets participants rent cars for short periods is also popular on the UCLA campus, and the city of L.A. is planning to expand it. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times / February 3, 2010)

"I use it for the grocery store, to go to dinner or to the beach," Viakhireva said. "It's really made things accessible for me."

Of course when she graduates in four months, she will no longer have a need for Zipcar.

"I'm buying my own car," she said.

Los Angeles may never go from car-crazed to car-free, but the Zipcar pilot program recently launched by the city to encourage Angelenos to ditch their autos for "shared cars" is gaining speed, prompting some city leaders to envision expansion.

The idea, like carpooling or ride-sharing, isn't expected to tear most Angelenos away from their beloved vehicles, but it could help reduce traffic congestion, exhaust and parking frustrations.

More than 100 people have signed up for the service since the city partnered in September with Massachusetts-based Zipcar to place a dozen shared cars around UCLA and USC. An additional 300 people already signed up with Zipcar elsewhere in the country have also used the pilot program's cars.

The cars proved to be more popular than expected, hitting the 30% growth backers had expected after a year in just the first month.

"I was a little reluctant when I first heard about it," said City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose district includes the usually congested USC area. "But based on what we see from the pilot, it's clearly been a success."

Council members could formally consider an expansion in the fall.

Under the program, university students, faculty and members of the public pay fees starting at $8 an hour to drive the mix of hybrids, Mini Coopers and pickup trucks to run errands, explore the city and get to personal and business appointments. They then park the shared cars in reserved parking spots on city streets near the schools for the next driver.

Six new cars are being added to the fleet, two at UCLA and four at USC, where the service is slightly more popular. It had been in effect for a few years exclusively for university students and staff but opened to the public in the fall, when the city shifted cars to on-street parking.

A few kinks must be fixed before the idea is considered a total success. Some drivers have been ticketed or had their shared cars towed for parking outside designated Zipcar spaces; others compete with non-Zipcars who steal their spots. There also isn't a local Zipcar representative available, so users rely solely on the Web or their phones to reserve cars and trouble-shoot problems.

Since starting in 1999, Zipcar has seen great growth at universities across the country.

And it's also popular in compact, dense cities including Boston, New York and San Francisco.

In green-conscious states such as Oregon, Zipcars even come equipped with bicycle racks and free parking passes to forest parks.

The company says each Zipcar removes between 15 and 20 personally owned cars from the road. Customers say they drive 40% fewer miles, increase public transportation use nearly 20% and save more than $600 per month on transportation costs.

But Los Angeles' sprawling nature presents a unique challenge for the company, said spokesman John Williams. Officials plan to keep a close eye on the USC-UCLA pilot program, then look to expand in other busy centers, perhaps near transportation hubs and train stops.

"We don't want to invest in a strategy that won't work," Williams said.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is optimistic, given the early positive results.

"After turning this corner, we are now looking for ways to put car sharing in the fast lane to become a permanent reality here," he said.

[pesto]

Sounds like a great idea for urban areas. I would guess to reach a mass audience, they have to remove the logo from the vehicle.

I wonder if there is any thought of trying this in dense poor neighborhoods such as parts of NY, DC, Boston.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by pesto

Sounds like a great idea for urban areas. I would guess to reach a mass audience, they have to remove the logo from the vehicle.

I wonder if there is any thought of trying this in dense poor neighborhoods such as parts of NY, DC, Boston.

I can see the stripped zips cars now without wheels and tires, stripped to the bone like a chicken carcass.

[202_Cyclist]

Pesto-

ZipCar is a fantastic idea for urban areas and, as the article notes, helps reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase transit ridership. Many transit agencies are actively promoting ZipCar, since it helps people go car-less. ZipCar vehicles tend to be newer, smaller vehicles, so they generally get better mileage and they have dedicated parking spots in prime areas, reducing the need to cruise for parking (thus further reducing congestion and pollution).

At the recent Transportation Research Board annual meeting, there was a session on car-sharing. Cities and transit agencies gave ZipCar dedicated parking spots in prime locations. One of the speakers noted that local governments and transit agencies are now charging the company for these spots so they don't forego the revenue of losing curbside parking.

Many developers are also including dedicated ZipCar parking in their multifamily developments here in DC as part of more comprehensive Transportation Demand Management programs. This helps the developers gain support with the various local neighborhood associations and zoning commissions.

[202_Cyclist]

Here's an article in the current issue of Access magazine (UC Berkeley Transportation Center) about car-sharing and transit-oriented development: http://www.uctc.net/access/35/access35_TOD_and_Carsharing.shtml .

[Quixote]

The FEIR for Expo II has been certified by a vote of 6-0, with one abstention from Mark Ridley-Thomas' representative. All that's left now is to award the design/construction contract and then construction can begin in November!

[JDRCRASH]

YES!!! Down with those Cheviot Hills trolls!

[sopas ej]

From the LA Times:

Officials approve plans for Expo Line route on Westside

Some neighborhoods disagree with proposal and want parts of the route underground.

By Ari Bloomekatz
February 5, 2010

Los Angeles transportation officials on Thursday took a major step in bringing commuter rail to the Westside, approving plans for a route linking downtown L.A. to Santa Monica.

Officials hope to begin work later this year on phase two of the Expo Line, a nearly seven-mile link from downtown Culver City to the corner of 4th Street and Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica's main business district. Phase one of Expo Line is already under construction from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City.

Extending the line to Santa Monica would be an important milestone in Los Angeles' ambitious rail-building campaign. It would also mark the farthest west a rail line has reached in several decades, serving a section of the county that is notorious for traffic problems.

"Every other part of Los Angeles has been served by mass public transportation," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who represents the Westside. "This part of town, this part of the county has waited a long time for this."

Transportation planners believe they will have the $1.5 billion in local and state money to build it.

And although there is broad support for the extension, some neighborhood residents have concerns about portions of the plan.

Some homeowners say the plan for the route approved Thursday is unsafe and will create traffic problems, particularly a stretch near homes in Cheviot Hills as well as areas near Sepulveda Boulevard and Overland Avenue.

Those residents insist that at least one portion of the line should be built underground, saying that would make the route safer for motorists and pedestrians. They also argue that the underground route would improve traffic flow.

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."

The Expo Authority, which is building the line, said a subway along that stretch is unnecessary. Building a subway between Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue would add about $224 million to the project's cost.

Some speakers on Thursday agreed -- and urged the authority to approve the plans for the route as is.

Sarah Hays, co-chair of the group Light Rail for Cheviot, told the board that she was in favor of approving the plans for the route.

"I live . . . less than half a mile from the [rail] right of way, and I work within half a mile of the 4th Street Station in Santa Monica, so I would use this line," she said.

After the board approved the plans, she added: "It means we can move forward -- that we are one step closer to having an alternative to sitting in traffic."

The MTA has for decades wanted to build a subway along Wilshire Boulevard through Beverly Hills and into Santa Monica. But the high price -- several billion dollars -- has stalled the effort. And that leaves the Expo Line as the only viable plan right now for an east-west rail link from downtown to Santa Monica.

Opponents of the plans approved Thursday are threatening to file a lawsuit that could delay construction of the second phase, which officials hope to open in 2015.

The line is being mostly built on an abandoned Southern Pacific right of way and was originally touted by planners as a cost-effective and fast route for rail service to the Westside.

But the first 8.6-mile link from downtown Los Angeles to Venice and Robertson boulevards is already more than a year behind schedule and is more than $220 million over its original budget of $640 million.

Some delays are due to safety issues near schools. Activists have complained that the first phase's route poses a risk to students at Dorsey High School and Foshay Learning Center and have called for improvements, including running the line above or below street level.

That issue is still unresolved and the state Public Utilities Commission is deciding which safety improvements are needed near Dorsey High, and those improvements could be costly.

Furthermore, the Expo Authority and the contractor for the first phase of the project are at odds over some of the delays and are wrestling over who is to blame. That could further raise the project's phase one cost depending on how the dispute is resolved.

Rick Thorpe, chief executive of the Expo Authority, said that is why officials are using a different contracting process for the second phase.

Thorpe said that for the second phase, two contracts will be awarded for design, and then one of those same companies will also receive the contract for construction. That way the contractor is responsible for the plans and the follow-through, Thorpe said.

Officials said they hope to open the first part of phase one, from downtown Los Angeles to Crenshaw Boulevard, sometime this year and estimate that the second part of phase one will open about a year later.

Thorpe said the timeline of the first phase will not affect the second phase of the project because the sources of funding are different.

But fully funding the line is not a sealed deal because sales tax revenues are lower than expected, there is a state budget crisis and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has projected a historic $251.3-million operating deficit in the 2011 fiscal year.

ari.bloomekatz

@latimes.com

[LAsam]

Wow, a vote of 6-0 is a resounding approval. It will be a shame if despite this... a certain group files lawsuits and delays the process for everyone else.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by LAsam

Wow, a vote of 6-0 is a resounding approval. It will be a shame if despite this... a certain group files lawsuits and delays the process for everyone else.

How about instead of wasting time and money on a lawsuit they come up with the extra $224 million themselves? I don't think anyone would object to a subway if the Cheviot Hills residents wanted to pay for it.

Unlikely, sure, but I can dream

[OneMetropolis]

wow looks like LA's right on track no pun intended. Are there plans for a line going through south LA, Compton?