To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net
http://www.protectconsumerjustice.org/pregnant-women-living-near-freeways-face-greater-miscarriage-risk.html December 8, 2013
Pregnant African-American women who live near freeways are far more
likely to have miscarriages than women who don’t regularly breathe
exhaust fumes, California environmental health scientists have found.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
reports that African-Americans were about three times more likely to
miscarry if they lived within a half-block of a freeway or busy
boulevard than if they resided near lighter traffic.
The researchers also found that women who don’t smoke but regularly
inhale traffic exhaust increased their odds of miscarriage by about 50
percent, a study of nearly 5,000 pregnant women in California shows.
Dr. Joan Denton, director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which led the research, said in a statement:
“This study adds weight to the growing
body of evidence that constant, heavy exposure to traffic exhaust
significantly increases the risk of reproductive harm.”
Several studies have shown links between exposure to air pollution or
traffic and low birth weight, premature birth and birth defects. The
new research is the first published study of the effect of residential
traffic exposure on the risk of miscarriage, said Dr. Shelley Green, who led the study and specializes in the health effects of air pollution.
The paper was published in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Co-authors of the paper included researchers from OEHHA, the California
Department of Public Health and the University of Rochester School of
Medicine and Dentistry. Here is a link to the full report.
Green analyzed data from telephone interviews that Kaiser Permanente
conducted in 1990-1991 when pregnant women called to schedule their
first prenatal appointment at clinics in the East Bay and in the
counties of Santa Clara and San Bernardino. The survey of residential,
medical and pregnancy history was limited to volunteers who were no more
than 12 weeks pregnant.
About 9 percent of the almost 5,000 women in the study had
miscarried, which is within the normal range. Researchers examined the
miscarriages in relation to traffic exhaust, using residential proximity
to busy roads as a proxy for exposure to vehicle pollution. The roads
carried average traffic of at least 15,200 vehicles per day.
Pregnant women who lived within 55 yards of busy roads showed a
higher rate of miscarriage compared with women who lived further away
from roads with heavy traffic. The scientists found statistically
significant associations between miscarriage and proximity to traffic
for African-Americans and women who did not smoke while pregnant. While
the association with high traffic was more evident for the nonsmokers,
their neighbors who smoked had a 10 percent higher risk of miscarriage.
“Because smokers already are exposed
through their tobacco smoke to many of the same chemicals found in
vehicle exhaust, the effect of traffic may be masked by the smoking
effect.”
The environmental health office, which is part of the California
Environmental Protection Agency, narrowly escaped losing its funding in
the most recent budget negotiation. The office gained attention earlier this year for listing marjuana smoke as toxic. It also has been involved in studying bisphenol-A, widely used in plastics and thought by some to be a reproductive toxin.
Posted by Steve Madison on Facebook, August 2, 2013 Below is a picture from last night's Town Hall meeting at La Casita Del Arroyo--pictured are myself, Lt. Voskan Gourdikian and Transportation Director Fred Dock.
Thank you to all who attended and shared their thoughts about the issues facing the San Rafael neighborhood.
Peggy Drouet: I attended the meeting last night. A rundown of what was discussed:
(1) La Loma Bridge. This
will be an 18-month project. I have to go on memory, which may be in
error, on the dates as I failed to write them down. Start: spring 2014.
Notice will be given to residents before its commencement. A pedestrian bridge might be built in this area as well.
(2) Fire Station #39, renovations to be completed, hopefully, December 2013.
(3) Desiderio Property, which is under the Colorado Street Bridge. Steve Madison on the city of Pasadena website: I am pleased to announce that after many years of waiting, the City accepted possession of the Desiderio property from the Federal Government. The City is working on the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) as it plans to demolish the buildings. This process should take about a year. Funding is in place to move forward with the development of the open place. This project will expand the City's open space, make one of the most beautiful vistas of the Colorado Bridge accessible to all, and add affordable housing under Habitat for Humanity for many families.
(4) San Rafael Neighborhood and Avenue 64 traffic concerns. There were many traffic concerns
discussed, mainly speeding traffic on Avenue 64 and the lack of cars stopping at the stop
signs at Avenue 64 and Church Street and speeding traffic on streets leading to the San Rafael School
by
the students' inconsiderate parents. A traffic light at the corner of
Nithsdale and Avenue 64 might be considered but the money is not there
now. Steve Madison said that a traffic light there might
result
in considerable noise to nearby residents as cars would then be
stopping and then accelerating at that corner, so the pros and cons
would have to be taken into account.
We
were told that a comprehensive traffic study of the entire San Rafael
Neighborhood will commence in the near future. Survey forms will be sent
to all San Rafael residents for them to express their particular
concerns. The Los Angeles Avenue 64 people were upset when they were
told that they couldn't be part of this survey as they aren't Pasadena
residents. However, Steve Madison said he will try to coordinate any
study of Avenue 64 with LA City Councilman Jose Huizar.
Additionally, a community group to work with the city on traffic issues in the San Rafael area will
if you are interested in being a part of the group.
No on the 710 Tunnel
Two
tireless NO710 people, Sylvia Plummer and Sarah Gavit, put up posters
and gave out flyers at the building's entrance. I saw a number of people
reading the handouts before the meeting. Steve
Madison asked that people write the city councilmen who are still for
the 710 tunnel or who haven't made up their minds yet to try to convince
them that the tunnel is a really bad idea (District 1: Vice Mayor
Jacque Robinson; District 2, Margaret McAustin; District 7, Terry
Tornek; new councilman, District 3, John J. Kennedy). He will present a
motion for the city to recommend against the tunnel at the September
council meeting. Because of the Brown Act, he is not legally allowed to
talk to his fellow councilmen about this issue.
Posted by Steve Madison on Facebook, August 2, 2013 Below is a picture from last night's Town Hall meeting at La Casita Del Arroyo--pictured are myself, Lt. Voskan Gourdikian and Transportation Director Fred Dock.
Thank you to all who attended and shared their thoughts about the issues facing the San Rafael neighborhood.
Peggy Drouet: I attended the meeting last night. A rundown of what was discussed:
(1) La Loma Bridge. This will be an 18-month project. I have to go on memory, which may be in error, on the dates as I failed to write them down. Start: spring 2014. Notice will be given to residents before its commencement.
(2) Fire Station #39, renovations to be completed, hopefully, December 2013.
(3) Desiderio Property, which is under the Colorado Street Bridge. Steve Madison on the city of Pasadena website:
I am pleased to announce that after many years of waiting,the City accepted
possession of the Desiderio property from the Federal Government.
The City is working on the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) as it plans to demolish the buildings. This process should take about a year.
Funding is in place to move forward with the development of the open place.
This project will expand the City’s open space, make one of the most beautiful vistas of the Colorado Bridge accessible to all, and add affordable housing under Habitat for Humanity for many families.
(4) San Rafael Neighborhood and Avenue 64 traffic concerns. There were many traffic concerns
discussed, mainly speeding traffic on Avenue 64 and the lack of cars stopping at the stop
signs at Avenue 64 and Church Street and speeding traffic on streets leading to the San Rafael School
by the students' inconsiderate parents. A traffic light at the corner of Nithsdale and Avenue 64 might be considered but the money is not there now. Steve Madison said that a traffic light there might
result in considerable noise to nearby residents as cars would then be stopping and then accelerating at that corner, so the pros and cons would have to be taken into account.
We were told that a comprehensive traffic study of the entire San Rafael Neighborhood will commence in the near future. Survey forms will be sent to all San Rafael residents for them to express their particular concerns. The Los Angeles Avenue 64 people were upset when they were told that they couldn't be part of this survey as they aren't Pasadena residents. However, Steve Madison said he will try to coordinate any study of Avenue 64 with LA City Councilman Jose Huizar.
Additionally, a community group to work with the city on traffic issues in the San Rafael area will
if you are interested in being a part of the group.
No on the 710 Tunnel
Two tireless NO710 people, Sylvia Plummer and Sarah Gavit, put up posters and gave out flyers at the building's entrance. I saw a number of people reading the handouts before the meeting. Steve Madison asked that people write the city councilmen who are still for the 710 tunnel or who haven't made up their minds yet to try to convince them that the tunnel is a really bad idea (District 1: Vice Mayor Jacque Robinson; District 2, Margaret McAustin; District 7, Terry Tornek; new councilman, District 3, John J. Kennedy). He will present a motion for the city to recommend against the tunnel at the September council meeting. Because of the Brown Act, he is not legally allowed to talk to his fellow councilmen about this issue.
Metro gave a glimpse into the future of Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly
Hills, at least for the next 10 or so years, at a meeting on July 18
with the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs
Committee.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Wilshire/La Cienega
station, part of “phase 1” in Metro’s nine-mile, three-phase Purple Line
Extension.
Construction
Metro is currently in the “pre-construction” phase and hoping to put
dirt to shovel as early as 2014 to remain on a nine-year track to have
the station open by 2023. Currently, as part of its pre-construction
phase, Metro is initiating contracts to relocate water, power and sewer
lines from the construction area. Invitation for Bids for the Advance
Utility Locations are currently being solicited.
The Wilshire/La Cienega station will have its entrance at the
northeast corner. There will be two construction staging sites
(northeast corner of Wilshire/La east corner of Wilshire/La Cienega and
northwest corner of Wilshire/Gale). Crossover tracks will extend the box
to the east and there will be a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) removal
site at the conclusion of tunneling.
Metro representatives described the station stops as anywhere between 800-1000 feet long, 70-feet wide and around 60-feet deep.
Station box construction begins with soldier pile installation, an
earth-retention technique that retains soil by use of vertical steel
piles with horizontal lagging.
From there, initial excavation and decking installation begins. Once
the concrete decking is installed, site preparation is complete and
excavation and construction commences underneath.
Exemptions
To complete the station construction within its proposed nine-year
window, Metro will seek several exemptions from both the cities of Los
Angeles and Beverly Hills. At its August 20 study session, the Beverly
Hills City Council will discuss how to proceed several of those
exemptions.
One such exemption is to allow construction during “peak hours”
(meaning rush hours). These peak hours are generally from 6-9 a.m. and
around 3:30-7 p.m.
Metro will also seek exemptions to complete overnight work, as long as it is conducted within the City’s specified noise limits.
Metro also seeks to have a holiday construction moratorium that would
allow for construction between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day.
Pile installation and street decking in particular will require peak
hour exemptions, while most of the other activities, such as tunnel
construction, station construction, hauling, deliveries and demolition
will require night-time noise variances, the holiday moratorium, weekend
closures, or in some cases all three.
The exemptions will prove crucial for Metro’s nine-year timeline.
When asked for a synopsis of recent construction timelines at the
meeting, Metro’s Jody Litvak said she did not know how long each of the
recently-built stations took to construct.
Schedule
Metro presented two different options for each phase of construction.
Final scheduling will be decided on after working with the City on
details.
For advanced utility location, two options were presented: working
nights from Sunday-Thursday from 8 p.m.-6 a.m., for 40 hours per week
for 12 months. The second option is a daytime option, working Sunday
from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Monday-Thursday from 10 a.m.-3 p.m., for 28
hours per week over 19 months.
Option 1 for pile installation includes day and night work from
Monday-Friday from 7 a.m. to midnight, for 80 hours a week over 30
weeks.
Option 2 includes Sunday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. work and Monday-Thursday 10 a.m.-3 p.m. work for 28 hours a week over 120 weeks.
Deck installation is proposed on weekend days and nights, from Friday
at 11:59 p.m. to Monday at 6 a.m., for 54 hours a week over a span of
20 weekends.
During that time, full street closures will be required, along with a peak hour work exemption and after hours permit.
As noted last week in The Courier, Metro has no plans laid out yet on
where traffic will be directed during this construction. When
questioned at the meeting, Metro reps said traffic detour details
remained to be worked out with the City. Litvak also said the timing of
the closures remains to be determined.
Among those in attendance were BHUSD superintendent Gary Woods,
councilmember Willie Brien, Andrea Kune, Murray Fischer and former
mayors Joe Tilem, Mark Egerman and Allan Alexander.
If every bit of Downtown LA were built out to its maximum density, it could support 4.3 million
people--nearly 10 times the current number. But don't get too excited;
if that did happen, most of those people would be sitting in the dark,
thirsty and surrounded by piles of garbage. This is according to
architecture firm Gensler, which just released an eight-minute video on
the neighborhood's capacity, looking not just at what the city rules
allow to be built, but also at the resources (water, electricity,
natural gas) available to support more people. A design director at the
firm told Downtown News
that "the bottom line is that maximum density as defined by the city is
really unachievable." At our current level of conservation, for
instance, Downtown could only support 1.36 million people. Maybe something to consider as LA's zoning code gets rewritten?
See the website to view the video "Capacity: Downtown Los Angeles."
A few short hours after the Senate Appropriations
Committee passed a $594 billion defense spending bill, Republicans
blocked the $54 billion transportation and HUD bill from coming to the
floor for a vote. House Republican leadership had blocked its own THUD bill the day before.
Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell fought members of his own party to keep
them from allowing a vote on the transportation spending bill
yesterday.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Politico
that Republicans had to quash the bill in order to “indicate we’re
going to keep our word around here” — meaning that the Republicans would
adhere to the automatic budget cuts triggered when Congress couldn’t
agree on a solution to the debt ceiling crisis. Hal Rogers, chairman of
the House Appropriations Committee, furious that the bill had been
pulled, blamed the excessive austerity of the budget they were forced to
work within. He called for the end of sequestration “and its
unrealistic, ill-conceived, discretionary cuts.”
McConnell, on the other hand, displayed a singleminded determination
to kill the Senate transportation spending bill. “He has never worked
harder against a member of his own party than he did against me today,”
said Sen. Susan Collins, the sole Republican to vote in favor of
considering the bill. Collins, the top Republican on the Transportation
Appropriations Committee, co-wrote the bill with Chair Patty Murray.
According to Politico, other Republicans were prepared to vote in favor
of the bill, but “when it became obvious the bill would not meet the
60-vote threshold, she told them they should vote no.”
The Senate leaves today for a five-week August recess and when they
return after Labor Day, they’ll have just nine legislative days before
the end of the fiscal year.
“So where does that leave us?” Appropriations Committee Barbara Mikulski said. “What is that, are we back to gridlock?”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer was equally frustrated with the
Republican block. “We’re hurting the economy, we’re undermining the
confidence of the American people,” he said on the House floor.
Hoyer said he wasn’t in favor of his chamber’s THUD proposal, which cut 15 percent
from current funding levels, but he was also irritated with Republicans
in both houses for blocking votes on the bills. “Nine days from
tomorrow, nine legislative days from tomorrow, we’re going to have that
issue of how we’re going to fund government and keep it running,” he
said. “In both Houses, the Republican Party has abandoned the
appropriations process.”
Rogers called the House bill’s prospects in September “bleak at best,
given the vote count on the passage that was apparent this afternoon.”
But the prospects of these bills have always been bleak, given how
different they are and how impossible it would be to conference them
into one compromise piece of legislation that the president would sign.
So perhaps it’s no great loss. Next month, Congress will find a way to
pass a continuing resolution. freezing current budget levels for yet
another year.
“Transportation investments that support active travel — like
greenways, trails, sidewalks, traffic-calming devices, and public
transit — create opportunities to increase routine physical activity,
improve health, and lower health care costs,” writes U.S. DOT’s Todd Solomon this morning on Secretary Anthony Foxx’s Fast Lane blog. “The same investments promote sustainability.”
All of these numbers are testament to the importance of street design
and transit service in how we make our transportation choices and how
healthy we are. The statistic about route selection in Portland
particularly illustrates how significant good bike facilities are. The same study
that found that 49 percent of bike commuters’ miles were ridden on
roads with bike facilities also found that 10 percent of utilitarian
bicycle travel — as opposed to bicycling just for exercise — occurred on
bicycle boulevards, even though bicycle boulevards make up less than 1
percent of the region’s bicycle network. Cities can keep this in mind if
they’re wondering whether anyone will use the new bike infrastructure
they’re thinking of investing in.
Kudos to U.S. DOT for publicizing these important facts!
Council Members Mitch O'Farrell, Joe Buscaino, Mitch Englander and Mike Bonin listen to testimony from last week's hearing.
In Los Angeles, according to LAPD crime statistics for 2011, 1273
cyclists and pedestrians were victims of hit and run crashes. In other
words every single day, 3 or 4 cyclists and pedestrians become hit and
run victims within Los Angeles city limits. Of these, 26 people walking
or biking died as a result of the collision in which a motorist fled the
scene. Another 10 victims were killed while in cars.
Mind numbing.
Because LAPD traffic division response time can typically take an
hour or more to respond and with LAPD officers known to actively
discourage filing reports for minor or no injury hit and runs, there is
no telling what the true extent of the crisis is. Years of public
comments and protests by cycling and pedestrian advocates including a
focused Police Commission action last year have only begun to garner the
kind of attention needed to begin to solve this.
Several members of the “all powerful bicycle lobby,” including
myself, made the early morning trip to City Hall thanks to a special LA
Bike Trains group ride. Having released the report to the police
commission weeks before we already knew the report was a disappointment
in many ways. But this was a chance to hear what the Council Members
thought and to deliver another round of public comment.
Having attended many of these meetings over the years I was not
terribly optimistic about it. The formula usually goes something like…
livable streets advocates show up with pitch forks, LAPD / LADOT make
excuses / naysay / not feasible, politicians feign interest / read their
Blackberrys and / or Tom LaBonge talks about critical mass and outlaw
bike riders.
But this meeting was different – stacked with freshmen councilmembers – it struck me as a bit of a sea change.
Not only were these Council Members engaged, they were speaking
nuanced livable streets language. At one point Council Member Bonin
corrected LAPD Deputy Chief Downing for invoking Critical Mass as a
causation for hit and run crimes stating: “The typical hit and run
victim is not riding on Critical Mass.” This was immediately received
with applause from the audience. Given the chance, I would have politely
whispered to Chief Downing that the LAPD has been escorting a very
peaceful amicable Critical Mass now for years… but I digress.
“There still has to be accountability on the part of the bicyclists.” -Deputy Michael Chief Downing
(QUESTION: How exactly does a hit and run victim work to become accountable while lying abandoned on the pavement?)
“We want to have more clearance on robberies than we do hit and runs.” -Deputy Chief Michael Downing
“There is no such thing as a hit and run accident, there is no such
thing as a murder accident or a child rape accident… it is a crime.” –
Ann, cyclist
“Driving is a priviledge not a right, and the privilege is thoroughly abused.” – TJ Flexor, cyclist
“A hit and run accident is also a violent crime and I personally want to see it elevated in status.”
- Mike Bonin
“My son was not killed by the hit, he was killed by the run.” -Dan Rosenberg
“As a father I take this very seriously.”
- Mitch Englander
“The trend is to get more people out of cars and walking and biking
everywhere. We need to protect vulnerable users of the roads.”
–Mitch O’Farrell
It was clear that the committee members were looking for answers and
the critical first step is acknowledging the problem, which the LAPD
through it’s report and via the words of Chief Downing were not quite
ready to do. Instead, the blame the victim mentality won the day. The
report slicing and dicing statistical methodology in an effort to
compare Los Angeles to other cities essentially proclaiming “Look! they
have a problem too!” I kept thinking to myself when was the last time
the ole “Everyone else is doing it too.” excuse got someone out of a
speeding ticket?
Moving forward, while it wasn’t made clear what the next steps would
be. But what I did find promising about the meeting was that all of the
members acknowledged that Hit and Run crime is not only out of control
in Los Angeles but more importantly that it should be elevated to the
same urgency as other violent crime. Cyclist and pedestrians advocates
have been asking for this distinction for years and it seems like the
city of Los Angeles is finally-almost-kind-of on the verge of
acknowledging it through official means.
Before retiring the item Councilman Englander moved to:
Adopt LAPD recommendations
Remove the word accident from hit and run reports
Gather better data and report EVERY hit and run crime
Report back on additional Enforcement options
These are encouraging first steps… and 3-4 people riding their bikes
and walking in Los Angeles today and tomorrow and the next and the next
and the next need the city to continue to step it up. Next week, I will
post up some thoughts on what I think the city can do right now to
quicken the pace.
Couldn’t attend last night’s community workshop for the Union Station
Master Plan? Above is the presentation given at the meeting and here is
a 27-minute video that includes the presentation and commentary from Master Plan staff.
So what do you think of the emerging plan? Any alternative or
particular slide that you like or have strong opinions about? Comment
please.
In
coffee shops and bookstores across Seattle this summer, advertisements
for concerts and gallery shows shared space with a less common urban
invitation: to a party for a really big drill.
The drill—specially designed to dig a tunnel underneath downtown Seattle,
building new car capacity to replace an aging, earthquake-damaged
viaduct that has dominated Seattle’s waterfront since the 1950s—has a
name (Bertha, in honor of Seattle’s first female mayor), a wisecracking Twitter account, and a smiling, shovel-wielding cartoon likeness.
Last
Saturday, some 5,000 people came to its going-away party, the last
chance for Seattleites to see the machine that, on Tuesday morning,
began grinding through the earth beneath their feet for the next year
and a half. It was as much a party as any construction site can be, with
food trucks and confetti amid the bulldozers and reflective vests.
Bertha’s
certainly big enough to warrant the hoopla. The largest-diameter drill
in the world (its boring face is five stories tall), it was shipped from
Japan to Seattle in 41 separate pieces back in April; its cutterhead
alone weighs almost 800 tons.
The whole
thing is over 300 feet long—and that’s not counting the two miles of
conveyer belt that will stretch out behind it, carrying hundreds of
thousands of cubic yards of sand, dirt and rock out of the tunnel and
onto waiting barges.
Bertha comes with its own control room, workshop, and lunchroom for the 25 workers who will work inside it (that’s right, inside–even
many of the cutting surfaces are designed to be replaceable from
within), as well as a pair of giant arms designed to secure the tunnel’s
walls (assembled inside Bertha’s shield and installed, ring by ring,
behind it as it goes).
Still, all the festivity—the I Heart Bertha
stickers, the gee-whiz signage—couldn’t help but feel a bit forced: an
effort to close the door on the long and often contentious path that led
to the champagne bottle exploding across Bertha’s broad back.
The viaduct that the new tunnel is meant to replace
was a 1950s answer to a 1950s traffic problem; even the city engineer
at the time reportedly looked at the designs and said, “It is not
beautiful.” The viaduct raised a double layer of cars, trucks and buses
above the city’s center, leaving the streets below in perpetual shadow
and noise and partially cutting the city’s waterfront, with its
beautiful views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains, off from the
rest of downtown.
Dave Bird, a
general contractor who attended the launch party, said he looked
forward to Seattle gaining a multi-use waterfront more like Vancouver,
British Columbia’s. “Ours is just a big concrete thing with cars on it,”
he told me.
Bertha began her life in Japan, constructed piece by piece, in sections. Image courtesy of WSDOT.
In 2001,
after an earthquake damaged the viaduct, it became clear that it could
not withstand another strong one. And so began a decade-long process of
coming up with an alternative. The city looked into another elevated
road and a cut-and-cover tunnel, but voters rejected both. The deep-bore
tunnel idea, too, was initially rejected as too expensive.
A number of
groups pushed to simply remove the viaduct without building a direct
alternative, arguing that surface streets, improved transit, and other,
upgraded routes could absorb the viaduct’s traffic, and that other
cities had removed downtown freeways without ill effects.
Arguments
raged in public hearings and editorial pages about which approach was
the best for the city’s future: the greenest, the most effective, the
most forward-thinking (which, to many, means the least car-centric). At
times it felt like a debate not about a commuting route, but about the
soul of the city.
Bertha is assembled inside her future shaft in Seattle. Image courtesy of WSDOT.
There are
still hard feelings. Some come from those who feel that politicians
rammed the tunnel idea through; from taxpayers who worry the dig will be
a boondoogle; from transit advocates who mourn pouring billions of
dollars into ever more infrastructure for private cars; and even from
commuters who are upset to lose the viaduct at all, with its quick
downtown access and beautiful view.
One woman told me that she was excited about the tunnel plan,
but asked not to print that information alongside her name because
“there are those in my life who are still extremely angered about it,
who cry when they think about anything to do with the tunnel.”
At the
launch party, though, there were plenty of Bertha boosters, and the
emotion most in evidence was curiosity. Seattleites strolled around the
site asking questions of engineers and Department of Transportation
employees: How will the drilling affect buildings? How will the tunnel
be ventilated? What will happen to all the dirt?
They stood
in long lines to lean over catwalks, craning their cameras to capture
the scope of the drill and the 80-foot deep pit in which it rested. Many
brought children, who gaped at the sheer size of the machinery and
collected stickers from a succession of information stations: conveyor
system, power source, cutterhead.
One sticker
came from checking out some unassembled sections of a future tunnel
ring—massive, curved slabs of concrete that, together, will eventually
combine to form a miniscule slice of the completed tube. The sections
were set out so that people could sign them or write messages—a kind of
21st-century cave art—which would be cemented underground as long as the
tunnel lasts.
Many of the
messages people chose to send underground with Bertha were simple:
“Good luck,” “Bon voyage,” “Dig straight!” and “See you on the other
side.” People wrote their names, their hometowns, their pride that they
or their family members had worked on the project. Someone wrote, “Civil
engineering rules!” Someone drew a bicycle and wrote, “Yah, put all the
cars underground!” Someone else: “In 2013 we really loved our cars.
Sorry.”
Expand
The
messages were a small, surreal reminder of the future Seattleites who
might someday encounter them, who will see in today’s public works a
relic of how the city once envisioned, rightly or wrongly, its own
future self. Their inscriptions transformed the tunnel into a time
capsule, a reverse archaeological site: burying a fossil message for the
future instead of digging one up from the past.
Bertha makes contact, breaking ground on Tuesday, July 30, 2013.
Comments:
Man there is a ton of irony here. A city that prides itself on being
progressive decides to kowtow to traffic instead of finding more
progressive alternatives (public transit etc.) to a growing traffic
problem. lol
It's more replacing a thoroughfare that could potentially collapse and kill everyone than it is a congestion relief plan.
Seattle needs subways to get between neighborhoods, not more highways.
Haven't we moved on from this Robert Moses thinking of city planning?
As excited as I am to see the tunnel be done and
have the waterfront be more open, this is a half-assed solution. They
are replacing a 6-lane viaduct with a 4-lane tunnel. In a city whose
population is supposed to grow by 1.5 million by the year 2020. Not
such forward looking planning.
Of course they are slowly making headway on the light rail system to
connect the north and south of the city, but all one needs to do is look
to "the bus tunnel" or the never-was-monorail to see how bad we, as a
city, are at public transportation issues.
Notice how much of the costs of this project will
be money that'll go out of metro-Seattle and even the country. The city
could have built an above-ground replacement for far less and with much
less risk of cost overruns. Think salt-water problems. This tunnel is
mere yards from an arm of the Pacific ocean.
It would have been far wiser and cheaper to demolish the existing
viaduct and have 3-4 local construction teams building portions of the
replacement quickly. A park, bikeway and small business venue could have
been built on the top, creating something unique to Seattle.
Instead, the politicians rammed this tunnel down out throats,
primarily because building below ground benefits powerful downtown real
estate interests. Everyone in the region gets taxed to enrich a few
dozen people.
I'm moving away from Seattle later this week, so I'll not get stuck
with all the added taxes if this project turns out like Boston's Big
Dig. Here's what Wikipeda says about the latter.
"The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs,
scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and
use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and even one death. The
project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an
estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted
for inflation as of 2006). However, the project was completed only in
December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982
dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006. The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038."
Pity Seattle. Big Bertha is likely to be a Big Failure.
One addition comment. There are those who bought the rather odd
argument that the old Viaduct blocked views of Puget Sound. That makes
no sense. Along much of its length, there are other and higher buildings
mere yards inland from the Viaduct that block those views just as
effectively. And as you can tell from the picture someone posted, the
land rises rapidly as you go inland, so a couple of blocks inland from
the existing Viaduct was effectively below grade and blocking no views.
Statement: “The existing blue line today is probably
one of the best light rail lines in the entire country,” said Gary
Gallegos, executive director of SANDAG, in a July 17 interview with Voice of San Diego.
Determination: Mostly True
Analysis: It’s not often that people say nice things about San Diego public transportation.
The city’s reputation as a sprawling ode to Southern California’s automobile dependence is well established.
So it was surprising to hear Gary Gallegos, executive director of
SANDAG, the regional transportation authority, say the most popular line
in the city’s light rail system is among the best in the entire
country.
Since the statement was so out-of-step with conventional wisdom, we decided it deserved another look.
The blue line runs from the U.S.-Mexico border through the South Bay,
Barrio Logan and into downtown San Diego. By 2018, SANDAG will have
expanded the line all the way to University City.
Part of the calculation to expand the blue line to University City —
rather than to build light rail service to some other part of the city —
was based on the ridership of the existing line, which makes it easier
to count on a solid return on the investment of extending service an
additional 11.2 miles.
Gallegos was explaining that calculation when he made this bold statement.
But he was also relatively vague.
He hedged a bit by saying the blue line was “one of the best” lines nationwide.
And he didn’t specify what metric he was using as a basis for his claim.
Spokespeople for SANDAG and MTS, which operates the local public
transportation system, said Gallegos was referring to a metric called
farebox recovery ratio, or a line’s operating expenses divided by its
fare revenue. It measures a transit line’s cost effectiveness.
“The blue line and the San Diego Trolley system as a whole rank at
the top of light rail lines in the nation in terms of ability to recoup
operating costs,” said Helen Gao, a SANDAG spokeswoman.
Here’s a chart of farebox recovery ratios for the best-performing national light rail systems, using 2011 data from the National Transit Database.
Farebox Recovery Ratio, Light Rail Lines
2011
Farebox Recovery Ratio (fare revenue/operating expenses) of national
light rail systems. (Source: National Transit Database)
The blue line itself has a farebox recovery ratio of 76.4 percent,
compared with the overall trolley system’s 57 percent. Boston, the next
highest performing system in the nation, has a 49 percent recovery
ratio. Los Angeles comes in at 21 percent.
The blue line, clearly, does a great job of recouping its operating expenses.
So, how does that metric fare as a single, catch-all description of a transit line’s effectiveness?
“When you look at financing public transit and providing reliable
transit, the first thing taxpayers ask is, ‘Does this make sense?’” said
Elyse Lowe, executive director of local advocacy group Move San Diego.
“Transit relies on its ongoing operating revenue to be successful, so I
really think (farebox recovery ratio) is the gold standard because you
want to know people are buying in.”
Lowe said one complaint of the trolley system as a whole, including
the blue line, is that its stops aren’t located in areas where it’s
possible to walk from home, meaning people often have to rely on a car
even if they use the trolley on a regular basis.
But the blue line remains effective because it goes all the way to
the border, where it begins with thousands of riders using it to access
jobs throughout San Diego.
“Clearly it was very smart to build the trolley all the way to the border,” Lowe said.
That decision also reveals another strength of the blue line: its original cost of construction.
The line’s capital cost in 1981 was $87.5 million, or $5.5 million
per mile. Two years later, planners added a second track to the line,
bringing the total cost to $119.25 million.
Adjusting for inflation, the original expenditure comes in at more
than $300 million in 2013 dollars. That’s a lot, but consider the
proposed extension of the blue line to University City is currently
carrying a projected cost of $1.7 billion, more than five times the
inflation-adjusted original expenditure.
“Between farebox recovery ratio, on top of the blue line being cited
often as one of the cheapest lines in the country, that combination
means it’s probably the top-performing line financially in the country,”
said Juan Matute, a researcher at the Institute of Transportation
Studies at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs.
But Matute also said judging the line entirely by its financial performance reveals the priorities of its planners.
“There’s a very businesslike focus about operating and always making
sure there’s a return on investment,” he said. “In other parts of the
state, transit is seen as a social service that connects people to jobs.
That’s just not going to show up in (farebox recovery ratio).”
Matute said his preferred measure of a system’s overall performance
is “passenger miles per annual vehicle revenue miles.” It’s basically a
way to measure the average number of riders on a transit vehicle. It
tells you whether a transit line is being used, rather than just whether
it’s financially viable.
Here’s how the San Diego Trolley ranks among other light-rail systems nationwide based on that metric.
Passenger Miles Per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Passenger Mile Per Vehicle Revenue Mile (Source: 2011 National Transit Database)
By that standard, San Diego still does pretty well, but it’s no
longer the clear top performer. It’s closer to the middle of the pack.
Based on a purely financial assessment, Gallegos was right to place
the blue line among the nation’s best-performing light rail lines.
What he didn’t mention was any other way to measure how effective a
line is, such as how well it allows residents to save money by ditching
their car, what percentage of the population makes use of the service or
how satisfied customers are with their trolley experience.
Consider this: A system consisting of one bus tasked with covering
the entire city would cost little to operate and could be entirely full
at all times. Though effectively useless, the hypothetical line might
notch a 100 percent farebox score. Farebox alone doesn’t tell a transit
line’s whole story.
But outside of a super-metric that properly weighs competing
priorities and spits out a single answer on the “best” line in the
country, farebox is an important measure.
Our rubric grades a statement “mostly true” when it is accurate but misses an important nuance.
That fits Gallegos’ statement, which accurately described the blue
line as one of the most financially successful in the country, but
didn’t acknowledge other ways a public transportation line performs.
If you disagree with our determination or analysis, please express
your thoughts in the comments section of this blog post. Explain your
reasoning.
