http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12130992/valley-leaders-call-for-higher-return-on-public-transit-dollars
By Dana Bartholomew, October 27, 2015
Oct. 26--VAN NUYS -- Their motto said, "It's our turn: Ahora Nosotros!"
For the San Fernando Valley leaders who turned out for a
Transportation Summit in Van Nuys on Monday hoping to wring more Valley
rail projects out of a proposed 1-cent sales tax for public transit,
they meant it.
"This is a golden opportunity for transportation in the San Fernando
Valley," said Los Angeles Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents a
traffic-clogged district from North Hollywood to Van Nuys. "The Valley
must be part of a systemized (transit) plan.
"We must now speak as a single voice: The Valley must not be left
out. So it will be imperative for everyone in this room to fight tooth
and nail ... to make every penny that this Valley deserves goes into the
ballot measure."
The top priority of the transit summit was to identify the best
railways and bus systems linking residents to jobs and market places
throughout a sprawling region long underserved by local transit
agencies.
Hosted by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) and the Valley
Economic Alliance at Valley Presbyterian Hospital, it drew mayors and
city officials from Glendale to Calabasas, as well as neighborhood
council members, transit officials and residents from across the Valley.
PROPOSED TAXES
At issue were a proposed extension of the Measure R tax, as well as a tandem tax proposal known as Measure R2.
If both half-cent sales taxes make the November 2016 ballot, they
could inject $121 billion for new, people-moving projects across Los
Angeles County for decades.
If approved by voters, a so-called Measure R2 could generate $75
billion for transit fixes over the course of 40 years. A renewal of the
Measure R tax, in addition, could add another $46 billion in transit
dollars.
Half the combined $121 billion would be distributed to
the region's 88 cities for local transportation needs, including bike
lanes. The other half would be dealt out to nine subregions, including
the Valley, based on a proposed list of rail and transit priorities.
Approval of the 1-cent tax would signal the fourth sales tax since
1980 meant to help ease gridlock on L.A. County's logjammed streets and
freeways. A similar Measure J half-cent sales tax just failed to pass a
required 67 percent majority in 2012.
FAIR SHARE?
More than two dozen speakers Monday highlighted transit shortfalls in
a more than 250-square-mile region, with nearly 2 million residents,
who had once fought a resurgence of rail transit.
At issue for Valley elected officials and business leaders has been
the unfair return on Metro rail lines in the Valley compared to money
spent. Of its $52.4 billion in current Measure R budgeted projects,
according to the transit agency. Of that, the Valley share was $2.5
billion, or 5 percent, while Valley residents make up 15 percent of the
county's population and an estimated 23 percent of its tax base.
Of the 80 rail stops built by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority financed by voter-approved sales tax measures,
only two are located in the Valley.
"As the sign says, 'It's our turn,'" Hertzberg said. "We need to put forwards a strong and comprehensive (transit) plan."
Purpose
Friday, October 30, 2015
LA’s 7th Street Metro Station: Dysfunction Junction!
http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories-hidden/9867-la-s-7th-street-metro-station-dysfunction-junction
By Matthew Hetz, October 30, 2015
SIGNS OF TROUBLE ON METRO-I just returned home from a trip to Downtown Los Angeles. I parked at the Expo Line Culver City Station, took Expo to the 7th Street Station to the subway and got off at the Civic Center Station for a social function at the Los Angeles County Hall of Administration.
The return home was the reverse. I took the subway from the Civic Center Station to the 7th Street Station. After climbing the stairs from the subway to the light rail platform I turned and saw a train on the tracks. If this was my train, it was ideal. A very short wait, and off I’d go. However, the sign on the middle of the three cars listed “Los Angeles.” I wanted “Culver City.”
It was rather odd to see the Los Angeles sign on a train already in Los Angeles, at the 7th Street Metro Station, so I rightfully assumed it was for the Blue Line which shares the tracks and station with the Expo Line. The Blue Line runs between DTLA and DTLB (Downtown Long Beach.) So, if the train was in Long Beach heading north, the sign for the train car should read “Los Angeles;” it just needs changed to “Long Beach.”
The front marquee of the last car of the train was dimly showing “Long Beach.” Yes, this makes sense, I thought, the train at the platform with doors open, ready to roll, should be going to Long Beach. However, the station monitors listed the Culver City Expo Train departing in three minutes, and the Long Beach Blue Line departing in seven minutes. This didn’t make sense. The train at the platform said Los Angeles and Long Beach, but it wasn’t due to leave for seven minutes. The Culver City bound Expo train was leaving before it -- in three minutes. The Expo train should have been the one at the platform -- but that train showed “Los Angeles and Long Beach.”
I walked to the front car that had signs for “Culver City.” There were three cars on that same train, each with a different designation. This was quite confusing. A fellow rider said the one at the platform was the Expo for Culver City. Maybe…I wasn’t sure.
I tried to track down a train operator to confirm this. A few shouts to him and a thin reply was returned…yes, it was the Expo Line. Three different cars, three different destinations, one train. It was almost impossible.
This is one of Metro’s weakest points: confusion created by their signs.
I don’t know if this is due to carelessness, ignorance, not caring about the riders or the inability to properly run a rail line. But this is not the first time this has happened to me with this train at this station.
It cannot be that difficult to make sure that when a train pulls up to the platform, it is ready to roll. That means it must have clear, uniform and non-conflicting signs on each car. Every sign on every car must have the same correct designation.
This is becoming a joke. A sad, repeated bad joke. How hard is it to make sure that when a train pulls up to the platform to pick up and carry riders to their destinations that every sign on every car for that train has the identical and correct designation? I mean, how hard is that?
By Matthew Hetz, October 30, 2015
SIGNS OF TROUBLE ON METRO-I just returned home from a trip to Downtown Los Angeles. I parked at the Expo Line Culver City Station, took Expo to the 7th Street Station to the subway and got off at the Civic Center Station for a social function at the Los Angeles County Hall of Administration.
The return home was the reverse. I took the subway from the Civic Center Station to the 7th Street Station. After climbing the stairs from the subway to the light rail platform I turned and saw a train on the tracks. If this was my train, it was ideal. A very short wait, and off I’d go. However, the sign on the middle of the three cars listed “Los Angeles.” I wanted “Culver City.”
It was rather odd to see the Los Angeles sign on a train already in Los Angeles, at the 7th Street Metro Station, so I rightfully assumed it was for the Blue Line which shares the tracks and station with the Expo Line. The Blue Line runs between DTLA and DTLB (Downtown Long Beach.) So, if the train was in Long Beach heading north, the sign for the train car should read “Los Angeles;” it just needs changed to “Long Beach.”
The front marquee of the last car of the train was dimly showing “Long Beach.” Yes, this makes sense, I thought, the train at the platform with doors open, ready to roll, should be going to Long Beach. However, the station monitors listed the Culver City Expo Train departing in three minutes, and the Long Beach Blue Line departing in seven minutes. This didn’t make sense. The train at the platform said Los Angeles and Long Beach, but it wasn’t due to leave for seven minutes. The Culver City bound Expo train was leaving before it -- in three minutes. The Expo train should have been the one at the platform -- but that train showed “Los Angeles and Long Beach.”
I walked to the front car that had signs for “Culver City.” There were three cars on that same train, each with a different designation. This was quite confusing. A fellow rider said the one at the platform was the Expo for Culver City. Maybe…I wasn’t sure.
I tried to track down a train operator to confirm this. A few shouts to him and a thin reply was returned…yes, it was the Expo Line. Three different cars, three different destinations, one train. It was almost impossible.
This is one of Metro’s weakest points: confusion created by their signs.
I don’t know if this is due to carelessness, ignorance, not caring about the riders or the inability to properly run a rail line. But this is not the first time this has happened to me with this train at this station.
It cannot be that difficult to make sure that when a train pulls up to the platform, it is ready to roll. That means it must have clear, uniform and non-conflicting signs on each car. Every sign on every car must have the same correct designation.
This is becoming a joke. A sad, repeated bad joke. How hard is it to make sure that when a train pulls up to the platform to pick up and carry riders to their destinations that every sign on every car for that train has the identical and correct designation? I mean, how hard is that?
Here Are the 60 Big Transportation Projects That LA Wants to Build With a New Metro Sales Tax
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/10/metro_projects_sales_tax.php?utm_campaign=issue-40661&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Curbed+LA
By Bianca Barragan, October 12, 2015
About half of the $120 billion would go to new projects and the
rest would go toward helping "operate and maintain new projects that are
built." Though it's not yet been decided for sure that Metro will ask
for the sales tax increase, it does have a very tentative list of
projects that could potentially be funded by the potential new revenue.
Each of the nine Los Angeles subregions has turned in their list of priority projects (below)—it currently includes 60 projects but is far from final: Metro will be working with each area to "refine" the lists, evaluate the projects on them, and find out which would have the most impact; Metro's Board of Directors would ultimately be the ones to decide which would get funded and which wouldn't—a decision that's not expected to come until sometime in the first half of 2016. But in the meantime, we can dream, and so can the various regions served by Metro.
The Valley's wish list includes a conversion of the Orange Line busway to light rail, of course; the Westside's hoping for the Purple Line to hit Santa Monica (right now it's set to stop its journey west at the West LA VA). Some of the projects on the priority list (attachment D) have some funding already from 2008's Measure R sales tax increase; for those projects, the new sales tax funds would make up for any shortfall of Measure R dough and would, together, help get the projects built.
· Staff report: new details on long-range plan update and potential ballot measure [The Source]
Each of the nine Los Angeles subregions has turned in their list of priority projects (below)—it currently includes 60 projects but is far from final: Metro will be working with each area to "refine" the lists, evaluate the projects on them, and find out which would have the most impact; Metro's Board of Directors would ultimately be the ones to decide which would get funded and which wouldn't—a decision that's not expected to come until sometime in the first half of 2016. But in the meantime, we can dream, and so can the various regions served by Metro.
The Valley's wish list includes a conversion of the Orange Line busway to light rail, of course; the Westside's hoping for the Purple Line to hit Santa Monica (right now it's set to stop its journey west at the West LA VA). Some of the projects on the priority list (attachment D) have some funding already from 2008's Measure R sales tax increase; for those projects, the new sales tax funds would make up for any shortfall of Measure R dough and would, together, help get the projects built.
Here are three ways to unlock Los Angeles gridlock
USC Dornsife professors of economics, history and
American studies and ethnicity offer scholarly opinions on how the city
can tackle its unsustainable traffic problem.
http://news.usc.edu/87139/here-are-three-ways-to-solve-gridlock-in-los-angeles/
By Lizzie Hedrick, October 12, 2015
Of 1,500 people polled, 55 percent indicated that they were concerned more about traffic than any other issue.
It probably doesn’t come as a major shock that results of a California Community Foundation/USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll reveal traffic and congestion to be the point of greatest concern among Los Angeles residents who responded to the survey. Of 1,500 people polled, 55 percent indicated that they were concerned more about traffic than any other issue — including crime and gangs, personal finances and substandard housing.
A daunting challenge
William Deverell
William Deverell, professor of history, on what caused the traffic in Los Angeles and how government initiatives can help:
“Among the reasons for the traffic are an awful lot of people and relatively cheap gas [compared to the rest of the world]. In the past, the city was planned around the idea of sprawl. As LA stretched out, we put roads and freeways on top of what were once trolley lines to sustain that stretching out.
Also, I’d say our proclivity to drive alone adds a lot of cars to the roads. Pull out just a relatively small number of those cars by way of carpool or rideshare and traffic would go down a lot.
“A really good first step is to vote for additional sales tax increments to further Measure R, a 2008 ballot proposition that uses sales tax revenue to improve public transit, including new light rail lines. It’s hugely ambitious and very exciting.”
Matthew Kahn
“To an economist, traffic congestion means that the demand for our roads and parking exceeds the fixed supply. In such cases, economists advocate that we introduce a peak time toll for highway use that would decline during off-peak hours.
“I also support introducing time-of-day parking prices so that at peak times it costs more to park. Introducing these two pricing policies would reduce air pollution, increase the use of public transit and would mean that Los Angeles drivers could travel across the city at higher speeds and wouldn’t be stuck in traffic.”
Manuel Pastor, holder of the Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social Change and professor of sociology and American studies and ethnicity, on the need to invest in public transit:
“When most people think of LA, they associate us with car culture and suburban sprawl. That’s definitely our past — but this is now a region investing billions of dollars in an expanded mass transit system and a city where the hottest new real estate markets are in its densest and oldest areas.
Manuel Pastor (Photo/Peter Zhaoyu Zhou)
Although the community-level changes needed to rectify the problem are a long way down the freeway, Schnur pointed out that there are steps individuals can take — literally — to improve their quality of life.
“The majority of Angelenos have decided it’s worth making a trade to put up with all that time stuck on the highway to enjoy this weather and this lifestyle,” Schnur said. “But what some have discovered is that they don’t have to make that trade — they can ride the train; they can bike; they can walk.”
Seven Years at the Sunroom Desk: 2008 to 2015 . . . R to R2
http://sunroomdesk.com/2015/10/28/2008-to-2015-r-to-r2/
October 28, 2015
Zero emission vehicles displayed at Mobility 21, August 2015
Sustainability, civic engagement and online publishing are the major topics explored on Sunroom Desk, today celebrating seven years since its launch in October 2008! Sunroom Desk has reported on Mobility 21 summits since 2009; the 2015 event featured zero emission vehicles and a focus on quality of life issues as well as ports / goods movement trends.
Regional transportation policy highlights since this blog’s inception:
In November 2008, the LA County Measure R half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects passed. Included in that measure, unknown to many voters who were sold on more transit options, was $780 million to study a 710 Freeway extension north to the 210.
In September 2009 at that year’s Mobility 21 summit, California Transportation Secretary Dale Bonner and USC Keston Institute Policy Director Richard Little each mentioned the 710 tunnel as an example of a controversial project. The panelists’ focus in the morning session was building public consensus for projects and creating new funding strategies. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was one of many exhibitors that year; its Regional Transportation Plan brochure listed the 710 “gap closure” as the first transportation project in its long-range plan (from a Sunroom Desk post).
In 2012, LA County Measure J proposed to extend the transportation sales tax and fund more projects. By this time, those concerned about the SR-710 tunnel proposal were alert. The measure failed by a narrow margin. Although the No 710 Action Committee did not campaign against Measure J, many voters in affected communities were aware the measure would continue the project funding.
In 2015, the SR-710 Draft Environmental Impact Report was released, clearly favoring a 4.5-mile tunnel linking the north stub of the 710 to the 210. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Congressman Adam Schiff, and many others criticized it as flawed, inadequate and/or skewed. A diverse set of neighborhoods, preservation groups, organizations and five cities had fully mobilized to oppose it.
As the DEIR comment period progressed, from February through August of 2015, many voices echoed those of former La Canada Flintridge Mayor Donald Voss: “We need a solution that the whole region can support!”
In August 2015, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments voted to remove the SR-710 tunnel from its transportation priority list submitted for Measure R2, “in effect admitting that the proposed project suffers from so much opposition that inclusion in a county-wide sales tax measure would doom it to defeat.”
No 710 Action Committee members have been arguing for sustainable, 21st-century multi-modal solutions to the region’s traffic and congestion problems. They were at last week’s Metro Board meeting with a message that the SR-710 extension / tunnel must be eliminated as an option before any ballot measure is put before the voters.
Beyond the 710
is a five-city coalition (South Pasadena, Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada
Flintridge and Sierra Madre) that formed to oppose the SR-710
extension. It issued an exhaustive 88-page analysis critical of the tunnel and the SR-710 Study. It proposed instead a New Initiative for Mobility and Community,
featuring more green space and more transit connections at the north
end of the 710, encouragement of active transportation and technology
for better traffic management.
Mobility 21’s theme this year was Competitive California: Making California the best place to live, work and play. There was no mention of the SR-710 project, and the closest anyone got to the issue was a debate about more highway building in general. The focus was on quality of life, zero emission vehicles, lowering pollution and creating a sustainable transportation system for people and for freight movement. Breakout sessions notes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLSB53-_h02xFDRsQzPvcpVFpXUIK1HDRy&v=DhlHTdekRz0
As Sunroom Desk has covered sustainability and civic engagement, the policy trend over time is shifting toward investments in clean energy, zero emission vehicles, a well-formed “Beyond the 710” proposal, a focus on quality of life and more transportation options, and a second round of transit projects funded by a new LA County measure.
A last word on the third theme of this blog:
Online publishing has played a major role in bringing stakeholders together to learn the facts and present their views. Thanks to all who have compiled:
October 28, 2015
Zero emission vehicles displayed at Mobility 21, August 2015
Zero
emission vehicles displayed at Mobility 21, August 2015 - See more at:
http://sunroomdesk.com/2015/10/28/2008-to-2015-r-to-r2/#sthash.jBTwa7ET.dpuf
Sustainability, civic engagement and online publishing are the major topics explored on Sunroom Desk, today celebrating seven years since its launch in October 2008! Sunroom Desk has reported on Mobility 21 summits since 2009; the 2015 event featured zero emission vehicles and a focus on quality of life issues as well as ports / goods movement trends.
Regional transportation policy highlights since this blog’s inception:
In November 2008, the LA County Measure R half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects passed. Included in that measure, unknown to many voters who were sold on more transit options, was $780 million to study a 710 Freeway extension north to the 210.
In September 2009 at that year’s Mobility 21 summit, California Transportation Secretary Dale Bonner and USC Keston Institute Policy Director Richard Little each mentioned the 710 tunnel as an example of a controversial project. The panelists’ focus in the morning session was building public consensus for projects and creating new funding strategies. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was one of many exhibitors that year; its Regional Transportation Plan brochure listed the 710 “gap closure” as the first transportation project in its long-range plan (from a Sunroom Desk post).
In 2012, LA County Measure J proposed to extend the transportation sales tax and fund more projects. By this time, those concerned about the SR-710 tunnel proposal were alert. The measure failed by a narrow margin. Although the No 710 Action Committee did not campaign against Measure J, many voters in affected communities were aware the measure would continue the project funding.
In 2015, the SR-710 Draft Environmental Impact Report was released, clearly favoring a 4.5-mile tunnel linking the north stub of the 710 to the 210. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Congressman Adam Schiff, and many others criticized it as flawed, inadequate and/or skewed. A diverse set of neighborhoods, preservation groups, organizations and five cities had fully mobilized to oppose it.
As the DEIR comment period progressed, from February through August of 2015, many voices echoed those of former La Canada Flintridge Mayor Donald Voss: “We need a solution that the whole region can support!”
In August 2015, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments voted to remove the SR-710 tunnel from its transportation priority list submitted for Measure R2, “in effect admitting that the proposed project suffers from so much opposition that inclusion in a county-wide sales tax measure would doom it to defeat.”
No 710 Action Committee members have been arguing for sustainable, 21st-century multi-modal solutions to the region’s traffic and congestion problems. They were at last week’s Metro Board meeting with a message that the SR-710 extension / tunnel must be eliminated as an option before any ballot measure is put before the voters.
Beyond the 710
is a five-city coalition (South Pasadena, Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada
Flintridge and Sierra Madre) that formed to oppose the SR-710
extension. It issued an exhaustive 88-page analysis critical of the tunnel and the SR-710 Study. It proposed instead a New Initiative for Mobility and Community,
featuring more green space and more transit connections at the north
end of the 710, encouragement of active transportation and technology
for better traffic management.Mobility 21’s theme this year was Competitive California: Making California the best place to live, work and play. There was no mention of the SR-710 project, and the closest anyone got to the issue was a debate about more highway building in general. The focus was on quality of life, zero emission vehicles, lowering pollution and creating a sustainable transportation system for people and for freight movement. Breakout sessions notes:
- senior citizens are using Uber for transportation but also augmenting Social Security by becoming Uber drivers (but are they being paid enough?)—FYI: Uber was a summit sponsor
- 89% of adults age 45+ surveyed want to stay at home as they age – what transportation options will they have?
- the future is “shared mobility”
- low-income communities and senior citizens need transportation options: Rudy Espinoza (Executive Director of Leadership for Urban Renewal Network) argued that equity in transportation projects meant no new highways. Hasan Ikhrata (Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments) conceded “no new highways,” but argued that we need to “invest in capacity.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLSB53-_h02xFDRsQzPvcpVFpXUIK1HDRy&v=DhlHTdekRz0
As Sunroom Desk has covered sustainability and civic engagement, the policy trend over time is shifting toward investments in clean energy, zero emission vehicles, a well-formed “Beyond the 710” proposal, a focus on quality of life and more transportation options, and a second round of transit projects funded by a new LA County measure.
A last word on the third theme of this blog:
Online publishing has played a major role in bringing stakeholders together to learn the facts and present their views. Thanks to all who have compiled:
- websites devoted to these issues (check out the comprehensive resources on No710.com!)
- citizen YouTube channels posting videos of civic and community meetings
- Facebook pages that update followers
- and of course community blogs!
Sustainability,
civic engagement and online publishing are the major topics explored on
Sunroom Desk, today celebrating seven years since its launch in October
2008! Sunroom Desk has reported on Mobility 21 summits
since 2009; the 2015 event featured zero emission vehicles and a focus
on quality of life issues as well as ports / goods movement trends.
Regional transportation policy highlights since this blog’s inception:
In November 2008, the LA County Measure R half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects passed. Included in that measure, unknown to many voters who were sold on more transit options, was $780 million to study a 710 Freeway extension north to the 210.
In September 2009 at that year’s Mobility 21 summit, California Transportation Secretary Dale Bonner and USC Keston Institute Policy Director Richard Little each mentioned the 710 tunnel as an example of a controversial project. The panelists’ focus in the morning session was building public consensus for projects and creating new funding strategies. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was one of many exhibitors that year; its Regional Transportation Plan brochure listed the 710 “gap closure” as the first transportation project in its long-range plan (from a Sunroom Desk post).
In 2012, LA County Measure J proposed to extend the transportation sales tax and fund more projects. By this time, those concerned about the SR-710 tunnel proposal were alert. The measure failed by a narrow margin. Although the No 710 Action Committee did not campaign against Measure J, many voters in affected communities were aware the measure would continue the project funding.
In 2015, the SR-710 Draft Environmental Impact Report was released, clearly favoring a 4.5-mile tunnel linking the north stub of the 710 to the 210. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Congressman Adam Schiff, and many others criticized it as flawed, inadequate and/or skewed. A diverse set of neighborhoods, preservation groups, organizations and five cities had fully mobilized to oppose it.
As the DEIR comment period progressed, from February through August of 2015, many voices echoed those of former La Canada Flintridge Mayor Donald Voss: “We need a solution that the whole region can support!”
In August 2015, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments voted to remove the SR-710 tunnel from its transportation priority list submitted for Measure R2, “in effect admitting that the proposed project suffers from so much opposition that inclusion in a county-wide sales tax measure would doom it to defeat.”
No 710 Action Committee members have been arguing for sustainable, 21st-century multi-modal solutions to the region’s traffic and congestion problems. They were at last week’s Metro Board meeting with a message that the SR-710 extension / tunnel must be eliminated as an option before any ballot measure is put before the voters.
Beyond the 710
is a five-city coalition (South Pasadena, Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada
Flintridge and Sierra Madre) that formed to oppose the SR-710
extension. It issued an exhaustive 88-page analysis critical of the tunnel and the SR-710 Study. It proposed instead a New Initiative for Mobility and Community,
featuring more green space and more transit connections at the north
end of the 710, encouragement of active transportation and technology
for better traffic management.
Mobility 21’s theme this year was Competitive California: Making California the best place to live, work and play. There was no mention of the SR-710 project, and the closest anyone got to the issue was a debate about more highway building in general. The focus was on quality of life, zero emission vehicles, lowering pollution and creating a sustainable transportation system for people and for freight movement. Breakout sessions notes:
As Sunroom Desk has covered sustainability and civic engagement, the policy trend over time is shifting toward investments in clean energy, zero emission vehicles, a well-formed “Beyond the 710” proposal, a focus on quality of life and more transportation options, and a second round of transit projects funded by a new LA County measure.
A last word on the third theme of this blog:
Online publishing has played a major role in bringing stakeholders together to learn the facts and present their views. Thanks to all who have compiled:
In November 2008, the LA County Measure R half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects passed. Included in that measure, unknown to many voters who were sold on more transit options, was $780 million to study a 710 Freeway extension north to the 210.
In September 2009 at that year’s Mobility 21 summit, California Transportation Secretary Dale Bonner and USC Keston Institute Policy Director Richard Little each mentioned the 710 tunnel as an example of a controversial project. The panelists’ focus in the morning session was building public consensus for projects and creating new funding strategies. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was one of many exhibitors that year; its Regional Transportation Plan brochure listed the 710 “gap closure” as the first transportation project in its long-range plan (from a Sunroom Desk post).
In 2012, LA County Measure J proposed to extend the transportation sales tax and fund more projects. By this time, those concerned about the SR-710 tunnel proposal were alert. The measure failed by a narrow margin. Although the No 710 Action Committee did not campaign against Measure J, many voters in affected communities were aware the measure would continue the project funding.
In 2015, the SR-710 Draft Environmental Impact Report was released, clearly favoring a 4.5-mile tunnel linking the north stub of the 710 to the 210. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Congressman Adam Schiff, and many others criticized it as flawed, inadequate and/or skewed. A diverse set of neighborhoods, preservation groups, organizations and five cities had fully mobilized to oppose it.
As the DEIR comment period progressed, from February through August of 2015, many voices echoed those of former La Canada Flintridge Mayor Donald Voss: “We need a solution that the whole region can support!”
In August 2015, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments voted to remove the SR-710 tunnel from its transportation priority list submitted for Measure R2, “in effect admitting that the proposed project suffers from so much opposition that inclusion in a county-wide sales tax measure would doom it to defeat.”
No 710 Action Committee members have been arguing for sustainable, 21st-century multi-modal solutions to the region’s traffic and congestion problems. They were at last week’s Metro Board meeting with a message that the SR-710 extension / tunnel must be eliminated as an option before any ballot measure is put before the voters.
Beyond the 710
is a five-city coalition (South Pasadena, Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada
Flintridge and Sierra Madre) that formed to oppose the SR-710
extension. It issued an exhaustive 88-page analysis critical of the tunnel and the SR-710 Study. It proposed instead a New Initiative for Mobility and Community,
featuring more green space and more transit connections at the north
end of the 710, encouragement of active transportation and technology
for better traffic management.Mobility 21’s theme this year was Competitive California: Making California the best place to live, work and play. There was no mention of the SR-710 project, and the closest anyone got to the issue was a debate about more highway building in general. The focus was on quality of life, zero emission vehicles, lowering pollution and creating a sustainable transportation system for people and for freight movement. Breakout sessions notes:
- senior citizens are using Uber for transportation but also augmenting Social Security by becoming Uber drivers (but are they being paid enough?)—FYI: Uber was a summit sponsor
- 89% of adults age 45+ surveyed want to stay at home as they age – what transportation options will they have?
- the future is “shared mobility”
- low-income communities and senior citizens need transportation options: Rudy Espinoza (Executive Director of Leadership for Urban Renewal Network) argued that equity in transportation projects meant no new highways. Hasan Ikhrata (Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments) conceded “no new highways,” but argued that we need to “invest in capacity.”
As Sunroom Desk has covered sustainability and civic engagement, the policy trend over time is shifting toward investments in clean energy, zero emission vehicles, a well-formed “Beyond the 710” proposal, a focus on quality of life and more transportation options, and a second round of transit projects funded by a new LA County measure.
A last word on the third theme of this blog:
Online publishing has played a major role in bringing stakeholders together to learn the facts and present their views. Thanks to all who have compiled:
- websites devoted to these issues (check out the comprehensive resources on No710.com!)
- citizen YouTube channels posting videos of civic and community meetings
- Facebook pages that update followers
- and of course community blogs!
Why You Cannot Trust Cost-Benefit Analysis
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-you-cannot-trust-cost-benefit-analysis-bent-flyvbjerg-%E5%82%85%E4%BB%A5%E6%96%8C-?trk=prof-post
By Bent Flyvbjerg, October 29, 2015
By Bent Flyvbjerg, October 29, 2015
The planning fallacy, much emphasized by behavioral scientists,
suggests that people systematically underestimate the time it will take
to complete projects. However, the planning fallacy is not limited to
time; it applies to the costs and benefits of projects as well.
This means that cost-benefit analysis will typically be a poor basis for decision making. In fact, ex-ante benefit-cost ratios for capital projects are so misleading as to be worse than worthless, because decision makers are led to believe they are being informed when in fact they are being misinformed. As a consequence, decision makers may give the green light to projects that should never have been started.
See full study by Bent Flyvbjerg and Cass Sunstein here: http://bit.ly/1hCsaOg
On how to de-bias cost-benefit analysis, see here: http://bit.ly/1ly0JDu and http://bit.ly/1oB2bb4
Benefit-cost ratios are typically overestimated by 50-200 percentThis points to an important problem for cost-benefit analysis. Due to the planning fallacy, ex-ante estimates of costs and benefits are likely to be biased, with costs underestimated and benefits overestimated. If the biases were small, this would not matter too much. But the biases are substantial, as documented by the table below, which measures bias in cost and benefit estimates by cost overrun and benefit overrun, respectively, for eight different types of large capital projects. The data show that benefit-cost ratios produced by conventional methods are typically overestimated by between 50 and 200 percent, depending on project type.
This means that cost-benefit analysis will typically be a poor basis for decision making. In fact, ex-ante benefit-cost ratios for capital projects are so misleading as to be worse than worthless, because decision makers are led to believe they are being informed when in fact they are being misinformed. As a consequence, decision makers may give the green light to projects that should never have been started.
Cost-benefit analysis must be de-biasedThis does not prove the uselessness of cost-benefit analysis as such, needless to say. It demonstrates, however, that cost-benefit analysis must be effectively and independently de-biased before serving as a basis for decision making, and incentives must be in place to make this happen. Fortunately, good de-biasing tools and incentive structures exist and have proven their worth in practice, in both government and business.
See full study by Bent Flyvbjerg and Cass Sunstein here: http://bit.ly/1hCsaOg
On how to de-bias cost-benefit analysis, see here: http://bit.ly/1ly0JDu and http://bit.ly/1oB2bb4
Bertha relaunch delayed again
http://tunneltalk.com/Alaskan-Way-28Oct2015-Relaunch-of-TBM-Bertha-delayed-again-in-Seattle.php
October 28, 2015
A year ago, when STP was excavating the recovery shaft
ahead of repairs to the TBM’s compromised sealing system and planning
for full replacement of the main bearing, the contractor JV presented
WSDOT with a recovery schedule that forecast the resumption of
tunnelling in April this year (2015), final breakthrough by April 2016,
and a tunnel opening date of August 2017. This means that a further
eight months of project slippage has occurred over the last 12 months.
When TBM Bertha launched in August 2013 the original schedule projected that the tunnel would open in December this year (2015), with final completion in the first quarter of 2016.
“STP has told us the latest changes in the schedule reflect the current emphasis on giving crews the time they need to complete the tunneling machine repairs successfully,” said Laura Newborn for project owner WSDOT. “Like all large construction projects, the schedule for this project changes frequently.”
STP is currently carrying out a program of jet grouting just north of the recovery shaft. This work is intended to stabilize the ground above the tunnel as the TBM exits the shaft.
Crews are using a high-pressure pump to inject grout into the ground adjacent to the shaft’s north wall, creating a set of interlocking columns approximately 5ft in diameter. The top of the columns will begin approximately 20ft below the surface, and will extend down approximately 40ft, ending just above the tunnel crown. STP expects this work to take six weeks.
Meanwhile, STP and manufacturer Hitachi Zosen are continuing to reconnect machine parts in preparation for mining. That work includes welding pieces together, and reconnecting hoses and wires.
October 28, 2015
Relaunch of the Seattle mega-TBM for the SR99 Alaskan Way
viaduct replacement tunnel is pushed back yet another month: to December
23 (2015).
The latest schedule released by Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) – the contractor JV of Dragados and Tutor Perini – now projects final breakthrough as occurring in January 2017, two months later than last month’s projection of November 23, 2016. The tunnel opening date is moved back by a month to April 13, 2018, with final project-wide completion – which follows work to tie in the SR99 highway – also moving back from November 4, 2018, to December 9, 2018.
The latest schedule released by Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) – the contractor JV of Dragados and Tutor Perini – now projects final breakthrough as occurring in January 2017, two months later than last month’s projection of November 23, 2016. The tunnel opening date is moved back by a month to April 13, 2018, with final project-wide completion – which follows work to tie in the SR99 highway – also moving back from November 4, 2018, to December 9, 2018.
Latest SR99 schedule submitted by STP
When TBM Bertha launched in August 2013 the original schedule projected that the tunnel would open in December this year (2015), with final completion in the first quarter of 2016.
“STP has told us the latest changes in the schedule reflect the current emphasis on giving crews the time they need to complete the tunneling machine repairs successfully,” said Laura Newborn for project owner WSDOT. “Like all large construction projects, the schedule for this project changes frequently.”
STP is currently carrying out a program of jet grouting just north of the recovery shaft. This work is intended to stabilize the ground above the tunnel as the TBM exits the shaft.
Crews are using a high-pressure pump to inject grout into the ground adjacent to the shaft’s north wall, creating a set of interlocking columns approximately 5ft in diameter. The top of the columns will begin approximately 20ft below the surface, and will extend down approximately 40ft, ending just above the tunnel crown. STP expects this work to take six weeks.
Meanwhile, STP and manufacturer Hitachi Zosen are continuing to reconnect machine parts in preparation for mining. That work includes welding pieces together, and reconnecting hoses and wires.
References
- Bertha relaunch delayed until November in Seattle – TunnelTalk, July 2015
- TBM Bertha repairs to take 12 months – TunnelCast, April 2014
- SR99 tunnel budget stretched to the limit – TunnelTalk, April 2015
- Insurers refuse STP Bertha breakdown claim – TunnelTalk, August 2015
- WSDOT concern over DRB obstruction ruling – TunnelTalk, May 2015
710 Freeway Opposition Testimony Dominates October Metro Board Meeting
http://la.streetsblog.org/2015/10/26/710-freeway-opposition-testimony-dominates-october-metro-board-meeting/
By Joe Linton, October 26, 2015
(NO-710 advocate Joe Cano recorded the meeting. His video can be found here.)
Last week’s Metro board meeting agenda included numerous items, from bus service to Union Station run-through tracks, but the audience was packed with people mobilized to testify against Metro’s freeway expansion projects.
Namely, the 710 Freeway.
There are two halves to the 710 story: north and south. Both critical battles pitting communities against numerous deadly impacts of outdated 20th Century transportation thinking.
710 Freeway South
The metro board approved two items related to the southern portion of the 710 Freeway. The project is called the “I-710 Corridor Project.”
It is located in Southeast L.A. County, extending from East L.A. to
Long Beach. Metro studied widening the 710 South a few years ago, then
concluded its environmental studies were inadequate, and need to be
re-done, at a cost of over eight million dollars.
Environmental justice organizations, including East Yards Communities for Environmental Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, and many others, have been pressing for a 710 South project alternative that only adds lanes specifically for port truck traffic, and instead of additional freeway widening, invests in walkability, bikeability, and transit.
L.A. County Supervisor and Metro Boardmember Hilda Solis proposed a motion to expand the scope of the 710 South environmental studies to include zero-emission trucks, increased bus and rail service, complete streets, bike paths, and additional livability improvements.
More than twenty speakers, many speaking in Spanish, addressed the board in support of approving the Solis motion. Residents of Long Beach, Cudahy, South Gate elaborated on the health impacts of 710 Freeway traffic. One speaker turned to the audience and asked attendees supporting the Solis motion to stand up; more than 50 people stood.
County Supervisor Don Knabe proposed an amendment somewhat watering down Solis’ motion. Knabe’s amendment directs Metro to only study zero-emission trucks “should technology be available” and removes three bike paths from the EIR, directing Metro to study them separately.
The board unanimously approved the Solis motion as amended by Knabe. Solis’ supervisorial district includes the 710 from East Los Angeles to South Gate. Knabe represents communities along the lower 710, including Long Beach.
710 Freeway North
The 710 North is formally called the “SR-710 North Study”
and informally called “the 6 billion dollar freeway tunnel under South
Pasadena.” The SR-710 North was not specifically on the meeting agenda,
but 710 opponents testified during the an item where the board received
and filed the framework for a possible 2016 transportation sales tax
ballot measure, informally called Measure R2.1.
More than a dozen residents of impacted communities – including South Pasadena, El Sereno, and Pasadena – spoke against the 710 North. One called it “a relic from the 1950s [that would] take away billions from worthy projects.” Speakers rallied against the freeway’s air, environmental, and health impacts and urged investment in “mass transit” and “multi-modal solutions”
Numerous opponents cautioned Metro against including any funding for the 710 North in a future ballot measure. Speakers vowed to actively oppose any tax that would advance the 710 North project.
Though there are still lots of negotiations before a final ballot measure project list is finalized, the 710 North project does not appear on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government’s preliminary wish list. Los Angeles Mayor and Metro Boardmember Eric Garcetti asserted that he would not favor including the 710 North in a 2016 ballot measure.
As most Streetsblog readers probably know, Metro included billions of dollars of freeway funding in Measure R to get it passed, under the assumption that L.A. County voters who drive would not otherwise support transit. Opposition to continued funding of the 710 North project played a role in the defeat of the 2012 Measure J.
Should Metro tether a 2016 ballot measure to numerous outdated freeway-widening projects? Or could a Measure R 2.1 avoid these controversial freeway excesses of Measure R, and truly embrace a healthier more livable Los Angeles? If the Board is making its decision based on what is the best measure that they believe will get the most votes, the answer may not be as clear-cut as they believe.
By Joe Linton, October 26, 2015
(NO-710 advocate Joe Cano recorded the meeting. His video can be found here.)
Last week’s Metro board meeting agenda included numerous items, from bus service to Union Station run-through tracks, but the audience was packed with people mobilized to testify against Metro’s freeway expansion projects.
Namely, the 710 Freeway.
There are two halves to the 710 story: north and south. Both critical battles pitting communities against numerous deadly impacts of outdated 20th Century transportation thinking.
710 Freeway South
710 Freeway South study area. Map via Metro.
Environmental justice organizations, including East Yards Communities for Environmental Justice, Communities for a Better Environment, and many others, have been pressing for a 710 South project alternative that only adds lanes specifically for port truck traffic, and instead of additional freeway widening, invests in walkability, bikeability, and transit.
L.A. County Supervisor and Metro Boardmember Hilda Solis proposed a motion to expand the scope of the 710 South environmental studies to include zero-emission trucks, increased bus and rail service, complete streets, bike paths, and additional livability improvements.
More than twenty speakers, many speaking in Spanish, addressed the board in support of approving the Solis motion. Residents of Long Beach, Cudahy, South Gate elaborated on the health impacts of 710 Freeway traffic. One speaker turned to the audience and asked attendees supporting the Solis motion to stand up; more than 50 people stood.
County Supervisor Don Knabe proposed an amendment somewhat watering down Solis’ motion. Knabe’s amendment directs Metro to only study zero-emission trucks “should technology be available” and removes three bike paths from the EIR, directing Metro to study them separately.
The board unanimously approved the Solis motion as amended by Knabe. Solis’ supervisorial district includes the 710 from East Los Angeles to South Gate. Knabe represents communities along the lower 710, including Long Beach.
710 Freeway North
Woman testifying against the 710 North. There were only a few empty board room seats, uncommon for Metro board meetings. Photo: Joe Cano/Facebook
More than a dozen residents of impacted communities – including South Pasadena, El Sereno, and Pasadena – spoke against the 710 North. One called it “a relic from the 1950s [that would] take away billions from worthy projects.” Speakers rallied against the freeway’s air, environmental, and health impacts and urged investment in “mass transit” and “multi-modal solutions”
Numerous opponents cautioned Metro against including any funding for the 710 North in a future ballot measure. Speakers vowed to actively oppose any tax that would advance the 710 North project.
Though there are still lots of negotiations before a final ballot measure project list is finalized, the 710 North project does not appear on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government’s preliminary wish list. Los Angeles Mayor and Metro Boardmember Eric Garcetti asserted that he would not favor including the 710 North in a 2016 ballot measure.
As most Streetsblog readers probably know, Metro included billions of dollars of freeway funding in Measure R to get it passed, under the assumption that L.A. County voters who drive would not otherwise support transit. Opposition to continued funding of the 710 North project played a role in the defeat of the 2012 Measure J.
Should Metro tether a 2016 ballot measure to numerous outdated freeway-widening projects? Or could a Measure R 2.1 avoid these controversial freeway excesses of Measure R, and truly embrace a healthier more livable Los Angeles? If the Board is making its decision based on what is the best measure that they believe will get the most votes, the answer may not be as clear-cut as they believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)