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
The plan to build a $3.15 billion tunnel connecting two segments of the
710 Freeway will get consideration by the state Legislature with a bill
sponsored by state Sen. Carol Liu.
With the $40 million environmental analysis yet to be approved, the
fight over the extension of the 710 Freeway will spill over into the
state Legislature in April, when a bill by a local senator brings the
cost and benefits center stage.
State Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Cañada
Flintridge, wants to force the hand of Metro and Caltrans, the two lead
agencies on the 710 completion, by incorporating the 5 Commentsinto the project’s Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
By changing the status of the June 2015 cost-benefit analysis
from a simple addendum to a technical study within the EIR/EIS, it would
bring to light hundreds of comments on the cost study made by residents
during last year’s public hearings and make them part of the public
record. In addition, it would require Caltrans and the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to respond in
writing to the report, which was labeled faulty by dozens of project
opponents.
Without the bill, Metro and Caltrans could ignore the
cost-benefit aspects of the tunneling alternative, said Liu in a
prepared statement. “It is possible they will not respond to public
comments on it, which were substantial,” she wrote.
Metro’s board on Thursday voted to oppose the measure, calling it unnecessary.
“Metro
and Caltrans are committed to responding to comments on the CBA
(cost-benefit analysis report). Metro is committed to an open and
transparent process in its decision making and we believe the CBA has a
role in the fund decision making process,” wrote Metro in a staff report
to the board.
Joining Metro in opposition to Senate Bill 1018 is
the city of San Marino, a proponent of the freeway tunnel. Metro and
Caltrans are proposing to build a 6.3-mile single tunnel, costing $3.15
billion, containing two traffic lanes in each direction 250 feet under
El Sereno/Los Angeles, South Pasadena and Pasadena. A twin tunnel
proposal would have more traffic lanes but would raise the cost to $5.65
billion, according to the EIR/EIS. Either tunnel option would “close
the gap” from the end of the 710 Freeway near Valley Boulevard to west
Pasadena north of Del Mar Avenue at the 134/210 freeway interchange.
Metro also said it opposes SB 1018 because it could set a
precedent requiring all future environmental impact reports to contain a
cost-benefit analysis, “which is currently optional.” The Metro
analysis says precedent-setting would raise the cost of environmental
documents for future Metro projects. “The choice to do a CBA should be
at the discretion of the agencies leading the process,” Metro concluded.
Anthony Portantino, a former state Assemblyman from La Cañada Flintridge and tunnel opponent, had asked the California Transportation Commission to produce the cost-benefit analysis for three years. When 5 Comments
was released, it favored the single tunnel, saying the tunnel would
trim up to seven minutes off a commute during peak hours and almost 14
minutes the rest of the time. By converting time into money, the benefit
works out to about $1.6 billion over 20 years for 2 million people
living in the San Gabriel Valley and parts of Los Angeles and the east
San Fernando Valley, the report concluded.
Portantino and the cities of Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge, South
Pasadena and other called the CBA flawed and inaccurate. Portantino said
Caltrans estimated the cost of tunneling at $500,000 per mile for the
710 tunnel but $1 million per mile for the Sepulveda Pass tunnel project
connecting west Los Angeles with the San Fernando Valley.
He
said the real cost of the 710 tunnel would be closer to $20 billion,
something he said Metro is trying to hide by not being required to
comment on the cost-benefit analysis study (CBA).
“Fundamentally, accurate costs is one of the most important
components of good public policy, which is why they continue to not want
to disclose information related to the cost. Because they know the
house of cards will fall once the real information is revealed,” said
Portantino, who is running to replace Liu in the 25th senatorial
district in the June Primary. His foremost opponent is Supervisor
Michael Antonovich.
The bill is scheduled to be heard in the
Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 6. After that, it most
likely will be before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee,
said Suzanne Reed, a Liu aide.
The disagreement marks another chapter in a tale of two perspectives
about whether a multibillion-dollar tunnel project would be a boon or a
burden to cities along the 710 and the Foothill (210) freeways and
whether local elected officials should weigh in for or against it, or
not at all.
Representatives from La Cañada Unified and neighboring school
districts recently drafted a joint resolution opposing a potential
tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway for the negative
impacts they believe it would have on student and employee health.
They
hoped the message that school leaders from La Cañada Flintridge,
Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena and South Pasadena — assembled collectively
as the 5-Star Education Coalition — had regional concerns about the
pollutant effects of the 4.5-mile underground passage proposed by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority would sound alarm bells to state
lawmakers and compel the agency to refine its plans.
But that hope was scuttled Friday when Pasadena Unified School Board
member Larry Montes opted not to support the resolution, blocking the
unanimity required for the document to be officially adopted by the
coalition.
The disagreement marks another chapter in a tale
of two perspectives about whether a multibillion-dollar tunnel project
would be a boon or a burden to cities along the 710 and the Foothill
(210) freeways and whether local elected officials should weigh in for
or against it, or not at all.
La Cañada Unified Governing Board
Member Ellen Multari, whose district passed its own resolution against a
tunnel option in July, believes the adverse impacts the project and its
construction would bring to students, school staff and families is
unquestionable and merits opposition.
"I think this is a bit more
of a show of strength among the five of us," she said of the resolution
when it was still being drafted, indicating all five member cities
seemed interested in going that route.
"That's why the 5-Star was
created — so we could have power collectively that we don't have
individually."
But to Montes, the wisdom of educators speaking out against the
project wasn't quite so clear. When he took the resolution back to the
PUSD board for input at a March 10 meeting, he confessed he wasn't
certain the 710 issue was relevant to educating children.
A former
teacher in the Los Angeles neighborhood of El Sereno, Montes expressed
his belief something needed to be done to address "the exceedingly
troubling" problem of street traffic in and around Alhambra and
surrounding environs.
"I'm of the opinion, probably where most
folks are, that something needs to happen," Montes told the board. "I'm
not sold that a tunnel is the answer, but I'm also questioning whether
or not for me, as a school board member, this is a child-related issue."
His fellow board members largely agreed.
"I
am personally opposed to the 710 tunnel, but I kind of agree with
Larry," board member Patrick Cahalan said at the meeting. "I don't see
this is an area of governance that we should be weighing in on as a
school board. I also don't think there's a clear impact here that has to
do with education."
Glendale school officials were of a different mindset Tuesday, when
they unanimously approved their own resolution opposing the tunnel in
anticipation that the 5-Star Coalition's resolution would follow.
"We
are a part of the impact, there's no question about it," board member
Greg Krikorian said at the meeting, according to the Glendale-News
Press.
Multari remained firm in her district's conviction that the
tunnel could pose a health risk to many schools situated near the 210
Freeway, which would see an increase in truck traffic were the 710 gap
filled.
"We felt it was a legitimate concern for our districts to address," she said in an email Tuesday.
Metro unveiled an ambitious list of rail, road and bike projects
Friday, part of a $120 billion tax measure proposed for the November
ballot.
Projects prioritized for the first 15 years include: a
people-mover into LAX; completing the subway to Westwood; toll lanes on
the 105 Freeway and a second extension of the Gold Line Foothill train
from Azusa to Claremont.
The project list and tax measure will go before the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in June.
One project not included in the plan is extension of the 710 Freeway.
Metro’s most recent extension to its rail system, the Foothill
Gold Line Extension that debuted earlier this month, was funded through
the half-cent sales tax increase in Measure R now runs from Pasadena to
Azusa.
Metro wants to extend Measure R to raise billions more to fund its next projects. That proposal will be on the November ballot.
The
No 710 Action Committee is calling for everyone to attend
the Metro Board of Directors meeting next Thursday, March
24th at 9 a.m. The Board will address the
project list for the proposed tax increase/extension
ballot measure R2.
How you can help: We need as many No 710
people as possible to attend next
Thursday's Metro Board Meeting to
help send our message to
the Metro Board that the 710
tunnels MUST be removed from all documents
and consideration or we will actively work against Measure
R2, which will be on theNovember ballot.
Come and speak for one minute or support those that will speak.
Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9 a.m
at Metro Headquarters
(behind Union Station)
3rd floor, Metro Board Room
One
Gateway Plaza
Los
Angeles, CA 90012
We will
all meet outside
the Metro Board Room before 9am
on the 3rd floor.
Directions: See this link for directions to
the Metro Headquarters Building:
GUSD
joins coalition of school districts against proposed 710 Freeway tunnel
extension project : School board votes to side with neighbors against
freeway extension.
The Glendale Unified School Board took an
opposing stance to a potential tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710)
Freeway on Tuesday, siding with concerns from neighboring districts over
possible adverse impacts to student health.
The unanimous vote by
the local board is aimed at aligning Glendale Unified with the
Pasadena, South Pasadena, Burbank and La Cañada school districts within a
group called the 5-Star Education Coalition.
The collective will then vote to pass along its concerns to Gov.
Jerry Brown's office in hopes the state government will intervene and
compel Caltrans and Metro — the key principals on the potential tunnel
project — to refine their proposal. The tunnel itself may end up being
as long as 4.5 miles and would connect the 710 Freeway to Pasadena.
In the adopted resolution, Glendale Unified is challenging the
findings of a draft environmental impact report conducted by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
"The [coalition] finds that
the [report] does not adequately address the adverse health and
potential cancer impacts and risks to school students, staff and parents
given a potential route's close proximity as proposed in the study,"
the resolution states.
Increased traffic was also raised as a possible negative quality-of life-impact.
"The
[coalition] does not agree with the [report's] findings that the
building of a tunnel and the expansion of State Route 710 will not bring
additional traffic," according to the resolution.
The draft environmental impact report was released last year, and
more than 2,500 public comments about it were submitted. Metro officials
are currently working to respond to all the comments.
The root of
the concerns is over an increased number of trucks passing through the
Crescenta Valley, bringing additional pollution to schools along the
Foothill (210) Freeway in La Crescenta and La Cañada.
Join the conversation on Facebook >>
"We
are part of the impact, there's no question about it … I think it does
help the Crescenta Valley community to go shoulder to shoulder with them
on this issue," said board member Greg Krikorian.
The city of
Glendale is part of a five-city alliance that has already spoken out
against the 710 tunnel extension. Other nearby groups have also
expressed concerns.
"I've gone to the Crescenta Valley Town
Council, and they talked about the health issue and the impact and all
that," said board member Armina Gharpetian.
The coalition — made
up of representatives from each school district — will vote Friday
whether to adopt a final resolution to forward to Brown's office.
--
SCAG thanks the many individuals
and organizations that provided comments on the Draft 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS), our
long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing
needs with economic, environmental and public health goals, and the
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR).
We wanted to share with you that all public comments and
staff responses related to the Draft 2016 RTP/SCS and the Draft PEIR are
now available online.
Over the 60-day comment period (Dec. 4, 2015 – Feb. 1, 2016), SCAG
received a total of 158 verbal and written comment submissions on the
Draft 2016 RTP/SCS and 81 comment submissions on the Draft PEIR. The
documents now available include a listing of comments alongside staff
responses as well as separate volumes containing source letters and
submissions by organization and individuals and transcripts of the
public hearings. In future editions of the Plan, these documents will be
included as addendums to the Public Participation & Consultation
Appendix for the 2016 RTP/SCS.
We appreciate your feedback on the Draft Plan. On
Thursday, March 3, SCAG staff presented to the Regional Council a
recommended approach to addressing comments in the Plan. A new Proposed
Final 2016 RTP/SCS and Proposed Final PEIR will be presented to the
Joint Meeting of the Policy Committees on Thursday, March 24, for
consideration and recommendation to the Regional Council for approval.
At the end of this week, we’ll send out another update email with links
to download the Proposed Final 2016 RTP/SCS and Proposed Final PEIR.
A construction worker surveys inside the giant tunnel boring machine
named Harriet during the Metro unveiling ceremonial celebration at the
Expo Construction yard in Los Angeles Feb. 1. In a few months, Harriet
will excavate two twin tunnels for the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project.
When Bertha, a giant tunnel-boring machine, stalled and nearly caught
fire beneath downtown Seattle, opponents of a similar tunnel proposed
for the 710 Freeway between Alhambra and Pasadena would point to the
drill’s troubles and say if they can’t do it there, they can’t do it
here.
But after a two-year delay, Bertha is back in business as of
March 7, churning out a roadway tunnel that will replace the Alaskan
Way Viaduct (SR-99), an old freeway with structural problems.
Besides Seattle’s renewed tunneling success, the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority this month placed its own
machine, nicknamed Harriet, under Crenshaw Boulevard, where tunneling
for three new underground rail stations will take place during the next
15 months. In addition, Metro will soon tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard
at La Brea, Fairfax and La Cienega to complete the first section of the
Purple Line subway extension, and will tunnel beneath downtown Los
Angeles for the Regional Connector rail project between Little Tokyo and
Bunker Hill.
All this digging beneath different neighborhoods of Los Angeles,
plus the resurrection of Bertha in Seattle, has buoyed those in favor of
extending the 710 Freeway underground for cars, possibly trucks, as
part of a long-awaited extension from the freeway’s end at Valley
Boulevard in Alhambra, through El Sereno and South Pasadena to the
134/210 interchange in west Pasadena.
“Yes, its doable,” said the
leading 710 Freeway tunnel proponent, Alhambra Councilwoman Barbara
Messina. “It was doable when they tunneled under the English Channel.
Plus, look at all the subway tunnels (in L.A.) we’ve built
successfully.”
Metro’s next three rail projects are tunnel-ready. In
mid-Wilshire, the large transit agency is prepared to move forward no
matter what the obstacles may be.
“We will be tunneling through
the La Brea Tar Pits. Talk about complex,” said Dave Sotero, Metro
spokesman. “There you may have gassy grounds and oil deposits.”
710 TUNNEL OPTIONS
With
the 710, two freeway tunnel options have been explored in a 26,000-page
draft environmental impact report released in March 2015. Twin-bore
tunnels would be excavated side by side — one northbound, one southbound
— and each tunnel would have two levels, with two lanes of traffic per
level, for a total of four lanes in each tunnel. A single-bore,
double-decker tunnel would be one tunnel with two levels: northbound
traffic would use the upper level and southbound traffic the lower
level, amounting to two lanes in each direction for a total of four
lanes.
Caltrans and Metro estimate the cost of the tunnels between $3.2 billion and $5.6 billion.
Alhambra
is a leading force in the 710 Coalition, which calls for “closing the
gap” of the freeway that starts in Long Beach and is considered the
missing link in the 14 Southern California freeways.
Caltrans first
proposed the extension in 1959. Other cities in the group include San
Marino, Monterey Park, Rosemead and San Gabriel. They say the congestion
raises the level of air pollution in their cities and that a tunnel would ease gridlock and air pollution.
Opponents include the cities of South Pasadena, La Cañada
Flintridge, Glendale, Sierra Madre and Pasadena, which say tunnels are
unfeasible, dangerous, too costly and not a solution to local traffic. Two analyses, one by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and one by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, say the tunnel option would adversely affect air quality. The AQMD analysis says
the tunnel would raise the cancer risk to unacceptable levels. The EPA
said that a dual-bore tunnel carrying 180,000 vehicles a day would add
to the load of PM2.5 particles, which are fine particles that can reach
the lungs and cause disease.
With groups entrenched on both sides, neither the EIR nor the
project itself has received approval from Metro or Caltrans. Some say
the vote, expected this spring by the Metro board, will be postponed
until after the November election.
But until then, can anti-710 groups still say tunnels are not possible?
TUNNEL SIZE MATTERS
Opponent
Anthony Portantino, a former member of the state Assembly and a La
Cañada Flintridge resident, says transit tunnels are smaller than
roadway tunnels and therefore easier to complete. In short, with
tunneling, size matters.
“Are any of those tunnels (being dug by Metro in L.A.) this size? That is the key difference,” he said.
Engineering
consultant and civil engineer Thom Neff, who worked on the Big Dig
project in Boston and wrote a feasibility study for Seattle’s Highway 99
project, agreed. Neff, president of his own firm OckhamKonsult, said
the larger a tunnel’s diameter, the more difficult it is to build. The
size of Seattle’s tunnel is one reason for the delays, he said.
L.A.’s Harriet
is 21.5 feet in diameter, compared with Bertha’s 57 feet. “(It’s) big,
but not as big as Bertha,” says Metro in its tunnel graphic of the
Crenshaw project.
Either tunnel option for closing the 710 Freeway gap would
require a tunnel of an excavated diameter of about 60 feet, according to
the EIR. Both the single-bore and dual-bore variations would be about
6.3 miles long, with 4.2 miles of bored tunnel, 0.7 miles of
cut-and-cover tunnel and 1.4 miles of at-grade portions, according to
the EIR. The interior diameter would be 52.5 feet and the outside
diameter would be 58.5 feet. The extra width is required so the machine
can maneuver. The 710 EIR cites the Highway 99 project in Seattle as
similar in terms of size of tunnels needed for freeway tunnels.
Twin tunnels would require cross passages to allow first
responders to reach each tunnel in an emergency, the EIR states. A
single-bore tunnel would need emergency exits and ventilation pipes
throughout, something Neff says adds to the cost.
UNDERGROUND VARIABLES
“No
tunnel is easy, first of all,” said Neff, who spent 15 years with
Parsons Brinckerhoff, one of the largest engineering firms in the world.
“You have to deal with Mother Nature, and she is unpredictable. Any
work underground has a higher level of uncertainty than any kind of
civil engineering structure.”
Neff said Los Angeles has other soil-related issues.
“You
have two additional problems: earthquakes, and you have a lot of
deposits of oil and gas. Those pose problems in tunneling,” said Neff,
who has examined project specs for the 710 tunnel.
In Seattle,
Bertha only moved 1,000 feet when on Dec. 6, 2013, it stopped when the
machine overheated and reached high temperatures, said the Washington
State Department of Transportation.
The damaged machine was repaired by
its manufacturer, Hitachi Zosen, between March and August 2015. In
December, tunnelling restarted but was stopped when a giant sinkhole
opened up in the middle of the street. Also, excavated dirt placed on a
barge caused the boat to crash into the pier. The transportation
department suspended the work, then lifted the suspension March 7 and
declared Bertha to be working.
The 1.7-mile Seattle tunnel was not finished by December 2015 as
promised. A report from an independent panel said the two years the
machine stopped working caused the delay. The earliest completion is set
for April 2018. The transportation department filed a lawsuit against
the developers and estimated it is costing the state $78 million in
overruns.
TOO BIG TO SUCCEED?
Oxford University researcher Bent
Flyvbjerg studied so-called megaprojects that include bridges, tunnels
and skyscrapers. In his research paper from April 2014, he concluded
that nine of 10 projects produce cost overruns and some “of up to
50 percent in real terms are common.”
The Boston Dig, the Channel Tunnel connecting the United Kingdom
and France and the Denver International Airport all saw costs rise
80 percent to 220 percent, for example.
One theory is called the
“lock-in” or “capture,” whereby commitment to large multiyear projects
continue despite obvious problems, “leaving analyses of alternatives
weak or absent,” he concluded. A similar phenomenon is known as
“optimism bias,” in which managers of megaprojects proceed despite
massive, negative events he calls “black swans.”
“As a consequence, misinformation about costs, schedules,
benefits and risks is the norm throughout project development and the
decision-making process,” he concluded.
COMPANIES BRING CASH
Metro and Caltrans have called for private investors. If private money is obtained, the 710 tunnel portion would be a toll road.
In
February, Metro hosted its first forum soliciting banks, engineering
firms and high-tech companies to come forward and suggest how they can
help. About 400 companies showed up at the J.W. Marriott in L.A. Live.
Messina says two private investors inquired about the 710 tunnel
project but were told to wait and see due to the project’s hot political
environment.
Metro would neither confirm nor deny any interest in the 710 tunnel project, so far.
Joshua
Schank, Metro’s chief innovation officer, spoke in general terms about
the benefits of private investors in public transit and roadway
projects. He said adding private investment can speed up projects and
can also reduce the cost.
Also, private companies may shield Metro
and the taxpayer from paying cost overruns. But Schank said financiers
usually want something in return.
“Some projects are toll based, such as a highway project where
you pay back investors,” he said. “In the private sector, when there is a
toll involved, the private sector is attracted because that toll can go
up.”
New CEO Phil Washington has opened the door for private
dollars. That door remains open for short-term and long-term projects,
Schank said.
“I’m seeing three or four different ideas (from
private investors) a day,” he said. “Most so far have not been about
major capital projects, but we are expecting to see that later on.”
High costs, delays and even conflicting environmental benefits
have not stopped the popularity of transit and roadway tunnels. Experts
say they are more popular than ever.
“Tunnels are being built all
over the world,” Neff said. “Everybody wants a tunnel. Around urban
areas, they are becoming more desirable because they are environmentally
friendly.”
It's shaping up to be a busy year for Los Angeles at the ballot box this year. Angelenos are already poised to vote on the future of city planning in LA
(in two competing measures), and now it looks like they may be deciding
on the future of mass transit as well. Metro is seeking to get a
measure on the ballot that, if passed, would fund their next 40 years
worth of transit projects.
Metro's new ballot measure is similar to 2008's Measure R, which
generated funds for the transit agency through an increase in sales tax.
Revenue from that ballot measure has been used primarily to extend the Gold Line to Azuza, as well as the upcoming Expo Line Phase 2 expansion to Santa Monica.
The new ballot measure would both extend the Measure R sales tax past
it's 2039 expiration and introduce a new half-cent sales tax increase
in LA County lasting at least four decades. In the process, Metro
expects to generate $120 billion, one third of which will go to creating
five new transit lines and the extension of six existing transit lines. The structure of Metro's sales tax increase as shown to Metro stakeholders in October.Metro Stakeholder Report
Metro's board of directors will decide in June if they want to pursue
the ballot measure in November. Getting voter attention amidst an
already crowded ballot could be difficult, and the ballot measure
requires a two-thirds majority to pass (an insane restriction on all new
California taxes, and one that tanked the last version
of this measure). To peak voter interest, Metro has focused on several
ambitious plans that will transform public transportation throughout all
of LA County, and they're certainly very attention-getting.
The LA Times
has obtained a list of projects Metro is expected to include in the
measure—Metro's wishlist of projects they'd like to fund with a sales
tax increase is a cornucopia of transit goodies that spans the region.
As a rep for the agency says, "What we’ve been saying is, everyone is going to get something, and no one is going to get everything."
Tunneling the Sepulveda Pass
This is the big one. Metro wants to connect the Westside with the San Fernando Valley
by tunneling underneath the Sepulveda Pass. This massive north/south
connection could be used to link the Orange Line in the Valley to the
Purple Line or Expo Line to the south. Estimated costs for the tunnel
project hover around $7 billion to $9.5 billion.
The Valley Might Get Some Rail
The San Fernando Valley stands to gain several transit projects as
part of the Metro ballot measure. One would connect the Orange Line with
the Metrolink station in Sylmar by way of Van Nuys Boulevard—that project would be either light rail or bus.
The Orange Line busway will get new bridges and signal upgrades to
minimize the time buses spend idling, and, speaking of the Orange Line,
some of the ballot measure funding could be used to convert the popular bus route
to a light rail system. The conversion would cost between $1.2 billion
and $1.7 billion, so additional funding would have to be secured to go
ahead with that project.
LAX Train Station Gets Funded
Construction on Metro's long-awaited LAX connection
is already planned to begin in 2017, but the transit agency still needs
some serious funding for the train station itself. $200 million is
needed to build the state-of-the-art Crenshaw Line train station
that would act as the LAX Metro hub. For that hefty pricetag, Metro
expects the station to be an LAX gamechanger, cutting traffic at the
airport by 40 percent.
Train riders will have easy access to airport terminals and rental
car facilities through a system of people movers. With the ballot
measure funding, Metro would further integrate the station and airport
by installing flight check-in counters, a currency exchange, and flight
information boards.
A Train Line for West Hollywood
For years, WeHo has been clamoring for a Crenshaw Line extension
to pass through its neighborhood, and they just might get it with this
ballot measure. Metro would build a six-mile north/south connection
from the Crenshaw Line that would link to the Purple Line on Wilshire
before traveling up to the Red Line station at Hollywood and Highland.
A Train for Vermont Avenue
To alleviate bus traffic on one of its most congested routes, Metro
wants to put a train line under Vermont Avenue. It would run about three
miles and connect the Purple Line at Wilshire with the Expo Line to the
south.
The Purple Line Extension Gets a Speed Boost
Mayor Eric Garcetti is keen on getting the expanded Purple Line up and running by 2024
in case LA hosts the summer Olympics that year. Metro has already tried
to get some federal money to speed up the extension, but if that
doesn't come through, it would get the money from the ballot initiative.
Green Line Extension into Torrance
The Green Line would push a little further to the south, traveling
along the 405 to Torrance. The extension would add 8.7 miles of track to
the Green Line, stopping near Crenshaw Boulevard.
Metro may also put some funding into closing the 2.8-mile gap between the Metro Green Line station and the Metrolink station in Norwalk.
More Metro Rapid Bus Routes
Bus routes along Lincoln Boulevard in Venice and Santa Monica, as
well as the North Hollywood to Pasadena route would become Bus Rapid
Transit Projects. No word yet on whether that means dedicate busways
(like the Orange Line), temporary rush hour "bus only" lanes (like on
Wilshire Boulevard), or some other iteration.
More Gold Line Extensions
The northbound Gold Line would get an extension all the way to
Montclair, stopping in Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona and
Claremont along the way. Southbound Gold Line trains would get an
extension too, but a proposed route has not been confirmed yet. Two
options exist at the moment, one that goes along the 60 Freeway to El
Monte and the other that travels along Washington Boulevard to Whittier.
A Downtown LA/Artesia Connection
Either a train or bus would connect Union Station to Artesia and several other communities in southeastern LA County.
I journeyed to Azusa for the first time yesterday. Why, you may ask? It
was not to cheer on the Azusa Pacific volleyball team or to take a hike
up to Mt. Baldy but to experience the "Foothill extension" of the Gold Line, which opened for service yesterday.
I had a lot of fun. I not only got to see new towns and landscapes
(including stunning views of the San Gabriel mountains) but sample
excellent beer at the various pubs placed conveniently along the route.
With that said, small but pertinent operational flaws checkered my experience (and my optimism for the line's success).
For one thing, getting to the Gold Line by public transit was not easy
because bus service on arterials headed to Downtown was rather
infrequent (due to scheduling) and prone to traffic delays. Though I am a
fan of expanding Metro's rail coverage, I believe that such expansion
must be coupled with initiatives to improve the utility of its buses,
which carry three times the ridership of Metro's trains.
The litter arrayed around the seats on the Red Line (which I took for
the second leg of my pre-ride journey) and the odious smells that
permeated the train proved to be another blot on my experience. As I
discussed in one of my recent posts (and frequently brought up by public commentors on articles like this),
Metro could boost transit use and ridership significantly simply by
increasing maintenance (and heightening onboard security) on vehicles.
Then when I first boarded the Gold Line at Union Station, I was
surprised (and a bit worried) to see Sierra Madre Villa listed as the
destination on the train's front monitor, as well as on the maps posted
in the interior. Even the programmed announcer which blared upon
departure from each station still parrotted Sierra Madre Villa as the
"final destination". Only when the train passed Sierra Madre Villa
without making a "final stop" announcment (or dispensing of all its
passengers) did I know for certain that this was not a "Short Line"
service.
Most disappointing of all, the neighborhoods the stations served displayed little semblance of the transit-oriented, walkable "third Los Angeles" Metro
is supposed to work towards. The Duarte station was surrounded by
suburban office parks. Monrovia station tempted with a grass-covered
commons in the immediate vicinity (called "Station Park") but this gave
way, as I moved away from the station along Myrtle Avenue, to a desolate
strand of auto body shops, office park complexes and gas stations,
encasing a sea of single-family homes: the Monrovia "Old Town", which
wayfinding signs pointed to as if right at the station's doorstop, lay a
good mile-long walk away, uphill (and under a freeway overpass).
Irwindale station, as expected,
amounted to little more than an island in an industrial wasteland. On
the other hand, the Arcadia station is snug in the heart of a commercial
strip that appeared nonetheless (on both approach and departure),
depressingly car-centric.
Only the Azusa station opened out immediately onto a commercial and
retail corridor along Azusa avenue, though this "downtown" was none-too
impressive. There seemed to be as many vape shops as eateries (I counted
only five restaurants and bars in three blocks). The early 20th-century
Spanish Colonial-style> buildings charmed but none integrated a
residential use into the district (whether exclusively or as a mixed-use
project). Copious parking suggested that most people drove here.
I shouldn't have been too surprised. Eric Brightwell's 2013 exploration of
the line's course noted Arcadia's dearth of sidewalks and the Monrovia
and Duarte stations' distance from those cities' pedestrian cores.
But I had hope that Metro learned in its 20-odd years of constructing
rail lines from debacles such as the Green Line and that its planners
had some awareness of the common (transport planning) knowledge that
mass transit requires residential density and walkable urban design to
be profitable.
With a subway along the region's densest commercial corridor not slated for completion until mid-century and
the Sepulveda Pass rail project not even on the table of Metro's
25-year plan, one can only assume that Metro cares little about workable
transit.
What does the future hold for Los Angeles transit? We will know a lot
more tomorrow, when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority unveils
its plan for a new half-cent sales tax measure. (See update below. The MTA has delayed the release of the plan.)
The MTA has been eyeing the November 2016 ballot for years, hoping to
win the two-thirds vote needed to approve a new tax and raise $120
billion for new rail projects. The agency has been soliciting input from
cities and community groups throughout the county, in what it calls a
"bottom-up" process.
Last fall, the agency received a massive list
of projects — with an estimated cost as high as $273 billion. Since
then, staffers have been culling the list based on projected ridership
and other performance criteria.
We don't know exactly what's on
the list, but we can make an informed guess. Here is what the MTA calls
its "shovel-ready" projects. This is probably a pretty good starting
point:
The big theme here is providing north-south connections, which would turn the current hub-and-spoke system into more of a grid.
The
big-ticket item — the one that should get the lion's share of attention
— is marked "G." That's the Sepulveda Pass tunnel, which will connect
the Orange Line to the Wilshire subway ("F") and the Expo Line. Mayor
Eric Garcetti has talked about having a seamless route from the north
San Fernando Valley, through the Sepulveda Pass, all the way to LAX. So a
key thing to pay attention to is whether that project gets extended
past the Expo Line down Sepulveda Boulevard to Westchester and the
airport. That segment does not appear on the above map, and it would be a
pretty big deal if it were included.
Another big one to look out
for is marked "J" — the Crenshaw northern extension. West Hollywood has
been clamoring for access to the rail grid, and this is its big chance. E Expect to see the Crenshaw Line extended north to the Purple Line and on to the Red Line.
Further east is the Vermont Avenue bus rapid transit line ("H").
Decades ago, there were plans to build a subway down Vermont. Now the
plan is to build a dedicated busway, akin to the Orange Line, down the
center median of Vermont. It's possible, though it would be a surprise,
that this could be turned into a light-rail line.
Speaking of the
Orange Line, another question is whether the Orange Line bus ("K") will
be converted to light rail. The San Fernando Valley also is expecting
funding for the Van Nuys Boulevard light-rail project ("B"). San
Fernando Valley leaders and groups like the Valley Industry and Commerce
Association are pushing hard for both these items, arguing that the
Valley got screwed on Measure R, the 2008 transit tax.
And
speaking of inequities, the Southeast cities (Maywood, Huntington Park,
South Gate, etc.) are lobbying hard for the Eco-Rapid Line ("C"), which
would run from Union Station down to Artesia. They also feel they got
left out before, and they're looking to make up for lost time. This
route might also include a stop in the DTLA Arts District.
It'll
also be interesting to see whether the South Bay extension to Torrance
("D") is left as is, or if the MTA tries to reroute it to run down
Prairie Avenue past the new Inglewood NFL stadium. And Glendale and
Burbank are keeping an eye on the North Hollywood–to-Pasadena connection
("I"), which right now is slated as a busway.
Rail will be only a
fraction of the total $120 billion budget. A lot of it will go to
highway improvements, especially as you get farther away from downtown
L.A., as well as operations and maintenance. There also is likely to be
some money to do the "Rail to River" project — a bike path down an old
railbed on Slauson Avenue ("N") — as well as something to fill the gaps
in DTLA on the L.A. River bike path ("P").
The current plan,
subject to change, is to sunset the new tax after 40 years, in 2057. The
Measure R tax, which currently expires in 2039, would also be extended
to 2057. (Measure J, which would have extended the Measure R sunset by
30 years, narrowly missed the two-thirds threshold in the 2012
election.)
As the MTA plans projects for the next four decades, a
key issue is going to be scheduling. For some participants in the
process, it won't be enough to see their project on the list — they'll
want it in the first decade.
The staff recommendation, which comes out tomorrow, is just the first
step. The 13-member MTA board will take feedback and likely make
modifications before voting sometime this summer to put the measure on
the November ballot.
Stay tuned.
Update at 2:48 p..m.: The
MTA was supposed to release the expenditure plan on Friday. That has
now been delayed by one week. The word is that MTA executives have been
briefing board members on the plan this week. It's possible that some
are asking for changes or additional information before the plan is made
public.
Update at 4:25 p.m.: "The fighting is about
sequencing," says one person briefed on the expenditure plan. "It's who
gets what when. It’s not whether we get it. It’s how soon it happens."
In January, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released draft guidelines
that would usher in a new era of transportation planning that
prioritizes greenhouse gas emissions reductions, improving public
health, and providing more transportation choices over decades of
sprawling auto-oriented development. The OPR’s guidelines would replace
the prioritization of the Level of Service (LOS) with reducing vehicle
miles traveled (VMT).
But, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and
the region’s six county transportation agencies are resisting the
change.
Many of our partners working to address climate change, support safer
communities for walking, bicycling, and transit access, saw the OPR
recommendations as a “rational next step, and a national precedent,” as
written by the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and Climate
Plan (See their blog post here).
Prioritizing the reduction of VMTs, overall, would result in more
bikeable, walkable, healthy, and low-carbon communities. We couldn’t
agree more.
“The new guidelines remove “Level of Service” (to
cars) as a significant transportation impact of new development. The new
measure is Vehicle Miles Traveled.” Bill Sadler at the Safe Routes to
School National Partnership.
But, SCAG and their group are asking for exemptions from the revised
guidelines. Specifically, they are asking to be grandfathered in all
projects in the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), and voter-approved sales tax measures. However, many of those
projects, including many road widenings, wouldn’t be subject to these
new guidelines even though they will inevitably increase VMT. SCAG
argues that these road widenings are necessary to accommodate future
growth, and that any increase in VMT would be balanced out by VMT
reductions in transit-oriented areas that will see growth. (See SCAG’s letter to OPR here)
Pushing back against the Governor’s OPR, SCAG recommended preserving
LOS and congestion impact analysis. If we preserved this old-school
method, projects that increase the amount of driving would further
promote suburban sprawl and exacerbate public health problems rather
than prioritize affordable housing, safe walking and bicycling
infrastructure, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our regional
transportation network.
The Governor’s OPR recommendations are a major milestone for battling
climate change and advancing healthy, sustainable, and equitable
communities across the state. Some cities, including Pasadena and San
Francisco, are getting a head start and adopting these changes before
OPR even finalizes these guidelines.
We welcome these progressive changes in Southern California,
especially when the Governor’s office is leading the charge — let’s just
hope SCAG jumps on board before we get left behind.
To help get Southern California back on track to become a leader in
climate change and transportation equity, please sign your organization
onto this response letter to SCAG by Friday March 12th by emailing jessica@investinginplace.org.
Highway repair work causes drivers entering Sacramento on Highway 50 to
come to a near stand still. The future problem will be funding such
repairs.
California transportation authorities have been warning for years
about problems in our state’s gasoline tax-based structure of paying for
highways and their repair.
That’s because the good news on so
many fronts associated with higher-mileage and hybrid and electric
vehicles — American energy independence, attacking global warming — also
is the bad news when it comes to fuel-tax revenues coming into
Sacramento’s coffers. California has a large backlog of roadway and
transit-infrastructure repair, and that is why we have supported experiments
looking at the best way to change the ways motorists pay for our
highways, including moving toward a tax based on miles traveled, not
just fuel purchased.
Until recently, the problem had seemed a looming one, but not a cause for institutional alarm.
That’s all changed. In a letter dated Jan. 27
sent to all members of the California Legislature, the California
Transportation Commission called the funding situation a “crisis” that
“continues to worsen.”
And the commission is using more than
strong words. Charged with overseeing spending not only on roads but on
state-funded rapid transit such as urban rail systems, its members
announced a cutback of $754 million in available funding for projects
that have already been approved over the next five years. Not only that —
there will be “no new projects” funded, since no new money is
available.
“There will be a significant delay (in funding) for the projects
that remain ... almost all are at risk of delay,” commission Executive
Director Will Kempton told the editorial board this week.
For California motorists, for users of rapid transit, for long-haul truckers, this is very bad news indeed.
The
letter to legislators includes a list by county and legislative
district of projects that may be delayed or terminated because of the
funding crisis. For various bureaucratic and political reasons, the hits
to road repairs come harder to tiny counties such as Lassen and Lake
than they do to Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. There are only
four at risk for “deletion and delay” in L.A. County, for instance,
whereas Mendocino has 10. We may be OK without a couple of small
boulevard-widening schemes. But then check out this line item: “Light
Rail Vehicles. $102,400,000.” The CTC is warning, right as Southern
California is on the verge of major new rail connections, that we may be
short a few cars.
In San Bernardino County, the biggest of five projects at risk
for cutback or elimination is the Kramer Junction four-lane expressway,
with $155,095,000 potentially on the chopping block, along with projects
to improve the 215 and 210 freeways. In Ventura County, planned HOV
lanes on the 101 are threatened.
The problem of saving what the
CTC calls California’s “crumbling transportation infrastructure” isn’t
off in the future — it’s today. Last year the Legislature took up but
failed to come to agreement on any bills that would address that
problem. Senators and Assembly members, we realize you believe your
constituents don’t want to hear about new taxes. But unless we change
the way we fund both roadways and rapid transit, we fall into a pothole
from which there is no escape. Do the brave thing and quickly adopt
comprehensive improvements to the fuel tax to keep California on the
move.
Voice your support for the revised CEQA Guidelines
by signing on to this letter by 5pm Friday, March 11.
Please email Bill Sadler at bill@saferoutespartnership.org with
your name, organization and logo.
Goodbye, “Level of Service” for cars! It’s taken years
to develop, but the California Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) has finally released its proposed
update of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
guidelines on evaluating transportation impacts. The
new guidelines are a major step forward. For too long, CEQA
actually measured delay to cars as a negative environmental
impact – as if cars speeding around was good for the
environment. In fact, slowing cars down makes streets safer
and helps get people into other, healthier forms of
transportation. This step will advance the healthy,
sustainable, equitable communities that sustainable
transportation advocates across the state are working hard
to create. But opposition to the guidelines is growing from
government agencies and business interests who are happy
with the status quo, especially in Southern California,
which is why your support is important. You can read more
about our support for the guidelines and our original
comment letter to OPR here.
Last Saturday, Metro extended its growing rail network, celebrating
the grand opening of the 11-mile Gold Line Foothill Extension. The
initial phase of the Foothill Extension includes six new stations in
five San Gabriel Valley cities: Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale,
and Azusa. Additional future phases would extend the Gold Line to
Ontario Airport.
The Foothill Gold Line from Pasadena to Azusa. Image via Metro
Kick-off festivities began at the Duarte/City of Hope station, where a
crowd of more than a thousand gathered to hear remarks from Metro board
members, numerous representatives of the cities along the route,
Metro’s CEO Phil Washington, and other luminaries.
County
Supervisor and Metro board chair Mark Ridley Thomas hosting the Gold
Line opening festivities, proclaiming “Teamwork makes the dream work.”
Metro
CEO Phil Washington announcing the opening of the extension that makes
the Gold Line Metro’s longest rail line, in what is now nearly 100 miles
of Metro rail.
County Supervisor and Metro board member Mike Antonovich welcomes the Foothill Gold Line.
Elected officials cut the ribbon on the Gold Line Duarte Station platform. Photo by Aviv Kleinman
The initial train departed Duarte Station about 11:20 a.m. to
celebrate at other stations along the line. Hundreds of people waited in
line for the free train rides starting at noon. All afternoon, there
were long lines to board trains, which were standing room only.
Hundreds of people wait to board the Gold Line in Duarte.
Free Gold Line train rides began at noon on Saturday. Photo by Aviv Kleinman
A view from the Gold Line train operator’s seat. Photo by Aviv Kleinman
Cities along the line hosted popular opening day festivities,
featuring family activities, food, music, information booths, and much
more.
Chinese dragons dance at the Duarte Station.
Aboard a children’s train ride, watching an early light rail train arrive at Duarte Station.
Free rides and large crowds continued celebrating the new rail line
all afternoon. Below is a photo tour of the new line from west to east,
Arcadia to Azusa. For more pictures from on the train, see SBLA’s earlier preview post.
Gold Line crossing the new bridge over Santa Anita Avenue in Arcadia
The Gold Line pulling into the Arcadia Station
Monrovia’s Station Square features a pedestrian plaza, outdoor theater and train-themed park.
Large crowds and large parking structure at the Monrovia Station
Westbound Gold Line train at the Irwindale Station
Gold Line opening day festivities at the Irwindale Station
Crowds waiting to board the Gold Line in downtown Azusa
All in all, the opening drew large crowds of people excited to
experience and celebrate Metro’s newest line. Hopefully many of them
enjoyed the ride, and, now that they are familiar with the Gold Line,
they will make transit part of their ongoing travel choices in the
future.
Commuters travel on the 210 Freeway during evening peak hours near Irwindale Avenue in Irwindale on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2016.
Will the Gold Line Foothill Extension improve traffic on the 210 Freeway in the San Gabriel Valley?
The
answer may never be known because the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), Caltrans, and the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Construction Authority don’t show any interest in
finding out.
“There aren’t any specific studies that analyzes
traffic,” said Dave Sotero, Metro spokesman, when asked if the 11.5-mile
addition from Pasadena to the Azusa/Glendora border will make a dent in
the traffic nightmare that exists daily on the 210 Freeway between
Pasadena and western San Bernardino County.
“I don’t know. We always hope so. We have not measured what the
potential impact will be on the freeway,” said Habib Balian, CEO of the
Construction Authority.
While politicians who supported the $1 billion extension, set to open March 5,
say it will help as more commuters choose the train and ditch their
cars, there are no studies suggesting the Gold Line Foothill route will
reduce the number of cars on the freeway. And none are planned.
One answer might be to look at other light-rail trains in Southern California.
A study released in November from the USC Sol Price School of
Public Policy found “no evidence of improved freeway traffic system
performance” on the 10 or 110 freeways near the university, Coliseum or
LA Live after more than a year of operation of the Expo Line.
“We
do not find any consistent significant impact on average speed or travel
time reliability along the experimental segment of the I-10 freeway,”
researchers concluded.
The study did say arterial streets near the
Expo Line “marginally improved.” Also, the study found light rail had a
positive impact on overall transit use within the Culver
City-to-Downtown L.A. corridor along the Expo Line.
The takeaways from this study and others that come to similar
conclusions is that ridership on a light-rail line only has a small, if
any, impact on massive freeway congestion.
If one
does the math, the 210 Freeway at Lake Avenue carried 301,000 cars a day
on average during 2014, according to Caltrans’ latest numbers. During a
peak month, the same location had 315,000 vehicles per day.
The
traffic volume on the 210 Freeway is growing and in 2014, it posted
higher daily traffic volumes in the San Gabriel Valley — along where the
Gold Line runs — than the 101 Freeway in the San Fernando Valley. In
Arcadia, the 210 traffic volume is similar to those on the 101 in
Van Nuys, though some exits in the San Fernando Valley show slightly
higher traffic volume.
Overall, trips on California roadways increased in 2014 over 2013 by
2.64 percent, Caltrans reported, adding to a 1.86 percent increase in
2013. More people are driving and that may also be related to a drop in
mass transit use in Southern California, experts say.
The
Gold Line Foothill Extension is estimated to carry 13,600 passengers a
day by 2035, according to studies on ridership done by the Construction
Authority. If each train carries 220 people, and there are five trains
an hour, that equals 1,100 riders per hour. Figuring commuter hours run
from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., or seven hours, that
equates to 7,700 train riders.
That is not a large number when compared to 302,000 daily drivers on the 210 Freeway.
Catherine
Burke, associate professor emerita at the Price School, was asked about
the impact of both Gold Line Foothill on the 210 Freeway and Expo Line
Phase II (opening at the end of May) on the 10 Freeway in Culver city
and Santa Monica.
“My guess is there will be some reduction in
traffic on both of those freeways but there is so much traffic it will
hardly be noticeable,” she answered.
Some may park their cars at the Irwindale Station and ride the
train the rest of the way, freeing up freeway lanes, she said. “The
freeways seem to be getting much worse,” she said. “So if you have a
long drive you will do that.”
While the Gold Line Foothill will work for some, it won’t for most, she said.
This
is the reason why many supporters talk about the Gold Line Foothill as
another transportation choice instead of a solution to gridlock.
“It does not solve problems on all these highways,” Balian said.
“It gives people a choice to get out of their vehicle and get on to
transit.”
Doug Tessitor, chairman of the Gold Line Construction
Authority board and a former Glendora city councilman, takes the long
view. He talks about younger people whom studies show like public
transit. Eventually, younger generations will use the train instead of
driving their cars.
“As time goes on we’ll get a generation of
Californians that are becoming used to public transit. Maybe for my
generation it may not make a significant dent (in freeway traffic) but
for our kids and grand kids — they will be the real beneficiaries,” he
said.
Please
be reminded that the next State Route 710
north EIR/EIS Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) meeting will be held at Metro on
Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm.
The purpose of this TAC is to inform affected
agencies and/or jurisdictions about the progress
of the State Route 710 North EIR/EIS contract and
key milestones, and to provide input on a wide
range of planning and technical issues that may
arise during the development of the
EIR/EIS.
Michael D. Antonovich, L.A. County Supervisor,
Metro Board member, left, Eric Garcetti, L.A. Mayor, Metro Board
Member, Phil Washington, Metro CEO speaking at podium, Ara Najarian,
Mayor of Glendale, Metro Board Member, and John Fasana, Duarte City
Council and Metro Board member. San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley
stakeholders launch the new "NoHo to Pasadena Express" pilot bus line on March 1. The new
express line will connect the Metro Red/Orange Lines in North Hollywood
with the Metro Gold Line in Pasadena via 134 carpool lanes, making it
possible to travel by transit between the two valley without having to
through downtown L.A. Express bus makes limited stops i Burbank's Media
District and downtown Glendale, two major Valley job centers and provide
connections to Bob Hope Airport from North Hollywood.
Transit officials and a group of elected representatives gathered
Monday in Pasadena to unveil a pilot bus service that will ferry
passengers between North Hollywood and Pasadena, offering easier access
to rail lines and other key destinations in the San Fernando and San
Gabriel valleys.
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority’s “NoHo to Pasadena Express,” also referred to
as Line 501, will operate seven days a week utilizing carpool lanes on
the 134 Freeway. Rides will be offered every 15 minutes during peak
hours and every half hour during off-peak periods with a base fare of
$2.50.
Travel times between North Hollywood and Pasadena are expected to
be about 50 minutes during peak traffic times and 35 to 40 minutes
during off-peak hours.
The express line will connect the Metro
Red/Orange light-rail lines in North Hollywood and the Metro Gold Line
in Pasadena, with limited stops in Burbank’s Media District and northern
downtown Glendale.
“Today the missing link is no longer
missing,” said Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who
is also a Metro board member. “The San Fernando Valley and the San
Gabriel Valley are going to be connected. Everyone will have a better
opportunity to have less congested highways and freeways when they go to
work, to their entertainment, to the doctor or wherever they want to
go.”
Antonovich joined with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Pasadena
Mayor Terry Tornek, Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian, Metro CEO Phil
Washington and others to launch the new line. The event was held Monday
morning at Central Park in Pasadena, which is located across the street
from the Del Mar Metro Gold Line Station.
The six-month pilot
project is expected to cost $1.2 million to operate with an anticipated
average daily ridership of 1,500 by the end of the six-month period.
“This
is a very exciting moment for all of us because today we link together
that thing that connects all of us,” said Garcetti, who also serves on
the Metro board. “With this bus line we will offer the people of
Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Los Angeles, North Hollywood and all of the
surrounding communities that are close by a new way to cut your commute
times.”
The new bus line will also link up with other municipal bus
operators heading to Burbank Bob Hope Airport, Santa Clarita, downtown
Burbank and a variety of local connections in Glendale and Pasadena.
Line
501 will make station stops at NoHo Station, Hollywood Way and Olive
Avenue in Burbank, Buena Vista Street and Alameda Avenue in Burbank,
Goode Avenue and Brand (westbound) and Sanchez and Brand (eastbound in
Glendale), and the Gold Line’s Memorial Park and Del Mar stations in
Pasadena.
“This line is the key,” said Najarian, also a Metro board member. “It might be small — it might just be a thin line that’s on our Metro transit maps — but it’s a connection that’s going to make everything work.”
The unveiling of the NoHo to Pasadena Express comes in tandem with
this Saturday’s opening of the Metro Gold Line extension, which extends
the Gold Line another 11.5 miles between eastern Pasadena and Azusa.
“It’s
not every day that a transit agency opens a new bus line and a new rail
line at the same time,” Washington said. “I was talking to the Pasadena
mayor earlier and we were taking about exceeding all ridership
projections. I think we will on this Gold Line Extension and also with
this connection between the two valleys. We are investing taxpayers
dollars wisely with improvements planned throughout the region. We are
going to pull out all the stops in terms of Metro and working with the
various cities and the stops to market this line. We think we will
exceed that 1,500 average weekday boardings.”
Tornek said Line 501 will funnel more people into the city who
will be drawn by Pasadena’s restaurants, multi-family housing, museums,
surrounding mountains and other attractions.
“I think we’ll see a
lot of millennials coming here,” he said. “Part of what makes Pasadena
an attractive place for millennials is access to public transportation.
And when employers are thinking about locating to a city that is one of
the criteria they use in selecting a place.”
