Stealth Developer

There's an op-ed on Planetizen discussing the MTA in Los Angeles as a stealth development agency. I don't know if I would go that far. I think most people know they have eminent domain power and that they can redevelop property close to the stations but it's not as powerful as say the rail agencies in Hong Kong or Japan.

If any transportation agency was going to be a true development agency it would have even more power to land bank and develop properties than is currently allowed in the United States. In fact, this is how transportation worked during the streetcar era. Property was the main money maker rather than transportation, the transportation was the hook. But it created some great places such as the inner ring suburbs we now love. I would love to see transit agencies have more power to develop, but surely that won't happen because of property rights activism among other barriers.

Bounce on the Bus Goes Up and Down

While riding the 704 Rapid on Santa Monica Blvd in LA two weeks ago, I took a video. There were a number of times where I almost fell down and many more times where I became unbalanced trying to keep my suitcase upright and my body off the floor. I tried to keep the camera level. But here's the result of a 40 second stretch.

Railway Robbery?

I don't know about you all, but this seems a bit like a blackmail scheme. It's like we're in Berlusconi's Italy.

A firm called AnsaldoBreda says it will relocate its assembly and manufacturing plants from Pittsburg, Calif., and Italy to Los Angeles if -- and it's a big if -- the MTA agrees to buy 100 rail cars from the firm for more than $300 million.

This is the same firm that built Muni's and Boston's LRVs. I don't think the LA versions are bad looking, but they are too heavy making them energy hogs and have continued to be a problem in the maintenance department. Perhaps an all in move to Southern California and a change in management would to the company good. Though it doesn't look like that is going to happen. Why would they do that when they should just be expanding thier Pittsburg digs.

It's kind of funny though. After all the problems they've had, what makes them think that making such a claim would even remotely be taken seriously? Maybe they'll get a deal for an American made Sirio.

Gold Line Pull

They're testing on the Gold Line Eastside Extension in LA. In the video a service truck is pulling an LRV but those new Bredas are quite heavy. Looks like the truck has some torque.


Gold Line Trains In Movement from curbed los angeles on Vimeo.

H/T AF

Slow Ride

The time frame for all transit projects are too slow in this country. Why would the Subway to the Sea be any different?

Interview with Fred Camino

I too want to go where the seats are purple.

New Poll: Worst Rail Project in Planning

Thanks for all the input. It seems like we have a few projects that are pretty bad. Again I'm not going to let you choose more than one. You have to choose what you think is the worst. So here are the contestants based on feedback. I added in two specifically nefarious BRT projects as well.

BART to San Jose
NJ Access to the Regions Core
LIRR East Side Access Project
San Francisco Central Subway
Montreal Train de l'est
LA Gold Line to Montclair
Toronto Spadina Extension
NY Subway 7 Line Extension
Metro to Dulles (Silver Line)
MBTA BRT Silver Line Phase 3
US 36 Denver BRT
Miami Metrorail North
Anacostia Streetcar

So those are the list. Usual week for voting applies. Vote for Other if there is a project not listed.

Transit Trouble Coming from Wall Street

This could cause transit agencies trouble. Basically, transit agencies make deals for cash where they sell their capital assets such as buses and trains then lease them back. Metro could owe millions over those leaseback deals.

Things started to go downhill when AIG ran short of cash after running up billions in losses tied to the housing slump. Its credit ratings were slashed and the firm was on the verge of collapse last month when it was bailed out by the federal government.

The lower credit ratings triggered a clause in the lease-back agreements that require the MTA to either find a new firm to guarantee the deals, or reimburse investors for their down payments and lost tax benefits, — a scenario that could cost the transit agency between $100 million and $300 million.

It hasn't happened yet, but if it does, the agency would have no choice but to slash service drastically. It could also hit BART, Muni, WMATA, and the CTA though there was no hint AIG was involved in those as well.

Many of the nation’s largest transit agencies participated in such deals. Among them are the San Francisco Muni system, the BART rail system in the Bay Area, the Chicago Transit Authority and the Washington, D.C., Metro system.

Measure AAARRRR

It doesn't look very good down there. Given California needs 66% of the vote on these types of measures (dumbest rules ever) everyone pretty much has to be on board except for the always wacko. What happens then is one constituency can hold the whole process hostage to get what they want. That is what happens in the state legislature all the time for the budget. A few people get to hold the rest of the state hostage. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. If this goes down, I don't see a replay in a year like Seattle. And it will be a long time to wait and much more expensive for important projects like the Subway to the Sea.

Living in Exurbia Getting Expensive

In case you missed it, this PBS show NOW talks about the tough times people are having living far from their jobs. My coworker Gloria is in the film too. I will say, one thing that bothered me is the interviews almost seemed like caricatures of people who live in urban places and in the exurbs. But at least we're starting to cover the issues as they continue to hit people hard.

Some Things Never Change: Part 3,000

In a Metropolis, Everybody benefits from Public Transportation...



H/T RS

Governator Signs Sprawl Bill 375

Curbed LA has coverage of what other people are saying. I hope to read up on it some more and give my own views soon.

Election Day Coverage on The Overhead Wire

So you all know ahead of time, we're going to have an election night liveblog here at The Overhead Wire. The reason? No it's not to talk about the presidential race, but rather the Transit Space Race elections going on all over the country. Here's a preview of what we'll cover:

St. Louis - An election is being held to give Metro a half cent more in order to keep up with operating expenses and expand Metrolink, the region's light rail system. It's called Proposition M.

Santa Fe - A Sales Tax to extend Rail Runner into the city from Albuquerque.

Oakland/Berkeley - AC Transit is looking to raise the parcel tax $48 annually to pay for operations. This measure is called VV. KK is also on the ballot and would allow AC Transit to build BRT on Berkeley streets.

Los Angeles - This would be a half cent sales tax for capital expansion. It's called Measure R.

Sonoma Marin - SMART will go back to the polls to ask for an 1/4th cent sales tax to build a commuter rail line. It is called Measure Q.

Honolulu - Island residents are being asked whether they approve of a steel on steel transit system. (Crazy huh?)

Kansas City - A half cent sales tax is on the ballot to build a starter light rail line.

Seattle - Prop 1. I'm not going to be covering this as much except for some crucial updates. I'm sure the boys at STB got it covered.

High Speed Rail - $9.9 billion dollar bond for a statewide high speed rail line. This one is Prop 1a.

If I am missing something let me know. I'll be live blogging into the night until we get the Hawaii results. It's still a bit of time away. But I'll be reminding everyone every once in a while to keep your minds off the presidential election.

Bill Fulton Talks Metrolink

Bill has a very insightful post on Metrolink and its limits.

Why LA Won't Get 80% Federal Funding on the Gold Line

Contrary to popular hopeful sentiments from local officials we discussed the other day, getting 80% just isn't possible for the Gold Line. After being challenged over on Bottleneck blog by Damien Goodmon (Fix Expo) on my assertion that today federal projects have to have 50% local funding to get funded, maybe 60% if you have a good ridership project that can cover your ratings, I found a GAO report that stated what I remember hearing was true.

Last year, in response to language contained in appropriations committee reports, FTA instituted a policy favoring projects that seek a federal New Starts share of no more than 60 percent of the total project cost—even though the law allows projects to seek up to 80 percent—in its recommendation for FFGAs. According to FTA officials, this policy allows more projects to receive funding and ensures that local governments play a major role in funding such projects. FTA describes the 60 percent policy as a general preference; however, FTA’s fiscal year 2005 New Starts report suggests that this policy is absolute in that projects proposing more than a 60 percent federal New Starts share will not be recommended for an FFGA.

They will not fund anything over 60%. That is unless you make a deal like Salt Lake City where they will pay 80% for one project but it will equal 20% for all projects. Hopefully this helps folks realize that while highways still get 80% and bankrupting their funding account, the mass transit account has only been allowing 50% or less matches over the last 4 years. It's actually been lower in certain instances with Dulles asking for 30%. Why the feds are able to kill that project when they aren't even close to the majority financial stake is beyond me.

Subway to the Sea Moves Along

Slowly. But at least they are paring it down. It goes from this:

to this:


Of course its going to take a large chunk of green to make this happen but how else are you going to build people moving capacity for increased density along the line. Here's the badge again, if anyone wants to use it.

Orange Line Full, Driving Away Riders

We've covered this issue before, but here's an article written by a suit and tie guy that loves to ride this bus who is getting fed up with the crowding. It again shows that Americans are not the same as Brazilians and are not willing to put up with that type of passenger crush load in its buses. Thus the comparison to Curitiba again gets fresh debunking.

I take the line at least once a week, sometimes two or three times. That’s not bad for a guy in a suit and tie. We’re a rare breed on the busways of Los Angeles and a segment of the population that the MTA wants to attract. I live near one end of the line at the Chandler subway in North Hollywood and work at the Business Journal at the other end of the line in Warner Center.

So he's even reverse commuting away from downtown Los Angeles but to another major job center that is surely growing. Yet the end to end run time is getting slower. As said before, the Gold Line is the same length and 15 minutes faster. It's also been able to take the ridership hit because of two car trains and now we see ridership jump to 27,000. Over the last year, that's a 39% increase versus the constrained 8% of the Orange Line.

And the buses seem to be getting slower. It’s supposed to take 45 minutes to cross the Valley on the Orange Line. It’s five minutes longer than that many times. That may not seem like much, but if I’m spending 50 minutes traveling I might as well be in my car and in control.

Sure the Gold Line was a bit more expensive to build but the Orange Line won't be able to take much more growth, so something will have to be done soon that will make the Orange Line much more expensive than it had to be. Hopefully things will get fixed before more people start talking like this.

The point of all this: I don’t really want to ride the Orange Line anymore under these conditions. A champion of the service has become disillusioned. And considering this city’s track record on mass transit, I’m skeptical things will be fixed.

Roger Snoble is Right

Let's put aside for a second whether we think the Gold Line project is a good idea or not. Recent postings on the Bottleneck Blog state that Rep. David Drier has asked LACMTA chief Roger Snoble for $80 million in order to put the line into the New Starts pipeline to get a $320 match. Snoble wrote back saying they were not going to commit money because there was no way that was going to happen any time soon. He's right.

It is likely to be many years at best before the Foothill project completes the lengthy and rigorous New Starts process, assuming the FTA allows the project to remain under consideration.

The FTA process for most places recently has taken 10 years from first application. Lines such as Charlotte, Phoenix, Seattle , and Oceanside (Links to New Starts Report Dates) which are just opening started planning thier lines in the end of the last decade. So LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich writes back saying the DOT and Ma Peters (Thanks Ryan) told him differently. (which makes me laugh as it should any of you all who have watched the process of the FTA over the last few years from your own experience as well as on this blog) Here's his comment:

The information in your letter to Congressman David Dreier is not consistent with what I was told last month when I was in Washington D.C. meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and the Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration. Both made it quite clear that the reason the Gold Line Foothill Extension project has not been able to progress under the FTA’s “New Starts” program was due to the MTA’s failure to prioritize the project as part of its long-term project list.

When Mary Peters tells you something about transit and the FTA it's kind of common knowledge now that you can't believe a thing she says. That's a great excuse they give though. Not only will the Gold Line be hard to fund through the federal process that favors BRT, it is impossible they will be able to get $320 million out of the deal. In the history of new starts, the only cities that got 80% of thier project costs paid for were back in the late 90s. 80% is what the match is supposed to be and what highways get, but the New Starts program is underfunded. I dare anyone however to find a project that gets more that 50% in the most recent new starts list. Recently its been more like 50% or for example Salt Lake City signed an MOU to fund 4 lines at 20% federal match.

So sorry Mike, if you andRep. Drier were actually paying attention to what is happening at the FTA in Washington, you would know that what you're looking to do is insane and not even the most powerful congressional teams have been able to get any more without an earmark. Mr. Snoble is correct in saying if you want the project built sooner, its better to go local, at least until the next transportation bill gets written.

Where Else Will It Go?

NBC is planning a massive TOD project on top of the Universal Metro Station. People are complaining about the traffic impacts, but where else is this project going to go? The two office towers worth of employees and studios are going to go somewhere, so why not near good frequent transit? This is the type of development that should be encouraged, however the minimum parking requirements shouldn't. Max out the parking charges and allow people to cash out for transit passes. And Conan O'Brien should ride the Subway to do the Tonight Show when its done.

Rail Ridership in LA Up Again

I'm always curious when people such as the BRU pit themselves against better mid and long range transit. What seems missed in the arguments over bus and rail is the network is the reasons for each mode. Just like the circulatory system in your body, you wouldn't ask capillaries to do the long distance blood moving that your veins do.

But another interesting development is the recent skyrocket in rail ridership and slightly lower bus ridership increases in Los Angeles. The Gold Line in particular is moving up, taking a 39% increase over the same time last year, with all rail up 20%. But the Orange Line and the LA Bus system were up 8% and 6% respectively. Not that 75,000 new riders is anything to to sneeze at on the bus tip, but with only 4 lines, rail ridership increased 53,236 total riders. That is a lot of capacity on four corridors that just got soaked up. Imagine if there were more rail corridors and more possible network connections.