July 2008 Archives

Alleged newspaper will be written by a computer software program.

Read all about it here

The city did a study on the "Central District" of Pasadena, which it defines by the above map. Apparently, people who live there are better-educated, younger, and make better money than the city as a whole. Additionally, they are more likely to bike places.

But more significantly, the city also found that 62 percent of people in the survey work outside Pasadena. They compared this with a AQMD study that showed that 85 percent of people who work in Pasadena don't live in Pasadena. That study does come with a major proviso though: the AQMD only surveyed people who work at businesses that employ 250 people or more.

Surveys also found that 78 percent of downtown people use cars to commute to work, and even amongst those that work in the same area they live, 58 percent use cars.

So most workers are commuting far to get to downtown Pasadena and those that live close are generally set on using their cars to drive short distances.

The point of all these studies is to direct how to plan for the city's future. But, also, as Sid Tyler pointed out in Monday's meetings, they perhaps show that the city's vision for developing itself to become a biking/walking/public transportation mecca has not happened.

There is a counterpoint to be made, which Margaret McAustin touched on Monday, that just because people take their cars to work does not mean they use them to run errands and go to lunch..... once you are parked downtown, you are more likely to move around by foot.

More complete data:

*83 percent in the central district have a college degree or higher compared to 42 percent citywide

*6 percent in central district have kids compared to 28 percent citywide

*71 percent have a household income of higher than $50,000 compared with 47 percent citywide.

We have a picture accompanying today's story about a new, extremely-small microscope being developed at Caltech, which really shows just how small it is. It is, however, lodged in the fingers of the scientist who worked on it, and this picture gives a closer view.

This prototype, which as you can see is about the size of a dime, would be lodged inside an iPod-like device to allow researchers to see digital magnified pictures of whatever liquid sample they load into the device.

The liquid sample is loaded into a small chamber on the bottom of the device picture above and must be charged with electrical current to allow it to flow under the sensor that will create the picture of it.

According to Mayor Bill Bogaard, council members Steve Madison and Victor Gordo did participate via phone in discussions about the city manager on Monday, even though they did not participate in the open session part of the meeting.

I reported in Tuesday's article and on the blog Monday that Madison, Gordo, and Steve Haderlein did not attend the meeting, but did not know they had participated in the closed session.

In other city manager news, an email has been circulating about candidate Michael Beck in the preservationist community to the effect that he would make a poor city manager because of his record in Riverside. Janette Williams will have that story tomorrow.

Lastly, by coincidence, Beck returned my call (from Monday) and officially told me he can't comment on the Pasadena job unless/until he gets the job. He also told Janette he couldn't comment about the preservationist community's views on him either.

A suspiciously well-timed study released today shows that only 12 percent of California has earthquake insurance, down from 30 percent at the time of the 1994 Northridge quake.

The explanation:

Candysee Miller, executive director for the Insurance Information Network of California, said the absence of a major quake over the past decade was partially to blame.

By that logic, there should be many people signing up for earthquake insurance this week. Especially, with a study that just happened to be released today getting media coverage and reminding them to sign up for insurance.

Also, a related 2006 study showed that 31 percent of people think they have insurance, when in reality only 13 percent did.

You may have noticed on astonishing silence of blogging yesterday, after a flurry of activity following the earthquake.

Regrettably our blog server chose the time after the quake as the most appropriate to crash. I think we would all like to blame the earthquake.

So give us a pass on this one, and maybe we can all have a blame the earthquake day. If you're late to work today, blame the earthquake. If you get pulled over by the cops, blame the earthquake (maybe post-earthquake trauma.).

You get the picture.

Bob Dollar a USGS geophysicist told me at his office at Caltech (I was out the door to head there about a minute after the quake hit) that this quake is the largest since the 1994 6.7 magnitude Northridge earthquake.

He also said there is a 5 to 10 percent chance of an aftershock that would match the 5.4 magnitude of the original quake within the next several hours, though the chances decrease as time goes on.

Pasadena Fire Department PIO Lisa Derderian said there have no calls for any serious damage to 911 at this point.

Pasadena city hall and courthouse were evacuated as a precaution but we are not hearing about any injuries at this point

Reporter Nathan McIntire was driving during the earthquake and said he didn't feel it at all. I found that interesting because I was driving in the desert during a 7 magnitude quake in the Mojave in 1999 (it was not felt in Los Angeles County). I didn't feel it either, but stopped for gas 15 minutes after the quake.... a shaken attendant asked me if I had felt the quake. So maybe the natural motion of the car is not conducive to feeling quakes.

The council meeting tonight started 30 minutes late because the council was stuck in the closed session, where they were discussing the city manager job.

However, when the meeting did start, Mayor Bogaard announced the council had not yet taken action, or at least any action required to be reported to the public.

It appears a lot of that extra time likely went towards discussing the new city manager (there were other items to consider), since the council did not actually finish all the items it was slated to do in closed session, despite the extra half hour.

The delay in making a decision could have something to do with the fact that council members Steve Haderlein, Steve Madison, and Victor Gordo are not at tonight's meeting.

And for anyone who is questioning my grammar, using the present tense in the previous sentence is correct, because I am posting this from the council chambers.

I think this item ran on our website over the weekend, so if anyone missed it, photographer Walt Mancini checked out a solar car making a visit to Pasadena, and shot some video. Louis Palmer, of Switzerland, is driving the car around the world to make a point about green technology.

I located the web page of the solar taxi voyage to look at some stats of the car. The key ones:

Freedom: To drive up to 400 km with the latest ZEBRA battery technology.
Max. speed: 90 km/h

That is about 250 miles, and 55 mph. Not bad at all. The only downside is the recharging process:

The battery can be charged on every regular 110 or 220 V power outlet. By using a quick charge it's possible to fill 50% of the whole capacity in 30 mins. The regular charging process takes 6 to 8 hours.

So basically you only go about 250 miles a day on this thing... nice leisurely trip around the world. But in terms of a commuting/local car, the stats are very good.

Of course, right now I wouldn't want to guess how much it would cost to actually manufacture commercially, and I can't imagine that trailer of solar cells the thing is dragging navigates well on city streets. But it's a start.

Will there be any excitement tonight at the city council meeting? It boils down to this: does the council make a decision on the city manager at the 5:30 closed session? As mentioned before Riverside Assistant City Manager Michael Beck is being considered for the job, and three council members did make it out to Riverside on Friday.

I'm going to refrain from making pointless predictions about what happens tonight about the city manager position: I don't know that much, and a lot of what I do know I agreed not to reveal on this blog or in the paper.

So let's talk about what else is on the agenda. The city is endorsing and rejecting some state legislation: endorsing SB 1420, a plan to require restaurants chains to post nutritional information on menus. It is also against Proposition 7, a green energy initiative that will appear on November's ballot.

Yes, the city that aspires to be the Green City is against a solar power initiative. The reason, of course, is that it mandates a certain percentage of utilities' power come from green sources. High percentages: 20% by 2010, 40% by 2020, 50% by 2025.

Is that realistic or just another pie-in-the-sky environmental goal? Should be an interesting question to consider in the next few months.

Also on the agenda, a $55,000 contract for a consultant who will carry out some very generally-worded management strategies to improve the city:

Creating systems to help managers use performance information to continuously improve results;

Provide a presentation on transformation as a context for understanding the
nature of transformational change.

What exactly does all that mean? I haven't the faintest, but I might ask my girlfriend who is soon to receive her MBA.... sounds like the language she speaks when she is talking about class work. One thing I have to ask though, does the city not have a culture of trust already? Also, I could have told you for less than $55,000 that the best way to continuous improvement is to focus on improving results.

And that the best way to understand the nature of transformational change is, in fact, a presentation on transformation.

I more clearly understand Task 4 of the consultant's contract though:

Task 4: Facilitate a retreat of key personnel to reach agreement on change strategies to
recommend to the new City Manager.

I wonder if on this retreat city employees will go out to the woods and do the "trust fall" to work on the city's culture of trust.

Also at tonight's meeting, the city will discuss altering its "living wage ordinance," which will allow companies and their workers to agree to opt-out of the living wage ordinance in exchange for greater benefits or other compensation that would make up for receiving lower pay. I don't yet know a great deal of the specific requirements of the current ordinance, so I will be keeping a close eye on this one tonight.

Riverside city officials are a little more open-mouthed about the Pasadena city manager job than Pasadena officials. The Riverside Press-Enterprise reported over the weekend that Riverside Assistant City Manager Michael Beck is a finalist for the Pasadena job.

A Riverside city offical told him that Pasadena council members Jacque Robinson, Margaret McAustin and Sid Tyler spent Friday afternoon at Riverside city hall talking with officials about Beck.

Beck also says he expects he could hear something on Monday (today). There is another closed session scheduled at 5:30 p.m. tonight.

Fortunately, in the PE's story they got nothing out of Pasadena officials, which I find relieving, since I also can't get anything (at least on the record) out of them.

A source told the Pasadena Weekly a few weeks ago that a decision would likely be made by the end of July, so this could be it. However, last week, a source who I can't name told me that time estimate was pretty optimistic, and that it wouldn't surprise him/her if it dragged well into August.

The day after liveblogging an entire MTA building, I am quietly running out the clock on a Friday afternoon and not thinking about Gold Line. But then I am not an elected official- they get paid to keep thinking about policy. And I get paid to tell the public about it.

So, with that overblown introduction, let me tell you all that most that San Gabriel Valley's congressional reps (or most of them anyway) have already gotten together and written an angry response to yesterday's MTA meeting. The highlights, from the offices of U.S. Representatives Hilda L. Solis (CA-32), David Dreier (CA-26), Grace F. Napolitano (CA-38), and Gary G. Miller (CA-42):

"Yesterday was a three strikes kind of day for the San Gabriel Valley at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (Metro) board meeting.

The first strike:

First, Metro turned its back on the residents of the San Gabriel Valley
by refusing to support greater equity in the half cent sales tax
proposal.

Second:

Adding insult to inequity, Metro voted a second time to implement toll
roads on the I-10 corridor, in conjunction with implementation of toll
roads on the I-110

Well, that was basically already an established policy. Yesterday's decision was just a rubber stamp. But, there's more. Wait for it:

If inequity and insult aren't enough, Metro Board Members said no to a commitment of less than one half of one percent of its capital budget for the only project ready to be built in LA County - the Gold Line Foothill Extension.

So our local representatives, minus Adam Schiff, who has thus far been silent on most transit issues (though he has expended a lot of energy trying to get funding for the Gold Line) are upset. Our local council members are upset (Glendora councilman Doug Tessitor called today and wants to set up a meeting, along with some other local city officials, about how the SGV should react to the news- on the table, he says is strategeizing about how to defeat the sales tax, to coming up with a legal way to wrest funds away from the MTA to spend on local transit projects.

But, if you read the story I wrote for today, you will notice the state reps have been either supportive or non committal about the sales tax measure.

So there may yet be a divide over how to proceed against the measure.... I'll be looking at this more next week.

And, in one more transit note, a staffer at Anthony Portantino's office noted that the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority, which has clashed frequently with the MTA, was actually created by a state Senate bill eight years ago by Adam Schiff. I have been writing that MTA created it.

The idea in pointing this out, I believe, is to suggest that the MTA never wanted to create an independent authority that would take over the Gold Line project. The question is whether the senate bill was initated at the behest of MTA, or over MTA's objections. I think that is believable that MTA would not have wanted to create the Foothill Extension Authority, but it is way before my time, so I'll have to look at it in more detail.

Janette Williams wrote a short article on the city's fears of what a state plan to take money from cities to help balance the budget could do to the city's Public Health Department:

[Mayor Bill] Bogaard said the state's budget crisis will require "sacrifice from everyone." But further cutbacks to Pasadena's public health department funding, already facing a state-mandated 10-percent cut in services this fiscal year, are of particular concern, he said.

So, basically, Pasadena already scheduled a 10 percent cut in funding because of state cutbacks and it is afraid it could lose more money.... my question though, is what does this mean for the Public Health Department? What services have they already had to cut, and what might they have to do to make ends meet if they lost more funding?

I got this email from a reader of Wednesday's story on Pasadena's parking enforcement contractor:

Are the Intercon employees exempt from posted parking rules while on the job. I work in the same building as Intercon on De Lacey, and uniformed parking enforcers routinely leave their vehicles on the streets around this building without citation

I want to stress, of course, that this is a totally UNVERIFIED claim- I have no idea if it is true or not.

I don't think it would surprise anyone if it was though- ticketing a co-worker's car is not exactly the best way to make friends on the job.

-Fasana and Antonovich, the two SGV board members who opposed the sales tax, also put on yet another attempt to fund the Gold Line independently of the sales tax. The motion would have committed $80 million with the proviso that the federal government kick in $320 million... if it refused to, the MTA would get the money back. The vote failed, though they did get a 5-4 vote. The measure would have required a 7 person majority to pass.... there were several people absent and several abstentions. For a moment several MTA officials looked horrified as they thought the motion might have passed.

-On the subject of federal funding, I need to take my lumps for a mistake in my reporting at the MTA meeting last month.... I was under the mistaken impression that the SGV congress members had secured legislation that guaranteed the $320 million. In reality, the successful measure RECOMMENDS that the fed transit agencies spend $320 million. The difference is obviously very immense..... I pledge to read the fine print a little more carefully next time.

-Again with the first item: when I said several people were absent from the Gold Line vote, I mean Don Knabe, who did not attend the meeting, and Mayor Villaraigosa, who was... well, preening for the cameras at a press conference in a back room. He missed at least 30 minutes of the meeting after the sales tax passed, including votes on the Gold Line, the 710 tunnel, and the freeway toll lane project. Several public speakers at this meeting, and last month's meeting made reference to his tendency to wander off or show up late to meetings.

-After a lot of grandstanding about equity and how she could not support the sales tax in its current form, Gloria Molina actually abstained on the bill

-Assemblyman Portantino, a big Gold Line advocate who also dislikes the 710 tunnel project (which is in the sales tax plan) said he doesn't know for sure if he will oppose it or not. He also declined to make a prediction of how the bill to authorize the sales tax will do in the legislature. Mike Feuer, who sponsored that bill, said at today's meeting the legislature has already reached consensus on it.

-Mayor Villaraigosa, apparently in a conciliatory mood, said after the vote on the measure, that the Gold Line will be one of the first projects to be funded. Habib Balian, at the Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority, is not convinced. He said that he is nervous that the funds set aside from the Gold Line could be changed or delayed since the MTA board is allowed to change voter-approved funding formulas with a 2/3 vote.

-Almost 2/3 of the board does not really have a lot of love for the Gold Line extension. That is to say there are only 4-5 members who would clearly vote against any changes to the Gold Line. Even so, if the measure were to pass, it is hard to imagine the MTA making such an aggressive move against the San Gabriel Valley.

-I made a spectacle of myself trying to blog at this thing. I ran out of power several times, and was forced to use one of the few wall plugs in the auditorium. The problem was, my plug hung there as sort of a trip line when I sat in my seat. Several people, including a Covina official who recognized me and knew me by name, made jokes about how I was going to get sued, or get MTA sued, if someone tripped. So I ultimately relocated to the floor along the side of the auditorium. The next public building that is built should have a pro-blogger design, with copious power cords and airline-like trays to place laptops on.

-There has been much discussion, both at the MTA meeting, and recently in Pasadena (because of the death of bike advocate Dennis Crowley) about a elevated bike freeway from Pasadena to Downtown L.A. I really think you could run one along the Gold Line.... I have been riding it a lot lately for MTA meetings.... there is a lot of usable elevated space. There would certainly be some right of way issues, some property to acquire, etc., but I think (despite my total lack of engineering prowess or training) that it would be worth looking into.

After movements to amend the sales tax measure to require the MTA to review the project list funded by the measure every 6 years failed, the board voted to authorize the measure.

It will now go to the legislature for authorization. If it passes there, it will be on the November ballot, where it will need 2/3 of county voters to pass.

The vote ended up running 9-2, even though 5 members had voted for the amendments. The only two to oppose were the San Gabriel Valley-area members, John Fasana and Michael Antonovich.

Additionally, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments is recommending that its board oppose it, and the SGV-based Gold Line Foothill Extension Authority has voted to oppose it.

More thoughts on the subject later.

Two amendments from San Gabriel Valley MTA representatives that would have added language to require funding criteria be based on population of sub-regions failed, 8-4 and 7-5.

Basically, without these amendments there will be no mandate to distribute money based on population, and no requirement that the agency revisit its funding priorities in 6 years.

The final vote has not come in yet, but based on the voting patterns, it looks as if the sales tax measure will be authorized by a narrow 7-5 vote.

(If you just stepped in, I am blogging from today's MTA meeting on the half cent sales tax measure)

I've been meaning to mention all morning that Supervisor Don Knabe, who voted against the sales tax measure at last month's meeting, has not been at the meeting.

VIllaraigosa finally addressed it, noting because of the birth of his grandson, he will not be here.

That doesn't bode well for the people looking to pass proposed equity language.

Of course, Knabe, could have easily changed his view on the bill in the last month- he didn't to have too much to say about at June's meeting.

La Verne Mayor Jon Blickenstaff, part of the Gold Line JPA, spoke briefly about the need to include more money and more concrete language about the Gold Line. He then pointed out that the Gold Line extension authority/SGV government delegation had not been called to speak for a longer presentation (Blickenstaff got only 1 minute).

Villaraigosa said the board had not received a speaker's card from the group before the deadline. I asked Habib Balian, the head of the Gold Line authority, if he had submitted the card on time. He said he did. Big surprise.

There have been a lengthy stream of bus, bike, and ped interests weighing in on the sales tax measure. "Weighing in" basically means speaking in opposition in this case.

The Bus Rider's Union, as expected, stated their opposition and pledged to work to get it voted down. Basically, because there are not large enough promises to expand bus ridership.

A couple of bike and pedestrian activists caught the board's interest, including Damian Newton, an activist who distributed to the board a proposed amendment to the bill that would earmark 1 percent of all funds for bike projects, and 1 percent for ped projects.

Realistically, what will happen, as Villaraigosa said in response to the speaker, is that some cities will choose to spend the discretionary money that get for transit projects on bike lanes, etc. And many others, will not. Villaraigosa pledged to spend an undefined amount on these kinds of projects.

As I have been writing this post, a speaker came up and got some laughs by comparing the proposed equity language that would bring more money to remote corners of the county to Wyoming demanding it's fair share of homeland security funding- the idea being, of course, that nobody wants to attack any targets in Wyoming.

And now, the great John Walsh, is coming to the podium to rant about how rail is a form of class warfare.

(If you just stepped in, I am blogging from today's MTA meeting on the half cent sales tax measure)

I just got a copy of the language that John Fasana and others want to add to the proposal. It looks like they want to put this language in and get the measure passed today.

It could work.... the language is fairly vague. It gives the board more power to change the project list passed by the sales tax down the line. It also mandates that the agency distribute funds to various sub-regions, including the San Gabriel Valley, based on the population in each region. There are no specific figures or formulas included though.

The motion will be introduced by Fasana, Lowenthal, and Najarian, so it looks like I was correct in believing Najarian would be opposed to the measure as it is. Antonovich and Molina have already clearly said at the meeting they want this language in the measure.

One more vote beyond that, and they have enough votes to stall the ballot measure.

(If you just stepped in, I am blogging from today's MTA meeting on the half cent sales tax measure)

John Fasana, the San Gabriel Valley representative on the MTA board, just asked Assemblyman Mike Feuer, whether he thought state legislators would be open to changed ballot language. Feuer has been the leader with the state legislation that will be necessaru to get the bill on the ballot.

The changes Fasana is thinking about, would be to bring a set percentage of funds to each sub-region, thus ensuring that the San Gabriel Valley gets more money than is currently written in the bill.

Feuer responded by saying that state legislators, who also need to approve the plan, have reached a difficult consensus, and that he couldn't say whether legislators would agree to new language. He then directly addresed Fasana and said that he had personally made an "extraordinary effort to address the concerns you brought to me," and that the current language "should leave to the San Gabriel Valley happy with the legislation that has been reached."

Michael Antonovich then chimed in, and started speaking about how voters in the SGV, along with other areas outside the city of Los Angeles won't support the measure in its current form. He went on for a while until Mayor Villaraigosa cut him off, asking if he actually intended to ask Feuer a question.

Villaraigosa, by the way, took over the chairmanship of the board today, and seems to be relishing his new role..

Molina capped off the interaction with Feuer by asking him to read the new language that the San Gabriel Valley representatives are pushing. "Are you planning to stay here and read this, and hear all about it, or are you going to leave?" Feuer promised to stay.

Molina is a very, very blunt person.

(If you just stepped in, I am blogging from today's MTA meeting on the half cent sales tax measure)

A representative of the city of South Pasadena just got up and asked the chair to remove all mention of the 710 tunnel project from the sales tax measure. The measure would give $780 million to the project, though it it does not yet have an established route. That, obviously, makes the city of South Pasadena a little nervous.

(If you just stepped in, I am blogging from today's MTA meeting on the half cent sales tax measure)

He said it last board meeting, he said it at a press conference before today's meeting, and he has already said it twice in the first 20 minutes of today's meeting.

Basically, it means quit your whining about not getting enough money and support the measure, or you won't get any money at all, because without the sales tax measure MTA has no money.

The powers that be decided to give me a laptop and a wireless card to take to today's Metro meeting, so I will be posting updates on all the action today.

And all that action will essentially boil down to a regional fight over the half cent sales tax measure. Mayor Villaraigosa, and three supporters on the MTA board: Richard Katz, David Fleming, and Bernard Parks called a press conference this morning to express their support for the measure.

Michael Antonovich, John Fasana, and Gloria Molina have all expressed some serious concerns with project list that the sales tax measure would fund. Specifically, in the case of Antonovich and Fasana, their concerns that the Gold Line is not getting enough money.

So will the measure pass today? It will be close. In addition to the three mentioned above, board members Bonnie Lowenthal and Don Knabe have raised concerns: both voted against advancing the measure at June's meeting, suggesting they would need a project list outlined before they act.

Additionally, Ara Najarian, a Glendale council member has expressed support for the Gold Line and may be sympathetic to Antonovich/Fasana's point of view.

The measure would take 7 votes to pass. It breaks down like this:

YES VOTES (4): Fleming, Villaraigosa, Parks, Katz
LIkely NO VOTES (4): Antonovich, Fasana,, Lowenthal, Knabe
Possible No votes(2): Najarian, Molina
? (3): Yaroslavsky, O'Connor, Burke

A "No" vote, I believe, would be a vote to rewrite the measure's language and try to sechedule an emergecny meeting before August 8, the deadline to get the ballot measure to the county registrar.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that the governor is threatening to temporarily reduce the pay of 200,000 state workers to the minimum wage to preserve state funds during the budget impasse. The Bee got a hold of an executive order that it says Schwarzenegger will sign later this week.

Funny, when I last did a story on the budget, the state controller's office told me that the government had enough cash to run smoothly at least through September. So, this couldn't by any stretch of the imagination, be a way for Schwarzenegger to bring pressure to bear on lawmakers whose campaign funding comes from state unions that will surely be howling about any pay cuts that will be imposed on their members, could it? I'm sure nobody in state government would try something that devious.

Of course, once the budget impasse is over, the order says, the employees will get the rest of their salaries paid back.

Incidentally, the legislative wing of the government, including lawmakers, appointees, and their staffs, already are not getting paid at all. Earlier this month, I did a budget story on the subject, where I reported that the bulk of these employees get zero-interest loans from a Sacramento bank to tide them over until they get their pay checks back:

The Sacramento-based Golden 1 Credit Union offers state employees who are credit union members no-interest loans in the amount of their salaries for the duration of the budget impasse. Once the budget is passed, the loans are paid off by the state.

I wonder if Golden 1 has enough capital for 200,000 more zero-interest loans?

Centinel, over at the Foothill Cities Blog, spotted an interesting item over at the Arcadia Police Blog: apparently two middle-aged women made off with a bunch of items from a Victoria's Secret store at the Westfield Mail. These underwear bandits, (not to be confused with underpants gnomes) took about 40 lingerie items according to the Police Department.

I'm going to have to remember to keep an eye on the Arcadia Police Blog.

In all the recent hubbub about the Gold Line, I have not discussed on this blog the possibility that light rail is a bad investment. Departing editor Eddie Barrera (or as of today, I should say, departed editor) pointed out a recent study on light rail. Its conclusions:

- Light rail systems on the West Coast served only about 2% of the workforce in the service areas of the six systems.
- On average, these systems only remove between 0.39% and 1.1% of cars from the roadway.
-On average, West Coast light rail systems require taxpayer subsidies to pay for 73% of operations and 100% of capital improvements per year.
-The average cost to add one additional rider to the light rail systems on the West Coast is between $82,285 and $242,014 per rider.
-Attracting a new rider to light rail costs 16 to 47 times as much as attracting a new rider to a traditional bus system.

Ouch! That looks really bad. So I took a look at the group promoting the study, the Washington Policy Center, and the first thing that struck me was that they are a group that promotes "market-based solutions" to public policy problems. Meaning, that they are ideologically hostile towards big government solutions to problems.

In all fairness though, their study does draw a distinction between different transit systems in different cities. They point out, for example, that Portland and San Francisco's light-rail systems work much better than other cities and attempt to answer why (though it really doesn't take a study to figure it out- they are both small centralized cities with high population density).

Doing so more leg work on light rail, I found that most anti-rail studies come from libertarian groups and most pro-rail studies come from transit agencies. So who do you trust more?

Then I found an interesting study called "Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal" by Paul Weyrich, the founder of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Weyrich argues that it is unfair to judge rail by the percentage of trips that it provides (around 2 percent in the above study). His suggestion is that we judge it by how it does in trips that are rail-competitive. To be rail-competitive, a person's trip must go somewhere that is serviced by close-by, reliable, and quality public transportation. Weyrich's point is that most people don't have a rail-competitive option, and until rail systems are more extensive, there is no way they can compete.

Weyrich points to St. Louis as a success story- the city, which has had its population decline over the last 80-100 years as people have moved to the suburbs, recently put in a new light rail system. Weyrich writes:

However we compute it, we see roughly the same picture: despite enormous changes in the city of St. Louis and the displacement of the streetcar by the automobile as most people's primary means of travel, Light Rail now carries between one-half and two-thirds the ridership it did in 1925, in the area served. As a sober, scholarly historian might put it, Wow!

I think both studies have a point: light rail can be a lousy investment.... and to make it a good investment you need to get it close by to a large number of commuters so they are willing to get on it. In other words, you can't do it half-assed..... if you want to really get people on it you need a lot of stations and lines.

In a nice preview for the deluge of criticism that is going to happen at MTA's meeting on Thursday, the Gold Line Phase II Joint Powers Authority, a local board that is made up of council members, formally voted to oppose the MTA's proposed half-cent sales tax increase.

That plan, which the MTA hopes to put on the November ballot, would use money from the sales tax hike to fund transit projects. But local legislators have complained that the SGV is not getting enough funding from the list of projects to be funded with the tax (for much more read here)

The Gold Line JPA is made up of council members from Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte, Irwindale, Azusa, Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont, and South Pasadena.

From a press release from the organization:

Though the sales tax would allocate $735 million for the Gold Line, language in the measure does not provide a date by which funding must be received over the 30-year life of the tax and does not specify the rail's eventual terminus, meaning it could be cut off in Azusa instead of extending to the county border and Ontario International Airport. It also would allocate more than is needed, $250 million, for a maintenance facility

MTA chief Roger Snoble told me last week that it would specify the county line in Claremont as the rail's terminus, so I took a look at the measure language. I'm not at all shocked to see the language is vague enough that either side can claim it fulfills a different promise. It says that the measure will extend the Gold Line east "from its current terminus in Pasadena at the Sierra Madre Villa Station toward Montclair."

So does that mean it will go ALL the way to Montclair? Not necessarily. But it is a tangible suggestion of where it is supposed to go. Ah, deliberate vagueness.

The maintenance facility project seemed like it was going to help foster opposition to the measure.... it is not something opposed by the SGV leaders, but neither do they particularly care about the project, and they don't want $250 million coming out of their funds.

The release also suggests that John Fasana, MTA's rep from the San Gabriel Valley will oppose the measure in its current form at Thursday's meeting. Michael Antonovich, another board member, has already said he will unless it is changed.

Looks to me like the MTA is going to have to schedule an emergency meeting before August 8, the county deadline to put this on the ballot, if they want to get this done.

UPDATE: Also, on MTA's agenda on Thursday is to officially move the freeway toll lane plan from the 210 Freeway to the 110 Freeway, something we discussed here a few weeks back

The City Council approved a $1.1 million project to build a re-build a bridge over the Arroyo Seco creek in the park area behind JPL last night, but not before Councilman Sid Tyler grilled the city staff hard on the project.

Among his complaints-

*The bid climbed by several hundred thousand dollars after staff was informed that it would have to include wildlife updates to the California Department of Fish and Game.

*City staff lacked urgency in finishing the bid process (the original bids were apparently submitted in April)

*The county and U.S. Forest Service refuse to kick in any money on the project.

*The bridge may not be necessary (in his opinion). "Can't the vehicles just drive through the creek if there is an emergency up there?" (I'm paraphrasing here).

The whole thing culminated with a fired-up Tyler asking the Water and Power employee doing the briefing if he had ever been up there (around 2:03:00 on the city video). The employee never quite managed an answer. The whole thing starts around (1:57:30).

In other news from the Council, they did approve a one-year renewal of a controversial parking ticket contractor, though they plan to take a look at some other options after that point. Margaret McAustin was very emphatic about trying to get a shorter contract period, raising major concerns about the company. Victor Gordo had her back.

Steve Madison, whose district hosts the company, was the most vocal about extending the contract. Disgruntled security guard union members and a few angry citizens complained about the company, and company reps showed up to counter the claims of the union. Much more on that in tomorrow's paper.

Also, the disgruntled citizen who is angry at Steve Haderlein showed up again at this week's meeting, and got a little more detailed about his issues with Haderlein. He claims Haderlein called him up, yelled at him, and hung up on him. Haderlein says the man threatened his field rep, which the man denies.

The man is threatening to show up and speak at each City Council meeting until Haderlein apologizes.

Pasadena's June unemployment numbers hit 5.3 percent, the highest in the city since 2004. The rate has climbed almost a full point over the last two months... before that the city had been keeping its unemployment slightly above where it was last year. In June of 2007 the unemployment rate was 3.7 percent. About 1,000 fewer jobs are available in the city than this time last year.

Of course, Pasadena is in the same boat as everyone else in the county (and still a lot better off than many other cities). Things have been especially bad in the San Gabriel Valley: SGVN reporter Ben Baeder reported last week that the number of San Gabriel Valley jobs dropped 2.2 percent in 2007, even as county wide jobs increased 0.5 percent. And that is before the worst of the economic downturn: unemployment is rising fast in 2008.

However, things could yet get worse for the Crown City: June's numbers don't include the IndyMac layoffs that happened earlier this month.

Also, as I mentioned in a post last week, city property values are finally starting to drop off like everyone else's: until June, home values were still fairly stable.

I'll be turning out a more detailed print version of these latest economic woes later this week.

What does Altadena have in common with Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, and Tonga? Look at the title of the post.

Tim Rutt, over at Altadenablog has done a fine job of following the Town Council elections (not to be confused with a city council- as Altadena is unincorporated, its council plays an advisory role).

The latest: a report issued by the council that details violations in the last Town Council election:

* Three candidates allegedly ignore repeated requests or warnings to stop campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place; one candidates' worker did likewise at one location.

* One candidate may have interfered actively with the Election Chair's process prior to the election.

* Two seated Town Council members, one candidate and a few others are alleged to have verbally abused the Election Chair prior to the election; some of these accused seemed intent on interrupting the process rather than assisting with the election.

So an election to an advisory town council was marred with trouble. The committee investigating the election, did certify the results, suggesting that whatever pressure that council members might have put on the Election Chair, electorate etc. did not have much of an effect on the results of the election.

In a related story veteran council member Steve Lamb had plenty to say on the subject of the council in an interview with Janette Williams:

"The Town Council is just full of conflict, in-fighting and favoritism, and it's always been that way," Lamb said. "I'm tired of trying to reform that, and I decided it was a complete waste of time."