Fatal Accident

You've probably heard by now about that fatal motorcycle versus bus accident at Foothill Blvd. and Mountain Ave. on Monday afternoon. According to the Daily Bulletin, the Foothill Transit bus involved had no passengers at the time of the incident.

The Claremont PD hasn't released the driver's name yet. Here's what the City's website had:

Fatal Traffic Collision

Claremont Police Department received numerous 9-1-1 calls around 3:18 pm reporting a collision between a Foothill Transit bus and a motorcycle at the intersection of Foothill Bl. and Mountain Ave.

Responding officers found the rider of the motorcycle suffering from wounds to the head and legs and rendered first aid until LA County Fire personnel arrived on scene. The Foothill Transit bus had no riders on board at the time of the collision. The Foothill Transit driver was not injured. The motorcycle rider was transported by ambulance to Pomona Valley Hospital for treatment. The victim later died from his injuries. His name is being withheld at this time until notification of next of kin. The LA County Coroner's Office is handling those notifications. The Claremont Police Department is currently investigating the collision.

First St. Accident

We heard about an accident involving an SUV and a pedestrian on First St. in front of the Village Expansion parking structure yesterday and noticed that the Courier's Tony Krickl had a post about the matter on his blog.

Krickl reported that yesterday morning a vehicle driven by Brenda Monahan, the owner of Three French Hens, accelerated onto the sidewalk on the south side of the street and struck the pedestrian. The pedestrian, whose name was not given, was taken to Pomona Valley Hospital but didn't survive.

DUI Check Tomorrow

If you're out and about tomorrow evening, make sure you don't drink and drive. The Claremont Police Department will conduct another DUI checkpoint tomorrow evening, August 8, from 6pm to 2am.

The checkpoint will be at an undisclosed location in town.

There will be another of these next Sunday, August 15. According to CPD, the checkpoint is funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, via a California Office of Traffic Safety grant.

Council Meets Tonight

One side effect of Claremont's budget problems is that they've used a good chunk of the Great Recession spending their way into a hole that, absent any additional federal stimulus money, will take a few years to recover from. That means no more big budget busting municipal projects (i.e., a new police station or a water company takeover). Fiscal responsibility, like it or not, has been imposed on Claremont.

Another effect (benefit?) of Claremont's financial woes is that City Council meetings are likely to be shorter because fewer big projects mean less time taken up by staff reports and comments, public comment, legal advice from City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, and the councilmembers' questions and opinions.

We'll see if tonight's City Council regular meeting runs under two hours. The council convenes at 5:15pm for a special closed session meeting that covers ongoing negotiations with the Claremont Police Management Association and the Claremont Police Officers Association.

The regular session begins at 6:30pm in the council chambers at 225 2nd St. in downtown Claremont. You can read the agenda here. If you're a glutton for punishment, or if the Lakers are getting walloped, you can subject yourself to a live feed of the meeting here.

On the council's plate tonight are:

• A hike in recreational user fees (to be expected given the tight budget). You'll pay a couple bucks more this year for a ticket to the City's 4th of July fireworks show, and things like swim programs will cost more. See the staff report for the new fee schedule.
  
  
• The annual engineer's report for the Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD). The report recommends an increase of 1.86%, mirroring the year-over-year rise in the consumer price index for Southern California as of March, 2010.
  
  For most single-family residences, this translates to an increase of $2.72, from $147.12 to $149.84. Properties with larger lots pay more. The increase is based on the consumer price index for Southern California.
  
  Those of you who've been around for a while know the history of the LLD. It's what really one of the first things got people thinking about how City Hall manages our finances.
  
  
• An update on the restoration Sycamore Canyon Park, which was damaged in the 2003 Grand Prix Fire. The park has been closed since that time. The City has secured $180,000 in grant funding, and will proceed with restoring the trail and picnic areas. The City will also remove non-native eucalyptus trees and plant sycamores and oaks. Work is expected to commence this coming fall and finish sometime next winter.
  
  
• A report on the traffic signal at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. You'll recall there were several pedestrian accidents there before the City, bowing to pressure from the neighborhood, installed the signal last month.
  
  
• An update on the City's abandoned property ordinance. The staff report by Community Development Director Tony Witt for this item says there are currently 150 Claremont properties in some stage of foreclosure. The City has levied over $120,000 in fines under the ordinance, and around $22,000 has gone uncollected.

City Council Meeting

6:30 PM
225 W. 2nd St. - City Council Chamber
Claremont

Unintended Consequences

It came as no surprise that the proposal for a 7-Eleven at the northwest corner of Mills Ave. and Foothill Blvd. bit the dust. The person whose conditional use permit application was rejected by Claremont's Planning Commission withdrew his appeal to the City Council at the end of March.

What was a surprise was that anyone would want to put a 7-Eleven in there in the first place. The way the building is situated on the site, with its back facing Foothill Blvd., always struck us as strange. The only access is from Mills Ave. and from the frontage road that runs parallel to Foothill. Laying the property out as it is now guaranteed complaints from residents who live along E. Morelia Dr., which connects to the frontage road, because some of the traffic leaving the site would inevitably have ended up on their narrow street.

Even worse for potential 7-Eleven customers was the exit from the site onto Mills Ave. The City planned on that particular exit being a right-turn only driveway. So, if you wanted to get from that exit to Foothill Blvd., you would have had to turn right, then make a U-turn farther up Mills.

Here is what the property looks like in its current configuration:

(Click to Enlarge)

7-Eleven site: 6/19/09

Why would anyone create such a cockamamie layout in the first place? The answer is that the property owners were following Claremont's "design vision" for the area. When the design was reviewed by Claremont's Architectural Commission on 7/25/07, city staff recommended approving the design. The staff report for that meeting said on page 3:

The proposal is well planned and makes efficient use of the property. The placement and height of the proposed building is consistent with the standards of the CH zoning district. The site plan is consistent with the city's design vision for Foothill Boulevard in that the building is placed adjacent to the street with the parking area to the north of the building, thereby minimizing the visibility of parking areas to the major street.

The site wasn't always laid out like as it is now. It used to be a Union 76 gas station with a building farther away from Foothill Blvd. than the current building. The location had four driveways rather than two, and two extra entrances opened onto Foothill, making it easier for traffic from the main road to get in and out easily.

Here is what the site used to look like:

7-Eleven site: 12/30/03

However well-intended the reasoning behind Claremont's design vision for Foothill Blvd., the result was a property that will be difficult to fill, and any business owner considering the site in the future will have to contend with its limitations, as well the perception that Claremont simply isn't a business-friendly town.

As always with our screwy town, there was some irony involved. On his COURIER City Beat blog, Tony Krickl posted a letter from one of his readers that addressed the 7-Eleven issue. If you listened closely to the complaints about the 7-Eleven, there was an undercurrent of snobbery in some (not all) of the comments. That haughty attitude is one Claremont has affected for years, probably all the way back to its founding.

The letter Krickl posted on his blog noted that Masatoshi Ito, who lent his name to the Peter Drucker & Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University, is the founder of the corporation that owns 7-Eleven. Not a 7-Eleven. Over 10,000 of them.

Krickl's reader said:

It was Peter Drucker's insistence that Ito's name be added to his school. Drucker was so impressed with Ito's customer focus success and highly ethical operation all grounded on principles learned by Ito from Drucker. Ito's monetary donations to the school was significant but far short of the level in getting his name on the school.

The dichotomy of the large number of Claremont residents demonizing 7-11 while the world renowned "management guru" having given this 7-11 owner the highest expression of praise.

So, to Ito-san, Claremont says, many thanks for any prestige that your name brings to CGU. Now leave.

San Dimas Landslide Clogs Freeways

The morning and evening commutes turned into an ordeal for those on trying to get onto the 57 freeway from the westbound 10 or the northbound 71 in San Dimas. A major landslide closed the transition ramps at that junction at around 8:45am this morning.

According to the Daily Bulletin, Caltrans has determined that the hillside is still unstable, and the connectors remain closed. The article said that the ramps will be closed for days as Caltrans tries to clear the road and stabilize the hill. The Bulletin reported on the activity at the site:

Workers started bulldozing the base of the landslide about 2 p.m., after Cal Trans officials received reports that a vehicle could be trapped under the pile.

The hillside had been cut away during construction of the road. It's mostly flat top allowed water to percolate into the ground instead of running off during the recent rain storms, [Cal Poly Pomona geology professor Jonathan] Nourse said.

The Bulletin website also has a gallery of photos taken by Claremont resident Blair D. Fickett.

City Council Meeting Tonight

The City Council meet tonight in the council chambers at 225 W. 2nd St. You can watch it all here.

The council will meet in closed session at 5:15pm to discuss possible future litigation in two unspecified cases. The council will also hear a report from City Manager Jeff Parker and Assistant City Manager on labor negotiations with the City's employee organizations.

The regular session begins at 6:30pm. We don't have time for an in-depth breakdown, but you can read the regular session agenda here. The specific reports for each agenda item are here.

A few items of interest from tonight's agenda:

• Discussion of parking standards for Institutional Districts (i.e., the Claremont Colleges).
  
  
• The new water conservation ordinance.
  
  
• Consideration of a proposed traffic signal at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. (in response to the pedestrian accident there).
  
  
• An economic development report for Fiscal Year 2008-09.
  
  Some grim news here, as might be expected. Claremont's projections for the city's share of sales tax revenues in FY 2009-10 are down about $1.9 million or 38.7 percent, and it's been difficult to attract news businesses in this recession. And when you look at real numbers - total 2008 sales tax generated in Claremont versus 2007 - that number was off 49 percent. All of that loss seemed to come from auto sales and transportation, which underscores Claremont's long over-reliance on the Claremont Auto Center's sales.
  

Affordable Housing Traffic Study Available

Those of you interested in the affordable housing issue may want to review the traffic study commissioned by the city of Claremont for the project at the old Claremont Courier site on College Ave.

The report is posted on the City's website, with the following information:

College Avenue Affordable Housing Traffic Study Completed

The City has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed affordable housing project at 111 S. College Avenue. Click on the links below to view the Traffic Study and Appendices.

For further information or questions, please contact the City's Engineering Division at (909) 399-5465.

• View Traffic Study (Adobe Acrobat, 1089KB)
• View Traffic Study Appendices (Adobe Acrobat, 4655KB)

If you have any experience with these sorts of reports and studies, you know that the science associated with them is highly dubious. For instance, when the City of Claremont ordered its Environmental Impact Report for the soon-to-be-open Padua Ave. Park, the City's EIR consultant employed a biology expert who listed a Ph.D credential in his report that he purchased from the online Universal Life Church (true story!). And it wasn't even a Ph.D in biology. The doctoral title Claremont's consultant listed when he signed his report was a Ph.D in theology. The City Council nonetheless approved the EIR unanimously.

The EIR process counts on an independent review by the agency holding jurisdiction over the project. Usually, when the developer is a private party, the system works. However, when a city is both the proponent and the agency responsible for the EIR review, conflicts inevitably arise because the municipality is acting as both advocate and judge.

Having municipal approval of an EIR also makes it difficult to challenge in court because judges typically prefer to defer to legislative bodies, and this gives local governments a great deal of latitude. Courts seem to be slow to recognize when cities acting as project proponents have conflicts of interest that affect the integrity of the EIR process.

The EIRs and the supporting studies that accompany them sound very rational because they have professionals who are trained to bullet-proof the documents while at the same time pushing the science to the limit (and past) when necessary to get a project approved. For this, the really good consultants are well-compensated - well into the six-figures for the Padua Ave. Park EIR, for instance.

Once the projects are built, when one actually looks at how they affect things like traffic, the reality is usually much different - and much worse - than what the city-hired traffic engineers promised in their studies. Just look at the traffic on Indian Hill Blvd. on any given weekday afternoon, especially when a Metrolink station is passing through. The traffic studies for the Village Expansion promised no significant impacts. Yet, now if you want to make a right turn onto Indian Hill Blvd. from westbound 1st St. after 3pm? Fuggedaboutit!

It's a shame that the City and other municipalities stoop again and again to gaming the system in ways that they would not tolerate from a commercial developer working on a private project. But that is why regional urban planning in Southern California has been such an utter failure. It's exactly what you saw in any episode of the HBO series "The Wire." Everyone involved in the decision-making has their own selfish self-interests in mind, no one wants to deal honestly with the data, and the pseudo-scientific reports are, in the final analysis, nothing more than political tracts designed to move the project along to its preordained outcome.

So, the traffic study for the College Ave. affordable housing project has the inevitable conclusion on its first page: "...there are no significant project impacts, and no mitigation measures are required." Once the project is built, though, we should expect a very different reality, just as in every city-sponsored project. That much is written.

Gold Line Update - Special Meeting Today

It's been a while since we passed along any Gold Line news. Albert at iwillride.org has been blogging about the project and writes that did receive $10.3 million last month from the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

This was teaser money that's supposed to be part of the $743 million the Gold Line Foothill Extension is slated to receive as part of the Measure R county sales tax increase that was passed last November to fund transportation projects.

Albert reports that the MTA board is holding a special meeting today at 1pm to talk about the MTA's Long Range Transportation Plan. One of the items up for discussion is the manner in which the Gold Line extension will be funded.

The MTA board seems to have been playing hide the ball with this meeting, having twice postponed the discussion. This may be because San Gabriel Valley residents keep showing up at board meetings to hold the MTA's feet to the fiscal fire. The MTA board, on the other hand, tends to be LA-centric, and has been accused in the past of underserving our part of the county.

Albert writes:

For San Gabriel Valley residents, it is important to remember what’s at stake in the plan. Metro has allocated $743 million for the Foothill Extension — $10.3 million in the coming fiscal year that begins July 1, which Metro approved last month. The allocation is larger than what Measure R afforded but it does not account for getting the line open to Azusa in 2013. Metro still needs to fund the operation of the line. That’s a fight for another day.

If you can make the meeting, that would be great, but because Metro was coy about the plan and potential of a vote we understand if you can’t attend. Of course, for those not attending, we’ll be covering the meeting live on our Twitter feed @iwillride. You can also listen live by calling in at (213) 922-6045.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune has an editorial today urging the MTA to get off the dime and include the Gold Line extension in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The SGVT editorial notes that the Gold Line, unlike things like LA's Westside Subway-to-the-Sea, is ready to break ground now and could be completed from Pasadena to Azusa by 2013.

Claremont Councilmember Sam Pedroza gets a mention in the editorial, incidentally. The SGVT piece says:

The efficient Gold Line staff has lined up public-private partnerships ready to begin the work by next spring. If we can help secure the long-promised financing to do so, the contracts can be let and service can be opened to the Azusa/Glendora stop, including service to Citrus College and Azusa Pacific College, by 2013, not by 2017, as the MTA's current plans are.

That's a huge time difference in reducing the 210 Freeway gridlock in our time.

In order for that to be accomplished, the Metro board should attach funding from the recently passed Measure R.

This is a classically shovel-ready project that can help relieve congestion and create jobs. And those jobs are not just on the tracks. A number of our cities have station-adjacent development projects hanging fire until the rail line is sure to come to town. Once the commitment is there, credit will loosen up and we'll witness a healthy boost of commerce and housing in the region as well.

If you are interested in attending, you can simply take the Gold Line from Pasadena to Union Station, or you can drive, though that might not be in keeping with the spirit of public transit. The MTA building is located east of the station. You can find the agenda here.

Special Meeting - Today, 1pm
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90001

For information, call (213) 922-2000
www.metro.net

Monday Mailbag

More traffic news.

As you might expect, the traffic accident at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. last week generated a few responses, a couple of which we've posted below. The accident left two pedestrians hospitalized, one of them a five-year-old boy. (See paragraph at the end of this post for a Sunday, May 17th update on Noah Witt's condition) Here are the emails:

DATE: Friday, May 15, 2009 8:04 AM
SUBJECT: Crosswalk
TO: Claremont Buzz

Hey Buzz,

Thanks for posting the information about the crosswalk. I was at the Film Festival last night and overheard people talking about the accident.

It's sad, but just a few nights ago my friends and I were talking about that exact same intersection. I was on 10th street trying to cross to the east side of Indian Hill. I kept pushing the stupid crosswalk button over and over again, but it wouldn't register. It wasn't "clicking" to indicate that I had pushed it, and it definitely wasn't turning the lights on.

Traffic was heavy and it was dark, so I waited on my side of the street until my friends came up on the opposite side. They were able to get the lights to turn on, but traffic on Indian Hill didn't bother to stop, so we had to dart between cars anyway.

Claremont isn't as pedestrian friendly as it should be, especially Indian Hill. Sooner or later, someone is going to be hit at Indian Hill and First street, another terrible spot where pedestrians need to cross but are fighting turning cars.

It's a shame a little boy had to be hurt before anyone would fix the 10th and Indian Hill crosswalk. I am keeping him in my thoughts and hope he recovers.

* * * * *

SUBJECT: re: Pedestrian-vehicle "accident" @ 10th St & Indian Hill Blvd
DATE: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:02 PM
TO: Claremont Buzz

I'm surprised there haven't been more such incidents at/near this very dangerous intersection. Over the past nine years I have witnessed vehicles - especially southbound - drive through the "flashing" crosswalk signal, without the slightest hesitation, on occasions too numerous to recall. The city needs to install a formal, four-way traffic signal at this intersection. We need to put a stone in the shoe of the fast-moving traffic that pollutes Indian Hill Blvd daily, but especially on Saturdays. Often is the case that I am beeped/cursed at by my fellow motorists, "passing through" (?) Claremont enroute to G#d knows where, as I respect the posted Speed Limit. I have been tail-gated too many times by these cretins, especially in the southbound lane. I have witnessed very few speeding stops on IH over the years. Where's the CPD? Too busy patrolling the Claremont-Pomona border regions?

PT in Claremont

Tony Krickl's blog had two posts, both of which had some pointed comments.

* * * * *

Councilmember Sam Pedroza blogged Sunday just before noon that,

"As you may have read in our local papers, a really horrible accident took place on Indian Hill and 10th Street. The crosswalk at Indian Hill and 10th is a very controversial intersection. We are all praying for the Witt family. The good news is that both mother and son are recovering, the latest updates that I am receiving show that Noah Witt, Tony's son, is showing good signs of improvement... "

Yesterday's Indian Hill Accident - UPDATED

Accident Victims Kin to Senior City Staffer

UPDATED, 2:45pm - Courier reporter Tony Krickl reports that the victims in yesterday's automobile/pedestrian accident in Indian Hill were identified as Barbara and Noah Witt, the wife and son of Claremont Community Development Director Tony Witt. Krickl reports that Mrs. Witt was treated and released last night.

Krickl continues, "Five-year-old Noah was transported to another hospital where he is being treated in a pediatrics intensive care unit. He's listed in stable condition after suffering some chest and head trauma".

We join the Claremont community in offering our prayers and best wishes to young Noah Witt and to the entire Witt family.

June 11, 2008 Courier photo of Noah Witt, left, and older brother Josh by Gabriel Fenoy

* * * * *

UPDATED, 7:30am - We've gone back and added in the discussion from January over the crosswalk at 10th and Indian Hill.

A reader wrote in to ask about the commotion at Indian Hill Blvd. and 10th St. yesterday afternoon. Turns out there was a very bad accident at the intersection around 3pm. The Claremont Courier's Tony Krickl writes on his blog that a boy and his mother were crossing Indian Hill and were struck by a car.

According the Krickl, the woman was in stable condition, but the boy had to be airlifted to Loma Linda Medical Center. The Courier will undoubtedly have more on Saturday. Krickl may also update his blog post. One of the post's comments from last night said in part:

Tony, I was coming home from dinner tonight and stopped and spoke with one of the Claremont police officers at the scene around 7:30. He indicated that he too had heard the boy was in good condition, considering....

The accident appears to have occurred at the northwest corner of Memorial Park in the Claremont Village. There's a flashing crosswalk there with yellow, in-ground LEDs. There have been some complaints about the crosswalk, and on 1/22/09, the matter came before the City's Traffic and Transportation Commission with the recommendation that the blinking ground-level lights be replaced with a pedestrian-activated overhead flashing beacon:

Click to enlarge

According to the minutes for that 1/22/09 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, staff wanted to change the crosswalk because there has been litigation in other cities over the LED system. The complaints we've heard have been pretty much the same: some drivers just don't see the lights. This may be what has been at the center of the litigation.

At the 1/22/09 meeting, the commission voted 6-1 to continue the matter because of lack of notice. Apparently, under California Environmental Quality Act rules the issue requires an initial study, which hasn't been done yet.

The minutes for that January meeting outline the discussion that took place:

3. Indian Hill Boulevard at Tenth Street Pedestrian Signal and Lights Update

Senior Civil Engineer Loretta Mustafa presented her report and provided background information on the matter. She gave a brief update on the in pavement crosswalk lights. She stated that since it has been installed there were a lot of concerns with the lights. Staff recommends to remove the in pavement lights and install overhead beacons. She stated that drivers are not used to seeing lights in the ground they are more used to seeing at eye level or up above. Other cities are removing these devices because of litigation issues regarding maintenance. We would like to continue this item to the next Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting to allow to notice 300-foot radius but will receive public comment tonight.

Commissioner Salas commented that it was a great system and was self explanatory. His only concern is the trees overgrowing. He also recommended that parents at Sycamore be notified along with the 300-foot radius.

Commissioner Brunasso thought it was a good idea that signage be placed further up the street to let them know a crosswalk is up ahead.

Chair Poy opened the public comment.

J. Monroe believes a car is a guest in this community, far too many people have not come to this realization. There is nothing to ameliorate the speeds of vehicles from Foothill to Eighth Street. Getting to cross the street to get to the park requires pedestrians to go to 8th Street.

Ray Fowler, representing Protect Our Neighborhoods, believes if Judy Wright is behind it must be a good idea. He believes that flashing lights may be detrimental to the environment and have an adverse effect to a historical neighborhood district. There is nothing more detrimental than a blinking light in the night. He indicated that he was not sure if this would be exempt from CEQA requirements.

Carolyn Monroe stated that she has lived on Indian Hill for 31 years and has seen a lot of traffic. She advocates more Police Department patrolling because they can cite a lot of speeders.

No one else wished to speak. Chair Poy closed the public comment.

Commissioner Salas moved that the Traffic and Transportation Commission continue the item for lack of proper notification seconded by Commissioner Brunasso and carried on the following vote.

AYES - Commissioners Rinde, McLoughlin, Salas, Poy, Gonzalez, Brunasso

NOES - None
ABSTAINED - Commissioner Cole

The crosswalk matter has been listed as an upcoming agenda item for the Traffic and Transporation Commission ever since 1/22/09. No word of if staff had started the CEQA initial study prior to yesterday's accident.

Here's the latest agenda for the 4/23/09 meeting. The crosswalk is item B at the end of document.

Square Head, Round Hole

Whatever else you have to say about Claremont Trolley supporters, you cannot deny their persistence.

A reader wrote in to tell us about a Facebook event this afternoon from 12 noon to 2pm in the Claremont Village. The event is a Chamber of Commerce-sponsored rally to support the trolley, which went belly-up at the last City Council meeting.

As part of the event, you can follow it live on Twitter. Here's the tweeting party's description:

Join me, Joey Coombe, as I Twitter Live from the Claremont Trolley. This event approaches the issue of public funding for transportation related uses through new media and technology.

Follow at http://twitter.com/joeycoombe

[NOTE: This was actually a joke by Coombe. No real involvement form the Chamber of Commerce -ed.]

* * * * *

Yesterday's Courier had a letter from reader Rochelle Darrow, who wrote that she liked the trolley but thought the routing was sketchy:

The trolley was a good intention, but I for one was confounded with its route. If you were for instance visiting the theatre you would just drive there. Once in the village area everything is in walking distance. The trolley route served no purpose.

It would be wonderful if the trolley made a wider route, say north on Mills taking people to Vons. West on Baseline then south on Indian Hill stop at Trader Joes and proceed back down to the village.

The real problem wasn't just the route. Cost was the limiting factor. The trolley runs only three days a week. That really isn't a regular enough schedule to be considered a true transportion service. After all, who'd utilize a bus service that operated less than half of the time?

Why only three days? The trolley ran the schedule it did because the City couldn't afford to spend more than the $887,000 it did on the current level of service.

To run the trolley five days a week would have raised the cost to $1.27 million on its current route. And that's for one trolley that takes 15 minutes to circumnavigate it's little 1.5 mile circuit of the Claremont Village. If you were to add on stops at the Claremont Colleges and trips up to Foothill and Base Line Rd., you're talking about potentially quadrupling the time it takes one trolley to complete a circuit. With only one trolley that could mean up to an hour wait - only 12 circuits in the trolley's 12-hour day on its three days of operation.

To extend the route and keep the stops at the same 15-minute level of service, you'd have to add two or three trolleys, depending on how much you lengthened the route. And to really make the trolley a functional transportation service, you'd have to run it at least five days - and probably seven - a week. You're not only talking about multiplying the $887,000 cost by adding more trolleys and their drivers, you'd also be adding at least two more days of service, not to mention the expense of building the new stops and the added cost of fueling, insuring and maintaining the extra trolleys.

The City bought all it could afford with the money it had and couldn't come close to spending millions more to turn the trolley into a true transportation service. City staff has said as much, maintaining that the trolley was not a transportation service but an economic engine designed to bring more customers to the Village - a mission it failed miserably at.

* * * * *

David Allen was at the April 14 City Council meeting when the council voted 3-2 to pull the plug on the trolley. Allen neatly summed up the non-Trolley boosters' take:

And if you happen to gaze in the trolley's windows as it passes by, you rarely see anyone inside except the poor driver. It's like a - gaaaahh! - ghost trolley.

Condemned to endlessly circuit the Village, making a series of hard left turns, the drivers are on a voyage of the damned, the Claremont equivalent of the Flying Dutchman.

At last, city leaders voted this week to lift the curse, free the drivers and allow the trolley to head into the sunset.

Allen also quoted a clearly out-of-touch Sam Pedroza, who typically did not get it, sounding a lot like former Councilmember Sandy Baldonado.

You might recall when Baldonaldo, along with Pedroza and the rest of the Claremont 400, tried to foist a $48 million assessment district on Claremonters in 2006. After property owners resoundingly rejected the assessment, Baldonado said, "...it's not the city that I know and love."

Pedroza, as quoted by David Allen, displayed a similar tin ear, bringing up another failed Claremont transportation idea:

Councilman Sam Pedroza, however, said another trait of Claremonters is to rush to condemn new ideas. He brought up the traffic circle, which was torn out within weeks of its installation in 1999 due to jeering.

It's simply stunning that Pedroza can reinterpret history so freely. The traffic circle he spoke of, at Indian Hill and Bonita Ave., failed not because of any "jeering," as Pedroza calls it. It failed because it was a potentially good idea shoehorned into much too small of a space to handle the volume of traffic safely. The radius of the circle had to be fitted into the corners marked by the existing sidewalks, which left too tight a space for the number of cars passing through. All it did cause more delays than the existing traffic signal because of driver confusion.

These circles can work if they're in the right places and if they're sufficiently big enough to allow the traffic to flow smoothly - they're everywhere in Europe, and in a number of places here in Southern California - but the Claremont circle, much like the trolley, was jammed into the wrong place without any forethought and with very predictable results.

But, in Pedroza's mind, it's much easier to blame public rather than rationally assess the facts at hand.

A Reader Writes - Transportation Funds

We received this bit of mail regarding Friday's post about the hedgehog and the fox The reader noted that rather than waste transportation funds on the useless and relatively unused Claremont Trolley, we could have found some real, though less glamorous, transportation needs on which to spend the money.

Or, we could have (gasp!) given the money back so it could be used by some community with transportation greater needs, assuming that the sort of money swaps that new Claremont Councilmember Larry Schroeder proposed during the campaign season aren't permitted.

Here's what our reader had to say:

DATE: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:38 PM
SUBJECT: Hedgehog/Fox
TO: Claremont Buzz

Responding to your hedgehog/fox article, it's worth noting that besides a trolley, there are in fact other transportation unmet needs in Claremont. So, not only is it not a question of trolley vs. $ swap, it's not a question of trolley vs. no trolley, either (which is the sense that I got from reading the City's description of why to do this...since it's restricted funds, we might as well spend it on this since we wouldn't be able to spend it any other way...). It could be trolley vs. expanded dial-a-ride, or trolley vs. higher service level from Get About, or trolley vs. a small local bus bringing Claremonters to the Village rather than around the Village. And there are probably other transportation needs that could be met, some of which might address a real community need while also supporting our local economy.

Another idea--if we really can't spend the money on anything of value here (or at least more valuable than the trolley), could we actually return the money? With budgets so tight, surely it could be well used somewhere else, perhaps in a City that really would run a full bus load of people from one place to another? Why just waste it? What kind of stewardship of the public trust does that represent?

Just some idle thoughts.

Transportation Monday

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension is getting in line for $150 million of those federal stimulus package dollars. Habib Balian, the extension project CEO, has a letter on posted online explaining the politicking that went into convincing the LA County Metropolitan Transit Authority to seek federal funds for the Gold Line.

You'd think it'd be a no-brainer, with all the talk about how the stimulus money is supposed to favor so-called "shovel-ready" projects. But nothing is simple with the MTA, whose board includes a number of members, including Zev Yaroslavsky, who don't want the Gold Line leap-frogging over other projects like the LA Expo Line.

In any event, the MTA board gave in at a February 26 meeting after some lobbying by Duarte City Councilmember John Fasana and LA County Supervisors Gloria Molina and Michael Antonovich, all of whom are on the MTA board. At the February meeting the board was considering a motion to seek $300 million in stimulus package money for the Foothill Extension and the Expo Line. Habib Balian's update explained:

During the debate on the motion, an amendment was made to remove the section regarding the Gold Line. Proponents argued that the Federal Transit Administration had yet to issue funding guidelines for rail projects, so the item containing the Foothill Extension should be removed from the motion. Board members Fasana and Antonovich protested, arguing the board should support the Gold Line because it is ready to go and could leverage the Measure R funding to secure additional federal money. Measure R is the county’s half-cent sales tax that goes into effect on July 1.

LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavksy countered if the motion was supported as it was written the Foothill Extension could “leapfrog” other rail lines for federal funding, adding that the board’s support for the measure would be tantamount to giving permission to the Foothill Extension Construction Authority to apply for federal funds. Supervisor Molina stood up in support of the Foothill Extension, saying the effort to remove the Foothill Extension from the spending proposal was “payback” for the San Gabriel Valley’s vote on Measure R.

Molina’s argument immediately shifted the debate, forcing proponents of the amendment to retreat and support the staff proposal, with some minor amendments that allow the board to alter its recommendation depending on the federal guidelines for rail projects.

* * * * *

It turns out that your morning cup of Joe may be good for more than merely getting you brain revved up. The Original Skrip had a post yesterday about the potential for coffee to fuel cars. Skrip found an article from The Economist magazine that explained how coffee grounds can be converted to biodiesel fuel.

According to The Economist article:

The researchers found that coffee biodiesel is comparable to the best biodiesels on the market. But unlike biodiesels based on soya or other plants, it does not divert crops or land from food production into fuel production.

A further advantage is that unmodified oils from plants, like the peanut oil used by [German engineer Rudolph] Diesel in the 19th century, have high viscosity and require engine alterations. Diesel derived from coffee is less thick and can usually be burned in an engine with little or no tinkering.

The diesel-extraction method for coffee grounds is similar to that used for other vegetable oils. It employs a process called transesterification, in which the grounds react with an alcohol in the presence of a catalyst. The coffee grounds are dried overnight and common chemical solvents, such as hexane, ether and dichloromethane, are added to dissolve the oils. The grounds are then filtered out and the solvents separated (to be reused with the next batch of coffee grounds). The remaining oil is treated with an alkali to remove free fatty acids (which form a soap). Then the crude biodiesel is heated to about 100ºC to remove any water, and treated with methanol and a catalyst, so that transesterification takes place. When cooled to room temperature and left to stand, the biodiesel floats up, leaving a layer of glycerine at the bottom. These layers are separated and the biodiesel is cleaned to remove any residues.

Although some people make their own diesel at home from leftovers and recycled cooking oil, coffee-based biodiesel seems better suited to larger-scale processes. Dr Misra says that a litre of biodiesel requires 5-7kg of coffee grounds, depending on the oil content of the coffee in question. In their laboratory his team has set up a one-gallon-a-day production facility, which uses between 19kg and 26kg of coffee grounds. The biofuel should cost about $1 per gallon to make in a medium-sized installation, the researchers estimate.

Does this mean Starbucks can now enter the energy business?

Measure R Goes to the Voters

LA Times transportation writer and blogger Steve Hymon has an article describing Measure R, the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority's half-cent county sales tax increase ballot measure. The measure is on next Tuesday's Los Angeles County ballot.

Measure R's potential revenue is supposed to fund traffic and transportation projects such as the so-called Subway-to-the-Sea on LA's westside. The measure has been opposed by some San Gabriel Valley groups and politicians who argue that the money generated would be not be evenly distributed and is unfairly LA-centric.

The article lays out the measure's supporters and opponents:

Who is for and against Measure R?

There is a healthy list of elected officials on both sides of the issue. Editorials among daily newspapers have varied -- The Times, the Daily News, the Daily Breeze and La Opinion are for Measure R and the Press-Telegram, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Antelope Valley Press are against, to name a few.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce support it.

Among prominent politicians, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) have been the most vocal proponents.

Supervisors Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and Gloria Molina have been fighting the measure, saying the MTA's spending plan favors the Westside and denies other parts of the county their fair share of sales tax revenues.

The MTA and Measure R supporters rebut that, pointing to a variety of projects that would be built in different parts of the county.

Claremont Mayor Ellen Taylor recently had an opinion piece in the Claremont Courier that argued against the sales tax proposal. Taylor mentioned the MTA decision earlier this year to deny $80 million in MTA funds to the Gold Line Foothill Extension with the promise of Measure R funds. The trouble was that the the MTA's failure to fund the $80 million resulted in the Gold Line Extension being denied $320 million in federal funds for the project. The feds were requiring MTA to supply the $80 million as matching money.

Instead, MTA is dangling the prospect of $735 million from the Measure R honeypot for the Gold Line. However, there is no guarantee that LA Mayor Antonio Villarigosa, who is the primary force behind Measure R, won't raid the promised Gold Line funds to fund other projects in his city, including the westside subway. Taylor's article states that "the last time the MTA committed mass transit funds to the San Gabriel Valley was nearly 3 decades ago," so according to line of thinking, there is probably no reason to believe that the MTA would suddenly change 30 years of behavior once the election is over.

It is more than a little ironic, though, to see Taylor and the city of Claremont having to fight a much larger governmental entity. Karma's a bear to deal with, as Taylor may be learning by getting a little of the ol' Taylor treatment thrown back at her. There are always bigger fish in the local agency sea, and one would hope that Taylor and the city would remember the experience of being unfairly snubbed and ignored the next time a Claremont area resident comes before them with a objections to a city project or initiative.

Trolley Unveiled

The City of Claremont's website informs us that the new downtown "trackless trolley" (bureaucratese for "mini-bus that has been dolled up to look like a cable car"). The city's note says:

There will be four bus stops on the route, which will be located at the Depot on First, the Metrolink parking lot, Bonita at Yale, and Oberlin Avenue across from the public plaza, completing a 1.5 mile loop.

Final preparations are being made such as training the drivers on the trolley, finishing the trolley stops, and the final touches to the trolley.

The Trolley will be on display at the following community events: Village Wine Walk on September 12 in front of City Hall, at the annual Village Venture on October 25th next to the City's booth on Second Street, and the trolley will also be featured in the parade at the Los Angeles County Fair on "Claremont Day," September 18.

The Inaugural Ride will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, October 30. There will be a short ceremony, light refreshments and residents will have a chance to be one of the first to ride the trolley before it officially begins service at 11a.m. that same day.

If you have any questions about the trolley program please contact the Community Services Department at (909)399-5431.

Yesterday's Claremont Courier also had an article about the trolley debut (the article isn't available online). The Courier reports Claremont has retained the Pomona Valley Transit Authority to operate the trolley, which will run through a three-year pilot program.

The Courier also reported that the trolley will cost a projected $1,290,596 for the three years. This is a substantial increase over the $887,000 the city had promised back in January. Where does the extra $400,000 go? Apparently, the original figure didn't include the costs of building bus stops and marketing. And gas is more expensive now.

In any case, using the original city estimate of 15 riders per hour, 12.5 hours per day, three day per week, we get 87,750 riders for the three year pilot program or about $14.71 per rider, a nearly 50% increase in the estimated cost for the three-year trial. At that price, the trolley out to be gold-plated.

Don't worry, though. As the city gleefully points out, its not OUR money! The project funded by state transportation fund money, so we can throw it away whatever way we want. Of course, if Sacramento pols pull transportation bond funds to balance the state budget, Claremonters may end up getting stuck a good chunk with the trolley bill. (But we don't want to talk about that.)

The Courier reported on some of the trolley's amenities:

The new vehicle has red paint, wooden seats and a manual bell ringer to replicate more authentic-looking track trolleys operating in cities like San Francisco and Portland. It will be ADA compliant and run on clean-burning gasoline.

We're not sure what differentiates "clean-burning" gasoline from other types, but we do suspect that Claremont's trolley, which covers and area of about six downtown blocks, probably won't help Claremont replicate San Francisco or Portland any more than the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas replicates the real French capital. But a person can dream.

Gold Line Still in Limbo

The Daily Bulletin interviewed Congressman David Dreier and the discussion turned to the Gold Line Foothill Extension, whose future now depends on the Los Angeles County voters approving a half-cent sales tax increase in November for money to fund transportation projects in the county.

As the article explained the Gold Line Extension lost out on $320 million in federal funds because the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) decided not to provide the funds needed to qualify for the feds' money:

Dreier spoke to the Daily Bulletin editorial board Monday on a variety of issues including the economic slowdown, foreclosure crisis and the fate of the Gold Line extension.

He recently worked with Congress members Hilda Solis, Adam Schiff and Grace Napolitano on a 30-minute Web segment to inform residents how to put pressure on the MTA board regarding the Gold Line issue.

The light rail project, which would connect Pasadena to Montclair and perhaps eventually to the L.A./Ontario International Airport, had the opportunity to receive $320million in federal funding if MTA contributed $80million. But the board decided to wait to see if voters will approve a half-cent sales tax measure this November for transit projects, thereby missing the deadline for federal money.

"We can't give up," Dreier said. "Think of all the relief (the Gold Line extension) can provide. The excitement I hear from people...they say, `My God, if I can park my car and get to downtown L.A. and all these places so easily, that would be wonderful.'"

The Gold Line prospects seem very uncertain at this point, and the MTA refused to guarantee all of the money allocated to extension out of the November sale tax measure. As sometimes happens with these things, other priorities could arise after November that might cause the money to be redirected elsewhere - the Subway to the Sea, for instance.

Traffic Solutions: Walking on the Wild Side

We received this in from a reader concerned about students trying to get from the Claremont Graduate University's new student apartment complex on the north side of Foothill Blvd. to the CGU campus on the south side of the often busy highway:

Subject: Claremont Planning: Nobody Walks in L.A., So They Shouldn't Walk Here Either

Hi There,

So sheer planning genius along the lines of Porkchop Park...

CGU finally built new housing for its students to replace the criminal slum lord housing it currently has. The new housing is up against the parking lot of the Rancho Santa Ana Botantic Gardens.

We all assumed that the city would put in a light on Foothill and College, since CGU is on College and a couple hundred students are moving into the apartments on the other side of Foothill, directly across from College. I mean, that would make sense....for the several years I've lived here, I've become accustomed to watching students play Frogger as they dashed for their lives across Foothill to get to the apartments at CST. The only other option was to walk all the way down to Dartmouth and back - which, on a hot day with no shade, is kind of brutal.

I mean...a light, a pedestrian bridge, something...

And then Claremont built an island median thing to prevent people from turning left on Foothill coming out of College. And put rocks all over it so you can't stand on it. And then added No Pedestrian signs. I think they wanted to add a moat and fire breathing dragons, but because of the budget, decided not to.

The city actually thinks that students should walk all the way down to Dartmouth, wait for the light there, take their chances crossing against turning traffic, and walk all the way back? Only in Claremont is the shortest distance between two points....a weird rectangle.

The weird access road that you have to take now is narrow - looks like its a one-way, but will have to have to accommodate two way traffic (even though there's no center divider line).

But hey, at least they put in a bike lane going up to the gardens, right? Except...its on the right side of the road, where there is no lighting.

Seriously, does the city want to kill off students?

here's the link to the housing info:

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1156.asp

My favorite bit of ridiculous advertising on there is that the Metrolink is supposedly "within walking distance." Uh-huh. It's over a mile away, including crossing a major road with heavy traffic that doesn't have a freaking crosswalk, light, or pedestrian bridge.


Sigh.

Actually, dear reader, as typically happens with these things, a lot of thought and careful planning went into what you see. The City of Claremont and CGU threw tons of money at a traffic study from Acme Traffic Consultants, the finest traffic minds in the U.S.

The image below is taken from the computerized traffic model tested by Acme. Acme is a division of Acme Products, Inc., the same company the city hired to come up with coyote mitigations for the Claremont Wilderness Park. You might recall their plan to deal with our four-legged friends: Catapulting a large boulder from the highest point in the park until it falls on the unsuspecting coyote, who at the last minute notices the ever-larger shadow growing around him and, realizing his plight, holds up a sign saying, "Bye!"

Click to Enlarge

Market Accident

The Claremont Courier had an article about a motorist who lost control of her car at Sunday's Farmers' Market while trying to park in the Wells Fargo parking lot at Indian Hill Blvd. and Second Street.

The vehicle jumped over a low brick wall and struck a fruit vendor's stand, taking out a couple cases of cherries. The driver, a 77-year-old woman, lost control of the car when she stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake. The circumstances echoed the Santa Monica Farmers' Market incident from 2003 but without any injuries or fatalities.

The article, by Tony Krickl, indicated that the market organizers were trying to prevent anything like this from happening again:

Organizers of the Farmers’ Market in Claremont said they learned a lesson from the Santa Monica tragedy. After the incident, a decision was made to better secure the street for pedestrians by parking a large truck and a Jeep at either end of Second Street during the market’s operating hours from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.

[Farmers' Market manager Rick] Moore said that he had already spoken with police and city staff to come up with more safeguards for pedestrians at the Farmers’ Market. He also planned to meet with Wells Fargo management to discuss how a similar incident could be avoided in the future.

The article also said there had been some similar incidents in the last few years, including one just the night before Sunday's accident when a 75-year-old woman ran a stop sign at Indian Hill Blvd. and Harrison Ave. and drove her Lexus through a fence and bushes and into the side of a chapel. Krickl reported that the Saturday damaged a gas meter and forced the evacuation of some neighboring residents.

Claremont Public Art Meets Traffic News

We received this in from a reader who has been haunted by some artwork by Claremont sculptor Barbara Beretich. The reader was kind enough to send along some photos, which we incorporated into the post. The tale reminds us a bit of the traveling gnome from the 2001 movie Amélie:

Hello Insider,

For some time now, I've been tracking the movements of Barbara Beretich's mysterious bronze horse, which seems to have been following me around town. Apparently, I'm not the only person haunted by this critter:

http://holarubia.blogspot.com/2007/01/this-horse-is-following-me.html

First I saw it at Beretich's house, then it appeared at the Klitgaard house (CGU President), then in the front yard of the house on College and 10th (the, er, posterior and hanging bits 'n pieces facing the front door...a strange choice, I always thought)

A few nights ago, a SECOND horse appeared in that yard - a gold one. The next morning, I saw men trucking away with the clearly inferior bronze (surely a silver exists?) and lo and behold...it appeared on the weird park-island on Indian Hill, where the angel statue used to be (poor angel got moved up to the Drug Dealer Park).


Clearly, this is the Thoroughbred of Sin (who rules Claremont with an iron hoof. For more info, see http://www.drhorrible.com/)

Here are some pics!














cheers

P.S. Thanks for posting the info about the tunnel by Claremont High. I *love* that Claremont had pedestrian tunnels! Screw the trolley, bring back the tunnels!!!!

We'd seen the change at Indian Hill Blvd. and Harrison Ave. that the reader mentioned. People referred to the island as the "Porkchop" because of its shape. If you haven't seen it, the city has closed off the old, separate northbound right turn lane from Indian Hill to Harrison and turned the Porkchop into into a small greenspace with a display platform for public art; people have begun to call it Porkchop Park. They've also managed to make the right turn onto Harrison into an odd, acute angled affair (see below).

Click to Enlarge

We don't know much about the reasons for altering the street, other than that somebody else's money was available. Maybe Claremont Mayor Ellen Taylor was using it as a southbound shortcut onto Indian Hill.

Claremont City Manager Jeff Parker explained the project in his weekly City Manager's Report on July 18th:

INDIAN HILL/HARRISON AND BONITA PROJECT
The Indian Hill/Harrison and Bonita project is near completion. The City has received a number of positive comments from the public regarding the improvements. [this was before installation of the horse with the pendant parts.--ed.]

The reconfiguration of the southeast corner of the Indian Hill/Harrison intersection consisted of the removal of the separate, northbound dedicated right turn lane. The former design diverted pedestrians away from the most direct route to the signalized intersection at Indian Hill and Harrison, by having them continue along the edge of the right turn lane to Harrison. The new design eliminates the separate right turn lane and provides a direct and safe route to the signalized intersection. The removed section of the roadway is now covered with new landscaping, benches, pedestrian walkways and bicycle racks.

Additional Indian Hill improvements included the extension of the existing center median south to Fourth Street, construction of handicapped ramps, and installation of traffic signal features to assist the visually impaired. The installation of a concrete pedestal was also included in this project, with the purpose to display different sculptures loaned by local artists as part of a program sponsored by the Community Foundation.

The Bonita portion of this project added the pedestrian sidewalk and streetlights to the north side of the roadway between Grinnell and Berkeley Avenues.

The project was funded with $420,000 of federal grant funding through the Hazard Elimination and Safety program. [The prospect of facing down Mayor Taylor as she hurtles willy-nilly the wrong way on a one-way street would be a hazard, we guess, worth $420,000 to eliminate.]