Bikeway Undercrossing at Fletcher Drive

Fletcher undercrossing isn't open yet, but some cyclists are already using it

This afternoon, I took these photos of the new segment of the Los Angeles River Bike Path under construction in Elysian Valley. Creek Freak has written about the history, the groundbreaking and the construction of this new 3-mile river bike path, due to open in early 2010.

The biggest infrastructural intervention in this project is the undercrossing at Fletcher Drive. I, of course, have to mention the wonderful historic Fletcher Drive Bridge, built in 1927. The rest of the stretch has long had a somewhat-bumpy access road already used by cyclists and pedestrians all the time. The basic concrete path is all complete at Fletcher. Follow this link for a photo of what it used to look like, and here’s how it appears today:

New undercrossing at Fletcher

I was glad to see that this strom drain outlet  (below Rattlesnake Park – a mini-park located on the south bank, immediately downstream adjacent to Fletcher – home of the Great Heron Gate) has been fixed. More than once I’ve seen folks slip and injure themselves walking across the sloped wet area here. Ouch! I shudder thinking about it. Now the drain runs under the dry flat bike path.

New stormdrain plumbing at Fletcher

Here’s a closer shot:

Closer shot of the drain, with bike path surface more visible across center of image

There’s still a lot of work to go. The undercrossing will have lights and railing – and rest of the 3 miles will be resurfaced and striped. Here’s what the future bike path looks like facing downstream from Rattlesnake Park, toward the 2 Freeway:

Future bike path, looking downstream toward the 2 Freeway

Lastly, for all us creek freaks interested in bike paths, there’s one more public meeting on the city of Los Angeles’ draft bike plan update. The new draft plan calls for completing the Los Angeles River bike path and some other waterway paths… but as I read the plan, I am finding that it’s quite inadequate, especially regarding designated bike lanes on city streets. If you’re interested in learning about the L.A. Bike Plan and giving your input, come to the public meeting next Wednesday:

Bike Plan Update Public Meeting
Wednesday, November 4th 2009 6pm-8pm
Free – Refreshments – Spanish translation provided
Ramona Hall, 4580 N. Figueroa Street, LA 90042
Adjacent to Sycamore Grove Park in Highland Park
Very easy access from Metro Gold Line Southwest Museum Station – just go down the stairs and cross the street.
For more information call 213.473-7001

There’s also a county bike plan about to get underway, and draft bike plans for Pasadena and Burbank – both of which call for more creekside bike paths. Creek Freak will do some kind of bike plan round up soon!

LA’s water gets weird

 

From Google Books: Southern California Practitioner, Vol XXXII. 1885. University of California Medical Center Library, San Francisco

I know it’s all hindsight, but I think I’ll stick to Tiger Balm, thanks.  I’m still working on the details, these springs were located at 5663 Melrose Avenue, between Larchmont and El Centro “near the old village of Colegrove.”  There were small surface streams in the area, but can’t confirm surface irradiated springs at this time, and I consider it highly unlikely.  The Bimini and Oxford hot springs were from wells, so that’s a possibility here. There were actual sulphur springs at the base of the Hollywood Hills.

Now if you really are looking for a radioactive (former) stream, try the filled ravine at the VA in Brentwood.  That’s one of our lost streams.  Low-level radioactive waste was dumped in there in (I believe) the 50s- and was setting off geiger counters and tempers a few years back.

 

Tragedy at the Elysian Springs

Thanks to Creekfreak readers who added so much richness of detail to the post, A tree grows on Beaudry. If you are intrigued by Echo Park’s former Arroyo de los Reyes, Elysian Springs and Woolen Mill Ditch, I recommend you scroll through the comments there.  One reader, David Kimbrough, confirmed the rumor of springs at the Elysian Heights Elementary School – near Valentine and Baxter.  He followed up by sending Joe and me a fascinating and creepy Los Angeles Times news clipping from 1904, which I am summarizing for you here.

Los Angeles Times, 1904 (LA Public Library via D. Kimbrough)

If you’ve ever felt that there’s something slightly haunted about Echo Park, this may be (partially) why.

On the evening of December 27, 1904, Columbus C. Champion, 67, committed fratricide, shooting down his brother Thomas in a “deadly fusillade…in front of the Elysian Springs bottling plant,” for whom Thomas worked as a water delivery man.  Columbus, called “Lum,” lived on property next to the bottling company. Due to Lum’s tyrannical nature, “not only were the members of the murdered man’s family in terror of the surly and churlish relative, but the whole settlement in the little valley through which runs the Echo Park electric line seems…to have dreaded some such tragic outcome as that which took place last night.”

Lum had already been abandoned by his wife, son and father several months previously, and neighbors believed it was “worth almost any effort to keep on good terms.  It is said he has terrorized the neighborhood on numerous occasions…”  Earlier in the day, he fired BB shot at his niece, threatening to kill the entire family, which precipitated the deadly confrontation with his brother.

Thomas, returning to the Elysian Springs Bottling Company, rode his wagon with his son Sam past Lum’s property.  ”At once the old man rushed out of the house and began to abuse his brother. Sam Champion, fearing for his father’s safety, secured a revolver from the home, and started up to where his father and uncle were quarreling.  The younger brother (Thomas) was trying to ward off the attacks of Lum, and just as Sam arrived his father told Lum to go back into his own lot and leave him alone, or he would knock him down.  With an oath, Lum started toward the cottage, crying out that he would kill the whole outfit.  He quickly reappeared with his gun, and when within twenty feet of this brother fired the load of shot into his breast.  Thomas sank to the ground and expired almost immediately.”

The villain was unrepentant and actually joking with the police who carried him away.

Making Connections Between Tobacco Control and Water Quality?

The CigEgret. Other folks clearly made the cigarette-watershed connection before I did. This is a Coastal Clean-Up Day poster from a couple years ago, designed by Goodby, Silverstein & Partners

In my capacity as bicycle advocacy group C.I.C.L.E.‘s campaign director, I attended a meeting this morning which had an inordinately long name: the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Center for Disease Control and Prevention Funding Opportunity General Stateholder Meeting. The county of L.A. public health department is preparing two applications for federal stimulus funding. They’re for two separate $10M grants: one for tobacco control and one for obesity prevention, which includes physical activity and nutrition. The county will be applying in December and the 2-year federal grants will be awarded in February.

I was mostly there to see how C.I.C.L.E. might receive funding for reducing obesity by getting folks up on bikes, which, Creek Freak readers know, will also help heal our watersheds. During the explanation of the Tobacco Control and Prevention Program‘s Community Action Program, I overheard something that I think may have implications for watershed programs. Mostly as a part of price controls that would discourage smoking by making it more expensive, one of draft program’s goals is that cities “will adopt an ordinance that requires consumers to pay a fee for the mitigation of litter.” The speaker, Linda Aragon who directs the county’s Tobacco Control and Prevention Program, mentioned that some other cities had already done this.

It occurs to me that there could be a connection with litter mitigation funding and projects that keep trash out of our waterways, as required by the Clean Water Act and the various L.A. County trash TMDLs. TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load; the trash TMDL is a water board regulation that requires cities to prevent trash from going from their streets into storm drains and into rivers, creeks, and oceans. Many cities are fighting the trash regulations because they say that they’re too expensive… perhaps, if those cities are also anti-tobacco, they can pass these sorts of laws and can use a portion of the funding collected to implement anti-trash water quality measures? Sounds like a win-win!

Are any creek freak readers aware of similar tobacco litter mitigation fees from other municipalities? and if any of those funds have helped with water quality projects? Let us know in the comments below. I think it could be an opportunity for coalition building – creek freaks working together with anti-smoking advocates!

And that brings me to mentioning the Blogger Beach Clean-Up happening this Saturday October 24th at 4pm in Santa Monica, where I am expecting to clean up a few cigarette butts. Meet either your favorite or second favorite L.A. Creek Freak, clean-up the beach, and mingle with like-minded eco-Angelenos. You don’t have to be a blogger… just come and help out. Lots of cool prizes! For details, see Green L.A. Girl.

Photographing Nearly-Demolished Taylor Yard Rail Facilities

L.A. Creek Freak surveys the remains the 40-railcar roundhouse at Taylor Yard. All photos: Nathan Baird

My friend Nate and I bicycled out to Taylor Yard to survey and photograph the destruction. The white buildings that I’ve seen there for the last 20 years are no longer standing. It’s an odd moonscape. I still don’t know quite why the demolition is proceeding right now… who is paying for it… and why? I will try to get answers this week. If any readers can shed light on it, please do.

I am a little worried that it could be some mischief afoot… such as when a developer purchased the nearby Taylor Yard parcel where the Los Angeles Unified School District is building a high school. The developer immediately proceeded to pave the site to supposedly increase its value? The whole thing complicated the school district’s acquisition, devolving into a legal eminent domain battle.

Here are a few more of Nate’s photos:

Former train bays at Taylor Yard

Ruins at Taylor Yard

This room looked like it had a dark shiny marbled flood - but it was rainwater mixed with gunk

GOOD HOUSEKEEPING also means SAFETY

Check out more photos of the destruction that was Taylor Yard at Nate’s photo page.

Making High Speed Rail and River Restoration Work Together

Creek Freak appears in today’s L.A. Times aritcle by Ari Bloomerkatz entitled “Plans for trains, river may collide.” It’s on how high-speed rail and river revitalization may or may not be compatible. Here’s an excerpt: (follow the link to read the whole story.)

The situation makes for delicate politics. Many L.A. officials strongly support the bullet train concept and believe that the Union Station hub would fit into the county’s efforts to expand subway and light rail service. But they also believe that revitalizing the river is an important part of making the city core more livable for residents and attractive to visitors.

The proposed rail routes would run near Taylor Yard, a 247-acre freight switching facility in Cypress Park that was closed by 1985. Part of Taylor yard, which is north of Union Station, is still used for rail maintenance and storage, but it also includes Rio de Los Angeles State Park and sites for a planned high school, green space and a mixed-use housing development. The Los Angeles River runs next to it.

Both the online and print editions feature a picture of Los Angeles Creek Freak’s Joe Linton walking along the tracks at Taylor Yard.

I think that the article is well-written and clear, but I do want to expand and clarify my position slightly. I think that there are a number of high-speed rail options that could work well for both river revitalization and for increased mobility for Californians. The cheapest option appears to lay down more tracks and more fences at Taylor Yard… which would end up being a barrier to river access.

Video capture from California High-Speed Rail website's 3-D simulation of alternative trenches through Taylor Yard. This image shows the trench along San Fernando Road. Click to watch the video.

There are many alternatives for the alignment in this area. Unfortunately the ones currently most focused on by the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority aren’t quite the what I would consider the best ones for the river and the community.  Currently, the high-speed rail website shows a simulation of two alternatives: a trench along the existing rail right-of-way and a trench along San Fernando Road.

One positive aspect of these trenches is that they can be lidded, which could create crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists to access the river. The lidded-trench solution is positive in that it can solve access issues across the existing conventional rail tracks. Trenches have some downsides. They act as a barrier to hydrological connections, so it will become nearly impossible to create streams and wetlands that gradually slope down to the river. Even with various lids (as shown in the video simulation) there’s still quite a bit of trench that creates a barrier to river access for nearby communities. The lids can be planted… but end up somewhat barren as they’re not optimal for growing large trees. If we’re not careful they may be built in a very ugly institutional way – think lots of chain link fences and concrete in the middle of a park.

My favorite option, admittedly somewhat difficult (meaning expensive fiscally and politically) one would be to run the rail on an elevated structure in the middle of the 5 Freeway. This would mean that drivers stuck in traffic could watch rail whizzing by… and hopefully contemplate taking the train next time.

Another alternative would be to elevate the rail (both conventional and high-speed) through Taylor Yard, creating plenty of river access underneath the tracks. This would need to be done in an intelligent and aesthetically pleasing way. I am not asking for a minimal foreboding 15-foot wide tunnel under the tracks… more like a graceful extended span opening up a quarter-mile access park below, gently sloping toward the restored riverbed.  I think it needs to be very open, with plenty of good sight lines.

I haven’t heard or seen as much about the rest of the alignment – from Taylor Yard through downtown to just south of Olympic Boulevard. This includes Los Angeles State Historic Park, Union Station and about 6 miles of very difficult to access river, with plenty of beautiful historic bridges. This area is among the most difficult for revitalization. It’s also the area targeted for the initial Southern California phase of the high-speed rail project – from Los Angles Union Station to the city of Anaheim. It’s important that we not laden this part of the river with additional infrastructure that will make future access even more difficult.

The high-speed rail project is an opportunity to enhance mobility while setting the table for future river revitalization, but it will take some funding, coordination, creativity, smart planning and community input to arrive at the solution that makes the most sense.

Demolition at Taylor Yard

Rails being dismantled at Taylor Yard

I met up with a Los Angeles Times reporter at Rio de Los Angeles State Park today. He’s writing a story on how the planned state high-speed rail could hinder or help river revitalization, and I will link to his story when it runs. What I saw today that’s also newsworthy is that there’s serious demolition going down at what’s left of Taylor Yard. A sharp-eyed reader had emailed me about this a week ago, but today was the first day I actually saw it.

A brief background on Taylor Yard, a 243-acre former Southern Pacific railroad switching yard. It’s located between San Fernando Road and the Los Angeles River, from the 2 Freeway to almost the 110 Freeway. It’s the biggest undeveloped site along pretty much the entire length of the Los Angeles River, hence a huge opportunity for large scale restoration… though it does have some issues with very serious toxins from about a century of locomotive engine maintenance. Small portions of the yard have been redeveloped for light industrial uses, but one of the most egregious development proposals was blocked by a community coalition. After preventing proposed development, California State Parks purchased a 40-acre parcel (Parcel D) and an additional 20-acre parcel (the bowtie area of Parcel G.) Parcel D is now the well-loved Rio de Los Angeles State Park, which is a joint project of the state and the city of Los Angeles. The park features 20 acres of active recreation fields and 20 acres of restored habitat. In the eyes of community members, creek freaks, and the city’s master plan, the vision for the site is a 100+acre river park.

Today there were bulldozers and other construction vehicles demolishing the large white buildings where locomotive engine maintenance took place while the yard was active. The buildings are in Parcel G. I couldn’t get too close, but here’s an image – upper half of the building looks like it’s standing on stilts because the lower part of the walls has been demolished:

The large white buildings being demolished. Photo taken from the access road train bridge, looking upstream.

I confess that I don’t know why this is happening now… or what the land is being prepared for. There had been a push by Assemblymember Kevin de Leon for State Parks to purchase the remainder of Parcel G… but I hadn’t heard any news of that recently… and I suspect that the state’s serious budget shortfalls make this kind of purchase very difficult at this time. If anyone out there can shed more light on what’s going on with the demolition at Taylor Yard, please post information in the comments.

Rainy Morning L.I.D. Workshop at Augustus Hawkins Park

Wetlands at Augustus Hawkins Nature Park

L.A. Creek Freak was happy to train and bike down to Augustus F. Hawkins Natural Park for a city of Los Angeles Low Impact Development (LID) workshop this morning.

The highlight of the trip was exploring parts of the park while it was lightly raining. I hadn’t visited the site since 2005, when I wrote about it as a side trip in my book. The 8-acre park is located at the intersection of Compton and Slauson Avenues in South L.A. – two blocks west of the Slauson Metro Blue Line Station.

The park opened around 2002. It incorporated some of healthy older trees already at the site. The older and newer trees have grown tall and stately. The park features a nature center, picnic area, and paths that wind and spiral through areas of restored native vegetation. The landscape has grown in a great deal, and looked really lush in the rain.

Today’s LID workshop, the last of four scheduled, had about 30 people in attendance, including representation from developers, architects, consultants and engineers, all trying to wrap their heads around the new ordinance.

The workshop presentation was by Shahram Kharaghani, the head of the city Sanitation Bureau’s Watershed Protection division. The description of the ordinance is pretty much the same as what creek freak described in this earlier post. Kharaghani asserted that the city is doing the new LID requirements in advance of them being required as part of the city’s stormwater permit, which is due to be renewed in 2010.

LID is anticipated to consist of an ordinance and a handbook, which Kharaghani stated would be on-line in draft form “soon.”Kharaghani stressed that LID apply to everything public and private, and that the rainwater features prioritized will be natural ones.

While slides showed a seemingly orderly flowchart decision tree, questions revealed the gray areas open to some interpretation. It’s not completely clear exactly how green roofs, treatment of off-site run-off, hillside development, single-family home best management practices (BMP’s) etc. will be handled, but perhaps the soon-to-be online documents can offer additional guidance.  It appears that the main bottom-line standard is the capture of that 85th percentile rainstorm on site.

Kharaghani anticipated that LID requirements would take effect approximately February 2010 – first they go before the Public Works board, city council and mayor for approval.

Development Proposes Platform Over the Tujunga Wash at Victory Blvd

Site plan for The Plaza at the Glen proposed development. The unlabeled Tujunga Wash runs diagonally from the upper left to the lower center of the plan. Image from Dasher Lawless, Inc website. Click for larger version and additional images.

A 12.2-acre mixed use development called “The Plaza at the Glen” is proposed for both sides of the Tujunga Wash on the north side of Victory Boulevard west of Coldwater Canyon Avenue. That’s in the east San Fernando Valley, a half-mile upstream from L.A. Valley College where the concrete walls of the Tujunga Wash feature the Great Wall of Los Angeles mural. The proposed development site is currently the site of the Victory Plaza shopping center, and it straddles the middle of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority’s mile-mile long Tujunga Wash Greenway Restoration project wjhich extends along both sides of the wash from Oxnard Street to Vanowen Street.

L.A. Creek Freak found out about the project via an article on the usually insightful Curbed L.A. blog, which stated “In a savvy move, there’re also plans for a transit plaza over the Tujunga Wash that will connect the DASH with the Orange Line.” This L.A. Creek Freak is actually quite a fan of transit-oriented walkable density, and overall the project actually looks pretty good. I don’t find the idea of putting more lids over our already threatened waterways to be “savvy” … more like “nearsighted”.

While it’s good, maybe even savvy, to link projects like this with transit, it seems unnecessary to carve out this transit plaza turnout, which will more likely serve to delay the Van Nuys/Studio City DASH by giving it an extra little dog-leg (on top of the proposed additional loop, which I like.) Why not just run those DASH shuttles on Victory Blvd? Improve the transit stops there, which could also support the Metro 164 bus line and activate the boulevard. The transit plaza feels more like the project is turning its back to the street; emphasizing enclosed private space at the expense of livelier public space.

It would be better if the project could actually strengthen its interface with the existing park on the Tujunga Wash. The 1996 Los Angeles River Master Plan and the current Bicycle Master Plan draft update designate this area for a bike path, which the project should interface with. The project could strengthen Tujunga Wash’s bike and pedestrian connections with the Metro Orange Line, including that line’s bike and walk paths. Perhaps the development could build a portion of the bike path? Better yet and more expensive, the project could benefit greatly by restoring a portion of the Tujunga Wash as a park amenity – as a project draw! Here’s an example of where that has been proposed for development along Compton Creek.

L.A. Creek Freak will be keeping an eye on this proposal… which is probably more likely to be defeated by a weak economy than by watershed concerns. If readers learn more about developments on this project (or other development impinging on local waterways) please let us know.

Hoping to expand Glendale’s creek protections

a small wetland has been created by ponding of the creek's flows at a road culvert.

Another view

Is this a creek?  If you had a stream protection ordinance in your city, should this stream be covered by it?  Lee Scott, a Glendale resident, alerted Creekfreak to the fact that, while the city of Glendale admirably has a stream protection ordinance it only covers blueline streams. So his neighborhood stream has been at risk of development.

When I drove by there last week, a deer bounded out of the creek.  The creek zone was cool and moist, with sycamores, poison oak, and some reedy plants – due to the poison oak I didn’t try to get too close to take a better photo.  But it was clearly a nice intermittent-looking stream surrounded by live oaks.  Upstream, a road culvert caused ponding of the stream’s flows, creating a small wetland environment.  Looking downstream from above, the stream cut a deep ravine, one that I’d want help getting in and out of.

Protecting this steep, southern California stream only helps environmental quality – it protects water quality and habitat, and improves the quality of life of the people who live around it.  Too often we rely on the USGS or the Army Corps to tell us what a stream is – when we can clearly see for ourselves whether water has formed a stream channel, if there’s a clear direction of flow, and habitat specifically adapted to a creek environment.

Mr. Scott will put the issue on the table in a 3-minute public comment during the first “Oral Communications” period of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 13.  If you are in the community, show your support with a 3-minute testament to what some of these unmapped streams mean to you.  The meeting starts at 6pm, not sure exactly when the first public comment period will be – but don’t be shy, fill out that speaker card and speak from your heart.

And since the issue of creek protection comes up  - a lot – here’s a new page with some info to hopefully reduce the frustrating search for what-to-do when a creek in your neighborhood is at risk: Mini-primer on how to save your creek.