|
Post by neyojii on Feb 10, 2008 12:04:34 GMT -8
You know what, I am tired of everyone here always looking at the negative points about the BRU, at least they are the ones trying to stop a ridiculous fare increase that can possibly hurt, you me, and anyone who rides the Metro system. You would rather pay 120 dollars for a metro pass, but at the same time service is being cut all around this city, but y'all kissing Metro ass, thats not me, who here is trying to stop the fare increase, know one, so instead of always criticizing the BRU, you can team up with them, and stop this fare hike, and stop service cuts from happening.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 10, 2008 18:29:20 GMT -8
I wouldn't mind stop dissing the BRU...if they stopped dissing Metro's mindset to focus on rail development. Rail is the future my friend, and increases ridership/demand on buses as well. Once the BRU supports an expansion of ALL metro services, then I would support them as well.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 10, 2008 18:36:18 GMT -8
You know what, I am tired of everyone here always looking at the negative points about the BRU, at least they are the ones trying to stop a ridiculous fare increase that can possibly hurt, you me, and anyone who rides the Metro system. You would rather pay 120 dollars for a metro pass, but at the same time service is being cut all around this city, but y'all kissing Metro ass, thats not me, who here is trying to stop the fare increase, know one, so instead of always criticizing the BRU, you can team up with them, and stop this fare hike, and stop service cuts from happening. Somehow the BRU believes it is better for someone to go from downtown to Santa Monica on a bus that takes over an hour vs. a subway or rail that takes half the time. How does that help poor workers? No one wants a fare increase, but they don't offer a plan to where the money will come from to avoid one. They always mention how expensive rail is to build, but what they don't mention is that bus service is actually more expensive to operate which is partially why fare increases are necessary
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Feb 10, 2008 19:51:38 GMT -8
I'm for bus service and public transit, but I would never support a group that hates rail service just to put more buses. The bus-only experiment in LA from 1963 to 1990 did nothing to make traveling in LA easier. Instead of blaming Metro for the service cuts, riders should be blaming the government for taking money away from public transit. Buses are not efficient unless we take all personal cars off the streets, then buses would be very timely and fast, but in reality, we can't force people to not drive and buses are forced to share the road, therefore rail is necessary for LA.
BTW, want to see what efficient bus service looks like? Take an owl bus at 3AM.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 10, 2008 19:54:58 GMT -8
The BRU is always shouting out racism and that's something that I can't stand. Rail does not only serve the "rich white people," and buses only will not work. Their way of doing things and their ideal image for LA are not realistic, so I cannot support them.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 10, 2008 20:18:59 GMT -8
As a bus rider myself, all I have to say is that the BRU can kiss my ass.
Fortunately, the silent majority of bus riders in this town are willing to stand up to them.
Their anti-rail tirades have been utterly destructive to L.A. transportation planning and their phony cries of "racism" are beyond disgusting.
Most rail proponents I know also support a comprehensive, reliable bus system. Most sensible people realize we need BOTH rail and bus. But not the misguided idiots at the BRU.
The BRU is willing to sabotage Los Angeles' economic and environmental future it is own selfish ends.
Now that bus riders really need advocates to stand up for them the BRU has no credibility left because of their cries of "racism" and anti-rail tirades.
The BRU has already been rendered irrelevant by their own actions. When they stop crying "racism" against rail and stop trying to sabotage rail transit and just stick to advocating better and more improved bus service, they might be relevant again.
But, until then, if they folded, I wouldn't shed a tear. They've done enough damage to Los Angeles already.
Or take a bus in any rail intensive city like London or Paris or New York for that matter. Rail ridership increases demand for quality bus ridership.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Feb 10, 2008 21:07:09 GMT -8
120 dollars for a month pass is not THAT unreasonable. Compare that with gas prices+car insurance+car repairs+traffic tickets+parking lot fares. Most other major cities in the US have much higher fares than we do.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 10, 2008 21:22:15 GMT -8
$120 in the City of L.A.? Checked your gas/electricity, cable or rent/mortgage bills?
Get real--if you use this on a regular basis, the price is awesome! There's some folks who use $120 for transportation purposes every week...to say nothing of car payments and repair bills and maintenance bills!
Grow up and wake up! Racism...and I mean REAL racism...exists in those neighborhoods opposing decades-overdue rail lines to keep THOSE people out...and who want to relegate THOSE people to a bus...
In the 20th century, individuals of color proved that they deserved to be on the front of the bus, and not relegated to the back. In the 21st century, individuals of color need to unite and prove they deserve to gain access to any first-rate mass transit system out there, and not relgated to a bus-only option!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 10, 2008 23:56:50 GMT -8
I think we're all preaching to the choir now....where is neyojii?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Feb 11, 2008 13:43:14 GMT -8
I spoke in favor of the first fare increase, because it was modest and hadn't occurred in forever. At the same time I spoke against those who called the fare increase "racism." I still believe that to this day.
That said, $120 for a monthly pass is way too high, especially when considering the economic demographics of the majority of Metro's customer base, along with the quality of service being delivered in comparison to agency peers and alternative modes of transportation.
Simply, there would be a staggering drop in ridership that would overall reduce the frequency of more routes and lead to more cuts in service. And much as Metro wants to compare, our transit system is no where near as effective as New York or Toronto.
So, work with the BRU on the fare increase? Depends on the terms.
Speak out against the fare increase? Absolutely, and if you want the responsible thing to do is for all the educated parties to identify, if they can, alternative sources of funding and other cost savings to off-set the need for such a drastic increase.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 12, 2008 12:11:05 GMT -8
I think we're all preaching to the choir now....where is neyojii? considering that neyojii hasn't been seen for a while , I think we've been trolled but yeah... the BRU is way too divisive. if you only support them on the basis that they oppose fare increases, then you're ignoring a whole history of disruptive behavior and extremist ideology which gives "activism" a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Feb 12, 2008 22:14:36 GMT -8
Not only is the BRU rhetoric unintelligible, but their economic theory is flawed too. At the Metro hearings, they've suggested lowering fares to almost zero in order to attract more riders.
Their claim:
With higher ridership numbers, the bus fares will pay for all bus operations, and won't need the support of taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Feb 13, 2008 12:29:04 GMT -8
Back in the 70's, the Denver transit system was given a government grant to run their lines (all bus at that time) without collecting fares. I think the test was supposed to run for six months, but as I recall, they went back to fare payments before the time was up--just too many problems with obnoxious teenagers joy-riding and obnoxious "winos and weirdos" making the buses unacceptably unpleasant for people who really wanted to go somewhere. Maybe the grant should have included sufficient funding to hire some beefy bouncers (they're not working at the clubs during the day) to keep the riff-raff out.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 13, 2008 23:32:42 GMT -8
Not only is the BRU rhetoric unintelligible, but their economic theory is flawed too. At the Metro hearings, they've suggested lowering fares to almost zero in order to attract more riders. Many of its members believe Metro turns a profit.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 13, 2008 23:36:27 GMT -8
considering that neyojii hasn't been seen for a while , I think we've been trolled This is typical for a BRU supporter. The BRU has been exposed on the 'net, and there is just too much information about them that they cannot defend. The BRU sticks to a safe leftist audience, where it still has legitimacy, but generally avoids the 'net. Most of its supporters are ideological sympathizers or trolls.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 16, 2008 11:56:14 GMT -8
This is the difference between the BRU and the other transit groups in LA. Whereas this organization is trying to save these bus lines from being cut from a standpoint of helping working class people and just using reason to determine that these cuts should not be done, the BRU sees these lines being cut as a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION! Don't believe me? Just go to their homepage.
|
|
|
Post by neyojii on Feb 23, 2008 13:16:05 GMT -8
I don't believe everything the bus riders union says is right, all I am saying you ask like Metro some type of savior, they are the worst transit system in the country, America's Best, please, there are many other systems in this county that deserve that title, and by the way the BRU is not against rail, all they are saying is to stop taking money away from the buses, I can totally agree with that, Metro should have two separate budgets, one for Buses, and one for rail, and as for a fair hike, why in the hell would you wanna spend money for something that is not worth the price, what are you getting from Metro, accept bad disrespectful drivers, unreliable service, and whats worse a 6 mile light rail that cost a billion dollars, by which you payed for, there is nothing that train will do economically, I am disrespecting you in anyway, but I still don't get why you hate them, is this Coalition built on hating the BRU, aren't we suppose to be here to help change the public transit in the city for the better?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Feb 23, 2008 14:24:03 GMT -8
The MTA is not the worst transit agency in the nation, and it isn't the best either. The BRU is, in my opinion, a coalition built on hating the MTA. I doubt many people on this board hate buses, but many don't like the extreme views of the BRU and I am one of them.
Los Angeles deserves a mass transit system on the level of London, Madrid, or New York. I think we should bring back the 1000 miles of rail we had 100 years ago. There will always be buses, that is true. Buses play a very important role now and in the future for our mass transit system. Buses should augment a true and massive grade-separated rapid transit system.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Feb 23, 2008 16:24:55 GMT -8
The Transit Coalition doesn't hate the BRU... That's silly Is the BRU so bad that the TTC wants them out of existence, period? I have to say "no". The BRU is not as bad as some individuals (not the TTC) claim it to be; however it really does need the present day criticisms and corrections the TTC and other transportation leaders, advocacy groups, and other board posters have been addressing for the last several years. That's probably the reason why the TTC hosts the BRU Truth Web Site. What I mean by that is that at its core (ie. by having an organization in existence where people are the rep's of low income transit riders and equal civil liberties), the BRU is not all that bad... Hey, our low income transit riders have the right to have their voice heard. What's wrong are the BRU's thinkings, actions, policies, structure, and decisions are poorly executed... and I mean they are poorly executed. Some of their decisions and ways of thinking are so poor that their arguments fall apart once all of the facts are put into the logic equation. A lot of their decisions and agreements just don't make any sense. For example, look at Wilshire Bl and the high level of demand of travel along that corridor. Chances are that there are many service-sector workers with low incomes who work along this congested corridor who originate from areas served by the Metro Blue Line. With a very high level of demand, heavy rail transit ( together with frequent local Line 20 bus service and even Line 720 service) will be the most efficient mode of transportation for the long term, not just buses. Wilshire is gridlocked; the time to get going on this rail project is now. The buses are now beyond standing room only. With some changes (and I'm talking major changes) to its structure, the BRU could one day be a great advocacy group, since they are the rep's of LA's low income transit riders. But as of right now, we need to continue to address their flaws and educate the public that not all of their practices and puritanical ways of thinking are correct. For example, if Metro is stuck having to increase fares, members of the BRU should approach employers of low income workers... Chances are most employers would be willing to help cover the increased fare difference should a fare increase seriously impact the transit rider's budget. IMHO, this would work better than protesting to or yelling at the Board of Directors. The Bus Riders Union is not as "powerful" any more, since they no longer have the "Consent Decree" control of Metro anymore. Don't forget that rail projects attract transit oriented development to address growth which is suburban sprawl's enemy. Yes, our rail transit system is still small, but it's growing. Yes, we do need buses too. They will connect and feed to/from the backbone rail transit system, but they cannot replace the trains in the long run. The Transit Coalition is well aware of the proposed service cuts through the low income areas of LA and is working hard and smartly to address this. It's in the news. Don't forget that both the buses and Metro trains operate with the same fare; so the train doors are open to our lower income workforce and thanks to Rosa Parks, there's no assigned seating because of race.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 23, 2008 16:52:01 GMT -8
.... I am saying you act like Metro some type of savior... Pretty funny comment...Members of The Transit Coalition have been before the Metro Board to stop the Stupid Gating Proposal at a minimum of 7 meetings. Where was the BRU? Perhaps they like fare gates? BRU has not spoken out against this proposal. Where does TTC act like some type of Metro savior? Many over at Metro don't look at TTC as their poster boy. Metro has always had separate rail and bus budgets. One doesn't take away from the other. However, Metro does remove bus service from the Northeast San Fernando Valley and then gives those service hours to run the Orange Line. (Isn't that a bus line?). Now, the Prop. A & C sales tax even defines that part of the 1% collected goes to bus and rail operations and then there is a firewall for funds to build rail and bus facilities. Make sure you understand the system. Well, the truth is... you get what you pay for. You pay just a little for less than acceptable service, but no one complains. In cities where the service is good like Toronto, you pay $2.75 C / ride ($3 U.S.) and $8 C ($8.75 U.S.) for a day pass. Just remember the mix: Quality, Price, Service. Pick two. With Metro you get Low Price, with Sub Par Quality and Service. Last week gas was $2.95 a gallon. Now it is $3.35. Did the Quality, Price or Service change? $62 / month is a bargain to get around. Compare that against car insurance, fuel, oil, maintenance, monthly payment, license, tab fees and tires. Most Metro Riders accept that this is normal, so they don't complain. At one time, TTC produced a card with all the instructions to complain. Eric Mann personally refused to allow the card to go to BRU meeting attendees. Why? Because, it would identify the "bad apple" drivers and Eric does not believe that there are any bad employees at Metro. Unreliable service comes from heavy traffic jams and other area conditions. Yes, Rail Lines are expensive, but the grade separated parts go right by the traffic congestion. Have you priced out the cost of building roads? To build 10 lane miles on the 405, the cost is $1 Billion. Capacity? 1,650 cars per hour. Not much bang for the buck. And for economics, Metro has Billions of Dollars of development around various train stations. Can you cite any developer investment at key bus centers? I don't hate the BRU or Eric Mann. Show me where I've said that in writing. Some members of this discussion board may not say kind things about that Not for Profit, where the Husband and Wife owners take home about ( tax return) $300,000 per year. In fact, I admire Eric and Lian in their success with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, parent of the BRU, as I'd be happy to take home $15,000 per year. The BRU is not relevant to the Mission and Objectives of The Coalition. Personally, I got 10 new miles of bus service on Glenoaks (236) and Hubbard (634) in Sylmar and the route (8) between Sylmar and Santa Clarita. I didn't do that with a Consent Decree or Lawyers, just public support. I hope you look a little closer at the BRU. See if you can attend their monthly meeting without attending the Mandatory Indoctrination (Orientation) session. See and evaluate what BRU really accomplishes. And then attend a Transit Coalition monthly meeting. Decide what you like best. Oh, does BRU have a forum like this where you can write and point out issues of concern to you...Even when your point of view isn't in sync with many of the folks here?
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Feb 23, 2008 18:21:27 GMT -8
.... I am saying you act like Metro some type of savior... Pretty funny comment...Members of The Transit Coalition have been before the Metro Board to stop the Stupid Gating Proposal at a minimum of 7 meetings. Where was the BRU? Perhaps they like fare gates? BRU has not spoken out against this proposal. Where does TTC act like some type of Metro savior? Many over at Metro don't look at TTC as their poster boy. Metro has always had separate rail and bus budgets. One doesn't take away from the other. However, Metro does remove bus service from the Northeast San Fernando Valley and then gives those service hours to run the Orange Line. (Isn't that a bus line?). Now, the Prop. A & C sales tax even defines that part of the 1% collected goes to bus and rail operations and then there is a firewall for funds to build rail and bus facilities. Make sure you understand the system. Well, the truth is... you get what you pay for. You pay just a little for less than acceptable service, but no one complains. In cities where the service is good like Toronto, you pay $2.75 C / ride ($3 U.S.) and $8 C ($8.75 U.S.) for a day pass. Just remember the mix: Quality, Price, Service. Pick two. With Metro you get Low Price, with Sub Par Quality and Service. Last week gas was $2.95 a gallon. Now it is $3.35. Did the Quality, Price or Service change? $62 / month is a bargain to get around. Compare that against car insurance, fuel, oil, maintenance, monthly payment, license, tab fees and tires. Most Metro Riders accept that this is normal, so they don't complain. At one time, TTC produced a card with all the instructions to complain. Eric Mann personally refused to allow the card to go to BRU meeting attendees. Why? Because, it would identify the "bad apple" drivers and Eric does not believe that there are any bad employees at Metro. Unreliable service comes from heavy traffic jams and other area conditions. Yes, Rail Lines are expensive, but the grade separated parts go right by the traffic congestion. Have you priced out the cost of building roads? To build 10 lane miles on the 405, the cost is $1 Billion. Capacity? 1,650 cars per hour. Not much bang for the buck. And for economics, Metro has Billions of Dollars of development around various train stations. Can you cite any developer investment at key bus centers? I don't hate the BRU or Eric Mann. Show me where I've said that in writing. Some members of this discussion board may not say kind things about that Not for Profit, where the Husband and Wife owners take home about ( tax return) $300,000 per year. In fact, I admire Eric and Lian in their success with the Labor/Community Strategy Center, parent of the BRU, as I'd be happy to take home $15,000 per year. The BRU is not relevant to the Mission and Objectives of The Coalition. Personally, I got 10 new miles of bus service on Glenoaks (236) and Hubbard (634) in Sylmar and the route (8) between Sylmar and Santa Clarita. I didn't do that with a Consent Decree or Lawyers, just public support. I hope you look a little closer at the BRU. See if you can attend their monthly meeting without attending the Mandatory Indoctrination (Orientation) session. See and evaluate what BRU really accomplishes. And then attend a Transit Coalition monthly meeting. Decide what you like best. Oh, does BRU have a forum like this where you can write and point out issues of concern to you...Even when your point of view isn't in sync with many of the folks here? Wow, you just nailed everything right there
|
|
|
Post by neyojii on Feb 25, 2008 16:47:56 GMT -8
Like I Said not disrespecting anyone in anyway, but the agency is spending money they don't have, they put that deficit on themselves, so let me ask you this, why should we have to pay for an error they made themselves, why are service cuts happening all around the city, why is Metro not reimbursing some of their subsidies why in the hell is the expo line is being constructed in such a way that there in the future there are going to be many problems with safety, the USC station is going to be situated underground, and and at Dorsey High, where I have friends who attend that school, are going to have a goddamn pedestrian crossing, on campus, how do you see that as a good thing, I am not saying everything the BRU stands for is right, all I am saying is that the attention doesn't have to be centered on everything the BRU stands for, and come on if we are public transit riders, we should demand better public transit, and I am not against the Expo Line, all I am just saying is that it needs to be built a hell of a lot better. Your very right, we need trains, and we need buses, but if it comes to us paying from out of our pockets then what are we going to to, if that means bus service being cut, I am not going to stand for it, The Transit Coalition needs to take a stand for what is going on, and not let this keep happening.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 25, 2008 16:54:40 GMT -8
Have you taken a look at the state budget recently?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 25, 2008 19:08:50 GMT -8
It's not. The safety designs are adequate. Please do not get your information from the BRU and/or other anti-rail gadflies.
People who oppose the whole project are doing their best to try and sabotage the whole thing with unnecessary gold-plated improvements, probably more concerned about Cheviot Hills than Dorsey High.
The entire Expo Line Dorsey High dilemma rests on the idea that Dorsey High School students aren't as smart or intelligent as student at other High Schools. Now THAT'S racism and classism for you.
The misinformation that the BRU uses to sell their anti-rail policies is part of why despise their actions. I'm sure there are some nice people there who are simply misguided. However, their actions of the BRU as a whole are disgusting and have been disastrous to Southern California public transit planning. Thank goodness they no longer can hijack the common good with their extremist anti-rail agenda.
I sat on the 720 line just before the consent agreement expired where the BRU had flyers distributed with their same old immoral attacks of "racism". I was then filled with feelings of disgust, not for the fare increase or the MTA, but for the BRU.
You may oppose the fair increase. Fair enough. Fare levels are an appropriate matter for heated discussion and debate. However, it's too bad for the people who oppose the rate hikes that the BRU's tactics have made them an ineffective and irrelevant organization to advocate against those fair increases. If they had behaved more responsibly in the past, they might have some precious credibility now when their supporters really need it them to have some credibility.
It would make me very happy if the BRU became a organization that stuck to improving bus service, without attacking rail, or inflaming racial tensions with phony cries of "racism", and sought a constructive role in Southern California transit planning. Would that day actually come.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 25, 2008 23:19:34 GMT -8
Like I Said not disrespecting anyone in anyway, but the agency is spending money they don't have, they put that deficit on themselves... Excuse me, money they don't have? Metro has a $3 billion budget. The Authority does not run in the red. It always has had a balanced budget. There is no deficit. Prop. A & C sales tax specify how much can be spent on Operations (running the bus and rail system) and Capital (to build infrastructure). The Authority has a policy to recover 39% from the farebox, yet in recent years it only gets about 23% from the farebox. Wouldn't that indicate that the transit riders are not being charged enough? Your assumption is not based on facts, but your misunderstanding and a simple lack of basic knowledge about transit operations. No error was made. Period. Service cuts are being made due to social policy. That policy is to charge the lowest possible price for all the service provided. When costs to operate the system go up and you don't increase income from the riders, then you need to reduce costs to balance the budget. This means since the MTA runs on a service starvation budget, the region is going to be put through service cuts. Mayor Villaraigosa has publicly stated that he wants to eliminate the 25 worse performing lines. This was mandated as part of the fare increase. Uh, the subsidies pay 77 cents for every dollar of service provided. When the users don't have to pay more and the income isn't there something has to give. Do you understand that Los Angeles transit service is almost free? Do you understand that every person that pays sales tax in Los Angeles County (the majority are non transit using motorists) subsidize your ride? Besides one individual who doesn't believe the Expo Line isn't going to be safe, there are many others who have ridden Light Rail and Heavy Rail all over the world, who see Expo as being one of the safest lines ever. Can you give me that statistics on car versus pedestrian accidents adjacent to the Expo Line? Uh, the last time anyone looked, and everyone but you seems to know, USC doesn't have any underground station. Do you have information that shows this? I was at Dorsey the other day. I did see where pedestrians cross the street at Farmdale. Are you saying that students can cross a street with thousands of cars per hour coming at you and you wouldn't notice a train coming with gates, bells and horns? If Farmdale is closed to motorists, then students will have to cross the tracks via a bridge. Actually, I don't think many folks that follow Transit Coalition pay any attention to BRU. You are perhaps the sole exception. Yes, you can demand, but are the elected officials listening? How are you communicating with these officials that make the decisions about transportation? Again, you didn't provide any facts about what is being built in an unsafe manner. There are a matter of opinions which you can read on this board on the quality of Expo construction. Well, have you written letters to each individual Metro Board member expressing your concerns? Well Transit Coalition has taken a stand. We are not for the service cuts. We have made that known in public testimony before the Service Sector Governance Councils, in articles such as the LA City Beat, via illustrated maps, which are on this discussion board, in meetings with business organizations and by meeting and talking with elected officials.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Feb 26, 2008 6:29:19 GMT -8
Besides one individual who doesn't believe the Expo Line isn't going to be safe, there are many others who have ridden Light Rail and Heavy Rail all over the world, who see Expo as being one of the safest lines ever. Either I'm the most powerful man in the history of Los Angeles Transit, or the people who have issues with the crossing are the most invisible. Hey Bart, Tom Rubin is another one (of many) individuals who has expressed safety concerns about the Farmdale crossing. Want to tell people here what Tom did for los angeles transportation agencies during the early '90s?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Feb 26, 2008 8:45:41 GMT -8
And by the way comparing light rail deaths to car deaths is like comparing the flu to the heart disease. Since when did our standard of safety be predicated on the car death rate. What other than cancer kills more people than cars? Literally the argument goes something like this: Because the heart disease kills more people than any other disease in the country, we shouldn't worry about the flue. Spend your time worrying about heart disease not the flu. Don't you know how many people die from heart disease every year? I mean really, don't you know how many people DIE from heart disease! I don't see every heart disease death on the news like every person that dies from the flue! So don't waste your time on the flu and if you do you're anti-health! And neyo the group that has specific issues with Farmdale crossing includes: Congresswoman Diane Watson: videoLAUSD Board Member Marguerite LaMotte and the LAUSD Board of Education: videoFormer LA City Council Member Nate Holden: videoAssembly Member Mike Davis LAUSD Office of Environmental Health and Safety: pdfLAUSD Parent Collaborative: pdfUnited Teachers Los Angeles Southern Christian Leadership Council of Los Angeles Dorsey High School Alumni Association West Adams Neighborhood Council Empowerment Congress West Area Neighborhood Council Empowerment Congress North Area Neighborhood Council In addition to 18 more homeowners associations, block clubs and community based organizations, and wait for it... THE EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS! Additionally, in the past the CPUC engineers expressed their concerns with the crossing: pdfAnd on November 5, 2007, 500 local residents, parents, teachers and students showed up at Dorsey HS auditorium and were given the Expo Authority's presentation for the street level crossing and in unison they all rejected it. (see some of their comments). The CPUC engineers who go to forums like this all the time said it was the most passionate and informed crowd they'd ever encountered. You see Neyo, what you're dealing with here are legitimate issues that have been swept under the rug for over a decade, and voices of citizens and agency staff that have been ignored and muzzled for about the same span of time. Really it is the other side that is in the minority on this. Everyone realizes that the crossing is a historic tragedy waiting to happen. Now that we're at a state where the crossing can be fixed, some here offer no alternative to address these concerns, let alone support for the community's position. They simply argue it should be left as is, because their ultimate objective is to get the line to Santa Monica. There's nothing wrong with that really. But it is disingenuous to say they consider the safety of Dorsey HS children and their learning environment anything but secondary on their list of priorities. I will do something the other side never does on this forum or others, and correct a statement made, despite the fact it supports the position I've taken.The Expo Line is not all underground at USC. It's about a half mile trench that comes up a few hundred yards west of Figueroa. The problem is it could have been an overpass - not an underpass. That's important to note because the one grade separation in South LA (at La Brea) is an overpass that is directly adjacent to residential properties. Thus the noise, blight and privacy impacts of the majority-minority community is significantly less than the more affluent USC/Expo Park community. The bigger environmental racism concern is the fact that they're realigning National Blvd, extending the La Cienega overpass, and moved the Venice/Robertson station all too prevent the Expo Line from crossing any streets in the City of Culver City because they demanded it. Since it crosses no street, their motorists won't be at risk or have their commutes impacted, their communities won't hear horns and bells. It's a discriminatory design and textbook environmental racism.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 26, 2008 8:55:09 GMT -8
Culver City demanded it, and they got it. You can never forget the very high density and traffic that Culver City has either.
Western, Vermont, and Normandie probably should have been grade separated. Am I going to call it racism? No, and just because I believe that they should be grade separated does not mean that I am going to start campaigning for it this late in the game. The only problem that Farmdale has is pedestrian traffic and there are ways to mitigate the issue without a very expensive trench.
I was under the impression that Culver City was getting overpasses. Why aren't they complaining about blight and noise?
EDIT: This is the last that I'll say about this in this thread. This is about the BRU and it's starting to spill over into an issue about Expo.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 10:33:06 GMT -8
Do you have the original cost figures for the aerial grade separation compared to the trench? I think it was cheaper to build a trench on a curve compared to the elevated because of this one little thing called the Harbor Freeway off-ramps that would be right in the middle of the guideway. The addition material and labor just to build straddle beams and find locations for the columns would cost a considerable amount of money.
What community? There's a parking structure, freeway and gas station there.
But that design will be closer to the homes of the affluent community, so how does that make it textbook environmental racism? How does the proximity to Ballona Creek impact that design to make it easier to simply extend the overpass over the creek? The only way environmental racism exists is in the design of Phase 2 if they go with the Venice/Sepulveda diversion.
How did they move Venice/Robertson station? Do you mean they didn't waste money on a temporary station only to have to rebuild it as an elevated.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Feb 28, 2008 9:06:28 GMT -8
EDIT: This is the last that I'll say about this in this thread. This is about the BRU and it's starting to spill over into an issue about Expo. Agreed. Let's get back to discussing whether or not the BRU deserves any consideration or respect at all after the counterproductive, even destructive, role its played in Southern California transportation planning. Should the BRU be "dissed"? I'm pretty clear about where I stand on the topic.
|
|