|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 13, 2008 10:35:34 GMT -8
damien, i thought the subway portion of the east side light rail was due to the narrowness of the streets in that region. i also believe it to be a sort of olive branch to the community that was basically destroyed by a 7 sq mile interchange. though i have not seen that stated anywere That is the one portion of the line that is below grade, where the right-of-way is way too narrow. Several portions of the Eastside extension require the elimination of vehicular lanes, and parking to fit the tracks, cutting sidewalks, and I believe one of the streets is converted from one-way to two-way. Metro's line on the 1.8 mile subway portion is that it was the carry over from the funding that was supposed to be dedicated to the Red Line eastern extension into East L.A. I've been unable to confirm.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 13, 2008 10:42:48 GMT -8
Serious post: Wilshire Blvd. is like an entire downtown spread out alongside a busy street. No right of way exists to take advantage of. Sort of like the Eastside Extension, eh? Huh? 1st St is just like Wilshire Blvd and therefore building light-rail on 1st St and rapid transit on Wilshire Blvd is environmental racism? Damien, you are so blinded by your race issue that you don't even realize how you have humiliated yourself at the subway meeting. It's sad.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 13, 2008 11:20:34 GMT -8
Granted I'm not aware of all your history, but it is obvious to me that you are each very intelligent and articulate people and as far as I can tell you guys want the same thing: The best possible transportation system. You just have different ideas as to what that entails. Your so passionate about it that you lower yourselves by the use of personal attacks. The irrelevant pot shots you make against each other lowers your clout and reduces the rest of what you are trying to say. I encourage you before you post irrelevant personal attacks ask yourself, "What function does it serve?" Are you seeking to persuade or inform others to your point of view or to put them down? By putting them down how have you advanced your point of view and how can you be open to understanding the perspective of others. It seems to me, you each want to make Los Angeles a better place to live. A step toward this goal far easier then building a first class transportation system is to be respectful of one another. If only that were possible. I said a lot in the 1:49 I had at the Wilshire subway meeting, that were consistent with the statements I've made at the Crenshaw-Prairie meetings, and at the MTA board and Board of Sups regarding the sales tax. Anyone talking about them? No. Instead, they all want to focus the debate on me interrupting a person who spent his time at the microphone attacking me by name. I interrupted to tell the guy, what the moderator should have been telling them: "Why don't you talk about the project? You don't need to talk about Damien Goodmon, talk about the project." Didn't say a word out of order before or after the speaker, and yet when someone gets up TO TELL THE PERSON TO NOT USE HIS TIME TO TAKE PERSONAL SHOTS AT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, that is suddenly the point of debate, in this forum of intelligent and capable minds. It should be noted that this same person after he got off talking about me, ended his statement with "Just take the BRU and Cheviot Hills put them in a room and lock the door" people laughed and clapped. He was clearly angry, wanted to get stuff off his chest. I chuckled too, it was amusing. But I didn't clap. We could talk about why people applaud such statements and what it reflects. The psychology of it all and what it reveals about "transit advocacy" in Los Angeles both past, present and future. But that's for another day. Say what you will, but I never go to the microphone to do anything but challenge the decisions and processes of politicians and their agencies. There are a lot of reasons for that, but primarily, I'd consider it a waste of my limited public comment time disputing or refuting people who are really no where near as significant to the process as the agency and politicians. It's also petty. The intent of some here (there are a clear select few, who I just don't read or respond to), is to attack the messenger because the message is so much more difficult to debate. Nothing new. Some of them have been doing it since day one. Few in this forum actually say, "Well he believes what he's saying and he's pointing to data in the process. I might not agree with it, but I understand it." You're more likely to get, "He doesn't believe what he's saying. He knows like you and me X, Y and Z. His real objective is this, because of that." For those who don't "take sides" they've grown tired of it. Stick around long enough and you will be too. Now I'm at the point where I just dismiss it, because I expect it.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 13, 2008 11:36:02 GMT -8
Granted I'm not aware of all your history, but it is obvious to me that you are each very intelligent and articulate people and as far as I can tell you guys want the same thing: The best possible transportation system. You just have different ideas as to what that entails. Your so passionate about it that you lower yourselves by the use of personal attacks. The irrelevant pot shots you make against each other lowers your clout and reduces the rest of what you are trying to say. I encourage you before you post irrelevant personal attacks ask yourself, "What function does it serve?" Are you seeking to persuade or inform others to your point of view or to put them down? By putting them down how have you advanced your point of view and how can you be open to understanding the perspective of others. It seems to me, you each want to make Los Angeles a better place to live. A step toward this goal far easier then building a first class transportation system is to be respectful of one another. If only that were possible. I said a lot in the 1:49 I had at the Wilshire subway meeting, that were consistent with the statements I've made at the Crenshaw-Prairie meetings, and at the MTA board and Board of Sups regarding the sales tax. Anyone talking about them? No. Instead, they all want to focus the debate on me interrupting a person who spent his time at the microphone attacking me by name. I interrupted to tell the guy, what the moderator should have been telling them: "Why don't you talk about the project? You don't need to talk about Damien Goodmon, talk about the project." Didn't say a word out of order before or after the speaker, and yet when someone gets up TO TELL THE PERSON TO NOT USE HIS TIME TO TAKE PERSONAL SHOTS AT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, that is suddenly the point of debate, in this forum of intelligent and capable minds. It should be noted that this same person after he got off talking about me, ended his statement with "Just take the BRU and Cheviot Hills put them in a room and lock the door" people laughed and clapped. He was clearly angry, wanted to get stuff off his chest. I chuckled too, it was amusing. But I didn't clap. We could talk about why people applaud such statements and what it reflects. The psychology of it all and what it reveals about "transit advocacy" in Los Angeles both past, present and future. But that's for another day. Say what you will, but I never go to the microphone to do anything but challenge the decisions and processes of politicians and their agencies. There are a lot of reasons for that, but primarily, I'd consider it a waste of my limited public comment time disputing or refuting people who are really no where near as significant to the process as the agency and politicians. It's also petty. The intent of some here (there are a clear select few, who I just don't read or respond to), is to attack the messenger because the message is so much more difficult to debate. Nothing new. Some of them have been doing it since day one. Few in this forum actually say, "Well he believes what he's saying and he's pointing to data in the process. I might not agree with it, but I understand it." You're more likely to get, "He doesn't believe what he's saying. He knows like you and me X, Y and Z. His real objective is this, because of that." For those who don't "take sides" they've grown tired of it. Stick around long enough and you will be too. Now I'm at the point where I just dismiss it, because I expect it. Seems like things get spinned alot when I hear about you speaking at these meetings. Either people are taking things out of context or hearing what they want to hear. So i tend to ignore what ever is said about you or any other advocate personally. It seems like every week your being accused of something. I'm those who believe something needs to be done, some kind of lets meet halfway not my way or the highway attitudes. I really don't think you'll get the whole area trenched but if you can get the crossing near the school fixed than i guess that might be a victory for you.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 13, 2008 12:59:57 GMT -8
That is the one portion of the line that is below grade, where the right-of-way is way too narrow. Several portions of the Eastside extension require the elimination of vehicular lanes, and parking to fit the tracks, cutting sidewalks, and I believe one of the streets is converted from one-way to two-way. Metro's line on the 1.8 mile subway portion is that it was the carry over from the funding that was supposed to be dedicated to the Red Line eastern extension into East L.A. I've been unable to confirm. Jeremy if you want take a look at Section 3.0 of the Eastside EIR, titled Transportation and Mitigations: link to pdfInfo about the lane drops, cut sidewalks, eliminated parking, restricted turning movements, etc. is described in detail starting at page 3-23: Traffic Lane Reductions In the at-grade segments of the alignment, the LRT tracks will, for the most part, utilize existing street right-of-way. For most at-grade sections, the LRT will run in or near the center of the street. The removal of some traffic lanes and elimination of some left turns is reflected in the analysis of intersection traffic impacts presented in the following pages.
Commercial Street The LRT system would utilize portions of Caltrans right-of-way and enter Commercial Street east of its intersection with Alameda Street. At this location, the LRT tracks would begin to curve through the intersection and require that the westbound intersection stop line be moved back slightly in order to keep the LRT right-of-way clear and to avoid conflicts between cars and trains. There would be no traffic lanes removed on Commercial Street. Alameda Street Alameda Street will be widened to the east by 14 feet to 24.5 feet in order to maintain the number of through traffic lanes provided in the No-Build Alternative, and to provide for adequate space on the east side of the street for the LRT system. No through traffic lanes will be eliminated on Alameda Street. However, the northbound right turn lane will be eliminated at the intersection of Temple Street. Turner and Banning Streets will be closed at Alameda Street due to the new station location on the east side of Alameda. Figure 3-5 illustrates the typical Alameda Street cross-section. 1st Street Under the LRT Build Alternative Option A, 1st Street will maintain two traffic lanes in each direction, plus curb parking, in sections where the LRT system is at-grade between Alameda and Vignes Streets. Figure 3-6 illustrates the typical 1st Street cross-section, and Figure 3-7 shows the LA River Bridge cross- section, where one lane of traffic in each direction will remain up until the train enters the tunnel section just east of Gless Street. In at-grade station areas, the traffic lane will be 13.5 feet wide, curb parking will be prohibited, and sidewalks will be narrowed from 10 feet to 8 feet to maintain one traffic lane in each direction. The LRT alignment will run in the center of the street between Alameda and Gless Streets. In the areas of 1st Street where the LRT has a tunnel profile, between the US-101 Freeway and Fresno Street, there will be no street modifications. However, some limited street modifications may occur at tunnel station locations, depending on specific designs. Upon exiting the eastern tunnel portal, the LRT will run on the north side of the street for one block to Lorena, where it will cross over to the center of the street before turning south on Indiana Street. The station at 1st/Lorena is located on the north side of the street, with one traffic lane in each direction and parking on the south side of the street. From Cheesbroughs Lane to Indiana Street, one lane in each direction (11-foot traffic lanes) and 8-foot curb parking lanes will be provided. Sidewalk narrowing from 12 feet to 8 feet will be necessary to accommodate the traffic lanes plus curb parking at these locations. Where curb parking is not required, 15-foot traffic lanes and existing 12-foot sidewalks with no curb parking will be provided within the existing 80-foot right-of-way. The station at 1st/Lorena, directly east of the portal, will be located on the north side of 1st Street. To the east of the station, the LRT alignment would cross over to the center of 1st Street before turning south down Indiana Street. As part of the Mangrove Estates Development, a signal is proposed at 1st and Hewitt Streets to access the site. The signal will be shown in the design and implemented by others upon the successful development of Mangrove Estates. Indiana Street Under Option A of the LRT Build Alternative, a 26-foot LRT system will occupy the center of the street at-grade, and one 11-foot traffic lane will remain in each direction. Curb parking will be prohibited. At this location, the sidewalk will be narrowed to six feet on the west side to accommodate the LRT tracks within the existing 60-foot right-of-way. Figure 3-8 illustrates the typical Indiana Street cross-section. site. The signal will be shown in the design and implemented by others upon the successful development of Mangrove Estates. Indiana Street Under Option A of the LRT Build Alternative, a 26-foot LRT system will occupy the center of the street at-grade, and one 11-foot traffic lane will remain in each direction. Curb parking will be prohibited. At this location, the sidewalk will be narrowed to six feet on the west side to accommodate the LRT tracks within the existing 60-foot right-of-way. Figure 3-8 illustrates the typical Indiana Street cross-section.
3rd Street 3rd Street will have one traffic lane removed in each direction between Indiana Street and Beverly Boulevard. After the introduction of the LRT system on 3rd Street, one traffic lane plus curb parking will remain in each direction. The inside traffic lane will be 13 feet and 10.5 feet wide between stations and at station locations, respectively. The curb parking lane will be 15 feet and 12 feet wide between stations and at station locations, respectively. Similar to existing conditions and the No-Build Alternative, curb parking will be prohibited and the curb lane will be utilized as a traffic lane during the hours of 6:30 to 9:00 a.m. in the westbound direction and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the eastbound direction. Lane continuity will be maintained for through traffic movements during both the peak and off-peak hours. At all other times, the curb lanes will continue to provide for parking. Sidewalks will not be modified along 3rd Street. Figure 3-9 illustrates the typical 3rd Street cross-section. Beverly Boulevard Under Option A, Beverly Boulevard will have one traffic lane removed in each direction because the LRT system will have an at-grade profile. Figure 3-10 shows the typical street cross-section of Beverly Boulevard at the Atlantic Boulevard station. The median will be removed on Beverly where the LRT will occupy the center of the street between 3rd Street/Woods Avenue and Hillview Avenue. One 10.5-foot traffic lane in each direction will be provided at the station. Curb parking will be maintained with existing regulations that stipulate that 2-hour parking is permitted between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Sidewalks will not be modified along Beverly Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 13, 2008 13:37:54 GMT -8
No birds chirping here--I always thought the Eastside got shafted by not getting a Red Line extension, and have articulated it as such for years. Unfortunately, its ideal main champion (Supervisor Molina) never really promulgated and championed a singular, linear route for the Eastside Red Line to go.
I'll be happy to go on record as dropping the Eastside light rail extension to Whittier in favor of another planning/transportation effort to get more portions of the megadense Eastside connected to Union Station via a Red Line station.
Do I hear of any Molina-supported Eastside forums like we see all over the Westside to encourage more mass transit, though? No.
Do I see Eastside equivalents of Friends4Expo or Friends of the Green Line or any similar groups forming (they once existed, I believe) to hash out the best route for a Red Line to the Eastside, and make this singular route so popular that politicians would ignore them at their peril?
No.
Pity!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 13, 2008 16:57:14 GMT -8
Ken:
You would agree that there are social challenges and limitations that exist in areas like South LA and East LA that don't allow groups like those to be as easily formed as they may be in other areas?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 13, 2008 18:20:52 GMT -8
That's correct. Per Zev Yaroslavsky's 1998 Prop. A, local sales tax funds could not be used for such a tunnel. But FFGA money that had been approved for the Eastside Red Line was reprogrammed to pay for it.
Another note: The Eastside Red Line would have been built to Atlantic in two segments. But the Eastside Gold Line was built in only one.
Another acknowledgment! There's progress.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 13, 2008 18:58:57 GMT -8
That's correct. Per Zev Yaroslavsky's 1998 Prop. A, local sales tax funds could not be used for such a tunnel. But FFGA money that had been approved for the Eastside Red Line was reprogrammed to pay for it. Another note: The Eastside Red Line would have been built to Atlantic in two segments. But the Eastside Gold Line was built in only one. Another acknowledgment! There's progress. Did Prop. A prohibit MTA from building a bus tunnel similar to the one in Seattle? If not, they could have started with a bus tunnel and converted it to rail at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 13, 2008 19:20:13 GMT -8
Did Prop. A prohibit MTA from building a bus tunnel similar to the one in Seattle? If not, they could have started with a bus tunnel and converted it to rail at a later date. Perhaps. 1998 Proposition A states ... Proposition A Sales Tax revenues and Proposition C Sales Tax revenues shall not be used to pay any cost of planning, design, construction or operation of any New Subway ... defined as “Subway” means that part of any rail line which is in a tunnel below the grade level of the earth’s surface. But the major reason for stopping future subway construction was the money ran out. And the short Seattle bus tunnel has a different configuration than the Red Line's tunnels and stations.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 14, 2008 7:02:48 GMT -8
"You would agree that there are social challenges and limitations that exist in areas like South LA and East LA that don't allow groups like those to be as easily formed as they may be in other areas?"
Damien, if memory serves me right, there WAS an earlier East L.A. protransit group that linked with and helped inspire the Westside to form and expand Friends4Expo Transit. What happened to them, or if they still exist, is beyond me--but it was and still can be done.
I have asked repeatedly for individuals from all areas and all background to articulate and organize based on what they're FOR because it's so doggone easy to tear down...but difficult to build up. I have seen organizations from the South and East L.A. (in particular, the BRU) organize based on tearing down much more than building up, and with a message that is less than coherent.
Damien, you've seen the challenges with forming a neighborhood council in the Mid-City...but I do not doubt the skill and passion able to organize in ways we've seen in the Westside.
Those who have fought for Expo have endured withering abuse from their Westside neighbors and their Mid-City neighbors alike, while those others who tried and still try to fight it have taken the much easier path by attacking Expo altogether (I'm NOT talking about the debate as to making the best/safest operations for Expo around Dorsey High, but rather those who want to kill the Expo Line altogether).
Right now, though, those who've fought for Expo and who've fought for a Green Line/LAX connection (I'm talking about the general principle, not the arguments surrounding the best/ideal ways to create these projects) have the moral backing of much if not most of the electorate and the political establishment. The Westside is still affected by local NIMBYism, but is being brought to bear...and it's been painful for some Westside grassroots leaders who've been thrown off of neighborhood councils and neighborhood/homeowner associations because of their continued efforts to fight for the Expo Line.
Similarly, I do recognize but do not tolerate any excuses for challenges in South and East L.A. for future lines to serve those regions. The leaders who have the ability to compromise on everything but insisting that there WILL be better service for these regions (and not the socialist, race-baiting strategy of the BRU) with a central line to link bus and other transportation links will gain the support of the majority.
Whether it's the Downtown Connector (which REALLY should have been lionized by Gloria Molina or some other supervisor) or another Eastside Red Line extension (perhaps to replace and link up with the El Monte Busway or to go directly to USC), a leader needs to push that idea forward and gain a political champion or two.
I remember fighting in the wilderness to find those political champions, and I remember having the two Westside Supervisors and the current L.A. Mayor want Expo to be nothing but an Orange Line-style Busway...but the grassroots came out and held out for a better rail. Regardless of any arguments on how the Expo Line should be grade-separated, it WON'T be jammed to capacity overnight like we see with the Orange Line, and it is better off being a rail line.
Similarly, when I see the South and East L.A. regions of the county not represented politically by self-annointed kings and queens but as representatives who are forced to listen to their grassroots constituents and champion projects that make sense, these regions will do better.
...and I have only limited respect for those regions who have more willingness to tear down than to articulate what they're FOR (having fought for what I'm FOR in a Westside that didn't want to hear that at one time).
I think that when each county supervisor is replaced by someone better, the situation will also change. I've gone on record, and will go on record again as we debate some form of sales tax and rightful long-range transportation plan that creates:
1) A Westside Purple Line that goes only to Century City until we can plan and fund other geographic projects
2) An Eastside Red Line to complement the Eastside Light Rail Project and access other portions of the megadense region east of and including Downtown (if someone would just promote a STRAIGHT LINE that goes to the right places!)
3) A repeal of the Robbins bill and a re-creation of the Orange Line that is a LRT and with more grade separations and higher capacity than the current Busway...provided the SFV finally realizes it did need an Orange Line all along and has the backbone to smackdown the NIMBY's that prevented the LRT from being created
When the East and South L.A. leaders who act like petulant teenagers either grow up, or are replaced with grownups, then they'll come out with what they're FOR.
The Westside needed to and is growing up, and will likely get what they're FOR, because they're now stating what they're FOR (despite all the challenges that lay in wait en route to their wishes being implemented).
The SFV still needs to grow up, and I believe that South and East L.A. absolutely has enough adults living there to better articulate a vision and endure the abuse of their neighbors while rallying the local population that just wants more options on how to get around.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2008 11:42:42 GMT -8
I said a lot in the 1:49 I had at the Wilshire subway meeting, that were consistent with the statements I've made at the Crenshaw-Prairie meetings, and at the MTA board and Board of Sups regarding the sales tax. You get the same two minutes as everybody else. The clock doesn't start until you begin speaking. Instead, they all want to focus the debate on me interrupting a person who spent his time at the microphone attacking me by name. It's his or her two minutes, not yours. And as a very public figure (which you have chosen to make yourself), you have to expect that people are going to discuss you and your policies.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 14, 2008 11:53:38 GMT -8
Seems like things get spinned alot when I hear about you speaking at these meetings. Either people are taking things out of context or hearing what they want to hear. So i tend to ignore what ever is said about you or any other advocate personally. It seems like every week your being accused of something. I'm those who believe something needs to be done, some kind of lets meet halfway not my way or the highway attitudes. I really don't think you'll get the whole area trenched but if you can get the crossing near the school fixed than i guess that might be a victory for you. I agree with you that we should stick to the issues. If we could all respect each other's opinions, we could have a nice clean debate. Unfortunately, there are some people (Damien) who feel like a public meeting is the place for shouting down opposing views. (If you don't believe me, I invite you to attend a few of these meetings and see what I'm talking about for yourself.) Let's look what's happened on this forum just this week. We were all discussing "the issues" when someone dropped in with this blindside: Why don't the people who were around when the Red Line extension to East LA was canceled speak up on this issue? [birds chiriping] Sorry to interrupt your rumor milling and innuendo with something logical. You may proceed to now talking about which office I'm running for. Should accusations like this be left unanswered? Is "rumor milling and innuendo" allowed only when it comes from Mr. Goodman (see his last post)?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 14, 2008 20:34:34 GMT -8
Serious post: Wilshire Blvd. is like an entire downtown spread out alongside a busy street. No right of way exists to take advantage of. Sort of like the Eastside Extension, eh? A serious issue has been put on the table. Why don't the people who were around when the Red Line extension to East LA was canceled speak up on this issue? [birds chiriping] Sorry to interrupt your rumor milling and innuendo with something logical. You may proceed to now talking about which office I'm running for. The Gold Line Eastside Extesnion is going to have 16,000 riders per day on that along that route. The corridor that it's running on wasn't suited for subway obviously, so how do you compare this extension to Wilshire?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 15, 2008 8:57:41 GMT -8
Tony, Go down to the Metro library and read about the Red Line Eastside extension or just search this forum for comments from people who are intimately familiar with East LA such as art or antonio. art posted a lengthy explanation on The Bus Bench a while back about the extension of the line, where he gave some background on the issue ( link): The train line was a comprimise option, since funding for a full subway Redline extension through ELA to the city of Whittier was scrapped because of corruption and shoddy construction on the redline to Hollywood (once again the barrio got screwed for something that had nothing to do with it). Politicos and local leaders scrambled to get something on the table again, and the goldline LRT extension thru East LA was born. Amazingly, in the time it took for ELA reps to beg for federal transit money (which almost didnt happen due to jerkoff Oklahoma rep. Darrell Istook thinking ELA didnt need better transit service) a train line was built from Downtown to Pasadena so that South Pasadena NIMBYs could bitch about everything that had to do with it and rich snobs could not ride the train (leading to lackluster ridership numbers). The Eastside goldline alignment was chosen to go through the least dense portions of Boyle Heights and East LA, avoiding several major activity centers and destination points in order to save money and get whatever we can built into the barrio (which is the best place to cut corners in terms of transit service and investment, right?), which was a far cry from the original alignment of the ELA redline extension, but I digress...
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 15, 2008 10:36:33 GMT -8
Well, it is my hope that Sup. Molina (or her successor, most likely) stops crying in her beer about the past and DEMAND that the Whittier Gold Line extension money ($1-2 billion) get replaced for a Red Line extension to the areas not served by the Gold Line.
...and yes, Istook was a horse's patootie...
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 15, 2008 17:25:59 GMT -8
Damien,
That really doesn't answer the question about how you can compare this Gold Line extension that is being built to Wilshire boulevard. A better route could have been chosen for a subway extension, but this route will only have about 16,000 riders. So just how does this compare to Wilshire?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 15, 2008 20:10:09 GMT -8
Tony,
Quit attempting to argue that the Eastside line doesn't justify the cost of subway and just educate yourself about the project and it's background by simply searching this forum.
It is all here.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 15, 2008 20:39:59 GMT -8
Damien,
I'm not arguing that and you know it. You're just trying to sway the topic away from the point I'm making. I know the history and I know that the subway was ready to be constructed. But what I'm saying is that this particular route does not need to be fully grade-separated if it is going to get 16,000 people. An at-grade rail line can carry all of those people with no problem. It doesn't mean that a subway couldn't be useful in the area, it just means that the particular ridership on this route for this line does not justify full grade-separation.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 15, 2008 21:30:11 GMT -8
Tony,
The original alignment was different and served the actual destinations on the Eastside on Whittier Blvd. The projected ridership was in the 40-55K riders range.
The Eastside subway was scrapped - for cost primarily, in a board action led by the Westside politicians.
"We got our subway stolen from us" I believe were Molina's words.
Eastside Gold Line Extension is the replacement line. And it comes with much greater environmental disruption, adverse impacts and safety hazards than the original subway. The equivalent would be running a light rail down Olympic as a replacement to the Wilshire subway extension.
Again, google the forum, search the board archives and go down to the MTA library.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Sept 15, 2008 22:16:20 GMT -8
Damien,
You're still shifting the subject. Another alignment probably would have gotten more ridership. It does not change the fact that this line will get 16,000 riders and so the route does not need to be fully grade-separated and as such is nothing like Wilshire.
Btw, don't you think that a light-rail line down Olympic would get more than 2700 riders per mile (which is about what the Eastside Extension will have)?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 15, 2008 22:26:00 GMT -8
Such a reference! Here are some facts. The former (1993-2007) Oklahoma Congressman is Ernest Istook. MTA suspended all three pending rail construction projects - Pasadena Blue Line, East Side Red Line, and Mid-City Red Line (to Pico-San Vicente) - on January 14, 1998 (pdf) for financial reasons. The LA Times wrote, 1/15/98, [Then-CEO Julian] Burke, however, responded that “there are simply not sufficient funds … to complete any of these projects as now contemplated.” As a replacement to Pasadena they threatened to instead build a busway. In response the separate Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority was created in 1998 to take over and finish the light rail line. From the LA Times, 10/1/08: The MTA spent more than $220 million on engineering and preliminary construction [including the two big bridges] on the Blue Line before the agency’s deepening financial problems forced work to be halted earlier this year. Following the subway suspension and Zev Yaroslavsky's 11/98 Proposition A making it permanent, MTA began a new planning process of what to do on the Eastside, Mid-City/Westside, and San Fernando Valley (where the Red Line would have been extended to Sepulveda Blvd.). Bus Rapid Transit was the mode proposed for all three corridors, following Mayor Riordan and other board members visiting Curitiba, Brazil. It took mobilization by Westside and Eastside supporters to get light rail also included, and a big political fight in both cases to finally get BRT dropped. Eastside LRT, Valley BRT, and Expo LRT were all adopted in mid-2001. The original Eastside proposals were entirely at-grade (BRT or LRT). The shift of LRT north to 1st Street and the tunnel section was an upgrade to serve that part of Boyle Heights more like the Red Line would have. The Eastside Red Line would have taken a winding route and two segments to reach Atlantic. Eastside LRT was originally planned all the way to Whittier, then cut back to Atlantic (by Zev Yaroslavsky's motion), but at least built all at once. Sound familiar? There's not enough money to build anything close to the transit network we need entirely in subway. The choice in 2000-2001 was buses vs. mostly-at-grade light rail. That's still the choice for the Crenshaw corridor.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 15, 2008 22:41:15 GMT -8
However that 40-55,000 figure has some noticable differences;
It is a direct extension of the Red Line subway which automatically means more ridership due to less transfers. A good reason why a Wilshire Monorail from Western to Westwood or beyond would not achieve as many riders as a direct extension, the transfer and you don't have a credible place to use Eniment domain to build the required Maintenance facility for the Monorail trains. We could try the Counrty Clubs, but the politicians would be out of a job and a place to make some of their deals.
That figure from the FEIS/FEIR from 1994 includes the segments of the Red Line that have not been built but was planned at the time of study to 405/Sepulveda and Mid City also a few other LRT corridors like Burbank/Glendale .
This is something that has been noted by the FTA for Metro to magically reduce ridership projections on Phase 1 of Expo because they factored in items that have not been inculded in the project for projecting Phase 2 ridership, based off old ridership projections that added other connecting routes such as the Red Line "assumed to be completed and operational to Westwood." Now that will skew the ridership a little bit based off of something that currently won't exist by the time Phase 1 opens.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Sept 16, 2008 3:58:55 GMT -8
"We got our subway stolen from us" I believe were Molina's words. The Eastside voted 66% in favor of Zev's Law, too. Zev's Law, in fact, passed everywhere in the county. Molina was also an MTA board member since it was formed in 1993. She came across every report. She knew how bad subway construction was going. She knew that construction threatened to bankrupt the agency. She, like a presidential front-runner, is a maverick only in the sense that no one actually bothers to look at how votes were actually cast.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 16, 2008 4:48:37 GMT -8
The financial hangover from Subway construction overbudgetting resulted in an Expo Line and a Wilshire Rapid Bus instead of a further Westside Subway extension, an Eastside LRT instead of a Red Line extension, and an Orange Line Busway.
Both good and bad resulted from it:
1) The Expo Line serves a good purpose, but will not do exactly what the Wilshire Blvd. Subway will do, and the Westside is looking forward
2) The Eastside LRT serves a good purpose, but will not reach all of the Eastside that either another LRT or a direct Red Line extension will do...and although there will be some benefits from a LRT that goes either to Whittier or along the 60 freeway corridor, the Eastside to date has NOT started organizing to create a network of rail lines to serve the entire region
3) The SFV still articulates what it doesn't want rather than what it does want, and is stuck with an Orange Line that should have, and might yet someday, be a LRT to achieve the capacities that we'll see with the Expo and Eastside LRT lines. Maybe there will be subway rail lines (either HRT or LRT) to better serve SFV needs, such as a Pink Line to provide more direct Wilshire Subway access and a 405/Sepulveda Line, but at this point one can expect the advocacy for such lines to come more from Westsiders than Valley residents
So long as we have supervisors like Molina who continue to argue "we just don't have the money to pay for new projects" instead of Yaroslavsky (despite his previous screwups but acknowledging his financial pragmatism) who argues for new funding sources, the Eastside will go one way and the Westside will go another.
I imagine that if we could wave a magic wand and change the laws to have each supervisorial region raise funds for its own projects, we'd see the Wilshire Subway, the Expo Line, the Crenshaw Line and the Pasadena Gold Line get built...but little to nothing for the Eastside.
My final point: why don't we hear more from Gloria Molina to champion the Downtown Light Rail Connector, which will probably be a subway and will serve Eastsiders more than just about anyone else in the county.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 16, 2008 8:36:35 GMT -8
Here's more on the former East Side Red Line subway, its entire description from the FTA New Starts Report for FY 1998 (slightly reformatted and emphasis added). Los Angeles (Eastside Extension Phase 2) East Side Corridor Extension Los Angeles, California (November 1996)
Description
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is proposing eastern extensions of the Metro Rail Red Line from its current eastern terminus at Union Station. The first 3.7-mile segment, from Union Station to First and Lorena, is covered in the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for MOS-3 (see MOS-3 profile). The second segment, from First and Lorena to Atlantic and Whittier Boulevards in East Los Angeles, constitutes the Eastside Corridor Extension covered in this profile. The Eastside Corridor Extension is 3.1 miles in length with three stations, all in subway. The project is estimated to cost $1,271 million (escalated dollars). Status
The preliminary engineering phase of project development was initiated in 1993, and the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the entire Eastside project, Union Station to Atlantic and Whittier was completed in September 1994. The project is included in the MPO's financially constrained plan as well as in the FY 93-99 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
LACMTA expects to begin construction in 2008. Given the extent of new start activities at LACMTA with MOS-3 and other corridors, there is little or no activity on the Eastside Corridor Extension at this time.
Congress has not authorized or appropriated funds for the Eastside Extension beyond the first 3.7 miles, which are included in MOS-3. Justification
Mobility Improvements. LACMTA predicts that the project would increase transit ridership by 4,000 trips per day.
Cost Effectiveness. Not available.
Environmental Benefits. The project is located in the South Coast Air Basin which is a "serious" nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and an "extreme" nonattainment area for ozone. The extension would reduce vehicle miles traveled and regional emissions by .03 percent.
Operating Efficiencies. Not available. Local Financial Commitment
In its Long Range Plan, LACMTA has indicated that the project can be funded and constructed within the next 20 years. The original financial plan assumed $635.5 million (50 percent) Section 5309 New Start funding, $90 million (7 percent) in STP and CMAQ flexible funds, $470 million (37 percent) from bonds secured by local sales tax revenues, and other state and local funds making up the balance. The financial plan may be revised in future updated long range plans. The Section 5309 New Start share of LACMTA's total 20-year rail construction program is 21 percent.
In 1994, the Los Angeles County bus fleet averaged 8.2 years old, which is better than the national average. Rail vehicles averaged 3 years old.
Proposed -- Total Funding Source of Funds -- ($million) Federal: Section 5309 New Start -- $635.50 ($0.0 million appropriated through FY 1997) Flexible Funds -- 90.00 State and local: -- 545.50 TOTAL -- $1,271.00 NOTE: Funding proposal reflects assumptions made by project sponsors, and are not DOT or FTA assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 16, 2008 8:45:26 GMT -8
And here is the MOS 3 description from the same report, emphasis added about the first part of the East Side extension. Note its estimated ridership is no greater than for the Eastside Gold Line. Los Angeles (MOS-3 Segments of Metro Rail) MOS-3 Extensions of Metro Rail Los Angeles, California (November 1996)
Description
The 23-mile, $5.7 billion Metro Rail Red Line Project in Los Angeles is being planned, programmed and constructed in phases through a series of "minimum operable segments" (MOSs). The 4.4-mile, 5-station segment called MOS-1 opened for revenue service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station segment of MOS-2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996. The additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment in MOS-2 is under construction. New Start funds sufficient to fulfill the FTA financial commitment to MOS-2, as set forth in the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) of April 1990 between FTA and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), have already been appropriated.
Section 3034 of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a multiyear agreement for the Los Angeles Metro Rail Project including MOS-3, adding three Metro Rail Red Line extensions:
1. The North Hollywood Extension is 6.3 miles in length with three stations, all in subway. It extends the Hollywood branch of MOS-2 generally to the north through the Santa Monica mountains into North Hollywood in the San Fernando Valley. The estimated cost is $1.31 billion (escalated dollars). Total daily ridership for this segment is estimated to be 33,000.
2. The East Side Extension (initial segment) is 3.7 miles in length with four stations, originally designed as subway. It extends MOS-1 from Union Station into neighborhoods east of downtown. The estimated cost is $980 million (escalated dollars). Total daily ridership for this segment is estimated to be 15,000.
3. The Mid-City Extension extends the Wilshire Boulevard branch generally to the west beyond the current MOS-2 terminus at Western Avenue. It adds 2.3 miles, originally designed as subway, and two stations to the system. The estimated cost is $491 million (escalated dollars). Total daily ridership for the MOS-3 extension is estimated at 26,000 daily boardings. Status
LACMTA and FTA signed a FFGA for MOS-3 in May 1993 which provided $1.230 billion (plus interest and extraordinary costs) in Section 5309 New Start funds and advance construction authority for the three extensions of MOS-3. Subsequently, the FFGA was amended to provide an additional $186.5 million for a total of $1.416.5 billion in Section 5309 New Start funding, representing 51 percent of MOS-3 total costs. Through 1997, Congress has appropriated $510.23 million in New Start funds for MOS-3. LACMTA plans to fund $240.5 million (9 percent) of MOS-3 with Federal flexible funds such as STP and CMAQ.
LACMTA is developing and implementing a revised implementation plan for the MOS-3 extensions to specify final alignment, cost, funding and environmental details.
The North Hollywood Extension is under construction and within budget, leading to a scheduled opening in May 2000.
The East Side Extension is in final design and at least one year behind the FFGA scheduled opening of November 2002. Revised alignment and design issues are under consideration.
The Mid City Extension has reverted to the planning and environmental review phase. LACMTA is reconsidering alternative horizontal and vertical alignments and has reopened the public environmental review process. Current estimates identify completion at least 7 years later than the FFGA scheduled opening in July 1999.
Source of Funds -- Total Funding ($million) Federal: Section 5309 New Start FFGA Amount -- $1,416.50 ($510.23 million appropriated through FY 1997) Flexible Funds -- 240.50 Local: -- 1,124.10 TOTAL -- $2,781.10
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 16, 2008 9:26:09 GMT -8
Here are three maps to compare the Eastside routes. Above is a detail of the FTA New Starts map for the Red Line. Below is the Eastside Gold Line from its Final EIS/EIR. Note how the Red Line would have curved south to 4th & Santa Fe (conveniently serving a future Catellus development, as the Mid-City Pico & San Vicente station would have served another, but that's a story waiting to be written) before turning north to 1st & Boyle (same as Eastside Gold Line) and Brooklyn (aka Cesar Chavez) & Soto, just north of the Eastside Gold Line at 1st & Soto. It would have ended at 1st & Lorena, slightly west of the Eastside Gold Line station at 3rd & Indiana. Conversely the Eastside Gold Line serves Little Tokyo at 1st & Alameda and serves the east-of-the-river population at 1st & Utah, neither of which the Red Line would have. The second segment of the Red Line would have curved south to three stations along Whittier Blvd., vs. the stations along 1st Street on the Eastside Gold Line. The map below shows an earlier Eastside Gold Line route on a 1990 Census population density map ( legend), that would have curved south to Whittier east of the 710 freeway and extended all the way to Whittier. I heard that objections from businesses along Whittier are one reason the route ended up on 1st Steet.
|
|
|
Post by wrcousert on Sept 16, 2008 9:45:48 GMT -8
Well, it is my hope that Sup. Molina (or her successor, most likely) stops crying in her beer about the past and DEMAND that the Whittier Gold Line extension money ($1-2 billion) get replaced for a Red Line extension to the areas not served by the Gold Line. ...and yes, Istook was a horse's patootie... Do you think we'll see a Whittier Red Line extension this century?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Sept 16, 2008 11:16:04 GMT -8
Damien, You're still shifting the subject. Another alignment probably would have gotten more ridership. It does not change the fact that this line will get 16,000 riders and so the route does not need to be fully grade-separated and as such is nothing like Wilshire. Btw, don't you think that a light-rail line down Olympic would get more than 2700 riders per mile (which is about what the Eastside Extension will have)? Tony: I'm not shifting the subject, I think your just missing the point. The routing was determined by the right-of-way limitations. If the line were primarily subway, it would not have it's current route. The initial route or a comparable alternative would have been chosen. The existing route was chosen because of cost. Costs, which are suddenly of no concern now that the line is heading west. If cost were equally a concern down Wilshire as they are on the Eastside, we'd be talking about the Olympic light rail line, and improved Wilshire Rapid service. The eastside subway is as commendable a project as the westside subway. And the Eastside Light Rail is as insufficient a project as the Olympic light rail. 1) The 40-55K figure appears in documents post Zev's law, where at the time more than one Eastside subway extension alternative was being considered. 2) Why does the loss in ridership because of transfers become a concern when heading west, but not when heading east? Not sure where you got this from. But that is not the reason the ridership projections for Phase 1 were reduced. I also seriously doubt the Expo EIR factored a Red Line to Westwood considering it was the replacement for the Red Line extension west, as so accurately stated by Mr. Alpern: So let's run this through: 1998: a) Wilshire subway is scrapped and replaced by an at-grade Expo b) Eastside subway is scrapped and replaced by an at-grade Eastside Gold Line extension Ten years later: a) Expo and Eastside Gold Line under construction - adverse long-term impacts and all b) Westside subway resurrected, and to add insult to injury is intended to be paid for by a sales tax increase that provides no money for additional Expo grade separations or a variation of the Eastside subway that was scrapped 10 years earlier. I'm not highlighting Molina - I'm highlighting the issue she raised. You're not going to get much disagreement from me regarding the board members shortcomings. But qualms about individual board members should not distract from the way the MTA's decision making process favors some communities more than others and results in disparate environmental impacts and resource allocations. I see it all the time, talking with Expo politicians who stay fixated on the political landscape, while I try to focus their attention, if only temporarily, on real-time impacts and hazards that will out live us all. For them, it's a lot easier to justify things because of politics, which would never be considered acceptable otherwise.
|
|