|
Post by darrell on Jan 26, 2009 23:47:38 GMT -8
One who won't answer questions demands answers to his.It was documented last year that tracks in the median of Colorado would require removal of one traffic lane in each direction and curb parking on one side between 17th and 4th Streets (section diagram above), and more west of 4th if the 2nd Street station option is chosen. We'll see quantification of traffic and parking impacts in the Draft EIR. My experience is that part of Colorado doesn't have all that much traffic. In any case, the City of Santa Monica requested study of this option, noting “ On-grade light rail corridors provide greater opportunities over time for retail businesses, enhanced pedestrian environments and walkable connections to the neighborhoods.” Conversely, it was determined last year that loss of a traffic lane in each direction from Venice Blvd. (as had been proposed in the 2001 Draft EIS/EIR) would have a significant traffic impact. Which is obvious to anyone who drives on Venice. Therefore a combination of property takes and aerial sections was proposed to maintain all traffic lanes, at substantial expense and impact.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 26, 2009 23:48:18 GMT -8
This debate brings about two semi-related questions: 1) If at-grade tracks can fit on Colorado Blvd (or heck even 1st St and 3rd St on the Eastside Extension), how is it possible that there wasn't any room to fit them on Venice Blvd? Or even Sepulveda Blvd for that matter? (I'll be highly surprised if someone can answer that question by sticking to the question, instead of diverting the discussion to an argument about the merits of the particular routes and/or the motives of those who don't support the ROW route)2) If one, who is clearly capable of assessing necessary street-width for at-grade tracks, travel lane configuration alternatives, etc. fails to call Metro out for claiming such ridiculousness like tracks can't fit down Venice at-grade, is said person being a transit advocate, or simply a paid or unpaid extension of Metro's public relations department? Damien, no one said that LRT wouldn't fit on Venice Blvd. All said was if they had to put LRT on Venice, they would have to make some acquisitions in certain locations, which would increase the cost quite a bit, and, given the lower ridership of the Venice alternative, it wouldn't be preferable. May I ask you why you are so bothered by the elimination of the Venice alternative? I'm guessing that it's not because you supported this alternative but because you are highly skeptical about the honesty of the Expo/Metro people and therefore using this to question their honesty. As you well know, none of us get paid by Expo/Metro or have some other unpaid benefit. In fact, we waste a lot of our personal times on this. So, please stop making this claim, which has no basis of truth whatsoever. The reason we support Expo is because (a) we like it and we enjoy what we are doing and (b) there are so many people who are against it; so, someone must fight them. Therefore, you and us are not different in that we do something we like at no personal benefit to ourselves, and we do it because we believe in it. Last but not least, as we both know, the world is far from being a truly honest place. Studies will always be biased toward one thing or another. This is OK as long as it's done with good faith. And certainly the Expo Line is being done with good faith. If you don't agree with the design and fight for another design, that's perfectly fine, but trying to find conspiracies behind the project is a little too much.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2009 6:32:42 GMT -8
I agree with Gokhan's sentiments. Being intimately and centrally-positioned into trying to create parking, pedestrian-friendly and business-friendly nodes on Venice Blvd., I can tell you that that commercial corridor will be a quasi-freeway and NOT a transit-oriented corridor for years or even decades to come.
Santa Monica, on the other hand, is extremely-well-positioned to convert their civic center and mall/promenade regions into transit-friendly corridors, and they have chosen with their political will to make things more transit-friendly at the expense of automobile traffic.
Culver City chose a different route, and with their larger streets (as with L.A.) they needed more grade separation. Every study, every street and every region must be evaluated individually--anyone that promotes a "one size fits all" is part of the problem, not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 27, 2009 8:12:13 GMT -8
anyone that promotes a "one size fits all" is part of the problem, not the answer. I couldn't think of a better statement to highlight the indifference of FRNs to environmental justice. Indeed the only mention of it I hear around here is when: a) arguing AGAINST additional grade separation; b) ridiculing those who dare mention it. Gohkan, I made a rare exception to my don't-give-Gohkan-the-time-of-day-and-read-him rule and read your recent post. I'm glad I did. I especially like your admission that: "I'm guessing that it's not because you supported this alternative but because you are highly skeptical about the honesty of the Expo/Metro people and therefore using this to question their honesty.
[....]
"[T]he world is far from being a truly honest place. Studies will always be biased toward one thing or another. This is OK as long as it's done with good faith. And certainly the Expo Line is being done with good faith." I thought this was clear but perhaps not: Gohkan: this is NOT the communist Soviet Empire. This is America! Here in America, we freedom-loving citizens expect our government to be truthful, transparent and accountable. People have been beaten and died for these principles. Fall in line or leave the country if you don't like it!FYI to anyone interested: November 17, 2007 Email: Dear Mr. Steve Polechronis (Phase 2 EIR/EIS Project Manager),
I have reviewed the Expo Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis Presentation pdf on the BuildExpo.org website and have a few presentation specific and related questions:
1) On slides 26-28, do each of the properties highlighted in aqua represent properties that would require full or partial acquisition to operate the Venice Beach alignment at-grade?
2) Do you have a list of the properties (with their addresses) that would require full acquisition with an at-grade alignment from Venice to Venice Beach?
3) Do you have a list of the properties (with their addresses) that would require partial acquisition with an at-grade alignment from Venice to Venice Beach?
[....]
Please respond by the close of business Monday, November 19th with a date I can expect answers to these questions.
Thank you, Damien Goodmon Of course I'm asking the questions, because I've already evaluated the Expo's assumed property takes and right-of-way measurements (via Google maps, site visits and measurements) and found them to be bogus. Anyone, especially one who likes volunteering their time in this endeavor could have done the same and would have come to the same conclusion. It only took me two hours, and unlike the Expo Authority I wasn't a paid through a million dollar taxpayer financed contract, as a service to the public! November 30, 2007 Expo Response from Expo Authority Community Rep Gaby Gonzales: Dear Mr. Goodmon,
Thank you for your interest in Phase 2 of the Expo Line project. Your questions will be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR).
For the latest Phase 2 project information, please visit our website at www.buildexpo.org/phase2_overview.php.
Regards, Gaby Gonzalez November 30, 2007 Response to Gonzales from Goodmon: Ms. Gonzalez:
My questions were in reference to the document that you have posted on your site (pdf) and results that you presented to the public in meetings on 10/22, 10/24, and 10/25. This information was used to make staff recommendations to the Expo Authority Board of Directors to help them determine which routes to eliminate from further exploration in this EIS/EIR process. The Expo Authority Board of Directors acted on these recommendations at the November 1, 2007 Expo Authority Board meeting, where they eliminated from further consideration in this EIS/EIR process routes that were advocated for by a substantial number of members of the public.
I've asked basic and specific questions about this information. Is there a particular reason this information, which again, was used to help elected officials eliminate from further study in this EIS/EIR process routes advocated by the public, is not now available to the public?
Your prompt response is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely, Damien Goodmon November 30, 2007 Email from Goodmon to FRNs (Ken Alpern, Darrell Clarke, Karen Leonard, and Jonathan Weiss) with the chain of emails linked below: Hey Guys,
Ever wonder why the Expo Authority can never bring themselves to answering the questions that expose blatant miscalculations and inaccuracies, and verifiable facts and information?
I wasn't there during the planning/environmental review process of phase 1, but if this is at all indicative of what Clint, Carol, and all had to go through, I'm a bit perplexed how anyone could ever point to them or my community for exhibiting tangible rage about this project.
I learned a long time ago, that transparency and accuracy in the review process is as important to successfully earning community support and quelling opposition as the product itself. As a friendly suggestion, keep that in mind as you deal with people and communities who have far deeper pockets than my community and a lot more housewives and retired legal professionals.
Happy Friday! Damien Let me pull out my crystal ball and make some predictions: 1) After the Phase 2 EIR/EIS is done there will be a legal challenge. 2) The legal challenge will be funded in part by people who have what can only be described as common sense to know the Expo Authority is a bunch of liars. 3) They will point to Expo's inaccurate determinations on Venice width as evidence that the Expo Authority is a bunch of liars. 4) In the legal challenge the faulty evaluation of the Venice alternative will be referenced. 5) The same "transit advocates" who justify the government lying to the public and presenting blatantly verifiable false information will ridicule those pursuing the legal challenge, while at the same time find themselves completely free from any culpability for participating in a process that led to the legal challenge and failing to speak up when they knew Expo was lying. (#5 is my favorite in all of this). Alls I'm saying is that if this is an ends-justify-the-means type of deal, or if it is a dedicated effort to be "the grassroots political cover to let MTA do what they want" just say so - and do so clearly so everyone can take your comments in their appropriate context. It would help a heck of a lot of passer-bys understand MUCH about what's wrong with public transit in L.A. And I guess if one is going to sell out the principles of democracy to be a front for a public agency it's okay just as long as they're not on some watchdog type agency with voter entrusted duties like a citizen oversight board: Clarke and Wright appointed to CAC Public transportation advocates Darrell Clarke and Jerard Wright were appointed to the Citizens' Advisory Council in August. Or please at least tell us that there is some financial benefit to selling out what people have died for, whether directly from MTA or indirectly through outreach consultant type contracts: Darrell Clarke, Co-Chair, Friends 4 Expo Transit, and Manager, Centerline Outreach, Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, CA Google is a wonderful thing ain't it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 27, 2009 10:22:10 GMT -8
Sigh, Damien.
President Obama said in his inaugural, "But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed." He was speaking to Expo obstructionists. I don't think you will get the message anytime soon.
No need to say but the last time I checked there is no amendment in constitution that says "Everyone will have to explain everything to everybody at all times." To me that sounds more like the Soviet Union. Besides you are the one who is complaining so vigorously about this country. Speaking of dying for your country, I remember you suddenly chickening out and turning into a quiet five-year-old girl when the cop walked toward you when you were heckling metrocenter in the Cheviot Hills meeting. If only your actions matched your words.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 27, 2009 13:40:28 GMT -8
Uh, the professionals also evaluated them, and parcel boundaries and property takes were clearly documented in last year's photo maps. And in the new DEIR.
Expected and well prepared for. Orange Line opponents failed quickly.
Based on experience. You chose a different path.
For a year and a half in 2002-3, vs. my soon-to-be 20-year volunteer advocacy for the Expo Line.
Learned a lot from being on the inside of that project, especially from the engineers and environmental consultants. Difficult politics (ultimately intractable) and terrible commute.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 27, 2009 17:15:07 GMT -8
Darrell and I worked together on the Centerline, Darrell with the OCTA and myself as a transit advocate (The Transit Coalition). There was never any secret that Darrell worked with the OCTA, and any idea of there being any inappropriateness/financial benefits for Darrell based on his relatively brief tenure with the OCTA is more than a bit weird.
If Darrell or myself have been pursuing the Expo Line for our own financial gain, then we are probably the two stupidest individuals on the planet. Otherwise, I suspect we're just in it to provide another alternative for traffic, immobility and urban planning for a 21st century L.A. County...as volunteers.
By the way, I hope that "FRN" doesn't stand for any derogatory term.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 27, 2009 19:12:22 GMT -8
Well put, Ken, although I suppose some people will never get it. By the way Damien, the property acquisitions that you were questioning are in glory detail in the DEIR. Look in the Appendix G. In fact, I don't even see the slightest bit of problem there. They are clearly done with great care and detail. Unfortunately though, the 2nd St Station option seems to be eliminated from the study. Appendices E, F, and G have the conceptual-engineering drawing, to me the most interesting part of the study.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 27, 2009 22:28:57 GMT -8
Can you not be a transit advocate and work for a transit agency at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 28, 2009 5:17:19 GMT -8
What's the point of turning a major, touristic station into a bus yard with idling buses with harmful emissions and excessive noise next to patrons waiting for the train? Can't there be transit-oriented development there without a bus yard and without an immediate station? First, what are you thinking of when you are saying "bus yard"? I take it to mean one of two things. Do you mean a division where buses are stored? First, that's not what I had in mind. Second, Santa Monica's bus yard is already right there next to the proposed station. It's a storage and maintenance yard, off limits to the public. Were you thinking of a bus transit center? That is what I meant that I would like to see at the end of the Expo Line. Santa Monica is a very important bus destination. It would be wise to have a place where passengers can board 1) next to the train and 2) off-street at central bus stops. The end of the Expo Line would be the center to catch most of Metro's regional local and Rapid routes, as well as all but a few Big Blue Bus lines.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 28, 2009 7:11:28 GMT -8
Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
And I fully admit Darrell that I am not experienced in packaging what public agencies tell me into spin, soundbytes and powerpoints used to provide them "the grassroots political cover they need to do what they want."
By the way, how's your consulting business doing?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 28, 2009 7:50:35 GMT -8
So quick to accuse others of what he knows from personal practice.
??
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2009 8:19:55 GMT -8
What's the point of turning a major, touristic station into a bus yard with idling buses with harmful emissions and excessive noise next to patrons waiting for the train? Can't there be transit-oriented development there without a bus yard and without an immediate station? First, what are you thinking of when you are saying "bus yard"? I take it to mean one of two things. Do you mean a division where buses are stored? First, that's not what I had in mind. Second, Santa Monica's bus yard is already right there next to the proposed station. It's a storage and maintenance yard, off limits to the public. Were you thinking of a bus transit center? That is what I meant that I would like to see at the end of the Expo Line. Santa Monica is a very important bus destination. It would be wise to have a place where passengers can board 1) next to the train and 2) off-street at central bus stops. The end of the Expo Line would be the center to catch most of Metro's regional local and Rapid routes, as well as all but a few Big Blue Bus lines. I have no problem with having some bus stops near the station, if that is feasible. The main problem with the 4th/Colorado station would be that an at-grade station is a permanent dead end on the line. The ideal would be an elevated Colorado median running and elevated 4th St Station. Elevated Olympic running and elevated 4th Station doesn't solve the problem either because the platform is oriented in the wrong direction in that case.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 28, 2009 9:18:36 GMT -8
The main problem with the 4th/Colorado station would be that an at-grade station is a permanent dead end on the line. The ideal would be an elevated Colorado median running and elevated 4th St Station. Elevated Olympic running and elevated 4th Station doesn't solve the problem either because the platform is oriented in the wrong direction in that case. Did you notice in the profile drawing of that station the platform tracks slope down (like the existing Sears parking lot) toward the freeway? Suppose they sloped up instead? Could they then be extended to bridge over the freeway?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2009 9:25:35 GMT -8
The main problem with the 4th/Colorado station would be that an at-grade station is a permanent dead end on the line. The ideal would be an elevated Colorado median running and elevated 4th St Station. Elevated Olympic running and elevated 4th Station doesn't solve the problem either because the platform is oriented in the wrong direction in that case. Did you notice in the profile drawing of that station the platform tracks slope down (like the existing Sears parking lot) toward the freeway? Suppose they sloped up instead? Could they then be extended to bridge over the freeway? That's actually a good idea. ADA code is 5% maximum slope. By making the platform slope 5% in comparison to the existing grade of the parking lot, you gain 15 ft height with respect to the existing grade at the end of the platform, and that should be enough to cross over the freeway ramp, with some depression of the ramp. Yet, it would be fully and intrinsically ADA-complaint and wheel-chair-accessible. Should we include this in our comments to Expo?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2009 13:12:22 GMT -8
On the second thought, would Metro ever allow a platform with a 4% slope, even though it's ADA-compliant? (Note that the parking lot has a 1% slope, so the slope over the lot would be 5% with a 4% platform slope.) I know the USC patform will be 1% but I have the feeling that neither Metro nor Santa Monica will be fine with a platform that is 4%-sloped.
So, perhaps an elevated Colorado alternative is the best because the trees on Olympic won't be cut? Should they consider an elevated Colorado alternative as well?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 28, 2009 15:24:27 GMT -8
So, perhaps an elevated Colorado alternative is the best because the trees on Olympic won't be cut? Should they consider an elevated Colorado alternative as well? The city strongly doesn't want any big elevated structure in downtown Santa Monica. That and saving the Olympic median I think were the two main reasons for looking at Colorado instead. Here are three images from the DEIR Aesthetics section (pages 45, 46, 48): Olympic alternative - aerial - on Fourth Street at the freeway Olympic alternative - aerial - on Fourth Street looking south across Colorado Colorado alternative - at-grade - on Colorado looking south
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2009 15:42:23 GMT -8
With an at-grade 4th St Station, the extension of the Expo Line toward the Green Line would only be possible with a grade crossing at the freeway off ramp. Perhaps it's possible to have such a crossing at the freeway off ramp, even though they avoided a similar one at USC for the 110 off ramp at Flower.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 28, 2009 20:45:56 GMT -8
Or remove the 4th Street exit and configure it to 5th Street. Make 5th Street strictly one way and include a contraflow transit lane so that buses can loop around the block and make connections inside the station. This way the Lincoln Line would only need a bridge over the freeway that's segregated from 4th Street.
However as I'm reading the DEIR on the Aesthetics section and viewing that image, I'm surpried that a curtain wall along 4th and Colorado wasn't suggested to reduce the visual massing of the elevated structure and to have it blend in with the surrounding buildings.
That is what Gehry used as a screen for the Santa Monica Place parking structure, the curtain wall was a metal mesh.
With the right color of material, such as a light blue glass mixed with sand color metal panels or even solar panels, that would create an architectural screen and vital piece of transit infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 28, 2009 20:56:46 GMT -8
Or remove the 4th Street exit and configure it to 5th Street. Make 5th Street strictly one way and include a contraflow transit lane so that buses can loop around the block and make connections inside the station. This way the Lincoln Line would only need a bridge over the freeway that's segregated from 4th Street. I've thought about that too but, given the need for the 4th St off ramp, it's the least feasible of anything we have suggested so far.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 28, 2009 21:02:55 GMT -8
^ I know, that was one that I struck out right away not because of 4th Street off-ramp, but for the on-ramp that is very close by with very little space to elevate the train over that in such a short distance.
As a simple solution when Lincoln Corridor comes into play it is to make do with this and simply share tracks and terminal station with Expo Line and make this stub-end station an appropriate (as some on the this and the past discussion board have suggest it as a) "Union Station West"; with next train message boards, with Trains, destinations, and track numbers.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 29, 2009 10:26:26 GMT -8
My support for the Colorado option is contingent on Colorado Street being closed to cars between 2nd and 4th Street.
I work three blocks away from Main/Colorado. That intersection makes no sense for cars the way it's configured: cars have to do a weird jog over the historic bridge then on Colorado to 2nd Street. Which I'm sure is why the city's Specific Plan calls for a new connection and bridge connecting 2nd to Main Street.
I see the Colorado option as a wonderful opportunity to create a pedestrian-friendly that incorporates transit, the Promenade, the little triangle parks, and a nice connection to Civic Center.
The Sears Auto Center, on the other hand, looks like an option shoehorned into an already less than ideal part of city. That area is extremely pedestrian unfriendly, due to the huge volume of cars pouring off the freeway.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 29, 2009 18:47:25 GMT -8
Well, metrocenter, they've killed the Main St Station option because they were unable to fit a three-track station because of the darn Sears building. The only option left is the 4th - 5th St Station option with either the Colorado or the Olympic alignment.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 30, 2009 14:29:53 GMT -8
^ Yeah, I know. Just arguing for my preference among the options listed in the poll.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 2, 2009 15:22:54 GMT -8
By the way, I hope that "FRN" doesn't stand for any derogatory term. I am afraid it does, Ken. Damien, please let us know which four-letter words the F, R, and N stand for; so, we could be amused as much as you are. It will also give us a good idea of how you see us and the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 2, 2009 17:21:55 GMT -8
We're just FRNs. It must be so: Damien knows what's in our hearts. Don't you know he's a genius and we're all stupid? Can't you see he's pure of heart and we're all corrupt? Are you so blinded by Rick Thorpe's silver tongue that you can't see the evil perpetrated by Metro?
Why Damien pays any attention to us idiots is beyond me.
Oh wait, now I remember: he needs us, because with no absolute devil there's no savior.
(Moderator: If you must remove this because it's over-the-top, I'll understand. As long as you remove Damien's over-the-top personal attacks as well.)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 2, 2009 17:44:06 GMT -8
To the board moderators, and to Damien:
We all go over the top, and we all say things we'd like to retract, so if there are any retractions--not of opinion or even of bitter disagreement, but of appropriateness of how these opinions are expressed--I'm all for it. Explanations and clarifications are always welcome.
If, however, we're diving into profanity (I saw the "FRN" reference on the LA Times Blog as well), then we have to consider deleting posts or even posters altogether.
We all have to behave, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 3, 2009 16:56:32 GMT -8
He has used repeated profanity against us in person in public (you and I and others, including Expo officials, were all there, Ken) and now he is using profanity against us over the Internet. It's an insult to everyone on this board. Then he accuses us of personal attacks. But it's a sign that we "rail nuts" have defeated the rail obstructionists. This is something to celebrate. More celebrations to soon follow both with Expo Phase 1 and Phase 2.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 4, 2009 11:29:34 GMT -8
I do want to emphasize one thing: the Sears Auto Center lot itself is fairly flat. As a large pocket of land, tucked against the freeway, it's not a bad location for a terminus.
A future extension of the line to the south would encounter a significant grade only if it continued down 4th Street. I don't see that happening, ever: a southward extension would only make sense along Main Street (flat, commercially-dense) -- not 4th Street (hilly, residential).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 4, 2009 13:18:31 GMT -8
Looking at drawing T-013, the platform is currently sloped -2.1% on the existing ground of the Sears Auto Lot. If they slope it +2.0% instead, this would gain 400 ft * (0.02 + 0.02) = 16 ft height with respect to the existing ground at the platform end. This might be enough to continue the line over the freeway off ramp toward Main St or turn it around along Olympic Blvd to Lincoln Blvd. We should push for this betterment.
|
|