|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 6, 2009 10:20:28 GMT -8
Ken said we should keep "all options open on the table".
However, keeping all options open did not help the Expo Line.
It played right into the hands of the Cheviot Hills NIMBYs. It gave birth to the Venice/Sepulveda "option", which quite a few people on this message board hated. Keeping all options open allowed the NIMBYs to play one option against the other.
It resulted in the Expo Line being truncated to Culver City. Yes, Expo Line Phase 2 will eventually get built, but look at how much harm "keeping all options open" caused. How much harm are we willing to suffer for the sake of keeping the underground wye option open?
=
I was looking at the maps from that discussion last year. There isn't a single proposal that looks better than the ones that Metro has settled on. They all either cut through the Nikkei Center or they eliminate the Little Tokyo station, or they would require detouring around on Temple/Vignes or some other combination of streets.
I find it hard to believe that the majority of Little Tokyo residents (either the NIMBYs, those sitting on the fence or those who support the underground option) would find any of them more acceptable than the options they have already been asked to consider.
Maybe the process for elimination should be more transparent, but we should already know the obvious reason why the underground wye was rejected. It will cut through the middle of the Nikkei Center.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 6, 2009 10:48:13 GMT -8
All parties recognize that: *From a construction standpoint the underground wye is at worse a draw as compared to the current contraption. *From an operations standpoint the underground wye is far superior for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to the movement of the Little Tokyo station (to the southwest corner of 1st/Alameda) so that trains all trains stop at the Little Tokyo (currently only those heading to Union Station do), and the Little Tokyo community's desire to maintain current vehicular set-up. That clearly makes the underground wye a better option. Let's suppose that I opposed the underground alignment on the basis that it would bring the tracks up on the southwest corner of 1st/ Alameda. Let's say I opposed the idea of a trench where Senor Fish and the Office Depot currently are. Why would I consider building a station box at the southwest corner to be a better option than bringing the trains up to the surface at that location? At the same time, you have a lot of Japanese Americans and a lot of Little Tokyo residents who are sitting on the fence on this project. The Little Tokyo neighborhood isn't the unified monolith that Damien keeps insisting upon (that 8-15 split vote of the LTCC should be proof enough of that). Some people are still trying to decide if they support or oppose the project completely or if they should support or oppose one option or another. What the situation does not need is a bunch of self-proclaimed transit experts coming in and telling Little Tokyo that Metro sucks eggs, that both of the current options should be scratched and that they have the perfect wye set up. That's an idea which is bound to backfire. We have no guarentees that Metro will listen to us, and I suspect that adding more options onto the table will push the neutral fence-sitters into the NIMBY camp. And then what do we do? Try to convince the NIMBYs to support the underground option?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 10:49:25 GMT -8
The question is how shallow can that wye actually be. My guess is 25 feet is standard, which puts the U-cross (aka incline) at a length of 500 feet. (25 feet/5% grade = 500 feet).
The distance between the MTA ROW and the Temple/Alameda crossing is somewhere between 610-630 feet.
That provides an extra 110-130 feet to play with, which can include 20 feet before crossing Temple. The remaining 90 - 110 feet should be located before the 1st Street crossing to create a true pedestrian plaza on the northeast 1st/Alameda corner for the Nikkei Center on top and a level track (0% grade) leading into the wye.
Regarding the u-cross on 1st Street, my guess is it would best for both the Buddhist temple at Garey and the Nikkei for it to be located between Rose and Garey as opposed to further west. It also allows trains coming from the east to enter the wye on level track as well.
Compare that to Metro's current contraption and again it is clearly superior and no one has claimed it is not feasible.
Will construction be ugly. Yes. Doing cut-and-cover without an established right-of-way ain't pretty. But the disruption will be no where near as bad as the Alameda trench. Furthermore, temporary disruption is far better than permanent disruption.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 6, 2009 11:17:33 GMT -8
if they can construct that Alameda trench, they absolutely can construct an underground wye. Talk about an irrelevant comparison. The issue at 1st & Alameda is about the space required for grades, vertical and horizontal curves, and turnouts (switches). How could you fit them in, how much property would be taken, how much cost and impact. James put it succinctly: we should already know the obvious reason why the underground wye was rejected. It will cut through the middle of the Nikkei Center. Very timely, this also relates to those channeling John Walsh at the Expo phase 2 meeting last night in Cheviot Hills: What the situation does not need is a bunch of self-proclaimed transit experts coming in and telling Little Tokyo that Metro sucks eggs, that both of the current options should be scratched and that they have the perfect wye set up.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 11:17:35 GMT -8
Let's suppose that I opposed the underground alignment on the basis that it would bring the tracks up on the southwest corner of 1st/ Alameda. Let's say I opposed the idea of a trench where Senor Fish and the Office Depot currently are. Why would I consider building a station box at the southwest corner to be a better option than bringing the trains up to the surface at that location? At the same time, you have a lot of Japanese Americans and a lot of Little Tokyo residents who are sitting on the fence on this project. The Little Tokyo neighborhood isn't the unified monolith that Damien keeps insisting upon (that 8-15 split vote of the LTCC should be proof enough of that). Some people are still trying to decide if they support or oppose the project completely or if they should support or oppose one option or another. What the situation does not need is a bunch of self-proclaimed transit experts coming in and telling Little Tokyo that Metro sucks eggs, that both of the current options should be scratched and that they have the perfect wye set up. That's an idea which is bound to backfire. We have no guarentees that Metro will listen to us, and I suspect that adding more options onto the table will push the neutral fence-sitters into the NIMBY camp. And then what do we do? Try to convince the NIMBYs to support the underground option? Actually, James: The Little Tokyo community doesn't need me or anyone else coming in telling them Metro "sucks eggs." They've already figured that out by themselves. They've already had to deal with Metro on the Eastside extension and had to deal with promises made and not kept and total inaccuracies. Again, it seems as though your frustration is that the people most immediately impacted by this project refuse to stop calling the pig in lipstick a pig. Some of the dissenting members from the vote you referenced may be on the fence. But based on the discussion the concern of a good majority of those 15 asked not whether they should "fall in line so James can get his at-grade crossing" rather: -Why don't we think of a better option. -Why don't we vote on the entire project instead of just the underground option. -Why don't wait for the subcommittee to make it's presentation. My bet James is absent a better option, they're not ready to accept the current contraption and they're closer to voting against the project in its entirety. Seeing otherwise would be a terrible mistake and with people like the Chairman of Senate Appropriations just a phone call away, it's a risk I think you should take seriously. And I find this statement by you particularly comical: That's totally disingenuous James and you know it. The options I and most others are talking about place the wye under 1st/Alameda not under the Nikkei. You know it. So let me ask you: why are you so afraid to ask Metro to bring that option forward and thoroughly discuss it. Tell us why it won't work, so that it can be dissected and debated. And I agree with you James, Metro should no long be allowed to claim they're "transit experts." Indeed, their incompetence is what led to this current mess.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 11:19:08 GMT -8
Darrell,
I don't think John Walsh has ever hit a woman at an MTA meeting? Now does that make you better or worse than him?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 11:30:30 GMT -8
Darrell's intervention here reminded me again why I took particular issue with this comment James:
Restating the conclusion is not an adequate response to a criticism of the premises that support your conclusion. Darrell loves to do that. He also loves to tell people to fall in line lest the project be KILLED!
Same song, different dance.
If you want to adequately respond, you'll attempt to strengthen your premise, which I and others are critical of: that the wye would have to be under the Nikkei and not under 1st/Alameda.
Avoid it all you want, tell people to fall in line all you want, express anger to those who continue to call a spade a spade all you want, but until and unless that can be explained the conclusion (that the current contraption must be supported) is unsupported.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 6, 2009 11:31:21 GMT -8
Damien, I mention John Walsh as an example of one who, for all his notoriety, has minimal relevance to actual transit decisions made in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 11:37:48 GMT -8
Darrell,
You and some your friends like Gohkan are about the only people who would be so naive as to think the Fix Expo organization has "minimal relevance to actual transit decisions made in Los Angeles."
Incidentally, since my relevance is so minimal are you going to stop blaming our organization for the Expo Phase 1 delay and cost overruns? And I suppose you should right now tell us that the extra half billion spent on Crenshaw and other projects, since (to paraphrase) "it's not worth it over 1.2B" will be another testament to our "minimal relevance."
The irony is that I bet you and others are under the impression that Metro couldn't do what they currently do without you cheerleading them on. Perhaps it's my background in politics that reminds me that cheerleaders are a dime a dozen.
As I said to Gohkan last night, I honest can only laugh at the utter hubris and obliviousness displayed by some of you guys.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 6, 2009 11:38:01 GMT -8
... Restating the conclusion is not an adequate response to a criticism of the premises that support your conclusion. Darrell loves to do that. He also loves to tell people to fall in line lest the project be KILLED! ... If you want to adequately respond, you'll attempt to strengthen your premise, which I and others are critical of: that the wye would have to be under the Nikkei and not under 1st/Alameda. Avoid it all you want, tell people to fall in line all you want, express anger to those who continue to call a spade a spade all you want, but until and unless that can be explained the conclusion (that the current contraption must be supported) is unsupported. Rants aside, the turnouts for the Union Station to First Street connection would have to be at the top of the ramps, therefore it would cut diagonally across the parcel. You've shown nothing to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 6, 2009 11:47:41 GMT -8
Actually, James: The Little Tokyo community doesn't need me or anyone else coming in telling them Metro "sucks eggs." They've already figured that out by themselves. They've already had to deal with Metro on the Eastside extension and had to deal with promises made and not kept and total inaccuracies. Again, it seems as though your frustration is that the people most immediately impacted by this project refuse to stop calling the pig in lipstick a pig. You keep referring to "they," as if there is a "they" who have all gone to the Damien Goodmon School of Opposing Rail Projects (how goes the Farmdale intersection, by the way?), and as if "they" all oppose the project such as it currently exists. If I am frustrated at anything, it is your insistence that Little Tokyo is unified. Trust me, we aren't unified, and neither are "they". And I find this statement by you particularly comical: That's totally disingenuous James and you know it. The options I and most others are talking about place the wye under 1st/Alameda not under the Nikkei. You know it. So let me ask you: why are you so afraid to ask Metro to bring that option forward and thoroughly discuss it. Tell us why it won't work, so that it can be dissected and debated. I can tell you why bringing that option forward won't work: Because the MTA won't listen. The MTA already came up with an underground wye and they scrapped theirs. But everybody else other than Metro will listen, and people will suspect that something is fishy when transit nerds* are calling Metro incompetent. ( * Oh, and one loudmouthed Japanese American transit nerd will be urging his fellow Japanese Americans not to listen to the other transit nerds. Mustn't forgot about him ) We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal, or we can try to discuss things with the Japanese American and Little Tokyo communities (note the use of the plural). Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 12:00:16 GMT -8
And incidentally, I mention you hitting Colleen, because I think for all the rhetorical indecencies to my knowledge Walsh has never gotten so indignant that he hit an elderly woman at an MTA meeting because she didn't agree with them.
A bit like Saddam Hussein complaining about Roman Polanski, ya think?
Have you no decency Mr. Clarke?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 12:40:20 GMT -8
We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal, or we can try to discuss things with the Japanese American and Little Tokyo communities (note the use of the plural). Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA. James: I can't tell you how helpful this all has been. I've repeatedly stated that to put it mildly there's a subset of transit advocates who are wimps who would rather fight communities instead of challenging Metro because they figure communities are easier to beat down. (Just look at my signature line). So people like you and Darrell and Gohkan attempt to divide communities, call their neighbors racists and other horrible names, instead of simply demanding more of MTA, not because it is right, but because you think that it is easiest. Rather team up with the big guy with the endless legal budget and eminent domain authority, than stand up for the community, even when doing so more leads to a better transportation system and projects. I think you've already openly engaged in this activity. You're so convinced that the controversy is a product of people being too dumb or anti-transit to see what the potential benefits are. It is that basis which has led you to the conclusion that you must come in and tell these people how great it all will be and lie to them about Metro exploring all options, as though everyone who is opposed or concerned only have knowledge of the potential costs and not the potential benefits. And James, no, I would not say the entire community is opposed to the project. But I think they are all deeply concerned about issues, which you would like to falsely represent as unavoidable. Indeed, everyone should be concerned about any person who claims to have their community's concerns at heart who is not concerned about the project construction and operational impacts whether they live on Wilshire, in Santa Monica, South LA, East LA, Little Tokyo or Cheviot Hills.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 6, 2009 15:01:21 GMT -8
You think this is easy? You think we are wimps?
No, Damien. Being a transit fan/ transit nerd has never been and never will be easy. Not in Los Angeles. Not in California. And not in the United States of Auto Addiction. It has never been easy; certainly not as long as Metro, Metrolink and all of the little munis get stuck with the short end of the budget stick. Not so long as automobile companies get bailouts and freeways and highways get more funds than Amtrak or commuter rail.
No, it is most certainly not easy. Not as long as there are road warriors, highway lobbyists and anti-government libertarians out there. Not as long as there are futurists pushing monorails and maglevs and groups such as the Bus Riders Union pushing their own twisted agendas.
Before I was a transit nerd, I was a rail fan. I was an amateur, but I was one of those guys who went to Fullerton and watched the trains go by. I became a transit fan only after I went to Japan and saw how they did things there and went to San Diego and saw how they did things there - and then came back and realized how stupidly horrible the traffic was here. So, I joined groups and I wrote letters and tiny little editorial columns and blabbed on endlessly about trains and transit.
I have often wondered if it is worth it to be a transit advocate. It has been hard to watch the state and federal governments promise improvements and take funds away. It has been painful to see projects get pushed back and in some cases, dropped completely. I have seen how this funding squeeze has pitted West against East and transit fan against transit fan.
In spite of all this, being a transit fan has been more than worth it. I have seen new rail lines open up which would not have been possible without the constant nagging of transit advocates and groups such as the Transit Coalition. Shortly, I will see the Little Tokyo station, probably the one station that I have been most excited about, open.
I have learned to make compromises. I have learned to deal with the little mistakes that the MTA has made. I have learned to accept the fact that We Must Not Let The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good. I have learned to pick and choose my battles, as have many of the people on this message board.
In the instance of the Regional Connector, I have chosen to pick the one alignment which I believe has a good chance of being construction but which would also be reasonably good for the community. It is a compromise perhaps, but one which I think is doable.
Damien, you do what you must. I will continue to write my letters to the Japanese American community. I may very well lose this "battle". However, I think that with the support of enough transit nerds and enough Japanese Americans and Little Tokyo residents, we can win. And [insert deity here] help us all if the Regional Connector gets canceled.
Make no mistake, it has never been easy.
== ( Edit: And I'm just one of the little guys on the rail transit totem pole. I'm sure it has been really hard for the leaders of this fine organization. )
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 6, 2009 18:27:41 GMT -8
In theory, cost-benefit analysis would shine a light on the proper alternative in every situation. Unfortunately, we are all using different rulers.
Central to the safety debate is your risk aversion. If you think all life is precious no matter what, you will likely make inefficient decisions that do more harm than good. If you value life too little, the same occurs. Whatever that sweet spot is, we are unlikely to ever come to a consensus about it.
As far as visual intrusion goes, I guess that's a matter of taste. Tokyo is an urban jungle and I wouldn't expect Little Tokyo to be any different.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 6, 2009 19:12:44 GMT -8
Darrell, You and some your friends like Gohkan are about the only people who would be so naive as to think the Fix Expo organization has "minimal relevance to actual transit decisions made in Los Angeles." Incidentally, since my relevance is so minimal are you going to stop blaming our organization for the Expo Phase 1 delay and cost overruns? And I suppose you should right now tell us that the extra half billion spent on Crenshaw and other projects, since (to paraphrase) "it's not worth it over 1.2B" will be another testament to our "minimal relevance." The irony is that I bet you and others are under the impression that Metro couldn't do what they currently do without you cheerleading them on. Perhaps it's my background in politics that reminds me that cheerleaders are a dime a dozen. As I said to Gohkan last night, I honest can only laugh at the utter hubris and obliviousness displayed by some of you guys. It's not hard to compare relevance. Expo supporters brought the technical case and popular support for light rail to an MTA board that would otherwise have built an at-grade busway along Exposition. Our result was light rail approval, funding, and construction well under way. Expo supporters were central to creating Measure R, and our input is respected on the projects it will fund. Conversely, Expo opponents' protest of every grade crossing on Phase 1 brought no added grade separations. Farmdale may become one as a pedestrian bridge, else a station with a grade crossing. Expo opponents unsuccessfully tried to divert Phase 2 to Venice Blvd., and they should note the failure in court of Valley busway (Orange Line) opponents over that Final EIR. Yes, politics. I can identify with President Obama, who, seeking factual debate and results on important issues like Energy and Health Care, instead faces wild personal attacks from his opposition. Guess it comes with the territory.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 6, 2009 19:30:00 GMT -8
Did you really hit someone though? haha.
I learn more about transit drama every day.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 7, 2009 6:50:34 GMT -8
In theory, cost-benefit analysis would shine a light on the proper alternative in every situation. Unfortunately, we are all using different rulers. Central to the safety debate is your risk aversion. If you think all life is precious no matter what, you will likely make inefficient decisions that do more harm than good. If you value life too little, the same occurs. Whatever that sweet spot is, we are unlikely to ever come to a consensus about it. I actually don't disagree with your characterization on the safety disagreement. I do think however you've overlooked those who seek to minimize the safety issue willfully and purposefully attempt to fabricate data. However, presenting this solely as a debate between the definition of sufficient safety fails to capture the numerous benefits of grade separation, in particular below grade separation. Just within the Downtown Connector discussion: -operations reliability -community impacts In general there are revenue issues, time savings (which impacts ridership), congestion issues, growth issues, legal issues, etc.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 7, 2009 9:55:39 GMT -8
And incidentally, I mention you hitting Colleen, because I think for all the rhetorical indecencies to my knowledge Walsh has never gotten so indignant that he hit an elderly woman at an MTA meeting because she didn't agree with them. A bit like Saddam Hussein complaining about Roman Polanski, ya think? Have you no decency Mr. Clarke? Damien, we're talking about the Downtown Connector. Take your slimy ad hominem attacks elsewhere. Is your argument really that weak, that you have to attack people personally? Do you really feel so threatened by us wimps? Anyway, you're hardly the person to lecture others about civil conduct at a public meeting. The moment someone disagrees with you, you shout them down. You and your ilk are the reason we need increased security at these meetings nowadays. Where is your respect for democratic process? Have you no shame, Mr. Goodman?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 7, 2009 14:29:19 GMT -8
I always find the attempts at censure amusing, in particular when they come from certain people. Let's begin with the statement at hand. First, if "wimp" isn't the word to describe this statement in the context of James' statements, then will someone please tell me what is: We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal, or we can try to discuss things with the Japanese American and Little Tokyo communities (note the use of the plural) [in other words sell MTA's plan that most think can be improved]. Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA. I freely admit I have a certain distaste and total lack of respect for people who would rather go after or lie to a community than tell the truth about the deficiencies of a public plan, as does the rest of the sane world. I see this mindset manifest itself in numerous ways on this forum and others. And since it likely will in the future, if "wimp" is too strong a word would someone kindly provide an appropriate synonym so I can appropriately articulate this within "the decorum" of this forum. Which brings me to point #2. The lack of repugnance for those who hit women at MTA community meetings and the total lack of censure of those who characterize everyone in certain communities who oppose the projects or have concerns as racist or worse, and the other nonsense that is permitted around here, quite frankly expose the rebuttals to my "wimp" comment as a product not of concern for decorum but something all together different. It seems the only time to check "the indecency" is when the black guy who is pro-grade separation/pro-community/refuses to kiss MTA's butt doesn't "stay in his place" and actually says something in response to one of the 1001 insults shoved my way. The great irony of course, is contrary to what is typically thrown my way (i.e. "School of Opposition," "John Walsh," blah blah blah) when I chose to respond, I actually do so in a manner specific to the response, i.e. characterizing "we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA" as "wimp[ish]," and questioning how one who hits women at MTA community meetings could dare question the tactics of John Walsh. Accordingly, metrocenter such arguments are not "ad hominem." Additionally, metrocenter FYI the security was added after the meeting in which Mr. Clarke assaulted Mrs. Mason Heller.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 7, 2009 16:16:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 8, 2009 11:35:11 GMT -8
It seems the only time to check "the indecency" is when the black guy who is pro-grade separation/pro-community/refuses to kiss MTA's butt doesn't "stay in his place" and actually says something in response to one of the 1001 insults shoved my way. You have turned yourself into a caricature of NIMBYism and angry-left tactics. Nobody else has done this. Every time you return to these forums, you begin by throwing bombs and making character attacks. So you shouldn't be surprised when people fire back. Your regular attempts to make skin color an issue have further reduced your credibility. The phrase "stay in his place" is in quotes: who said that? Anyway, Saunders, thanks for posting the link to that presentation. The parking lot proposal (slide 25) is pretty gross: I'd much rather see the park (slide 26).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 9, 2009 10:51:38 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, Saunders! It is indeed very helpful. Of course, it is worth pointing out that the document is labeled August, and a couple of changes have been made to the plans since then. For example, the MTA now says that they can build the underground option without taking all of the Office Depot block. Still, plans like these give us some goals that we can work towards. For example: 1) The more I see the at-grade option, the more I hate it. 2) The underground option absolutely needs to have the station at the corner of Second and Los Angeles, not at Second and Broadway. The Little Tokyo community deserves no less. 3) Taking out the Office Depot gives us a marvelous and wonderful opportunity to add some much-needed green space and/or open space to the downtown Los Angeles area. Not every open lot needs to be a parking lot. Of course, that's just IMHO!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 9, 2009 20:07:03 GMT -8
The full build-out with the park looks fine. I don't know what the big deal is. It's sort of a quasi-grade separation. Traffic on Alameda is going under. Traffic on first cannot turn. All drivers have to do is stop on red and go on green. Can we handle that, at least?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 9, 2009 22:24:51 GMT -8
The full build-out with the park looks fine. I don't know what the big deal is. It's sort of a quasi-grade separation. Traffic on Alameda is going under. Traffic on first cannot turn. All drivers have to do is stop on red and go on green. Can we handle that, at least? Exactly. Here's another way to look at it. This map is my most-feasible case of what it would take for the Regional Connector tunnel to extend under the intersection of 1st and Alameda. The plan and profile are from the Expo Line Flower Street ramp to the underpass, scaled to match the Bing photo map. Considerations: * There is maybe just barely enough length from Temple to 1st for a ramp down. Same for the ramp along 1st. * Switches for the Union Station-to-Eastside connection cannot be on the grades, therefore must be at the top of the ramps. * Because the existing ramp comes to grade just before Temple (Google image below), those switches and crossing would have to be in Temple Street, not a desirable location and possibly a show-stopper. * The at-grade diagonal connection would be a major impediment to developing this parcel. (This would be the first thing built, before the existing station and at-grade tracks were demolished.) * Space for switches and curve radii are approximate. Switches will take more space, but curves could be tighter. The inset shows the tighter radius of the 10 mph bridge over the 101 freeway at the same scale. My conclusion - Pro: * No signal delay to trains crossing 1st Street (Alameda is grade-separated in either case). Con: * May not be geometrically possible. * Higher cost, including replacement of existing Eastside facilities. * Significant impacts to development on this site. * Alameda functions better with the underpass below the at-grade wye. This is hardly a compelling case to oppose the current Metro plan.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 10, 2009 6:18:23 GMT -8
The previous post posted here had nothing to do with the topic of the Regional Connector! This post was deleted.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 10, 2009 9:21:32 GMT -8
Darrell and Damien, I was there, too. I am also aware of the personal threats to Darrell's household for 10-20 years on this issue. I do not expect either of you to see things the other person's way, but there is a reason why the police have filed charges on absolutely NO ONE.
I am not realistic in asking either of you to drop this issue, and I expect the incident (which, having been there, is being quite misrepresented) to remain a painful and burning memory in both of you. I am not taking sides, but I suspect there are a few things that should not have happened but which have no lasting damage other than some pissed-off hard feelings.
I know that sort of thing, and respect those sort of feelings, but I am asking you both to keep this incident off the Board (and recommend considering the fact that a lot of things were said out of passion on both sides that never should have been said but were--and that the police should have been there to keep things in check a long time ago).
I am much more interested in hearing you two debate over the merits of grade separation at Alameda/First or at Overland or at Farmdale...because I (speaking only for myself) find the truth to lie somewhere in the middle of your two arguments.
You've both said your piece on this incident, and I'm glad you could both get it off your chests, so why restate it? Thanks to both of you for your continued input, and with the understanding that I am asking you to neither forgive nor forget, I do ask you to move on. If you ever want to talk about it with me or Bart or anyone else on a private e-mail, I'm more than happy to discuss this in that venue.
Take care, and keep up the great postings--controversial, thought-provoking, blood pressure raising, but great postings nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 10, 2009 9:33:21 GMT -8
By the way, on the issues that Darrell discusses, I know very little about that specific area but do (from my own rudimentary understanding) wish that Metro could, on its website, really give a proper, detailed and diplomatic explanation of their conclusions. As always, Metro staff does what it does under very constrained circumstances (and is to me a victim in this big picture), but would do well to give the explanations that Darrell and James is giving.
Remember, there is NO political champion for this project, and it has come to US to get the staff to focus on this critical project while the Metro Board of Directors give it short shrift and begrudgingly support it to focus on this pet project.
Are the San Gabriel Valley bunch lionizing this project (which would have given their Pasadena Gold Line a helluva lot better ridership than it currently has), which--with the Foothill Extension to Azusa--creates a virtual double-barrelled extension of the Pasadena Gold Line? No.
Is Gloria Molina recognizing this as the imperfect but necessary extension of her Eastside Light Rail, and which SHOULD have been included years ago in her efforts to create that line? No.
Are Supervisor Yaroslavsky and Mayor Villaraigosa lionizing this line as the perfect way to enhance ridership of the Expo Line, or do they just view this as a necessary pain in the ass to get the light rail system off their plate to focus on the Wilshire subway? The latter, it appears, and I frankly am not sure how much they want to spruce up the Expo Line and provide mitigations to West L.A. (like CC and SM are doing to their residents) because they have such tunnel vision on the Wilshire Subway.
Inasmuch as the communications and design for the Downtown Connector is not what I had hoped and envisioned...I do think that Metro staff is probably, realistically doing whatever the heck it can under extraordinarily hostile circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 10, 2009 11:43:29 GMT -8
Thank you, Ken.
Added: I just watched a 2007 video of a dear family friend who died last month at age 92. One message it left me with was that life is too short for personal conflicts. 'Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Oct 20, 2009 18:39:44 GMT -8
When deciding whether or not make a decision to construct something that would save some number of lives we must take into the account of costs vs. the benefits. As long as the cost is less than the benefit (the value of lives saved), you build it. The value of a statistical life of someone you don't know is about $8 million dollars according to some studies.
We can divide the kinds of people who get killed by trains into three categories.
1) People who are killed by a train through no fault of their own.
2) People who are killed by a train because they made it happen (e.g. suicides).
3) People who are killed by a train because they let it happen (e.g. going around lowered gates, trespassing on the right of way).
The value of the first type of person who is killed by a train certainly deserves the full $8 million. These types of deaths are the most important to minimize, as they enter our cost-benefit analysis at full value. If we kill these types of people, our transit project will likely be shut down, if constructed at all.
The second type of person most assuredly discounted their life down to zero. We do not include these lives into our cost-benefit analysis. Though it may sound callous, we simply forget them, and only focus on the temporary operations headaches they may cause. Since there aren't herds of people committing suicide on our tracks every day, their impact is somewhat negligible. I had to wait three hours on the tracks because of a suicide once. Annoying, yes, but I got some much needed work done without distraction since I was stuck there.
The third type of person is trickier. While they definitely do not deserve full value, they did not discount their life down to zero. Their intent wasn't to kill themselves, just to save some time, putting their life on the line as payment. The value of the time saved is definitely not $8 million dollars. They discounted their life to somewhere between $1 and $7,999,999. Where that figure lies depends on how risky the attempt was. For example, I would discount this guy from the Hiawatha Line in Minnesota
to maybe $100? Sounds reasonable to me.
In any case, you add up category 1 and 3 and compare those to the cost of the additional measures needed to save those lives. You can also include injuries using the same general criteria. Add in any operational benefits and viola, you've got a cost-benefit analysis. Now to find the money to build it...
But the point is that not all railroad deaths are equal.
|
|