|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 12, 2008 17:23:35 GMT -8
Spokker, not to defend NIMBY's but those tracks weren't used like they will be with light rail. The PE ran what, 1 or 2 trains per day? Same with Southern Pacific. And that was years ago. No one buying property over there more than 10 years ago could have anticipated Expo.
Your complaint that people putting up walls on their own property to block train/freeway noise have also blocked your view is difficult to understand. Unless you are kidding and I missed the joke.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 12, 2008 19:16:16 GMT -8
Your complaint that people putting up walls on their own property to block train/freeway noise have also blocked your view is difficult to understand. Unless you are kidding and I missed the joke. I am not kidding at all. Part of the appeal of taking the train is gazing out the window, something you cannot safely do driving your car solo. It is disappointing when the view is obstructed by a long wall. Seeing as how the 91 freeway in that area is considered a scenic highway, the train ride is also very scenic in some places. Unfortunately there is a long wall blocking views of everything including the tallest mountain peaks! The 110 freeway through Arroyo is also considered a scenic/historical highway. How much less pleasant would a Gold Line ride be if the entire view was obstructed by a wall? Obviously there is nothing I can do about the issue. The property owners can do as they please. They could paint big hands flipping the bird to all the commuters on the IE/OC/91 lines and write "F' TRAINS. CAR CULTURE 4 LYFE!!!" on the wall. But it is a factor in my enjoyment of train rides.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2008 11:14:54 GMT -8
spokker is absolutely right. Light-rail, as opposed to heavy-rail, is meant to integrate with the environment like cars on the street. But, unfortunately, we end up seeing long sections of extra-tall soundwalls on the newly built light-rail lines, thanks to relentless NIMBY demands. These soundwalls give the impression that you are riding inside a "Damien trench" rather than on a scenic light-rail line.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 13, 2008 13:09:05 GMT -8
That's part of what makes the Green Line and the 210 portion of the Gold Line so unpleasant to ride. It's right in the middle of a freeway. Standing on the platform is physically uncomfortable. Here, sound walls would be an improvement!
I mean, you talk about NIMBYism, but where is the concern over the thousands of people who ride mass transit every day?
Also, heavy rail doesn't absolutely have to be underground. While it's preferable to run subways underground in congested downtown areas, a lot of New York's "subway" is above ground. Tokyo's JR lines are entirely grade separated and most of it is above ground. It was fun riding on the Yamanote Line in a circle and getting a nice view of the city.
The actual experience of riding the train is important and should not be overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2008 14:44:57 GMT -8
I mean, you talk about NIMBYism, but where is the concern over the thousands of people who ride mass transit every day? That's exactly what our fight against NIMBYism is about: a difficult fight against a handful people in order to build something for the benefit of the entire public.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 13, 2008 16:05:08 GMT -8
;D Mr.Goodman: Why don't you go to the board and tell them that you will drop the suit if they will borrow from Phase II and build the flyover at Farmdale and a flyover at Foshay? Will this suffice? Think of this scenario, with the transit tax to be put on the ballot in November, I would rather have fix expo and friends of expo working together to get this transit tax passed that th opposite. If you get the agreement of the board make sure it is sighed off by all parties! Sincerely The Roadtrainerr Roadtrainer, Four points: 1) I had hopes that Friends 4 Expo would be an ally in this fight, but alas their position is the polar opposite of ours. As displayed by Darrell, they have no safety concerns, no traffic concerns, no environmental justice concerns, no concerns about other adverse impacts of the project. Don't be confused, Friends 4 Expo is for the project to be built as currently designed, as displayed by their official statement regarding the Farmdale crossing. We have substantive and grave concerns. When applying the mitigation measures necessary to address them, one can only come to the conclusion that a below grade configuration from the Figueroa trench to La Brea is required. Thus, that is our position. 2) What makes you think that the November ballot measure would change anything? Roadtrainer this isn't about money. It never has been and it never will be. My first appearance on this issue was at the first Expo Board meeting AFTER Prop 1B was passed. 1B had far more discretionary funding for grade separations and design changes than anything we will ever pass. Myself and eventually the Fix Expo group was alone in compiling the information and making the request to go after Prop 1B for grade separations in South LA. There was no support from any of the other transit groups nor any of the politicians on either board (Expo or MTA). Again, to want to go after additional funding first requires the admission of a problem. And "problem" has both a literal scientific definition, a legal definition and a political definition. The powers that be see no problem (scientific, legal or political) with the project as designed, and despite postings that suggest otherwise neither do many members of this forum. I'd no more rely or expect any more support after the passage of a bond measure in November '08, than they provided after the passage of the November '06 bond measure. 3) It would be a mistake to assume that countless construction and funding options have not been presented by our group/myself directly to the Expo Authority, MTA board and area politicians. Read my previous posts more closely and you'll see most of them. But here's my question to you, why much focus on my or Fix Expo's actions? I asked a question repeatedly that has not been answered: how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond?Are you not equally concerned about Friends 4 Expo actions as you are Fix Expo's? Better yet, why so little focus on the actions of actual decision makers? It's been their actions of "Finding an additional $218 million" plus lobbying for the return of another $314 million that most people (outside this forum) are focused on. Fix Expo nor even Friends 4 Expo will ever have the ability to reprogram the funding, conduct a supplemental EIR, shorten the project at one of the temporary termini, etc. 4) Its a mistake to assume the only areas where there are issues are Farmdale and Harvard and that our concerns only pertain to safety. Our issues and our solutions are well thought out, posted all over www.FixExpo.org, and they're a reflection of both what the Expo Line currently is, and must be. They are to some extent the application of the City of Culver City standards to the Phase 1 Los Angeles communities. The project needs to be fixed and I and my community make no apology for pursuing all legal efforts to that end.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 13, 2008 16:20:47 GMT -8
Your complaint that people putting up walls on their own property to block train/freeway noise have also blocked your view is difficult to understand. Unless you are kidding and I missed the joke. It's a sentiment that rears it's ugly-little-head all too frequently for comfort in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2008 16:55:05 GMT -8
I'm sorry Damien, but nothing in your statement on the FixExpo Web site is substantiated.
The FixExpo Web site statement is written as if the Expo Line is the first light-rail line ever being built in the city, state, country, or the world.
You say median-running light-rail is an absolute no-no, but, on the other hand, this is the most common form of light-rail around.
You say there are schools along the line, as if there aren't schools in every single corner of the city.
You say the crossing gates are going to cut off the emergency access as if we are talking about mile-long freight trains.
You talk about noise as if this is the only light-rail line in a residential neighborhood, and as if the cars already don't make plenty of noise constantly.
You talk about environmental justice as if the line is not mostly at-grade in most of its sections, including Phase 2.
You talk about long-term investment as if the Federal Transit Authority has declared that all future rail-transit lines should be below-grade heavy-rail-type lines, and they have denounced light-rail and other forms of transit systems.
You talk about Proposition 1B as if so many cities and projects aren't fiercely fighting to get a piece of it, and as if the Expo Line is the only project out there.
Perhaps you should try to put things in a bigger perspective instead of the then-famous cliché by the Cheviot Hills folks that "The Expo Line is going to ruin our neighborhood and destroy the quality of our lives!" To them I tell "Get a life." You are making a big mistake by siding with such people to promote something you believe in. This will annihilate your cause because such people are the ones who don't want the line to be built and, hence, who don't care about anyone except themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 13, 2008 19:32:09 GMT -8
Spokker how is your position different than NIMBY's that complain about new developments blocking sunlight or ocean views? It's like you're a transit NIMBY but it's even worse because you consider your whole ride your backyard.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 13, 2008 22:00:21 GMT -8
Spokker how is your position different than NIMBY's that complain about new developments blocking sunlight or ocean views? It's like you're a transit NIMBY but it's even worse because you consider your whole ride your backyard. It's different because I don't go out and try to block property owners from doing what they wish with their property. If they want to put up a sound wall on their property they are perfectly within their rights to do so. It doesn't mean I can't be disappointed about the wall blocking my view. NIMBYs however go to court, file lawsuits, over some noise so that they can preserve the disgusting car culture status quo. NIMBYs bitched about trains running on the Orange Line. Now it's a dedicated bus lane. Good thing buses don't make noise. I do find this article interesting: fourreasonswhy.com/2008/05/12/surging-oil-is-hurting-public-transportation/I agree completely. Would the Red Line be as pleasant to ride without such warm and inviting stations? Utility and safety come first, but passenger comfort also plays a large roll in getting people out of their cars and onto transit systems. I'm not as worried that someone is about the stab me in the eye at the Hollywood and Vine station because it feels like such a warm and inviting place to be. The Gold Line is much more fun to ride than the Green Line, because it runs through some nicer areas rather than a freeway for the bulk of the journey. As far as the Expo Line goes, I hope it hits every high school student foolish enough to walk in front of the train's path. Hell, make surviving the Expo Line a requirement for graduation. Want to graduate? DON'T GET HIT BY THE TRAIN, YOU NUMBSKULL.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on May 14, 2008 1:07:15 GMT -8
We have substantive and grave concerns. When applying the mitigation measures necessary to address them, one can only come to the conclusion that a below grade configuration from the Figueroa trench to La Brea is required. Thus, that is our position. As an Outsider looking in, What is the difference between the crossing being an overpass. I'm having trouble understanding why the crossing needs to be underground or why an overpass isn't an option for your group. I agree that the crossing should be fixed. Can you link me or give me a basic explanation to why underground is the only way to go and why an overpass isn't as good of an option.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 14, 2008 13:20:50 GMT -8
I had hopes that Friends 4 Expo would be an ally in this fight, but alas their position is the polar opposite of ours. As displayed by Darrell, they have no safety concerns, no traffic concerns, no environmental justice concerns, no concerns about other adverse impacts of the project. So, anyone who thinks your case has no merit has no concerns about safety, traffic, environmental justice, etc. as they apply to this project? I will repeat: your case has no merit - not because I am unconcerned with safety, not because I have any beef with you or your neighbors. No, your case has no merit because your claim that the Farmdale crossing is substandard has no basis.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 14, 2008 15:20:39 GMT -8
Have you guys noticed that they are almost ready to lay tracks between Trousdale (just east of Vermont) and Harcourt (just east of La Brea) and they will probably start doing so very soon? The right-of-way is almost completely cleared now. Forget about overpasses, trenches, whatever; the line is already being built as it is designed. (By the way the Phase 1 design is 100% complete except for the Venice/Robertson area.) The only possible changes are Farmdale and Harvard. The rest is already being built. Wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 15, 2008 10:33:21 GMT -8
As an Outsider looking in, What is the difference between the crossing being an overpass. I'm having trouble understanding why the crossing needs to be underground or why an overpass isn't an option for your group. I agree that the crossing should be fixed. Can you link me or give me a basic explanation to why underground is the only way to go and why an overpass isn't as good of an option. Go to the Exposition corridor between La Brea and Vermont and you'll see homes that directly abut the right-of-way, and most others that are within 50 feet and there's not much right-of-way. Then take a noise meter to any elevated crossing on the Blue or Green Line where the train crosses at 55 mph (there aren't many locations on the Gold Line that are both accessible and not impacted by the freeway). You'll find that elevated's noise is 91-92 dbs 100 feet away. To understand how loud this is, consider that the Blue Line at-grade with that loud horn and crossing gate bells at a distance of 50 feet is between 94-96 dbs. (And oh by the way when they were building the Blue Line, LACTC told the community the noise would not exceed 65 dbs). Simply, elevated has the greatest noise impact of any of the options (every engineer, even Rick Thorpe, admits as much), and residential areas have the greatest noise protection. The federal noise requirement is 55 dbs for exterior noise and 45 dbs for interior noise. These acoustical standards are even higher in school learning environments (Farmdale crossing, which is 10 feet from the property line). The noise standards can't be met with an elevated alignments. Heck the FTA even has concerns about them being met even with the at-grade alignment. Additionally, a shade/blight/privacy impact on the residential areas, which is not felt in Culver City. Here's the section of the EIR ( pdf) that explains that none of their residential properties will be effected. It's why as I've said before, if the line were completely elevated across Culver City as opposed to running walled off at street level for 3 blocks where it's directly adjacent to the residential areas, it would have an noise and blight impact on that residential area that could not be effectively mitigated. Some of the best documents/criticism of the MTA's/Expo Authority's noise and vibration impact assumptions we've come across are from the engineers that were contracted by the City of Culver City. It's voluminous. It was what significantly lead to Culver City's determination that not only would they oppose any at-grade crossings of the Expo Line, but they would oppose any elevated alignments directly adjacent to residential communities. This is a perfect example of how a project is built is largely dependent on the time and resources of the community - further staking the deck against less affluent communities. (Art has talked about the difference in the construction mitigation on Eastside LRT vs. Gold Line.) Its much easier to call MTA to the mat on their engineering documents when there is a city/homeowners association/residents that can write $50-100K checks for consultants. Also, notice that there is an elevated crossing at La Cienega and there are residential properties to the north, yet our request only extends to La Brea. The reason is that those properties are about 125-150 feet away, and there's loads of right-of-way width for sound and privacy mitigation measures. There's also the option of moving the station to the southwest corner of the intersection should those mitigation measures not be sufficient. Simply, there's room and design options to work to mitigate the impact of the La Cienega elevated crossing on the residential community, but no room in the section between La Brea and Vermont. In the countless rail transit meetings I've gone to in the past couple of years, I've never once seen a person make such a statement publicly, yet I read it all too frequently on the internet. I guess some people feel more comfortable letting out their true feelings with the protection provided through internet anonymity provided on a message board or wikipedia page.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 10:54:15 GMT -8
I guess some people feel more comfortable letting out their true feelings with the protection provided through internet anonymity provided on a message board or wikipedia page. Protection from what? Are you going to try to hit me or something if I made such a statement at a meeting? The more I think about it, the more I discover that you're the transit racist. You're the one holding back these people. We're supporting properly designed mass transit to help provide more opportunities to people by letting them go where the jobs are. By providing them more pathways to where the colleges are. Their roaming capability is greatly increased by rail, and we need more of it. By trying to kill this project you want to keep the poor poor.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 15, 2008 11:01:14 GMT -8
spokker,
Actually I'm trying to fix the problems with this project and have laid out numerous construction and financing options to do so. Options, which I have had to produce and advocate for with very little support outside my community, while at the same time had to combat the advocacy of other "transit advocates."
If I were trying to kill it, well lets just say it would already be dead. There have been plenty of opportunities and none that were pursued. That was deliberate.
To the point of your reply, perhaps "protection" was too strong a word. What I mean to convey is that there's nothing I say in this message board or others that I'd be afraid to say directly in a room full of people, regardless of whether the room is filled with people from my community, elected officials or transit advocates. I'm simply saying I never hear these impassioned statements from folk in such rooms, yet I hear them all too frequently over the net. You can deduce what you may as to why that is.
As a rail transit advocate however, let me respectfully request you keep such statements in the protected quarters of this message board and others like it...darn it there I go again with "protected"...make that "confined quarters." God-forbid the region, or people we need to win over to build more transit projects, confuse your beliefs with those of all transit advocates.
Oh and I guess "properly designed" is a relative term. I and others don't consider a system "properly designed" when it:
-Exacerbates vehicular traffic in already congested areas to GRIDLOCK -Has no capacity for spur lines -Is susceptible to countless delays from accidents -Has a higher maintenance cost than any of the other alignments -Has a higher life cycle cost than any of the other alignments -Divides communities resulting in less pedestrian activity by the residents -Only serves 70K a day, despite running parallel to one of the most heavily traveled corridors in country -All at a capital cost of over $115 million a mile
If that's your definition of "properly designed," then just what is "poorly designed?"
Surely, you're simply referencing the pretty renderings and not actually discussing the purposes of transportation systems and mass transit in general.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 12:36:58 GMT -8
To be honest I wish the whole thing was either underground or above ground grade separated heavy rail. But apparently in this disgusting Southern California car culture of ours, with no help from our incompetent leaders, we can't secure funding for badly needed transit infrastructure, so we must resort to slower light rail lines. While they do more good than harm, they also don't provide the world class mass transit system that Los Angeles so sorely deserves.
So when this thing opens, yeah, kids will die. Motorists will hit a train or two. And I'm sure Dorsey High School will hold a memorial for one of their own within the first year of the Expo Line's operation. All accidents avoidable by following the rules, of course.
But sometimes you have to live in the real world. There's apparently no money. Where it went, who knows? In an ideal world, these light rail lines running through dense urban areas are the wrong way to go. But in the real world, it's the only thing we can hope for.
A friend of mine goes to school in Pasadena and he takes the Gold Line because he finds it to be more comfortable and faster than the bus. He recently got a job in Culver City part-time. It happens to be near the last stop on the Expo line. If he's still working there in 2009, he'll have a better, faster commute to work.
Those are the people I'm thinking about. Rail, even crappy median running light rail, provides a better quality of life. Buses are fine for local travel that takes 15-20 minutes, but who wants to spend a couple of hours on a bus to travel what could be a 30 minute drive? It makes people angry and bitter. Rail should be the dominant mode of public transit in Los Angeles, and buses should complement that.
That we must make concessions to get these rail lines built in the first place is troubling, but it's the only way these things are going to get built despite the incompetency and shady backdoor dealings that you know are going on.
I read somewhere the the Transit Coalition opposes heavy rail in favor of light rail. I think that's absolutely insane, but perhaps they are bigger realists than I. You take what you can get I guess.
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on May 15, 2008 13:11:09 GMT -8
As an Outsider looking in, What is the difference between the crossing being an overpass. I'm having trouble understanding why the crossing needs to be underground or why an overpass isn't an option for your group. I agree that the crossing should be fixed. Can you link me or give me a basic explanation to why underground is the only way to go and why an overpass isn't as good of an option. Go to the Exposition corridor between La Brea and Vermont and you'll see homes that directly abut the right-of-way, and most others that are within 50 feet and there's not much right-of-way. Then take a noise meter to any elevated crossing on the Blue or Green Line where the train crosses at 55 mph (there aren't many locations on the Gold Line that are both accessible and not impacted by the freeway). You'll find that elevated's noise is 91-92 dbs 100 feet away. To understand how loud this is, consider that the Blue Line at-grade with that loud horn and crossing gate bells at a distance of 50 feet is between 94-96 dbs. (And oh by the way when they were building the Blue Line, LACTC told the community the noise would not exceed 65 dbs). Simply, elevated has the greatest noise impact of any of the options (every engineer, even Rick Thorpe, admits as much), and residential areas have the greatest noise protection. The federal noise requirement is 55 dbs for exterior noise and 45 dbs for interior noise. These acoustical standards are even higher in school learning environments (Farmdale crossing, which is 10 feet from the property line). The noise standards can't be met with an elevated alignments. Heck the FTA even has concerns about them being met even with the at-grade alignment. Additionally, a shade/blight/privacy impact on the residential areas, which is not felt in Culver City. Here's the section of the EIR ( pdf) that explains that none of their residential properties will be effected. It's why as I've said before, if the line were completely elevated across Culver City as opposed to running walled off at street level for 3 blocks where it's directly adjacent to the residential areas, it would have an noise and blight impact on that residential area that could not be effectively mitigated. Some of the best documents/criticism of the MTA's/Expo Authority's noise and vibration impact assumptions we've come across are from the engineers that were contracted by the City of Culver City. It's voluminous. It was what significantly lead to Culver City's determination that not only would they oppose any at-grade crossings of the Expo Line, but they would oppose any elevated alignments directly adjacent to residential communities. This is a perfect example of how a project is built is largely dependent on the time and resources of the community - further staking the deck against less affluent communities. (Art has talked about the difference in the construction mitigation on Eastside LRT vs. Gold Line.) Its much easier to call MTA to the mat on their engineering documents when there is a city/homeowners association/residents that can write $50-100K checks for consultants. Also, notice that there is an elevated crossing at La Cienega and there are residential properties to the north, yet our request only extends to La Brea. The reason is that those properties are about 125-150 feet away, and there's loads of right-of-way width for sound and privacy mitigation measures. There's also the option of moving the station to the southwest corner of the intersection should those mitigation measures not be sufficient. Simply, there's room and design options to work to mitigate the impact of the La Cienega elevated crossing on the residential community, but no room in the section between La Brea and Vermont. Thank you now this whole thing makes sense(to me), I just seems theres a bunch of arguing on this thread so i didn't bother to go through all of it. too much animosity. Now that i look at that Area i can see your reasoning. But aren't you a little too late? They already started building this thing. At best it looks like you'll only get the Farmdale crossing fixed, well sort of. Can they build the overcrossing with sound walls? We build them for freeways. That might take care of the noise but not the blight. Excuse my ignorance for asking questions that are probably in this thread. To much arguing Theres a saying in Spanish "Bueno Bonito y Barato" (Good, Nice, and cheap) unfortunenately that might be the wrong choice here. It come back to bite the line in the rear if issues start occuring.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 15, 2008 13:57:39 GMT -8
Yesterday they were pulling out an old railroad signal/gate pole from Exposition/Vermont. Today I see that the K rails (the large white heavy concrete barriers) have fences put on top of them as well. They are surveying the right-of-way, which is for the bulldozing that will start soon, I think. The construction workers have been working like bees. The construction is moving with full speed. So, Damien, on the bright side, you will be able to take the Expo Train to the courtroom if you sue Expo.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 14:06:40 GMT -8
Woah, I didn't know Damien Goodman was the dude who runs the Get LA Moving site. I thought he was just some NIMBY. Damn, I stare at those maps on his site all the time.
He sure is an infamous figure in transit advocacy, not to mention a very handsome man, but maybe he knows his stuff.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 15, 2008 15:09:04 GMT -8
I'm confused why people who have the same capabilities are so intent on making this discussion personal instead of an evaluation of technical and legal issues. The contrast between this statement and your latest posts only reinforces your reputation, Damien. It also makes me wonder: It sounded in the 5/8/08 CPUC Workshop that Ivor Samson has only limited pro-bono time available to represent ECU/UCA before the CPUC, let alone for other undefined litigation. I wonder when he'll bow out? On the subject of noise and vibration, the 35-page Section 4.6 in the Final EIS/EIR includes detailed discussion of noise impacts and specified mitigations, approved by the FTA in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 15, 2008 15:14:09 GMT -8
I read somewhere the the Transit Coalition opposes heavy rail in favor of light rail. I think that's absolutely insane, but perhaps they are bigger realists than I. You take what you can get I guess. I'd like to know where you read that: I've never heard that TTC opposes HRT over LRT. I do, however, know that some members (myself included) have discussed their personal lists of project priorities.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 15, 2008 15:17:00 GMT -8
Woah, I didn't know Damien Goodman was the dude who runs the Get LA Moving site. I thought he was just some NIMBY. Damn, I stare at those maps on his site all the time. He sure is an infamous figure in transit advocacy, not to mention a very handsome man, but maybe he knows his stuff. As I see it==> Damien = transit advocate You = NIMBY
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 15, 2008 15:29:52 GMT -8
Can they build the overcrossing with sound walls? Extensive sound walls were specified in the Final EIS/EIR: South side from Van Ness to Arlington, 2nd to 9th, Somerset to Farmdale, and La Brea to Dunsmuir ( including the La Brea bridge) in Los Angeles. North side from Fay to Wesley in Culver City. Note the ramp begins at Caroline and passes closer to houses in Culver City than the ramp west of La Brea in Los Angeles. Crossing bells near residences are addressed in Table 4.6-11. Mitigation specified for Arlington, 7th, 9th, Buckingham, and Farmdale ( only five gated crossings are near residences) includes reduced crossing bell level (to 64 dBA at 50 feet) as well as sound walls and, for a few cases, sound insulation. They were thorough.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 16:16:26 GMT -8
How did you determinate that, deadliestlightraillineinthecountryshawn?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 15, 2008 16:19:07 GMT -8
Have you noticed how transit advocacy attracts those whom one could call single-mode ideologues, as opposed to the mainstream and transit professionals who see the importance of a system made of a range of tools? You'll recognize the types who argue everything has to be (1) buses, (2) monorails, (3) Personal Rapid Transit, (4) MagLev, (5) jitney vans, or (6) grade-separated heavy rail.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 16:23:14 GMT -8
You'll recognize the types who argue everything has to be (1) buses, (2) monorails, (3) Personal Rapid Transit, (4) MagLev, (5) jitney vans, or (6) grade-separated heavy rail. The fact is that Southern California is very anti-rail, so it's no surprise that many people on these transit orientated web sites push rail so hard. I personally do not look forward to riding a bus, but do occasionally plan my day around riding the train. You are quite right in that a well designed transit system includes a varity of modes, but not including monorail or maglev at this time. Monorails are more suitable for zoos and theme parks.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 15, 2008 16:30:56 GMT -8
but not including monorail or maglev at this time. Agreed, and thanks for the clarification. There are technical and economic reasons for the traditional transit modes of buses and light, heavy, and commuter rail.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 15, 2008 17:19:57 GMT -8
Arguments about shade and noise and vibration? I swear I've heard this all before. And I'm sure that it's all been from NIMBYs.
I've seen no cohesive argument. Everything that's brought up is convenient, and then when someone refutes it, automatically we hear another argument. It's an endless cycle and it's no wonder that this never gets anywhere. That and light rail is seemingly inherently deadly, noisy, slow, and inefficient. Try telling that to Europe, Asia, South America, and North America.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 15, 2008 17:42:06 GMT -8
[Mr.Goodman: Why don't you go to the board and tell them that you will drop the suit if they will borrow from Phase II and build the flyover at Farmdale and a flyover at Foshay? Will this suffice? Think of this scenario, with the transit tax to be put on the ballot in November, I would rather have fix expo and friends of expo working together to get this transit tax passed that th opposite. If you get the agreement of the board make sure it is sighed off by all parties! Sincerely The Roadtrainerr [/quote] Roadtrainer, Four points: 1) I had hopes that Friends 4 Expo would be an ally in this fight, but alas their position is the polar opposite of ours. As displayed by Darrell, they have no safety concerns, no traffic concerns, no environmental justice concerns, no concerns about other adverse impacts of the project. Don't be confused, Friends 4 Expo is for the project to be built as currently designed, as displayed by their official statement regarding the Farmdale crossing. We have substantive and grave concerns. When applying the mitigation measures necessary to address them, one can only come to the conclusion that a below grade configuration from the Figueroa trench to La Brea is required. Thus, that is our position. 2) What makes you think that the November ballot measure would change anything? ;D If there is a ballot measure passed then there will be funds to get the projects built! And if you win your suit the trench can be built and if you lose then you Can see that the Crenshaw Corridor get built with all the ?environment issues being met? Roadtrainer this isn't about money. It never has been and it never will be. My first appearance on this issue was at the first Expo Board meeting AFTER Prop 1B was passed. 1B had far more discretionary funding for grade separations and design changes than anything we will ever pass. Myself and eventually the Fix Expo group was alone in compiling the information and making the request to go after Prop 1B for grade separations in South LA. There was no support from any of the other transit groups nor any of the politicians on either board (Expo or MTA). Again, to want to go after additional funding first requires the admission of a problem. And "problem" has both a literal scientific definition, a legal definition and a political definition. The powers that be see no problem (scientific, legal or political) with the project as designed, and despite postings that suggest otherwise neither do many members of this forum. I'd no more rely or expect any more support after the passage of a bond measure in November '08, than they provided after the passage of the November '06 bond measure. 3) It would be a mistake to assume that countless construction and funding options have not been presented by our group/myself directly to the Expo Authority, MTA board and area politicians. Read my previous posts more closely and you'll see most of them. But here's my question to you, why much focus on my or Fix Expo's actions? I asked a question repeatedly that has not been answered: how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond? ;D Dude I am not a member of "Friends" but a paid card carrying member of TTC and SOCATA. I wish for Peace but we live in a world where there won't be. I like to see everybody happy, but you know it ain't going to happen! Are you not equally concerned about Friends 4 Expo actions as you are Fix Expo's? ;D I see a committee that wants better solutions for Dorsey and Foshay and I think a better solution is warranted!! regardless of where Friends for Expo stand is. Better yet, why so little focus on the actions of actual decision makers? It's been their actions of "Finding an additional $218 million" plus lobbying for the return of another $314 million that most people (outside this forum) are focused on. Fix Expo nor even Friends 4 Expo will ever have the ability to reprogram the funding, conduct a supplemental EIR, shorten the project at one of the temporary termini, etc. 4) Its a mistake to assume the only areas where there are issues are Farmdale and Harvard and that our concerns only pertain to safety. Our issues and our solutions are well thought out, posted all over www.FixExpo.org, and they're a reflection of both what the Expo Line currently is, and must be. They are to some extent the application of the City of Culver City standards to the Phase 1 Los Angeles communities. The project needs to be fixed and I and my community make no apology for pursuing all legal efforts to that end.[/quote] i do believe the youth at these schools will not run in front of the trains, But Fix Expo makes it sound like that in their rhetoric !!! Sincerely the Roadtrainer
|
|