|
Post by darrell on May 28, 2008 16:17:11 GMT -8
Santa Monica's new Land Use and Circulation Element Strategy Framework includes this explicit policy (emphasis added): D5.3 The City shall strongly encourage the Exposition light rail line to be at-grade in the Downtown and discourage the light rail above grade as this would negatively impact the quality and character of the street and Downtown. ("Santa Monica's Districts", page 3.4-12)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 28, 2008 17:40:00 GMT -8
Now why oh WHY would you mistreat all those rich, white Westsiders so badly, Metro?
It's just not fair!!! ;O)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 28, 2008 22:40:58 GMT -8
Familiar plot, different setting (St. Paul, MN, proposed Central Corridor LRT): Met Council approves rail route over U's objectionsBy Dave Orrick dorrick@pioneerpress.com Article Last Updated: 05/28/2008 06:51:26 PM CDT The U is now officially alone, and an influential lawmaker says arrogance has landed them there. The University of Minnesota cast the lone dissenting vote this afternoon against a Central Corridor route through campus along Washington Avenue at a meeting of a key advisory panel. The 11-1 vote by the advisory panel was affirmed by the Met Council in an overwhelming voice vote this evening , officials said. Among the 11 were representatives of the following entities and interests: cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Ramsey and Hennepin counties, state departments of transportation and finance, Met Council, neighborhood groups and the business community. The university, which initially wanted a tunnel under campus and now is advocating for a detour along the northern edge of campus, has maintained a series of objections for months, centered around disruptions as a result of removing cars from Washington. The impact of the university's opposition is unclear, but local officials fear it will delay, or possibly kill, the project, as costs increase with inflation and the federal government — needed to fund half the nearly $900 million line from St. Paul to Minneapolis — regards local discord as cause for denial. University Vice President Kathleen O'Brien insisted today — as she has all along — the institution is "pro-transit," pro-Central Corridor and a dedicated partner in the effort. But after the vote, state Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, ripped the U as none of the above. "All the issues" raised by the university have been dealt with, said Hausman, who, as chair of the House Capital Investment Committee, authored the bill authorizing the U to borrow $233 million for a series of bioscience labs — some of which will be repaid by taxpayers. "The university has suddenly raised itself to the top while all the others fall by the wayside. "To say they've been collaborative defies history. ... These last few years, I have not seen them as a team player, and suddenly, now that this is happening, they say it has to be exactly like they want." Hausman described the U's continued opposition as the "ultimate in carelessness and possibly arrogance." She went on to say the U might face ramifications at the Capitol when seeking funding from lawmakers in the future. "The sense of many is the U is simply accustomed to getting their own way," she said. She related a conversation with University President Robert Bruininks in which he expressed concerns about the "aesthetics" of the light rail line through campus. "It's an insult to Minneapolis and St. Paul to assume only the university cares about aesthetics," Hausman said.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 29, 2008 8:55:31 GMT -8
Hey look at that concerns about elevated structures aesthetic impacts. The impacts are so great that they're advocating for an at-grade alignment and all the traffic impacts, safety hazards, reduced ridership (from slower traveling speed) associated with it. If Santa Monica wants a trolley line (a slow moving local circulator with excess stations) they should build one. We need to get people on the trains, and in a polycentric region like Los Angeles the way to do that is with SPEED! through stations well spaced and travel between 55-70 mph. Nonetheless, I guess since the City of Santa Monica wants it at-grade down Colorado the community must be fine with it. Darrell you should read your own local papers more ( pdf pg. 3): Businesses don't want Expo on their street
Santa Monica Daily Press Staff Writer May 3-4, 2008
DOWNTOWN As public transit officials consider various alignments for the proposed Exposition Light Rail expansion into Santa Monica, businesses and property owners along Colorado Avenue are voicing their opposition to laying the train tracks down their commercial corridor. They then go into talking about why Expo would be better down Olympic and they find a couple of saps asking for it to go down Olympic. Compare that to the Wilshire subway discussion where you have West Hollywood literally begging for it, whereas here and in other areas it's always about putting the burden of at-grade rail down another street. And hey since Bernard Parks, Yvonne Burke, Jan Perry and Herb Wesson are okay with Expo at-grade the community must as well.
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on May 29, 2008 9:17:21 GMT -8
Blah, Blah...just more of the same "FUD" from more NIMBYs. Your Wilshire argument is a red herring; apples-to-oranges and has nothing to do with perceived safety. Whether Olympic or Colorado for the SM portion hasn't even come close to a decision yet, so that's another red herring.
This gets very tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 29, 2008 12:27:02 GMT -8
Why would speed matter at the end of the line in Santa Monica? What would be wrong with it moving slowly there?
As for the business wanting it below grade or somewhere else, that's probably because of traffic. They most likely see cars as the main mode of transportation, and who can blame them?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 29, 2008 13:01:00 GMT -8
Additionally, the 2000 Census data reveals that the Culver City census tract, along with the USC census tract, happen to be the only majority Caucasian census tracks along the entire alignment (pink). The remaining census tracts in Phase 1 are majority African-American (grey) and majority Hispanic (purple): Damien's argument has been that "majority-Caucasian" sections of the Expo Line got different treatment. However, not only are there more grade separations in minority Los Angeles east of Ballona Creek than in Culver City, but: 1. The population along the Expo Line in Culver City isn't even majority Caucasian! Census Track 7024, Block Group 2 -- the neighboring area north of National between Ballona Creek and Washington Blvd. -- was 67% non-White in the 2000 Census. (1,261 total; 566 Hispanic or Latino; 421 White alone; 81 Black or African-American alone; 142 Asian alone; 51 other) 2. Why did Damien omit Census Tract 2247 from the map?Between Jefferson and Adams, west of the at-grade Expo Line on Flower, it's 54% White. So minority Los Angeles west of Farmdale and minority Culver City north of National got overpasses, while White north-of-USC got at-grade. All based on consistent application of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy. To repeat, Damien, where is your case?The offer still stands: Let's look at your choices ahead. ALJ Koss wanted to have the range of choices for Farmdale and Harvard, not just what was applied for. He also has offered a number of opportunities to seek agreement between the parties. If not an at-grade crossing at Farmdale, it's easy to expect a pedestrian bridge to be approved that addresses student safety issues and is practicable. Suppose you discussed the available options with the community, concluded something, and offered a settlement without dragging things through the whole process? And then we all move on to the larger transit system?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 29, 2008 13:44:45 GMT -8
Hey look at that concerns about elevated structures aesthetic impacts. The impacts are so great that they're advocating for an at-grade alignment and all the traffic impacts, safety hazards, reduced ridership (from slower traveling speed) associated with it. If Santa Monica wants a trolley line (a slow moving local circulator with excess stations) they should build one. We need to get people on the trains, and in a polycentric region like Los Angeles the way to do that is with SPEED! through stations well spaced and travel between 55-70 mph. Olympic option:At-grade in Olympic median, 35 mph max, 21st - Euclid, 0.6 mi. Aerial 55 mph max, Euclid - 4th, 0.7 mi. Colorado option:At-grade right-of-way with gated crossings, 55 mph max, 21th - 17th, 0.3 mi. At-grade in Colorado median, 35 mph max, 17th - 4th, 1.0 mi. Travel time difference is what, one minute? Both have three stations in just under 2 miles, hardly "excess" given typical 1-mile spacing, especially with their high surrounding job and population densities.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 29, 2008 13:54:02 GMT -8
Hey look at that concerns about elevated structures aesthetic impacts. The impacts are so great ... Tell us again, if elevated structures are bad, how is it unfair that Culver City got some? And hey since Bernard Parks, Yvonne Burke, Jan Perry and Herb Wesson are okay with Expo at-grade the community must as well. Shows they understand what light rail is in so many cities.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 29, 2008 15:22:49 GMT -8
The board members are responsible for (a) finding a balanced solution, and (b) listening to their constituents. Decisions should be made with input and concerns of both the local community and the greater community of County residents.
So if some business owners in Santa Monica have a case to make against at-grade rail in Santa Monica, then fine, now's the time to do it. Citizens should take advantage of all the opportunities for public input throughout the approval process.
What's not fine is for them to wait until after policy has been decided on, and then try to destroy the project because they didn't get what they now realize they want.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 29, 2008 19:24:10 GMT -8
Modern-day train bandits are out to derail the Expo Line. I can't wait for the "High Noon."Derailment DreamsFoes of Expo Line drive up the costs of a crucial project By Alan MittelstaedtWith gas prices shooting over $4 a gallon and ridership on Metropolitan Transportation Authority trains and subways way up, you might think everybody in town would be cheering the Expo Line, now under construction from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. But that’s not the story of transportation projects in L.A. Most projects in the past 20 years have been hounded by foes who threaten to delay them and needlessly send the costs higher and higher. And so it is with the Expo Line, which signed on a battery of lawyers who say they will not be satisfied until the Expo Line Construction Authority is forced to place the tracks underground at the Dorsey High School crossing, at Farmdale Avenue and Exposition Boulevard. If successful, the move could tack millions onto the project and delay the opening of the L.A.-Culver City line by years. Similar concerns are being raised by the group about the train crossing near Foshay Learning Center at Harvard Boulevard. Damien Goodmon, a longtime foe of the project, has joined forces with other community groups opposed to the light-rail line – which, if it opens in 2009 or 2010, would ease congestion on the Santa Monica Freeway and other major east-west arteries like Pico and Olympic boulevards. Goodman wants the entire stretch from Figueroa to La Brea to be placed underground, a radical idea that most project proponents see as a sign that he’s really out to kill the line. The opponents signed up the law firm Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, which is handling the case for free. The Sonnenschein legal team is led by Ivor Samson and Christopher Prince, who worked on the civil rights lawsuit that produced the now-expired 10-year consent decree that forced Metro to buy more buses. “We are trying to get the crossings built in a safe manner, which means putting the crossings in a trench or underground,” said Samson. The Expo Line Authority is prepared for the long haul on this project. Already, costs on the $850 million project have gone up by at least $1 million to cover legal, design and other costs brought on by the challenge. To address safety issues, the Expo’s governing board hired an independent consultant for $250,000 to review two possible alternatives – closing off the street to all traffic and building a pedestrian bridge, and keeping the street open and building a train bridge. A train bridge could cost $25 million, far shy of the $100 million that burying the line would cost; in fact, a court decision that the line be placed underground would kill the project. The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the matter and will hold hearings this summer before making a decision, most likely in November. Odds are the commission will either let the Expo authority proceed with the street-level crossing or order one of the less costly alternatives, which could set up a legal challenge. PUC decisions can only be challenged at the California state Supreme Court level. “If they do not decide in our favor, we will take it from there,” Samson said. The Expo board is pushing for its original plan of a street-level crossing at Dorsey, which calls for a double set of crossing gates and, as an added precaution, a crossing guard to monitor traffic during school hours. Trains would slow to about 20 miles per hour. Who knows, by the time this train rolls down the track, gas prices could be near $6 a gallon and Goodman and other foes will have to answer to a new cry from the community: Why’d the project take so long? With reporting by Alex Comisar.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 30, 2008 13:38:56 GMT -8
The claim is that the health/environmental impacts of at-grade rail near Dorsey High are disproportionately high when compared to other neighborhoods in L.A. with light-rail in them.
To prove this claim, the plaintiff will have to pursue one of two strategies. The first strategy is to find another neighborhood where the exact same issue came up, where the population was whiter/wealthier, and where the opposite decision was made. The second strategy is to show statistically that whiter/wealthier neighborhoods tend to get better treatment by the MTA.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 30, 2008 13:54:08 GMT -8
“We are trying to get the crossings built in a safe manner, which means putting the crossings in a trench or underground”. So "safe" is equivalent to "putting the crossings in a trench or underground"? IOW, having crossings at-grade is inherently unsafe? (All this time, I thought safety was a relative term! Silly me! ) Well let's say we build the line in a trench. What if one of these fragile teenagers should wander over to a trench and falls in? What if he accidentally hops a fence and gets crushed, or wanders into a tunnel and gets squished? What if he climbs the overcrossing and gets splattered? I guess the word "safe" isn't as absolute as some are claiming. Let's be clear about one thing, this challenge is more than just a threat to the Expo Line: it is a threat to all future at-grade rail lines in Los Angeles. Because if this challenge is allowed to succeed, it will provide a precedent to every NIMBY wanting to kill any rail project in L.A.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 30, 2008 14:14:30 GMT -8
How many more lies do you have to tell, Damien, and how low can you go?
- Should they have left Venice/Robertson at-grade?
- Should they have not done the simple, no-cost, realignment of National Blvd near Ballona Creek?
- Should they have created new grade crossings that didn't exist with the freight tracks, just so that you would stop making accusations about environmental justice?
Explaining "Environmental Racism" InsightBy Damien GoodmonMany have written asking for a more extensive explanation of the terms "environmental justice" and "environmental racism." Here's the simplest explanation. (Editor’s note: In the May 16 CityWatch , Goodmon accused the Metro Transit Authority of “environmental racism.” Some readers have asked for a more complete definition term. Here it is through the eyes of the articles author.) Among other civil rights protections, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is Executive Order 12898, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The Executive Order states, "Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." The FTA even has a powerpoint that explains how environmental justice laws specifically relate to transportation projects. By having the Expo Rail Line Phase 1 operate in South LA with the safety hazards, traffic impacts and noise pollution from countless at-grade street crossings and street closures and train horns (among other adverse impacts), and having NONE OF THESE IMPACTS in the most affluent and only majority white census tract along the alignment (Culver City), the Expo Line Phase 1 project places a disproportionate adverse health, safety and environmental impact on majority-minority and poor communities. Therefore, the project and MTA are guilty of engaging in environmental racism. This is accented by the fact that MTA is spending more money in the 1 mile of the line west of La Cienega to the Robertson terminus than in the 4 miles in South LA from Vermont to La Brea. Some have asked, how is it possible that some of our very own local African-American elected officials (Bernard Parks, Yvonne Burke, Jan Perry, and Herb Wesson) who owe their very seats to the blood, sweat and tears and lives of millions in the civil rights movement could possibly support such an egregious violation of clear environmental justice laws in their own backyard with the project they're in charge of building? (Damien Goodmon is a rail transit advocate. He has been profiled in the L.A. Times and leadsf the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line. More information about the Fix Expo Campaign can be found on the web at http://www.FixExpo.org) (For MTA information on Expo Rail, click here.) Send your comments and questions on this article to editor@CityWatchLA.com. CityWatch Vol 6 Issue 44 Pub: May 30, 2006
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 30, 2008 15:48:13 GMT -8
Here's the detailed Census website map of Culver City Tract 7024, Block Group 2, with the approximate location of Expo Line phase 1 and stations added. As we know, this neighborhood is actually 67% non-White. (In case anyone asks, "But what about Block Group 3, behind the businesses south of National, west of the Hayden Tract?", it's also 60% non-White.) Damien's entire "Environmental Racism" case appears based on the claim of special treatment for a "majority white" neighborhood along the line in Culver City. Except it's not majority white. Wonder what Ivor Samson will say to his pro-bono client now?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 30, 2008 16:15:48 GMT -8
Damien should have zero credibility by now. This needs to go out to press and must put an end to this for good.
So much extra money has been spent on this project thanks to this four: Damien Goodmon, Clint Simmons, Mark Jolles, and Colleen Heller. Every month of delay is costing people of Los Angeles millions of dollars directly and more indirectly.
This might be the worst case of NIMBYism that has happened in Los Angeles and is hurting so many people who are waiting for to benefit from this line and future lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 17:27:46 GMT -8
Darrell,
What is the total percentage of whites in that census tract including Hispanic whites? I gather from your earlier post that for some reason you don't consider Hispanic whites to be white.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 30, 2008 17:40:38 GMT -8
In terms of this environmental racism case, I don't think you can consider Hispanic to be Caucasian. Hispanics are definitely seen as a different group in this city.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 17:53:32 GMT -8
The claim is that the health/environmental impacts of at-grade rail near Dorsey High are disproportionately high when compared to other neighborhoods in L.A. with light-rail in them. To prove this claim, the plaintiff will have to pursue one of two strategies. The first strategy is to find another neighborhood where the exact same issue came up, where the population was whiter/wealthier, and where the opposite decision was made. The second strategy is to show statistically that whiter/wealthier neighborhoods tend to get better treatment by the MTA. The gold line seems to get a lot more attention than the blue line. Quieter horns (okay maybe that wouldn't be the best for the blue line), new TVM's, new trains, flat screen monitors in the stations, more LASD patrols. There's probably a variety of reasons, but it's hard not to notice.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 30, 2008 17:54:58 GMT -8
I have a feeling, just an inkling, that it's because of the Gold Line Extension . . . not everything is racism you know.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 18:01:47 GMT -8
I'm not saying that it's racism and I think that there are a variety of reasons. For example they have the quieter horns and bells because of the South Pasadena lawsuits. But it's pretty much fact that the gold line is much better taken care of than the blue line.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 30, 2008 18:07:10 GMT -8
Metro is still trying to attract people to the Gold Line. When the Gold Line gets ridership like the Blue Line, then it will be "ignored" as well. It seems clear to me that most of the disparity is just because of the difference in the age of the lines.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 19:03:14 GMT -8
Metro is still trying to attract people to the Gold Line. When the Gold Line gets ridership like the Blue Line, then it will be "ignored" as well. It seems clear to me that most of the disparity is just because of the difference in the age of the lines. I understand that they want to attract riders although I suspect that having newer equipment would also attract riders to the blue line. Having express trains for sure would have attracted more riders. And they would have been the coveted "choice" riders that would be able to afford the higher fares. Of course "choice" riders is a synonym for wealthy (by Metro standards anyway) so that doesn't really help the argument that they don't discriminate against the poor when most of would acknowledge that they want to add choice riders. Or maybe we wouldn't although I have seen that posted here and don't remember too many disagreeing. Also getting the new TVM's and flat screen monitors first has nothing to do with the gold line being newer. Neither does the fact that it has more sheriff's deputies.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 30, 2008 19:54:37 GMT -8
I'm not saying that it's racism and I think that there are a variety of reasons. For example they have the quieter horns and bells because of the South Pasadena lawsuits. But it's pretty much fact that the gold line is much better taken care of than the blue line. What's stopping the Blue Line is that most of the right of way is still shared with the freight trains. How does that effect it, because it can signal to motorists and pedestrians which train is approaching, the LRV's or frieght. The Gold Line seems to get a lot more attention than the Blue Line... new TVM's, new trains, flat screen monitors in the stations, more LASD patrols. There's probably a variety of reasons, but it's hard not to notice. On the monitors in the stations, most of that is due to that for the first 5 years of operation the Gold Line didn't have any monitors. On the new TVM's makes sense because that is when the first indicator of the TAP card was rolling in. As an anecdote the TAP Card system should have been fully operational at the end of 2005. Two and half years later here we are. For the new trains are you refering to the Bredas or the Siemens LRV's? If its the Siemens, the Green Line got the first order, The Breda cars it makes sense because it's easier to deliver the new LRV's to the Gold Line yard compared to the Blue Line. Given the amount of testing that is needed and trying to get all the bugs out maybe it's easier to implement those trains on the Gold Line first so that if there is a bug it doesn't severely delay the busy Blue Line schedule. In addition with the upcoming East LA Gold Line they'll use these trains as well. The sheriffs deputies I think is even. The difference between the two lines are that on the Blue Line they are in groups at the busier stations. On the Gold Line they rove between Memorial Park and Union Station. If anything I think it is more to do with how they are utilized.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 30, 2008 20:09:20 GMT -8
What is the total percentage of whites in that census tract including Hispanic whites? I gather from your earlier post that for some reason you don't consider Hispanic whites to be white. In terms of this environmental racism case, I don't think you can consider Hispanic to be Caucasian. Hispanics are definitely seen as a different group in this city. If you click on my Census link you'll see how the Census presents minority categories. "Hispanic or Latino" is broken out first, then the remainder is divided by race(s). "Not Hispanic or Latino: White alone" appears to match the common definition of non-minority white. BTW, if you want to do other selections with this query, click the "Geography" link at the top of the query result to add or change. The general link for the Census is factfinder.census.gov .
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 21:20:57 GMT -8
Jerard, I meant the Breda's. I'm sure that there are logistical reasons behind the decision, but the P2000's are in much better shape than the P865's on the blue line. Plus I can see a counter argument for having the Breda's on the blue line instead of the gold. IINM the P2020 cars should already be able to run on the gold line extension as is. OTOH the blue line P865 cars cannot run on Expo so it might make more sense to put the new cars on that line first from an operational standpoint. Doing so would allow blue line trains to be resigned as Expo trains if need be. Plus from a maintenance standpoint they will have maintain the P2550's in both the blue and gold line yards when it would be easier just to use the blue line yard.
The gold and blue lines both have those scrolling digital customer information signs, although they're not identical. But I noticed that the new subway style flat screen monitors are already going up on the gold line. I suspect that it'll be well over a year, if not much longer, before we see anything like that on the blue line. I'd be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 21:37:32 GMT -8
Darrell, Thank you for the clarification. I don't think that I agree with your definition of white, but either way your point is still valid.
But out of curiosity how big is the difference in the non-Hispanic white population in that census tract versus the others? It's probably a huge increase even if it's still majority minority.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 30, 2008 21:43:47 GMT -8
Plus I can see a counter argument for having the Breda's on the blue line instead of the gold. IINM the P2020 cars should already be able to run on the gold line extension as is. True but are there enough trains right now for the East LA extension? I'm guessing with in the start 2009 the Breda trains at the Blue Line yard will start operating as probably Shortline rush hour service and then increase from there in preparation for Expo. Are you sure the Gold line have the scrolling info signs or is it the Green Line? I can show in pictures that the Gold Line that the Gold Line never had the scrolling info signs on any of their platforms. Again from opening day July 2003 until now, the Gold Line never had any scrolling signage. Any information that related to delays to Gold Line service would be posted on a sheet of paper and attached the old fashioned way at the station or inside the trains.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2008 22:00:06 GMT -8
Thanks. I was thinking that I saw them on the freeway stations, but I must have been thinking of the green line.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on May 30, 2008 22:21:35 GMT -8
As we know, this neighborhood is actually 67% non-White. Darrell, You may want to find more up to date numbers than the 2000 Census. My wife is a Demographer with an expertise in Los Angeles and has said that neighborhood had its make up changed radically in the past 8 years. We live on the other side of Culver City and have felt the effects of the city's redevelopment strategy which is to gentrify the Neighborhoods, as evidenced by the harassment of the homies on our street by CCPD. All this redevelopment takes Money and the Culver City Council has been successful in getting funds from every last corner, plus, red light cameras. They seem to want Culver City to look like Mayberry with the tax base of Vegas and have been practicing playing sin city hard ball with local businesses and political leaders along with the MTA. Take Care - P.
|
|