|
Post by billcousert on Jul 16, 2009 10:10:53 GMT -8
Trash trucks obviously must be grade separated to prevent this! A loaded trash truck weighs many tons and cannot stop quickly, not to mention their every-day slowing of traffic. If we only had better garbage disposals, we could totally eliminate the need for garbage trucks!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 17, 2009 7:55:19 GMT -8
Public input and consent is an important part of building infrastructure, and for good reason. Without it, you get people like Robert Moses. He built many important bridges and expressways in New York City, and the Central Park Zoo. But his total disregard for the people who opposed him and the neighborhoods he destroyed galvanized the movement for environmental review.
The EIR process strikes a pretty good balance between democratic principles and expert staff.
Groups like FixExpo and Cheviot Hills HA have the right to protest rail expansion. The process gives them a limited time to register their complaints. I actually think this leads to a better product. And when these people are being unreasonable, there are people like us who have the right to refute them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 21, 2009 21:14:58 GMT -8
As a student in college I noticed that several of the buildings on campus had elevators that only operated if you had a key. The keys were issued to disabled students and faculty. Since the most likely beneficiary of the elevators at Farmdale would be disabled students at Dorsey high I wonder if issuing a key to those students would be acceptable. This would cut down on vandalism and urination problems.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 21, 2009 22:07:03 GMT -8
As a student in college I noticed that several of the buildings on campus had elevators that only operated if you had a key. The keys were issued to disabled students and faculty. Since the most likely beneficiary of the elevators at Farmdale would be disabled students at Dorsey high I wonder if issuing a key to those students would be acceptable. This would cut down on vandalism and urination problems. I doubt that would be ADA-compliant.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 21, 2009 23:14:09 GMT -8
As a student in college I noticed that several of the buildings on campus had elevators that only operated if you had a key. The keys were issued to disabled students and faculty. Since the most likely beneficiary of the elevators at Farmdale would be disabled students at Dorsey high I wonder if issuing a key to those students would be acceptable. This would cut down on vandalism and urination problems. A school is somewhat private property with restricted access. Elevators at Farmdale are for the general public. There cannot be restricted access to these elevators.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 22, 2009 6:34:41 GMT -8
A school is somewhat private property with restricted access. Elevators at Farmdale are for the general public. There cannot be restricted access to these elevators. I don't see why not. The tunnel at Foshay has restricted use. They only open it up twice a day for student use. Further, the ped bridge at Farmdale will have one landing on school property.(or at least formerly school property.)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 22, 2009 7:51:08 GMT -8
As a student in college I noticed that several of the buildings on campus had elevators that only operated if you had a key. The keys were issued to disabled students and faculty. Since the most likely beneficiary of the elevators at Farmdale would be disabled students at Dorsey high I wonder if issuing a key to those students would be acceptable. This would cut down on vandalism and urination problems. I doubt that would be ADA-compliant. It is ADA compliant only if the entire set of elevators/bridge are on school property provided that all of the faculty will have a key to the elevator and or when someone has a medical note stating they can't use the stairs they are given that key until they are no longer attending the school. Many new schools have key access only to the elevator. So unless Expo Authority wants to donate that land surrounding the elevator/ped bridge to Dorsey so they can expand their campus that would be the only way to have keyed elevator access.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 8:51:59 GMT -8
A school is somewhat private property with restricted access. Elevators at Farmdale are for the general public. There cannot be restricted access to these elevators. I don't see why not. The tunnel at Foshay has restricted use. They only open it up twice a day for student use. Further, the ped bridge at Farmdale will have one landing on school property.(or at least formerly school property.) The reason why the Harvard pedestrian underpass is exempt from ADA is because it was built prior to ADA. The Farmdale pedestrian overpass must be ADA-compliant.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 9:01:45 GMT -8
I doubt that would be ADA-compliant. It is ADA compliant only if the entire set of elevators/bridge are on school property provided that all of the faculty will have a key to the elevator and or when someone has a medical note stating they can't use the stairs they are given that key until they are no longer attending the school. Many new schools have key access only to the elevator. So unless Expo Authority wants to donate that land surrounding the elevator/ped bridge to Dorsey so they can expand their campus that would be the only way to have keyed elevator access. The Farmdale pedestrian overpass will be used by the general public. The general public will use the bridge to, say, access from Jefferson to Rodeo. If there is a disabled person taking a bus on Jefferson an getting off at Farmdale, he wouldn't be able to see his friend who lives at Rodeo and Farmdale if you don't provide ADA access. It's not practicable to make the overpass school property as you must lock it at night in that case. (Otherwise it wouldn't be ADA-compliant as there wouldn't be anyone with keys around.) But then you are running into issues such as cutting off emergency access at night. That would never be found practicable by CPUC or the City of LA, or even legal to begin with. The Harvard underpass works because it's so close to Denker and Western and it's not such a big issue regarding eliminating access there. Besides that underpass was built particularly for the school and there was no street crossing there when the trains were operating.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 22, 2009 10:52:13 GMT -8
Well, as you know Gokhan, the primary reason this bridge was mandated was because of the school. No school, no bridge, period. I think Jerard is correct, If control of the bridge was given to the school they could restrict access to it or it's components and still be ADA compliant.
The situations you describe above are applicable all along the alignment where streets do not go through.
With that said, wither the broader community, Metro and Expo would give the bridge to the school, or by law restricted from doing so, is an entirely different question.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 11:29:19 GMT -8
Well, as you know Gokhan, the primary reason this bridge was mandated was because of the school. No school, no bridge, period. I think Jerard is correct, If control of the bridge was given to the school they could restrict access to it or it's components and still be ADA compliant. The situations you describe above are applicable all along the alignment where streets do not go through. With that said, wither the broader community, Metro and Expo would give the bridge to the school, or by law restricted from doing so, is an entirely different question. You haven't even bothered to read my post carefully. I've already explained why this is not so. I will not repeat it; so, please go back and read it if you would like. PS: You have distorted the reality quite a bit by presenting it as if there was no crossing to begin with but they wanted to provide a pedestrian overpass for Dorsey High only, such as the Palms Park pedestrian overpass, where there is no crossing and the bridge's mere purpose is to serve Palms Park. Dorsey High is not the primary reason for the pedestrian bridge but it's the primary reason for the denial of the at-grade crossing. Since the at-grade crossing was denied, there must be an alternate, which is a pedestrian bridge, train bridge, etc. A pedestrian bridge was chosen because it's the cheapest and easiest. The crossing is needed by the city and whatever new grade-separated crossing provided has to be accessible by the general public in the city, not Dorsey High only, as I explained above. I hope it's clear enough.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 12:36:46 GMT -8
^^ To put it more simply, SAUNDERS' and Jerard's argument is basically "Let's close Farmdale to pedestrian access (as well as vehicular access) for general public." This won't happen, given how long that block is (0.85 miles) and Farmdale being one of the bigger, through streets there, which is currently used by general public at a fair level. If we could completely close it, of course, then chances are that we wouldn't even need a pedestrian bridge for Dorsey High, as the young and athletic students could also find their ways to La Brea and Buckingham as the older and less energetic general public.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 22, 2009 12:43:29 GMT -8
^ To be clear Gokhan, that is not my 'argument' I was responding to a question that was asked. Because in order to make that a keyed elevator then the bridge has to fall on ALL of the schools property. I was merely setting the parameters of what will allow the school to have keyed access.
I know that this can not happen because the bridge like many other bridges(such as pedestrian bridges over freeways) are accessible to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 22, 2009 13:06:34 GMT -8
You haven't even bothered to read my post carefully. I've already explained why this is not so. I will not repeat it; so, please go back and read it if you would like. Taking this a little personal aren't you Gokhan? PS: You have distorted the reality quite a bit by presenting it as if there was no crossing to begin with but they wanted to provide a pedestrian overpass for Dorsey High only, such as the Palms Park pedestrian overpass, where there is no crossing and the bridge's mere purpose is to serve Palms Park. Dorsey High is not the primary reason for the pedestrian bridge but it's the primary reason for the denial of the at-grade crossing. Since the at-grade crossing was denied, there must be an alternate, which is a pedestrian bridge, train bridge, etc. A pedestrian bridge was chosen because it's the cheapest and easiest. The crossing is needed by the city and whatever new grade-separated crossing provided has to be accessible by the general public in the city, not Dorsey High only, as I explained above. I hope it's clear enough. This is not true Gokhan. It is possible that Farmdale be merely closed to through traffic with no Ped Bridge. This was the case with several streets on the Gold Line LAUS to Pasadena where several streets were made to dead end. However, what makes Farmdale special is Dorsey High, thus the Ped bridge. Further I am aware of no law that says a crossing has to be accessible by the general public. I believe there will be some at grade crossing east of La Cieneiga so that businesses there can access Jefferson. These crossing are for the businesses not the general public. (please inform me if I'm wrong on that.) as I explained above. I hope it's clear enough. I really don't care if the elevator is open to the public or is restricted to students with disabilities. It has been discussed here that one of the major problems with an elevator at this location would be vandalism and urination. I merely put forth for discussion one possible solution to that problem. I am not advocating that solution just putting out there for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 13:46:48 GMT -8
You haven't even bothered to read my post carefully. I've already explained why this is not so. I will not repeat it; so, please go back and read it if you would like. Taking this a little personal aren't you Gokhan? No, but it seems frequent with you that you don't read someone's post before replying to it. It happened before and it clearly happened again. Why even bother replying to someone on a discussion board if you don't read their post? It also makes it very frustrating for the original poster, as it makes no sense to repost the same thing. So you are advocating closing Farmdale to pedestrians as well as vehicles. Good luck with that. I don't know if there is any other light-rail line where there is a 0.85-mile-long urban section with no pedestrian access through. Of course, closing a street is the easiest solution if you can. If we could just close Farmdale, then we wouldn't need a pedestrian bridge for Dorsey High either, as the students are younger, more energetic, and athletic than general public as they can find their way to Buckingham and La Brea more easily, as I explained. There are many crossings which has been closed for the Expo Line light-rail. But Farmdale is one of the major crossings and you would create a too long block if you closed it. It's not practicable. But go ahead you advocate it. I'm definitely with you on that, even though we would have to duck when you say it in public. LOL All the wild ideas aside, glass elevators lighted with bright white light and with security cameras installed should be quite workable and seem to be the only logical solution.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 22, 2009 16:31:34 GMT -8
I really don't care if the elevator is open to the public or is restricted to students with disabilities. It has been discussed here that one of the major problems with an elevator at this location would be vandalism and urination. I merely put forth for discussion one possible solution to that problem. I am not advocating that solution just putting out there for discussion. So you are advocating closing Farmdale to pedestrians as well as vehicles. Good luck with that. No, see post you're replying to. What was that about not reading....:*) I don't know if there is any other light-rail line where there is a 0.85-mile-long urban section with no pedestrian access through. The section between La Brea and La Cieniega and I believe Gold Line south of Highland Park has a section but again I'm not advocating that. I agree with you in that long distances between pedestrian crossing should be avoided. In my case my studio is between La Brea and La Cieniega north of the alignment. My side of the tracks is park starved. Baldwin Hills Rec and Park, the closest park, is completely cut off by the alignment. It would be great if there was a way to get through but there is not. All the wild ideas aside, glass elevators lighted with bright white light and with security cameras installed should be quite workable and seem to be the only logical solution. That and cascading ramps. :*)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 16:51:07 GMT -8
So you are advocating closing Farmdale to pedestrians as well as vehicles. Good luck with that. No, see post you're replying to. What was that about not reading....:*) OK, but that's mostly semantics. I don't really see much difference between advocating and putting something for discussion and then strongly defending it. This is actually false. There will be an at-grade crossing at Hauser Blvd. If you want, but they will be a gross eyesore and not wanted by anyone other than MTA. I don't think they will fit with the historic Susan Miller Dorsey High School.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 22, 2009 17:26:06 GMT -8
There will be an at-grade crossing at Hauser Blvd. This crossing is to service the industrial properties south of the alignment roughly between Hauser and La Cienega. My understanding is that there is no through traffic. Am I wrong? It will be fantastic if access to the park was also created. Is this so?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 22, 2009 17:41:02 GMT -8
There will be an at-grade crossing at Hauser Blvd. This crossing is to service the industrial properties south of the alignment roughly between Hauser and La Cienega. My understanding is that there is no through traffic. Am I wrong? It will be fantastic if access to the park was also created. Is this so? Actually the area south of the tracks immediately west of Hauser Blvd is designated as public property -- marked in green. Therefore, the park should be accessible through the at-grade crossing at Hauser and this green area. But this is ultimately a zoning and ownership issue, not a railroad-crossing issue.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2009 8:02:10 GMT -8
It looks like currently there is almost access to the park at Hauser Blvd but not quite, between the industrial establishment and what appears to be an LADWP transformer plant. Once the Expo Line is built and an actual at-grade crossing is placed, it could encourage and/or pressure the city to knock down part of the fence at what appears to be an agricultural plantation there (if there is a fence) and provide access to the park. This would be good.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2009 10:37:55 GMT -8
I drove by Hauser today. I was going to take a look but couldn't because of Expo construction today at this location. There is a walkway between the industrial plant and the LADWP plant as I mentioned. It's not clear if you can access the park from there. But the city could certainly create access if many people ask.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 27, 2009 7:59:53 GMT -8
Well, I guess this is the "nuclear bomb" Fix Expo was talking about. They are asking for a congressional investigation.
I like the guy at the end of the video, who put the bottom line: "I live next to the line and the reason these accidents are happening is a lot of people running red lights." Most people have common sense like him but not some others like Fix Expo, who demand to have a right to run red lights.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 27, 2009 8:32:46 GMT -8
What was the "news" in that story? If FixExpo is calling for a congressional investigation (which, by the way, is hilarious if true), the report made no mention of it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 27, 2009 8:48:52 GMT -8
Yes, as hilarious as it is, they are.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 28, 2009 10:15:25 GMT -8
The news story may have been related to the following:
Man killed by Blue Line in Compton A train fatally struck a man just south of the Artesia station Sunday. From news services Posted: 07/26/2009 08:55:44 PM PDT
COMPTON — A Metro Blue Line train fatally struck a man just south of the Artesia station Sunday.
The accident happened about 9:30 a.m., and the Los Angeles-to-Long Beach train was using a single set of tracks through the area to accommodate investigators until early this afternoon, Dave Sotero of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said.
Sheriff's deputies, who patrol the light rail line, were investigating the death.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 28, 2009 10:29:54 GMT -8
It's older news about Fix Expo demanding a congressional investigation -- their so-called nuclear bomb.
Most Blue Line pedestrian strikes, like last Sunday, involve people with psychological problems: suicides, homeless, younger and older people with mental problems to the level that they can't see or judge a train coming toward them.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 28, 2009 14:01:26 GMT -8
I tried to find more information on Sunday's accident but the above posted by metrocenter is the only thing I could find.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 28, 2009 19:52:52 GMT -8
From the June 15 Expo Board Minutes, following the Closed Session: Chair Perry asked Mr. Thorpe if there were any reportable actions from Closed Session.
Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options:
1. Stop and Proceed 2. Add a station at Farmdale 3. Pedestrian Overcrossing 4. Combination station with stop and proceed until such time the station is complete. Expo Authority filed these applications with the CPUC today. To the service list for Application 06-12-005, etal.: Attached is Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority's Amendment to Application 07-05-013, filed today with the Commission. Amendment to Application (224K PDF) Exhibits B-1.1 and B-1.2 (1.3M PDF) - Farmdale Closed with Pedestrian BridgeExhibit B-2.1 (1M PDF) - Stop and ProceedExhibits B-3.1a and B-3.1b (1M PDF) - Near Side StationsExhibit C-1.1 (19K PDF) - Legal Description It's worth reading the "Amendment to Application" all the way through, especially for its recap of the CPUC's previous decision relating to this crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 28, 2009 20:07:09 GMT -8
There we go with the CPUC proceedings again. I hope this time it ends fast. LOL
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 28, 2009 20:24:41 GMT -8
It appears Damien Goodmon is withdrawing as a party to the CPUC process at Farmdale - leaving it to LAUSD - per his email to the Service List following Expo's new application: Dear Process Office,
Please amend my information on the service list for the Consolidated Proceeding A.06-12-005, et al. I should remain Information Only.
|
|