|
Post by RMoses on May 12, 2013 18:05:20 GMT -8
Lincoln Blvd is a state road, even if it was not the traffic on Lincoln both north and southbound can not sustain anything more than street running, no signal control. Lincoln's traffic count at Colorado and proximity to the 10 demands street running. West of Lincoln, signal control could work IMO. You may be correct about needing street running (no train priority) at Lincoln, but it will be the City's decison, per " Lincoln Boulevard was recently relinquished to Santa Monica by Caltrans ..." Correct on that, however I am not sure if Caltrans relinquished signal control.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on May 12, 2013 19:42:24 GMT -8
Correct on that, however I am not sure if Caltrans relinquished signal control. I believe that the signal at Colorado is tied to the one at the 10 freeway so there could not be signal priority for the train. I do believe that the train will have signal priority at the other signals except maybe 17th since the train comes thru the intersection at an angle going into a curve. In this video of the October TTC Meeting, the question of signal priority along Colorado comes up. The question comes up shortly after the 33:00 mark. youtu.be/xQB3y6fD_vk
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 12, 2013 22:22:19 GMT -8
I think the Colorado Ave median running -- the last mile between the last two stations -- will be the slowest segment on the line. The speed limit is only 30 MPH; there are many signals, and then it's the end of line with trains switching tracks.
There is also no 30 MPH on the ATP (55, 45, 35, 25, and 10 MPH only) and they may set the trains at 25 MPH as a result, which means there cannot be signal priority for the trains as it's impossible to sync the signals if the train is not going at the speed limit.
My estimate: 7 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 13, 2013 8:45:07 GMT -8
Street running sections generally don't have ATP, do they? Usually the ATP cuts out and the train runs in "street mode", at least from what I've seen on Marmion Way on the Gold Line. And the speed limit for "street mode", set by the CPUC and enforced by the ATP system on the train, is 35 mph.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2013 10:48:48 GMT -8
Street running sections generally don't have ATP, do they? Usually the ATP cuts out and the train runs in "street mode", at least from what I've seen on Marmion Way on the Gold Line. And the speed limit for "street mode", set by the CPUC and enforced by the ATP system on the train, is 35 mph. Street running doesn't have to have ATP but the street-running section on Exposition Boulevard does have ATP, set to 35 MPH. You can hear the cab ATP console starting to beep and train braking when the speed of the train hits 35.5 MPH on your Google My Tracks app. This section was originally planned without ATP (for lower construction cost) but they later added ATP, although I don't remember the reason -- perhaps CPUC asked for it. They also added right-of-way fences when they added ATP. The speed limit dictated by CPUC for street-running sections is the same as the speed limit for the cars. If it's 35 MPH for the cars, it's 35 MPH for the trains; if it's 30 MPH for the cars, it's 30 MPH for the trains, etc.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on May 13, 2013 11:25:40 GMT -8
I think the Colorado Ave median running -- the last mile between the last two stations -- will be the slowest segment on the line. The speed limit is only 30 MPH; there are many signals, and then it's the end of line with trains switching tracks. There is also no 30 MPH on the ATP (55, 45, 35, 25, and 10 MPH only) and they may set the trains at 25 MPH as a result, which means there cannot be signal priority for the trains as it's impossible to sync the signals if the train is not going at the speed limit. My estimate: 7 minutes. It will be no slower than driving the speed limit, just timed it and was 4:11 from 17th St green light to 4th St intersection. Was stopped at Lincoln for 30+ secs and tried to maintain 30 mph.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2013 11:29:36 GMT -8
I think the Colorado Ave median running -- the last mile between the last two stations -- will be the slowest segment on the line. The speed limit is only 30 MPH; there are many signals, and then it's the end of line with trains switching tracks. There is also no 30 MPH on the ATP (55, 45, 35, 25, and 10 MPH only) and they may set the trains at 25 MPH as a result, which means there cannot be signal priority for the trains as it's impossible to sync the signals if the train is not going at the speed limit. My estimate: 7 minutes. It will be no slower than driving the speed limit, just timed it and was 4:11 from 17th St green light to 4th St intersection. Was stopped at Lincoln for 30+ secs and tried to maintain 30 mph. Add 15 seconds on that for the station dwelling (you need to include the last station for scheduling purposes even if you don't wait there), about a minute for track switching, and another minute for not being so lucky with the lights -- it comes to just about 7 minutes... By comparison, the secluded section in Culver City takes 3 minutes (because of track switching) and the median-running section on Exposition takes 3 minutes for 1-mile sections (La Cienega to Culver City and Vermont to Western, respectively). With 25 MPH speed limit and more traffic lights, plus track switching, the best time possible for 17th/Colorado to 4th/Colorado is 4 minutes at the very best-case scenario. If there is lack of signal priority, it will substantially increase.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 17, 2013 11:02:38 GMT -8
Really bad news. According to a legal analyst who attended the trial, NFSR will win the CA Supreme Court case 4 - 3 or better. Certainly there would definitely be a supplemental EIR and an injunction to stop the construction at a great likelihood until that's certified. It's really bad that the construction would be stopped at its most critical, busy stage, where a lot of heavy construction is happening. It would cost tens of millions of dollars to restage for the construction and the money would come from future cost savings, meaning less amenities and a less refined line overall. It's a lose - lose situation for both sides if the court rules in favor of NFSR. Not to mention that delay of the opening would hurt everyone.----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is a future baseline the baseline of the future? Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction AuthorityThomas Law GroupIn Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 552 (Smart Rail), the Second Appellate District upheld the lead agency’s determination that a future 2030 baseline was proper for determining the significance of traffic and air quality impacts caused by a proposed light rail project in Los Angeles. In doing so, the Second Appellate District squarely disagreed with the Sixth Appellate District’s decision in Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Sunnyvale) and the Fifth Appellate District’s decision in Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48 (Madera), both of which held that projected future conditions provide an improper baseline for determining traffic impacts. This clear split of authority on an issue with important implications set the stage for Supreme Court intervention. (See our blog entry (Smart Rail) entitled “Court Disagrees with Sunnyvale and Madera Decisions and Holds that use of Projected Future Conditions as a Baseline for Analyzing Environmental Impacts is Proper where Supported by Substantial Evidence.”) The Supreme Court granted review of Smart Rail on August 8, 2012. The hearing was held on May 7, 2013. At the hearing, John Bowman from Elkins, Kalt, Weintraub, Rueben, and Gartside represented the Petitioner, Neighbors for Smart Rail, and Rob Thornton from Nossaman represented the Respondent, Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. The case turns on whether lead agencies have the discretion to use an environmental baseline (a description of the existing conditions against which a project’s potential impacts are compared) that incorporates assumptions about future conditions. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the baseline “normally” consists of a description of the existing conditions at the time a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is posted. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, subd. (a).) The use of the word “normally” in the Guidelines implies that agencies have some discretion to deviate from the norm and use an alternative baseline. In Smart Rail the EIR used an existing conditions baseline for short term impacts caused by construction activities, but the agency then elected to utilize a 2030 baseline to analyze the project’s operational impacts. At the hearing, Petitioner relied on Sunnyvale and Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 (CBE) to argue that the word “normally” in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 only gives agencies the discretion to select a baseline that describes the environmental conditions that exist between the posting of the NOP and the date of project approval. Justice Kennard questioned whether Sunnyvale ignored the discretion that should be allowed under the word “normally.” Petitioners struggled to provide a narrow definition of “normally” but nonetheless argued that in the context of an EIR the word “normally” should be limited to a description of conditions as they exist prior to project approval. Petitioners also argued that, even if a future baseline was permissible, the record in this case did not include substantial evidence to support the agency’s use of a 2030 baseline because the project will be operational in 2015. Several justices seemed to agree with the Petitioners on that point. The Respondents argued that agencies should be allowed to select a future baseline when doing so furthers informed decision-making. Respondents conceded the EIR did not compare operational impacts to existing conditions and that the project would be operation in 2015. Respondents defended the use of the 2030 baseline by arguing traffic and air quality conditions are anticipated to be worse in 2030 than in 2015, so the 2030 baseline resulted in a more conservative and more informative analysis of the project’s impacts. Several justices took issue with Respondent’s position, but Justice Lui in particular challenged the agency’s logic. Justice Lui questioned why agencies should have the discretion to select a future baseline when the public might be more concerned about short term impacts. Justice Lui stated that there was no question that the 2030 analysis was valuable information, but the agency should also disclose the project’s short-term operational impacts. Respondent argued that an existing conditions analysis served no informational purposes whatsoever and that experts from all major transportation agencies agreed that the 2030 baseline for operational impacts was the proper approach. Justice Baxter responded approvingly to this argument and quipped that the preparation of EIRs has become nearly as big of an undertaking as the underlying projects, implying that the agency had done enough in this case. In the end, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye along with Justices Kennard, Werdegar, and Lui, seemed very concerned about the EIR’s failure to analyze operational impacts that might occur between 2015 and 2030. Justices Corrigan and Ming did not comment during the hearing. The Court will issue a written opinion within 90 days of oral argument.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on May 17, 2013 11:35:01 GMT -8
I believe it premature to extrapolate and assume the Court will delay the line. Criticisms can always be leveled at reasoning. Interpretation of "normally" is important, but in the final consideration, I would think that the question hinges on how the 2030 baseline would materially affect the FEIR. ...If the 2030 baseline does not materially affect the conclusion, perhaps the Court close out the NFSR petition with no action other than to provide warning that in the future, "normally" should be considered more narrowly.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 17, 2013 11:47:38 GMT -8
It's funny that all past and existing public-transit EIRs throughout CA and US were done / are being done with future baselines. It really makes no sense to single out Expo for what everyone else is doing. If they knew it should have been done that way, they wouldn't even bother to do it with a future baseline.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2013 16:00:57 GMT -8
Thanks for the update, Gökhan – I’ve wondered what happened in the Supreme Court hearing.
I guess the question is how long would the necessary environmental document take for a 2007-2010 baseline*. They already have the traffic data**.
Good news is that the Casden project could not be included, nor the L.A. City Bike Plan, and one would expect there would be no room to challenge the selection of intersections studied, as the only change – of all the arguments raised by NFSR – would be the baseline year. One would hope, given the great financial damages, that no injunction would be ordered, or at least that it could be argued for additional months to allow the major construction to complete, even if at the Expo Authority’s risk. Because we know the bridges wouldn’t change due to traffic impacts!
*“29 The Expo Authority sent the Notice of Preparation (NOP) announcing the Expo Authority’s intent to prepare a DEIS/DEIR to the California State Clearinghouse on February 22, 2007” – Final EIR footnote on page 2-48. The Expo Authority certified the Final EIR on February 4, 2010.
** "Detailed weekday AM peak period (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and PM peak period (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)traffic counts were collected at the eighty-six intersections during April, September, October, and November of 2007 and some additional traffic counts were conducted in February of 2008." – Final EIR page 3.2-6.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2013 16:11:58 GMT -8
And a good point by Steve Hyman at The Source today (emphasis added below): Is future baseline the baseline of the future? (Thomas Law Group) A good look at the legal arguments in the Neighbors for Smart Rail versus Expo Line Construction Authority case made earlier this month before the California Supreme Court. In the case, Neighbors for Smart Rail (which wants the train to go underground in the Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park area) is challenging the EIR for the second phase of the Expo Line project, saying it was improper for the Construction Authority to use future traffic conditions as the baseline for determining the train’s impacts. The Authority argued using future conditions is a better way to gauge the real impacts. According to the blog, four Justices seemed receptive to Neighbors for Smart Rail’s arguments, another Justice seemed to favor the Construction Authority’s stance and two other Justices didn’t say anything during the hearing. A ruling is expected within 90 days. With construction of the project underway, it remains to be seen if an unfavorable ruling would impact work — or whether the Court just wants to clarify how agencies should handle the baseline issue in future EIRs.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 18, 2013 14:15:53 GMT -8
Has any court made a construction authority tear down some bridges because of the question on how the EIR was put together?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 18, 2013 14:21:21 GMT -8
Hey guys lets get on board with the reforms of the environment laws, who do we write to support the reforms, so those angry little citizens groups cannot stop the march of transit progress! Nfsr and the Perris line killers.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 18, 2013 15:47:52 GMT -8
Hey guys lets get on board with the reforms of the environment laws, who do we write to support the reforms, so those angry little citizens groups cannot stop the march of transit progress! Nfsr and the Perris line killers. On that note, when Metrolink was built, no EIR was required for rail projects on former rail rights-of-way. Expo, being on a former rail right-of-way, would have been done without an EIR back then.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 19, 2013 16:14:08 GMT -8
Has any court made a construction authority tear down some bridges because of the question on how the EIR was put together? Theres been cases where fully built apartment had to be fully demolished because of legal decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 7, 2013 14:13:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 16, 2013 11:59:36 GMT -8
Thanks Darrell for the heads-up. I am moving the discussion to the appropriate thread. The CPUC Proposed Decision on the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings was posted Friday. I'm just starting to read its 87 pages, but its Summary is very direct: They didn't wait for the California Supreme Court ruling, but do explicitly address the issue of the baseline year. More after reading the Proposed Decision. Here's some of what they wrote about baseline year (page 39). Wonder if this foreshadows the Supreme Court? No points in the discussion favored NFSR, and this one (pages 47-8) was particularly critical:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 16, 2013 12:00:54 GMT -8
For the Expo CPUC proceedings, use this page to search for the proceeding no. A1112010 delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookupThen, click on the proceeding and click on the Documents, Rulings, Decisions, etc. tabs to view them.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 16, 2013 12:43:59 GMT -8
This is the summary: "Decision following rehearing affirming Resolution SX-100 and granting authorization to Expo Authority to construct 16 at-grade and 11 grade-separated highway light rail crossings as part of Phase 2 of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project. Opening comments, which shall not exceed 15 pages, are due no later than August 1, 2013. Reply comments, which shall not exceed 5 pages, are due 5 days after the last day for filing opening comments." This means that this could be approved by the commission as early as late August. Note that the CA Supreme Court decision will be made by August 7. Therefore, they can start track installation as early as early September. Interestingly, on the last page they say that if Expo Phase 2 doesn't open by late-August 2016 (in three years after the decision), the CPUC application will be invalid and they will have to reapply and go through the whole thing again. So, now, you know Expo's latest-possible opening date. Here is the 87-page proposed decision.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 2, 2013 10:13:14 GMT -8
The CA Supreme Court decision was announced to be announced at 10 am on Monday, August 5, 2013 -- 89 days after the hearing, one day ahead of the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 2, 2013 12:57:40 GMT -8
Looking forward to that decision!
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 2, 2013 15:02:38 GMT -8
Too bad there isn't an audio feed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 3, 2013 8:44:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 3, 2013 12:58:11 GMT -8
Gokhan:
08/02/2013 Notice of forthcoming opinion posted To be filed on Monday, August 5, 2013 at 10 a.m.
Does this mean only a opinion and not a ruling or orders considering change or no change?
Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 3, 2013 22:40:18 GMT -8
Opinion means ruling in this context.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 4, 2013 18:07:38 GMT -8
Then we are getting great news tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 5, 2013 9:09:38 GMT -8
Posted at link. Now to read it! Looks like we won! Here are the first three pages: This case presents a challenge under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) to the approval by defendant Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Expo Authority) of a project to construct a light-rail line running from Culver City to Santa Monica. Once completed, the transit line is to be operated by real party in interest Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
Plaintiff Neighbors for Smart Rail (Neighbors) contends the Expo Authority's environmental impact report (the EIR) for the project is deficient in two respects: (1) by exclusively employing an analytic baseline of conditions in the year 2030 to assess likely impacts on traffic congestion and air quality, the EIR fails to disclose the effects the project will have on existing environmental conditions in the project area; and (2) the EIR fails to incorporate mandatory and enforceable mitigation measures for potentially significant spillover parking effects in the neighborhoods of certain planned rail stations.
We agree with Neighbors on its first claim, but not on its second. (1) While an agency has the discretion under some circumstances to omit environmental analysis of impacts on existing conditions and instead use only a baseline of projected future conditions, existing conditions “will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a).) A departure from this norm can be justified by substantial evidence that an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without informational value to EIR users. Here, however, the Expo Authority fails to demonstrate the existence of such evidence in the administrative record. (2) The EIR's mitigation measure for spillover parking effects satisfied CEQA's requirements by including enforceable mandates for actions by MTA and the Expo Authority, as well as planned actions to be implemented by the municipalities responsible for parking regulations on streets near the planned rail stations. (§ 21081, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15091.)
Although we conclude the EIR fails to satisfy CEQA's requirements in the first respect claimed, we also conclude the agency's abuse of discretion was nonprejudicial. Under the particular facts of this case, the agency's examination of certain environmental impacts only on projected year 2030 conditions, and not on existing environmental conditions, did not deprive the agency or the public of substantial relevant information on those impacts. (Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 485-486.) We will therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the superior court's denial of Neighbors's petition for writ of mandate.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Aug 5, 2013 9:12:06 GMT -8
I further conclude that, given the nature and the circumstances of the light rail project at issue, Expo Authority reasonably selected a 2030 baseline in lieu of an existing conditions baseline for measuring the project‟s operational impacts on traffic congestion and air quality. Finally, in light of the undisputed validity of the forecasting models used to predict the future traffic and air quality conditions, I also conclude that substantial evidence supports the 2030 baseline as a realistic baseline for analyzing the project‟s impacts
"DISPOSITION The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed"
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 5, 2013 9:14:11 GMT -8
Posted at link. Now to read it! It looks like they are affirming the judgement of the appeals court which would put it in favor of Expo!!!!!!!
|
|