|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 5, 2010 14:54:24 GMT -8
Over time, "community" will emerge as folks share transit and begin to leave SUVs in the garage. Cheviot links 2 higher density areas--Century City and Palms. It's really great to walk through, also to walk the dog in. But it's sufficiently large that walking to Century City from Palms is a hike.
It would be desirable for some form of transit--either train or bus--to traverse Cheviot ...regardless of what the moneyed minority desire. Community can cross economic lines and join higher density areas with lower density areas and I don't imagine that gates and walls will surrond Cheviot to prevent the territory's integration into the rest of the city. ...Even if further traffic calming should emerge, a shuttle Motor, at the very least should exist to link Palms with Century City.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Feb 5, 2010 15:06:56 GMT -8
Over time, "community" will emerge as folks share transit and begin to leave SUVs in the garage. Cheviot links 2 higher density areas--Century City and Palms. It's really great to walk through, also to walk the dog in. But it's sufficiently large that walking to Century City from Palms is a hike. It would be desirable for some form of transit--either train or bus--to traverse Cheviot ...regardless of what the moneyed minority desire. Community can cross economic lines and join higher density areas with lower density areas and I don't imagine that gates and walls will surrond Cheviot to prevent the territory's integration into the rest of the city. ...Even if further traffic calming should emerge, a shuttle Motor, at the very least should exist to link Palms with Century City. 20th Century Fox is going to use the hell out of Overland. Had this been open when I lived in SM and commuted to Fox everyday, I wouldn't even have owned a car. Fox alone will heavily incentivize the use for their employees, as parking is a bloody nightmare on the lot and in Fox Plaza.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Feb 5, 2010 16:23:46 GMT -8
The presumption is that the Westwood-Overland station will be the closest one to Century City. Were it not for an inability to traverse Cheviot, the Palms-National station would be closer. ...A shuttle option for either (or both stations) is necessary to enable access to Century City.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 5, 2010 16:39:30 GMT -8
BTW, I couldn't help but notice the price tag has risen dramatically, from the already-high $1 billion to the now exorbitant $1.5 billion. What happened? Two pieces of the cost increase; 1) It's based on year of expenditure dollars of 2015. This has been consistent with other lines once they are nearer to construction because it's adding on 5 years worth of inflation. 2) They are looking at purchasing additional vehicles to operate the line which will drive up the cost. Inflation has been pretty flat for the last three years. Even concrete and steel to some extent. Certainly nothing that would explain a 50% increase.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 8, 2010 17:30:17 GMT -8
Here is what you have been waiting for -- video clips of the approval of Expo Phase 2. Shot with my iPhone, these four clips of ten minutes each are the last 40 minutes of the board meeting that approved Expo Phase 2, which have the comments of the seven board members. The last 40 minutes were a drama, during which Expo Phase 2 was being threatened by Ridley-Thomas's motion not to approve it. His motion had asked for an initial three-month-long Metro grade-crossing study, which would then require redoing the EIR, which would take at least an additional year, and who knows what would happen afterwards. Phase 2 would likely be killed or long-delayed. But Zev made his impressive speech and we also heard good speeches from other board members. At the end the project got approved 6 - 0. Comments are most welcome. (Click on the expanding arrows to watch in full screen and choose 480p for better video and sound quality) Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: Part 4: Or click here to play the entire playlist.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 8, 2010 20:34:05 GMT -8
I need to get some headphones or something because I can't hear what they are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 8, 2010 21:18:49 GMT -8
I need to get some headphones or something because I can't hear what they are saying. Yes, you need to crank up the system volume, YouTube volume, and possibly your loudspeakers all the way up. I was sitting several seats further back at that point and Zev also speaks softly.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 9, 2010 5:09:08 GMT -8
Yes, you need to crank up the system volume, YouTube volume, and possibly your loudspeakers all the way up. I was sitting several seats further back at that point and Zev also speaks softly. Did he also carry a big stick?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 9, 2010 11:09:18 GMT -8
Yes, you need to crank up the system volume, YouTube volume, and possibly your loudspeakers all the way up. I was sitting several seats further back at that point and Zev also speaks softly. Did he also carry a big stick? Well, Zev is our friend and the most ardent supporter of Expo among politicians. And the NIMBYs like NFSR and Fix Expo are afraid of him already, without a stick. You should have seen how Fix Expo tormented Parks and Thorpe though -- very, very wrong it was.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 11, 2010 7:08:28 GMT -8
^ It's a famous proverb, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." This means, the best way to negotiate is with peaceful words and a whole lot of muscle to back it up. See wiki:Big Stick. I learned it from Saturday morning cartoons.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 11, 2010 10:25:14 GMT -8
Would NFSR really file a lawsuit? Because it has serious downsides:
(a) There is a 98% chance that it will fail anyway.
(b) It will make them look very bad in the public eye for trying to derail a very strongly supported project.
(c) A $224-million subway station at Westwood would lead to rezoning of Rancho Park as multiresidential and heavy commercial, what NFSR dreads most.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 11, 2010 11:49:43 GMT -8
Would NFSR really file a lawsuit? Because it has serious downsides: (a) There is a 98% chance that it will fail anyway. (b) It will make them look very bad in the public eye for trying to derail a very strongly supported project. (c) A $224-million subway station at Westwood would lead to rezoning of Rancho Park as multiresidential and heavy commercial, what NFSR dreads most. Unfortunately, I think a lawsuit is inevitable. I hope I am wrong. As for your points, I don't think they care how they look in the public eye. The whole purpose of NFSR is to stop the project. It is not like public opinion is going to hurt them in some other venture, because they have no other ventures. As for a subway station at Westwood and zoning changes, I see what you are saying, but a zoning change isn't necessarily automatic because of this. Hopefully, we see construction start on Phase II in 2010. It will be a big disappointment if it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Feb 11, 2010 12:04:07 GMT -8
Not to defend NFSR........but are they truly against the light rail? I've never heard them say "we need to kill this project". They continuously say "we want light rail, but we want it grade seperated".
So, are some of the board members just putting words in their mouth or are they truly against the project? I don't support them, but at the same time, I don't want to make a false pretense without factual knowledge that they are truly against the project. It sounds like we're getting infiltrated with heresay on this board at times.............
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Feb 11, 2010 13:19:52 GMT -8
Well, you could say stop the project in the sense that the project now has environmental clearance and is basically ready for preliminary engineering. So they would be killing this project. To go and try to grade separate the line at this point would require new funding, and new environmental docs, which would take years.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 11, 2010 14:12:05 GMT -8
Not to defend NFSR........but are they truly against the light rail? I've never heard them say "we need to kill this project". They continuously say "we want light rail, but we want it grade separated". So, are some of the board members just putting words in their mouth or are they truly against the project? I don't support them, but at the same time, I don't want to make a false pretense without factual knowledge that they are truly against the project. It sounds like we're getting infiltrated with heresay on this board at times............. The NFSR team learned early on from Transit Coalition Advisory Board Chair Ken Alpern that you need to be "for something", as you get huge blow back when you just oppose. The gang over at NFSR has many years of experience fighting developments of all types and opposing all sorts of changes. They were smart enough to realize that opposing Light Rail was a lighting rod for attack from the media, other community members and politicians, so the NFSR training kit taught them from the beginning to be a "supporter of Light Rail"...but...it needs to be: a. safer, b. underground, c. choose your point. But, claim to be a supporter. In the earlier years, they had a political out that they lost, which was the Venice / Sepulveda option. Now, you should remember that we are in battle mode here. I will take this opportunity to mention that our nonprofit public charity needs funds to help watch the politicians and detect any stealth operators such as what happened on Phase 1. Please consider giving a gift to a group that keeps on fighting for you: TTC
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 11, 2010 15:10:05 GMT -8
Having seen or talked to the NFSR leaders many times, I can tell you with comfort that they are very much against the project in any form. The reason why they are saying they are for the project but as subway is that if they merely objected it, they would look like plain NIMBYs. I've been following their commnucations and this exact point was mentioned in there.
So, their hope is that if they could push for a subway, they could delay the project for a decade and by that time it becomes more favorable to extend the Purple Line instead -- and Expo is killed. So, this is their entire sinple-minded plan.
But their lawsuit will obviously not be successfull and they will just look very, very bad in public eye as a result, if it ever gets filed. Since these people are professionals, are they really willing to take that risk? Even Fix Expo, whose entire profession seems to be fighting Expo, didn't file a lawsuit after all.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 11, 2010 16:46:58 GMT -8
NFSR will bring a lawsuit, I'm sure. Not because it has a chance of success, but because it represents an opportunity to rally political support for their cause.
Politicians do care about public opinion. Right now, they are supporting Expo, because right now public opinion favors light rail development (and particularly, the Expo project).
By bringing a lawsuit, I'm sure NFSR hopes that it can inspire a major change in public opinion -- call it a suburban revolt -- that is large enough to persuade politicians to change their positions and oppose the project.
(This is certainly what FixExpo hoped to do. And they were partially successful: they were able to rile up the community, who then recruited LAUSD members and Ridley-Thomas to fight for them. This certainly resulted in delays and obstructions, even if it ultimately didn't kill the project or result in a tunnel.)
The only reason NFSR wouldn't file a lawsuit is the price tag.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 11, 2010 17:06:48 GMT -8
Fortunately polticians don't decide the outcomes of lawsuits but judges do. If a lawsuit is filed, it will fail; so, it will be useless.
We know that MRT sides wih the NIMBYs, but the NIMBYs will not side with him because he is asking for rezoning of Rancho Park after a subway.
We know that Koretz symathizes for the NIMBYs because otherwise he would have lost to Vahedi, who was for no one but the NIMBYs.
Outside that Rosendahl voted for Expo above ground.
So, metrocenter, Sir, if a lawsuit is not filed, make sure to donate to the Transit Coalition because you will have lost your bet.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 12, 2010 4:56:50 GMT -8
The NFSR team learned early on from Transit Coalition Advisory Board Chair Ken Alpern that you need to be "for something", as you get huge blow back when you just oppose. The gang over at NFSR has many years of experience fighting developments of all types and opposing all sorts of changes. They were smart enough to realize that opposing Light Rail was a lighting rod for attack from the media, other community members and politicians, so the NFSR training kit taught them from the beginning to be a "supporter of Light Rail"...but...it needs to be: a. safer, b. underground, c. choose your point. But, claim to be a supporter. Concern troll may be the term you're looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 12, 2010 13:52:32 GMT -8
How about "hyprocrite of a troll?"
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 12, 2010 13:54:41 GMT -8
Vermont closed today for completion of the tracks. Rain had prevented work last weekend. Same thing at 28th had happened and so work there happening now as well I guess.
It looks like weather is going to be great for a while.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 12, 2010 15:34:02 GMT -8
So, metrocenter, Sir, if a lawsuit is not filed, make sure to donate to the Transit Coalition because you will have lost your bet. No such bet was made, "sir". What I made was a prediction, based on a reasoned argument. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong: so much the better for Expo. Note, I only predicted that NFSR will pursue legal action - not that they would win. In fact, I think an NFSR action would lose (or be summarily dismissed) because there is no basis for a claim against Metro or Expo. Anyway, I have supported Transit Coalition with my dollars for some time now. I presume you are paid up?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 12, 2010 16:51:37 GMT -8
What I made was a prediction, based on a reasoned argument. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong: so much the better for Expo. You had previously said: NFSR will bring a lawsuit, I'm sure. I guess sure and not sure can mean the same thing. OK, I'm not going to ask for any bet money from you if no lawsuit is filed, but you're still on the record for your strong prediction. Have a nice weekend now.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 12, 2010 17:36:14 GMT -8
By "I'm sure", I mean I am "confident, as of something expected", and "convinced, fully persuaded, or positive" (see definition). I always allow for the possibility of being wrong about future events. I do not pretend to have a 98%-correct crystal ball, as you do: (a) There is a 98% chance that it will fail anyway. Bon soir. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 14, 2010 17:06:01 GMT -8
Here is a summary of the meeting that was the final planning milestone, written by my friend and neighbor Karen (pronounced Kah-ren) Leonard, chair of Light-Rail for Cheviot. Darrell and Sarah contributed as well and there is a link to my video clips of the meeting.Supporters of Phase II of the Expo Line and others, People have asked us for a fuller account of the Feb. 4 meeting than the one in the LAT, so here goes. You could also check the video of the meeting, below (turn up the YouTube volume, system volume, and speaker volume): www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=31A4641CB4B6C7A9The Supervisors' meeting room in the Kenneth Hahn building filled up as the 2 pm meeting time neared. This included some 150 students from Santa Monica College who filed in, all wearing aqua T-shirts with "Expo All the Way to Santa Monica." The meeting was chaired by Herb Wesson who maintained decorum in a way which encouraged supporters and opponents alike to speak and listen respectfully. Some 180 to 200 people filled in speaker cards and were called for one minute speeches to the Board; toward the end, some of these people had left, but a full three hours of testimony occurred from about 2:30 to 5:30. Speakers from NFSR repeated certain statements, like "I'm certainly not against light rail," "we are not NIMBYs," "we just want it underground," "the train will stop cars 2 1/2 minutes out of every 5 (false)," "Overland School will be adversely affected," etc. The range of speakers in support was very wide, including students from UCLA and USC and SMC (above), representatives of businesses and medical institutions and services in Santa Monica, and residents along Phase I and Phase II of the line. Finally speeches were exhausted and Paul Koretz was given a chance to speak as council member for District 5. Bernard Parks had earlier offered to let Koretz vote in his place, as a representative from the Phase II area, but Parks withdrew that offer only a day beforehand. Koretz regretted that he could not vote and indicated that he probably would have voted no; then Koretz spoke in detail about mitigations he would seek given the recommendations of the FEIR. Then other Board members spoke. Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky led off, championing the FEIR and making the motion to certify it. He stressed the need to move forward with Expo and not delay the decision to bring mass public transportation to the Westside, the only part of the city not now served. He mentioned light rail systems in Salt Lake City, Portland, San Francisco, and Sacramento where at-grade crossings are the norm. Los Angeles is a city of suburbs and most of it does not have the density required to make subways financially feasible; this one would cost a quarter of a billion dollars above the cost of at-grade. He commended the Authority for its work on the EIR and moved to certify it without further delay. Then Dan Rosenfeld, head staffer for Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas who had left, spoke about the motions the Supervisor had made before leaving, the first asking for a 90 day delay to reconsider the grade-crossing criteria, before voting on certification, and the second moving for a parkway instead of parking lots at Westwood and Overland. (Sarah and I and F4E people had heard that Ridley-Thomas was asking for reconsideration of the grade-crossing criteria, we think with his goals for the future Crenshaw line in mind, and on Feb. 2 we had met with his staffers to ask that he not hold Expo Phase II hostage to the future Crenshaw line.) Council member Bernard Parks then justified his reassertion of his right to vote on the grounds that, when he saw the grade-crossing criteria being invoked and challenged, he saw the need to vote to keep the criteria consistent all along the line. Scott Malsin spoke for Culver City, and like the two previous speakers he indicated he would vote for the FEIR. Gleam Davis, deputy for Pam O'Connor, who was unable to attend for medical reasons, spoke strongly in favor of the FEIR. Bill Rosendahl, council member, voting in place of Jan Perry, spoke about part of his district 11 being in Santa Monica and said he would vote in favor of the FEIR. Herb Wesson, Chair, did not speak but voted in favor when the vote was finally taken. The vote was finally taken, after Ridley-Thomas's motion to restudy the grade-crossing criteria was defeated (Rosendahl had seconded the motion). The vote to certify the FEIR was six in favor with one abstention (Ridley-Thomas). Two motions put forward by Zev Yaroslavsky were then adopted, the first being to avoid taking a position Feb. 4 on the parking lot vs. parkway issue at Westwood but to include the no parking option in the preliminary engineering study. The second, in agreement with comments by Koretz, proposed that the elevated design option at Sepulveda should include looking for additional funding not from developers during the preliminary engineering study. At about 6:30, the meeting was over and those who had stayed to the end departed. Karen Leonard and Sarah Hays, co-Chairs of Light Rail for Cheviot
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 15, 2010 19:32:30 GMT -8
Nice write up, Karen and Gokkan. You guys have convinced met that at-grade rail, with fences and crossing gates, can be just as fast and safe as a subway or viaduct, all things considered. I do hope that Metro finds funding for the Sepulveda overpass and station, preferably from the developer, so we will have the option of running a future 405/Sepulveda rail line at grade along Sepulveda, and so the buses on Sepulveda can get signal priority in the meantime. The developer of the cement plan parcel should pay for it, for the rewards of getting a valueable light rail station next door. In fact, a land value tax (which would avoid Prop 13) on land near stations would be a great way to fund transit operations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 16, 2010 22:07:16 GMT -8
Latest from NFSR. It looks like some have left NFSR leadership so that they won't look bad in public eye given the overwhelming support for Expo Phase 2. But some others are still failing to have a touch with the reality.Dear Friends and Neighbors, It was no surprise that the Expo Authority Board of Directors voted to certify the Phase 2 FEIR on February 4. What was surprising was the pre-publication of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavskys “yes” vote in a slick PR piece distributed by the Expo Authority’s newly hired public relations firm, Consensus, Inc. His position on the project was never in doubt, but out of respect for constituents, generally the Board members will at least hear public testimony before publicly announcing their vote. Also surprising, was the last minute decision of sitting Expo Board member Bernard Parks to renege on a promise made some weeks ago to allow City Councilmember and Expo Board Alternate Paul Koretz the opportunity to sit in on the vote to certify the Phase 2 FEIR, as it affects CD-5 and not Parks’ district. Coucilmember Koretz was, instead, allowed to make a statement regarding the project. In the statement he identified many of the same FEIR faults pointed out by NFSR over the last three years (flaws in the Metro Grade Crossing Policy, Expo misapplied CEQA regulations evaluating crossings in WLA, and the failure to study grade separations). In addition, Koretz made the bold statement that he would have voted no on the FEIR certification. Please read the Councilmember’s response in its entirety. Also read Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’s letter to MTA Chief Art Leahy about the failures of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy to include safety and environmental considerations. Over 100 local community members carpooled or drove to the Expo board meeting to support the Neighbors For Smart Rail platform asking that the FEIR not be certified until its many deficiencies are remedied, including their failure to study and provide documentation for an underground alignment from Overland to Sepulveda. Thanks to all who came and spoke to the Expo Board, or lent their support to those who did. The importance of getting community input on the record cannot be overstated. The politicians need to see a critical mass of people opposing this project as designed. It is also vital to protest Expo’s sloppy environmental evaluation devised to mask impacts and overstate the benefits of running these trains at grade though our residential community as often as every 2 ½ minutes, 22 hours a day for the next 75 years. It is necessary that Expo understand our community resolve for them to, “Build it right or don’t build it.” CEQA Attorney Robert Silverstein presented NFSR’s response to the FEIR along with a banker’s box of evidence documenting the FEIR’s CEQA failures. Attorney Silverstein will be representing NFSR through the filing of a Writ of Mandate, and any subsequent trial. There were supporters of Expo’s plans present as well. Their support was for the line as proposed, with few if any comments from them on impacts other than the need to preserve the coral trees on Olympic and to relocate the maintenance yard to protect the quality of life in the Santa Monica neighborhood adjacent. The biggest chunk of the “go Expo” crew were the two busloads of students in aqua t-shirts from Santa Monica College, who stated for the record that they were there because they were given “extra credit” from the college for attending. Three commercial real estate developers from Santa Monica, including one who claimed to represent several thousand hospitality workers in Santa Monica hotels, are also anxious to get the train up and running. Clearly development and commerce in Santa Monica depends on Expo speeding through the residential community of West Los Angeles ASAP. So, where do we go from here? NFSR is holding an Expo Light Rail community meeting on February 21, from 1:00 to 3:00pm ( details here) to discuss where we are and the next steps in our legal challenge, and most important, fund raising strategies and public relations. The meeting will be at Palms Park Recreation Center, 2950 Overland Avenue (at National). We need your help, your ideas, your financial support! Thanks for your continued interest in community preservation in the Expo environment. Colleen Mason Heller CHHA Light Rail Chair NFSR Vice President
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 18, 2010 11:34:34 GMT -8
Our very own Ken Alpern provided the following thoughtful commentary on the recent approval of the Expo Phase II FEIR. The link is here. EXPOsing the Westside to Mass Transit…Finally!MovingLABy Ken AlpernWell, the Westside, to say nothing of the greater City and County of Los Angeles, now has a political and moral imperative to truly address how mass transit will interact with the many far flung neighborhoods through which the Expo Line and other passenger rail lines will someday traverse. After last Thursday’s long and interesting session on the Exposition Line Construction Authority, where much public testimony was aired and considerable political maneuvering occurred, when push came to shove the Authority Board voted 6-0 (not 7-0, because Mark Ridley-Thomas did not vote) to approve the Expo Line Phase 2 EIR. Yes, Virginia, the Expo Line will actually make it to West L.A., Santa Monica and the beach, and the long effort by the grassroots Friends4Expo Transit (www.friends4expo.org) to create a light rail that parallels (and effectively offers an alternative/addition to the capacity of) the I-10 freeway, as illustrated by the map on its website below: While some will cringe and recoil, and others will gloat and smirk, I think the right approach is for the Expo Authority, the Westside/Mid-City political cadre, and grassroots entities to be more civil than ever and to confront the logical…while fighting the emotional. This light rail line is meant to benefit the neighborhoods through which it traverses, be it Rancho Park, Santa Monica, Palms, Culver City, Crenshaw, USC, etc. It is also going to create unavoidable impacts, and the impacts must be weighed against the benefits.; At two locations—USC and Dorsey High School, there have been failed political and legal efforts to create a mega-expensive subway portion of the Expo Line as a way to mitigate for a light rail line that (by its very nature) is meant to normally run at ground level and to fit into neighborhoods in ways that subways and freeways never can. So it is therefore not out of cruelty but a desire to save money, time and grief for Westsiders concerned about the Expo Line’s impacts when I remind these Westsiders about the unsuccessful underground-Expo-Line ventures at USC and Dorsey High School. It’s not just “you can’t fight City Hall” because you can—but the legality and practicality of asking for a $250 million or more tunnel under Overland and Westwood Blvds. has to be seen as risky. But I do encourage those who raise concerns—as I have and will continue to do—to make their case wherever possible, preferably through compromise but, if the shoe fits, in court. It’s your right, it’s your taxpayer and private dollars at stake, and it’s a benefit of living in a free society…but please realize: 1) There is extraordinary local, state and federal support (even though the feds aren’t paying for it, they’ve got to approve it) for the Expo Line, and the I-10 freeway ain’t getting any less easy to drive in either direction. 2) An “evaluation of all possible alternatives” includes rail bridges as well as subways (a bridge costs $30-40 million, unlike subway portions that are hundreds of millions of dollars), so if you don’t want a visually intrusive rail bridge next to Overland Avenue Elementary School or in the middle of Rancho Park you might understand why the Expo Authority came to the conclusion that an at-grade option — despite its inherent problems — was the least of all evils. 3) An at-grade crossing, with gates and all, effectively means an extra traffic signal on Overland and Westwood every five minutes or so (less frequently when it’s not peak hour operations), one that (as with all signals) takes about 30-60 seconds or so; I don’t deny hating to be stuck at a red light, but it’s not the end of the world. So…what’s next, as the line goes from the EIR phase to the Preliminary Engineering phase? Well, there are certain items that the EIR left open for exploration and evaluation, and there are certain City efforts that are even more important than the Authority’s—it bears repeating, but most of the problems that Westsiders had and will have with the Expo Line lie in the failure of L.A. City Planning, and absolutely NOT with the Expo Authority. 1) Sepulveda should be grade-separated with a rail bridge, and paid for either by Metro or by the City of L.A., and NOT by the adjacent Casden developers who would more likely be granted a variance to create a megaproject entirely out of character with that neighborhood, if not region. BOTH the at-grade and rail bridge options have been approved by the LADOT, unlike Westwood and Overland which were approved at-grade, and BOTH can and should be evaluated during Preliminary Engineering. 2) There should be more parking at the Sepulveda station, and virtually none at the Westwood station, with the Sepulveda station being a “regional” station accommodating Westside, South Bay and San Fernando Valley commuter access to the line (it’ll probably be the closest thing to a Metrolink station the Westside will ever have). 3) A Regional Transportation Center accommodating rail, bus, bicycle, car and all other transportation options, belongs at or adjacent to the Sepulveda station (pursuant to the above point). 4) Serious planning and transportation issues need to be revisited at Westwood, with lanes narrowed, bicycle lanes or sharrows established, sidewalks redone and as many trees preserved as possible to retain the residential character of that neighborhood. The Exposition/Westwood station should be a “neighborhood station” with only bus, bicycle and pedestrian access. 5) Better traffic planning for north-south access between National and Pico is in order, because the question of whether the Rancho Park portion of Westwood Blvd. needs to retain its residential character needs answering. Sepulveda and Overland are much, MUCH better alternatives to be utilized for 405/10 freeway access, and the widening/restriping of those two streets as part of Expo Line mitigation might offer an opportunity to address longstanding traffic problems. 6) Create an adjacent Expo Bikeway and north-south bicycle connections to Sepulveda and Westwood—both the City of Los Angeles and the Expo Authority deserve to be taken to task for punting this issue to each other, and it’s downright embarrassing that the Expo Bikeway question still remains unanswered. 7) Make the Expo Right of Way between Sepulveda and Overland a “Palms Park West” that is so green, tree-lined and attractive that the region will wonder why the heck anyone ever opposed the Expo Line to begin with. 8) Nail down police/traffic/safety issues now, and not wait for “incidents” to occur—While it’s good to know that Metro, the Sheriff’s Department and the LAPD are enhancing their enforcement of illegal activities of motorists and pedestrians on the Blue and Gold Lines, the Westside (as with all regions) deserve to have this enforcement consistently applied. Equally important is the need to have sheriff’s deputies routinely assigned to Expo Line stations and to trains so that everyone can feel safe and secure on MetroRail. As the rhetoric ends and the reality begins for the Expo Line, it’s paramount for all of us to confront the challenges of Westside mass transit. Change is always scary, but I don’t doubt Westsiders will easily be more than up to the task. Oh, and a quick P.S.: Meaning no disrespect to either Bernard Parks or Mark Ridley-Thomas, but speaking of ending the rhetoric and beginning the reality, I suspect that any end to an Overland Ave. Expo Line undercrossing also means an end to the complete subway portion of the Crenshaw Corridor Light Rail Line below Crenshaw Blvd. where it fails Metro Grade Crossing Guidelines to do that. On the other hand, the money saved can pay for a northern extension that MUST be a subway to the Wilshire Corridor, so it’s probably more of a gain than a loss (again, after the rhetoric ends). (Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) -cw
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 18, 2010 11:54:38 GMT -8
One day, I hope to see a major transportation hub located at Wilshire/Westwood or Wilshire/Sepulveda, where the 405 Line will cross the Purple and Pink Lines. But who knows when all of that will happen.
In the mean time, I wholeheartedly agree that Sepulveda/Expo represents a fantastic opportunity for a convergence of Westside transportation options. There are four properties of that location that make this an excellent site:
(1) access to the 405 and 10 freeways, (2) the coming Expo Line, (3) proximity to major boulevards and destinations, (4) reasonable buffering distance from (lower impact on) local residents.
If well planned, this project would provide connections to rail, bike, bus and taxi services. It could also connect to a future 405 Line, or at minimum, a 405 LAX express bus line.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 19, 2010 0:10:33 GMT -8
Thanx for the quote, metrocenter. I think that a Sepulveda/Expo/Pico/405/10 intersection for the Expo Line will make folks really start thinking about how the next two Westside rail lines (the Wilshire Subway and the 405 line--whatever that is) will be configured into the Westside.
|
|