|
Post by erict on Jun 2, 2010 13:30:05 GMT -8
Yeah but the FEIR is almost done, or is done, and just needs to be certified. We are practically at the stage of breaking ground on this line. It seem kind of late in the game to try and stop it - much like South Pasadena tried to stop the Gold line, and the SFV tried to stop the Orange Line, and even the Red lines endless woes. The only line that I don't recall any community opposition was the Green line, maybe because I was unaware of the opposition. Everything Metro does is opposed by some group.
I recently saw some picture of when they built the subway in New York, and the tore up the entire street- everything, including sidewalks. Imagine Metro trying to do that today.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 2, 2010 14:05:08 GMT -8
"Practically at the stage of breaking ground," ...yes. But I'm seeing how work at Farmdale was held up and the expense involved to re-architect and engineer the line to include a crossing. Can't help but wonder what an enterprising mind could achieve at Overland, next to the elementary school.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 2, 2010 14:20:49 GMT -8
Yeah but the FEIR is almost done, or is done, and just needs to be certified. We are practically at the stage of breaking ground on this line. The FEIR is done, but NFSR's lawsuit claims the FEIR is invalid due to violations of procedure and of environmental law. The only line that I don't recall any community opposition was the Green line, maybe because I was unaware of the opposition. The Green Line doesn't connect to the Norwalk Metrolink Station precisely because it was halted by the community and city opposition in Norwalk. The Green Line itself was built as a mitigation for the Century Freeway which was infamous for the community opposition it instigated. Unlike Metro's light rail project, the I-105 project actually displaced thousands of people and destroyed whole neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 2, 2010 14:29:54 GMT -8
I'm heartened by the idea of a judge ruling on their objection rather than politicians.
The rail opposition folks are stirring up a lot of people, particularly west of Overland and east of Overland adjacent to the ROW ; we're not reaching out to the community, churning up support like they are, which would be needed in a political fight, which to some degree describes Farmdale.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 3, 2010 8:34:10 GMT -8
The time has come for some organizing and action on the pro-Expo side. Sure would hate to see this project die on the vine.
The good news is: right now most of the politicians that have a say in Expo's future are all for it. This is a small, local but vocal neighborhood that happens to have lots of money and an exagerrated sense of self-importance. And so they are fighting this project which, to everybody else, is clearly a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 8, 2010 15:58:34 GMT -8
I snapped this photo of an Amtrak advertisement that looked eerily similar to Expo's anti-rail ad: Compare to: and:
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 9, 2010 6:27:52 GMT -8
Yeah but the FEIR is almost done, or is done, and just needs to be certified. We are practically at the stage of breaking ground on this line. The FEIR is done, but NFSR's lawsuit claims the FEIR is invalid due to violations of procedure and of environmental law. The only line that I don't recall any community opposition was the Green line, maybe because I was unaware of the opposition. The Green Line doesn't connect to the Norwalk Metrolink Station precisely because it was halted by the community and city opposition in Norwalk. The Green Line itself was built as a mitigation for the Century Freeway which was infamous for the community opposition it instigated. Unlike Metro's light rail project, the I-105 project actually displaced thousands of people and destroyed whole neighborhoods. Tragically, the reason the Green Line didn't make it to the South Bay Galleria the first time was, in part, community opposition from Lawndale. In that era, local opposition could do a lot more than it can now, where the political will has shifted so much towards getting the right project built the first time.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 9, 2010 10:39:42 GMT -8
I guess I missed out on the Green line fun since I had not lived here yet. It is tragic that it did not get to three important locations, LAX, Metrolink past Norwalk, and the South Bay Galleria...but still I think the future is bright for this line to nowhere, once Crenshaw and LAX are built. The true potential of the green line is it's amazing speed, in spite of all the downsides.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 9, 2010 21:33:43 GMT -8
I guess I missed out on the Green line fun since I had not lived here yet. It is tragic that it did not get to three important locations, LAX, Metrolink past Norwalk, and the South Bay Galleria...but still I think the future is bright for this line to nowhere, once Crenshaw and LAX are built. The true potential of the green line is it's amazing speed, in spite of all the downsides. Very well said! I always thought that the Green Line, despite its shortcomings, would be something that Metro planners would be grateful to have in future years. With the Crenshaw and South Bay Green Line extensions in the works, the next logical steps will soon occur. ...and don't be surprised, if the Green Line gets connected and/or extended to the Westside and South Bay, and there's a CAHSR, that Norwalk will again want to reconsider its own connection with Metrolink.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2010 7:11:28 GMT -8
IIRC Norwalk would only allow the Green Line east of the 605 (1-1/2 miles I think) if it were a subway. LOL echoes from the past, everybody wants a subway!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jun 10, 2010 13:27:10 GMT -8
in some ways, the Green Line connection to LAX might be easier than the extension to the Norwalk Metrolink.
In Norwalk, the Green Line is completely boxed in at Studebaker, which would seem to require a tunnel of some sort, but probably not all the way to the Metrolink Station. Once you reach Imperial, it's a straight shot to the train station (with maybe a station at Firestone), but it's that tight-knit residential neighborhood that's going to be trouble (from an engineering standpoint at the very least)
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 10, 2010 22:15:20 GMT -8
In Norwalk, the Green Line is completely boxed in at Studebaker, which wouldseem to require a tunnel of some sort, but probably not all the way to the Metrolink Station. Once you reach Imperial, it's a straight shot to the train station (with maybe a station at Firestone), but it's that tight-knit residential neighborhood that's going to be trouble (from an engineering standpoint at the very least) Couldn't the trains make a tight left turn into the middle of Studebaker, and then turn right and head down the center of Imperial Hwy to the Metrolink station? The turn radius might have to be tight, resulting in low speeds. If the small house at the corner could be bought or acquired thru eminent domain, the curve radius would be useable. The CVS pharmacy at the corner of Studebaker and Imperial could easily be acquired and rebuilt after construction. The trains could be elevated above the street median in this section, if traffic impacts are the main concern, but along Imperial Hwy there are no residential areas fronting on the street, and not even street parking along with the 7 lanes or more for traffic. A subway would be quite out of place.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jun 11, 2010 8:57:39 GMT -8
In Norwalk, the Green Line is completely boxed in at Studebaker, which wouldseem to require a tunnel of some sort, but probably not all the way to the Metrolink Station. Once you reach Imperial, it's a straight shot to the train station (with maybe a station at Firestone), but it's that tight-knit residential neighborhood that's going to be trouble (from an engineering standpoint at the very least) Couldn't the trains make a tight left turn into the middle of Studebaker, and then turn right and head down the center of Imperial Hwy to the Metrolink station? The turn radius might have to be tight, resulting in low speeds. If the small house at the corner could be bought or acquired thru eminent domain, the curve radius would be useable. The CVS pharmacy at the corner of Studebaker and Imperial could easily be acquired and rebuilt after construction. The trains could be elevated above the street median in this section, if traffic impacts are the main concern, but along Imperial Hwy there are no residential areas fronting on the street, and not even street parking along with the 7 lanes or more for traffic. A subway would be quite out of place. Thing about an elevated line on Imperial Hwy, it would have to be quite high at two points: crossing over the railroad tracks (Union Pacific?) that are about a block west of Firestone Blvd, then again to cross the Santa Ana freeway. I was thinking a short subway under Studebaker (since the existing tracks are already below street grade), then resurface east of Studebaker on Imperial. The ideal alignment would be a subway on a diagonal from Studebaker to Imperial and then surfacing, but no way that will fly. I'm sure many people in Norwalk still remember the "Metro Sinkhole" in Hollywood 15 years ago, and won't be too keen on having a subway under their homes.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 11, 2010 9:04:22 GMT -8
Opponents of an elevated train structure down Imperial argued (with some justification) that such a structure would further divide Norwalk and separate its neighborhoods. This aversion to elevated structures came from Norwalk's experience with the elevated I-5, I-605 and I-105 freeways, which created walls that permanently divided the city into pieces.
Keep in mind, the Norwalk experience (with freeways) was and still is relatively recent, and bitterness still exists in some people's memories.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 12, 2010 5:54:27 GMT -8
Please understand that the old study about the Green Line East extension suggested that the tunnel was only slightly more expensive (virtually the same) as the elevated line. Please count me in as one of those who favor the tunnel...and I suspect an updated EIR would suggest the same conclusion, if it's ever done.
Once the Green Line extensions to LAX and the South Bay are under way, and once the CAHSR is under way, this obvious gap will be more glaring to all. Don't worry--it might take another 20-30 years, but this issue won't just go away.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 12, 2010 5:55:05 GMT -8
On another note, should Phase 2 construction begin early next year, is it possible to have limited service to Palms?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jun 12, 2010 9:32:06 GMT -8
Ken, well expressed point. I've thought this all along since the uncompromising stance of the Phase II rail opposition became evident.
Population density in the Palms area suggests that popular support in the area would exist. No one that I've heard of is challenging construction to Palms.
Furthermore, I think there's a dire need for the Venice Bl. pedestrian bridge (now!). 9 lines of traffic is a pretty big stretch to cross even with crosswalks and crossing lights. Thus, construction of the pedestrian bridge in conjunction with the rail bridge sooner rather than later offers dividends to the Venice station as well.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 28, 2010 11:03:24 GMT -8
I'm driving a shuttle for UCLA until July 30th, And as I went up Westwood Blvd. from National I saw a lot of signs from the Nimby's until I got close to the Westside Pavilion, then I see no more signs anywhere. I wonder if anyone north of Pico really cares about the Nimby message?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 28, 2010 11:47:23 GMT -8
There are some signs on Overland north of Pico. These are mostly the signs that say "Don't Let Expo Block Our Roads".
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 28, 2010 11:52:18 GMT -8
There are some signs on Overland north of Pico. These are mostly the signs that say "Don't Let Expo Block Our Roads". People don't get it that a light-rail crossing with crossing-arm gates blocks the street less than a regular traffic signal.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 29, 2010 8:07:31 GMT -8
There are some signs on Overland north of Pico. These are mostly the signs that say "Don't Let Expo Block Our Roads". People don't get it that a light-rail crossing with crossing-arm gates blocks the street less than a regular traffic signal. People also think that the roads near their houses are theirs alone, for their exclusive use. Maybe they should investigate the phrase "public property" for its not-so-hidden meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 29, 2010 14:58:56 GMT -8
People don't get it that a light-rail crossing with crossing-arm gates blocks the street less than a regular traffic signal. People also think that the roads near their houses are theirs alone, for their exclusive use. Maybe they should investigate the phrase "public property" for its not-so-hidden meaning. Yes, those territorial NIMBYs, who think they are at the center of the world! Do you know Mr. Clint Simmons of Fix Expo who lives on Exposition a few blocks west of La Brea has had Exposition K-railed at La Brea so that strangers can't come to his neighborhood?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 31, 2010 16:52:42 GMT -8
With the Fox and Sony Studios, and Century City sandwiching Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park and with increased business density to the West—projects like the Water Gardens complex at Olympic & Cloverfield, possibly the Bundy Village plan and others—the need is and will become increased housing density to avoid commute time.
I can only imagine that increases in residential density are inevitable and should be planned for along corridors like the Expo Line, perhaps including Manning and National northward and perhaps Overland & Exposition westward. Increased parcel usage density can require freeing additional land for open space and in the process create a walkable and more livable community.
None of our communities on the Westside of LA are static; change has been constant. We may be witnessing a natural movement towards urbanization, which if embraced can also lead to much richer and enjoyable neighborhoods whose residents eventually find themselves less reliant on private transportation, and happy about it!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 10, 2010 16:11:56 GMT -8
Terri Tippit's NFSR took Alex Kasperavicius's train-simulation video and turned it into a ridiculous cheap horror flick, violating copyrights. Although, I laughed so hard when I watched it:
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Aug 10, 2010 19:41:21 GMT -8
Hi everyone, I'm new around here, been lurking on the website for months . I'm excited for this line to come in, especially since I'm looking into moving to either DT LA or Santa Monica in the new couple of years. It will be great to take a train to either areas without my car! Any updates as to when NFSR and Metro go to court? I'm anxious to see this nipped in the bud for good. These Nimby's are really boiling my blood, as well as the soon to be Nimby's of Beverly Hills that will try and block the subway to Century City (My current work area). Ugh. BTW, I saw the above video on Youtube the other day. The soundtrack is hilarious, and I can't see anyone taking this seriously!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 10, 2010 19:57:44 GMT -8
From the YouTube comments under the NFSR video. Haha. All I said was that the Gold Line incident at Del Mar was ruled a suicide by police. In any case, Alex could file a complaint with YouTube and get it taken down. They don't just use snippets of his video, but the entire thing. They also fail to give him credit. Here's the link where he can review the process to submit a complaint: www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy
|
|
|
Post by Bart Reed on Aug 10, 2010 20:52:32 GMT -8
From the YouTube comments under the NFSR video. Haha. All I said was that the Gold Line incident at Del Mar was ruled a suicide by police. In any case, Alex could file a complaint with YouTube and get it taken down. They don't just use snippets of his video, but the entire thing. They also fail to give him credit. Here's the link where he can review the process to submit a complaint: www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policyAlex is making a copy of the video. He has already filed to have it removed, so you've got a small bit of time to see it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Aug 10, 2010 23:22:21 GMT -8
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH! I had to come out of hiding and rehab to express the nefarious guilty joy I felt at watching that demented train wreck (yes, I made a funny ha-ha)! So does this mean if she gets sued, she'll have to use money from the NFSR coffers to pay damages?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 11, 2010 1:22:11 GMT -8
Somewhere, James Horner is weeping.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 11, 2010 1:28:16 GMT -8
My message to the maker via YouTube messaging: "That video you made on the Expo Line is a joke, right? P.S. Next time, use music that wasn't composed for one of the most successful films of all-time. It will make your video seem less ridiculous. Love, Phil"
|
|