f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 7, 2017 11:20:08 GMT -8
At what point was the neighborhood given a choice between an elevated grade crossing or an at grade crossing?
My understanding of the history of this crossing goes like this: Friends of Expo, pitching the line to the community and city propose a below grade crossing. Later it is determined that a below grade crossing would be too costly due to the submerged year round stream. The community (those accepting of the line in the first place) maintains its desire for a below grade solution and holds firm. Metro offers renderings and cost projections for an above grade crossing (because the EIR requires it) yet in no way commits to an above grade crossing. The community holds firm in its wishes to see the crossing below ground. Metro then conspires with LADoT to widen Overland Avenue to 'make the numbers work' and a solution is presented: it will be an at grade-crossing. There really wasn't a good faith choice offered, was there? Did Metro in its outreach to the neighborhood ever say 'here is where we are. We either build at-grade or above. If the communtiy has an interest now is the time to choose. What say you?"
Bottom line the additional lanes and overall wider lane widths has resulted in greater speeds. Accidents on Overland between Ashby and Coventry have increased since the lane additions. The Expo Line hasn't caused the accidents but decisions on how the Expo Line was built have.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Nov 7, 2017 14:26:32 GMT -8
I hate open old wounds but when you mention "community" you mean the Nimby's in our neighborhood. There was never an across the line support for the group called Neighbors for Safe Rail that you now generalize as "The community" that advocated the underground solution for the Expo line. Friends of Expo actually was in favor for looking at different solutions like an above ground crossing at Overland and Westwood. Neighbors for Safe Rail went on to sue Metro all the way to the Cal. Supreme Court and lost. Sepulveda originally designed as an at grade crossing became the peace offering as an above grade crossing. In my opinion Expo should have been above grade from Overland to Centinela although the cost for this now very popular line would have skyrocketed. I'm very happy with how the line turned out, I use it a lot and I'm sure that the flow of traffic will adjust itself to this new situation in a couple of years. Maybe by then we can get rid of this ridiculous third lane and also maybe Farmdale... and who knows maybe LADOT will actually make the downtown crossings more Public Transportation friendly.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 7, 2017 16:08:12 GMT -8
I hadn't any particular organization in mind when I described those in favor of a below grade crossing as 'the community'. There are all kinds of people in the community who love the train and see it as the boon that it is ( I am one) —among them are a great many who would have liked to have seen a better solution than the one that was rendered.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 8, 2017 17:04:21 GMT -8
I hadn't any particular organization in mind when I described those in favor of a below grade crossing as 'the community'. There are all kinds of people in the community who love the train and see it as the boon that it is ( I am one) —among them are a great many who would have liked to have seen a better solution than the one that was rendered. I recall you moved here after Expo Phase 2 construction had began so I will give you a pass on your fuzzy memory. Most of the people in favor of Expo phase 2 either supported or rather accepted that elevated crossing was the best solution at Overland crossing. The preliminary design called for elevated structure over Overland due to the storm drain before transitioning to surface ROW before Westwood and then elevated again over Sepulveda. To be fair, the structure was going to be very large because of the fact that the train was coming up from below grade thru Cheviot Hill between Motor Ave and Overland - so it had a long way to climb (a very large elevation change). It was the NIMBY group that went by the nonsensical "Neighbors for Safe Rail" that wanted a full underground tunnel or trench in this area. They knew that arguing for underground would blow out the budget and doom the line, which was their intention all along. They bankrolled a civil rights lawsuit from Damion Newton's assorted front organizations on the ground that Metro's phase 2 grade crossing policy was discriminatory and didn't go thru enough review (because Phase 1 was designed with very few grade separation and went thru mostly minority neighborhoods, while Phase 2 had lots of grade separation and went thru mostly white neighborhood). Metro end up settling that lawsuit and change its grade crossing policy as a result and Overland and Sepulveda got downgraded to surface crossing. This design was carried thru EIR and start of construction. Neighobrs for Safe Rail then filed another lawsuit itself, this time on phase 2 EIR claiming Metro didn't model the traffic impact based on current traffic pattern but instead estimated impact in the future (which is generally the practice). They lost that case in CA Supreme Court. But you can see the clear cause and effect here... had that NIMBY group not try to engineer the first civil rights lawsuit, we probably would have grade separation at Overland. And after the Expo phase 2 design was locked in, the City of LA found enough money to pay for Sepulveda grade separation because it is in a different City Council district and the late City Councilman Bill Rosendahl had support from his district constituents to go after grade separation. There was no appetite by the Koretz to change Overland because the neighborhood didn't have any consensus on supporting overhead crossing.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Nov 8, 2017 18:01:59 GMT -8
bzcat, I appreciate the clarification. It's true, I moved to the neighborhood after Phase 2 commenced and in part because Expo was being built nearby. My recollection of events is fuzzy because I've been playing catch-up ever since and find myself trying to reconcile many versions of events presented to me by various parties. I'm familar with intentions of the so called NIMBY groups and their various intentions to scuttle the project any way they could. I've also made the acquaintence of several Friends of Expo who've shared with me stories as well as renderings and proposals. Its from one of those FoEs that I learned of the intitial proposal for a below grade crossing. Your version of events omits that. So you can see where these various contradictions to events just isn't adding up to a comprehensible narrative.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Nov 9, 2017 22:45:28 GMT -8
I recall you moved here after Expo Phase 2 construction had began so I will give you a pass on your fuzzy memory. Most of the people in favor of Expo phase 2 either supported or rather accepted that elevated crossing was the best solution at Overland crossing. The preliminary design called for elevated structure over Overland due to the storm drain before transitioning to surface ROW before Westwood and then elevated again over Sepulveda. To be fair, the structure was going to be very large because of the fact that the train was coming up from below grade thru Cheviot Hill between Motor Ave and Overland - so it had a long way to climb (a very large elevation change). It was the NIMBY group that went by the nonsensical "Neighbors for Safe Rail" that wanted a full underground tunnel or trench in this area. They knew that arguing for underground would blow out the budget and doom the line, which was their intention all along. They bankrolled a civil rights lawsuit from Damion Newton's assorted front organizations on the ground that Metro's phase 2 grade crossing policy was discriminatory and didn't go thru enough review (because Phase 1 was designed with very few grade separation and went thru mostly minority neighborhoods, while Phase 2 had lots of grade separation and went thru mostly white neighborhood). Metro end up settling that lawsuit and change its grade crossing policy as a result and Overland and Sepulveda got downgraded to surface crossing. This design was carried thru EIR and start of construction. Neighobrs for Safe Rail then filed another lawsuit itself, this time on phase 2 EIR claiming Metro didn't model the traffic impact based on current traffic pattern but instead estimated impact in the future (which is generally the practice). They lost that case in CA Supreme Court. But you can see the clear cause and effect here... had that NIMBY group not try to engineer the first civil rights lawsuit, we probably would have grade separation at Overland. And after the Expo phase 2 design was locked in, the City of LA found enough money to pay for Sepulveda grade separation because it is in a different City Council district and the late City Councilman Bill Rosendahl had support from his district constituents to go after grade separation. There was no appetite by the Koretz to change Overland because the neighborhood didn't have any consensus on supporting overhead crossing. A couple corrections: - The NIMBY group was called Neighbors For Smart Rail
- I think you mean Damien Goodmon, the same guy behind Farmdale and crying racism for Crenshaw running at-grade when the street is stupid wide, not Damien Newton of Streetsblog fame
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 13, 2017 16:06:09 GMT -8
Yes, Damien Goodmon. Not Newton. I'm a big fan of Damien Newton
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 13, 2017 16:12:32 GMT -8
bzcat, I appreciate the clarification. It's true, I moved to the neighborhood after Phase 2 commenced and in part because Expo was being built nearby. My recollection of events is fuzzy because I've been playing catch-up ever since and find myself trying to reconcile many versions of events presented to me by various parties. I'm familar with intentions of the so called NIMBY groups and their various intentions to scuttle the project any way they could. I've also made the acquaintence of several Friends of Expo who've shared with me stories as well as renderings and proposals. Its from one of those FoEs that I learned of the intitial proposal for a below grade crossing. Your version of events omits that. So you can see where these various contradictions to events just isn't adding up to a comprehensible narrative. Below grade crossing in a trench was proposed by several advocacy groups and was included in the early alternative study but it never made it to the design of Phase 2. As soon as the scope of the storm drain issue became known, most rational people knew it wasn't going to happen. Metro's preliminary design included an aerial crossing option based on the grade crossing policy and it moved to DEIR. Then came the grade crossing policy lawsuits, which basically scuttled the aerial crossing during the EIR process. To be fair, some people in the neighborhood did not like the huge aerial structure and preferred to deal with grade crossing. And the NIMBY group exploited those sentiments and the fact that earlier alternative study had include the possibility of a trench from Overland to Westwood.
|
|