|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 2, 2009 13:43:53 GMT -8
In the past 2 years I've been to environmental meetings regarding rail in probably every part of the county except the SFV and upper SGV.
First of all, I've NEVER EVER heard anyone talk about crime, race or class when expressing their concerns or resistance to a project. Doesn't mean someone hasn't - I don't pretend to have gone to EVERY meeting. But those that are expressing those sentiments are very likely few and far between.
Does that mean that no one thinks a station is a crime magnet or there isn't one person who believes that people from East LA are going to hop on a train steal their flat screen and use the train to take it home? No. But very few - if any people - are going to shell out a grand for attorneys and convince their HOA to shell out $10-20K just because a couple of people think crime is going to increase if rail stations are added in the middle of thoroughfares. And attempting to characterize those things as the driving factor in community resistance to some Metro projects is a cop-out and only avoids discussing the common concerns of traffic impacts, safety, community cohesion, and to a lesser extent over-development: issues, which are legitimate and which there is mountains of data and studies to validate the concerns.
Spend the money to mitigate the system appropriately, and when possible place the stations/transit on thoroughfares and see the support rise. And in the process Metro will build projects that are better for the region.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 14:27:41 GMT -8
Whether they express that opinion or not, my anecdotal experience is that is behind at least some opposition to rail. I know that I read an article about some rail meeting not that long ago where crime was mentioned, but I can't remember where or what or I would link it. I also remember crime being a big concern for some in El Segundo when they 105 fwy was being built. We'll have to see what happens. I'll be happy to be 100% wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Jan 2, 2009 16:51:11 GMT -8
Does that mean that no one thinks a station is a crime magnet or there isn't one person who believes that people from East LA are going to hop on a train steal their flat screen and use the train to take it home? No. But very few - if any people - are going to shell out a grand for attorneys and convince their HOA to shell out $10-20K just because a couple of people think crime is going to increase if rail stations are added in the middle of thoroughfares. Fears of increased crime are as frivolous and unfounded as most other NIMBY anti-rail claims, yet we see these all of these types of objections against these projects, despite the difficulties you have outlined. |
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 2, 2009 17:44:11 GMT -8
No. It's quite the opposite. A busy train station can be a deterrant against crime. A well lit train station with surveillance cameras is a place where theft, drug dealing, and violence won't go unnoticed.
Imagine a seeing two dozen people waiting on the station platform. Any one of them can be an undercover police officer, or a good samaritan who will notify the police.
Now compare that to being in a dark alley, or an empty bus stop. Wouldn't you feel safer waiting for a train ??
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 17:56:44 GMT -8
You're totally missing the point. People that would use that as an excuse against rail aren't worried about crime against transit riders, they're worried about transit riders committing crimes in their neighborhoods.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 2, 2009 18:24:55 GMT -8
Bluelineshawn is correct. While I don't hear too much anti-crime-quasi-racism quotes discussed publicly (or at least nearly as much as in the past), the discussions in the past--privately, amongst neighbors and within small groups of homeowners--have brought these issues to the fore a lot more than I wish.
I honestly do think that the arguments have changed, whatwith the prolonged time/distance our City has had since the Rodney King/L.A. Riots/O.J. Simpson verdicts that tore us apart a few years ago. I honestly believe that more white, Westside, affluent individuals are considering using mass transit than ever could have been predicted ten or more years ago. I think that this is a very, very good thing.
Still, the discussions held publicly still have those pepperings of "who's going to use this train, anyhow?" from the usual suspects who (I'm afraid) we've heard from for years when they said less appropriate things.
Even today, there are private discussions that I've heard aplenty about gangmembers (not so much about individuals of color, but gangmembers, which leads to all sorts of sidetracking discussions of how we've addressed--or not addressed--gangs and race relations in the City of L.A.).
In all frankness, Damien--and I think you're smart enough and savvy enough to suspect or even know this, already--there are many things that some of those labelled on this Board as NIMBY's might say to myself (or another white Westsider) that they wouldn't have the guts to say directly to an African-American from the Mid-City.
I still think that the discussions should be kept to traffic, visual/noise impact, safety and (with respect to proper county sheriff patrols) crime. To an interesting extent, Damien, the bridgebuilding that you've done against the Expo Line Authority has helped keep things focused on these aforementioned issues instead of just race (all too often, discussions about crime all-too-often degenerate into issues of race, so "crime" is often a code word for other, less savory, topics).
Heck, even our President-Elect is of mixed-race, and our City and our county and our country is really moving beyond race!
...but don't get any silly ideas, Damien, that many of those who scream about traffic and other rail impacts because of a lack of grade-separation when they see you in a crowded room wouldn't include a few other old-fashioned and outdated arguments if you weren't in the room, and the group gathered was a smaller, private group of neighbors...and I think you kind of know that already...
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 3, 2009 9:45:26 GMT -8
If the Crenshaw line uses the Harbor Sub in Inglewood as light rail (and that seems to be where it's headed) doesn't that pretty much eliminate any other mode from consideration? I don't think it would eliminate it right off the bat, because this is such a large corridor there are pieces that could work as both Light Rail (extention of the Green Line) and Metrolink. The point is, that this is early in the study. For example to meet that growing demand in the South Bay and even a few tourists from LAX, a Metrolink Line could use those tracks for a LAX-San Pedro service to serve the World Cruise Center and Ports O Call. On the one hand mitigating the system appropriately in most cases will create the over development most communities don't want at all or exhausting all mitigation options to the point to where they don't want the project at all which hardly helps any transit system build any projects. In the case of Lawndale and Hawthorne Blvd, even with the study was grade separated they didn't want the aerial alignment, because it would remove their landscaped parking medians. For a smaller city that is a big thing to them in terms of revenue. So how would a trench, dedicated bus lanes or a subway be any different compared to using an available right-of-way, key crossings are already grade separated and ready for use? Torrance didn't want the Green Line period on Hawthorne Blvd, despite their office space and commercial buildings on that boulevard. How does that help a transit system, any transit system to build and expand directly to destinations when the destination in question doesn't want it. It reminds me of a line in one of my favorite movies, "War of the Roses" 'How do you keep someone who won't stay and how do you get rid of someone who won't go?' |
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 4, 2009 6:01:14 GMT -8
First of all, I've NEVER EVER heard anyone talk about crime, race or class when expressing their concerns or resistance to a project. Doesn't mean someone hasn't - I don't pretend to have gone to EVERY meeting. But those that are expressing those sentiments are very likely few and far between. Two words: Hancock Park. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jan 4, 2009 9:29:31 GMT -8
First of all, I've NEVER EVER heard anyone talk about crime, race or class when expressing their concerns or resistance to a project. Doesn't mean someone hasn't - I don't pretend to have gone to EVERY meeting. But those that are expressing those sentiments are very likely few and far between. Two words: Hancock Park. Which is why I hope Metro will abandon plans for a Purple Line station at Crenshaw. I'm sure I've read there's a home owners group planning to fight it. Not to mention that a Crenshaw station is much too close to the Western/Wilshire station. (Which is itself much too close to the Normandie/Wilshire station - you can actually see the headlights of a train stopped at Normandie when waiting on the Western platform.) |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 4, 2009 12:06:22 GMT -8
If there's not a station at Crenshaw where would you want one? The next major street is La Brea which would mean 2 miles between stations which is very long for a subway. Anywhere in between would likely have as much or more NIMBY opposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 4, 2009 12:47:55 GMT -8
First of all, I've NEVER EVER heard anyone talk about crime, race or class when expressing their concerns or resistance to a project. Doesn't mean someone hasn't - I don't pretend to have gone to EVERY meeting. But those that are expressing those sentiments are very likely few and far between. Two words: Hancock Park. Again, the easiest way to cop-out of addressing legitimate concerns is claiming that the driving motivation is something repugnant. For example, just look at some of the post in this very thread. Ken said, "...but don't get any silly ideas, Damien, that many of those who scream about traffic and other rail impacts because of a lack of grade-separation when they see you in a crowded room wouldn't include a few other old-fashioned and outdated arguments if you weren't in the room, and the group gathered was a smaller, private group of neighbors...and I think you kind of know that already..."Am I not supposed to consider traffic impacts from at-grade crossings because the messenger may be racist? I have access to educational resources and I can think for myself. As long as the academic body of work on the topic isn't solely of a clearly slanted person/group's creation, why should I not use my intellectual abilities to look into an issue raised, regardless of the messenger, and come to my own conclusion? And if I come to a similar conclusion that doesn't make me a racist, just as David Duke being a Republican does not make all Republicans racist. I mean, lets talk Hancock Park. Yes, there are some folk who are worried about "those people," but that's not the general community concern. If they pony up $50-100K for lawyers to fight the Subway to the Sea it won't be solely or even primarily to keep "those people" out of their community. (Although that's what the media report for sure). One of the ring leaders in Hancock Park to opposition to a Crenshaw/Wilshire station is a black guy, who I've seen at several meetings in very uncomfortable communities in South LA! The root concern revolves around protection of several community plans in the area and the development scale of what may come with the station. And again, they're not alone in that concern. We're dealing with the same issue in 90% black middle class Leimert Park with the possible Crenshaw/Vernon station on the Crenshaw Line. The area's land use folk, who would like to see Leimert Park Village remain a community village (as opposed to, for example, NoHo) are constantly asking about possible land use changes that may come with a station. These are people who want a station, but want the Village to remain such. Back to Hancock Park there is also concern about tunneling in the area. But they've got good justification for concern. Many of them were participating in the MTA meetings back in the 80s-90s when things were blowing up, streets were breaking apart, sinkholes/craters were being created and the Red Line was being built in the most possible corrupt and shoddy process imaginable. What clear thinking person wouldn't have had concerns then? It's not reasonable to expect these concerns to just evaporate. You see, one of MTA's biggest problems is that, for good reason, people don't trust them - all the way from state/federal agencies and municipalities down to homeowners. Similarly, in Leimert Park (or heck South LA in general) the lack of trust regarding land use (CRA) and transportation (CalTrans and MTA buses) is the product of a long unfortunate past. I shouldn't even say past, some of the same crap is still going on today. But there are even feasible ways to address the trust issue through Ombudsmen, total transparency, oversight committees composed of attack dogs as opposed to hand-picked political lapdogs, contractual agreements, specified arbitration process, etc. Heck, I'm not even saying that we need good politicians and responsible agencies that are genuinely dedicated to oversight. I realize how unfeasible that is. |
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Jan 4, 2009 13:47:15 GMT -8
If there's not a station at Crenshaw where would you want one? The next major street is La Brea which would mean 2 miles between stations which is very long for a subway. Anywhere in between would likely have as much or more NIMBY opposition. Well, IF I were going to advocate a station at all, I'd say the logical place would be a station with an entrance on Rimpau to the West to service Mass Mutual and the other commercial businesses and an entrance at Rossmore on the East to facilitate a transfer to the 210 bus. But I don't see any reason there HAS to be a station every mile. Unless the Wilshire Specific Plan is overturned, Hancock Park has seen to it that this particular stretch of Wilshire Blvd will never be as developed as Wilshire Center or Miracle Mile. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 4, 2009 14:37:32 GMT -8
There doesn't have to be a station every mile. It's more important to focus on where they would be most (cost) effective. That's why I asked where you'd recommend.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 4, 2009 23:11:37 GMT -8
My understanding is that Metro is already considering having the Crenshaw Line go to Wilshire/La Brea. As for skipping Crenshaw/Wilshire, that's fine with me.
I do agree, however, that Damien is correct when we focus on community concerns over anyone's overt or covert racist leanings. So long as we acknowledge and distinguish between those with legitimate concerns, versus someone who just doesn't want to have ethnic minorities in their neighborhood.
Similarly, I think that there are more than a few Expo advocates who've sparred with NIMBY individuals and groups for years...but will agree with them on certain issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 4, 2009 23:45:58 GMT -8
I thought this may be of some interest: torrance.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=5829&meta_id=110900It's a video of a Torrance city council meeting, they were voting on a concept of a new transit center next to the harbor subdivision on Crenshaw blvd. in Torrance. It may be good to note that they seem to be interested in having the Green line end at this transit center concept. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 5, 2009 7:06:17 GMT -8
This is major news! It also shows a rather dramatic paradigm shift for this region of the South Bay, which heretofore had been extremely negative towards mass transit compared to other transportation improvements such as for roads and the 405 freeway.
There are other hurdles to be overcome, but clearly the notion of having the Green Line get anywhere past the South Bay Galleria at Redondo Beach is more favorable than we've seen for the past five years.
|
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 6, 2009 5:16:08 GMT -8
It's a video of a Torrance city council meeting, they were voting on a concept of a new transit center next to the harbor subdivision on Crenshaw blvd. in Torrance. It may be good to note that they seem to be interested in having the Green line end at this transit center concept. Torrance, as far as I am concerned, is the South Bay equivalent of Gloria Molina. Up until a few years ago, Torrance had a transit center ... a decent one, too. It was at the north end of the Del Amo Fashion Center. Then the mall kicked the buses off the property, instead making the central transfer point now several stops on a loop around the giant mall! Really, you need a map to find out where to connect between buses now. The heart of the city is right around the mall. The transit center needs to be put back there. |
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Jan 7, 2009 3:32:59 GMT -8
Oh believe me, I know that -- I don't think anyone can deny that Torrance needs a transit center back at Del Amo, there's an unused piece of the mall at Fashion way and Madrona ave. that'd be a good replacement, not to mention many other areas of the mall with lightly used parking. Just need to get some people to put pressure on Mills Corp.
Edit: I guess Mills Corp. is now Simon Property Group now.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 8, 2009 11:14:29 GMT -8
the video doesn't seem to want to work for me.
still, while it may be long overdue, this is good news. I always knew that it would only be a matter of time before Torrance pulled its collective head out of the sand and woke up to realize that yes, the South Bay is more than just another suburb; yes, the traffic sucks here just as much as it does anywhere else in L.A. county; and yes, transit can be part of the solution.
I don't know what the motivation is: the San Gabriel Valley's incredible (but effective) chutzpah, the LAX Green Line, the Crenshaw Line, Obama's infrastructure plans or maybe they've been paying attention while the county's transit system was growing?
one thing that strikes me is this is a completely different city council than when I was covering council meetings and elections.
whatever the reason, I hope this is a sign that opinions are changing
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jan 16, 2009 12:29:11 GMT -8
Would the Crenshaw line preclude this? Could the Harbor Gateway be turned into light rail? Should it? What about extending Metrolink itself to the airport via the Harbor Sub? If the Crenshaw line uses the Harbor Sub in Inglewood as light rail (and that seems to be where it's headed) doesn't that pretty much eliminate any other mode from consideration? I don't think it would eliminate it right off the bat, because this is such a large corridor there are pieces that could work as both Light Rail (extention of the Green Line) and Metrolink. The point is, that this is early in the study. For example to meet that growing demand in the South Bay and even a few tourists from LAX, a Metrolink Line could use those tracks for a LAX-San Pedro service to serve the World Cruise Center and Ports O Call. Actually, I think Jerard answered my question. I really hope it's wide enough to allow both heavy and light rail to increase options. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 16, 2009 19:27:38 GMT -8
Would the Crenshaw line preclude this? Could the Harbor Gateway be turned into light rail? Should it? What about extending Metrolink itself to the airport via the Harbor Sub? I don't think it would eliminate it right off the bat, because this is such a large corridor there are pieces that could work as both Light Rail (extention of the Green Line) and Metrolink. The point is, that this is early in the study. For example to meet that growing demand in the South Bay and even a few tourists from LAX, a Metrolink Line could use those tracks for a LAX-San Pedro service to serve the World Cruise Center and Ports O Call. Actually, I think Jerard answered my question. I really hope it's wide enough to allow both heavy and light rail to increase options. I guess that he answered my question as well. I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 17, 2009 7:13:39 GMT -8
Once the political pieces are in place, I think we'll find room for both heavy rail and light rail using this vital ROW. I don't think anyone who's discovered and explored this ROW wants to see either option disappear because of the presence of the other option.
Hence Metro wanted DMU service to serve as a light rail on a route that Metrolink trains could also utilize. I suspect that grade separation and land acquisition will be the final option to allow for both LRT and Metrolink trains, if not for the entire route then at least between LAX and Crenshaw Blvd.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 7, 2009 12:10:44 GMT -8
Daily BreezeMTA schedules meetings on South Bay transit corridorFrom news services Posted: 04/06/2009 05:42:55 PM PDT Transit-ZZPT-ZZTO Eds: Rick Jager, Metro spokesman, can be reached at (213) 922-2707. LOS ANGELES - The Metropolitan Transportation Authority will hold five community meetings over the next four weeks to gather public input about a planned public transit service through southwest Los Angeles County. Metro officials are evaluating the possibility of expanding the county's transit network along a 26-mile-long freight rail corridor that the agency purchased in the early 1990s. The corridor stretches from Vernon and Huntington Park west through South Los Angeles to Inglewood, then south through El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Lawndale, Torrance and Carson. Transit through the corridor could connect downtown Los Angeles with Los Angeles International Airport and Long Beach via a C-shaped curve through the county, according to a Metro map of the proposal. Metro will gather public input on various transit options for the corridor, including a Bus Rapid Transit system, a light rail line and dedicated bus lanes. Public meetings to gather suggestions and comments about the proposal will be held at the following times and locations: -- April 21 at 6 p.m. at the Boys and Girls Club of the Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro, 100 W. Fifth St.; -- April 22 at 6 p.m. at the Redondo Beach Main Library, 303 Pacific Coast Highway; -- April 27 at 6 p.m. at Inglewood City Hall, 1 Manchester Blvd., in the community room; -- April 30 at 11:30 a.m. at the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles, 700 N. Alameda St., Room 2145; -- and May 2 at 10 a.m. at Augustus Hawkins Nature Park in Los Angeles, 5790 Compton Ave. CNS-04-06-2009 17:23
|
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 7, 2009 14:52:52 GMT -8
Im going to be in LA on the 2nd
YES!!!!
Im SOOOO going!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Apr 7, 2009 15:06:56 GMT -8
I'll be going to the meeting on the 22nd in Redondo Beach  |
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 8, 2009 17:45:13 GMT -8
How many passengers would be carried between the airport (LAX) and the cruise terminal? I don't think this service would be a significant contribution to passenger loadings. One thing is for certain, the Harbor Sub track will have to be completely rebuilt; my Altamont timetable shows the existing track limited to 15 to 20 mph.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2009 8:46:26 GMT -8
I went to the meeting last night in San Pedro. Most of those in attendance supported the line. There was only one comment about crossings and the impact on traffic.
Modes
BRT - Has been eliminated as an option for further study. The main reasons were interference with the few freight lines (Metro is required to preserve freight train access to the Harbor Subdivision) and that they could have close to the same speeds/ridership using Rapid buses.
Regional only - Metrolink type service using heavy EMU or DMU
Local - Light rail using LRV's or light DMU's
Express - Non-stop service from Union Station to LAX
Transportation Management - Do nothing on the ROW. Reroute buses, etc.
Notes
Light rail - The northern terminus won't end in Vernon where the ROW ends now. They'll connect it to Union Station. The most likely route would be be on or parallel to Alameda from Slauson. There was no talk of the southern terminus being the green line or LAX. The two alternatives are to split from the ROW in Wilmington and go down either the 110 or Gaffey into San Pedro and/or to continue on the ROW to Wilmington Ave and then extend the line to connect with the blue line using either Sepulveda (connect at Willow), PCH (connect at PCH) or Alameda Corridor (connect on downtown Long Beach). I was the only one in the room that expressed a preference for the blue line connection. lol
They mentioned connections to LAX using a people mover. Also connections and sharing tracks with the Green line extension and Crenshaw. They mentioned Crenshaw quite a bit, actually.
Stations would be typically 1 mile apart. They listed potential stops along the entire route and mentioned that some stations would have lots of parking, while others might not. It depends on local factors and what makes sense. I'm pretty sure that they said or implied that stations would be high platform. They didn't directly mention what they would do about freight trains needing to pass, but outside they mentioned both gauntlet tracks and retractable platforms (like Sprinter).
The vehicles would be either like our current LRV's or could be DMU's diesel like Sprinter. They said that if they went with light DMU's that wouldn't preclude them from sharing tracks with our current LRV's. They would just run under the wires.
Regional - EMU's or DMU's. Would also definitely go to Union Station, but instead of following Alameda it would follow the LA River. The southern terminus could be LAX, San Pedro, or Long Beach. They mentioned that this option would require more grade separation (there are over 100 grade crossings just on the ROW). Light rail would require fewer grade separations.
Regional Express - Union Station to LAX. Not sure why this is even on the table. They mentioned that it would most likely need to be grade separated most, if not all, of the distance. I doubt that the residents of South LA and Inglewood would support a train that they can't ride. Unless they're expecting some HSR money or something I don't know why this is even out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 22, 2009 14:09:05 GMT -8
That is a great summary, bluelineshawn! Thank you.
I intend to go to the meeting tonight at Redondo Beach before I zoom up north to another meeting (thanks to your summary, I'll probably just chat a bit and leave comments before taking off) I agree that this should go all the way from Union Station to the Blue Line.
I'm extremely happy to learn that they are in touch with the Crenshaw folks, and perhaps they can triple track this corridor in order to ensure Metrolink and LRT fleets. I don't know why they would pursue DMU/EMU if they could use the same LRV fleets they currently use, but Metrolink compatibility must also be taken into consideration.
I think that a Regional Express model could be utilized (perhaps not nonstop, but stopping once-twice between Union Station and LAX), provided that there's also plenty of local service.
I think it's ridiculous that we have to choose between long distance/few stops and local service. They're not mutually exclusive, and never have been. We don't choose between freeways and surface streets--we have both--and the same should be presumed for rail.
Methinks we should be open to triple tracking (quadruple?) and lots of grade separation, perhaps in stages, as more than one mode of passenger rail is utilized for this ROW. After the Alameda Corridor, the freight trains are pretty much a nonissue, to my understanding.
The first step: start buying up a WIDE ROW to make sure we don't pigeon-hole ourselves into choosing any one mode at the exclusion of all the other modes of rail transportation.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 22, 2009 15:51:00 GMT -8
^ From Crenshaw to the Green Line, the ROW should be WIDE and GRADE-SEPARATED. This section will potentially be shared between this Harbor Sub Line, the Crenshaw Line and any northern Green Line extension.
I envision this line as a longer-distance line, with fewer stops, focused on transfer points. I'd probably suggest:
* Washington - Santa Fe
* Slauson - Blue Line
* Slauson - 110 Freeway
* Inglewood
* Century - LAX
* Aviation.
Of course, if it is 3- or 4-tracked, there are more options. My listing could be the initial version (express train).
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 22, 2009 16:04:09 GMT -8
They didn't really exclude having both heavy and light rail and in fact they mentioned that as a possibility. They didn't exclude any combination of possibilities for the modes listed. However they did mention that parts of the ROW are very narrow and would require property purchases no matter which option was chosen. To choose more than one mode would require even more property purchases. I just don't know how likely that is. They mentioned having large parts of it elevated and again I don't see that as very likely.
|
|
