|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 21, 2007 22:09:25 GMT -8
I'm not a transportation planner, but if I was, I would highly consider a grade separation if this line is to be built right the first time. Look at all the recurring deadly accidents on the Blue Line.
At the same time, I don't understand why this issue has been raised now. Ground has already been broken for the Expo construction. Is it only because the term "racism" was used this time ? Where's your local City councilwoman and LA School board (Teacher's Union) ??..... maybe fighting to keep their jobs from the mayor's LAUSD takeover plan.
It's sad when petty politics have overshadowed this pressing issue for so long. I don't think a pedestrian bridge will do any good. A grade separation, overcrossing hopefully... $ 25 million should be partly paid for by LAUSD, they didn't see this coming.
Just fix it, fix it quietly so other communities won't cry "Where's my grade separation ??"
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Oct 22, 2007 4:30:17 GMT -8
It seems that grade separation isn't important to public transit whereas all our freeways are grade separated. If we can put the same effort from building freeways into building our rail (and transitway) lines, then we can run our system at higher speeds without killing or injuring anyone. The worse examples of at-grade service are the Blue Line at Washington, Gold Line at Marmion Way, and all of the Orange Line (except rivers and freeways, where grade separation was already built-in by the fact it runs under freeways). Look at NYC, all their subway and commuter rail lines are grade separated from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 22, 2007 6:39:46 GMT -8
I have little sympathy for this neighborhood and school. They had more than enough time to raise concerns during the lengthy environmental process. Contrast that situation to that of the Culver Junction station. That community has been involved since the outset to get that station raised.. I was at the public review meeting at Dorsey High. There was no great outcry then. Some people did have concerns. But I remember officials very clearly explaining the criteria used to determine whether or not to grade-separate. And that seemed to be the end of it. I think that now, the responsibility should lie with the school. They need to work with the community to determine how best to safely release students after school. Whether or not there was any outcry is immaterial to whether or not the planned grade crossings are safe or not. If they are not safe they should be redesigned. But IIRC the reason that there wasn't an outcry is because many people in that area were opposed to the project even happening. I assume that they didn't focus on simultaneously opposing the line and arguing for an alternative design. I'm pretty sure that I recall reading at least a few comments about the crossing in the EIR comments, but it's been a while. It's certainly been a topic of concern with the anti-rail folks for years. I think in this instance a grade separated crossing makes sense. It'll be interesting to see what the PUC has to say.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2007 9:48:39 GMT -8
(I apologize in advance for my rant, but this last-minute roadblock has really got me PO'd.)
The concerns about safety near Dorsey <were> addressed - in a public EIR, in public meetings, in public votes by elected officials. The EIR stipulates the following mitigations:
* Two new traffic signals will be installed at Farmdale: one at Expo Blvd and one at Expo Place. * Pedestrian gates will be added to the existing flashing crossing gates. * A queuing area will be added to allow pedestrians to wait for the train to cross. * A fence will be erected to prevent mid-block crossings. * Security will be added to the station during school hours.
In addition, Metro has agreed to slow to 35 mph before and after school. This slowing is meant to give train operators a better chance to see and respond to pedestrians.
What is happening now is not about safety. It is about the rhetoric of 'racism' being used to make people feel like they're being disrespected. Politicians are taking advantage of this opportunity to act like they're standing up to some injustice.
How did the neighborhood do survive through the 1980's, when freight trains were rolling through the area? With no fence, no ped-barriers, etc.?
If we're going to mitigate this crossing with grade-separation, then maybe we need spend hundreds of millions of dollars to grade-separate every other location where vehicles speed past schools.
Maybe we should stop construction on the Eastside Gold Line, since it will pass in front of the new High School at First/Utah, or the Ramona School at Third and Indiana.
And maybe we should shut down the Blue and Gold Lines until can raise hundreds of millions of dollars to grade-separate them, as well.
While we're at it, lets grade-separate Wilshire, Hollywood, Figueroa, and Lankershim Boulevards. They have lots of dangerous traffic passing right in front of schools.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 22, 2007 10:04:49 GMT -8
I must admit that the failure of those who didn't offer alternatives before is unforgiveable, in that their credibility is suspect. I am open to any reasonable alternative, and even a grade separation, if the PUC and engineers say it must be done.
I agree that my sympathies are great for Culver Junction than for Dorsey, and that any "racism" talk is highly inappropriate. Let's see what must be done here (and yes, we must concede that Metro has in the past focused more on cutting costs than building it right the first time), but let's not empower any knuckle-dragging NIMBY's.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 22, 2007 11:09:23 GMT -8
I'm going to limit my discussion on this topic for the sake of my limited time. But basically, in many respects I have had to put my advocacy for regional rail on hold ( www.GetLAMoving.com), because of many of the arguments that are beginning to develop in this thread on the one rail line in my own backyard. There's a reason the Expo Authority has refused to debate me on the topic - the facts and materials are not on their side. I could write a book on the dirt I've uncovered over the last 8 months, which I'm beginning to upload on the website: www.FixExpo.org I have a box load of internal memos from PUC engineers, LADOT engineers, and Metro/Expo's own staff all saying the same thing: problem here problem there. I can't walk through Metro and not have someone criticize the Expo Authority, especially the operators who are going ape about the shared Blue Line portion, which is already the most accident-prone section of light rail in the country. "Blaming the victim" is not why this crossing (where 1500 students cross every day in upwards of 108 PER MINUTE) and others were left at-grade. They were left at-grade because MTA considers grade separations a negotiation and political football instead of a safety and service enhancement. Why does it matter if no person asked for a grade separation (though many people DID)? Bluelineshawn, let me save you some time searching the EIR and go to the following pages of the Comments volume: 1 - peterson 3 participants 27 - clark 41 - bradshaw 59 - walker 61 - ford 63 - mullins 86 - west angeles church 89 - participants 90 - freund 94 - adelman 96 - hampton 97 - washington 99 - burroughs 101 - jackson 104 - simmons 107 - mccullough 108 - clarke 109 - nunez 112 - cervantes 113 - yount 114 - aguilar 116 - surles 117 - wooten 118 - blaney 120 - smith 122 - vasquez 123 - vizcarra 123 - macedonio 124 - elizariasus 134 - seno 142 - veterans administration 144 - participants 217 - corcio 243 - metcalfe 251 - velasquez petitions page 87 petitions page 100 I didn't choose to lead this cause. I was presented arguments, researched the facts and was compelled. I decided if I failed to use my knowledge and notoriety to fix this line then I would be no better than the elected officials who failed to stand up for their constituents at a time I didn't even know what the heck "LRT" meant. People rely on and elect the representatives to represent, and now people are waking up to the fact that this happened on a lot of people's watch. I asked 10 months ago how this line was designed in violation of MTA's Transit Service Policy (which requires all lines expected to serve 50K riders or more per day to be 100% grade separated - a policy developed in response to Blue Line problems), and I still haven't received an answer. I asked 10 months ago what the cost of below grade alternative with open cut stations was and after I received inflated (to a power of 3) estimates, I went down to Metro got the information they extracted their numbers from, and then requested asked Thorpe clarify the discrepancy. It's been 7 months and still no answer. I asked 4 months ago for Thorpe to prove that he was designing a line like the Gold Line (he knows he's not), and he has refused to answer. The fact is, MTA is building another Blue Line through an area with higher residential density, and greater vehicular and pedestrian traffic, directly adjacent to large urban schools. I decided about 8 months ago I'd help out some people and became fully-entrenched about 3 or 4 months ago. And what have I been getting when I bring these issues up, often times in my capacity of the Co-Chair of the neighborhood council: "Just because you don't like the line, you should stop wasting other people's time because you have a concern about it." (Councilman Bernard Parks) I wish someone were recording when he said it. Oh wait, someone was: www.FixExpo.org) Everyone else: "We don't have the money." They found $18 mil for an optional USC station and track improvements though, didn't they? They found the money through Prop 1B when the legislature stripped $314M though, didn't they? And after the money was stripped, Metro began talking about bonding to finish the project. And incidentally, that's the same Prop 1B, which I suggested 10 months ago the Expo Authority go after for grade separation money. They've never NOT had the money. They've just never seen the need to go after the money, and that, both figuratively and literally is tragic. And in case your wondering where the environmental racism claim came from, I highly suggest you look up the definition. I was the person who stood up in the board room during the fare hike debate and called the BRU's claim of environmental racism abhorrent because they were misusing the term for political gain. Here you have a textbook case of a discriminatory design and FTA didn't even conduct an investigation when the environmental justice complaint was filed. When you make grade separations and the type of grade separations a political issue, then obviously the underrepresented and/or poorer and/or majority-minority communities are left with a primarily at-grade alignment, and that is exactly what occurred here, with: a) Culver City's requirement that their be no at-grade crossings (thus streets with less traffic and less complicated than those left at-grade in South LA will be/are grade separated) and b) USC's more expensive underpass, compared to the LaBrea overpass, that only came about because of Burke's political action. And don't get me started on Phase 2! Bottom line if you're really concerned about the project defects and safety issues read the 108 combined pages of the opening and reply briefs that I decided to put my name to. And as for the PUC, the game has been fixed since the ECU first filed the protest. The only reason the Commissioner (Simon) is having a hearing on Farmdale is because he's been getting pressure from local politicians on that crossing, and that crossing alone. Again, the whole issue of safety is about politics. And by the way, Metro has "agreed" to slow the trains down to 35 mph before and after school (and that in itself is a safety hazard) but they applied to the PUC for 55 mph. And as Jimmy Smith, who is the VP of RailPAC (incase you think it's just a bunch of NIMBYs involved) said, "35 will kill you just as dead as 55." There's a whole group of transit advocates who believe in rail, but recognize the importance of grade separation. There are even more who believe in fairness. Few are against both.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Oct 22, 2007 12:02:36 GMT -8
You know folks: I can't argue with Damien on this on. He's right.
Think back to the construction of the Gold Line to Pasadena. The Construction Authority saved bucks by keepng the route past Marmion way on the surface. With hindsight, didn't NOBLAG have a valid point?
Look at the money spent on the US101/I405 rebuild. Let's start paying for "value" on our transit system. If it is worth building it is worth building well.
My 0.02
Adrian
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2007 13:39:09 GMT -8
Damien, obviously you care very deeply about the subject, and have spent lots of time and energy on the subject. And I respect your passion on the subject. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this subject. When I look at the facts that we are both looking at, I see a totally different picture than you do. Put simply, I don't see the discriminatory practices that you claim are at work here.
If 1500 students were to cross the tracks at 108/minute, then we'd be talking about fourteen minutes of students crossing, twice a day. Since obviously the rate isn't constant like that, let's extend it to 45 minutes, twice a day. Even with that scenario, I don't see how you can justify grade-separation. The crossing will be at "low tide" for 93% of it's operating day. So the way I see it, this crossing is a candidate for mitigating measures, like the ones listed in the EIS.
I know the Farmdale crossing...it's a tiny crossing. Traffic there is <i>always</i> low, except at the very start and end of the school day. From that standpoint, a $25 million grade-separation seems unjustified.
(Metro has fairly clear criteria for treatment of grade crossings. See <a href="http://metro.net/projects_programs/exposition/pdf/2005_feis/Appendices/Appendix%20E%20MTA%20Grade%20Crossing%20Policy%20-%20Complete%20Document%20-%20P.pdf">Appendix E</a> of the FEIS.)
I did see the quote "35 will kill you just as dead as 55." And frankly, that argument is ridiculous. A train at any speed (even 10 mph) will kill you if you stand in its path. Does that mean we can never have moving trains at grade?
The point of slowing to 35 mph is to give the train operator and the pedestrian time to react.
I ask again, why should we hold this rail line to such an extreme standard of safety, when we have freight trains crossing streets throughout the region? And when, on a per-rider basis, light-rail has an order of magnitude fewer fatalities than automobiles?
I feel like we in Los Angeles constantly want to hold light rail to a much higher standard than we hold auto traffic. Then we wonder we have so few transit options.
We live in a region where hundreds of thousands of kids grow up near freeways and major boulevards, breathing auto and truck pollution. These kids have alarming rates of asthma and die early of respiratory disease. So for me, this isn't about achieving perfection, it's about getting clean, efficient rail built in a reasonably safe way.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2007 14:16:34 GMT -8
Someone posted an idea on another website: hire a crossing guard.
In fact, for $25 million, you could hire a whole bunch of people to hold these kids hands and walk them across the street.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 22, 2007 15:27:14 GMT -8
metrocenter, all that needs to be said by me on this subject can be read in the briefs.
One of the facts I pointed out is that application of that grade crossing policy when the Blue Line was being built would have resulted in no additional grade separations on the line. In fact, it would have resulted in more at-grade crossings.
Less grade separations on the deadliest and most accident-prone light rail line in the country, and you expect people to have confidence in its application?
Or wait, we're not supposed to actually critique the policy, we're just supposed to blame the victims?
"Humans violating the law" is the cause, right? (That's how these guys sleep at night.) Well what happens when a human violates the law at this intersection and the car hit by a train ricochets into the queuing area (which the Authority used to call a "holding pen")?
Is that possibility not significant enough to justify the cost of a grade separation?
Simply, what cost-benefit analysis are you using to come to a determination that the cost of a grade separation is too great? Is it comparative cost of lawsuits for the deaths of kids, and if so are you valuing the deaths of the black kids the same as the Hispanic kids? Is the death of a kid at Turning Point more or less than the death of a kid at Foshay, because you know that's a private school meaning their parents are far richer and more likely to find counsel that can really request more $$$.
I'm serious, I'd like to know how you came to this great determination that it just ain't worth it.
Additionally, I seriously doubt you know the grade crossing policy anywhere near as thoroughly as I do, or the comparative studies on the cause of train collisions, and how to evaluate the safety hazards at an intersection. I'm sure you have your Rick Thorpe soundbytes down pat though. And that's fine, but don't pretend to "know the facts."
And again, I don't know who you are, but if you're so confident in the facts, arrange the debate between me and Rick Thorpe and invite the media. I am nothing if not thorough and researched.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2007 17:27:28 GMT -8
Arrange a debate? Isn't that what we're having here?
You have met me before...I am Joel Covarrubias. I am a member in full standing of the Transit Coalition (ask Bart). I saw you speak at the Emerson School Purple Line meeting, and I spoke at the Santa Monica Library meeting.
You won't answer my questions, but I'm supposed to answer yours? Sorry my friend, that's not how a debate works.
I gave you you're due: I began by assuming you're heart is in the right place. But you have decided to assume that mine is in the wrong place. You have in so many words called me a RACIST, and I will not dignify that with an answer.
I will say that your argument is based on suspicions of people's motivations that have no basis.
Every child is precious: my five-year-old daughter is priceless to me, just as anyone else's is to them. You know damn well this isn't about monetary value of a human being. So don't try to pull that.
I'll say it again: I don't believe it's reasonable to shell out $25 million for a grade-separation at a minor intersection, when a crossing guard would do just as well.
If you have any response to my arguments (see my previous posts), I'd like to hear them. And no, I'm not interested in reading your briefs.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Oct 22, 2007 20:19:22 GMT -8
This issue is going to cause a lot of heated arguments. Well I think I was right on that. Here are my views, and I side neither with metrocenter nor Damien. Also, I know nothing about this school, nor am I familiar with the area. I'm just stating my views from what I know. 1) Grade Separation: Very effective solution, but do we have the money for it? I doubt the State is going to give anymore, sinice much of the budget is going to be used for fighting the fires right now, and later, rebuilding the destroyed/damaged structures. 2) Overpass/Underpass. We should also fence off the entire sidewalk to prevent people from going on the street, but it would eliminate street parking(if there is any street parking) 3) Crossing guards: It could be useful, but I don't know how effective it would be.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 22, 2007 21:51:09 GMT -8
And no, I'm not interested in reading your briefs. Yet you claim that you're looking at the same facts I am? I've already responded to each and everyone of your arguments thoroughly...in the briefs you refuse to read. LOL. Tickle us: why do you refuse to read them?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 22, 2007 22:44:21 GMT -8
Damien, I will be the first one to suggest that Metro's grade separation policy is one that needs work. Clearly, my efforts to grade separate at National/Washington in Culver City (taking Culver City's side, not Metro's side) is an indication of my willingness to oppose Metro if I feel that they're pursuing a wrong policy.
I really don't know the details of Dorsey High School like those who are familiar with the neighborhoods and traffic details of the Mid-City like you do. I also believe that there has been a dearth of champions, both political and grassroots for the Mid-City, and I hope that you will be one of those who will fit the bill to meet the needs of that underrepresented region. It is obvious that mitigation is needed around Dorsey, and that if a $25 million grade separation is indicated then I would be the last person to oppose it, and the first person to support it. $25 million for safety and train speed and smooth operations is money well-spent.
I am also aware that you are eloquent and educated, but still young and full of passion but with a learning curve that I have experiened as have others on this board. You are a breath of fresh air, and when you've stated things in hyperbole, or even gone overboard, I've been very quick to let things go and appreciate your energy and your "raising the bar" for the Mid-City which you clearly love.
The ability to recognize how difficult it can be to say or write things, and not be able to take them back, is one that I've learned painfully over the years...and, fortunately, I've learned the art of the sincere apology when appropriate.
It is also painful it is to see someone who I deeply respect and admire (you) toss your credibility to the wind and accuse those who differ in opinion from you as either racist or someone indifferent to the death or injury or suffering of children...especially the latter. It is my understanding that you do not have children, and I don't hold the opinions of childless individuals any less than those with children, but it is extremely hurtful to accuse a parent of not caring about children when, in fact, they think about their own child's welfare every day.
I have a great deal less sympathy for those older individuals who should be more sophisticated and appropriate, but who choose a boorish way of expressing their feelings. Whether it's on this board or at a public meeting, do not choose the way of those Mid-City and Westside activists who have NO credibility whatsoever, and who have succeeded in always having those in power roll their eyes and ignore them whenever they open their mouths.
My own experiences have taught me that credibility is everything, and that life can be hell when you've caused others to want nothing to do with or hear from you...even when what you have to say is correct...because you've trashed your credibility altogether and you've closed too many doors.
Those of us from the old Discussion Board remember folks like Diane Shapiro and John, who galvanized so much opposition to their anti-Expo sentiments because they were bigots and nihilists and rude and crude. They actually created more pro-Expo sentiments, but after awhile people just ignored them altogether...even when they made a valid point.
No one likes a bully, and no one likes cruelty, and no one likes a boor. There are no bigots on this board, there are no children-haters or anti-safety cretins on this board, but there are people who will just have to agree or disagree on what an appropriate level of safety is at a given train/traffic crossing.
Damien, if someone feels that a grade separation at Dorsey isn't indicated, that does NOT mean he/she is indifferent to the safety of children, or a bigot, any more than a person who is anti-rail doesn't care about the safety of children on roads or freeways and deserves credit for children killed in cars (which by far outnumbers train-related injuries).
I'm a physician, and I take care of children every day of all ethnicities--but I believe that we'll all have to learn to watch for trains just like we have to watch for cars...and I just won't lose a lot of sleep over people who run their SUV's through or by crossing gates to outrun a train any more than I lose sleep over clowns who intentionally run red lights.
Although I insist on a thorough PUC investigation of the Dorsey High School complaint, any accusation of bigotry or indifference to children will only reflect poorly on the accuser, not the accused. Please don't go down that road, Damien.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 23, 2007 6:23:40 GMT -8
Ken,
Let's just clarify a few things:
1) No one called anyone a bigot or racist. In fact, over the past 8 months, I've bent over backwards defending people like yourself, Darrell and other Friends 4 Expo folk when I've been in meetings and had people label you "racist." Please don't place words in my mouth.
What you don't realize is that when the City of Culver City negotiated a grade separation at a street with less traffic, and less problematic than those in majority-minority communities, in defiance of the grade separation policy (for all of its shortcomings), you ended up with a design that favored a more affluent, whiter and politically powerful area. That is environmental racism. I'm sorry you don't see that way, but based on the legal definition of the term it is.
2) Unlike many, I'm not willing to jeopardize my credibility by saying Expo is safe, when all the facts indicate an unsafe design analogous to the Blue Line. It's the question I pose to every politician: If you knew then, what you know now about the Blue Line problems, would you have grade separated the line. "Absolutely," is the answer, by all expect those like Parks and Laurie Newman (Kuehl's deputy). Why then are we repeating the same mistakes?
3) As for turning off ears. There are some who like Joel, who really aren't here to listen, but to vent their disgust that I and others might be doing something to in anyway slow down their train. They're for it, regardless of the facts. You should see the reaction in rooms when politicians come in and say it might take a couple of years longer to construct the line if we add a few grade separations to it. "So what?" is the response. But there are those who are for this line at-grade, regardless of the facts or deaths. There's a mentality that a kid who defies the laws "deserves" to be killed. I have little tolerance for that. You should too.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 23, 2007 7:29:16 GMT -8
Damien, I'm sure your high opinion of yourself has opened many doors for you.
But with an attitude like that, you're not going to get very far with anybody.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Oct 23, 2007 14:28:28 GMT -8
Ken, Let's just clarify a few things: 1) No one called anyone a bigot or racist. In fact, over the past 8 months, I've bent over backwards defending people like yourself, Darrell and other Friends 4 Expo folk when I've been in meetings and had people label you "racist." Please don't place words in my mouth. What you don't realize is that when the City of Culver City negotiated a grade separation at a street with less traffic, and less problematic than those in majority-minority communities, in defiance of the grade separation policy (for all of its shortcomings), you ended up with a design that favored a more affluent, whiter and politically powerful area. That is environmental racism. I'm sorry you don't see that way, but based on the legal definition of the term it is. 2) Unlike many, I'm not willing to jeopardize my credibility by saying Expo is safe, when all the facts indicate an unsafe design analogous to the Blue Line. It's the question I pose to every politician: If you knew then, what you know now about the Blue Line problems, would you have grade separated the line. "Absolutely," is the answer, by all expect those like Parks and Laurie Newman (Kuehl's deputy). Why then are we repeating the same mistakes? 3) As for turning off ears. There are some who like Joel, who really aren't here to listen, but to vent their disgust that I and others might be doing something to in anyway slow down their train. They're for it, regardless of the facts. You should see the reaction in rooms when politicians come in and say it might take a couple of years longer to construct the line if we add a few grade separations to it. "So what?" is the response. But there are those who are for this line at-grade, regardless of the facts or deaths. There's a mentality that a kid who defies the laws "deserves" to be killed. I have little tolerance for that. You should too. Damien, please don't take any of what I say with disrespect. I'll be the first to say that this line should be completely grade separated, but there is something to learn that I learned from questioning the Gold Line. What we are doing right now is because of the circumstances. There is not enough money and time to make the Expo Line completely grade separated as it should be. It's already under construction and we are acting as if it is in the EIR stage. All of these issues have been debated to the death, and I have to question anybody who is raising these issues now. I know that your effort is sincere, Damien, but I'm not so sure about the others who are complaining about this. Now, there will only be traffic here for 2 short parts of the day. That does not justify the extra money (the ridership on the line would justify it, but it's not gonna happen). Now, all we need to mitigate the situation is education and alert. To appease those scared for the lives of their children, we need to educate the people at the school about the train and what they need to do and cannot do near the tracks. We also need crossing guards, and maybe a lot of them. I wish that we could grade separate this section because of the high pedestrian traffic during those times, but I don't want to stop construction of this whole line that is needed now because of on crossing. I sympathize with the parents of those at the school, but whatever actions were appropriate at other schools near Metro Rail should be done here.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 23, 2007 17:00:35 GMT -8
1) Grade Separation: Very effective solution, but do we have the money for it? I doubt the State is going to give anymore, sinice much of the budget is going to be used for fighting the fires right now, and later, rebuilding the destroyed/damaged structures. The only question is whether or not grade separation is necessary. If grade separation is necessary you grade separate the crossing or you don't build it. Those are the only choices. Whether or not the money exists is irrelevant. Please carry on.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Oct 23, 2007 20:51:17 GMT -8
As with the Trousdale station at USC, the alignment is not set. There is time for alternatives if and when the funding comes. It might require a new EIR, design phase, and more meetings. That will delay the Expoline completion date up to a year... but I feel sometimes I could have waited an extra year (or two) for the Orange line to be built right the first time.
I don't want to point fingers, but I feel that many community leaders have waited until the bulldozers are at the door to voice concern over this. For the past 2 years it seems the school administration and local politicians were more fearful of the threat from Charter schools, than the accident potential of an Expo line.
I attended an overcrowded school myself, it had 6,000 students on 3 separate year round systems. There was almost always pedestrian traffic in front of the school: students, faculty, even street vendors lined up outside.
We had an adult education program that starts in the evening. There was pedestrian traffic from 7:00 AM until 7:00 PM for afterschool activities and until 9:00 PM after games and performances.
Our high school (Roosevelt) is a centerpiece of the community, a gathering place, for kids and adults. So I would heavily lean towards a grade separation.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 24, 2007 6:54:59 GMT -8
Whitman...any kids get ran over by the cars?
Any kids at any of the current Metro stops been running over by trains? I was in Istanbul earlier this year, and their light rail system is similar to ours (i.e. grade seperated in some areas, at-grade at others). There's TONS of pedestrians around all stations. No way near the pedestrian activity LA will get around its stations and I bet the concern there was little to none. Over here, it's all about individualism. Ideally, it would be great if the Expo Line could be built like the Green Line, however, it's not feasible due to cash (and I bet it screws up somebody's precious "view"). Expo Line has considered the alternatives after years and years of study, let's proceed with the opening.
Orange Line was unfortunate due to laws that prevented light rail being put in the valley. It's not like the busway was the # 1 choice, it was a default.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 25, 2007 10:36:57 GMT -8
From Yesterday's LA Times. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-wednesday24oct24,0,2902423,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters Students can look both ways Re "Expo Line plan meets resistance," Oct. 21 Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. We are going to include another section of the city in a transportation plan that can only help enhance the lives of the residents, and we have a new term, "environmental racism." I have a suggestion. Re-educate the Dorsey High students on simple traffic safety. This isn't just a problem at Dorsey but at schools around the city. If this is a bona fide concern, then it would make more sense to put in a few pedestrian footbridges than to raise or lower a train track. Ricc Bieber Northridge The notion that high school students cannot simply check to see if traffic is coming is insulting and ridiculous. As a recent high school graduate, I vividly remember being able to swivel my head from right to left and right again when crossing the street. Another idea: Instead of Angelenos forfeiting taxpayer money to build an underground or above-ground line for these outrageous concerns, hire a crossing guard. Quinn Sullivan Los Angeles
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Oct 25, 2007 12:43:52 GMT -8
Hey LAofAnaheim:
How did you like Istanbul? I was there February, 2006 and I loved it. And yes, the light rail is fast, running down cobble-stoned streets (like ours used to, especially around Lincoln Heights) and packed with pedestrians and riders. Trucks in Istanbul even stopped on the tracks long enough to unload their goods, then drove off before the train turned the corner. Everyone knows how to interact with the trains.
And I have to put my two cents in regarding crossing streets: cars 'kill' alot more pedestrians than trains do. At least trains are restricted to tracks and can't swerve to hit you. I NEVER linger long on the rails, I walk over them quickly and always look both ways before going anywhere near them. And for those in need of 'guidance', I wholeheartedly support the crossing guard gig.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Oct 25, 2007 18:48:30 GMT -8
;D Say, have they started anything yet at La Cienga and Jefferson Blvd. ? (like man are they drilling yet?) Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 26, 2007 5:07:12 GMT -8
Of note is that it appears that the press hasn't made note of these preliminary scoping/study results from the Construction Authority, probably because of the severe fires the Southland has endured. This is, overall, a good thing. Right now we're moving forward, especially if the Construction Authority approves the recent findings and focuses only on the three approved alternatives from the transit experts:
1) LRT on the ROW 2) LRT on Venice/Sepulveda 3) BRT on the ROW
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 26, 2007 7:26:14 GMT -8
Dammit I can't believe I missed all three of the Phase II meetings! (These things are coming fast and furious!)
Did anybody go to any of this latest round of meetings? I'm glad to see that list of alternatives. I've got to believe that LRT on the ROW is currently the preferred choice - it just makes so much sense. Now, it really is up to opponents of the ROW to make their case, rather than the other way around.
I guess the next step is for the Metro board to choose an LPA, yes?
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Oct 26, 2007 13:28:21 GMT -8
Did anybody go to any of this latest round of meetings? I'm glad to see that list of alternatives. I was at the Venice HS meeting. The presentation the head engineer gave was awesome. He showed all the alternatives (including monorail, PRT, "LRT web", etc) and then explained how they take in all the criteria to make sense of it all. I was glad to come to see all this and get a nifty handout that has all the aforementioned data along with about 7 different maps of alignments. Very cool! Who was that one guy who said Metro is building to kill people? Thanks, Bart for smoothing out that hyperbole. I almost wanted to go to the last one in Cheviot Hills to see how the naysayers would react when there is cold, hard facts proving the ROW is superior in every way. ROW FTW!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2007 19:15:45 GMT -8
Why are there no construction updates on MTA.net compared to the Gold Line updates?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 1, 2007 8:20:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Nov 1, 2007 9:28:18 GMT -8
Cant they just build pedestrian bridge or pedestrian tunnel?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 1, 2007 14:16:56 GMT -8
But would everybody walk on that pedestrian bridge or tunnel.... pedestrian tunnel would be scary, lot's of homeless people will pee in there, bridge is inconvenient as it requires stair climbing.
Most kids would just rather dash across a busy intersection at grade. To grade separate or not to grade separate, that's the question.
|
|