|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2008 8:05:26 GMT -8
If 2nd St is chosen (Note that it's actually between 2nd and 3rd), Colorado will become one-way there. Many pedestrians use 2nd St to access Santa Monica. In fact that's where the bus hub at Ocean St is nearby. In the future it's also possible that they will tear down Santa Monica Place and the promenade will be extended to Colorado. The Park at Ocean St will remain. This location is also not far from 4th St, which is primarily a vehicle-access street. Not to mention that 2nd St is also closer to the beach, the major destination during weekends.
Green Line connection would head southeast and go through Venice. Therefore, either a tail track like in the 2nd St option or a southeast-pointing platform like in the 4th St option is needed.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 3, 2008 8:06:15 GMT -8
Here are better images of the Expo Line phase 2 station maps from tonight's meeting. Here's the alternative of the terminus off of Colorado on the Sears Auto Center site. Thank you Darrell for the pictures. If a Colorado alignment is chosen, this is the best terminal because it would enable future capacity upgrades like longer (4 cars) or more frequent trains (3 track layout), than the Stub end 2nd/Colorado station simply would have very little room for. Also from a perspective of tying it in to the Lincoln corridor this design would enable Lincoln LRT to utilize the facility as is with very little modification neccessary. The Lincoln corridor could run north on 4th Street and turn diagonally and use the far eastern tracks or even at grade on sharing the Colorado section and use the existing facility because it has the space available for a 3 track terminal layout which is something Expo will need. It's not as serious for Expo if the 4th/Colorado design is chosen since it has 3 tracks which creates a "tail track" also considering that; 1) a small mid-day storage location for one or two 3 cars train is necessary not only for Expo but with potential of extra operations of Crenshaw, 2) the cost of doing that at 4th/Colorado is only a small increase compared to the 2nd/Colorado station and we improve our future capacity provisions and reduce the Colorado crossing impacts for storing trains during rush hour to use the added track, 3) The Santa Monica Place plans could open up the NW corner of 4th/Colorado to visually open the SE corner terminal, or better still define a second Pedestrian promenade in Colorado which runs East-West to all the civic attractions (Transit, Pier, Beach, Auditorium) to complement 3rd Street which runs North-South to tie all the commercial/shopping attractions. 4) The Lincoln corridor though 15-20 years away is a real thing that would need a good solution that can accomodate for it. The 2nd/Colorado option with all the other pedestrian oriented changes surrounding the west side of the station area limits what can be done with Lincoln Transit Corridor. Mind you I like that location to because of it's central location but if we could remove all the lanes for Colorado and make that a transit only street and place a three track terminal there that would be wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 3, 2008 9:48:14 GMT -8
If 2nd St is chosen (Note that it's actually between 2nd and 3rd), Colorado will become one-way there. Many pedestrians use 2nd St to access Santa Monica. In fact that's where the bus hub at Ocean St is nearby. In the future it's also possible that they will tear down Santa Monica Place and the promenade will be extended to Colorado. The Park at Ocean St will remain. This location is also not far from 4th St, which is primarily a vehicle-access street. Not to mention that 2nd St is also closer to the beach, the major destination during weekends. I like the 2nd Street terminus for being in close walking distance to the Pier, Promenade, and Civic Center. Conversely the 4th Street location seemed a reasonable compromise, but a little too far away. Colorado would be left with one lane westbound to serve the Santa Monica Place parking (beneath the "SANTA MONICA STATION" label in the photo), but no lanes eastbound. The City's Civic Center Specific Plan calls for the existing Main Street historic arch bridge to become pedestrian-only, which would lead right up to the terminus station. Second Street will be extended south on a diagonal new bridge to replace it, and Olympic Drive (east-west, below the photo) will be extended west to Ocean Avenue. Macerich is beginning reconstruction of Santa Monica Place that will remove its roof, move dining to the west side of the third level, and open it up to the Promenade on the north (but not to the south). Sears has been designated a Landmark building. Thank you Darrell for the pictures. If a Colorado alignment is chosen, this is the best terminal because it would enable future capacity upgrades like longer (4 cars) or more frequent trains (3 track layout), than the Stub end 2nd/Colorado station simply would have very little room for. Also from a perspective of tying it in to the Lincoln corridor this design would enable Lincoln LRT to utilize the facility as is with very little modification neccessary. The Lincoln corridor could run north on 4th Street and turn diagonally and use the far eastern tracks or even at grade on sharing the Colorado section and use the existing facility because it has the space available for a 3 track terminal layout which is something Expo will need. I like this too as a run-through station to Lincoln. Two questions, though: 1. Are the station tracks enough different in elevation to cross the freeway just to the south? The offramp and 4th Street are at a higher level, but the freeway may be about the same as the tracks. 2. In both terminus options, how serious is the lack of tail tracks beyond the platforms? Expo trains will turn with the frequency of Blue Line trains at 7th & Flower today, which regularly uses two tail tracks and double crossovers at both the near and far ends of the station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 3, 2008 12:00:31 GMT -8
I like this too as a run-through station to Lincoln. Two questions, though: 1. Are the station tracks enough different in elevation to cross the freeway just to the south? The offramp and 4th Street are at a higher level, but the freeway may be about the same as the tracks. That is a good question and that is something I need to take a closer look at either this weekend or sometime next week but on intial view from the photo the angle of which the LRT will turn may make it appear too close. If the angle is little smoother and the removal of a building on the SW corner of 5th/Colorado then this may be the best option when figuring both Expo and Lincoln LRT using the station, creating am Eco friendly small scale "Union Station" with an arched solar panel roof and small 1' wide evaporative pool or fountain along the edge of 4th Street. It's not as serious for Expo if the 4th/Colorado design is chosen since it has 3 tracks which creates a "tail track" also considering that; 1) a small mid-day storage location for one or two 3 cars train is necessary not only for Expo but with potential of extra operations of Crenshaw, 2) the cost of doing that at 4th/Colorado is only a small increase compared to the 2nd/Colorado station and we improve our future capacity provisions and reduce the Colorado crossing impacts for storing trains during rush hour to use the added track, 3) The Santa Monica Place plans could open up the NW corner of 4th/Colorado to visually open the SE corner terminal, or better still define a second Pedestrian promenade in Colorado which runs East-West to all the civic attractions (Transit, Pier, Beach, Auditorium) to complement 3rd Street which runs North-South to tie all the commercial/shopping attractions. 4) The Lincoln corridor though 15-20 years away is a real thing that would need a good solution that can accomodate for it. The 2nd/Colorado option with all the other pedestrian oriented changes surrounding the west side of the station area limits what can be done with Lincoln Transit Corridor. Mind you I like that location to because of it's central location but if we could remove all the lanes for Colorado and make that a transit only street and place a three track terminal there that would be wonderful. If Santa Monica is thinking about an Expo option along the Colorado as a response to avoid an elevated structure from the Olympic alignment, I don't see how Lincoln wouldn't be immune to that.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 3, 2008 12:15:50 GMT -8
I am guessing the 17th St Station will be moved closer to 14th St and off Colorado into the right-of-way. There is no reason to put the station in the median there. Right now they seem to be very concerned with acquisition costs. This could change in the final study once the draft study is approved. I too would prefer the station as originally envisioned south of Colorado on the right-of-way. But after a good conversation Tuesday night, this version appears the best they can fit, including reviewing four different options with City of Santa Monica staff. Suppose instead you curve the tracks south at the 14th Street intersection. To line up with a station south of Colorado on the old right-of-way would require a too-tight reverse curve or put the station just as far east. This version takes three properties along Colorado (the one for lease as "Creative Offices", Hastings Plastics, and Swartz Glass), but not the new building on the old right-of-way between 16th and 17th.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 4, 2008 10:50:42 GMT -8
The location (west of 17th) is better than I thought it was (east of 18th).
Note that the vacant Federal Credit Union training center, the green-shaded building between 16th and 17th just south of Colorado, is also being acquired.
I think the main reason to push it to the median, instead of the previously proposed Fisher Lumber location between 14th and 16th just south of Colorado, is the City of Santa Monica's demand to expand Memorial Park to Colorado. The curvature arguments are a little bogus.
I was thinking off the street (Fisher Lumber location) was a better place than the median, but perhaps this is OK too.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2008 11:35:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2008 21:59:38 GMT -8
More on Phase 2 stations
I've driven by and examined all the Phase 2 station locations this evening.
West Los Angeles Station:
I think Pico/Sawtelle is no brainer. It is truly in a central location of a busy commercial area. And, amazingly, it's at the intersection of seven (!) streets/highways: Exposition, Sawtelle, Pico, Gateway, Corinth, Purdue, and the future I-405 HOV carpool/bus lanes. (Compare this to only two for Exposition/Sepulveda.) I can't imagine a better location for a gateway Westside Station than that.
The clear analogy here is that an aerial Pico/Sawtelle Station is to an aerial Venice/Robertson Station and an at-grade Sepulveda/Exposition Station is to an at-grade Wesley St/National Blvd Station. It's a great difference in ridership.
On the other hand, Exposition/Sepulveda is currently in the middle of nowhere. I don't buy the cement-factory-TOD argument. The Westside is already densely developed and the line needs to provide access to existing development. I will lose my entire faith in government if they build this station at the Sepulveda/Exposition cement factory location just because a private developer spent a lot of money to buy the cement factory.
A Pico/Sawtelle Station would also ensure grade separation at Sepulveda, since the trains would be going fast across Sepulveda, having no stop there.
So, I think it would be a really big mistake to build the station at Exposition/Sepulveda, instead of Pico/Sawtelle.
Santa Monica terminus:
After looking at the proposed location, now I think that the 4th - 5th St/Colorado is better than 2nd - Main/Colorado. The end of Colorado is really really congested and it doesn't make sense to put a station there without tearing down the Sears building. There is just no space there for a station and proper access for the patrons.
Westwood - Overland Station:
I think the proposed location just east of Westwood is ideal. It offers convenient access to the buses on Westwood; it's close to Pico, and it also provides access to Overland. A surface parking lot there in that huge 200-ft-wide space close to the Overland side is a great idea, and it would fit there nicely with the green corridor.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 9, 2008 22:00:06 GMT -8
Here's a short version of the meeting tonight on the Expo Authority's proposals for the remaining street crossings (Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Charnock, Barrington, and Centinela).
All were proposed to be at-grade crossings. Traffic impacts generally are to be mitigated by adding additional lanes in the vicinity of crossings, typically by removing curb parking and narrowing sidewalk-parkway strips.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 9, 2008 22:51:28 GMT -8
No grade seperations for Overland, Sepulveda, Centinela, or Westwood??? This is unbelievable. The Expo Line will be a poor reflection of LA transit planning when completed. The Expo Line will cement the fact that LA transit planning is poor. We need to build legitimacy with LA transit development, non-grade seperations on FOUR MAJOR ARTERIES are horrible. Add this to Vermont, Western, Crenshaw, etc.. in Phase I...Expo is not going to be at full potential. Something is wrong Expo planning..this is not right.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 9, 2008 23:19:34 GMT -8
Here's a longer summary, pending the real presentation on the Expo Authority website:
Overland -- prohibit street parking on west side from ROW to Cushdon, and east side from ROW to Coventry, 7 a.m.-7 p.m. (in other words, approaching the crossing). No left turns EB Exposition South to NB Overland or WB Northvale to SB Overland. Add crosswalk with ped signal to north side of crossing.
Westwood -- provide second northbound lane from Richland to 100' north of Ashby by narrowing current sidewalk + parkway to a 10-foot sidewalk and prohibiting street parking from Richland to 700' north of Ashby. No left turns NB Westwood to WB Exposition South or EB Exposition South to NB Westwood. Add crosswalk on south side of crossing.
Sepulveda -- add third southbound lane from Pico to Pearl, tapering to two by Richland by narrowing current sidewalk + parkway to a 10-foot sidewalk and prohibiting street parking from Pico to 300' south of Pearl. Property impact at SE corner of Exposition.
Charnock -- eliminate parking from Venice to Palms on Sepulveda; eliminate center turn lane; relocate signal from North Charnock to South Charnock; North Charnock becomes right-in/right-out only; 29 partial and 1 full property take.
Barrington -- add new southbound right turn lane Tennessee to Pico and new northbound right turn lane 200' from Olympic by eliminating street parking and narrowing current sidewalk + parkway to 10-foot sidewalk. Add crosswalk on south side.
Centinela -- add third northbound lane from ROW to Olympic by eliminating parking and narrowing west sidewalk to 7 feet. Add crosswalk on south side.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 10, 2008 7:10:27 GMT -8
How did the meeting go? Was it a slug fest? was it peaceable? Did the fix-expo crowd get out of hand? how was the tension of the meeting?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 10, 2008 7:15:34 GMT -8
No grade separations for Overland, Sepulveda, Centinela, or Westwood??? This is unbelievable. Expo is not going to be at full potential. Something is wrong Expo planning..this is not right. ;D Expo is already hotly contested, and with the possibility of grades being added--I can hear it it the fan with the Cheviot people---All the way to Downey, Ca. and louder than a sonic boom! Sincerely The Roadtrainer8-)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 8:05:39 GMT -8
Here are my comments that I posted from another thread.
Comment 1:
At last night's meeting, the MTA announced their conclusion that the crossings at Overland, Westwood, and Sepulveda would all be at-grade. This surprised and angered many people in the audience, which consisted of a few hundred people, mostly from the surrounding neighborhood.
Some argued that the grade crossing would cause increased traffic congestion. Others argued that the mitigations (in the form of additional lanes) would increase traffic.
LADOT is still working with the MTA, but has not signaled that they agree with the results of the analysis.
Comment 2:
Last night, we saw Damien Goodman at his worst. While he clearly came well-prepared and is very well-spoken, this was overshadowed by his complete disrespect for the process, for the dissenting minority opinion, and for the attendees of the meeting. He held discussions in the back of the room that were disruptive, and he asked questions out of turn. And worst of all, he talked over me and others who had the microphone.
Damien, your playground-level tactic of bulling speakers is cowardly, and it only hurt your cause last night.
Is there something unclear about the two-minute rule? Were you not allotted the same two minutes as me and everybody else?
Or does your objective (killing at-grade rail in L.A.) justify your gestapo tactics of shouting people down during their two minutes of speaking time?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 10, 2008 10:21:38 GMT -8
Damien: Your were showing a lack of class disrupting the meeting last night, recently I read on the net of a person interrupting a church service by shouting down the priests will he was speaking. We call that "Chicken Sh-t!'and you did the same thing last night as many eye witness reports tell us. Your disrespect is as bad or even worse than a heckler trying to takeover a religious service with his political jargon.
Damien stop the Chicken Sh-t tactics right now!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 11:17:33 GMT -8
You gave a really excellent speech, metrocenter, and stood up very well to Damien's rather aggressive heckling, bullying, and interruptions. (A shouting Damien even had the courage to walk through the crowd toward metrocenter during his speech and almost got escorted out by the police as a result.) I was really impressed by your passionate and very well-put speech.
Your points of there not being too many transit advocates because there are no buses going to that location and NIMBYs trying to prevent so many people from benefiting a very important project were perfect.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 11:18:17 GMT -8
The fight goes on. And it will probably keep going on until the line opens to the Santa Monica Pier. At that time the gas will have passed the $10 mark and even some of the richer NIMBYs will be taking the train: LA Times blog June 9Now, Terri Tippit, Chair for Neighbors for "Smart" Rail speaks. Remember that "Smart" Rail was originally founded with the hope of diverting the rail from their Westside neighborhood to Venice Blvd. So, a proper name for this organization should have been Neighbors for "No" Rail. Also included are Karen Leonard's comments, Cochair for Light-Rail "for" Cheviot. LA Times blog June 4LA Times blog June 3Previous blogs.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 11:26:49 GMT -8
metrocenter,
The minority in the room? Really, I had to stop my comments for 10 seconds as the entire room applauded when I said, "All rail should be grade separated," the quote from John Fisher the Asst. General Manager of LADOT.
And I love the focus on the "heckling," which involved me simply stating that the Green Line was "100% grade separated," when you mentioned it. That's all I said and you practically needed a tissue from the tears running down your face. You stopped your comments and started arguing with me saying something unintelligible while I was telling you to complete your comments.
If I hurt your feelings with the 1.5 second interruption metrocenter, I'm sorry. I'll try to be more sensitive.
And I'm using gestapo tactics? LOL! Maybe you've been reading different websites than me.
And why do those who speak so boldly on the internet not say a word when actually in the room with the people with whom they're speaking about on the net?
It is comical that you put "the process" and "respect" in the same sentence. The process refuses to appear at public meetings, refuses to allow public comment at the Phase 1 community meetings, refuses to respond to public records act requests (denies them on...I kid you not..."privilege"), violates the Brown Act at their Board Meetings left and right.
If the process were honest, inclusive and respectful half the stuff that goes on by Expo/MTA, on a daily basis wouldn't be allowed. But then it becomes harder to justify pushing a square peg in a round hole.
And I find it completely hilarious that you're devoting your posts here on "the process" and "decorum" instead of the material presented which was factually suspect.
Why when material is presented that you KNOW is incorrect do you so many of you sit silent?!
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 10, 2008 12:00:14 GMT -8
All rail should be grade separated? Maybe I'm completely crazy here, but then why aren't you arguing for grade separation on Flower?
The longer this goes on, the more nonsensical this argument becomes. Darrel has pretty much debunked everything you have brought up, and now the only argument we have is that we should just believe you and act because of what you say. You say we should think for ourselves. Well I think we all are when we disagree with what you're saying.
You're hypocritical and then you go for personal attacks. When all else fails, you rely on your ability to prey on the fears of others. And that's NIMBYism at its worst.
I only hope that Damien Goodmon becomes just a footnote in the history of the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 12:37:59 GMT -8
The minority in the room? Really, I had to stop my comments for 10 seconds as the entire room applauded when I said, "All rail should be grade separated," the quote from John Fisher the Asst. General Manager of LADOT. This is my point. Mine was clearly the minority opinion, and you showed zero respect for a dissenting opinion. And I love the focus on the "heckling," which involved me simply stating that the Green Line was "100% grade separated," when you mentioned it. Did you read both of my posted comments, above? The first is about what was announced at the meeting; the second is about your inability to let others speak without shouting them down. That's all I said and you practically needed a tissue from the tears running down your face. That's your take, but don't make up lies. It's childish. You can belittle my speaking style if you want, but it was from the heart, and you had NO right to interrupt me with your observations. And why do those who speak so boldly on the internet not say a word when actually in the room with the people with whom they're speaking? I have no interest in speaking to you in person, or online. My interest is making people aware of your faulty logic and tactics.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 10, 2008 12:40:54 GMT -8
It sounds like he was quoting someone when he said that all rail should be grade separated, not that he necessarily believes that is possible in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 12:52:23 GMT -8
Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, and Pico/Barrington have what I would consider very heavy traffic during peak hours. So MTA's decision to make all those crossings at-grade did surprise and disappoint me.
I'd like to see more details about how MTA's modeling of these intersections. I have to wonder whether or not MTA's proposal to add new lanes of traffic (by removing parking) is going to do the trick. Obviously, LADOT has concerns about this, as well.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 12:53:30 GMT -8
Tony,
You call "debunking" arguing that:
-at-grade is just as safe as grade separated -Ballona Creek is in South LA -the area adjacent to the tracks in Culver City is majority-minority -225-ton trains traveling 55 mph produce no vibration -crossing gates are down 20-30 seconds -the train is designed and operates in the same conditions as the Blue Line -LA's traffic challenges are like Phoenix, San Diego and Portland -sound walls aren't needed for classrooms 30 feet from tracks where trains are planned to blow by 55 mph blowing it's horn with crossing gate bells -and the new one: there will be zero deaths on the Expo Line
But for most people, they call that spin and dishonesty. They realize it's simply not true. The unfortunate part is that so many here know them not to be true yet they don't challenge him.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 12:57:13 GMT -8
^ Who has said, literally quoting, "at-grade is just as safe as grade separated"? And "225-ton trains traveling 55 mph produce no vibration"? And "there will be zero deaths on the Expo Line".
You are deliberately misquoting what people have said.
Specifically, you are taking assertions (i.e., at-grade isn't inherently unsafe) and rewording them into your own straw-man assertions (at-grade is just as safe as grade-separated") So who's being intellectually dishonest?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 13:12:53 GMT -8
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, because all of those things, except the Ballona Creek statement (which Darrell said at the Expo Authority Board Meeting) have been posted in this forum.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 13:35:50 GMT -8
I have no interest in speaking to you in person, or online. My interest is making people aware of your faulty logic and tactics. Faulty logic? Yes, because the possibility that building a line at-grade will lead to accidents and deaths, lower ridership, produce noise, and exaccerbate traffic are just way way out there. No one here in this forum has ever made such a statement. I'm the lone one. I've been called everything under the sun, and had every conceivable conspiracy theory purported as fact, but I don't whine about it. Maybe it's just because I don't see anything that could occur from my advocacy that would make me ashamed. Being on the right side and armed with facts will do that to a person. It's a one way street with you and so many others metrocenter. Or does your objective (killing at-grade rail in L.A.) justify your gestapo tactics of shouting people down during their two minutes of speaking time? All rail should be grade separated? Maybe I'm completely crazy here, but then why aren't you arguing for grade separation on Flower? The above two conflictory statements, which were posted just hours apart from one another are why I limit my time here.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 13:43:43 GMT -8
This is the presentation from yesterday's meeting. There is a lot of information to absorb, with regard to the design of the at-grade crossings and proposed mitigations.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 14:14:43 GMT -8
And when are you going to start becoming concerned about and making people aware of the tactics of bad behavior? I did ask for clarification on that, and got no response. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. You have zero credibility with me, especially since you insist on repeating the claim that I was crying. Personal attacks like the ones you employ are a sign of weakness. Yes, I am focused on your interruption of me, and I will bring it up as often as you try to minimize it. I will do this because shouting someone down is a petty, childish and anti-democratic way to win an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 14:24:18 GMT -8
I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. You have zero credibility with me, especially since you insist on repeating the claim that I was crying. Well-put, metrocenter. Zero credibility is an overstatement for Damien. He has negative credibility. I will try to clarify one thing: Damien did heckle metrocenter really aggressively. When metrocenter asked him to stop, he got even more agressive and started walking toward him from the side of the room, while shouting at him. Finally a cop standing on the other side of the room started slowly approaching Damien. I almost thought he would get arrested. Then the cop tapped on Damien's back and Damien looked back and he immediately turned into a lamb. The cop then took Damien to near the exit and he had a talk with him.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 10, 2008 14:41:47 GMT -8
The above two conflictory statements, which were posted just hours apart from one another are why I limit my time here. Really? Those two statements were conflicting? I was pointing out your hypocrisy and metrocenter was pointing out your NIMBY attitude (and your complete loss of credibility to everyone in the transit community). We all know your deal, and you are going after something impossible. Some would call it you trying to kill the line, while I would call it you being a NIMBY. They are not conflicting.
|
|