gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 29, 2009 0:16:10 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. Reminds me of Switzerland a bit.
Do you think the engineered drawings that overlay the aeriel photographs are exact? As I can see that the line for the rt & lt tracks seem to be off/north about 10 feet from where the old rail lines and ROI are located.
If you look at that section just west of Sawtelle, it seems like the lines are in the parking lot rather than on the easement.
It seems like the best route is to stay on the easement. I checked out via google the route and it looks like a pretty nice clear shot right to downtown santa monica. Some of the bldgs are pretty close, but for the most part this shouldn't take down hardly any structures that are not already on easment land.
Reason I ask is because I was checking this out and thought for sure the storage bldg to the so. was on easment land and the old s. track is at the foot of the bldg.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 29, 2009 9:40:22 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. Reminds me of Switzerland a bit. Don't forget, it is an exaggerated vertical scale. You can literally see the old rails here just west of Sawtelle. Most of the phase 2 right-of-way is 100 feet wide, but Southern Pacific leased out much of the sides around the remaining 25 feet for the old track. Those leases will be terminated and yes, the new line may diverge a little from where the old track is. The right-of-way owned by Metro ends at 17th Street in Santa Monica. It's been built on from 17th to 16th and west of 14th. That's why the choices became using either Olympic or Colorado the rest of the way to downtown Santa Monica.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Jan 29, 2009 18:09:50 GMT -8
Wow, That's the exact area I was referring to.
So on the overlay map the outside line, with the dash, shows the boundries for the Right of Way. The overlay map is accurate then and the new track will be just to the north of the old rail lines.
Can you point me to the link for that last picture of the parking lot? I couldn't find it in the links posted above.
I am curious how they will deal with the businesses during construction. Looks like phase one had a lot of warehouse and industrial but the phase two is going to come pretty close to some of the retail bldgs there.
The section between Sepulveda and Sawtelle is perfect for a station as there is a lot of land there. It's too bad they built so many storage facilities in the area. I think a mix of retail & residential along this section would have been better use for santa monica bound residents and commuters.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 29, 2009 18:28:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 29, 2009 18:43:47 GMT -8
The Expo Line is certainly being built on the Pacific Electric Railroad right-of-way. This right-of-way was originally built in 1875 as the Los Angeles & Independence Railroad. It was one of the very first railroads in Southern California. The width of it is 100 ft. It was sold to Southern Pacific and then later to Pacific Electric. It was known as the Santa Monica Air Line for most of the history, air line meaning a straight railroad. When Pacific Electric died in the 60s, Southern Pacific bought it. It was sold to MTA in 1990. If you want to see the details of the right-of-way go to navigatela.lacity.org/Then check parcels, outlines only, under landlines, and aerial pictures. You can also overlay many other things. There you will see all the details of the right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 10, 2009 18:37:43 GMT -8
Be sure to read the City of Santa Monica's extensive staff report for tonight's City Council study session on the Draft EIR.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 10, 2009 19:20:42 GMT -8
Wow! Extensive indeed.
It's now clear that the City of Santa Monica will not accept the Olympic alignment at gunpoint, because of the elevated structure. On the other hand, they would like the at-grade Colorado alignment very much.
It's also interesting that they are asking for a trench at Clover. I doubt they will get it. Although, there is one thing on their side: The ramp for the overpass is 5.40% because of lack of space. This is not ADA-compliant. The trench could require a less steep ramp but perhaps not.
They also don't want the rail yard but they will probably have to live with it, since this seems to be the only possible location. I think the bike path doesn't need to detour around the maintenance facility though.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 10, 2009 20:41:12 GMT -8
It's also interesting that they are asking for a trench at Clover. I doubt they will get it. Although, there is one thing on their side: The ramp for the overpass is 5.40% because of lack of space. This is not ADA-compliant. The trench could require a less steep ramp but perhaps not. ADA compliance for a rail incline doesn't matter because it's for the rail vehicles which should have a max incline of either 5 or 6%. They'll design it for the max incline. They'll have to live with it. No rail yard means no Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 10, 2009 21:28:09 GMT -8
ADA compliance for a rail incline doesn't matter because it's for the rail vehicles which should have a max incline of either 5 or 6%. They'll design it for the max incline. Perhaps they are legally OK but from a technical perspective, they are not truly ADA-compliant since the floor of the train on the ramp would have too steep slope for the disabled persons. But 5.4% is very close to the 5.0% limit anyway; so, they could easily shave off that 0.4% if they like. The normal slope for LRT is 4% (as throughout Phase 1); although, in principle up to 7% or so is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 11, 2009 8:13:22 GMT -8
Perhaps they are legally OK but from a technical perspective, they are not truly ADA-compliant since the floor of the train on the ramp would have too steep slope for the disabled persons. But 5.4% is very close to the 5.0% limit anyway; so, they could easily shave off that 0.4% if they like. That won't matter because the handicapped person is inside the rail vehicle and the rail vehicle is doing all the work climbing the incline. If this were the case then the emergency walkways on elevated structures would have high floor platforms to match the train cars. ADA compliance doesn't matter on this type of structure, at stations that is a key issue because of the likelyhood of persons boarding and exiting the trains. Thankfully ADA is not that strict about accessibility for something that happens on very rare occasions and if it does happen chances are they'll be enough passengers on the train to help the person out.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 11, 2009 9:07:45 GMT -8
Perhaps they are legally OK but from a technical perspective, they are not truly ADA-compliant since the floor of the train on the ramp would have too steep slope for the disabled persons. But 5.4% is very close to the 5.0% limit anyway; so, they could easily shave off that 0.4% if they like. That won't matter because the handicapped person is inside the rail vehicle and the rail vehicle is doing all the work climbing the incline. If this were the case then the emergency walkways on elevated structures would have high floor platforms to match the train cars. ADA compliance doesn't matter on this type of structure, at stations that is a key issue because of the likelyhood of persons boarding and exiting the trains. Thankfully ADA is not that strict about accessibility for something that happens on very rare occasions and if it does happen chances are they'll be enough passengers on the train to help the person out. They must complain with ADA for the stations. They can't build the line without proper ramps or lift devices at the stations. Again, I'm not arguing with you that they would be in trouble with ADA for the overpass ramps but it's just a matter of convenience. You don't want to put the train on an 8% ramp and have some old folk lose his balance as a result or some wheelchair (not properly secured) come loose and start accelerating from one end of the train to the other. This is not a roller coaster they are building; so, on the contrary, more level is better. Again, in this case it hardly matters because (a) it's only 0.4% and (b) it's only a few hundred feet. They don't want to go higher than 5% anyway because of traction and braking problems. I just had raised up this minor issue that no one even will care about. They won't get the underpass at Cloverfield, not really because of the cost but because other people have asked for it and didn't get it. Hell would break loose if they changed the design and built an underpass in front of the Watergarden at the request of Santa Monica, with Santa Monica already being accused by these people for "shoving the Expo Line down our throats."
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 12, 2009 17:24:05 GMT -8
^ ;D I agree, we're not arguing about it, we're coming to the same conclusions about the situation. (Thumbs up)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Feb 13, 2009 9:59:08 GMT -8
If the train tilts 5.4 degrees doesn't the floor inside the train car also tilt 5.4 degrees as well? Wouldn't this breach ADA?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 13, 2009 13:14:37 GMT -8
No, it wouldn't because the person can be strapped to the floor.
This would be like a special Access services van going up or down a steep hill to pick up a disabled person. The van itself isn't considered breaching ADA when going up the steep hill because it is there to transport that person and it's facilities has the ability (straps, lifts, level floor boarding) to enable a disabled person to ride it.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 17, 2009 12:12:31 GMT -8
Reminder: The City of Santa Monica's community meeting on phase 2 is tonight: - Tues., Feb. 17, 7:00-9:00 p.m. — Civic Auditorium East Wing, 1885 Main St., Santa Monica
The Draft EIR public hearings begin tomorrow (all 5:00-8:00 p.m.): - Wed., Feb. 18 — Santa Monica High School, Cafeteria, 601 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica
- Mon., Feb. 23 — Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services, Gymnasium, 3200 Motor Ave., Los Angeles
- Wed., Fed. 25 — Webster Middle School, "Daniel's Den", 11330 W. Graham Place, Los Angeles
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 17, 2009 22:55:27 GMT -8
Nice sketch of the end of Colorado from the Santa Monica workshop tonight:
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Feb 20, 2009 19:12:16 GMT -8
Did anyone attend the meetings this week?
I went to the Thursday meeting at Santa Monica high school. It was interesting to meet the representatives from the expo team as they were very helpful in explaining the proposed designs of phase 2.
I have a thought that came to me after the meeting. There is a section that will be above grade and between two major streets...sawtelle & pico. from what I understand that section will go from vertical supports colums at sawtelle to solid walls, about 18 feet high, filled with dirt, then back to support colums to cross Pico. Do you think there is a reason for building walls and filling them rather than building support beams. Is it cheaper or required from an engineering standpoint.
I bring this up because the wall design will eliminate parking for several retail stores & restaurants adjacent to ROW and pretty much kill those businesses, where as columns would allow the existing leased parking spaces to remain under the elevated rail line.
What is the best way to voice my concern. I'm not sure if a public speech at a meeting will go anywhere or if something like this is even a consideration to the designers.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 20, 2009 20:10:14 GMT -8
There is a section that will be above grade and between two major streets...sawtelle & pico. from what I understand that section will go from vertical supports colums at sawtelle to solid walls, about 18 feet high, filled with dirt, then back to support colums to cross Pico. Do you think there is a reason for building walls and filling them rather than building support beams. Is it cheaper or required from an engineering standpoint. I looked carefully at the Draft EIR Appendix E plan & profile drawings and Chapter 2 description and can't find any mention of retained fill in this section (or in the similar section between the Cloverfield and Olympic bridges). They do typically show and mention it for the end ramps to grade. First step is to verify which it is, which we can ask at next week's meetings. It is cheaper, but I agree with you and suggest you submit comments about it, stating your reasons against retained fill at that location.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 20, 2009 20:57:01 GMT -8
The only alternative to retained fill is an embankment or a trench surrounding the ramp. Since this won't happen at these locations because of the width of the right-of-way, it must be a retained fill...
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Feb 21, 2009 20:58:00 GMT -8
I looked carefully at the Draft EIR Appendix E plan & profile drawings and Chapter 2 description and can't find any mention of retained fill in this section (or in the similar section between the Cloverfield and Olympic bridges). They do typically show and mention it for the end ramps to grade. First step is to verify which it is, which we can ask at next week's meetings. It is cheaper, but I agree with you and suggest you submit comments about it, stating your reasons against retained fill at that location. I looked at the reports as well. They don't mention this particular block but rather talk about west of the pico overpass. One section states they will acquire sections along the curb and sidewalk for grading at pico/sawtelle to reduce the street level. I checked appendix G to see if the bldg is to be acquired but it's not shaded. However, in Appendix E it mentions purchase of real estate at pico/sepulveda. Reps at the meeting couldn't recall exactly but did say they thought both the retail & storage bldgs would remain in place. Oddly enough that storage bldg along exposition looks like it is 100% on ROW and would not be affected at all by both construction and the completed line. Whereas the retail bldg to the North is not on ROW with exception to their parking lot and they will be forced to basically close because of lack of this parking. I always assumed they would run the rail where that storage bldg stands rather than further to the north side of the ROW. Confusing. I will fill out the comments sheet and give them to the business owners as well. I think I should say that the businesses, specifically Billingsley's Steakhouse restaurant, has been there for well over 35 years, is well known, and one of the last steakhouses in west la. It is owned by the Billingsley family with family roots to the stork club in NY and Leave it to Beaver... etc.. It would be nice if the expo could use columns to elevate this section and allow the parking to continue after const. is completed.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 21, 2009 22:42:50 GMT -8
Light Rail for Cheviot has a good discussion of at-grade vs. elevated crossings and parking lot vs. greenway at the Westwood station. Here are their two images ( not Expo Authority's) of what a bridge at Overland could look like. Looking north on Overland Looking west on Northvale toward Overland
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 22, 2009 8:36:49 GMT -8
Looks fine to me, and my recent discussions with neighbors all over the region (most of whom either accept or favor the ROW the route) will prefer this option.
Throw in a slightly-widened rail bridge with a pedestrian/bicycle walkway, and you've got a mitigated and much happier neighborhood.
I believe that something like this is almost universally favored at Sepulveda, but I do believe the big discussion will be at Westwood, which is quieter and (regardless of the numbers I've seen thrown around by the Authority) has less traffic than either freeway-adjacent Sepulveda or Overland.
I am very, very glad that Farmdale is pretty much a done deal, because that's more akin in size and traffic to Military, and no one in the neighborhood is talking much about Military (or even Westwood, for that matter). For some reason, we got to comparing Overland with Farmdale, but the major boulevards of Overland and Sepulveda are much more akin to La Brea or La Cienega.
Let's start comparing apples to apples, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 22, 2009 10:28:57 GMT -8
Well, Ken, no one, including the NIMBYs, has ever claimed that Famdale was anything more than a small collector street like Military. The issue at Farmdale was the large student flux at 3:07 - 3:22 PM, with the number of students crossing the tracks being about 200 students per minute at the peak period. I think an at-grade running with gates would still work there, but closing Farmdale has now definitely eliminated all safety concerns there period. There is no analog of Farmdale for Phase 2 or at anywhere else along Phase 1. The grade separation for Phase 2 will obviously be a hotly debated topic. Always keep in mind that Phase 1 was built at-grade at some extremely busy streets like Vermont, Normandie, Western, and Crenshaw and we don't want to create environmental-justice issues with Phase 1 vs. Phase 2. The most critical requirement for the trains to be able to run at-grade is safety. If the trains can be safely run at-grade at Overland, Sepulveda, Barrington, and Centinela, I don't see why it shouldn't be at-grade. The impacts on traffic will be minimal. But the NIMBYs will keep asking for grade separation and bring Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 environmental-justice issues in order to kill the project and even stop the Phase 1 operations. With all this said, go light-rail, long-live Expo, and keep whipping the NIMBYs!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 22, 2009 20:54:57 GMT -8
Well, I think you're partially right--if the Authority can convince the LADOT that their proposed mitigations can allow Westside streets such as Overland and Sepulveda to fall below the Metro grade crossing thresholds, then they will be at-grade. To date, with the possible exception of Westwood, the LADOT has rejected the Authority's plans and suggestions.
I remember when the Culver City Council came in favor of Expo but also grade separations because of their own studies...and the Expo Line went through Culver City with appropriate grade separations after years of contention. While your suggestions about Vermont, Normandie, Western and Crenshaw are important and vital to the debate, the same LADOT folks who OK'ed those at-grade crossings are rejecting Overland and Sepulveda and other Westside at-grade crossings.
Just as I disagreed with the Metro staff--with whom I normally agree with--in Culver City, I disagree with the Expo Authority staff--with whom I normally agree with--in West L.A.
I cannot speak about the Mid-City crossings you describe...I'm just not familiar with them. However, the incredible amount of mitigation needed for Westside at-grade crossings were just not on the table when the Mid-City grade crossings were discussed.
When we all talk about a grade separation here or there, it's about how best to safely and quickly get lots of trains from the ocean to Downtown and vice versa--and it is my conclusion, just as it was in Culver City, that the numbers and mitigations are so very close that grade separation will be needed in more places than the Authority has "concluded" at this time.
Farmdale and Harvard were the only PUC-disputed grade crossings that required the final vote by the commissioners; indirectly, Farmdale WAS unfortunately compared to the Westside major streets that serve as major conduits to the 10 and 405 freeways, and with Farmdale squared away I remain convinced that the discussion will change to a more realistic one in the months to come.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 22, 2009 20:57:11 GMT -8
...and I respectfully but vigorously disagree with your contention that Farmdale and Overland weren't compared, because for some peculiar reason Dorsey H.S. was compared to Overland Elementary School. It was pretty obvious that for political reasons the at-grade crossings next to Overland and Charnock Elementary Schools were rigorously (if not fanatically) adhered to while the Dorsey H.S. at-grade option was pursued by the Expo Authority.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 23, 2009 6:21:11 GMT -8
"With all this said, go light-rail, long-live Expo, and keep whipping the NIMBYs!"
To which I entirely agree, Gokhan. It's a pleasure to work with you and Darrell and the rest as we figure out how to make this long-overdue Expo Line a reality.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Feb 24, 2009 12:48:26 GMT -8
Check out CurbedLA for a report on the Monday night meeting at Vista del Mar in Cheviot Hills. All the lies, mistruths and distortions are reported upon in full glory. It is truly amazing how so many know so little about a subject and make up facts as they go along. Also, feel free to post your comments on that blog.
|
|
gregd
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by gregd on Feb 24, 2009 13:55:44 GMT -8
The only alternative to retained fill is an embankment or a trench surrounding the ramp. Since this won't happen at these locations because of the width of the right-of-way, it must be a retained fill... I went to the meeting last night in Cheviot hills... different crowd than the santa monica meeting, but I was their later. My concerns about the elevated rail line were completely satisfied once I spoke to another Expo rep, I forgot her name. If you recall, from my post above, I thought it would be retaining wall/fill between sawtelle & pico, however I was shown the plans and the line will be elevated with columns, which will allow all the retail business to continue utilizing the parking area below. Aa 100% win win situation. Really goes to show how along each step of the way the City planning dept is really working with each property owner, on a case by case basis to get this done right and in harmony with the surrounding residences & businesses.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Feb 24, 2009 14:06:04 GMT -8
Quote from curbed LA "How would you feel to have a railroad in your bedroom?” I would love it. When I was a young teenager I had a small "oo" guage layout in my bedroom. :-)
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Mar 3, 2009 21:05:44 GMT -8
The Santa Monica City Council meeting is happening right know and they are at this moment talking about their comments to put in the DEIR and the met with the design people with EXPO who talked about the maintenance facility. One member suggested putting the maintenance facility depressed in the ground and staying depressed going under the intersections and coming up on either Olympic or the ROW west of cloverfield. Having it depressed could have the opportunity to build housing above it which is what the city wants to do with this area in range of bergamot station.
P.S. If you missed the meeting,A video will be put on the city website most likely tomorrow.
|
|