|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 7, 2007 20:11:56 GMT -8
Well, since this is sparking so much controversy, I decided that it needed it's own thread.
I'll start this off. One of my friends graduated from Dorsey High School and it pains me what people have been spreading to her. This is something that she wrote to me when I asked her about the Expo Line.
"Yes i know about the Expo line. I dislike the idea that it's really clse to the school and I mean the train track is right next to it annd it's going through a neighborhood. I don't understand why it can't be underground. When the line goes toward USC it's going to go underground then resurface..it's not really fair. It will also cause the houses to loose it's value."
We need to fight the NIMBY's in ALL OF LOS ANGELES. They are ahead of us and and abusing the fact that not many in the county know much about rail. THESE ARE LIES, WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO STAND.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 7, 2007 20:35:15 GMT -8
;D; Dude; I've heard it said that fighting the NIMBY's is an educational issue and that the fear the fear mongers are spreading around needed to be checked. We all seen the spin the BRU spreads around and the cure to that was education, and the press finally wising up to all their fear mongering tactics. Education is the issue and just as a lie is spread by word of mouth, so will the truth be spread around. let us flood all the media with the truth! sincerely the Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 11, 2007 15:05:26 GMT -8
The way I look at it is this.
Damien has a valid argument in this as a design issue. It's not going to stop Expo Line altogether.
Given that after Expo Line is completed to Santa Monica comes the Crenshaw Corridor that if it is LRT will encounter the same issues at the very least the Metro board will see a vocal and knowledgable community who will be its most vocal supporters during its funding stage because they want to ensure that Crenshaw corridor gets designed and built correctly.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 11, 2007 15:13:12 GMT -8
I entirely concur. I very, very much want the Crenshaw Corridor Project to be LRT to best serve that community and the entire region, and we need to look at grade separation and safety issues right NOW in order to achieve the consensus to make this project get built sooner (and safer), not later.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 11, 2007 20:45:48 GMT -8
www.buildexpo.org/images/PRESENTATIONS%2012.06.07%20Expo%20CA%20Board.pdfFor those of you who don't check the Expo Board Agendas regularly, you probably have not seen the renderings and cost-benefit analysis for the Farmdale crossing that was presented to the Expo Board which I linked above. What you will find is that the most reasonable alternative is to close Farmdale and build a pedestrian bridge. That will ensure the student are safe from not only LRT crossing but also, even more dangerous, motor vehicles. It is also the least expensive and least delaying option. Although I know most of you have your own very fierce positions about the Dorsey issue, I second Jerard in applauding Damien for his efforts to bring the issue to the forefront and I definitely hope these are taken into consideration with Crenshaw (mainly that it should be underground until AT LEAST after Leimert Park). While I agree with Damien's cause I don't agree the whole line should just stop and be rebuilt even though I would like it to be fully grade separated but I think that we should mitigate the line for the safety of the local population, like closing all cross streets between arterials to minimize auto/LRT/pedestrian contact. These are examples of where the right things aren't mutually exclusive from the less costly ones
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 11, 2007 22:57:33 GMT -8
Another thing. Why the hell are there not quad gates between La Brea and Vermont. Part of the reason the Gold Line is so much safer than the Blue is that its quad gated everywhere that it isn't grade separated but Highland Park, where thankfully there isn't a lot of traffic
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 12, 2007 8:10:28 GMT -8
La Brea is grade seperated. But, yes, no quad gates for Vermont.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2007 8:49:50 GMT -8
Right I understood that, hence the "between" but thanks for clarifying it. What I mean is other than Farmdale (which will be modified in some way shape or form) the line east of La Brea lacks safety features befitting an at grade railroad, namely quad gates. I bet Metro's argument is that Expo east of La Brea and especially Arlington is in a "street median" but c'mon people I distinctly remember crossing gates at Vermont/Expo as recently as a few years ago, obviously not in use for some time but still it's not like its not feasible traffic wise. An economic costs should be no issue. I highly doubt that 10 quad gates costs anywhere near the 50 million dollar cost of the elevated Venice/Robertson station, though that is necessary, just as necessary as the gates. Besides, quad gates allow higher operating speeds for Expo making the whole project more cost-efficient but I'm sure if you asked Metro why there are no crossing gates they'll say it costs too much...please get real Metro.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 12, 2007 19:26:07 GMT -8
50 million is ridiculous for a couple of quad gates. Who in the world came up with 50 million?
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 12, 2007 19:42:41 GMT -8
50 million is ridiculous for a couple of quad gates. Who in the world came up with 50 million? I believe the $50 million is the cost for an elevated grade separation. And by the way, didn't Arcadia vote to build a similar grade separation for the Gold Line Extension, and their cost was only $20 million ??
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 12, 2007 19:58:41 GMT -8
Yes, just to clarify the 50 million is for the cost of the Culver City aerial station at the original terminus of Venice/Robertson. My point with referencing the cost of the CC station is simply that quad gates would be chump change in comparison and they got that money from Prop 1B. Just a little more wouldn't hurt. Whitman is correct, Arcadia approved an aerial crossing for about 20 mil using a combination of methonds including a city bond, though that station would not be elevated but would be just across the first intersection that the line hits when it comes back to grade added info about Arcadia
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 20, 2007 17:15:03 GMT -8
;D When the Blue-line was being built Compton labored for a bridge crossing Alameda at Rosecrans,And they got it!!! So if they want a elevated crossing at Dorsey then let the people and the L.A. City Schools rise the money for it with the resoures that are in the community! I heard a story that if you took all the money that the Africian Americans were put together in one fund then you would have the 7th riches nation in the world. And this is not a dig against Africian Americans! I believe that the people of South Central can and will rise up and get the job done. They will fight and get this brige and light rail from the Purple-line to the Green-line!! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 20, 2007 20:02:01 GMT -8
The CPUC approved the Administrative Law Judge's Proposed Decision today, to authorize all but Farmdale (Dorsey High) and Harvard (the existing pedestrian tunnel at Foshay Middle School), per today's meeting. Public Utilities Commission of the State of CaliforniaResults of Public Agenda 3205 Meeting Held on Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:00 a.m. San Francisco, California Commissioners Michael R. Peevey, President John A. Bohn Rachelle B. Chong Dian M. Grueneich Timothy Alan Simon 9 [7167] A06-12-005 - Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Applicant). A06-12-020, A07-01-004, A07-01-017, A07-01-044, A07-02-007, A07-02-017, A07-03-004, A07-05-012, and A07-05-013 - Related matters. This decision authorizes Applicant to construct thirty-six new rail crossings along the proposed Exposition Boulevard Corridor Light Rail Transit Line in Los Angeles County. Twenty-six of these crossings will be constructed at-grade, and the other 10 crossings will be grade-separated. This consolidated proceeding remains open to address A07-05-013, for a proposed crossing at Farmdale Ave., and to receive further comment on the need for hearing regarding the proposed crossing at Harvard Blvd. requested in A06-12-020. (Comr Simon - ALJ Koss) Outcome Signed D07-12-029 Yes: (Bohn, Chong, Grueneich, Peevey, Simon) No: (none) Abstain: (none) Absent: (none) Concurrently, Damien Goodmon (on behalf of Expo Communities United, ECU) filed a "Motion to Reconsider the Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for Hearing filed on this day at 10:30 a.m. to the above referenced proceeding for a light rail grade crossing across Jefferson Boulevard, Adams Boulevard, and 23rd Street", claiming (emphasis added): In consideration of the Los Angeles Unified School District's (“LAUSD”) change from information only to party in the proceeding, and Position Statement of the LAUSD (“Position Statement”), both filed on December 17, 2007, ECU timely requests reconsideration of the Scoping Memo and Rule of Assigned Commissioner Determining the Scope, Schedule and Need for Hearing (“Scoping Memo”). Specifically, ECU requests evidentiary hearing at the following 13 proposed at-grade crossings where the most recent pedestrian traffic counts available to the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (“Expo Authority” or “Authority”) identify school youth pedestrian traffic: Washington Blvd/Flower, 23rd Street/Flower, Adams Blvd/Flower, 28th Street/Flower, Vermont Ave/Exposition, Raymond/Exposition, Normandie/Exposition, Halldale/Exposition, Denker/Exposition, Western/Exposition, Gramercy Place/Exposition, Arlington/Exposition, Crenshaw/Exposition, and Buckingham/Exposition. ECU further requests evidentiary hearings at the following 4 proposed at-grade crossings where the Authority's traffic counts reflect less youth pedestrian traffic than can conceivably be shown to be greater now and in the future during school months, than at the time measured: 30th St/Flower, Trousdale Parkway/Exposition, 7th Ave./Exposition, and 11th Ave./Exposition.
|
|
Mac
Full Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by Mac on Dec 20, 2007 20:03:43 GMT -8
Thx for the update!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 21, 2007 3:10:11 GMT -8
How much more would the Dorsey mitigation be? And is the $50 million available for the Culver City flyover?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Dec 21, 2007 7:40:47 GMT -8
For the Dorsey pedestrian over crossing, which seems to be the direction that this whole issue is going, I've heard numbers of about $5 million. This should be addressed in either January or February of 2008. If necessary, the Expo Authority will ask the Metro Board to provide these funds. And for your reading pleasure, here are the documents filed before the Public Utilities Commission: Motion to Reconsider the Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner Determining the Scope, Schedule, and Need for HearingExpo Crossing Case ExhibitsCertificate of ServiceThe $50 million for the elevated station at Robertson / Venice is coming from the pot of $950 million from the Proposition 1B funds. Originally Metro was thinking of building R / V in Phase II, as there was a funding shortfall. Now Metro is going to ask the State for these funds in February / March 2008, as finishing this station in Phase I avoids wasting money for a temporary station and saves on future cost increases.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2007 9:26:43 GMT -8
No one knows what the Dorsey mitigation will be. A pedestrian bridge? Grade separation? Stay tuned until the PUC decides.
As for the $50 million, this gets the Expo Line to its initially-planned terminus at Venice/Robertson, which is an elevated station (and therefore much more expensive) on the south/east side of Venice Blvd. and ensures elevated grade separation over Washington/National.
I'm not certain this means that the line will be elevated entirely from La Cienega to Venice/Robertson, or there will be some portion that is one the ground, but virtually or entirely all of the line will be elevated across Culver City.
...as it should have been all along.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 21, 2007 16:43:15 GMT -8
No one knows what the Dorsey mitigation will be. A pedestrian bridge? Grade separation? Stay tuned until the PUC decides. As for the $50 million, this gets the Expo Line to its initially-planned terminus at Venice/Robertson, which is an elevated station (and therefore much more expensive) on the south/east side of Venice Blvd. and ensures elevated grade separation over Washington/National. I'm not certain this means that the line will be elevated entirely from La Cienega to Venice/Robertson, or there will be some portion that is one the ground, but virtually or entirely all of the line will be elevated across Culver City. ...as it should have been all along. ;D Well--when will all the drama end? But as we say at Diversified Transportation, and when I was a bus operator fro Metro (Divisions 18,2, 15, and 9) It's never a dull moment! Good Doctor Alpern the flyover will probably look like the alignment on the Metro Blue-Line just past the Del Amo Station. The station is Ariel, then it drops down to ground level just South of Del Amo and then just before it gets to the crossing of the Long Beach Freeway (the 710) it goes up in the air again to cross the 710 and the Union Pacific right a way (Blue-Line Shawn can verify this), I once asked one of the LACTC board members why this alignment was built this way and her answer was "MONËY!! So in order to get this flyover built they the good ole boys at Metro may copy this alignment. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Jan 5, 2008 12:52:29 GMT -8
The Exposition Construction Authority is holding a presentation on the grade crossing alternatives proposed at Farmdale Avenue for the Exposition Light Rail Line.
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Location: West Angeles Church of God in Christ The Crystal Room 3045 Crenshaw Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90016
This location is served by Metro routes 38, 210 and 710.
EXPO Light Rail Project Government/Community Relations CONTACT INFORMATION Greg Starosky Representative Tel. 213-243-5534 gstarosky@exporail.net
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jan 11, 2008 10:28:54 GMT -8
I couldn't make it. How did it go?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 29, 2008 15:27:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Apr 29, 2008 18:47:39 GMT -8
This thing will just not die quietly. Well, I hope it gets defeated; this line has been delayed enough.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 29, 2008 19:20:11 GMT -8
Everyone said that there was no money for grade separation at Farmdale. Where did this new money for Culver City come from?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Apr 29, 2008 19:31:39 GMT -8
Culver City. As far as I know, Culver City would not allow the line unless it was completely grade separated, and they ponied up the money for that separation.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 29, 2008 19:43:23 GMT -8
The article says that $4 million came from Culver City and the rest from the MTA by way of the Prop 1B bond money. This doesn't seem odd to anyone?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 29, 2008 21:29:05 GMT -8
Everyone said that there was no money for grade separation at Farmdale. Where did this new money for Culver City come from? Prop 1B. Here's the difference between Venice/Robertson and Farmdale. Venice/Robertson grade separation had it's design for the crossing approved in the FEIR for an optional elevated, when funding becomes available. Also due to the odd configuration and close proximity of Washington/National to Venice Blvd there's no room to transition from at grade at Washington to elevated at Venice Blvd. Farmdale's at-grade crossing is the only crossing specified under the FEIR with no options for aerial or below grade separations, despite the fact that Supervisor Burke added an amendment to the board motion to study the crossing impacts on the Mid City section of the line. The results, improve the pedestrian queing areas and active safety appratus (flashing signs, timed crossing indicators and or Crossing guards)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 29, 2008 21:33:22 GMT -8
The article says that $4 million came from Culver City and the rest from the MTA by way of the Prop 1B bond money. This doesn't seem odd to anyone? Not to me, because in the FEIR, it stated that Culver City needed to pony up part of the funding and find the other source of funding. Because that provision was written in the FEIR document along with a couple of others with design options around USC just to leave things open for the other parties to provide other funding for the extra options.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 29, 2008 22:09:30 GMT -8
I first appeared before the Expo Board at the December '06 meeting after 1B was passed. I ironically went because I was told by a chief deputy of a member of the Board that their boss was going to fight for grade separations on Phase 1. This came to my total surprise, and since, I've seen little movement from the Board member to that end. November '07 was when Metro first preliminarily approved/requested the $50 mil for the Washington/National grade separation. December '06 to November '07, that's a span of 11 months. 11 months is plenty of time to have done the environmental clearance for Farmdale and several other crossings.The problem then, as it remains today, is that at most of the crossings the Boards refuse to recognize the problem. Simply, we have folk on Expo/Metro boards that don't care either way whether this gets built or not, and the rest have the deals they've made. But the longer they wait to change the design, the bigger the problem becomes! Metro has always had options. They can reprogram the money, they can bond it, they can scale back the project and tack on the remaining portion to Phase 2, they can do a thousand and one things, but they don't think there's a problem in Dodge and/or they think they can ram it through. Additionally, I did the math and it seems (though I can't yet confirm) that every additional penny for Expo has come from Prop 1B through reprogramming. Look at page 4 of the Expo Authority's presentation at Friday's Select Committee on Rail Transportation and you see they show $218 mil of the project budget has come from Prop 1B: Budget was $640M, and now it's $862. That's a difference of 222 mil. Subtract the 4 mil from Culver City and you have the $218 mil! $145 mil cost overrun +23 mil for Trousdale station/Blue Line track improvements, Frontage Road at LATTC +50 mil for Washington/National grade separation =$218 mil Again, little old Damien in December of '06 pointed them to the pot of gold (not like Rick Thorpe and Co needed me to) and they went after it, except it was for everything except grade separations in South LA. By the way, Culver City is kicking in 4 mil and getting a 50 mil match. That's a 12.5 to 1 match. LA is kicking in 40 or 50 mil. The equivalent match would be 500-625 mil. I'll take it! ;D Some folks want to focus on the tactics, tone or me personally because the real issue (how this project is being built) is unquestionably condemning. Update: Included the budget breakdown jpg.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 30, 2008 5:35:35 GMT -8
I think that Jerard states it pretty accurately above. The FEIR stipulated that the Phase 1 terminus was to be at Venice/Robertson, which had to be elevated because of engineering and safety studies where both Metro and the Westside Cities COG were pretty much in agreement. This pretty much fulfills the promise of Phase 1 of Expo, and for a variety of reasons (some political, some economic) should have but wasn't included in the original plan to have an interim terminus at Wesley St.
Wesley St. was chosen to avoid the more thorny issue of National/Washington, where Metro said it was OK to have it at-grade while Culver City engineering studies favored elevation. The Westside Cities COG supported Culver City, not Metro studies so the Wesley St. terminus, just east of National/Washington, was chosen until more money could be found to complete the full line to Venice/Robertson and yet proceed with the Expo Line one way or another.
I'll agree to disagree with those that say Farmdale/Dorsey is the same thing as Culver City or "lily white" USC (anyone else offended by racist, inaccurate or bullying overtones, or is it just me?), but I'll go out on a limb and suggest that had the LAUSD been willing to contribute funding to an elevated portion adjacent to Dorsey High School, this might have proceeded differently.
Not that I'll ever give Metro credit for always getting it right (Lord knows I've no problem with fighting Metro when I believe they're wrong), but there are some inconsistencies that we've seen between what the plaintiffs report and what those of us following this for years have observed.
I've absolutely NO interest in getting into a tit-for-tat, number-crunching debate on this board or any other forum, and I really don't do well with bullies (who, like most bullies, probably don't believe that they're the bullies but the victims), but here's an overview/summary:
1) USC--wanted a billion dollar (no joke here) subway paid for by the taxpayers, got a ~$40 million trench that allowed at least a 5-minute transit time shortening by departing the ROW to shorten the line by two curves; offered to have a station they could help pay for, paid nothing but will get a more plainwrap station because Metro and the City of L.A. felt it would not just serve USC's needs but the City/County of L.A.
2) Culver City--once a ferocious hotbed of NIMBYism in east Culver City (probably the most ethnically-mixed region of Culver City) that rivaled Cheviot Hills, and once a source of several opposing Councilmembers, fought a divisive internal battle just to get the line approved, and with much lobbying both within and outside of Culver City got an elevated line to/through its borders because it was recognized that the entire region would benefit by a full line to Venice/Robertson.
Whether the LAUSD will cough up some funds and agree to an elevated Farmdale crossing remains to be seen, but considering that the trench concept at both Overland and Farmdale appears to both have major limits with respect to engineering and cost-effectiveness (and I remind you I've pushed for the Overland trench for more years than anyone else on this board), I think that all parties need to take a deep breath and compromise for a solution that will find the best (if not imperfect) way for this project to move forward.
There are a lot of furious folks at USC and Culver City who don't want the Expo Line to proceed in its current form, so I just don't see any giveaway to either entity but rather the City and County of L.A. making some betterments to have the line go faster and safer.
At this time, I intend to fight for an elevated grade separation at Overland and Sepulveda (and perhaps Westwood, but I need more local input for that), and I wish that the LAUSD would cough up some money for an elevation at Farmdale as well. Until then, all the suing and bullying and reality-spinning will always, and I mean ALWAYS, strike me as an inappropriate way to resolve this problem.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 30, 2008 7:28:43 GMT -8
For those who see this as a political issue and not a transit issue or a design consistency/environmental justice issue it's easy to lose sight of the fact that predicating grade separations on an entity's ability to pay for "betterments" WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN AN INEQUITABLE DESIGN with substantially greater environmental impacts in communities underrepresented politically, and these are typically poorer or black and brown communities. Stated more simply, there are environmental justice laws on the books for a reason.Additionally, it's quite a remarkable statement to say "If LAUSD would cough up the money they could have a grade separation." Would this be a different debate if Dorsey were a private high school like Morningside (a minority urban high school in Inglewood), instead of public high school? Does not the Dorsey HS community pay taxes to go towards transportation? This is Metro's project. My tax dollars to the District (which is facing $460M in state cuts by the way) go to build schools and pay teachers to educate children. My tax dollars for Metro go to build and operate the transportation system. I don't think the two should ever meet and if I recall correctly a whole lot of people, including you Ken, were ready to storm the Capitol last year when the state legislature raided transportation money to balance the budget for things like education. And like I said Ken, why shouldn't LA get the same match that Culver City got for grade separations: 12.5 dollars for every 1 dollar. Again LA put up 40-50 mil. After subtracting the cost for the Figueroa trench, and La Brea and La Cienega overpasses, LA is due about $400-475 million. When can we expect our check for additional grade separations in Phase 1?As I've stated ad nauseum, applying any of the countless state and federal policies/standards for evaluating grade crossing safety hazards would at the very least flagged this and many other currently at-grade Expo Line intersections. But it's Metro's grade separation policy that didn't even consider it problematic. What those who want to face reality know is that Metro is far from a saint. Whether at Farmdale, at Washington/National, at Jefferson/National, or anywhere else, Metro designs the project to the lowest possible standard they can to get the project through (environmentally cleared, politically approved and funded) and forces cities and communities to fight for "betterments." The stronger the community/city the greater the likelihood of receiving so-called "betterments." We live in the traffic capital of the nation, where the deadliest light rail line in the country is operated and grade separation for a 100-year infrastructure project is considered an "betterment" instead of a standard? I know I'm not the only one in transit circles who has a problem with this. More people are needed to attempt to reform this way of building transit, instead of defending it. And no Ken it wasn't a billion dollar subway. The estimate was $100-120 million extra, which many individuals, including many on this board, have questioned before. The $120M estimate was for a far deeper cut-and-cover tunnel with two deep underground stations with mezzanine levels. A shallow and much cheaper trench with just one open-cut station is possible. (And there's always the economy of scale if a bored tunnel with open-cut stations between Jefferson and La Brea.) And as I pointed out at the Select Committee on Rail Transportation even if USC did pony up the money that would have only exacerbated the environmental justice issue. Again, this is no way to build important 100-year infrastructure projects. And thank you for admitting a part of the real deal on how the Washington/National grade separation as approved. See if you can get Darrell to admit it as well. By the way, I agree the bullying and reality-spinning is wrong, but it's the way Metro's been operating since it's inception. I honestly see people laugh when I tell them some people actually attempt to portray Metro as this innocent little public agency trying to do good. You'd be shocked by the number of very high-level political and agency representatives whose message is: "Get your ducks in a row and sue." It's actually rather shocking - the candor and the circumstances where instead of getting elected officials to work on our behalf we have to fight the very people elected to represent us. Metro a 13-member county-wide political gorilla. It acts as such, and anyone who treats it as any different is sure to be, pardon the pun, railroaded, as I have come to learn. Problem with me and my community is we don't take too well to being lied to, lied about and intimidated. But if someone has suggestions as to how to deal with this issue in a manner that leads to the desired results I'm all ears. But I thought the last word we heard from Friends 4 Expo regarding a solution was to simply build it as designed? And the supreme irony of course is a Friends 4 Expo Steering Committee Member spoke at an Expo Board meeting saying to build Farmdale at-grade, because changing the design may invite an environmental justice challenge. I thought that was quite a statement: to admit there's a problem and instead of advocating for it to be fixed, to state we better hurry up and build it before we get caught.
|
|