|
Post by darrell on May 4, 2008 13:18:56 GMT -8
I just found this new Phoenix Metro Safety Brochure that serves as an example of light rail standards in other cities. Note that this line is mostly in boulevard medians and as far as I know has no grade separations at all other than crossing freeways and the river in Tempe. Here are some excerpts from the other side: METRO SAFETY BY DESIGN Light rail has an excellent safety record nationwide and worldwide. METRO has incorporated the best design elements and safety practices from other cities to build safety into our system.
• Improved pedestrian signals Improvements include countdown signals, new walkways and landscaping to reduce jaywalking. Special attention has been given to safety in school zones with the installation of new signals at some crossings.
• Protected turn lanes Automobiles may turn across the METRO tracks only from designated turn lanes controlled by red and green arrows.
• Train-only guideway METRO travels in its own guideway, separated from traffic by six-inch curbs. Auto traffic may cross only at controlled locations, and special traffic signals and warning signs activate when trains approach. ...
KIDS: BE SMART, BE SAFE • Stop, look and listen around light rail tracks. • Cross intersections only in a crosswalk and obey the crosswalk signs. ... See anything the Expo Line doesn't do as well or better, per previous post?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 4, 2008 14:16:41 GMT -8
"environmental racism" and this project meets it to a tee. Call it what it is. ;D Dude: You need to dump these people who get into name calling-"Lilly White USC" These People will only hurt your cause-RE: Jeremiah Wright hurting the Obama Campaign with his hate speech. I am in favor of a flyover at the High school site and a BETTER SITUATION at Foshay. But dump these name callers, they will do you more harm than good! Name callers sound just like the BRU bunch, and you know how they have called everybody racists including the Politicians from South central. Can you win a law suit without calling people racists? Yes you can! No I don't live in the area but I do drive a bus that covers the area that you are debating. Both sides of Baldwin Hills And from Vernon Ave. to Venice and Santa Monica. Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 4, 2008 15:12:35 GMT -8
Anyone can sue an organization anytime, whether it has merit or not is meaningless when the objectives are to stall to project or the goals are politically motivated. Case in point: the Glendale Galleria vs. The Americana - the court battle had no merit, yet it stalled the project by many years and added many millions to the cost. In the end it was all about time and money.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 4, 2008 18:58:58 GMT -8
roadtrainer, Again, I did not make the "lily white USC" comment, I would never make the comment. It was made by a blogger who received the press release, and my guess is their intent was simply to be snarky. Darrell, First off, it won't be me arguing the environmental justice case. It will be the 700-attorney firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, a 2007 California Lawyer of the Year, and a slew of civil rights attorneys. Second, I've clearly stated over and over again that the discrepancy in design is project specific. It's plastered all over the www.FixExpo.org website. It's stated in this thread. I've already detailed in no less than two posts ( 1 and 2) on the FixExpo.org website, and in a post in this very thread the discrepancy in environmental impacts and safety hazards. I've said before, but with every post from you it's becoming even clearer that your intent is just to drown out my posts and points with repetition of the same spin. But repetition does not transform a falsehood into truth. Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega no children will be forced to walk across Expo Line tracks. (In South LA: thousands per day every day for the next 100 years). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega there is no chance of train-vehicle accident. (In South LA: dare you argue that none will be experienced?). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega there will be no train horns or crossing gate bells. (In South LA: 240 trains per day X 4 horns per train = 960 horns at every intersection with crossing gates) Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega no blight/privacy impacts to residential communities (see Section 4.4-40 of the EIR/EIS) (In South LA: the La Brea overpass which is 50 feet from residential properties). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega there will be no forced commuter detours. (In South LA: 8 street closures, 6 crossing gates and countless other adverse impacts to traffic). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega there will be no delays in emergency services from crossing gates. (In South LA: Fire Station 34 at 7th Ave, and Fire Station 94 at Farmdale...among other intersections). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega there will be no closed off parks. (In South LA: Baldwin Hills Park permanently cut off from the north with Rancho Cienega significantly cut off from the northeast). Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that MTA keeps "finding the money" for everything and every where EXCEPT additional grade separations in South LA. Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that MTA has within it's EIR minimum operable segments at Vermont and Crenshaw, which allow them to build the Expo Line to a temporary terminus and begin operations, while they complete the environmental review process and identify additional resources to continue the below grade alignment to La Brea. You can spin and distract until the cows come home but YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE FACTS regarding the environmental impacts of this project. You can continue arguing that the impacts and safety hazards of an at-grade rail line are the same as a 100% grade separated rail line, but as a friend I tell you that such arguments seriously jeopardize the credibility you've built. It's a testament to the bullying tactics of some here that more don't just simply call you out on that alone. Additionally, such arguments perfectly illustrate for anyone willing to see, WHY IT IS MAY 2008 AND THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. When they are brought to Friends 4 Expo and MTA, they fall on deaf ears and are met with: a) spin, spin and more spin justifying doing what is wrong by yourself b) statements that this is the way things are done by other F4E steering committee members...grow up and deal with it. and/or c) calls that we need to build as is so we don't get caught by other F4E Steering Committee members. It is simply audacious given these conditions that people would dare blame the people raising the concerns - demanding corrective measures for the current state of affairs.Again Darrell, let this forum know: how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond?Multiples more money is being spent west of La Cienega resulting in substantially lower environmental impacts and safety hazards as compared to the majority minority census tracts. If that's not environmental racism, then just what is?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 4, 2008 20:14:37 GMT -8
Damien, once again you've not responded to the facts I've presented, only repeated the same objections to at-grade light rail.
Never mind that the standard for light rail in many cities is mostly at-grade.
Never mind that the Expo Line decision was made in 2001 and 2005, and grade-separated rail was never an option. If not for the many supporters of light rail in 2001, there would most likely be another Orange Line at-grade busway roaring past Dorsey High today.
Never mind that there are more grade separations in the minority Los Angeles Census tracts east of Ballona Creek than in Culver City, based on the objective process of the MTA Grade Crossing Policy.
Nor will a high-powered attorney change the facts of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 4, 2008 20:31:38 GMT -8
I'd also note that when longer light rail grade-separations are called for, they're generally aerial like these examples of the Green Line in El Segundo and Capitol Avenue in San Jose. And in Culver City from National to Venice.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 4, 2008 20:47:36 GMT -8
Someone please explain to Darrell how his most recent post does nothing to address the facts that I stated in the post that immediately preceded his. Maybe I should just start numbering the lines in my post, so when Darrell tries to distract the forum I can just issue a 1 line reply: "Post 14 Line 4." LOL!
Additionally, if you have adverse and disproportionate impacts that effect 10 miles, the environmental justice issue isn't suddenly addressed if corrective measures are taken in 1 of the miles, because THE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS STILL REMAIN IN THE OTHER 9 MILES! This really is not a difficult concept to understand.
|
|
fredcamino
New Member
Los Angeles Public Transit Lifestyle
Posts: 28
|
Post by fredcamino on May 4, 2008 23:31:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 5, 2008 11:01:33 GMT -8
Someone please explain to Darrell how his most recent post does nothing to address the facts that I stated in the post that immediately preceded his. Someone please explain to Damien how his posts have not addressed the detailed responses and documentation I've provided. Repetition of the same spin will not change the fact that west of La Cienega no children will be forced to walk across Expo Line tracks. Culver City north of National has the same configuration as Los Angeles south of Jefferson and west of La Brea (where Clint Simmons lives), with houses separated from the tracks and a bridge ramp nearby. " Forced" to walk across the tracks, like these Foshay kids are " forced" to walk across Exposition Blvd. today? Who I observed had no problem safely following the signals to cross. Like kids in Portland, San Francisco, San Jose, Pasadena, East L.A., and Phoenix, to name a few other current and coming light rail cities.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 5, 2008 14:29:43 GMT -8
THE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS STILL REMAIN IN THE OTHER 9 MILES! What "9 miles" would that be? The 1.3 miles of Expo Line in the median of Exposition Blvd. between Vermont and Gramercy? Which is like the 2.2 miles of Eastside Gold Line in the median of 3rd Street (here passing Griffith Middle School at the Mednik station) or the mile of Expo phase 2 in Santa Monica in the Colorado median sought by the city: Or are you referring to the 1.9 miles from Gramercy to Farmdale, like the Pasadena Gold Line on private right-of-way ( video)? (For comparison, it's 1.8 miles from Farmdale to Culver City, and only 0.7 miles across Culver City.)
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 6, 2008 5:07:06 GMT -8
I honestly have better things to do with my time than repeating myself (2nd to last paragraph). Either you're not reading or, as I've said before, your intent is just to drown out what I'm saying with repeated spin. Spin will not change the facts. Although some are finding it highly entertaining. Especially the argument that the safety hazards and environmental impacts of at-grade rail are same as grade separated rail. Please tell us more about that.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2008 7:28:29 GMT -8
I honestly have better things to do with my time than repeating myself (2nd to last paragraph). Either you're not reading or, as I've said before, your intent is just to drown out what I'm saying with repeated spin. Spin will not change the facts. Although some are finding it highly entertaining. Especially the argument that the safety hazards and environmental impacts of at-grade rail are same as grade separated rail. Please tell us more about that. So, basically you are saying that it's OK to have at-grade west of La Brea. Then, perhaps, you should also explain this to your dear FixExpo/United Community Association, Inc., friend Clint Simmons, who lives at Exposition/Redondo and won't accept anything but a completely buried line. After explaining it to Clint, then please explain to Colleen Mason Heller why it's OK to have at-grade rail in her neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to Colleen, then please explain to East LA residents why it's OK to have at-grade rail in their neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to East LA residents, then please explain to Santa Monica residents why it's OK to have at-grade rail in their neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to Santa Monica residents, then please explain to Leimert Park/Baldwin Park/Inglewood residents why it's OK to have at-grade rail in their neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to Leimert Park/Baldwin Park/Inglewood residents, then please explain to Highland Park and South Pasadena residents why it's OK to have at-grade rail in their neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to Highland Park and South Pasadena residents, then please explain to residents who live near a light-rail line all around the country why it's OK to have at-grade rail in their neighborhood while the only thing you accept is below-grade rail between Vermont and La Brea. After explaining it to all these people, then please send your explanations to your lawyers and then let me know what they will think of you.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 6, 2008 9:27:42 GMT -8
I honestly have better things to do with my time than repeating myself. Obviously you don't, since you continue to repeat yourself. Spin will not change the facts. So true. The facts are plain to see, yet you continue to spin. You complain of others not listening, yet you don't answer other people's questions. Therefore, you are not worth talking to. My posts in the future will be addressed to others, only to counter your filibuster tactics. Damien, if you sincerely want to fight environmental racism where it operates on a massive scale, I'd urge you take a look at the LAUSD's massive construction program. This program (whose tactics I have been fighting for years now) is causing far more damage in minority communities than this little grade-crossing issue will ever cause.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 6, 2008 9:40:52 GMT -8
You can talk regional, but I'm talking project specific: EXPO LINE PHASE 1. Try to distract until the cows come home and you can't change the facts about Expo Phase 1.
You're so blinded by your "passioned opposition" you don't even know what his position is, what his issues are or how they can and cannot be mitigated.
So blinded, that you don't even know that the Expo Authority has now been forced to admit that one of his main issues at La Brea has serious validity, and there could be a drastic impact to the construction schedule due to the failure of MTA/Expo to appropriately address this issue back when he first raised it way back in 2005.
You know, I'm not the world's smartest person. I simply have a capacity to listen, act like an adult and check my emotions at the door, and conduct exhaustive research. I'm confused why people who have the same capabilities are so intent on making this discussion personal instead of an evaluation of technical and legal issues. What conclusion can an objective observer come to, regarding one's repeated attempts to sidetrack this discussion of technical and legal issues with character attacks and boogeymen personalization, except that absent such distractions, your arguments lack the sufficient logic to garner support.
Is this what you call transit advocacy?! Do you understand how such tactics have left many convinced you're simply an MTA enforcer instead of an Expo Rail advocate?
Someone in this thread above said "they will assume I am intelligent." You don't have to assume anything about me, because this isn't about me or anyone else. This is about the research presented, and conclusions any logical person can come to based upon the facts. I and others have chosen to act upon the conclusions, instead of sweep them under the rug.
Which again begs the important unanswered question: how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond?
And that addresses these issues how? Oh yea, it doesn't. It just makes it a whole lot easier to get away with not addressing the issue.
Is this really what the argument has become reduced down to: spend your time doing other things?
What next: if I have serious issues about child safety, get involved in gang intervention?
Or, if I have serious issues about environmental impacts, get more involved in the global warming movement?
"Pay no attention to these little issues here Damien. Go do something else some place else because these little issues here should only be brought up by Culver City and addressed in Culver City."
How sad.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2008 10:19:14 GMT -8
You can talk regional, but I'm talking project specific: EXPO LINE PHASE 1. Try to distract until the cows come home and you can't change the facts about Expo Phase 1. You're so blinded by your "passioned opposition" you don't even know what his position is, what his issues are or how they can and cannot be mitigated. So blinded, that you don't even know that the Expo Authority has now been forced to admit that one of his main issues at La Brea has serious validity. You know, I'm not the world's smartest person. I simply have a capacity to listen, act like an adult and check my emotions at the door, and conduct exhaustive research. I'm confused why people who have the same capabilities are so intent on making this discussion personal instead of an evaluation of technical and legal issues. What conclusion can an objective observer come to, regarding one's repeated attempts to sidetrack this discussion of technical and legal issues with character attacks and boogeymen personalization, except that absent such distractions, your arguments lack the sufficient logic to garner support. Is this what you call transit advocacy?! Do you understand how such tactics have left many convinced you're simply an MTA enforcer instead of an Expo Rail advocate?Someone in this thread above said "they will assume I am intelligent." You don't have to assume anything about me, because this isn't about me or anyone else. This is about the research presented, and conclusions any logical person can come to based upon the facts. I and others have chosen to act upon the conclusions, instead of sweep them under the rug. Which again begs the important unanswered question: how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond?Damien, I don't see how my post is personally attacking you. I don't also know why you are referring to me as someone with "passsionate opposition," while you should call it passionate support. And, yes, it would be really great if MTA or Expo paid me, bu they don't, and I don't expect them to. None of us transit advocates or Expo supporters get paid by them as you know very well. And, conversely, if I had a paid position at Expo or MTA, I wouldn't be able to publicly skopen about it. Clint Simmons talked to me in person at an Expo board meeting and he explained to me that he worked in the rail industry in the past, how noisy rail is, and because of this he wouldn't accept anything but a fully buried subway line. He also said the line wouldn't serve his neighborhood anyway because there are only (!) three stations planned in his neighborhood. Therefore, the line would be of no use to them but just a nuisance. He also told everyone that ten kids would be killed every month (!). If you, Damien, can say with a straight face that this guy is not a NIMBY, then I honestly don't know what to say to you. If you want to only focus on Phase 1, fine: There are five at-grade crossings at USC: Jefferson, Trousdale, Watt, Menlo, Vermont. Therefore, you can't make any environmental-justice claims based on grade separation. There is only one grade-separation structure in East Culver City: Venice/Washington/National. There is also one in the Mid-City area: the La Brea structure. Therefore, environmental-justice claims still don't apply. If there are no further grade crossings in East Culver City, it's because, as everyone knows and has been explained to you several times, the original alignment doesn't have any crossings there and the National Blvd crossings could simply be eliminated by keeping the tracks at-grade while doing a simple reconfiguration on the street.
|
|
kenny
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kenny on May 6, 2008 13:35:11 GMT -8
I don't know the area where, nor pretend to, but would a ped bridge over Expo Blvd and the Expo line be more feasible and cost effective? Compared to the current discussion, how much would a ped bridge cost? This would help get the kids across both the rail and Blvd safely. I understand no one uses ped tunnels for safety reasons, most around have been closed off.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 6, 2008 14:22:29 GMT -8
I'm confused why people who have the same capabilities are so intent on making this discussion personal instead of an evaluation of technical and legal issues. Why, indeed, Damien? We're still awaiting your responses to numerous postings on technical and legal issues. how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond? For the third time, we support light rail as it is generally designed in many US cities, and support the Expo Line as a well-designed light rail line.Your argument appears to be that there are "safety hazards and environmental impacts of at-grade rail" and therefore any at-grade light rail in South LA constitutes "environmental racism". That ignores the extensive environmental process for the Expo Line and its consistent mitigations for noise, safety, and traffic issues. It meets or exceeds the standard of at-grade light rail in other cities and the recent Pasadena (predominantly private right-of-way with gated crossings) and Eastside (predominantly boulevard median) Gold Lines in Los Angeles. To repeat on the legal side: To make an Environmental Justice claim the burden is on you to prove the Expo Line was designed for the minority communities of Los Angeles to an inferior standard compared with other recent light rail lines and other parts of the Expo Line. Courts tend to defer to administrative authorities in such cases, especially where there's a record of considering issues in their process (e.g. Burke's motion and the MTA Grade Crossing Policy). Where's your case?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 6, 2008 14:37:18 GMT -8
You know, I'm not the world's smartest person. I simply have a capacity to listen, act like an adult and check my emotions at the door, and conduct exhaustive research. I'm confused why people who have the same capabilities are so intent on making this discussion personal instead of an evaluation of technical and legal issues.You were the first to get personal, by attributing motives to those of us who differ from you on matters of public policy. And while I'm certain that you are intelligent and have the capacity to listen, you've shown no willingness to do so. You insist on everyone answering your questions, while you almost never answer anybody else's questions.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 6, 2008 14:51:57 GMT -8
I don't know the area where, nor pretend to, but would a ped bridge over Expo Blvd and the Expo line be more feasible and cost effective? Compared to the current discussion, how much would a ped bridge cost? This would help get the kids across both the rail and Blvd safely. I understand no one uses ped tunnels for safety reasons, most around have been closed off. A pedestrian bridge is one option being considered for Farmdale as a potential compromise by the Expo Authority if the at-grade crossing is not approved. Estimated cost has been $5-8 million. Issues about it are: having to close Farmdale to cars (so pedestrians don't walk aroung the bridge in the street), inconvenience and safety of pedestrians on the bridge, cost, and delay to the project. Here's their image of it: Other options are a rail bridge over Farmdale and a rail underpass, at successively greater costs and delays. Damien opposes all but the rail underpass. At-grade crossing and rail bridge images added 5/9:
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 9, 2008 14:50:02 GMT -8
Here is the outcome of today's California Public Utilities Commission scheduling conference call today.
Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon emphasized, "My expectation the parties will cooperate with an expeditious moving foreard ... I will not tolearate any unnecessary delay in this proceeding."
A big change is: In addition to the existing applications for the at-grade crossing at Farmdale and reinforcement of the existing pedestrian tunnel at Harvard, Expo Authority is to submit fully-developed plans for a pedestrian bridge with street closure and a rail bridge at Farmdale, and a pedestrian bridge at Harvard. But explicitly not rail underpasses. (See images added above.)
Here are the main milestones of the schedule ahead, to be formalized in a ruling next week:
6/6 - Expo prepared testimony submitted (including new options) 7/30 (except LAUSD 8/6) - Others' prepared testimony submitted Week of 6/23 - Public Participation Hearing at Foshay 8/11 - Evidentiary Hearing 10/14? - Proposed Decision 11/6 - Final Commission Decision
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 9, 2008 16:35:31 GMT -8
I can't help but wonder how much time and energy would have been conserved had a rail bridge been pursued at Dorsey and a pedestrian bridge been pursued at Harvard. I really don't know if a rail bridge is what was wanted by the Fix Expo folks at Dorsey, but it's the only grade separation that I can envision actually occurring.
Same with Overland Ave., Westwood and Sepulveda Blvds. in the Westside--grade separation will be elevated or we'll see at-grade crossings. It takes time to accept, but reasonable adults can adjust to this change in expectations, especially if we understand that we just can't always get everything done OUR WAY.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain that the Fix Expo folks can accept that yet. There are many in Culver City who absolutely NEVER wanted Expo, and who are still VERY unhappy about having the visual impact of elevated trains (believe me, I was there at all the meetings), but the problem was virtually ended overnight once Culver City got the promise of elevated grade separations at National/Washington and Venice/Robertson.
An interesting Culver City News post by journalist Ari Noonan, who never has anything good to say about Expo, described recently-termed-out Culver City Councilmember Alan Corlin bristling at the racism/favoritism charges that Culver City got special treatment with their grade separations. Alan Corlin was a man who for years was truly feared as an Expo hater, because he was too close to those in east Culver City who were steadfastly opposed to the Expo Line. We at F4ET were scared at what he might do to stop Expo when he was on the Construction Authority Board.
Yet Mr. Corlin helped get the Expo Line the extra funding it needed to make sure it got all the way to Venice/Robertson with the grade separations that the City residents demanded (never was a trench asked for!!!), and although I never thought I would see the day I would write this: I commend him for his efforts, and he's done the right thing for mass transit and for the people of Culver City!!! I will forever be grateful for his efforts, and impressed that he proved me wrong in my estimation of what he could to resolve this problem.
So Mr. Corlin has every right to bristle at the racism arguments that "lily-white Culver City" got special treatment, because it's just not a fair, true or ethical thing to say. As for MY position then and now: I didn't know all the nuances about Culver City's issues at Washington/National, but I helped garner support from Mar Vista, Del Rey, Palms and Bill Rosendahl's office to get those elevated grade separations just to eliminate this roadblock.
As for the Dorsey/Farmdale roadblock, I don't think a Westsider like myself can ever know all the nuances there, either--yet I favor a $25 million elevated line there, too, if it can eliminate that roadblock.
Those at Fix Expo need to figure out if they're going to lead a group that is NOT those who want to have a better Expo Line, but have devolved into a venue where all the remaining Expo haters (whose agenda is NOT to fix Expo but to kill it or stop it from going to all the way to their neighborhoods) and pursue a ridiculous, unreasonable trench proposal that may just kill the line...or...
...fight for an elevated line at Farmdale/Dorsey and get a more expensive but more speedy and eminently-safe line that will best serve the needs of the community.
Sure, the trench idea can always be pursued, but at what cost? With how many bridges burned between the communities that transit advocates like myself want to bring together?
There's a difference between being a leader of the people, and an enemy of the people; the Fix Expo folks have to ask themselves which of those two entities they wish to be.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 9, 2008 17:22:23 GMT -8
But explicitly not rail underpasses. So, Damien, is this the time to respectfully and honorably give up and start working with us the rest of the transit advocates?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 12, 2008 10:12:48 GMT -8
;D Mr.Goodman: Why don't you go to the board and tell them that you will drop the suit if they will borrow from Phase II and build the flyover at Farmdale and a flyover at Foshay? Will this suffice? Think of this scenario, with the transit tax to be put on the ballot in November, I would rather have fix expo and friends of expo working together to get this transit tax passed that th opposite. If you get the agreement of the board make sure it is sighed off by all parties! Sincerely The Roadtrainerr [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 12, 2008 11:34:08 GMT -8
I concur, roadtrainer.
Although I do not view this overpass at Farmdale to be an absolute necessity for the functioning of the line, I do view this as a significant betterment, and I very, very, very much wish that this option had been pursued at the beginning of this dispute (just as Culver City worked on this solution for its own problems a few years ago).
The big question, and I don't really know if it's fair to ask Damien if it's his opinion alone on this, since FixExpo is bigger than just one person, is whether this overpass would have satisfied the significant number of individuals at FixExpo who over the years have identified themselves as entirely opposed to the line altogether.
I do believe that, whether I agree or disagree with his premises and solutions, Damien is trying to "fix" Expo. Unfortunately, I think that many he's working with (and they might not be as open about this to Damien as they've been to F4ET over the years) have as their goal to "kill" Expo.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 12, 2008 13:09:51 GMT -8
Is Expo going to have those really slow sections that the Gold Line has through residential areas? That's the number 1 reason why I don't take the Gold Line.
If that's the case, then Expo needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 12, 2008 13:14:05 GMT -8
I agree with Ken 100%.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 12, 2008 14:50:31 GMT -8
Is Expo going to have those really slow sections that the Gold Line has through residential areas? That's the number 1 reason why I don't take the Gold Line. If that's the case, then Expo needs to be fixed. Not to worry. The Pasadena Gold Line has a half-mile 20 mph section in Highland Park. The rest is generally 55 mph on private right-of-way with gated crossings or grade separation. The slowest part of Expo will be 35 mph under signal control on the east side of Flower Street and in the median of Exposition Boulevard (like the Eastside Gold Line on 3rd Street), before going onto 55 mph private right-of-way west of Gramercy.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on May 12, 2008 15:02:13 GMT -8
Is Expo going to have those really slow sections that the Gold Line has through residential areas? That's the number 1 reason why I don't take the Gold Line. If that's the case, then Expo needs to be fixed. Actually, No. The Pasadena Gold Line has a section that really goes right next to the driveways of homes, rather than a defined separated median island, that the rest of the Gold Line has. Residents of this section of the Gold Line would not have been able to use their garages, if there was a median, as it would be too narrow. Expo has a complete median separation in this area. Damien believes that individuals would not be capable of crossing the tracks without grave risk. These same people currently cross the street with heavy auto traffic of at least 2,400 cars per hour. While there would only be 10 to 20 trains per hour with pedestrian crossing gates, bells, whistles and markings, he believes that those that understand and obey Red Light - Green Light could not possibly understand the more complicated railroad safety system. Now only are the tracks in a median here, but the school has a fence blocking random crossing of the tracks, forcing pedestrians to cross in the traffic crosswalk. By the way, the Gold Line is one of the fastest Light Rail systems in the United States. Last year Metro Rail staff figured out how to run the Gold Line faster end to end, saving about 5 minutes from the existing schedule. It has an average running speed of over 30 MPH and only the Green Line has a faster average speed. Right now the Gold Line is recording huge ridership growth, again breaking a record for the month of April, just after setting the highest ridership numbers ever in March. You may not want to ride the Gold Line, because it is too crowded. Those riding it say for an average of 10 miles each way are saving over $10 per round trip in gas, insurance, tires, vehicle wear and tear, accident risk and other cost factors versus the cost of a $62 monthly pass.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 12, 2008 16:13:58 GMT -8
One of the things I don't get about the Gold Line through Highland Park and other NIMBY attitudes is, weren't the tracks there first?
I mean, is it out of this world to say that if you move to an area where train tracks run through your neighborhood, that a train might come by and make a lot of noise?
Now I understand that for a while there were no passenger trains on these routes, but it seems like if you move next to something that has the potential for noise, then you shouldn't be surprised when it makes noise.
When I ride the 91 Line or the Inland Empire/Orange County Line on Metrolink it irritates me when these housing developers put up sound walls that block some of the more scenic views through Anaheim Hills. Wasn't that track there before these carbon copy suburban homes?
The 91 through that area is considered a scenic highway and I hate that part of those views are obstructed from the train.
So I must ask, weren't the Expo line tracks there first before all these people moved in?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 12, 2008 17:18:35 GMT -8
Much of the gold line speed debate has always been one of perception versus reality. The slow part through Highland Park (it must go twice as fast now through that area compared to what it used to) made the entire ride seem longer than it was. The gold line is almost entirely grade separated so of course it's going to be fast, but getting rid of that slow part helped change the perception.
|
|