|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2010 13:25:58 GMT -8
I just took a look at the agenda for Thursday's Metro Board meeting. Several items were forwarded from the Planning and Programming Committee to the full board. Every item except the Mark Ridley-Thomas' motion (on grade crossings) was recommended by the committee for approval. By contrast, the MRT motion was "forwarded without recommendation" for Board consideration.
Sounds to me like the committee didn't want anything to do with this, so just punted to the full board. I honestly think it has little chance of passage in its current form.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 25, 2010 13:31:26 GMT -8
I just took a look at the agenda for Thursday's Metro Board meeting. Several items were forwarded from the Planning and Programming Committee to the full board. Every item except the Mark Ridley-Thomas' motion (on grade crossings) was recommended by the committee for approval. By contrast, the MRT motion was "forwarded without recommendation" for Board consideration. Sounds to me like the committee didn't want anything to do with this, so just punted to the full board. I honestly think it has little chance of passage in its current form. The motion is absurd and it shouldn't be seconded. Mark Ridley-Thomas is unfortunately no different than Fix Expo and he only serves a sliver of interests in South LA and the Westside.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 27, 2010 23:13:36 GMT -8
In addition to selecting the Westside subway and Downtown LRT routes, tomorrow Metro will consider Mark Ridley-Thomas' motion to repeal the Metro grade-crossing policy and instead have a new policy that NIMBYs are always right.
We will see the fate of this motion tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 12:42:20 GMT -8
In addition to selecting the Westside subway and Downtown LRT routes, tomorrow Metro will consider Mark Ridley-Thomas' motion to repeal the Metro grade-crossing policy and instead have a new policy that NIMBYs are always right. We will see the fate of this motion tomorrow. The motion was postponed to next month, for additional clarification by the Planning Committee. The motivation behind the motion is to push for underground in Park Mesa (the remaining one-mile at-grade section of the Crenshaw Line) and at Rancho Park (Overland - Sepulveda). It will make it virtually impossible to build at-grade rail in Los Angeles in the future.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 28, 2010 14:06:30 GMT -8
Is that what finally happened on #25 (Mark Ridley-Thomas’ Grade Crossing Policy motion)?
O’Connor and Knabe proposed a substitute motion to refer it back to Planning and Programming, that they’d only had two days for an important policy change, that it had the potential to add significant costs.
Yaroslavsky asked if MRT’s motion would make a substantive difference. Paul Taylor (staff) replied that it was about “emphasis, not substance”, that there is already a safety policy and economic development plans by local jurisdictions are embedded in the land use section.
O’Connor withdrew the substitute motion with the statement that they are depending on the assurance that “we are not changing the policy”. The final vote – and here’s where I’m not sure what changed from MRT’s original motion; there were some wording changes – was unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 14:26:43 GMT -8
Is that what finally happened on #25 (Mark Ridley-Thomas’ Grade Crossing Policy motion)? O’Connor and Knabe proposed a substitute motion to refer it back to Planning and Programming, that they’d only had two days for an important policy change, that it had the potential to add significant costs. Yaroslavsky asked if MRT’s motion would make a substantive difference. Paul Taylor (staff) replied that it was about “emphasis, not substance”, that there is already a safety policy and economic development plans by local jurisdictions are embedded in the land use section. O’Connor withdrew the substitute motion with the statement that they are depending on the assurance that “we are not changing the policy”. The final vote – and here’s where I’m not sure what changed from MRT’s original motion; there were some wording changes – was unanimous. In that case one of us got it wrong -- probably me. It sucks if this motion has passed. Regardless of wording changes, it will bring more politics and NIMBYism into the act, and it will make building at-grade rail very difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 16:35:59 GMT -8
The Source verified Darrell's version. When you're listening to the meeting on the phone with other things going on, it's easy to miss things. All we can hope now is that this new policy won't be too useful to the NIMBYs.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 17:55:52 GMT -8
Update via Jerard Wright: "It got passed but the with the revised motion has an understanding that it still needs to go to the Planning and Programming Meeting in November. I should get a scan of the revised language tomorrow." So, it looks like the language hasn't taken its final form yet. Apparently Darrell and I were half right each but didn't get the full picture.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 29, 2010 16:19:35 GMT -8
Here’s a transcript of the final version of item 25 (thanks, Jerard!). In typing it I noted:
1. The revisions were part of the Mayor’s becoming co-sponsor;
2. The traffic levels in 20 years are consistent with Expo phase 2’s Final EIR. And the economic development part explicitly steps back imaging what could be built to “the local jurisdiction’s land use forecasts within one half mile radius”.
3. The last paragraph shouldn’t change much in practice: “Final determination of each grade crossing or grade separation configuration will be made by the Metro Board of Directors in conjunction with approving project environmental documents. Each decision will be based on analysis consistent with current technical standards and methodologies, including consideration of public safety and economic development.”
------------------------
Motion by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa Item 25 Revised
Grade Crossing Safety Policy
The MTA Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit (the “Grade Crossing Policy”) was adopted by the Metro Board of Directors on December 4, 2003. The Policy was created to guide the evaluation of alternative grade crossing designs, and possible grade separation alternatives, where proposed light rail alignments cross major streets.
The Grade Crossing Policy incorporates many Industry-Standard technical reviews, including Influence Zone Queue and Crossing Spillback Queue at Grade analyses. These technical calculations provide a methodical process for analyzing the traffic flow impacts of grade separation alternatives.
It is appropriate that Metro periodically review the Grade Crossing Policy and make adjustments in response to community concerns and “lessons learned” from recent experience.
I THEREFORE MOVE, that the Metro Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit be revised as follows:
1. The name of the Policy shall be changed from “MTA Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit” to “Metro Grade Crossing Safety Policy.”
2. The narrative of the Policy shall be revised to include consideration of public safety and economic development.
3. Traffic flow analysis of grade crossing alternatives shall be calculated under three scenarios: 1) current automotive traffic levels, 2) traffic levels adjusted to reflect “natural growth” in traffic over 20 years, and 3) traffic levels adjusted to reflect the local jurisdiction’s land use forecasts within one half mile radius of each crossing over 20 years.
4. Final determination of each grade crossing or grade separation configuration will be made by the Metro Board of Directors in conjunction with approving project environmental documents. Each decision will be based on analysis consistent with current technical standards and methodologies, including consideration of public safety and economic development.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 24, 2010 13:49:40 GMT -8
What this means is that the Farmdale Station has now been fully approved and the final design and construction can start as soon as a contractor is selected. This will also allow the Expo board to discuss when to open Phase 1 and to where next Thursday.NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has issued a determination of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the improvements at Farmdale Avenue and Exposition Boulevard that include the Farmdale Avenue station. Click here to view the Notice of AvailabilityThe FONSI and Final Supplemental EA are available for public review at the following locations: 1) Baldwin Hills Library, 2906 S. La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90016 2) Jefferson Library, 2211 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90018 3) Exposition Construction Authority, 707 Wilshire Boulevard, 34th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Click here to view the Final EA and FONSI onlineFor more information on the Farmdale Station please visit the project website at BuildExpo.org or call the Expo Hotline at 213-922-EXPO(3976).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 24, 2010 16:47:54 GMT -8
Here is the conceptual design of the Farmdale Station. West nearside-stop split platform: East nearside-stop split platform:
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 25, 2010 9:09:28 GMT -8
Great news on the Farmdale station. If they can start construction early next year it might open for the first phase or maybe between the two phases.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 26, 2010 16:38:12 GMT -8
Here is the conceptual design of the Farmdale Station. It looks like the platforms will have no ramps: instead, the platforms will have stairs and an ADA lift squeezed next to the fare machines. Is this right? If so, I think it will be Metro's only at-grade rail station without a ramp. The old image showed a ramp (click to view): I suppose this will move the platforms closer to the intersection, allowing the train driver and pedestrians to see each other better. Or maybe it was to accommodate the newly-configured driveway into the school.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2010 17:00:48 GMT -8
I suppose this will move the platforms closer to the intersection, allowing the train driver and pedestrians to see each other better. Yes, this is for safety reasons. LAUSD wanted the nearside-stop split platforms as close to Farmdale as possible so that the trains would gain little speed from a full stop when they were crossing the intersection.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 26, 2010 17:04:35 GMT -8
Yes, this will be the first at-grade station without at least one ramp. I guess that lift will be easier to maintain than an elevator, but when it's out I wonder what they will do to bus people from another station?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 26, 2010 17:05:36 GMT -8
Will Farmdale have turnstiles?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 26, 2010 18:57:45 GMT -8
I'm not sure turnstiles necessarily pencil out for high ridership stations, and I expect this to be one of the lowest.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 26, 2010 19:39:08 GMT -8
I see no reason for there not to be turnstiles at Farmsdale.
Teach Dorsey students about gates now, they'll be less whiny about it as adults ;D
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 26, 2010 19:59:33 GMT -8
Gates are expensive and the kids are going to jump them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 26, 2010 22:10:15 GMT -8
I'm not sure turnstiles necessarily pencil out for high ridership stations, and I expect this to be one of the lowest. I don't think that is a criterion that they use. They put turnstiles in at relatively low ridership green line stations. I can't recall for sure but I think that Compton is the only existing at-grade station that is getting turnstiles. But to me it looks like many of the Expo stations are getting them because it looks like they are creating areas for the TVM's off of the platforms.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 27, 2010 0:18:22 GMT -8
Gates are expensive and the kids are going to jump them anyway. 1) The whole rail system is expensive. This station is expensive. Nothing is free. 2) Kids do stupid things. Should we look the other way, or should we attempt to teach them respect for rules and catch the rule-breakers?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2010 11:45:25 GMT -8
Will Farmdale have turnstiles? I think I heard that many of the Expo stations won't have turnstiles because there is simply not enough space on the platforms to put them. Then this probably means the Farmdale Station won't have turnstiles. But, on the other hand, since this station was added after the turnstiles were brought in to Metro, perhaps they will be incorporated. Then again the safety is the biggest concern at this station and they may simply pass on the turnstiles.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 27, 2010 12:13:15 GMT -8
Will Farmdale have turnstiles? I think I heard that many of the Expo stations won't have turnstiles because there is simply not enough space on the platforms to put them. Then this probably means the Farmdale Station won't have turnstiles. But, on the other hand, since this station was added after the turnstiles were brought in to Metro, perhaps they will be incorporated. Then again the safety is the biggest concern at this station and they may simply pass on the turnstiles. Probably right. If they were installing turnstiles we would likely have seen some evidence already.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 27, 2010 17:45:25 GMT -8
Will Farmdale have turnstiles? I think I heard that many of the Expo stations won't have turnstiles because there is simply not enough space on the platforms to put them. Then this probably means the Farmdale Station won't have turnstiles. But, on the other hand, since this station was added after the turnstiles were brought in to Metro, perhaps they will be incorporated. Then again the safety is the biggest concern at this station and they may simply pass on the turnstiles. Probably right. If they were installing turnstiles we would likely have seen some evidence already. Where would we have seen evidence of turnstiles at the Farmdale station? These are some of the first design plans we've seen.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 28, 2010 8:15:52 GMT -8
But to me it looks like many of the Expo stations are getting them because it looks like they are creating areas for the TVM's off of the platforms. I think I heard that many of the Expo stations won't have turnstiles because there is simply not enough space on the platforms to put them. Probably right. If they were installing turnstiles we would likely have seen some evidence already. I don't know if you're joking or serious, but I've quoted the relevant passages to make it more clear that we shouldn't expect to see evidence of turnstiles at a station that hasn't yet started construction. I guess that I could have been more clear.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Nov 28, 2010 22:35:00 GMT -8
Turnstiles at any at grade station would be a remarkable waste of money. And thats saying something, considering how much of a waste they are underground.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 29, 2010 19:30:14 GMT -8
There are at least 282 stations on the Tokyo subway. Each station has a minimum of two entrances, some have many more entrances, each entrance is gated, including the newest ones (Fukutoshin Line, 2008). That's not including the JR and private commuter lines, which are also gated. The gates continue all the way out to Saitama and Chiba prefectures, equivalent to Metrolink's lines to Orange, Ventura, Riverside counties. This includes station entrances next door to high schools (Dorsey High station is nothing new) and elementary schools. Dang, that's a lot of wasted yen. You can argue the merits of turnstiles vs. fare gates, but as our expanding system grows and grows, you can't convince me that we can continue to successfully operate as a gateless system. [EDIT: Incidentally, no station on Metro Rail is nearly as "at-grade" as anything that San Diego has. Even Farmdale, if the illustrations are correct. ] Especially with the growing acceptance of TAP (especially if the Source is correct), and the likely introduction of distance-based fares.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 29, 2010 21:48:17 GMT -8
Well, you also have places like Germany, where I haven't seen a gate once in 4 years of living there and taking many different metro systems (e.g. Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Cologne, Munich, Duesseldorf, Berlin, Leipzig, ...). I think it's possible for the system to work both ways. When I've compared systems in Europe that do and don't use gates, I've found that those that don't are generally better kept, less graffiti, and cleaner. Now correlation doesn't equal causation, but perhaps people treat things better if they themselves are treated with respect. I wouldn't mind an experiment where we trust some high school students to pay for their ticket (with random checks of course). Showing a little trust up front sends a very subtle, but in my mind important message. If there's a random check and half the kids don't have tickets, maybe then we should discuss gates. In the meantime, this is largely going to be a community station, wasn't intended to be there in the first place, and any additional ridership would be a bonus for the system. From that perspective, it wouldn't even bother me much if some kids snuck in a free ride or ten. It was their parents who were being obstructionist, not them, and it would probably be a net positive to have a generation of kids who grow up taking the train even if they don't pay some of the time.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 29, 2010 23:14:34 GMT -8
Sorry, but cleanliness is typically a function of a region or a country's "national character", part of their ethics and culture. (Along with such things as "tardiness", "politeness", "spitting" and "personal space issues") Removing the gates won't make New Yorkers cleaner and installing gates won't make Germans dirtier.
As for the gates at Farmsdale... this is one issue where I can't take the libertarian "a little stealing is okay" attitude.
I HATE the "they will do X anyways, so why bother" sentence construction. That's a cop-out. That's a sign of abdicating authority and our responsibility to teach them good citizenship. One cigarette in the bathroom is NOT okay, and we should not allow free rides "once in a while." I don't believe in harsh punishments, but the "hands off" approach is clearly not teaching anybody anything useful.
Also, a station is a station, and Farmdale should not get a free pass even if it was created by community NIMBYs.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 30, 2010 6:52:30 GMT -8
I totally agree, put the gates in.
|
|