|
Post by darrell on Dec 21, 2010 15:33:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 16:12:46 GMT -8
Wow, that's some good reading. (I'm actually not kidding!)
In the tentative order, the judge agrees with every argument put forth by Expo, and strikes down every challenge to the EIR, including the one about using current vs. future conditions as a baseline. The only reason this is still alive is the recent decision in the Sunnyvale case, which specifically relates to selection of baseline conditions.
My feeling is that the judge wants to ensure that his ruling is airtight and appeal-proof, and thus wants a chance to thoroughly review the Sunnyvale ruling compared to the Expo case.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 16:24:15 GMT -8
The passage in the tentative order related to selection of baseline is on page 2: Baseline
The FEIR explains the methodology used to evaluate traffic impacts. The impact threshold for intersections used in this FEIR utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCP) operations methodology to quantify existing and future condition at all intersections with and without the proposed project. AR 350, 1055. The existing and future air quality conditions were evaluated using methods and significance levels recommended by the SCAQMD. AR 504 15310-12, 15352-54. CEQA requires evaluation of the project's effects on both existing and future conditions. 14 CCR § 15126.6(e)(3)(b). Because a "No Project" will not preserve the existing physical conditions, it is not only reasonable, but necessary, to take this dynamic approach of determining impact and significance over time. See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 99, 125 ("in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time.") By analyzing delay as a result of the project at a higher number of congested intersection in year 2030, the FEIR adopted a more rigorous test for identifying significant traffic impacts. AR 17,218-34, 350. To analyze the project's effects on transportation assuming that the project's operation is the only change that will occur, is absurd. The very reason for the project is to address long term transportation concerns. Substantial evidence supports the use of this baseline.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 21, 2010 17:35:18 GMT -8
Since this is football season, it sounds like we're at the two-minute warning and we (the pro-light-rail team) are at least 20 points ahead. Over on my side of the County (San Gabriel Valley) our Gold Line Foothill Extension crew is gearing up for the start of construction next year. Between Expo II and Gold Line 2A, there should be lots of work for our brothers and sisters in the construction trades. Drill, ye tarriers, drill! (19th century work song)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 21, 2010 18:11:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2010 18:39:18 GMT -8
Here comes the long story of the NFSR trial: On a gloomy late December day in 2010, approaching the end of a weeklong storm that cast record rainfall in LA County, I drove all the way to Norwalk to the east side of the county on a completely Westside business. Apparently there are only two judges in LA County who know about CEQA, and Honorable Thomas McKnew of Norwalk Division "H" was one of them. After 40 miles I made my way from Palms into the Norwalk Courthouse, and found the NFSR opposition sitting at the back of the room, including Colleen Mason Heller of Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association and Neighbors for Smart Rail and Damien Wesley Clark Goodmon of Fix Expo next to her. Clint Simmons of United Communities Association, Inc., and apparently about half a dozen homeowners from the Westside, were also there. In front of them were my friends from Friends 4 Expo and I myself ended up sitting at the very front. The day was already moving forward with a restraining-order case against a teenager who was supplying his 17-year-old girlfriend with stolen hard liquor, despite her already being at the point of being an alcoholic. Around 9:30 or so, it was the time for the perhaps most important rail transit vs. not-in-my-backyard people trial of all time in Los Angeles. On one side there was the single attorney, John Bowman, for Neighbors for Smart Rail, who has been trying to get his newly started business in Century City going. On the other side, showed up the army of the Expo attorney's, ranging from a heavy-set gray-haired gentleman to a petite young lady, in all at least four of them were present. Expo clearly had the manpower advantage. In fact before the trial, the judge had already issued his tentative ruling, which denied Neighbors for Smart Rail's petition for writ of mandate to reject the environmental study and therefore to stop the Expo Line. Knowing this and how difficult it would be to convince the judge otherwise now, John Bowman made a last resort to an unprecedented case, only decided five days ago. This was an appeal case between Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association and City of Sunnyvale. The argument was that in the Sunnyvale case, the environmental-impact report (EIR) was rejected and an appeal court upheld the rejection five days ago because the City of Sunnyvale, the lead agency doing the EIR in this case, used 2020 instead of the current conditions as their baseline to compare the environmental impacts of extending Mary Avenue. John Bowman was arguing that the Expo EIR should be rejected for the same reason because they also used a future baseline, in fact a fairly distant 2030. He was asking for Expo to redo the EIR with a 2007 baseline instead. The friendly judge, apparently having good intentions for the public in general (as I observed in the restraining-order case earlier), at this point started to mildly pick on John Bowman. As many of us observed and made the same comment all along, he said that you're challenging everything in the EIR and trying to see if anything will stick as if you're throwing mud on a wall. He then continued that this is typical in such cases and there is nothing wrong with that because you never know and there might be a some problem with the EIR somewhere. Back to the Sunnyvale case, what the City of Sunnyvale had done was that they assumed all-out development in 2020, which brought considerably more noise, traffic, and pollution, and then measured the environmental impacts of extending the street against this baseline. Of course, this was plain cheating for at least two reasons. The reason one was that environmental impacts of such all-out development weren't really within the scope of the EIR for the street extension. Therefore, there was no good way of predicting such impacts by an all-out development. Second reason, which was even more important, was that there was not even the slightest guarantee that there would be all-out development in Sunnyvale by 2020. In fact, it was far more than likely that there wouldn't be. By using the all-out development as their baseline, City of Sunnyvale was lowering their environmental standards significantly and unjustifiably. The superior court had easily caught this cheating and rejected the EIR and the appeal court upheld the decision five days ago. In the case of the Expo Line, the situation was completely different. The EIR never assumed all-out or anywhere near that extent of development and the place in the EIR where 2030 was used as a baseline was primarily in the grade-crossing analysis. Moreover, using 2030 as the baseline actually raised the environmental standards, not lowered it like in the Sunnyvale case. What was done in the Expo EIR was to assume about 15% more cars on the road in 2030, which resulted in the environmental criteria for grade separation and traffic mitigation being more strict because more cars on the road meant it was more difficult to run at-grade rail crossings. Moreover, the baseline is also up to the consensus of the various agencies responsible for the project, with the ultimate decision on the baseline done by the lead agency. 2030 is the standard methodology dictated by a CEQA handbook by the South Coast Air Quality Management Board for transit projects. This was done the same way for the Purple Line extension, Downtown Regional Connector, Crenshaw Line, etc. EIRs. The Expo Line was no different. As the Expo Attorneys mentioned later, building rail transit is inherently environmentally friendly, as opposed to extending a street, which immediately brings more cars to the environment. Using 2020 as the baseline for the Sunnyvale street-extension project was lowering the environmental bar in that case by picking a baseline that was all-out development with already a lot of noise, traffic, and pollution. In the case of the Expo Line, using 2030 raised the environmental bar by assuming more cars on the road and increasing the need for expensive grade separation and other traffic mitigations. As the NFSR attorney Bowman continued his discussion of their challenges to the EIR, the Sepulveda crossing was one of the first-discussed grade separations. The judge concurred with him about Sepulveda being an alternative to I-405. The judge was making the point that how expensive grade separation had become nowadays and how these would quickly add up and increase the cost of the project astronomically. The main game of an environmental study is as follows. The preparer needs to study a range of reasonable alternatives and find that the selected alternative has no "significant" environmental impacts. The environmental studies are not required to study everything or be perfect. It's also not the goal of an environmental study to find the best or most optimal alternative. The mere goal is to pick up any one of the alternatives that has no significant impacts after the proposed mitigations. In the case no such alternative is found feasible, which is known as "overriding conditions," then an alternative with significant impacts can be built. In his continued discussion of their challenge to the EIR, John Bowman probably knowingly kept failing to acknowledge that even though everything was not studied in the EIR, such as grade separations at some intersections, Expo was not required to study them anyway, as there were no significant impacts resulting from the at-grade alternative after the proposed mitigations, such as street widening by adding extra traffic lanes, traffic-signal syncing, and so-called queue cutters near the grade crossings. Apparently he was still hoping that some mud would stick on the wall. Development was one of the main challenges of NFSR. The attorney claimed that Expo assumed that development was beneficial. He said that Expo didn't study the cumulative effects of development. The large Casden Properties mixed condo and Target shopping-center project proposed at Sepulveda and Exposition was one of NFSR's main arguments. They claimed that it should have been included in EIR. But the fact was that there was not even an application for the Casden project when the Expo EIR was already being prepared and Expo wasn't required to do so. He then challenged that Expo did not study the station-parking issue in the EIR properly and said that they left it to Metro and the city to administer the monitoring of the neighborhood parking and issuing of the restricted-parking permits if necessary. He claimed that this violated the environmental law. His final major point was that the final EIR had to be recirculated because there were changes resulting in significant impacts with respect to the draft EIR. Then the discussion of the Expo attorney started. Being in the winning side, it was considerably shorter than the NFSR's attorney's. Regarding the NFSR's final card of the appropriate baseline year, the Expo Attorney asked the judge's permission for the young lady in their team to step forward and illustrate a chart of the Phase 2 grade crossings, exhibiting the level-of-service grades (A, B, C, etc.) for street-level crossings. The chart showed that they had studied both the current year and the 2030 projections. NFSR attorney Bowman made a desperate move and said that the chart was not in the EIR. The judge quickly stated that even if the chart wasn't in the EIR as it was presented, the data and similar charts were there, and jokingly said that they were facing a dilemma -- a dilemma that he solved in his next sentence by saying that what he himself was saying was right. As Bowman concentrated on his closing arguments, he brought up the grade-separation issue repeatedly. He claimed that California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) should have also been a lead agency in the EIR because they must approve every grade crossing or separation. The judge than said to him, "You are talking to the only judge in the LA County who knows a great deal about grade separation." He then stated that he cannot go beyond the administrative record to talk more about grade separation. "Despite I am being tempted ... I cannot go beyond the administrative record (to talk about grade separation)," he said smilingly. As the Sunnyvale issue wasn't submitted by Bowman in a timely manner, the judge gave NFSR and Expo the option to file briefs on it if they both agreed. Expo attorney deferred, and therefore there will not be any briefs filed on the Sunnyvale issue. The judge will study the case himself before he comes to his conclusion. "The final decision will be forthcoming," the judge said before he ended the trial for good. Outside the room I joined the other happy Friends 4 Expo and chatted with the Expo officials briefly. While we were about to leave, I glanced at the NFSR party circling their attorney, like the players circling their coach after losing the game. I only felt pity for John Bowman himself, for taking such a weak and impossible case, filed by a group of homeowners' associations who are myopically concerned with their status quo, despite the tremendous benefits of the project to themselves as well as the general public. The final decision of the judge is now expected in about a month or less. Tomorrow Expo will receive the two bids by the two competing design - build firms. They will analyze them in the coming weeks. There will be public meetings on the Phase 2 preliminary engineering in January. The Phase 2 contractor will be selected in early February and the final design and construction (initially utility relocation) will start in early March 2011. Phase 2 revenue operations to Santa Monica are currently estimated by Expo to start in early 2015. We can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Dec 21, 2010 19:16:37 GMT -8
^^ Great summary Gokhan! ;D So glad that this is pretty much a done deal now! Now it's time to build build build, right through Cheviot Hills!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 21, 2010 19:44:26 GMT -8
Great synopsis Gokhan.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 21, 2010 21:19:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 21, 2010 22:57:55 GMT -8
Now it's time to build build build, right through Cheviot Hills! ...Well, actually, against the side of Cheviot Hills! But, hey, how about a spur ...through the middle, into Century City, to connect with the Purple line?
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Dec 22, 2010 7:20:22 GMT -8
Now it's time to build build build, right through Cheviot Hills! ...Well, actually, against the side of Cheviot Hills! But, hey, how about a spur ...through the middle, into Century City, to connect with the Purple line? Oh yea, that's right. They made such a big stink about this you'd think we were building right above their homes and smack down the middle of their "territory". I like the way you think! We should build a super station in Century City and connect lots of lines... LOL
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 22, 2010 8:04:58 GMT -8
Gokhan, Great job, this really brings the proceedings into a new light, almost like being there!
I went over to the NFSR website the other day while waiting for news from the trial. I watched that video clip of the walk down the ROW that one of the guys from here put together, the 5 minute one. When Phase 2 is completed, unless they completely botch the landscaping and the bike path, that hilly area is going to be one of the nicest places to ride the train through in all of Southern California. Can't wait.
RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2010 8:15:34 GMT -8
Gokhan, echoing all the comments so far: excellent reporting, it is really appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2010 8:24:10 GMT -8
From the LA Weekly blog: Neighbors For Smart Rail vowed to appeal.
This is just the prolongation of a fight that we've committed to until the end result," said Colleen Heller, vice president of NFSR, to the Weekly. "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." ROTFLOL! Well Colleen, the fat lady is warming up her pipes, the orchestra is seated, and the audience is waiting for the show...it won't be long now!
|
|
|
Post by azndevil97 on Dec 22, 2010 9:08:03 GMT -8
From the LA Weekly blog: Neighbors For Smart Rail vowed to appeal.
This is just the prolongation of a fight that we've committed to until the end result," said Colleen Heller, vice president of NFSR, to the Weekly. "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." ROTFLOL! Well Colleen, the fat lady is warming up her pipes, the orchestra is seated, and the audience is waiting for the show...it won't be long now! LOL. Sad indeed. At this point, haven't they already spent in the upwards of 6 figures for this losing battle?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2010 9:16:25 GMT -8
Thanks guys! Here comes NFSR's official response to the trial. Note that Expo has already stated that they will not wait for the results of such an appeal and they will proceed with the construction of Phase 2 to Santa Monica. Several community members attended today's hearing.
Colleen Mason Heller, NFSR VP, wrote a summary of what happened today:
Superior Court Judge Takes NFSR v. Expo Under Submission CEQA Judge Thomas McKnew presided over a two hour hearing today on the CEQA challenge filed by Neighbors For Smart Rail (NFSR) on the validity of the Expo Phase 2 Final Environmental Impact Report. A tentative ruling issued by the judge held for Expo on all issues, but in a CEQA case that is not unusual as the Agency (Expo) certifying the EIR gets the benefit of the doubt essentially.
The tentative ruling not withstanding, the judge encouraged NFSR Attorney John Bowman to proceed with oral argument, the bulk of which focused on a case that was just published on last Thursday by the California Appellate Court: Link. The new case, referred to as “Sunnyvale” in this proceeding, was remarkably on point supporting one of NFSR’s main arguments regarding Expo’s use of an improper “baseline” to assess impacts of the train project.
CEQA law requires that agencies measure the impacts of their project against existing conditions, but Expo measured the impacts of Phase 2 against projected future conditions in 2030. The Sunnyvale case confirmed a lower court ruling stating that the use of future conditions as a baseline was improper and that to do so “had the effect of minimizing potential project impacts on traffic, noise, and air quality and tainted the comparison of the proposed project with project alternatives.” NFSR maintained from the beginning, that Expo was under evaluating impacts, and their manipulated data was resulting in uneven comparisons of project alternatives.
The Judge said that, although he usually rules from the bench, he felt that the importance of this proceeding required further analysis, specifically NFSR’s arguments using the Sunnyvale case. Whichever way the decision comes down, NFSR knew from the outset that it was not going to be “one and done.” Regardless of the ultimate outcome of today’s hearing, the losing side was going to appeal. NFSR attorney John Bowman has said from the beginning that he felt the case was destined for the appellate court and he has confidence that that is where our issues will best be heard.
This is not a battle for the fainthearted or the impatient. However, the hundreds of comments you have written and submitted; the more than 2,500 petition signatures you have signed asking for grade separations; your countless volunteer hours and your contributions, both small and large, support our continued work in our community. NFSR and the communities it represents are committed to seeing this case through the appellate process. What we know of the Expo Project, the Process and the Politics will only change if we change it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2010 10:45:36 GMT -8
I wonder how many unique individuals signed petitions. For example, maybe there were 20 petitions, each signed by 125 people. Also, were these signatories nearby residents? Voters? Adults?
And if 2,500 people really were this concerned about the Expo Line, only a few of them bothered to comment on the EIR.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 22, 2010 18:38:20 GMT -8
If the Sunnyvale case were to become the one issue that NFSR prevailed with in court, it would only serve to delay things until the traffic part of the FEIR was redone with a new current baseline.
It would not change the fact that there are no significant traffic, safety, or noise impacts from the at-grade crossings, and therefore phase 2 will be built as designed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2010 19:12:03 GMT -8
Here comes the long story of the NFSR trial: On a gloomy late December day in 2010, approaching the end of a weeklong storm that cast record rainfall in LA County, I drove all the way to Norwalk to the east side of the county on a completely Westside business. . . . Conclusion of the story: A double rainbow appeared over the future Palms Station of the Expo Line when the nonstop rain that drenched Los Angeles for a week suddenly ended just before sunset the day after. Photo by GokhanHigh-resolution original
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 22, 2010 19:32:52 GMT -8
Here comes the long story of the NFSR trial: On a gloomy late December day in 2010, approaching the end of a weeklong storm that cast record rainfall in LA County, I drove all the way to Norwalk to the east side of the county on a completely Westside business. . . . Conclusion of the story: A double rainbow appeared over the future Palms Station of the Expo Line when the nonstop rain that drenched Los Angeles for a week suddenly ended just before sunset the day after. Full resolutionOMG! It's like a double rainbow across the Expo Line! Whooooah! ;D
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 22, 2010 20:48:15 GMT -8
If the Sunnyvale case were to become the one issue that NFSR prevailed with in court, it would only serve to delay things until the traffic part of the FEIR was redone with a new current baseline. It would not change the fact that there are no significant traffic, safety, or noise impacts from the at-grade crossings, and therefore phase 2 will be built as designed.Are you saying that NSFR may have found their "game changer"? Would every transit project under construction and in FEIR phase be in jeopardy? Would the whole FEIR be thrown out if this was to prevail?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 22, 2010 21:27:55 GMT -8
If the Sunnyvale case were to become the one issue that NFSR prevailed with in court, it would only serve to delay things until the traffic part of the FEIR was redone with a new current baseline. It would not change the fact that there are no significant traffic, safety, or noise impacts from the at-grade crossings, and therefore phase 2 will be built as designed.Are you saying that NSFR may have found their "game changer"? Would every transit project under construction and in FEIR phase be in jeopardy? Would the whole FEIR be thrown out if this was to prevail? No, just the opposite, that such a decision would only require more paperwork by Expo but otherwise solidifies the decision for at-grade crossings, giving NFSR nothing but potentially a little delay for their trouble. BEAUTIFUL PHOTO, GOKHAN!!!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 22, 2010 22:04:11 GMT -8
No, just the opposite, that such a decision would only require more paperwork by Expo but otherwise solidifies the decision for at-grade crossings, giving NFSR nothing but potentially a little delay for their trouble. So, the FEIR would not be thrown out; it would just need additional justificiation? Additionally, would that need to be circulated in public hearings? Another 2 year process or something?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2010 23:10:10 GMT -8
Any minor change to the FEIR would delay the project by at least two years (remember Farmdale).
But, guys, why are you even worried about this? The connection to the Sunnyvale case suggested by NFSR is completely irrational. The tentative decision will definitely withstand.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 22, 2010 23:58:44 GMT -8
Any minor change to the FEIR would delay the project by at least two years (remember Farmdale). But, guys, why are you even worried about this? The connection to the Sunnyvale case suggested by NFSR is completely irrational. The tentative decision will definitely withstand. Do you think there is a slight chance that NFSR can pull something out of this?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2010 0:29:01 GMT -8
Any minor change to the FEIR would delay the project by at least two years (remember Farmdale). But, guys, why are you even worried about this? The connection to the Sunnyvale case suggested by NFSR is completely irrational. The tentative decision will definitely withstand. Do you think there is a slight chance that NFSR can pull something out of this? No, because for such challenges to be successful, they should really be substantiated. It's very difficult to challenge an EIR unless there is a clear-cut technical or procedural problem. Precedents make a difference because they set guidelines on how to evaluate the EIRs. NFSR is hoping that the Sunnyvale case will be a precedent that will conflict the Expo EIR. CEQA law is different than other laws in that positive reasoning plays a bigger role than in other areas of law. If you read the Sunnyvale case clearly, it's all about simple positive reasoning on why the City of Sunnyvale substantially failed by using an all-out development scenario rather than the current conditions. In the case of the Expo Line, the same positive thinking results in the methodologies in various handbooks the Expo EIR is based on. The two cases are technically quite different. I observed the trial very carefully. I think what I wrote in the above paragraph was already obvious to the judge after he read the brief the NFSR attorney gave to him about the Sunnyvale case. What he will do right now is to call the judge in the Sunnyvale case and do some analysis so that he writes the final decision in solid language. Also, I think the appeal will be entirely futile to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 23, 2010 8:12:42 GMT -8
Gokhan is right: the judge seems like a really reasonable person, and I'm sure he's going to throw this out. The difference between the Sunnyvale case and the Expo case is pretty clear. Sunnyvale's EIR was thrown out because it used a future baseline to minimize the impact it was supposed to study. The case of Expo is really opposite of this. By choosing the future baseline, the Expo EIR actually maximized the impact under study, because 2030 traffic will be worse than current traffic. Thanks again to Gokhan for being our primary source of information on this case (along with the tentative order itself). And for the fantastic shot of the double rainbow over Palms (representing Expo Phases I and II).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2010 15:31:03 GMT -8
Thanks again to Gokhan for being our primary source of information on this case (along with the tentative order itself). And for the fantastic shot of the double rainbow over Palms (representing Expo Phases I and II). Thank you very much, Joel, for your very kind comments. I'm very glad I made it to the trial; otherwise, I would have missed a lot. Also, I was the one who promptly scanned the hardcopy tentative order and sent to the press and others. I happened to be on the freeway headed home when the last heavy downpour turned it into a river. When I saw the sun, I realized there could be a rainbow. Then when I looked, I saw it in my rear-view mirror. I knew I had to stop on the right-of-way (currently a parking lot) by the Palms Station, a couple of blocks before home, to catch the opportunity. Here comes the opposition comments to Karen and Sarah's article from NFSR. Lucie Bava lives on Motor Ave at least a mile north of the Expo Line. She is the one who brought the Motor Ave traffic-calming measures (restricted turns, traffic-slowing red lights, bump-outs, etc.), which have caused a traffic nightmare in the region. Re "The Expo Line's noisemakers," Opinion, Dec. 21
Do Karen Leonard and Sarah Hays really think homeowners, with orange and black signs on their property protesting the Expo Line light rail project, are in the minority? If these Light Rail for Cheviot co-chairs truly listen to their neighbors, they might learn why so many protest signs adorn our front lawns.
Unlike the Gold Line, which they point out is within a mile of 38 schools, the Expo Line would be only 50 feet from the Overland Avenue Elementary School. Our residents believe mass transit should be built where density is highest; the Expo right of way doesn't conform to that standard. The light rail's street crossings should be underground.
If Los Angeles wants to build light rail, it must do so correctly. Leonard and Hays can walk the neighborhood exhaustively, but it doesn't change the facts about the Expo Line's negative effects.
Lucie Bava Cheviot Hills
The writer is secretary of the Cheviot Hills Traffic Safety Assn.The hope of the NFSR opposition is such that they will somehow manage to inflict minor damage at some point, which they will try to turn into major damage through various channels, including some local politicians who sympathize with them. Their goal is certainly to delay the Expo Line indefinitely, with the dream goal of killing it altogether. None of it will happen.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 23, 2010 17:10:23 GMT -8
Conclusion of the story: A double rainbow appeared over the future Palms Station of the Expo Line when the nonstop rain that drenched Los Angeles for a week suddenly ended just before sunset the day after. Photo by GokhanHow nice also to capture one of Diversified Transportation buses in the Photograph, too! This is exactly like the one I drive.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 24, 2010 3:40:06 GMT -8
Gorgeous picture, Gokhan. ...Biblically, the rainbow signifies an "everlasting covenant" or promise and I can't help but link it with the recent (nearly final ...except for appeal) court defeat. I am imagining a notion of your rainbow as a sign of really good days to come as the rail pushes forward into Santa Monica!
|
|