|
Post by bzcat on Nov 16, 2010 16:24:09 GMT -8
You should have told them that with trains running through the tunnel soon, they will get a whole new set of audience for their art.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 16, 2010 16:36:01 GMT -8
The 25.0-ft-wide tunnel is very narrow for two tracks and anyone who enters the tunnel with the trains running will put his/her life in great danger.
Even with the 29.9-ft-wide USC tunnel, an intrusion-alert system is being installed.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 29, 2010 10:40:04 GMT -8
Article from today's Santa Monica Daily News: City signs off on Expo line 'buffer zone' By Nick Taborek November 25, 2010CITY HALL — The City Council on Tuesday unanimously agreed to a land swap involving Santa Monica College and the Expo Metro Line Construction Authority that paves the way for the creation of a "buffer zone" to shield Pico Neighborhood residents from some of the impact from a rail maintenance yard planned for 2900 Exposition Blvd. The deal, which still needs approval from SMC and Expo, would allow City Hall to acquire a 100-foot by 1,000-foot parcel of land along Exposition Boulevard adjacent to the planned maintenance facility. There are no firm plans for the so-called buffer zone yet, but the site is expected to lessen the noise and other pollution impacts from the rail yard on surrounding residents. City Manager Rod Gould has announced plans to hold community meetings to help guide the design of the site, which could include a public park, community meeting rooms or affordable housing units. Under the property exchange, SMC would trade a 2.35-acre parking lot located at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard to City Hall and acquire a long-term lease of a city-owned property at 3400-3500 Airport Ave. near Santa Monica Airport. SMC would also receive a purchase option on the airport property. Expo would in turn give City Hall the buffer zone site as part of its deal to acquire the planned maintenance yard property at 2900 Exposition Blvd. The vote Tuesday night was a significant, though expected, step in a three-way negotiation that began last November. The agreement passed the council with a 6-0 vote after little discussion. Mayor Bobby Shriver did not attend the meeting. "The college is excited to be part of a community solution toward providing light rail to Santa Monica," said Don Girard, SMC's senior director of government relations and institutional communications. SMC's Board of Trustees, he added, will consider the agreement in early December. The first stage of the Expo Light Rail project, a link between Downtown Los Angeles and Culver City, is currently under construction. The extension that will bring the line to Santa Monica's Civic Center is scheduled for completion by 2015, though a delay appears likely. In Santa Monica, the line is expected to travel down Colorado Avenue, ending at Fourth Street. Denny Zane, a consultant for the college and a former mayor of Santa Monica, said the land swap agreement "really shows a remarkable degree of collective and cooperative spirit among these two major institutions." "I think it's a real good sign of good health in our public institutions," he said. The maintenance yard is not without controversy as residents living near the proposed site have challenged Expo and City Hall to find another location further away from homes. Residents in the Pico Neighborhood said they have unfairly shouldered the burden of progress, with Interstate 10 slicing through their community while City Hall's Waste Transfer Station sits close by in the City Yards.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 29, 2010 13:17:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 30, 2010 14:38:15 GMT -8
A Public Forum on Transportation in PalmsJoin the Palms Neighborhood Council for an evening of informative discussion on the future of transportation in Palms. The event will include presentations from Expo Authority concerning the new Expo Line Station in Palms, and a discussion on traffic in the Venice Blvd. corridor with FAST, a non-profit traffic solutions organization. Bring your ideas and feedback! The forum will follow a meeting of the PNC General Assembly at 7:00. Refreshments will be provided. For more information about the PNC, visit: www.palmsla.orgWe look forward to seeing you at the event. Sincerely, Eli Lipmen Secretary Palms Neighborhood Council secretary@palmsla.org Where: IMAN Center 3376 Motor Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90034 Public Transit: Culver City Bus 3, Big Blue Bus 12, Metro 733 When: Wednesday December 1, 2010 from 7:30 PM to 9:00 PM PST
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 1, 2010 13:41:38 GMT -8
1) How far of a walk is it from Expo/Westwood to the Westside Pavillion? Looks to be about 5 minutes.
2) How likely is it that there'll be entrances on both Westwood and Overland at the Westwood station? Especially for this station you'd want as many access points as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 1, 2010 13:57:33 GMT -8
1) How far of a walk is it from Expo/Westwood to the Westside Pavillion? Looks to be about 5 minutes. 2) How likely is it that there'll be entrances on both Westwood and Overland at the Westwood station? Especially for this station you'd want as many access points as possible. It's only a seven-minute walk -- just a few minutes more than walking to the mall from its garage (about three to four minutes). I believe there will be entrances on both ends of the platform. There will also be a bike and pedestrian path next to the tracks, allowing easy access.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 2, 2010 0:12:52 GMT -8
No new info by the Expo Authority at tonight's Palms Neighborhood Council meeting.
There were two things brought up by the PNC though.
The first was that the station should be named Palms instead of Palms/National, which is something mentioned here before and I think most people agree with that.
The second was that they are asking for parking for the station so that the nearby businesses (such as Vons) don't suffer by people parking in their lots. But what they suggested is a no - no in my opinion, which is parking along Exposition around Bagley. This area is just way too dense, the street is way too narrow, and there are grade issues. Besides the right-of-way is not very wide, considering that there will be a 17-ft-wide bike and pedestrian path as well and part of the right-of-way belongs to Caltrans. On top of that the Bagley at-grade crossing complicates things even more. Therefore, if they are going to provide parking, they should acquire some property there.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 2, 2010 0:29:52 GMT -8
I agree; there's no room along Exposition between Bagley and Palms/National. Even now, safety would dictate eliminating parallel parking along Exposition, not adding parking. I can't imagine cars parked perpendicular to the street along the track and backing into traffic to exit.
With the Palms/National station sooo close to Venice Robertson, it's a no brainer to keep Palms/National a walk-in station. From Bagley, Venice Robertson is only a couple more minutes away than Palms/National. The only possibility for parking that I can envision would be the result of acquiring and demolishing one of the storage facilities between Palms and Overland, along the extension to Exposition--Palms. (The street naming at this location really gets to be crazy!) I've always thought the storage facilities were out of place--wish they had never been built. Parking and kiosks would be a welcome replacement.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 2, 2010 6:04:19 GMT -8
I agree; there's no room along Exposition between Bagley and Palms/National. Even now, safety would dictate eliminating parallel parking along Exposition, not adding parking. I can't imagine cars parked perpendicular to the street along the track and backing into traffic to exit. More significantly, adding parking at Palms will bring more traffic to the neighborhood. As you said, it's not necessary given the parking being built at Venice/Robertson. It is easy to identify people stealing parking spaces for Metro at Vons or whereever: they do it all the time. Adding parking at Palms station will not solve this problem, it will just make the station's role (neighborhood vs. park-and-ride) less clear.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 2, 2010 7:42:09 GMT -8
I'm sure you've driven National-Palms, underneath the train & freeway bridges during rush-hour and past the Vons-Cheviot Hills Shopping Center. It's an impossible stretch. (Also to walk across ...even with the crosswalk at Shelby with the flashing lights!
Add further traffic congestion, due to introduction of parking facilities, to this neighborhood and it truly will become a walking-only neighborhood. ...No need for Cheviot HIlls "traffic-calming" road obstructions any more!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 2, 2010 9:32:29 GMT -8
Also, currently Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue in Palms are very popular walking and biking routes. Bagley is the only through street literally within a mile and it's very popular among pedestrians. Therefore, putting parking along or by Exposition would really ruin this walking and biking corridor -- again a no - no.
By the way, metrocenter, the Palms Station is not "sooo" close to the Venice/Robertson Station. It's 0.9 miles, which is just about the standard 1-mile light-rail station spacing. But I'm agreeing with you that this station is better kept as a neighborhood station. I also agree with you that the storage facilities are out of place. The obvious problem with tearing Price self-storage down is $$,$$$,$$$. You're looking at least $10 million.
Also, rajacobs, I don't think traffic congestion promotes walking. It only makes both walking and driving more miserable. Imagine trying to negotiate a crosswalk with frustrated drivers who don't pay attention to pedestrians. But I agree with you that this station is better kept as a neighborhood station.
Last but not least, parking means no landscaping.
Given the status of the project now, the preliminary engineering is already finished and I can't imagine they would change the alignment of the tracks at this point. Not only that but this would require an environmental assessment for the parking. Therefore, I think it's already too late for PNC to take on this issue and probably nothing will happen anyway. But I will write to Expo Authority asking not to put parking on Exposition and if parking is really necessary, asking for acquisition of Price self-storage or a similar facility.
One more thing -- the distance from Bagley Avenue to the Palms Station, almost a half mile, is about the same as to the Venice/Robertson Station. Would this then be parking for the Palms Station or the Venice/Robertson Station? Also, a half mile is a long distance for people to park and walk to the station. There are so many things with this idea about this location that don't make sense.
In summary parking along Exposition would ruin the residential character of the Palms neighborhood and it would prevent it from ever becoming pedestrian-friendly.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 2, 2010 12:26:45 GMT -8
Also, currently Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue in Palms are very popular walking and biking routes. Bagley is the only through street literally within a mile and it's very popular among pedestrians. Therefore, putting parking along or by Exposition would really ruin this walking and biking corridor -- again a no - no. By the way, metrocenter, the Palms Station is not "sooo" close to the Venice/Robertson Station. It's 0.9 miles, which is just about the standard 1-mile light-rail station spacing. But I'm agreeing with you that this station is better kept as a neighborhood station. I also agree with you that the storage facilities are out of place. The obvious problem with tearing Price self-storage down is $$,$$$,$$$. You're looking at least $10 million. Also, rajacobs, I don't think traffic congestion promotes walking. It only makes both walking and driving more miserable. Imagine trying to negotiate a crosswalk with frustrated drivers who don't pay attention to pedestrians. But I agree with you that this station is better kept as a neighborhood station. Last but not least, parking means no landscaping. Given the status of the project now, the preliminary engineering is already finished and I can't imagine they would change the alignment of the tracks at this point. Not only that but this would require an environmental assessment for the parking. Therefore, I think it's already too late for PNC to take on this issue and probably nothing will happen anyway. But I will write to Expo Authority asking not to put parking on Exposition and if parking is really necessary, asking for acquisition of Price self-storage or a similar facility. One more thing -- the distance from Bagley Avenue to the Palms Station, almost a half mile, is about the same as to the Venice/Robertson Station. Would this then be parking for the Palms Station or the Venice/Robertson Station? Also, a half mile is a long distance for people to park and walk to the station. There are so many things with this idea about this location that don't make sense. In summary parking along Exposition would ruin the residential character of the Palms neighborhood and it would prevent it from ever becoming pedestrian-friendly. Oh the days of summer 2008 when the retail price of a gallon of gas shot up to $5 and mass transit was at its highest usage in over 50 years. I yearn for those days again...I had the biggest smile on my face. All of a sudden, there was an interest to invest in mass transit. Palms is a nicely dense built neighborhood. People should start learning to utilize the bus system (increased ridership --> increased demand --> more buses) or ride thier bikes instead of relying on their cars. More parking demand --> more auto-centric policies (i.e. more parking garages, more asphalt (less trees!), more left-turn lanes, yadda yadda yadda).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 2, 2010 13:28:17 GMT -8
By the way, metrocenter, the Palms Station is not "sooo" close to the Venice/Robertson Station. It's 0.9 miles, which is just about the standard 1-mile light-rail station spacing. Well, if you're in a car, planning to park at a station, .9 miles is not a huge deal. So park-and-riders should be directed to Venice/Robertson. Access to Palms station should primarily be via walking/bike/transit.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 2, 2010 16:54:24 GMT -8
By the way, metrocenter, the Palms Station is not "sooo" close to the Venice/Robertson Station. It's 0.9 miles, which is just about the standard 1-mile light-rail station spacing. Well, if you're in a car, planning to park at a station, .9 miles is not a huge deal. So park-and-riders should be directed to Venice/Robertson. Access to Palms station should primarily be via walking/bike/transit. I agree. I was just pointing out that the spacing between the Palms and Venice/Robertson Stations is standard light-rail station spacing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 2, 2010 16:54:44 GMT -8
Apparently today's Expo board meeting was somewhat partly combined into the County board meeting and postponed to two weeks later.
The project labor agreement, that is agreement with unions, is already something that will bog down Phase 2. Board members were fighting each other on this issue today.
I think more the agreements there are, the more it will take Expo to be built and the more it will cost and the less the quality of the resultant project will be.
Apparently project labor agreements are something every county is running away from and in some counties they were banned by the voters with more than 70% majority. Unfortunately here in LA County, the government officials are insisting on making things as inefficient as possible and Expo Phase 2 is the test case.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 2, 2010 20:13:12 GMT -8
Regarding tearing down the "Price storage" building: Many of these are located near ex-Southern Pacific railroad tracks, possibly on land no longer needed for rail operations. Seeing one often reminds me of George Carlin's "A Place for My Stuff". Paraphrasing the late Mr. Carlin, "look at all those beige buildings with orange doors. That's what you have to use when you have more 'stuff' than 'place'."
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 3, 2010 1:54:26 GMT -8
It's odd that so many people live in Palms and yet the sidewalks are relatively narrow and there really aren't that many people walking them.
Each apartment bldg or condo complex has its underground parking; the streets are filled with parallel parkers; approach rush hour and the main arteries (Venice, Motor, Overland, Palms, and National) are clogged and sometimes frightening to cross.
To walk across Palms/National at National/Exposition at rush hour is not for the faint of heart with speeding cars trying to make the signal. Nor is it easy to cross at Shelby and National, across from the Von's Cheviot Hills Shopping Center, even using the pedestrian crossing, with flashing lights no less!
Take that crosswalk at Shelby and National with flashing lights. It's maybe 500 steps from the future station. The crosswalk extends north across National into shrubbery. There's a retirement home there, but residents have to walk on the street (Shelby) to reach it because there is no sidewalk on the rt. side of Shelby adjacent to the retirement home!
I'm just beginning to reflect on the consequences of putting a station at Palms/National/Exposition--a great location for the station. The desire is to introduce much-needed commuter service to a relatively densely populated area. But this is a place where the residents hardly walk anywhere, where currently there are some walk-accessible destinations afflicted by sometimes daunting traffic and after-thought pedestrian access.
A transformation is required and serious thought given to creating pedestrian appeal and somehow, still keeping the traffic flowing.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 8:01:44 GMT -8
^ Well new transit will attract new pedestrians from the neighborhood, which may result in people demanding wider sidewalks and traffic-calming measures.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 3, 2010 13:46:38 GMT -8
I've had this notion that eventually, Angelenos will want to choose proximity over optimized income.
For awhile I'm commuting to Santa Ana (from Palms/Chev Hills). This is crazy! The traffic, the frazzled drivers. Most days I come too close to traffic disasters. For a bit less money, maybe some would be happy to take a job near where they live (I would)--or move to a place near where they work ...or take a train, relax and let someone else do the driving.
I think the "push"--to avoid commute if reasonably possible already exists for Angelenos (not just me), what would be nice is to discover a "pull." Whittier has it; Sierra Madre has it ...and Santa Monica and other beach cities. There are additionaly LA locales where residents walk.
Right now, traffic "defines" the intersection of Palms-National & National-Exposition, not people or the Palms community. I would want to achieve well-timed signals (rather than "traffic-calming" devices) that are synchronized to move the traffic along at reasonable speeds. In the process, the sidewalks become friendlier and encourage pedestrian use. Additionally, the right mix of retail and food would help the station area.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 3, 2010 13:59:13 GMT -8
Right now, traffic "defines" the intersection of Palms-National & National-Exposition, not people or the Palms community. I would want to achieve well-timed signals (rather than "traffic-calming" devices) that are synchronized to move the traffic along at reasonable speeds. In the process, the sidewalks become friendlier and encourage pedestrian use. Additionally, the right mix of retail and food would help the station area. Compare a well-timed traffic synchronized street like 8th street in downtown LA to an unsynchronized street like 7th street in downtown LA. Now, look at what street has the better mix of retail/food and pedestrian traffic. Traffic calming does better for street vibe than streets with fast speeds. Hollywood boulevard, Santa Monica downtown streets are much better with desynchronization. If we synchronization traffic, it's just another incentive to drive instead of biking or busing to your destination. If we keep this frame of mind of "keeping optimum traffic speeds"....we defeat every purpose for people to use transit as a viable choice. Did you know that Wilshire boulevard is synchronized? It's one of the best synchronized streets in LA. But, have you noticed how busy it is? It's because it's synchronized so darn well...that everybody wants to drive on Wilshire and not 6th, 7th, 8th, James Woods, etc... in the westside. How much more synchronization do we need to prove it doesn't work when streets are overloaded with cars and there are signifcant disincentives to walk, bike, or take the bus?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 16:02:32 GMT -8
I think it really depends on the context of the street. For instance, nobody expects Wilshire Blvd. to be a peaceful sanctuary. Like it or not, it functions as a major highway, and it needs to move large volumes of vehicles. On the other hand, with a small residential street primarily used by locals, people will expect traffic calming and lower traffic loads.
So are National and Palms major roadways with regional implications? Or are they neighborhood streets? I think you will get different answers depending on whom you ask.
If you ask me, these really "should" be neighborhood streets or collector roads, except that the 10 Freeway f*$#ed everything up and made it so that thousands of vehicles now use these streets. While we can't ignore the reality of the freeway, I think the core problem is the freeway itself. Regional traffic on these little streets really should be discouraged, IMO. But it's not my neighborhood, so my opinion really doesn't matter that much.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 3, 2010 16:38:57 GMT -8
I think it really depends on the context of the street. For instance, nobody expects Wilshire Blvd. to be a peaceful sanctuary. Like it or not, it functions as a major highway, and it needs to move large volumes of vehicles. On the other hand, with a small residential street primarily used by locals, people will expect traffic calming and lower traffic loads. So are National and Palms major roadways with regional implications? Or are they neighborhood streets? I think you will get different answers depending on whom you ask. If you ask me, these really "should" be neighborhood streets or collector roads, except that the 10 Freeway f*$#ed everything up and made it so that thousands of vehicles now use these streets. While we can't ignore the reality of the freeway, I think the core problem is the freeway itself. Regional traffic on these little streets really should be discouraged, IMO. But it's not my neighborhood, so my opinion really doesn't matter that much. Metrocenter, good points. However, it is not just whether a street is a major arterial and how much traffic is has. SM Blvd. in West LA is actually a pretty nice pedestrian street. Even though it is nearly as wide as Wilshire and Olympic in the area, its buildings are at a human scale, there are few set backs from the sidewalk, and there are less garages and cars using the sidewalk as a pathway from their garage to the street. Part of this is because SM Blvd. was part of the Red Car route. San Vicente in Brentwood, which also had the red car, is the same way. You can still have a busy street with traffic and also have a decent pedestrian experience, although granted it is much more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 3, 2010 16:41:59 GMT -8
Palms is the oldest neighborhood between Downtown LA and Santa Monica. They probably didn't have the concept of sidewalk when it was parceled in the late 19th century. That's why you don't see sidewalks on Railroad Avenue, which was later known as Featherstone Drive and is now known as National Boulevard.
Palms, despite being the densest (or one of the densest) residential neighborhoods in the Westside, it's not a pedestrian neighborhood. Many people simply drive and park and get into their apartments and then get out of the apartments and into their cars again to drive wherever. It's actually sad. In more affluent neighborhoods, you see more pedestrians. We need to promote more walking in Palms. Expo will help.
The most important pedestrian corridor in Palms is Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue. That's where you see the most pedestrians. Having a parking lot on Exposition would be awful. I'm trying to convince the Palms Neighborhood Council that this is a very bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 3, 2010 17:00:18 GMT -8
Metrocenter, good points. However, it is not just whether a street is a major arterial and how much traffic is has. SM Blvd. in West LA is actually a pretty nice pedestrian street. Even though it is nearly as wide as Wilshire and Olympic in the area, its buildings are at a human scale, there are few set backs from the sidewalk, and there are less garages and cars using the sidewalk as a pathway from their garage to the street. Part of this is because SM Blvd. was part of the Red Car route. San Vicente in Brentwood, which also had the red car, is the same way. Well Wilshire in some places is also a nice pedestrian street. I was specifically referring to where traffic volume can be high, vs. where it should be limited. I agree Santa Monica Blvd. in West L.A. has some stretches that are walkable with some nice setbacks. But in terms of traffic flow, it is a nightmare, and any "traffic calming" measures on that street (fewer lanes, for instance) would be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 3, 2010 17:12:01 GMT -8
My correspondence with the Palms Neighborhood Council, who have been promoting Metro parking along Exposition, which would ruin this pedestrian corridor:
Dear Charles,
Thank you for your detailed response.
I was there at the beginning of the parking discussion and had to leave after the first two or three public comments.
I do agree with many of your points, except for your suggested solution, which would create more (and more serious) problems than it would solve.
I think you're absolutely right about the ridership. The way the Metro ridership model works is based on existing bus and transit lines. Since the bus ridership through Palms/National (Blue Bus) is relatively low, they came up with a small number for the Expo Palms Station. Likewise, since the bus ridership on Westwood Blvd is high, they came up with a big number for the Expo Westwood Station.
Environmental problems, which I'm more concerned with, aside, providing limited parking along Exposition would create even more problems:
1. As you said, parking is very scarce in Palms. If you provide parking along Exposition for the station, many residents and guests, who don't use the Expo Line at all, will end up parking at the Metro parking lot.
2. Even if you provide parking, it won't eliminate the problem of commuters seeking street parking in Palms. In fact, it will likely make it worse. The reason is that these Metro parking lots, especially the small ones, end up being filled very early in the morning. Many commuters will find out that the lot is already full and they will start circulating in the neighborhood to find street parking.
3. Providing parking for the station will attract more cars to the area than with no station parking. Few people will try to find street parking if they know there is no parking provided for the station. But if you provide parking, you will attract many park-and-ride commuters, some of them will park in the Metro lot and others will circulate in the area when the lot fills up early in the morning. I think we will have much less problem with no Metro parking lot. If some people try to find street parking, it's fine -- it's a free country. Chances are that if it's too difficult to find street parking, they will give up and use the Venice/Robertson or Sepulveda Stations in the long run.
4. My biggest concern is the environment. All residential neighborhoods are advocating for pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and landscaping. Why are we advocating for replacing the proposed landscaping with a paved parking lot?
5. Currently Palms is not a pedestrian neighborhood. Many people simply drive in and out of their apartments. We are trying to change that and create a pedestrian neighborhood. Expo Line will help.
6. If you're familiar with the northern Palms (which I'm very familiar), Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue is the most important pedestrian corridor in northern Palms. Building a parking lot along Exposition would ruin this pedestrian corridor. We need to have a transit parkway as in the other places along the Expo alignment, which consists of the light-rail, bike and pedestrian path, and landscaping. A parallel parking lot simply won't fit into a transit parkway.
Once again, building parking along Exposition in Palms is the biggest of all evils. While other neighborhoods are planning for a transit parkway with landscaping and a pedestrian-friendly environment, why should we ruin the most important pedestrian corridor in northern Palms by providing a very disruptive paved parking lot with cars constantly going in an out and interfering with pedestrian activity? Simply imagine what all these pedestrians would have to go through while they are trying to access the station in the morning with all the park-and-ride people trying to get into the parking lot on Exposition.
If you really think that you should pursue parking for Palms, the only reasonable solution would be to advocate for a parking structure. If it's found really necessary, funding could be identified. Even that would create more problems for the neighborhood as it would bring a lot of cars to the neighborhood and make it less pedestrian-friendly, but at least it wouldn't ruin an important walking corridor in Palms.
My preference is to go with the Expo Authority's recommendation and wait. I don't think permit parking will ever be necessary. Remember that Palms is a residential neighborhood and people who would park and ride are commuters. Therefore, when Palms residents go to work during the day, the park-and-ride commuters can use their street-parking spaces and when the residents return in the evening, the commuters will empty these spaces for them again. Therefore, I don't think permit parking would ever be necessary as there would be minimal conflict between a few commuters who would look for parking spaces in the mornings and the residents who live in Palms.
Turn Palms into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, not a car-friendly neighborhood!
Yours sincerely,
Gokhan
On 12/3/2010 12:00 AM, Charles Miller wrote: > Gokhan, > > Thank you for taking time to contact us with your thoughts. We appreciate that you attended the transportation forum and are providing us with your feedback. The purpose of last night's discussion of the forthcoming Expo Line station in Palms was to discover what our stakeholders would like to see for the future of our neighborhood and how the station will fit into that equation. While parking is one component of determining how the station will fit into life in Palms, it's certainly not the only one, or even the most important one. The discussion last night got side-tracked a bit onto the issue of parking, and unfortunately we did not get adequate time to discuss some other issues for the station, which includes some of what you listed. > > Perhaps you missed part of our discussion, but our reasons for pursuing parking at the Palms Station are many and are not limited to the concerns over lot use from our business stakeholders. > > To reiterate a few key points, we feel it is important that parking be added to this station because: > > 1) We strongly disagree with the analysis done by the Expo Line that projects ridership at Palms Station as one of the lowest on the line. Why? > --At 21,870 people per square mile, Palms has one of the highest densities of any neighborhood in Los Angeles. Palms, in fact, has the highest density on the ENTIRE Expo Line route, and is the only neighborhood ranked in Los Angeles' top 50 most dense neighborhoods along the entire Phase Two portion of the line (Palms is #9). > --The Expo ridership analysis seems to skew toward evaluating a station as a destination rather than a point of origin. It also seems focused more on the auto traffic at the intersection near the station than on the commuter habits of the neighborhood's residents. > --Palms has one of the highest concentration of renters along the Expo Line (probably the highest of any station in Phase Two). This diverse working class neighborhood has limited local job opportunities. More than any other stop in Phase Two, Palms is a COMMUTER'S neighborhood. > --The Expo ridership analysis does not take into consideration that Palms has the highest concentration of USC grad students of anywhere off of campus (as well as many undergraduates). There is likely no other single group of people nearly this large on the entire Expo Line who have a daily commute DIRECTLY ON THE EXPO LINE! I see that you are part of the USC community yourself, so I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you. > > Contrary to what the ridership study suggests, we contend that Palms residents will be the bread and butter of the Expo Line's ridership base. > > 2) The current effort by neighborhood councils and HOAs near the proposed Westwood station to reduce or possibly eliminate parking from that design will only add pressure to the parking situation surrounding Palms Station. If any serious consideration is given to reducing parking at the Westwood Station, we feel it is imperative that this be accompanied by a proportional increase to parking at Palms Station. > > 3) The current strategy suggested by Expo with respect to parking around Palms Station is to "wait and see" if there is a problem, and then "help the neighborhood with mitigation efforts". But the possible mitigation efforts proposed have been limited to turning Palms into a two-hour parking zone, making it a restricted parking-pass neighborhood. Without even seriously examining the reality that obtaining such a zone change would be a burden placed on the neighborhood (working with LADOT) to fix a problem created by Expo, such a restriction changes the character of Palms for the worse. Palms is replete with two-car families who live in apartment buildings that supply one parking spot per unit. These people in many cases chose Palms over other dense areas in the city because the street parking is not restricted (save for street cleaning runs). But that same unrestricted street parking will appeal to users of the Palms Station--especially those living more than a few bloc > ks away from the station who may not choose to walk to the station. As long as unrestricted parking exists in Palms near the station, it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the best solution at Palms Station is to provide no Expo Line parking, in hopes that people will simply not look for parking in Palms and will be diverted to Venice/Robertson, voluntarily driving through an area that is very congested during rush hours. The PNC supports the Expo Line eagerly, but we DO NOT feel the nature of our neighborhood should suffer as a result of Palms Station. It's entirely possible that adding parking to the Palms Station design will not fully address this problem, but it is a far superior choice, and--we argue--an obligatory first alternative to the inconvenience and burden that would be placed on the residents of Palms if it became necessary to turn Palms into a restricted parking neighborhood. > > Now, all that being said, we don't by any means claim to have the perfect answer to this. MTA has made it clear that land acquisition for parking will not be an option (unless they are forced to go that route). Our goal here, for the reasons listed above, is to push the MTA board to direct the Expo Authority to reopen the issue of studying potential parking solutions for Palms Station. We think one potential solution is the diagonal parking we mentioned on the north side of Exposition. I understand your concerns here; however, I don't believe all your claims are accurate. In fact, any solution we would support would not create many of the problems you listed. Space is an issue, and that's why we believe the issue needs to be studied. There may be a way to work parking for the station into the right-of-way with the cooperation of CalTrans, MTA, and the Expo Authority, WITHOUT reducing the width of traffic lanes on Exposition, or doing anything that would compromise the > pedestrian-friendly nature of the area near the station. In fact, many of the reasons you list are actually high on our list of concerns and underscore why we want parking matters addressed at this station, rather than face cars circling the residential streets in search of nearby parking that is needed by the residents of those streets. Why is this parking option one we discussed? This option was originally part of what Expo studied, and it's my understanding that it was rejected due to cost (which is minimal compared to the impact) and the fact that the ridership study determined we would have the lowest ridership on the line (which, per above, we strongly contend is incorrect). That suggests it is compatible with space and grade issues. Even so, the PNC is not taking a position on supporting a specific parking solution design at this time. Rather, we simply want to see Expo provide parking options for this station--both because we want people to use public transpor > tation, and because we want to preserve and enhance Palms while minimizing negative impacts. I assure you that we remain open to other parking solutions for the station and even have a few additional suggestions of our own when and if we get a chance to present them to Expo. > > Thank you for taking the time to write us with your concerns. I hope my detailed response illustrates our commitment to take seriously the feedback we get. We are going to be part of the Expo Line process for years to come, and I encourage you to attend our meetings and continue to provide us with your input. > > Sincerely, > Charles Miller > Overland Residential Representative > Chair, Transportation& Road Works Committee > Chair, Ad Hoc Committee on Westwood& Venice Issues > Palms Neighborhood Council > 310 204 4940 > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Gokhan wrote: > >> Dear Dee, Charles, and Eli, >> >> I am an advocate of the Expo Line for many years and I played an important role in the selection of the right-of-way alignment and the placement of the Palms Station in the current location to the west of National/Palms. I was at the Palms Neighborhood Council meeting last night and I heard you asking for parking on the Expo right-of-way around Bagley Avenue by Exposition Boulevard in Palms. The reason you are asking for this is that you and local businesses are apparently concerned that people will park on the Vons parking lot and in similar areas. In my opinion this is a no - no for the following reasons: >> >> (1) Currently Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue in Palms are very popular walking and biking routes. Bagley is the only through street literally within a mile and it's very popular among pedestrians. Therefore, putting parking along or by Exposition would really ruin this walking and biking corridor. >> >> (2) This area is too dense to accommodate station parking. It's surrounded by apartments. Many of the residents in these apartments lack parking as well. The access to these apartments on Exposition Boulevard is already very difficult. >> >> (3) Exposition Boulevard here is unusually narrow. With the current street parking on the south side, two cars coming from opposite directions already must be very careful to avoid hitting each other. >> >> (4) There are land-grade issues. There is the freeway embankment on the north side and the National Blvd rail bridge approach ramp on the west side. >> >> (5) The right-of-way here is not very wide, considering that there will be a 17-ft-wide bike and pedestrian path as well and part of the original railroad right-of-way belongs to Caltrans. >> >> (6) The Bagley at-grade crossing complicates things even more. With cars trying to come in and out of the parking lot, there may be safety issues with the grade crossing. >> >> (7) Parking here means no landscaping, which is not desirable by the community. >> >> (8) Given the status of the project now, the preliminary engineering is already finished and I can't imagine it would be desirable to change the alignment of the tracks at this point. Not only that but this would require an environmental assessment for the parking and track realignment. Therefore, I think it's already too late for PNC to take on this issue. >> >> (9) The distance from Bagley Avenue to the Palms Station, almost a half mile, is about the same as to the Venice/Robertson Station. Would this then be parking for the Palms Station or the Venice/Robertson Station? Also, a half mile is a long distance for people to park and walk to the station. There are so many things with this idea about this location that don't make sense. >> >> In summary parking along Exposition would ruin the residential character of the Palms neighborhood and it would prevent it from ever becoming pedestrian-friendly. >> >> If parking is desirable in this location, it can always be added in the future. Acquisition of some property, such as the Price Self-Storage, would be more appropriate for this purpose. Perhaps funds (~ $15 million) for this acquisition and construction of a structure might be available in the future, depending on how the project shapes. >> >> Best, >> >> Gokhan
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 3, 2010 17:29:28 GMT -8
Good job Gokhan on the correspondence! It pains me to see that people still believe that providing parking "reduces traffic". Think about it, without parking availablility...why would somebody drive? You can't. But since we have such an overbundance of parking, it's so darn easy to drive that our streets swell up with more cars. You can have the largest transit system in the world, but when you have 7 spots for each car registered in the county, what's the point of even taking transit? People don't factor in ownership or mileage as a cost of driving. They see parking fees and gas as the only costs compared to transit. Plus, it's better to create destinations along the line (i.e. office complex, housing building, etc...). A parking lot is not a destination. It just becomes a commuter hotspot only busy during rush hour periods. Palms needs to find a bus circulator that would help residents get to the station, if that's the problem. Other wise, I agree with you, they are just practically for for more drivers to enter the neighborhood. More of the same minimum 2 car space for each unit, etc..... Again, the disincentive to take transit, bike, or walk continues...........
Oh please, $5/gallon of gas come back!!!!!!!!!
Somebody said this once and I think it makes sense. "It's easier to live, when you cannot park".
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 3, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -8
By the way, light synchronization sucks for bicyclists. As most light synchronization is for cars, they keep speeding by at a high mileage, while bike riders run the risks of cars side-swiping them. So, I fully agree on "traffic calming" measures and no more "light synchronization". Ride alternative transport (walk, bike, or bus), and you'll see why synchronization is bad for public transportation.
By the way, due to this "light synchronization", I nearly ran over a pedestrian on SM boulevard, because I was avoiding the speeding cars. Wouldn't have happened if cars were slowed down or a bike lane existed, then I would have felt safer to be on the road and not the sidewalk. I'm assuming that's what most bike riders feel too.....
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Dec 3, 2010 23:20:36 GMT -8
Actually, light synchronization can be totally great for cyclists, it just depends on what speed the lights are synchronized to. If they're set for 40 mph, that's not so good. 30 or 25 mph, on the other hand, is much better for both cars and bikes.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 3, 2010 23:47:41 GMT -8
The point of light synchronization down Palms-National would be to keep the vehicular speed down!
25 would seem appropriate to me, otherwise those folks at Cheviot Hills Assisted Living on Shelby stand little chance at getting across National without a good dose of fear coursing through them.
Right now cars barrel past the shopping center and under the freeway bridge. With the increased traffic the station will generate, perhaps traffic will slow, but that could also mean congestion. Timed signals down Palms and National that are advertised as timed could help a lot.
|
|