Steve Lopez examines in Sunday's paper about why an abandoned stretch of rail track on the Westside isn't part of the solution to the region's traffic problems. Here's the link:
"We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that."
So you are proposing doing a design and construction method that has more environmentally negative impacts to build some pretty little trench that can't hold up the weigh of the soil surrounding it. Just for your info there's spots like that along the Gold Line and those are always the slow zones that causes delays to the service.
"The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided."
What green space? Elevating the line there preserves more of it and allows more to be built taking out all that soil and running a waterway right next to a high speed rail line requires a lot more concrete/engineering that you're letting on. In fact elevating it allows for this waterway to be sucken lower and thus be cheaper and more environmentally friendly because the groundwater from the soil seepage won't knock out the elevated columns. Your solution eats up more of this greenspace that you so desperately want. Me thinks you want this sucken money pit is nothing more than elaborate way to ensure there's no station in Cheviot Hills/Westside Pavillion area for the Black, Brown and others to come via transit rob, rape and pillage and then escape with all of your precious phony belongings.
"We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that."
So you are proposing doing a design and construction method that has more environmentally negative impacts to build some pretty little trench that can't hold up the weigh of the soil surrounding it. Just for your info there's spots like that along the Gold Line and those are always the slow zones that causes delays to the service.
"The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided."
What green space? Elevating the line there preserves more of it and allows more to be built taking out all that soil and running a waterway right next to a high speed rail line requires a lot more concrete/engineering that you're letting on. In fact elevating it allows for this waterway to be sucken lower and thus be cheaper and more environmentally friendly because the groundwater from the soil seepage won't knock out the elevated columns. Your solution eats up more of this greenspace that you so desperately want. Me thinks you want this sucken money pit is nothing more than elaborate way to ensure there's no station in Cheviot Hills/Westside Pavillion area for the Black, Brown and others to come via transit rob, rape and pillage and then escape with all of your precious phony belongings.
I do not advocate an elevated line through the currently existing green space in the segment of the right-of-way going through Westwood Gardens. In fact, I am against it. What I do advocate is building underpasses at Overland and Westwood and putting the line in a shallow, open trench. Stream daylighting could also be utilized in this segment. Therefore, when it is built, it will not only be for transit purposes but for recreational purposes as well. It should be designed very carefully so that it becomes part of the green space, not something that replaces it.
The only reason why there is green space there is because there used to be a railroad. We could keep it as green space by properly building a light-rail line there. If this space is not utilized for light-rail now, it will be wasted forever as an opportunity for public transportation. And we are not talking about a random corridor here but a major historical transit corridor.
Venice Blvd is a different, *separate* corridor then the Expo corridor. It doesn’t serve northern Palms, Castle Heights, Pico Blvd vicinity, southern Century City, and southern Westwood as the Expo corridor does. Why should we deny the Expo corridor of public transportation for eternity? On the other hand, there could be a Venice Line in the near future.
There used to be many of these rights-of-way. They are all gone now, not because they put light-rail on them, but they built houses and buildings and they paved them over as roads. In fact, Rex, where were you when they paved over the right-of-way on Santa Monica Blvd just a few years ago?
In a fair world, there wouldn’t even be this study of the “diversion alternative.” The only reason while we are having this study and discussion now is because some politicians, of whose their names I will not mention here, sided with their rich, powerful friends in those neighborhoods and proposed bus rapid transit and the diversion alternative. Those were the dark days when those politicians made the decisions behind closed doors. Those were the dark days when only the rich and powerful got involved in the decision making. But not anymore—in the Internet era, all the information is out there, and there is no more secrecy and games.
We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that. The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided. And, hopefully, the opponents in Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park will stop fighting for the diversion and concentrate on the best environmental mitigations, which will not only benefit them but everyone.
If they can elevate it on Venice and Sepulveda they can elevate the train on a 200' WIDE Right-of-way that Metro already own and with landscaping and dense trees to soften the sound AND build a ribbon of parks so that folks can have access to the space.
Or even better with the left over space they can build affordable housing and apartments next to the elevated train that can deaden any additional noise from the community and bring added riders and tax base to your neighborhood.
Gokhan's Feb. 8th post says in relation to a ground level rapid bus or rail line on Venice and Sepulveda blvds. that "it is highly unlikely to be adopted due to severe impacts on traffic. (The federal law prohibits approval of the environmental study if there are “severe” impacts.)"
First, I don't recall Cheviot Hill residents advocating a ground level rail line on those streets as part of the short detour in the expo route. I believe it should be elevated for the entire route from the end of phase 1 (which unfortunately we are told can't be changed to elevated too) all the way to Santa Monica. By elevating it, you minimize any impact on the streets; the suport posts can be in the landscaped median of Venice, for example; you eliminate the need for horns and whistles at crossings; and you have the ability to use the land at ground level for parks, bike paths and treatment wetlands for poluted storm runoff (another huge project that the City and County are studying regionwide).
But as to Gokhan's point about federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act says the opposite: "If the only way to meet an essential agency goal requires implementing an alternative with the potential for severe adverse environmental impacts, this is ultimately allowed for under NEPA. " http://www.nature.nps.gov/protectingrestoring/DO12Site/01_intro/012_intent.htm
NEPA is a lot like CEQA (the state version of NEPA) in that a reasonable range of alternatives must be studied. In our case, the Expo detour with elevated light rail and all the multiple benefits I just described is a reasonably feasible alternative that needs to be studied. It is most likely that this elevated project will not produce the severe impacts Gokhan describes; on the other hand, though, it is likely that a ground level expo line using the route favored by some would also produce severe impacts at some locations, given that most major intersections next to the Expo line operate at "F" rating during rush hour and rail cars crossing these north-south roads will add to the backups . Since much of the debate advocating a no-detour route has gone "Cheviot Hills residents have to take one for the team", what this means is that there will be some significant unmitigable impacts on the Cheviot and Rancho Park neighborhoods. Therefore, if there is a route and design that minimizes these impacts, the MTA has a legal duty to fully and fairly study it.
Why does the graphic for this discussion show the future Purple LIne subway extension? A graphic of Phase 2 of the light rail Expo Line would be more to the point.
"It is a bit glib to dismiss an affluent, well-maintained neighborhood as 'rich, selfish NIMBYs,' " [Kevin Hughes] said in an e-mail.
Yes, Mr. Hughes, perhaps a bit glib, but 100% appropriate. Mr. Hughes, you and your fellow homeowners need to "take one for the team," the team being the rest of the county of Los Angeles. The fact that you refuse to do so is the definition of selfishness, and certainly does peg you as a NIMBY.
1) Expo Line going next to (not through) your neighborhood will actually increase property values, and improve your neighborhood, not destroy it.
2)Placing Expo on Venice/Sepulveda will increase construction costs (and my taxes, thanks a lot) and make the line slower and less efficient, which will inhibit ridership (hello Gold Line!)
Let's not make the mistakes that were made with the Gold Line. We just have to look in Our Own Back Yard (South Pasadena) to see that your selfish needs will inconvenience everybody else who will use the line.
If you really want, the line could be built below grade, with a "freeway cap" on top, which could have parkland or bike paths on it. This could be built for the whole huge quarter mile that the Expo LIne goes next to (not through) your neighborhood.
"Sometimes the NIMBYs have a point and sometimes the city has an interest in preserving its nice neighborhoods"
Mr. Hughes, the Expo Line will not only preserve your nice nieghborhood, and turn fallow land into an asset, but will actually make it MORE desirable.
"Cheviot Hills is desirable because the hard-working, friendly, generous people who live there care a lot."
The political procedure for these projects is very well-defined. I will not go into much details here but it is not possible to make any changes to Phase I anymore, other than minor design considerations: you can’t even add or remove stations, forget changing the rail system, once the final environmental-impact report is approved by the Federal Transit Administration. You probably didn’t realize but this whole political and environmental process has been going on years and years for now.
Heavy-rail and commuter rail were briefly looked on in the first phase of the study (major-investment study) years and years ago. The major investment study decided on two options: bus-rapid transit and light-rail transit. Because of the bus-rapid transit, the Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion was also proposed, since the buses are more useful on the city streets. The Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion was never actually meant for light-rail transit but for bus-rapid transit.
We almost got the cheap bus-rapid transit on Expo but then that’s where Friends 4 Expo Transit made the difference. They fought really hard and fought off the bus-rapid transit and they made MTA adopt light-rail transit instead.
Therefore, the Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion is a relic from early considerations for bus-rapid transit. It is here during the new environmental-impact study phase for Expo Phase II mostly in order to satisfy the procedural requirements. It is highly unlikely to be adopted due to severe impacts on traffic. (The federal law prohibits approval of the environmental study if there are “severe” impacts.) The Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park community are hurting themselves big time by supporting the diversion, because once the right-of-way is adopted, they will end up with poor mitigation, since the right-of-way is something they don’t want anyway and Metro doesn’t need to provide more mitigation than satisfies the legal requirements, unless there is strong support from the community. Big, big, mistake for Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park...
The projected ridership of the Expo Line after Phase II is opened is around 100,000 per day, which will make it the nation’s most popular light-rail line.
An open question that I'm hoping somebody has the answer to -
Was heavy rail (Metrolink or similar) ever considered to be put back on the expo right of way - either by itself or in addition to the light rail? At first it seems like there would be more opposition than the light rail but commuter rail runs far less frequently than light rail and generally doesn't run late nights and weekends. Commuter rail would also connect to the extensive existing Metrolink service areas which represent the source of much of our Westside traffic. The Expo line (through Cheviot Hills) has my full support but I also have to be realistic and note that it often runs through industrial areas, areas that are low density, or areas that are not currently well served by transit (for connections). I see how the Expo line will serve downtown to westside commuters, students going to USC, and perhaps trips to the beach, but I don't see a great deal of intermediate station traffic which would seem like the lifeblood of a rail line with a stop every half mile. Anyways, if anybody knows if the commuter rail option was ever considered I would appreciate the info. Oh, and by the way, I want to thank the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association for the traffic impediments they were able to get installed in Palms and Cheviot Hills because of the Fox project. Not only did you asphyxiate traffic in surrounding neighborhoods you actually sabotaged traffic flow in your own neighborhood. While I love to see Cheviot Hills a total traffic disaster because of its own NIBMYism I still wish the money could have gone for something more useful.
Just a comparison between the right of way and the detour route.
Phase II. Detour Route:
* I counted 17 grade crossings that will have to get gates or be closed between Venice and Expo and Sepulveda.
* Two lanes of traffic or parking would have to be taken for the LRT service.
* A steep hill on Sepulveda would have to be ascended and descended that would slow service.
* There are many hundreds of homes and apartments mostly multi-level apartments with thousands of residents within 50 feet of the tracks.
* Difficult and expensive curve at Venice and Sepulveda
* Close to class rooms at Palms Elementary School.
* Adds over a mile of additional track that would require slow operation do to close proximity to roadway and residents and maybe 100 million in additional cost and added 10 minutes of running time.
Direct Route:
* 2 grade crossings. If Overland were grade separated there would be only 1 grade crossing
* No proximity or changes to any roadways.
* No grade changes.
* No homes are with in 50 feet of the tracks with the tracks being in a cut below view of most homes along the right of way. (If Overland were grade separated. Most residents from their homes or even yards would not be able to see any rail cars).
* Over 100 feet from play grounds and 300 feet from any class rooms at Overland Elementary School.
* Direct straight route with gentle curves and away from any housing or population for a fast trip between stations.
* No room for a bike path, or if a bike path was worked in, it would be adjacent to traffic with the hill on Sepulveda.
* Room for a bike path except through tunnel under the freeway that would have to be worked out.
* Room for parks and recreation areas along this route.
Both routes:
* There would be 2 stations on the detour with 1 station on the direct route. There would be less than half a mile between the stations of either route. Neither station would have parking, so there is little advantage of the detour route regarding it being “more convenient to more potential riding passengers.
So which line would impact the most people along the route, which line would disrupt the most automobile traffic, which route is least expensive to build, which route is the fastest trip between Santa Monica, the Coliseum complex, USC and Los Angeles?
Why is there even any consideration at all to the detour route other than politics?
The dual tracks require less than 35 ft of space. The Palms/Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park right-of-way is between 100 - 200-ft-wide. Why not use the 35 ft of the right-of-way for the tracks and the remaining 65 - 165 ft of the right-of-way for the park and creek you are advocating for?
What good is a park if people need to drive to it?
What good is light-rail on Venice Blvd if it stops short of Mar Vista? Isn't it much better if we have both the Expo Line on the Pacific Electric right-of-way and a future Venice Line that goes all the way to Venice? Why deny the residents of northern Palms and the Pico Blvd vicinity of decent public transportation for eternity?
The question is not what people think about Cheviot Hills residents: it's about what is best for the city in terms of transit options.
Yes, the Venice Boulevard alteranative is worth pursuing and should be done, as soon as possible, in addition to Expo. But the change to it wasn't made because it was superior in terms of service or route: it was made because of opposition from the Cheviot neighborhood.
Westide transit problems center on Santa Monica, where enormous employment growth has created crushing morniing westbound and evening eastbound congestion. The Expo line goes directly to those employment centers, promising much more effective relief. And it not only gets to Santa Monica more directly, but it costs far, far less, and would be far less disruptive to existing traffic during construction.
And even if it is not done immediately, there is a rock-bottom near-absolute commonsense guideline being disregarded by the shut downt the expo ROW argument. The city is going to continue to grow and need transportation. I cannot conceive of any justification for taking a transit right of way off the table and permanently out of the game for transit use.
regarding a specific:
>Another fact about impacts to the Cheviot/Rancho Park neighborhood: the ex-rail right of way between the 10 and the 405 freeway is not all in a gully. It’s not accurate to say “it runs in a cut far below street level”. Only the portion immediately west of the 10 freeway is below grade. The portion that crosses Overland all the way to the 405 is at the same level as the surrounding neighborhoods.
As it is with the surrounding residential neighborhoods for most of its route from USC to Cheviot. What is the justification for special treatment for the stretch between Overland and Sepulveda? Do these areas need parks less than Rancho Park and Cheviot??
The vigorous opposition of the Cheviot Hills neighborhood to the Expo Line is a matter of record. I did not call residents or the board 'selfish jerks." If someone else did, I deplore it because it changes the issue from the facts merits of the transit plans to one of name-calling.
Finally: I am still waiting for Mr. Hughes to explain specific adverse impacts he fears from rail in Cheviot.
To quote Eric Mankin on this site: “nobody called you or your body 'selfish jerks”; “Nobody has been bashing Cheviot”. it is “Make-believe history”…, “NANMN ("Not Anywhere Near My Neighborhood) extremism in Cheviot”
Precisely the problem in much of the debate on this issue is that anyone who favors an alternate route gets branded a NIMBY or a selfish jerk. Her are a few other quotes from the discussion on this site after Steve Lopez’s column:
“So basically, the homeowners in question are not only selfish…”
“Cheviot has contributed more than its share to LA's transit crisis by its obdurate and unthinking opposition…”
“Wealthy Rotten Selfish Nimby Westsiders…”
“I wonder if a lawsuit (i.e. The City of Los Angeles v. Homeowners Association of Cheviot Hills) would solve anything?”
My point is that all of the energy used to bash one neighborhood over this route is a waste when a viable alternative, that would serve more people, is available, and yet could help preserve needed open space in this dense concreted-over city.
Using Venice and Sepulveda works from a “smart growth” perspective because both roads are completely paved over and can’t be used for anything else. A second-story rail line elevated down the middle would be akin to “densification”, ie, the urban planner’s concept of building “up” rather than building on vacant land. One of the concerns about noise is that the trains have to blow their horns when coming to an intersection at grade level. If the rail was elevated above all intersections, the noise problem likely wouldn’t occur. We wouldn’t see people die because they tried to cross in front of a train. They did it in the Bay area with BART. Why not here?
The Venice and Sepulveda neighborhoods have much higher population densities than Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park, and what’s most important to the rest of us taxpayers is that ridership equals farebox revenues. When a rail line passes through an area where people are more inclined to drive, versus an area where people, by economic necessity need public transit more, this cheats the MTA from potential riders who will help pay to keep the system operating. It is no secret if you look at the budget for the MTA and the Culver City bus lines that farebox revenues only cover 10% of those agencies’ operating budgets. Therefore, to run the Expo line through an area with low-potential ridership, when a high-potential ridership route is available, seems short-sighted.
Also, I believe we need a light rail running along the 405 freeway. There is no question that the 405 is a parking lot just about all of the day, and even the current widening plan isn’t going to solve it. But a detoured Eexpo line could plug right into a 405 line, and therefore, the Sepulveda portion of Expo would serve two rail lines – saving money.
Another fact about impacts to the Cheviot/Rancho Park neighborhood: the ex-rail right of way between the 10 and the 405 freeway is not all in a gully. It’s not accurate to say “it runs in a cut far below street level”. Only the portion immediately west of the 10 freeway is below grade. The portion that crosses Overland all the way to the 405 is at the same level as the surrounding neighborhoods. This open space has a great deal of potential not just as parkland, and as community gardens, but also it could be contoured into a basin for natural treatment of the polluted storm runoff from the Westwood Channel. Along with our huge lack of parkland is the huge water pollution problem that we have at our beaches. The program to clean this up will likely involve creation of treatment wetlands and removing of concrete along our creeks. This program is mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act and the City of L.A. is beginning the planning to comply. (www.lacity-irp.org) (www.saveallofballona.org).
Also, if the detour route is selected this means that the Expo right of way between Venice Blvd. and the 10 freeway is also available as open space to serve the very dense neighborhood of Palms. This could be a 2 ½ mile long linear park benefiting significantly more people.
But is that elitist? Use of MTA property for parkland is not unheard-of. For example, the Culver blvd. greenway is owned by the MTA. It used to be the Pacific Electric rail line going to Redondo Beach. The MTA’s funds come from the same taxpayers as the park funds. It’s not elitism for vacant land in Cheviot-Rancho Park to become a park as I don’t recall any park in this city having a “Whites only” policy. We need to create parks everywhere throughout L.A. and I believe the L.A. River restoration plan is going to benefit people of all races and economic levels. The same will happen with the City’s runoff cleanup plans for the rest of the City.
In short, there are logical reasons for the Expo line to include a short detour: cost effectiveness and open space preservation. When we plan from only a single perspective (rail only), we miss other beneficial opportunities that can improve livability in greater ways.
And I believe I am address the Kevin Hughes who is the chair of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Committe.
Mr. Hughes, instead of responding to an attack which wasn't made - nobody called you or your body 'selfish jerks,' why don't you use this space to put forward what your objectinons and problems with the use of the ROW would be? Again, it runs in a cut far below street level. It does not produce pollution. It's hard to see, based on probably station location, how it would even produce spillover parking issues. Yes, we know the neghborhood doesn't want more traffic on Motor. What other problems are there?
Please be specific, rather than simply saying "this would impact us negatively." Make your case, instead of assuming it's obvious.
The notion that an abandoned rail line owned by the public would be dismantled in order to create a beautiful public park that would primarily benefit the selfish jerks of Cheviot Hills apparently is enough to make Eric Mankin's blood boil.
But what if the people of Cheviot Hills weren't selfish jerks? What if that was a grossly unfair caricature and in fact they were really normal, down-to-Earth, nice regular people just like Eric Mankin, who just were bright enough and dedicated enough to fight for what's best for their community and what makes the most sense in terms of the Expo line route? Hmmm... That would just complicate things. Better that they be villains.
The local Hispanic community's peace and quiet is not as important as Cheviot Hills. After all, does Steve Lopez do ghetto kids getting killed by trains?
EXCERPTS FROM:
La Opinion (Original in Spanish)
WARNING RISKS OF NEW EXPOSITION METRO LINE
According to construction contractors they are taking into account all safety measures.
By Jorge Morales Almada, La Opinion Newspaper
Saturday January 27th, 2007
The new Exposition Metro Line would circulate down town areas passing by the University of Southern California ( USC ), all the way up to Culver City. This new Exposition Line could be more dangerous than the Blue Line which already sums more than 70 deaths since 1990; warned the Organization Expo Communities United.
However, the Expo Metro Line Construction Authority in charge of the project through the MTA ( Metropolitan Transportation of the city of Los Angeles ) assures that " safety " is the major priority of the project.
According to Mark Jolles who is a member of the Organization of Residents of the area where the new light rail train will be passing by, this project that is about to start is dangerous because there are 34 pedestrian crossings at the street level and there are 5 schools close to the tracks.
Four months ago the Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the County supervisors and advisors had a symbolic inauguration ceremony of the construction, but the works are about to start within a month. There are estimates that by the year 2010 the line will begin to operate and later that train will continue up to Santa Monica.
" This is an important piece of the extensive train network that we need to provide public transportation that is efficient and convenient" then said, Villaraigosa.
However, many residents of the area and even members of the Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD ) don't see the project with good eyes.
A letter signed by Glenn Striegler, of the Office of Environment Health and Safety of the LAUSD, and sent to the California Public Services Commission ( CPUC ) warns about the worry that exists to the construction of this line, because there are already 5 schools placed from 50 to 70 feet of distance of this line.
Mark Jolles as representative of the neighbors, estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 students are in risk; giving the fact that there is a total of 12 schools immediately adjacent to the projected route.
The letter of the LAUSD points out that the worries are based on pedestrian safety of the students, the noise and the vibrations that will get into the classrooms, the risk of a derailment and the polluted emissions that will affect the health of the students; and they believe that the project will carry out precisely a major traffic congestion.
In the Blue Line of the Metro there were 68 counted deaths until November (76 according to another source ) but since then, there are some more registered accidents like the one that happened in Watts last Thursday, when a child that was on his skateboard was hit by the passenger train that was going to Long Beach.
The residents wonder about cases like this in the zone where the new light train will pass; which would go from the station at 7th Street to USC, throughout all the Exposition Boulevard all the way until it becomes Rodeo Road in Culver City, a track of 8.5 miles total.
The MTA referred their comments about this project to the Expo Metro Line Construction Authority.
Janita Eddins, representing that entity and in charge of carrying out the project, pointed out that the new train line will be constructed under similar guidelines as the Gold Line, where there are not fatalities.
She said that there should not be any worry, because they are taking into account all the necessary safety measures.
"All the crossings will have safety doors; she pointed out."
However, the Expo Communities United insisted that the project seems to be more risky than the same Blue Line, which is considered the most dangerous in the country.
In addition to and according to Mark Jolles, after 6 years of planning the project the MTA could not create a model according to the criteria of the Federal Transit Administration, which has already expressed its worry about the use of tracks to relieve the demand of transportation in the area.
Jolles pointed out that it must be alternatives to the project, like to build the tracks underground with stations in Vermont, Crenshaw and Venice; which can be supplemented with rapid transit services that would improve the transportation.
The United Residents against the project had pointed out that also, the streets of the zone, are being used to their maximum capacity, thus they predict more and bigger traffic jams and vehicular congestion to travel from north to south because the construction is planning to close 17 car crossings permanently.
THIS GUY, ERNIE ARNOLD, LIVES ALONG THE GOLD LINE,
HE SHOULD KNOW
Ernie Arnold wrote:
Mark,
Let me shed a little light on the subject from this my angle. It is important to understand the players and their interest in the projects. The MTA balances the safety of train operations with the regional need for efficient transportation. When there is a trade off between safety or efficient operations, the MTA will come down on the regional needs as long as the line meets minimum safety requirements. Any reduction in safety is approved based upon an overriding consideration of the regional needs.
The MTA is not charged with building the safest transportation systems possible. It is the responsibility of the local governments to protect the interest of the local residents, so it falls on the cities. That is a challenge for neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles, because Los Angeles is region onto itself. It really falls on the councilman representing the district. Each councilmember has a great deal of authority within their own district, so if they do not take up the challenge the neighborhood is unprotected. The City of Los Angeles might trade the needs of one neighborhood for the “good of the city”. On the other hand small cities such as South Pasadena, can be overwhelmed and not realize what is happening until some issues have already been decided.
The main reason the Gold Line has different operating and safety elements than the Blue Line is the participation of the cities involved. The MTA and the Blue Line Construction Authority are only interested in finishing the projects “on time and under budget”. Local opposition is discounted unless the city governments or the Public Utilities Commission get involved.
Your tactic of using the small claims courts however is a new one that will get their attention after the fact, but it is always more efficient to get something completed properly than trying to fix it after the fact.
Who wouldn't be concerned with their own peace of mind? This isn't socialism. If MTA wants to put a rail line through there, let em pay to put it in a tunnel. The general public has more resources to bear the burden than some homeowners, even if they are the Cheviot bourgeoisie.
Just poor people should have to suffer with the impact of these 49 ton cars, three car trains, going through their neighborhoods every 5 minutes with 90 decibal horns and bells and whistles at the crossing gates. Neighborhoods like Cheviot hills, who have the resources to stand up for themselves, should get below grade tunnels. That's the only fair way to look at it.
It just seems logical to me that if an open corridor already exists where a light rail line could be built (or in this case RE-built) to ease traffic from east to west, then that is the way to go. The Cheviot Hills residents who oppose this weren't looking at the whole picture when they decided to vote it down. They are only concerned with their own peace of mind, and not realizing that this would have a beneficial effect on all Los Angeles residents, with very little negative impact on their neighborhoods. The Santa Monica Air Line corridor is large enough that some areas could still be preserved for green space and public use. I live on the east side, and I would absolutely be in favor of a project like this. I already put up with so much noise and congestion every day with the inceasing traffic in my area, that a little more in the way of the construction wouldn't make that much difference, if it meant that eventually I would have a less stressful way to get from the eastside to Santa Monica and it's environs. I doubt that will happen any time soon in my area, but it could be a reality in the corridor by Cheviot Hills. I don't understand how a such small community of people can have such control over something that could benefit many thousands of people in the long run.
HELPING WESTSIDE PARKING, AN OLD CHEVIOT SOLUTION DOES IT? I'M CONFUSED, ARE YOU?
March 23, 2000 MTA BOARD MEETING - Engineers Report
"There have been suggestions to reroute the LRT north on La Cienega Boulevard, turning southwest at Venice Boulevard and traveling to Sepulveda Boulevard. At Sepulveda, the alignment would turn northwest and continue back to the Exposition ROW. This alignment would allow the LRT system to avoid traveling thorough residential areas. This detour would add nearly 1.5 miles to the project, extend travel times by 12 minutes, and increase the overall cost by approximately $120,000,000."
"In the Board deliberations, Supervisor Yaroslavsky began, saying, "Why punish ourselves on a route that has opposition?" He spoke for the Venice Blvd. detour, saying it was wide, "bisects two high-density communities" of Palms and Culver City, and although is "slightly longer than a direct route" it would serve more people.
WHO'S THE ONE THAT WILL REALLY GET PUNISHED, LOOK OUT ZEVVY!
The final vote, for BRT and LRT EIR on Exposition with the detour, was 11-1 yes; Supervisor Antonovich voted no.
SOMEONE HAD SOME BALLS!
Friends 4 Expo's take on this....
"The good news: we're moving forward, there is relative consensus, the Cheviot Hills opponents no longer have a reason to object, Venice Boulevard could become a remarkable new transit-oriented place, there is room within the 100-foot Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way to add light rail (and still keep most of the parking), and if properly designed the travel time won't slow by more than five minutes."
Why not take the $120 million that Burkes and Yaroslavsky voted in 2000 or was it 2001 to go around Cheviot and do a cut and cover through it instead. Can Cheviot stop it if it's in a tunnel and they can see or hear it. Then all the lost ridership from the detour delay would come back, bring more revenue to MTA, Cheviot would get a permanent park on top, and we'd all be happy.
The Times every day contains detailed weather statistics for the day before, along with forecasts by vicinity for the coming week.
Surely traffic is as interesting as weather in Los Angeles.
A map of the previous days traffic problems, morning and evening, with delays, would be easy to automatically assemble from Caltrans and other sources. It could automatically find how much better or worse the day was than comparable dates in the past. It could automatically calculate the daily cost of traffic delay, using hourly rates. It could also say how much gasoline the day’s delays cost the economy.
A running total could add up through the end of the year. The idea would be a consistent, object and newsy focus on the state of things - along with a measure of whether things were getting better or worse.
The Times every day contains detailed weather statistics for the day before, along with forecasts by vicinity for the coming week.
Surely traffic is as interesting as weather in Los Angeles.
A map of the previous days traffic problems, morning and evening, with delays, would be easy to automatically assemble from Caltrans and other sources. It could automatically find how much better or worse the day was than comparable dates in the past. It could automatically calculate the daily cost of traffic delay, using hourly rates. It could also say how much gasoline the day’s delays cost the economy.
A running total could add up through the end of the year. The idea would be a consistent, object and newsy focus on the state of things - along with a measure of whether things were getting better or worse.
Thanks for your further thoughts and those particulars, though I thought I should mention that it seems to me that I've read stories in The Times that have discussed transportation in at least some of the terms you've mentioned (those whose jargon I can readily decipher, anyway).
Again, I don't know if you are a regular reader of The Times--you haven't said--but I'd be interested to know more particulars about how you came to feel that over the years the Times has not been informing the public about transportation and addressing those angles (in other words, particular articles of the past year or so that you've seen as falling short), so that I can let editors know of them.
I thought last night about your last e-mail and I think the newspaper may be missing the whole point. Have your editors ask this question and then seek the answer and you have your story.
With this region historically spending tens of billions of dollars on interstates, road widening, and intersection improvements, while ripping up miles of neighborhoods to do it, and imposing decades of bad air on our children,
and all resulting in horrific gridlock, an ineffective transit system, miles and miles of blighted urban areas, a housing shortage, a stalled tax base, numerous redevelopment zones, not enough money for police to address gang violence, nor funds to trim trees and fix sidewalks,
all with formidable public resistance to development and economic growth in the most viable areas of the region,
How did we, the Los Angeles metropolitan area, get to this point? And how do we get past it?
Once your newspaper begins to ask those two questions, and seeks well researched answers, as they did with the King-Drew Hospital story, (and of course still reports about those always titillating cat fights between neighborhoods, NIMBYs, and greedy developers) I will have more respect for the LA Times coverage about transportation. Until then, I rate your coverage as bad as the traffic.
Good luck, this is not as hard a task as you think, if someone just does some homework,
I don't know where Mr. Frankel's view of the Expo corridor history comes from. He writes: "I believe that the Expo rail project would have been a lot farther along today if advocates had not resorted to neighborhood bashing for so long. "
In fact, the project has been on hold for more than a decade because of the opposition of the Cheviot neighborhood association, opposition that has been (as the Lopez column noted) obediently taken up by politicians who have at the same time approved wholesale development aggravating traffic problems. Nobody has been bashing Cheviot. The oppoisite: everyone has been dancing to Cheviot's tune. Years into this, a columnist finally visits and notes that we're wasting a right of way -- and suddenly Mr. Frankel discovers that the reason for the lack of progress is years of neighborhood bashing. I really don't think so.
And I love Mr. Frankel's definition of win-win. He proposes turning the ROW into a park, moving the light rail to Venice and "since the goal for rail advocates is to get their project approved and funded, I believe they should support this detour route, make the Cheviot Hills folks their allies, and that way everyone wins."
So let's see: Cheviot get a publicly-financed park adjacent to their neighborhood, massaging their property values still further, while a right of way bought and paid for with public funds is dismantled. The rest of us get a rail line that is much more expensive, far more disruptive to build, and takes a long detour.
>Tell me why this strategy doesn't make sense
It certainly makes sense for the Cheviot Hills Neighborhood Association. However, to make it make even more sense, I suggest that the taxpayers throw in a million dollars and a pony for each member of the Association board.
Here's what I think is wrong with not using the Expo right of way next to Cheviot Hills and through Rancho Park for the Aqua Line:
1. The Venice/Sepulveda detour would cost more. Much more if the route were elevated so there would be grade separation.
2. The Venice/Sepulveda detour is longer by about a mile.
3. The Venice/Sepulveda detour would significantly increase the total journey time from downtown to any point west of the 405.
Here's a composite image of what the route could look like using the present Expo right of way culvert near Palms Park:
Note that there is a bike path on either side. In the areas of the right of way in Rancho Park where the right of way is wide, perhaps some of the additional land could be used for parkland.
The Expo right of way is one of West Los Angeles's greatest transportation treasures because it is largely intact. Restoring it to its original function will help everyone in the area by providing a true east-west alternative to the 10.
The residents of Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park would be best served by negotiating for the strongest possible mitigation measures to address the very real issues raised by living near a light rail line. Things like creating overpasses or sinking the line below grade at key intersections like Overland and Westwood, turning wide areas of the right of way to parkland and building noise walls where necessary.
I live near the Gold Line's Southwest Museum station in Mount Washington. Houses are quite close to the line here. I would invite anyone along the Expo right of way to come by and listen to the light rail trains go by. I think you will find that they aren't as noisy as you imagine.
All of us in greater LA need true alternatives to the car so that we have some real transportation options. Giving us the fastest, cheapest and most direct route for the Aqua Line in a way that takes care of its neighbors fairly would be good for everyone. Plus, as residents living near the Gold Line have found out - it helps property values.
Eric Mankin asked: "Is there some reason this issue can't be discussed in terms of the facts on the ground and real impacts?"
I wish most of the discussion of this issue was based on facts, instead of vitriolic neighborhood-bashing. I'm no kneejerk defender of homeowner associations, as I've seen parachial concerns get in the way of good projects. But the issue here is whether the expo rail must follow the MTA owned former train tracks in their entirety, or whether, for the one stretch that runs through a neighborhood instead of an industrial district, that a detour can work. I believe that it can. I have seen no evidence of why the Venice to Sepulveda detour won't work. And I believe that the Expo rail project would have been a lot farther along today if advocates had not resorted to neighborhood bashing for so long. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in light rail all over the city, but to get the support of the taxpayers and to minimize opposition, rail advocates need to use diplomacy with those affected most closely, and to consider, with an open mind, alternative routes that will serve more people and create the least disturbance. That has been lacking for at least ten years in the debate over the Expo rail.
Finally, the MTA strip running through Cheviot Hills could be a beautiful greenway with parks and trails serving the neighborhood; since park space is severely lacking in this city. Locating the rail on Venice and Sepulveda for this short detour will not impact any open space. Since the goal for rail advocates is to get their project approved and funded, I believe they should support this detour route, make the Cheviot Hills folks their allies, and that way everyone wins.
Mr. Frankel, first of all, since you don't live in the neighborhood and don't seem to be familiar with the configuration of the proposed line, why are you so sure it will have a dire impact?
Second of all, you seem to be setting up a situation in which anyone who takes a polsition contrary to that of the Cheniot Hills homeowners group is ipso facto a neighborhood basher - and, what's more, apparently a hypocrite, because this person supposedly wouldn't support the line if it went through her or his neiighborhood.
Is there some reason this issue can't be discussed in terms of the facts on the ground and real impacts?
Heavy rail is still a necessity, but if no one has the guts to push for that, just do the Light Rail ASAP!
Heading west, after the Expo Line crosses under the 10 it could simply run in a culvert and thus crossing under:
Overland Ave.
Westwood Blvd.
Military Ave.
Sepulveda Blvd.
The 405
Sawtelle Blvd.
Pico Blvd.
Yes, several bridges would have to be built, but that is the cost of doing business and it should pacify all of the NIMBY's to boot.
Once past Pico it could transition to above ground and by Barrington would be high enough for all traffic to clear. The ROW west of 20th is really not in great shape, just west of Cloverfield Blvd. the ROW crosses Olympic Blvd. The line could easily be accomadated above ground on the Olympic median and along the 10 to carry it all the way to the terminus at 4th and Colorado. See the Airtrain in NY. I would propose minimum stations west of Cloverfield, maybe a station around 14th and that is it. This would save 10's of Millions of dollars as above ground stations are extremely costly.
And by the way what is Villaraigosa's position on the ROW through Chevy Hills?
I was in Australia, and I am writing to Arnold because they have the greatest transportation down there. In Melbourne you have the trams, they are just wonderful, they go all over. I took the train everywhere, like all the Aussies do. Same in Sydney, the monorail of course to Darling Harbour and the shopping mall, trains go everywhere. Transportation is cheap, plentiful, and often. To park in Sydney on a Sat. night is very expensive, like $75, everybody takes the train. And all over the harbour in Sydney, you take ferrys. L.A. had great transportation when they had the red cars, the need to lay those tracks again, and do trams like Melbourne. I can't believe the fwy here now. It took me 4!!!! hours to go on the 91 to Palm Springs leaving on a Fri. at 2:30 p.m. It's gone beyond something people can live with anymore. Politicians need to tax something and take the money and build now or there will be no future. It will be Mad Max. Go to Australia politicians and look at how great they get around.
The issue here is about a choice between putting the Expo rail on two wide and noisy streets (Venice and Sepulveda that could actually encourage existing drivers on those streets to take the rail and not drive), ---or putting the rail on a vacant, green strip in a quiet neighborhood that could just as well become a park and community gardens. But no, instead of supporting the first route I mentioned, you want to waste a lot of energy bashing on residents of Cheviot Hills. In the end, we will get a rail from downtown to the sea. For the record, I don't live anywhere near Cheviot Hills; I live in Westchester next to the freeway, so I get loud traffic noise 24 hours a day from the freeway on the north and from booming jets at LAX on the south. I have sympathy for residents along the Gold line who hear the train horns around the clock. Maybe those on this blog who have been aroused to want to lynch the leaders of residents groups in Cheviot Hills don't live next to the noisy project they are supporting. This is the essence of the hypocricy behind the use of the phrase NIMBY.
What's most important, in my mind, beyond fixing the traffic mess and cleaning up the Bay, is that we need to preserve unpaved open spaces in this concrete monstropolis any way that we can. When there is an alternative to a huge public works project that will save open space and still solve a public need, than we are fools if we don't try to do both. We can have a superb public rail system here again; we can also create and preserve open spaces in this sea of concrete. But when we resort to NIMBY name-calling, we are using the language of the developers and the despoilers of this great city to divide, a propaganda trick that has led to the mess we are in today.
I'm not sure how much of Cheviot Hills a light rail, or even a regular freight, route would really impact. The route along/under the Sanat Monica Freeway just skirts Cheviot Hills proper, and some adjacent West LA neighborhoods to the West. Seems like much ado about nothing given the train route is in a ravine/gorge going throiugh Cheviot Hills, and the Exposition Blvd route it then goes into is quite wide. As wide as it was in the 1950s/60s/70s when the freights ran regularly.
Having a train in the neighborhood was fun. As teenagers, we used to watch long freight trains coming out of the railway tunnel under the Santa Monica Freeway. Would put coins on the rails to be hammered by the wheels occasionally. A friend's house's backyard had a back gate that let us right on to the tracks. Never a problem with noise, and a fun place to play around.
To the West, there were active gated railroad crossings at Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Pico, Barrington, Bundy, Centinela, Olympic, 26th, et al. To the East, the trains ran closely along the South side of the Santa Monica Freeway into Culver City - with several more gated crossings.
Oh, by the way.
Minimum freeway speed limit like in Florida, 40 MPH. I was tailed by a Florida Highway Patrol for ten minutes to see if I would drop below the 40 MPH, even though I was in the right lane.
Extend the Expo/Venice line after reaching West LA at Lincoln Blvd., turning south, to LAX.
Thanks,
Greg S
First, thank you for heading the transit problem on the head like "Do as I say, not what I do." This is a prefect example of city & county bureaucracy, Mr. Jaime de la Vega is one of probably thousands and many getting provided vehicles or vehicle subsidies.
Solution;
1. Enforce "slow traffic bare right" 24/7 but specially rush hour.
2. On the cellphone, "right lane only".
3. 10% sales taxes with the extra money for "transit only", politicians keep their grabby little hands off it!
4. Having the above, all county wide buses and light rail free ride. Nothing speaks louder than saving money to get people out of their cars. Also cost saving not maintaining collect & ticket boxes. Metrolink still charges because of out-of-county destinations.
5. Extend the Red line to Van Nuys Metro link station and then on to Sylmar. Gold line to Claremont and the south route to Norwalk Station. Green line spur to LAX and Green to the southern end of Redendo Beach. The Purple line all the way to Santa Monica 4th Street.
6. Build both the Expo line for express service and the Venice line for local, both terminate at the same station. Building both is long term into the late part of the century.
7. Increase the speed of the all light rails & busways with computerize control signals as well as all county signals.
8. Long term planning for heavy rail.
7. County planning to may the above work and not just lip service.
9. Let no politician obstruct transit progress to take of a selected few.
Thank you,
Gregory Santana
For the first block west of Overland, you see a wide vacant lot. Further west,the ROW is bordered both on the north and the south by streets, both planteed with on the right-of-way side.
The trains would be far away from front doors, on the other side of a lawn, a sidewalk, a street, another sidewalk, trees, and lots of ground.
With more landscaping and a little grade separation, this doesn't seem an unbearable prospect.
Yes, the tracks west of Overland cross a wide now -grassy area fronted by houses on both sides, land that now looks like a de-facto park. I can see why people there would rather it be their own park rather than have trains run down it. However, the idea already is to grade separate at Overland, probably by having the tracks go below grade level. Continuing this would remove much of the visual impact; bridges over the cut would assure neighborhood continuity. It'd cost a little more than the cheapest psssible, but it would be good for everyone. But I don't think that the entire city has to be put on hold so one line of homes on one street get to continue to use MTA land for their own purposes, rather than public ones.
I guess to highlight the proposed Expo Line’s proximity to Cheviot Hills (it would skirt the border of it) makes for better headlines than focusing on the real neighborhood affected by the proposed path along Exposition. – Rancho Park.
If they decide to run the line down Exposition Blvd., it will literally be in the front yards of all the people living on both sides of Exposition. The line would dissect our neighborhood, not skirt it. I invite anyone who thinks we are NIMBY’s to come take a look for yourself and see how you would feel if the view out your front door was of a train rolling by day in and day out. We in Rancho Park already deal with the noise and smog caused by the I-10, which runs THROUGH the southern border of the neighborhood and the I-405 which is one street away on the eastern border. Standing outside my house I can hear the din of both freeways AND the planes flying overhead to Santa Monica airport. Our neighborhood is directly in the flight path. I hear planes flying over every 20 minutes or so until 10:00 PM. How much more do we have to put up with before we are not seen as selfish Westsiders? NIMBYS? Too late. We already have all we can deal with in our backyards.
I am so sick of such chronic westside homeowner NIMBYism, and I had really hoped that in the last mayoral election the populace had somehow grown up beyond this. However, Steve's recent article on Cheviot Hill's total ignorance and basic fear of change I find very disheartening.
here are ome facts that can illustrate my dismay at their blindsided selfishness:
1) if any of these residents have ever actually been close to a light rail line in their life, they would realize that they are in fact MUCH quieter than cars. If the residents are really that concerned about noise, shouldn't they also want to ban all traffic in their neighborhood? (Oh wait, they've already tried that, by instituting "trafficc calming" measures that have only further worsened the traffic nightmare south of century city).
2) concerned about property values? It is a truth that newly constructed rail lines universally INCREASE property values for the neighborhoods they serve.
3) if you actually walk along the existing Expo right-of-way, you will quickly see that the portion of the tracks in question that run up against the Cheviot Hills neighborhood is actually already grade separated from the neighborhood: the hills have been sliced through already, so to speak, meaning the tracks are a good 10 - 30 feet below the houses in question. Where the tracks are at grade level and right up against houses is in the section stretching from Overland to Westwood boulevard (though the rightofway is still quite wide), but again, please refer to my previous note about noise level from electric train versus car.
So basically, the homeowners in question are not only selfish, but also wrong. They might think they are being selfish, but really it would be more selfserving to demand the line be built rather then the other way around. However, they are nonetheless mobilizing to prevent the line from serving all kinds of other people- from westwood boulevard through to Santa Monica, who might find the line very desirable.
Now, some positive comments regarding what Mr. Frankel said.
Yes, Venice Boulevard was once a rail line, as were Santa Monica, San Vicente, Electric Avenue in Venice, Huntington Boulevard (named after Henry Huntington,who built the rail lines) and many others, including Exposition. .Whereever you see a road in Southern California that seems to be wider than usual and misaligned to the street grid, you are looking at an old rail line, most of themm converted to buses after WWII and then turned over to cars.
In all of these, re-railing (or creation of exclusve bus lanes) is possible and desireable - but will not help nearly enough without grade separation.
That said, Exposition is a great opportunity precisely because the ROW remains intact, and has not been coverted to parking (Electric Ave in Venice) or car use. It would be quick and relatively cheap and relatively easy. And - in all seriousness, without minimizing - it would be about as low impact as is conceivable in Los Angeles.
>I'm really tired of journalists attacking neighborhoods as being selfish NIMBY's. I'll bet you don't live next to the Expo line. When journalists try to emphasize conflict in stories on land use issues, why is it usually framed as pitting middle class neighborhoods against poor people? L.A.'s transit crisis was not created by the folks in Cheviot Hills. ....
Mr. Frankel, unless you live directly on Northvale Avenue north of Palms Park, you would never see or hear the line. Even if you lived there, it runs so far below grade that you'd have to listen for it and would (as has been noted) likely lose it in the Santa Monica Freeway/Overland Boulevard hum.
Regarding the continuation: The "conflict," such as it is, came about because Cheviot Hlls Neighborhood Association adopted and continues to hold to a no day, no way absolute opposition. If you oppose, you are creating the 'conflict you are complaining about.
Journalists reporting on what neighborhood spokesmen say is not journalists attacking neighborhoods, it's journalists reporting on an issue. If the neighborhood wants to disavow the statements made, they should do so; rather than blaming the mirror for their own reflection.
Finally, to be perfectly frank, Cheviot has contributed more than its share to LA's transit crisis by its obdurate and unthinking opposition to the Expo line over more than a decade.
I must admit that the logic of the Cheviot Hills homeowners is lost on me. As best I understand it, these homeowners appear to PREFER to have extremely long and congested commutes for themselves rather than to allow themselves and their fellow taxpayers to pass near their homes in some sort of railcar? Have I got that right?
I'm not quite sure how these homeowners could afford such fancy homes with mental processes that work like that. If they said that they wanted some say over where the rail stops should be, or if there should be any at all, I could understand that. Or if they said that they would prefer quieter electric rail cars through their area, like they have in San Francisco, I could understand that.
But to completely eschew alternate forms of transportation is foolish, short-sighted, and frankly lowers their property values. Besides, how are their nannies and gardeners supposed to arrive for their shifts on time with the increasing traffic?
I agree with somewhat with one of the other posters that we need heavy rail and not light rail. Light rail is barely better than a Rapid Bus. Heavy rail is expensive but it's a first class system and if LA wants to be a first class world city like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, ect.. they need to just bite the bullet and build heavy rail, especially under Wilshire. Also the Orange line should be a heavy rail extenstion of the red line. Heavy is more expensive b/c it has to be completely grade seperated, contrary to what someone else said it cannot have at grade crossings especially in dense LA. But that will make it faster and more likely to pull people out of their cars. And that is the only way to get cars off the road, provide a public transit alternative comparable to driving times. In the Bay Area taking BART to downtown SF is just as fast and many times faster than driving, and cheaper. Have heavy rail run from the Westside and Downtown to the Valley would help ease traffic along 405 and 101. It is not going to be cheap but in the end it will be worth it.
Also anyone proposing monorails must not know anything about them. Because they are horrible for mass transit. Fine for theme parks and airports, not for mass transit though. Look at Las Vegas' fiasco with their monorail. $5 each way to ride a line less than 10 miles long!
Until I totaled my car in '05, I swore I'd never take public transit. I decided not to get another car, and rely on Metro to get me where I have to go.
Yes, I have to take three buses to get to and from work, but two of those are Rapid lines that don't stop at every corner. Yes, it takes me twice as long to get to and from work as it did when I was driving.
However, during the time when gas was selling for more than $3 a gallon, I rode the bus for the approximate cost of four gallons of gas, and I didn't have to pay insurance costs.
I sometimes take the Red Line and Gold Line, and find those trains frequent and quiet - no clickety-clack that I recall from the old Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Transit streetcars. People are using public transit, particularly to get downtown.
I'm sold on public transportation. Metro service has improved since I last rode the bus some 15 years ago.
With all the breathless enthusiasm for monorails on this thread, I decided to look online to see what was going on worldwide with this futuristic technology. As it turns out, not a whole lot. The funding that helped build the 4-mile $600 million dollar Las Vegas Monorail have been reduced to junk bond status (Bloomberg.com 11/07/06) and the Seattle voters recently pulled the plug on an over budget, poorly designed system that never got off the drawing board two years ago. (Seattle Weekly 11/9/05)
One glimmer of hope has emerged in the rapidly developing city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (gulfnews.com 01/06/07). A consortium of Japanese engineering and construction companies have recently inked a deal with Dubai developers to help build and operate a 5.4 kilometer monorail system to serve between the mainland and the trunk of the Palm Jumeriah artificial reef. However, initial estimates place the system cost at 1.4 billion UAE dinar—which, according to my computer’s online currency calculator, is approximately 381.2 million American dollars for a 3.4 mile monorail line, about the distance from Sepulveda to Robertson Blvds. Assuming that Los Angeles was a self-sufficient, oil-rich nation without need for ADA compliance, earthquake construction codes, a maintenance yard or stringent labor and safety laws, this type of system might pencil out. Otherwise, placing a starter monorail system that is incompatible with existing rail infrastructure in an urban environment like Los Angeles is pure science fiction.
Steve, I really enjoy your column. One solution for the city, never acted upon, is to ban truck traffic during rush hour - say 7:30 - 9:30AM and 4:00 - 6:30 PM. I think this should be seriously considered.
I take issue with your claim that "There's no preexisting railroad right of way along Venice Blvd." Of course there is! That's why Venice is so wide and why the sidewalks and parkways are so wide: because there used to be a rail line running down the middle. Of course, there's enough room to put a light rail there, and we do own the land!
If we really want to lessen the traffic mess at Century City, the rail line needs to be IN Century City. For example, Santa Monica Blvd. used to have a rail line on it and it forms the north border of Century City. On the other hand, the expo line is quite a ways away from this dense area.
I'm really tired of journalists attacking neighborhoods as being selfish NIMBY's. I'll bet you don't live next to the Expo line. When journalists try to emphasize conflict in stories on land use issues, why is it usually framed as pitting middle class neighborhoods against poor people? L.A.'s transit crisis was not created by the folks in Cheviot Hills. Let's put blame where it belongs:on selfish, developer-driven City Councils and on the car, oil and tire corporations that wiped out L.A. 's Pacific Electric Railway system. Here, the super-rich got us into a big mess, and yet, you're trying to pit the rest of us against each other. Many of the problems in this country are caused by the selfish top 2% corporate elite that get away with (figuratively) murder, while their corporate media tries to stir up everyone else to fight each other over straw-man issues. Can't find an affordable home? Blame existing residents, or blame the developers that only build luxury homes. Tired of high gas prices? Blame selfish air-breathing environmentalists for demanding clean air, or blame the oil companies and their political buddies that have squelched alternate fuels research. Steve Lopez's article pointed his finger at all but the real culprit for L.A.'s traffic messes.
Lastly, The L.A times has supported every major development in this City's history. The Times helped to create this problem. What's the Times going to do to fix it? Open your own wallet and help out! Don't blame the average folks for a mess created by the corporate elite.
Steve,
I always enjoy your editorials. I wish that every journalist had your innate “common sense”!
I want to express my sincere thanks for writing your editorial, “Something's wrong with unused right of way”.
I share your opinions to a “T”. We needed this rail line 20 to 30 years ago!
I don’t understand all that Cheviot Hills NIBYism. The constant noise generated by the Santa Monica Freeway will easily drown out the “whoosh” of the light rail vehicles as the wheels meet the rails. They don’t pollute the air either! Homes and apartments within ear-shot of a transit station always fetch top dollar, no matter what city!
It makes so much more sense to have the Expo line to go on its intended right-of-way rather than being shoe-horned in the middle of Venice and Sepulveda. The latter would add 10-15 minutes to the route, making it less attractive for the extreme westsiders. The former Pacific Electric right-of-way in the middle of Venice Boulevard was abandoned 57 years ago and finally paved over 20 years after that. Let’s leave it buried. Having LRVs trying to traverse the hilly terrain of Sepulveda would not be a great idea either.
L.A. needs rapid transit, not a streetcar plodding along at 5 MPH, stuck in surface-street gridlock!
The issue on Expo, as well as elsewhere, is grade separation.
The rail right of way is intact (mostly) from Santa Monica to USC, but it remains at grade (with the interesting exception of the part that goes through Cheviot.
As long as the cars run at grade, whether on Expo or on Venice Boulevard, they will not be fast or frequent enough to make more than a marginal difference in car usage.
One grade-separation is subway. This works, but is horrendously expensive. Another is classic elevated. This works but is both ugly and noisy.
Which leaves monorail. Which works, Whiich has a very small footprint: just poles. Which is quiet. Which is not much more costly than an at-grade light rail line.
What's particularly nice: in a part of the right-of way like the area west of Overland, where you have a wide swatth of ground around the track, you can buld a park. Doesn't interfere with the commuters. Fun for the children to watch. Safe, even.
Something's wrong alright and it is called vision. Why is everyone still so short sighted in trying to solve the east/west commute on the Westside of Los Angeles? Everyone, and I mean everyone uses global warming these days as their cause celebre. They rally about auto emissions and poor gas mileage from SUVs, yet the majority of vehicles coming out of Santa Monica heading east on the 10 as well as those coming into Santa Monica are single occupant vehicles and often gas guzzlers to boot. The Wilshire corridor and Santa Monica are destinations for several hundred thousand commuters each day and their option for public transit is a bus? We have an existing, I repeat an existing ROW ready to be utilized and modern equipment with the ability to tunnel under Wilshire to the sea. Can a truly modern, fast, east/west rail option reduce pollution and congestion in the westside of Los Angeles? I think so.
Barring $5/gallon gas and wage suppression most individuals will not carpool and will drive the nicest car they can almost afford. As of today the morning commute west from Downtown to Santa Monica can be done in 1 hour or less provided you leave prior to 0745. The commute east from Santa Monica takes approximately 45 minutes under the same conditions. The evening commutes require similar amounts of time +/- 10 minutes depending on time of departure and this has become acceptable to the unmethodical masses. The Wilshire corridor has similar to worse MPH numbers.
Assuming one can easily afford the existing commute (car, gas, parking) the Commute Time Reduction (CTR) must be in the neighborhood of 30 minutes from Downtown to Santa Monica to provide the necessary incentive to give up the car, thus reducing the rail trip from downtown to about 30 minutes and saving 15 minutes when travelling east from Santa Monica. All of the Expo Line proponents think a light rail line from Downtown to Santa Monica will magically reduce the congestion along the 10 corridor, this is far from the truth. Light rail rarely reduces congestion and that should be the ultimate goal as all other benefits will trickle down.
You need a transit time of under 30 minutes via rail from Downtown to Santa Monica because in the end one will spend about 20-30 minutes additional time getting to the station, waiting for the train and walking to your final destination; in the end if your new total commute time via public transit is less than 1.1 times your existing commute then people will get out of their car. With gas prices as such and parking cheap people will not give up a car if their alternate commute is above 1.1X, it will not happen. The goal of the planners and politicians should be shooting for is the New York City metropolitan area not Seattle, San Diego and Salt Lake.
We need to plan, design and fund express subway tracks below Wilshire and heavy rail, not light rail along the Expo Line. Look to Metro North and the LIRR, heavy rail running through some of the most expensive real estate east of the 405. Heavy Rail can have grade crossings, traffic signals can be integrated; do not believe the myth that Heavy Rail kills children and needs grade separation at every intersection. Under the existing plan the Expo line will take at least 30 minutes from downtown to reach Culver City. 16 MPH via light rail will not cut it, one can almost drive that fast on Interstate 10 today!
The MTA defines their Short Range Transportation Plan as: "focusing on the phasing of transportation improvements through 2009 that will help put together the pieces of our mobility puzzle..." and The Long Range Transportation Plan states: "assesses future population increases projected for the county and what such increases will mean for future mobility needs..." A short term plan in Los Angeles? Clearly that has not worked before, we need to plan for overcapacity today, not existing capacity yesterday.
From the present western terminus at Wilshire/Western four tracks should be built immediately all the way to Wilshire/Third in Santa Monica. This will provide the ability for express tracks and local tracks while dramatically reducing the transit time versus local only service. Tunneling cost an issue? Cut and cover, start today and be done in 24 months; yes traffic will be worse than ever before if we cut open the street, but at least an end in sight.
And back to the Expo Line, nothing short of Fast Heavy Rail will satisfy the public transit needs of the population. Building a fast, efficient, modern rapid transit line along the Expo line should be the goal, not just "Build Expo." We need to entice people out of their cars, the pro Expo group is so focused on building the Expo line that they can not see the "forest for the trees." Think Heavy Rail at regular intervals with large parking garages along the Expo line.
The Route 710 Tunnel will cost at least $6 Billion in today's dollars and benefit how many? Wouldn't these funds be better utilized reducing congestion on Interstate 10, the busiest Interstate in America? Building only light rail along Expo and no Express Subway tracks along Wilshire will provide little more than nice new map at MTA headquarters. Build real options for the Westside and then spend some real money tunnelling through to the valley so one has an option from the local purgatory known as the Sepulvada Pass. The valley needs a reliable option to avoid the 405 too. And any small group that can block the needs of 100,000's of commuters needs to be keenly aware of the worst case scenario of eminent domain.
Steve, I really wished you had continued a little further on the right of way, past Cheviot Hills into Rancho Park where the real damage of a transit line along the right of way would be evident. There is a difference between NIMBY'ism and literally have the expo line in your back yard, which it would be for many residents in the area. If LA had the money to actually build this portion underground to lower the noise, that would be one thing. However, I think we all know that this city isn't very good at doing things the right way, and all the residents in the area have good reason to be concerned.
While I understand that 40 years ago trains ran through the area, the reality is that in the interim years people have put their life savings into homes in the area, some costing more than $1 Million, and have the right to be concerend that the city will carry out their plans without the care necessary.
I also feel that the argument regarding designing the route to serve the most people, rather than just based on what is the quickest way from point A to point B is a valid discussion.
Let's hold off on accusing residents of NIMBY'ism when there are valid arguments being made, and numerous discussions that still need to take place.
I have no truck with NIMBYs trying to, ah, derail, a needed transit line. The Westside is surely a place of virulent NIMBYism.
I don't know the relative merits as transit routes of using the existing right of way or Venice Boulevard. It's not always the best solution to use the most expedient route, if that route doesn't serve people as well. The Blue Line would have been more effective--and better at stimulating transit-oriented development--if it ran a couple of miles west of its location and served USC and the Exposition Park museums. The Expo line will now serve that area, but years have been missed. Similarly the Gold Line would almost certainly be more effective if it were in a subway under Colorado Boulevard (at least in the central part of Pasadena) rather than in the expedient but highly unpleasant freeway median. These alignments would have cost more and taken longer, but worked better. Beyond NIMBYism, this seems to be the substantive issue for the Expo line alignments.
"Shouldn't one goal of transit be to get people out of their cars... ?"
While this is an admirable goal Steve, in a city of which Missing Persons said "Nobody walks in LA" and "only a nobody walks in LA", I am hard pressed to picture any of the Cheviot Hills residents giving up their Beemers for a nice shiny new train.
The same holds true for the future residents of the new complex downtown or in Century City.
The argument that these new giga-complexes will reduce traffic is laughable.
Every developer seeks to make their location a "destination", not a self-contained community.
There are people, however, that value and will use mass transit. People that the residents of Cheviot Hills and many other affluent neighborhoods in LA rely on for their standard of living. And those people deserve a functional mass transit system. Who knows, maybe if it didn't take 2 hours to go from Mar Vista to Hollywood on the bus it might become a palatable alternative to more of us.
It seems to me that since apparently most of the infrastructure and rights of way are already in place for this old rail line that it would be the quickest and cheapest to implement. Further, one new mass transit corridor will not begin to solve our impending gridlock. Therefore, it should have other lines it connects with that will provide residents and workers alike options for getting to overcrowded destinations.
We need to be discussing a system with multiple new access lines, not arguing over which "one" is best, as if one will somehow magically solve all our problems...
No one is willing to discuss a well-known fact that one of the reasons the folks in Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills, and the rest of the affluent Westside did not want any rail line running through their areas is because it would be bring in the "undesireables" i.e., the gangs, the thugs, the thieves, the taggers. It only takes close observation that many of those "undesireables" have been driving cars into and through that part of town for years .
I believe what's more sickening is seeing the ignored homeless living in the midst of extreme wealth. I also believe what is increasingly sad is the horrific Westside traffic that has contributed to the overall declining infrastructure of this increasingly depressing, mismanaged city. Should one wonder if Los Angeles is once again in a decline despite the trophy development that is occurring?
My conclusion is that the true undesireables are those Idiots in Power and their supportive Wealthy Rotten Selfish Nimby Westsiders who have made it that much worse for the rest of us and ironically themselves. Included in the latter group is one long-haired woman who was wearing thousand-dollar sunglasses and yakking on her cell while speeding in her Range Rover. She was too inconsiderate to stop to allow a pedestrian-nobody continue walking (in of all places, a crosswalk). My guess is that it she was LATE obtaining a good spot in her yoga class, but then she probably sincerly excused her tardiness was due to the traffic.
Mr. Simon needs to get out more. In other cities, mass transit is considered an ASSET in affluent communities. In the finer suburbs of Washington DC, commuters prefer the Metro to get themselves downtown. The same is true in Philadelphia, where the Paoli Local brings attorneys, advertising executives, and other professionals to and from their offices in center city. Cheviot Hills would become even more desirable if this valuable right-of-way was a conduit for mass transit. Only when mass transit is used by people with two car garages will our freeways and congested thoroughfares start to breathe again.
The problem seems to be that no one in the MTA or LA governments seems to be able to think outside the box. Cheviot Hills doesn’t want the noise – well maybe the transit system doesn’t have to be noisy. The planners MTA seem to be stuck on using "light rail." Light rail is really a very heavy rail system, with cars that weight in at hundreds of tons. When these vehicles run into cars or pedestrians, there is little hope of survival for the victims. Rail systems date back over 200 years, and the current proposals for the Exposition Line are just a modernized version of the same old trains. The latest bus-way in the San Fernando Valley was a slightly more creative solution, but it still suffers from the problem of having to stay at the same elevation as cars, trucks and pedestrians.
Disney showed us years ago that a monorail system could work, and cities like Los Vegas are using overhead transportation. But why stop there? Our current amusement park rides now use twin tube rails with rubberized wheels that make very little noise. The transit system could be akin to a horizontal elevator, with cars that hold ten or twelve riders, except with side-rails for stations so through traffic doesn’t stop. The number of stops that a rider would have to make is reduced, and therefore, the trip is much faster. It could be similar to a monorail, except that it could change elevations, going up and over streets and roadways, and then back down, with no expensive aerial platforms. The track would like amusement park track, and there are companies already tooled up to mass produce it. The control systems are similar to elevators, and, the software could be just modified, not created from scratch. The system could expandable - cars could be added as the rider-ship increases. The upfront cost is spread out over several years, and expansion can be paid for by the fare generated. More stations can be added easily, as well as branch lines. Stations could have touch screen maps tied to a computer that would generate a smart ticket, telling the car’s computer where the passenger needed to get off.
Los Angeles has aerospace and aircraft companies with the talented engineers and tradespersons with the expertise to build this system. Instead of outsourcing our mass transit to other states and countries, we could be employing our own people to build LA’s mass transit. Call it Bi-rail. This makes so much more sense than tunneling underground or running trains in conflict with our roadways, not to mention that it would be a lot more fun to ride!
As a Cheviot Hills homeowner for the past 10 years, I read your column in today’s Sunday Times with glee (and of course, just like you, with frustration). It’s about time the light of the local press is being shined upon the selfish, narrow-minded few who run the Cheviot Hills Homeowner’s Association. These self centered people have done everything they can to kill projects in the best interests of greater Los Angeles, and at the same time, they’ve also destroyed the traffic flow in and around Cheviot Hills and Century City. They’ve been able to convince the City of Los Angeles to narrow Motor Avenue with the hope of restricting the flow of commuter traffic on Motor, a street meant to handle that traffic very well. At the same time, they’ve “planted” ugly “rock gardens” that protrude into the street to further impair traffic flow. All they’ve done is screwed up the ability of those of us in Cheviot Hills to leave the neighborhood on our own commutes, or to drive our kids to activities or to school. The residents here have had enough of these myopic people. The only problem I have with your column today is that it doesn’t focus enough on our weak-willed City Councilmember, Jack Weiss, who has allowed these small minded tyrants on the CHHA to run rough shod over the rights of Cheviot Hills residents and the people of the Westside of Los Angeles. Please keep up the good work pushing Mr. Weiss and his friends to a direction that benefits all of the residents of Los Angeles and the surrounding communities, and let’s get that rail line built down Exposition Boulevard as soon as possible.
I've already posted comments about NANMN ("Not Anywhere Near My Neighborhood) extremism in Cheviot regarding the rails in the "had enough? topic.
Two resources people should be aware of
First, detailed discussions of hte Expo and all the other transit corridors going back years can be viewed at the Transit Coalition website.
The Expo line discussions include detailed back-and-forths with a determined and vocal anti-rail Cheviot advocate. All the issues large and small, are aired in detaill.
Second, the Cheviot group's website contains its news and views, including its recent decision not just to oppose the line but also to hire a consultant to fight to keep the rails from the (far below grad) extremeley short segment abutting Cheviot. See and follow these views at:
Lopez's column is right on; especially the part abuot this is LA so nothng gets done. We should accept this fact and stop wasting taxpayers' money on fantasies. The reality is this a traffic clogged and smog choked city and there will never be any signiificant rail projects that will actually get people to and from where they need to go. I'd rather recind all transit taxes so at least we can know that we're not going to do anything about the situation than pouring millions into one study after the next and into one lawsuit after the next.
I love how a group of 14 selfish NIMBYs can ruin commute options for the entire city. But Congressman Waxman and Supervisor Yaroslavsky are just as much to blame. As well as the residents and businessmen of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills who don't want easy commute options for "those kinds of people" coming to "our side of town". Enough with years and years of endless studies! It is time for the Mayor to deliver on his campaign promises and make combating traffic his number one priority!
I wonder if a lawsuit (i.e. The City of Los Angeles v. Homeowners Association of Cheviot Hills) would solve anything?
Blogs
"We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that."
So you are proposing doing a design and construction method that has more environmentally negative impacts to build some pretty little trench that can't hold up the weigh of the soil surrounding it. Just for your info there's spots like that along the Gold Line and those are always the slow zones that causes delays to the service.
"The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided."
What green space? Elevating the line there preserves more of it and allows more to be built taking out all that soil and running a waterway right next to a high speed rail line requires a lot more concrete/engineering that you're letting on. In fact elevating it allows for this waterway to be sucken lower and thus be cheaper and more environmentally friendly because the groundwater from the soil seepage won't knock out the elevated columns. Your solution eats up more of this greenspace that you so desperately want. Me thinks you want this sucken money pit is nothing more than elaborate way to ensure there's no station in Cheviot Hills/Westside Pavillion area for the Black, Brown and others to come via transit rob, rape and pillage and then escape with all of your precious phony belongings.
Posted by: Jennifer Reyes | August 28, 2007 at 03:33 PM
"We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that."
So you are proposing doing a design and construction method that has more environmentally negative impacts to build some pretty little trench that can't hold up the weigh of the soil surrounding it. Just for your info there's spots like that along the Gold Line and those are always the slow zones that causes delays to the service.
"The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided."
What green space? Elevating the line there preserves more of it and allows more to be built taking out all that soil and running a waterway right next to a high speed rail line requires a lot more concrete/engineering that you're letting on. In fact elevating it allows for this waterway to be sucken lower and thus be cheaper and more environmentally friendly because the groundwater from the soil seepage won't knock out the elevated columns. Your solution eats up more of this greenspace that you so desperately want. Me thinks you want this sucken money pit is nothing more than elaborate way to ensure there's no station in Cheviot Hills/Westside Pavillion area for the Black, Brown and others to come via transit rob, rape and pillage and then escape with all of your precious phony belongings.
Posted by: Jennifer Reyes | August 21, 2007 at 02:05 PM
I do not advocate an elevated line through the currently existing green space in the segment of the right-of-way going through Westwood Gardens. In fact, I am against it. What I do advocate is building underpasses at Overland and Westwood and putting the line in a shallow, open trench. Stream daylighting could also be utilized in this segment. Therefore, when it is built, it will not only be for transit purposes but for recreational purposes as well. It should be designed very carefully so that it becomes part of the green space, not something that replaces it.
The only reason why there is green space there is because there used to be a railroad. We could keep it as green space by properly building a light-rail line there. If this space is not utilized for light-rail now, it will be wasted forever as an opportunity for public transportation. And we are not talking about a random corridor here but a major historical transit corridor.
Venice Blvd is a different, *separate* corridor then the Expo corridor. It doesn’t serve northern Palms, Castle Heights, Pico Blvd vicinity, southern Century City, and southern Westwood as the Expo corridor does. Why should we deny the Expo corridor of public transportation for eternity? On the other hand, there could be a Venice Line in the near future.
There used to be many of these rights-of-way. They are all gone now, not because they put light-rail on them, but they built houses and buildings and they paved them over as roads. In fact, Rex, where were you when they paved over the right-of-way on Santa Monica Blvd just a few years ago?
In a fair world, there wouldn’t even be this study of the “diversion alternative.” The only reason while we are having this study and discussion now is because some politicians, of whose their names I will not mention here, sided with their rich, powerful friends in those neighborhoods and proposed bus rapid transit and the diversion alternative. Those were the dark days when those politicians made the decisions behind closed doors. Those were the dark days when only the rich and powerful got involved in the decision making. But not anymore—in the Internet era, all the information is out there, and there is no more secrecy and games.
We should build this line on the original right-of-way alignment, where it used to be historically, and where it is throughout the rest of its route. But this doesn’t mean that we should ruin the environment while we do that. The green space in Westwood Gardens needs to be preserved, the stream-daylighting option needs to be considered, and concrete structures, such as overpasses or high/deep retaining walls should be avoided. And, hopefully, the opponents in Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park will stop fighting for the diversion and concentrate on the best environmental mitigations, which will not only benefit them but everyone.
Posted by: Gokhan | March 15, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Rex,
If they can elevate it on Venice and Sepulveda they can elevate the train on a 200' WIDE Right-of-way that Metro already own and with landscaping and dense trees to soften the sound AND build a ribbon of parks so that folks can have access to the space.
Or even better with the left over space they can build affordable housing and apartments next to the elevated train that can deaden any additional noise from the community and bring added riders and tax base to your neighborhood.
Posted by: Wright Concept | March 12, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Gokhan's Feb. 8th post says in relation to a ground level rapid bus or rail line on Venice and Sepulveda blvds. that "it is highly unlikely to be adopted due to severe impacts on traffic. (The federal law prohibits approval of the environmental study if there are “severe” impacts.)"
First, I don't recall Cheviot Hill residents advocating a ground level rail line on those streets as part of the short detour in the expo route. I believe it should be elevated for the entire route from the end of phase 1 (which unfortunately we are told can't be changed to elevated too) all the way to Santa Monica. By elevating it, you minimize any impact on the streets; the suport posts can be in the landscaped median of Venice, for example; you eliminate the need for horns and whistles at crossings; and you have the ability to use the land at ground level for parks, bike paths and treatment wetlands for poluted storm runoff (another huge project that the City and County are studying regionwide).
But as to Gokhan's point about federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act says the opposite: "If the only way to meet an essential agency goal requires implementing an alternative with the potential for severe adverse environmental impacts, this is ultimately allowed for under NEPA. " http://www.nature.nps.gov/protectingrestoring/DO12Site/01_intro/012_intent.htm
NEPA is a lot like CEQA (the state version of NEPA) in that a reasonable range of alternatives must be studied. In our case, the Expo detour with elevated light rail and all the multiple benefits I just described is a reasonably feasible alternative that needs to be studied. It is most likely that this elevated project will not produce the severe impacts Gokhan describes; on the other hand, though, it is likely that a ground level expo line using the route favored by some would also produce severe impacts at some locations, given that most major intersections next to the Expo line operate at "F" rating during rush hour and rail cars crossing these north-south roads will add to the backups . Since much of the debate advocating a no-detour route has gone "Cheviot Hills residents have to take one for the team", what this means is that there will be some significant unmitigable impacts on the Cheviot and Rancho Park neighborhoods. Therefore, if there is a route and design that minimizes these impacts, the MTA has a legal duty to fully and fairly study it.
Posted by: Rex Frankel | March 11, 2007 at 11:11 PM
The Metro Expo Line complete route map is now available at the links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Expo_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Expo_Line
The complete map came after Steve's column on the Expo Line and it should replace the old map, which only shows the Mid-City area.
Posted by: Gokhan | February 14, 2007 at 02:55 PM
Why does the graphic for this discussion show the future Purple LIne subway extension? A graphic of Phase 2 of the light rail Expo Line would be more to the point.
Posted by: richard schumacher | February 14, 2007 at 09:21 AM
"It is a bit glib to dismiss an affluent, well-maintained neighborhood as 'rich, selfish NIMBYs,' " [Kevin Hughes] said in an e-mail.
Yes, Mr. Hughes, perhaps a bit glib, but 100% appropriate. Mr. Hughes, you and your fellow homeowners need to "take one for the team," the team being the rest of the county of Los Angeles. The fact that you refuse to do so is the definition of selfishness, and certainly does peg you as a NIMBY.
1) Expo Line going next to (not through) your neighborhood will actually increase property values, and improve your neighborhood, not destroy it.
2)Placing Expo on Venice/Sepulveda will increase construction costs (and my taxes, thanks a lot) and make the line slower and less efficient, which will inhibit ridership (hello Gold Line!)
Let's not make the mistakes that were made with the Gold Line. We just have to look in Our Own Back Yard (South Pasadena) to see that your selfish needs will inconvenience everybody else who will use the line.
If you really want, the line could be built below grade, with a "freeway cap" on top, which could have parkland or bike paths on it. This could be built for the whole huge quarter mile that the Expo LIne goes next to (not through) your neighborhood.
"Sometimes the NIMBYs have a point and sometimes the city has an interest in preserving its nice neighborhoods"
Mr. Hughes, the Expo Line will not only preserve your nice nieghborhood, and turn fallow land into an asset, but will actually make it MORE desirable.
"Cheviot Hills is desirable because the hard-working, friendly, generous people who live there care a lot."
But, apparently, only about themselves.
Posted by: Scott Mercer | February 10, 2007 at 03:30 PM
The political procedure for these projects is very well-defined. I will not go into much details here but it is not possible to make any changes to Phase I anymore, other than minor design considerations: you can’t even add or remove stations, forget changing the rail system, once the final environmental-impact report is approved by the Federal Transit Administration. You probably didn’t realize but this whole political and environmental process has been going on years and years for now.
Heavy-rail and commuter rail were briefly looked on in the first phase of the study (major-investment study) years and years ago. The major investment study decided on two options: bus-rapid transit and light-rail transit. Because of the bus-rapid transit, the Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion was also proposed, since the buses are more useful on the city streets. The Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion was never actually meant for light-rail transit but for bus-rapid transit.
We almost got the cheap bus-rapid transit on Expo but then that’s where Friends 4 Expo Transit made the difference. They fought really hard and fought off the bus-rapid transit and they made MTA adopt light-rail transit instead.
Therefore, the Venice/Sepulveda Blvds diversion is a relic from early considerations for bus-rapid transit. It is here during the new environmental-impact study phase for Expo Phase II mostly in order to satisfy the procedural requirements. It is highly unlikely to be adopted due to severe impacts on traffic. (The federal law prohibits approval of the environmental study if there are “severe” impacts.) The Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park community are hurting themselves big time by supporting the diversion, because once the right-of-way is adopted, they will end up with poor mitigation, since the right-of-way is something they don’t want anyway and Metro doesn’t need to provide more mitigation than satisfies the legal requirements, unless there is strong support from the community. Big, big, mistake for Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park...
The projected ridership of the Expo Line after Phase II is opened is around 100,000 per day, which will make it the nation’s most popular light-rail line.
Posted by: Gokhan | February 08, 2007 at 09:18 AM
An open question that I'm hoping somebody has the answer to -
Was heavy rail (Metrolink or similar) ever considered to be put back on the expo right of way - either by itself or in addition to the light rail? At first it seems like there would be more opposition than the light rail but commuter rail runs far less frequently than light rail and generally doesn't run late nights and weekends. Commuter rail would also connect to the extensive existing Metrolink service areas which represent the source of much of our Westside traffic. The Expo line (through Cheviot Hills) has my full support but I also have to be realistic and note that it often runs through industrial areas, areas that are low density, or areas that are not currently well served by transit (for connections). I see how the Expo line will serve downtown to westside commuters, students going to USC, and perhaps trips to the beach, but I don't see a great deal of intermediate station traffic which would seem like the lifeblood of a rail line with a stop every half mile. Anyways, if anybody knows if the commuter rail option was ever considered I would appreciate the info. Oh, and by the way, I want to thank the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association for the traffic impediments they were able to get installed in Palms and Cheviot Hills because of the Fox project. Not only did you asphyxiate traffic in surrounding neighborhoods you actually sabotaged traffic flow in your own neighborhood. While I love to see Cheviot Hills a total traffic disaster because of its own NIBMYism I still wish the money could have gone for something more useful.
Posted by: Tony | February 07, 2007 at 07:49 PM
Just a comparison between the right of way and the detour route.
Phase II. Detour Route:
* I counted 17 grade crossings that will have to get gates or be closed between Venice and Expo and Sepulveda.
* Two lanes of traffic or parking would have to be taken for the LRT service.
* A steep hill on Sepulveda would have to be ascended and descended that would slow service.
* There are many hundreds of homes and apartments mostly multi-level apartments with thousands of residents within 50 feet of the tracks.
* Difficult and expensive curve at Venice and Sepulveda
* Close to class rooms at Palms Elementary School.
* Adds over a mile of additional track that would require slow operation do to close proximity to roadway and residents and maybe 100 million in additional cost and added 10 minutes of running time.
Direct Route:
* 2 grade crossings. If Overland were grade separated there would be only 1 grade crossing
* No proximity or changes to any roadways.
* No grade changes.
* No homes are with in 50 feet of the tracks with the tracks being in a cut below view of most homes along the right of way. (If Overland were grade separated. Most residents from their homes or even yards would not be able to see any rail cars).
* Over 100 feet from play grounds and 300 feet from any class rooms at Overland Elementary School.
* Direct straight route with gentle curves and away from any housing or population for a fast trip between stations.
* No room for a bike path, or if a bike path was worked in, it would be adjacent to traffic with the hill on Sepulveda.
* Room for a bike path except through tunnel under the freeway that would have to be worked out.
* Room for parks and recreation areas along this route.
Both routes:
* There would be 2 stations on the detour with 1 station on the direct route. There would be less than half a mile between the stations of either route. Neither station would have parking, so there is little advantage of the detour route regarding it being “more convenient to more potential riding passengers.
So which line would impact the most people along the route, which line would disrupt the most automobile traffic, which route is least expensive to build, which route is the fastest trip between Santa Monica, the Coliseum complex, USC and Los Angeles?
Why is there even any consideration at all to the detour route other than politics?
Posted by: Alan Fishel | February 07, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Mr. Frankel,
The dual tracks require less than 35 ft of space. The Palms/Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park right-of-way is between 100 - 200-ft-wide. Why not use the 35 ft of the right-of-way for the tracks and the remaining 65 - 165 ft of the right-of-way for the park and creek you are advocating for?
What good is a park if people need to drive to it?
What good is light-rail on Venice Blvd if it stops short of Mar Vista? Isn't it much better if we have both the Expo Line on the Pacific Electric right-of-way and a future Venice Line that goes all the way to Venice? Why deny the residents of northern Palms and the Pico Blvd vicinity of decent public transportation for eternity?
Posted by: Gokhan | February 05, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Mr. Frankel: Can we stick to the transit issue?
The question is not what people think about Cheviot Hills residents: it's about what is best for the city in terms of transit options.
Yes, the Venice Boulevard alteranative is worth pursuing and should be done, as soon as possible, in addition to Expo. But the change to it wasn't made because it was superior in terms of service or route: it was made because of opposition from the Cheviot neighborhood.
Westide transit problems center on Santa Monica, where enormous employment growth has created crushing morniing westbound and evening eastbound congestion. The Expo line goes directly to those employment centers, promising much more effective relief. And it not only gets to Santa Monica more directly, but it costs far, far less, and would be far less disruptive to existing traffic during construction.
And even if it is not done immediately, there is a rock-bottom near-absolute commonsense guideline being disregarded by the shut downt the expo ROW argument. The city is going to continue to grow and need transportation. I cannot conceive of any justification for taking a transit right of way off the table and permanently out of the game for transit use.
regarding a specific:
>Another fact about impacts to the Cheviot/Rancho Park neighborhood: the ex-rail right of way between the 10 and the 405 freeway is not all in a gully. It’s not accurate to say “it runs in a cut far below street level”. Only the portion immediately west of the 10 freeway is below grade. The portion that crosses Overland all the way to the 405 is at the same level as the surrounding neighborhoods.
As it is with the surrounding residential neighborhoods for most of its route from USC to Cheviot. What is the justification for special treatment for the stretch between Overland and Sepulveda? Do these areas need parks less than Rancho Park and Cheviot??
The vigorous opposition of the Cheviot Hills neighborhood to the Expo Line is a matter of record. I did not call residents or the board 'selfish jerks." If someone else did, I deplore it because it changes the issue from the facts merits of the transit plans to one of name-calling.
Finally: I am still waiting for Mr. Hughes to explain specific adverse impacts he fears from rail in Cheviot.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 05, 2007 at 12:16 PM
To quote Eric Mankin on this site: “nobody called you or your body 'selfish jerks”; “Nobody has been bashing Cheviot”. it is “Make-believe history”…, “NANMN ("Not Anywhere Near My Neighborhood) extremism in Cheviot”
Precisely the problem in much of the debate on this issue is that anyone who favors an alternate route gets branded a NIMBY or a selfish jerk. Her are a few other quotes from the discussion on this site after Steve Lopez’s column:
“So basically, the homeowners in question are not only selfish…”
“Cheviot has contributed more than its share to LA's transit crisis by its obdurate and unthinking opposition…”
“Wealthy Rotten Selfish Nimby Westsiders…”
“I wonder if a lawsuit (i.e. The City of Los Angeles v. Homeowners Association of Cheviot Hills) would solve anything?”
My point is that all of the energy used to bash one neighborhood over this route is a waste when a viable alternative, that would serve more people, is available, and yet could help preserve needed open space in this dense concreted-over city.
Using Venice and Sepulveda works from a “smart growth” perspective because both roads are completely paved over and can’t be used for anything else. A second-story rail line elevated down the middle would be akin to “densification”, ie, the urban planner’s concept of building “up” rather than building on vacant land. One of the concerns about noise is that the trains have to blow their horns when coming to an intersection at grade level. If the rail was elevated above all intersections, the noise problem likely wouldn’t occur. We wouldn’t see people die because they tried to cross in front of a train. They did it in the Bay area with BART. Why not here?
The Venice and Sepulveda neighborhoods have much higher population densities than Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park, and what’s most important to the rest of us taxpayers is that ridership equals farebox revenues. When a rail line passes through an area where people are more inclined to drive, versus an area where people, by economic necessity need public transit more, this cheats the MTA from potential riders who will help pay to keep the system operating. It is no secret if you look at the budget for the MTA and the Culver City bus lines that farebox revenues only cover 10% of those agencies’ operating budgets. Therefore, to run the Expo line through an area with low-potential ridership, when a high-potential ridership route is available, seems short-sighted.
Also, I believe we need a light rail running along the 405 freeway. There is no question that the 405 is a parking lot just about all of the day, and even the current widening plan isn’t going to solve it. But a detoured Eexpo line could plug right into a 405 line, and therefore, the Sepulveda portion of Expo would serve two rail lines – saving money.
Another fact about impacts to the Cheviot/Rancho Park neighborhood: the ex-rail right of way between the 10 and the 405 freeway is not all in a gully. It’s not accurate to say “it runs in a cut far below street level”. Only the portion immediately west of the 10 freeway is below grade. The portion that crosses Overland all the way to the 405 is at the same level as the surrounding neighborhoods. This open space has a great deal of potential not just as parkland, and as community gardens, but also it could be contoured into a basin for natural treatment of the polluted storm runoff from the Westwood Channel. Along with our huge lack of parkland is the huge water pollution problem that we have at our beaches. The program to clean this up will likely involve creation of treatment wetlands and removing of concrete along our creeks. This program is mandated by the Federal Clean Water Act and the City of L.A. is beginning the planning to comply. (www.lacity-irp.org) (www.saveallofballona.org).
Also, if the detour route is selected this means that the Expo right of way between Venice Blvd. and the 10 freeway is also available as open space to serve the very dense neighborhood of Palms. This could be a 2 ½ mile long linear park benefiting significantly more people.
But is that elitist? Use of MTA property for parkland is not unheard-of. For example, the Culver blvd. greenway is owned by the MTA. It used to be the Pacific Electric rail line going to Redondo Beach. The MTA’s funds come from the same taxpayers as the park funds. It’s not elitism for vacant land in Cheviot-Rancho Park to become a park as I don’t recall any park in this city having a “Whites only” policy. We need to create parks everywhere throughout L.A. and I believe the L.A. River restoration plan is going to benefit people of all races and economic levels. The same will happen with the City’s runoff cleanup plans for the rest of the City.
In short, there are logical reasons for the Expo line to include a short detour: cost effectiveness and open space preservation. When we plan from only a single perspective (rail only), we miss other beneficial opportunities that can improve livability in greater ways.
Posted by: Rex Frankel | February 05, 2007 at 11:07 AM
And I believe I am address the Kevin Hughes who is the chair of the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Committe.
Mr. Hughes, instead of responding to an attack which wasn't made - nobody called you or your body 'selfish jerks,' why don't you use this space to put forward what your objectinons and problems with the use of the ROW would be? Again, it runs in a cut far below street level. It does not produce pollution. It's hard to see, based on probably station location, how it would even produce spillover parking issues. Yes, we know the neghborhood doesn't want more traffic on Motor. What other problems are there?
Please be specific, rather than simply saying "this would impact us negatively." Make your case, instead of assuming it's obvious.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 04, 2007 at 03:01 PM
The notion that an abandoned rail line owned by the public would be dismantled in order to create a beautiful public park that would primarily benefit the selfish jerks of Cheviot Hills apparently is enough to make Eric Mankin's blood boil.
But what if the people of Cheviot Hills weren't selfish jerks? What if that was a grossly unfair caricature and in fact they were really normal, down-to-Earth, nice regular people just like Eric Mankin, who just were bright enough and dedicated enough to fight for what's best for their community and what makes the most sense in terms of the Expo line route? Hmmm... That would just complicate things. Better that they be villains.
Posted by: Kevin Hughes | February 04, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Transit doesn't ease traffic anyway. It just improves mobility through it. Anyone ever heard of "latent" demand?
Steve, do you get up this early on Sunday?
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 04, 2007 at 08:15 AM
The local Hispanic community's peace and quiet is not as important as Cheviot Hills. After all, does Steve Lopez do ghetto kids getting killed by trains?
EXCERPTS FROM:
La Opinion (Original in Spanish)
WARNING RISKS OF NEW EXPOSITION METRO LINE
According to construction contractors they are taking into account all safety measures.
By Jorge Morales Almada, La Opinion Newspaper
Saturday January 27th, 2007
The new Exposition Metro Line would circulate down town areas passing by the University of Southern California ( USC ), all the way up to Culver City. This new Exposition Line could be more dangerous than the Blue Line which already sums more than 70 deaths since 1990; warned the Organization Expo Communities United.
However, the Expo Metro Line Construction Authority in charge of the project through the MTA ( Metropolitan Transportation of the city of Los Angeles ) assures that " safety " is the major priority of the project.
According to Mark Jolles who is a member of the Organization of Residents of the area where the new light rail train will be passing by, this project that is about to start is dangerous because there are 34 pedestrian crossings at the street level and there are 5 schools close to the tracks.
Four months ago the Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the County supervisors and advisors had a symbolic inauguration ceremony of the construction, but the works are about to start within a month. There are estimates that by the year 2010 the line will begin to operate and later that train will continue up to Santa Monica.
" This is an important piece of the extensive train network that we need to provide public transportation that is efficient and convenient" then said, Villaraigosa.
However, many residents of the area and even members of the Los Angeles Unified School District ( LAUSD ) don't see the project with good eyes.
A letter signed by Glenn Striegler, of the Office of Environment Health and Safety of the LAUSD, and sent to the California Public Services Commission ( CPUC ) warns about the worry that exists to the construction of this line, because there are already 5 schools placed from 50 to 70 feet of distance of this line.
Mark Jolles as representative of the neighbors, estimated that between 20,000 and 30,000 students are in risk; giving the fact that there is a total of 12 schools immediately adjacent to the projected route.
The letter of the LAUSD points out that the worries are based on pedestrian safety of the students, the noise and the vibrations that will get into the classrooms, the risk of a derailment and the polluted emissions that will affect the health of the students; and they believe that the project will carry out precisely a major traffic congestion.
In the Blue Line of the Metro there were 68 counted deaths until November (76 according to another source ) but since then, there are some more registered accidents like the one that happened in Watts last Thursday, when a child that was on his skateboard was hit by the passenger train that was going to Long Beach.
The residents wonder about cases like this in the zone where the new light train will pass; which would go from the station at 7th Street to USC, throughout all the Exposition Boulevard all the way until it becomes Rodeo Road in Culver City, a track of 8.5 miles total.
The MTA referred their comments about this project to the Expo Metro Line Construction Authority.
Janita Eddins, representing that entity and in charge of carrying out the project, pointed out that the new train line will be constructed under similar guidelines as the Gold Line, where there are not fatalities.
She said that there should not be any worry, because they are taking into account all the necessary safety measures.
"All the crossings will have safety doors; she pointed out."
However, the Expo Communities United insisted that the project seems to be more risky than the same Blue Line, which is considered the most dangerous in the country.
In addition to and according to Mark Jolles, after 6 years of planning the project the MTA could not create a model according to the criteria of the Federal Transit Administration, which has already expressed its worry about the use of tracks to relieve the demand of transportation in the area.
Jolles pointed out that it must be alternatives to the project, like to build the tracks underground with stations in Vermont, Crenshaw and Venice; which can be supplemented with rapid transit services that would improve the transportation.
The United Residents against the project had pointed out that also, the streets of the zone, are being used to their maximum capacity, thus they predict more and bigger traffic jams and vehicular congestion to travel from north to south because the construction is planning to close 17 car crossings permanently.
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 04, 2007 at 08:13 AM
THIS GUY, ERNIE ARNOLD, LIVES ALONG THE GOLD LINE,
HE SHOULD KNOW
Ernie Arnold wrote:
Mark,
Let me shed a little light on the subject from this my angle. It is important to understand the players and their interest in the projects. The MTA balances the safety of train operations with the regional need for efficient transportation. When there is a trade off between safety or efficient operations, the MTA will come down on the regional needs as long as the line meets minimum safety requirements. Any reduction in safety is approved based upon an overriding consideration of the regional needs.
The MTA is not charged with building the safest transportation systems possible. It is the responsibility of the local governments to protect the interest of the local residents, so it falls on the cities. That is a challenge for neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles, because Los Angeles is region onto itself. It really falls on the councilman representing the district. Each councilmember has a great deal of authority within their own district, so if they do not take up the challenge the neighborhood is unprotected. The City of Los Angeles might trade the needs of one neighborhood for the “good of the city”. On the other hand small cities such as South Pasadena, can be overwhelmed and not realize what is happening until some issues have already been decided.
The main reason the Gold Line has different operating and safety elements than the Blue Line is the participation of the cities involved. The MTA and the Blue Line Construction Authority are only interested in finishing the projects “on time and under budget”. Local opposition is discounted unless the city governments or the Public Utilities Commission get involved.
Your tactic of using the small claims courts however is a new one that will get their attention after the fact, but it is always more efficient to get something completed properly than trying to fix it after the fact.
Good luck,
Ernie Arnold
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 04, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Who wouldn't be concerned with their own peace of mind? This isn't socialism. If MTA wants to put a rail line through there, let em pay to put it in a tunnel. The general public has more resources to bear the burden than some homeowners, even if they are the Cheviot bourgeoisie.
Just poor people should have to suffer with the impact of these 49 ton cars, three car trains, going through their neighborhoods every 5 minutes with 90 decibal horns and bells and whistles at the crossing gates. Neighborhoods like Cheviot hills, who have the resources to stand up for themselves, should get below grade tunnels. That's the only fair way to look at it.
Mark Jolles
Expo Communities United
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 04, 2007 at 07:55 AM
It just seems logical to me that if an open corridor already exists where a light rail line could be built (or in this case RE-built) to ease traffic from east to west, then that is the way to go. The Cheviot Hills residents who oppose this weren't looking at the whole picture when they decided to vote it down. They are only concerned with their own peace of mind, and not realizing that this would have a beneficial effect on all Los Angeles residents, with very little negative impact on their neighborhoods. The Santa Monica Air Line corridor is large enough that some areas could still be preserved for green space and public use. I live on the east side, and I would absolutely be in favor of a project like this. I already put up with so much noise and congestion every day with the inceasing traffic in my area, that a little more in the way of the construction wouldn't make that much difference, if it meant that eventually I would have a less stressful way to get from the eastside to Santa Monica and it's environs. I doubt that will happen any time soon in my area, but it could be a reality in the corridor by Cheviot Hills. I don't understand how a such small community of people can have such control over something that could benefit many thousands of people in the long run.
Posted by: Joellyn Mumcian | February 03, 2007 at 07:08 PM
There is a cut already: the ROW runs way below the neighborhood. See the images that have already been posted on this thread.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 03, 2007 at 05:04 PM
SORRY CHEVIOT, IN MY EARLIER POST I MEANT TO SAY:
Can Cheviot stop it if it's in a tunnel and they "CAN'T" see or hear it?
MY BAD!
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 03, 2007 at 04:42 PM
HELPING WESTSIDE PARKING, AN OLD CHEVIOT SOLUTION DOES IT? I'M CONFUSED, ARE YOU?
March 23, 2000 MTA BOARD MEETING - Engineers Report
"There have been suggestions to reroute the LRT north on La Cienega Boulevard, turning southwest at Venice Boulevard and traveling to Sepulveda Boulevard. At Sepulveda, the alignment would turn northwest and continue back to the Exposition ROW. This alignment would allow the LRT system to avoid traveling thorough residential areas. This detour would add nearly 1.5 miles to the project, extend travel times by 12 minutes, and increase the overall cost by approximately $120,000,000."
"In the Board deliberations, Supervisor Yaroslavsky began, saying, "Why punish ourselves on a route that has opposition?" He spoke for the Venice Blvd. detour, saying it was wide, "bisects two high-density communities" of Palms and Culver City, and although is "slightly longer than a direct route" it would serve more people.
WHO'S THE ONE THAT WILL REALLY GET PUNISHED, LOOK OUT ZEVVY!
The final vote, for BRT and LRT EIR on Exposition with the detour, was 11-1 yes; Supervisor Antonovich voted no.
SOMEONE HAD SOME BALLS!
Friends 4 Expo's take on this....
"The good news: we're moving forward, there is relative consensus, the Cheviot Hills opponents no longer have a reason to object, Venice Boulevard could become a remarkable new transit-oriented place, there is room within the 100-foot Sepulveda Boulevard right-of-way to add light rail (and still keep most of the parking), and if properly designed the travel time won't slow by more than five minutes."
WHAT?
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 03, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Why not take the $120 million that Burkes and Yaroslavsky voted in 2000 or was it 2001 to go around Cheviot and do a cut and cover through it instead. Can Cheviot stop it if it's in a tunnel and they can see or hear it. Then all the lost ridership from the detour delay would come back, bring more revenue to MTA, Cheviot would get a permanent park on top, and we'd all be happy.
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 03, 2007 at 03:38 PM
A modest suggestion for increased Times coverage:
The Times every day contains detailed weather statistics for the day before, along with forecasts by vicinity for the coming week.
Surely traffic is as interesting as weather in Los Angeles.
A map of the previous days traffic problems, morning and evening, with delays, would be easy to automatically assemble from Caltrans and other sources. It could automatically find how much better or worse the day was than comparable dates in the past. It could automatically calculate the daily cost of traffic delay, using hourly rates. It could also say how much gasoline the day’s delays cost the economy.
A running total could add up through the end of the year. The idea would be a consistent, object and newsy focus on the state of things - along with a measure of whether things were getting better or worse.
I’m sure others could improve on this basic idea.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 03, 2007 at 01:37 PM
A modest suggestion for increased Times coverage:
The Times every day contains detailed weather statistics for the day before, along with forecasts by vicinity for the coming week.
Surely traffic is as interesting as weather in Los Angeles.
A map of the previous days traffic problems, morning and evening, with delays, would be easy to automatically assemble from Caltrans and other sources. It could automatically find how much better or worse the day was than comparable dates in the past. It could automatically calculate the daily cost of traffic delay, using hourly rates. It could also say how much gasoline the day’s delays cost the economy.
A running total could add up through the end of the year. The idea would be a consistent, object and newsy focus on the state of things - along with a measure of whether things were getting better or worse.
I’m sure others could improve on this basic idea.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 03, 2007 at 01:36 PM
If you are under 13 years of age, OVERWEIGHT AND HAVE ASTHMA, you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 03, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Readers Rep at latimes.com wrote:
Dear Mr. Jolles,
Thanks for your further thoughts and those particulars, though I thought I should mention that it seems to me that I've read stories in The Times that have discussed transportation in at least some of the terms you've mentioned (those whose jargon I can readily decipher, anyway).
Again, I don't know if you are a regular reader of The Times--you haven't said--but I'd be interested to know more particulars about how you came to feel that over the years the Times has not been informing the public about transportation and addressing those angles (in other words, particular articles of the past year or so that you've seen as falling short), so that I can let editors know of them.
Thank you again.
Kent Zelas
=========================================================
Kent Zelas
Asst. Readers Rep
Los Angeles Times
February 2, 2007
Mr. Zelas:
I thought last night about your last e-mail and I think the newspaper may be missing the whole point. Have your editors ask this question and then seek the answer and you have your story.
With this region historically spending tens of billions of dollars on interstates, road widening, and intersection improvements, while ripping up miles of neighborhoods to do it, and imposing decades of bad air on our children,
and all resulting in horrific gridlock, an ineffective transit system, miles and miles of blighted urban areas, a housing shortage, a stalled tax base, numerous redevelopment zones, not enough money for police to address gang violence, nor funds to trim trees and fix sidewalks,
all with formidable public resistance to development and economic growth in the most viable areas of the region,
How did we, the Los Angeles metropolitan area, get to this point? And how do we get past it?
Once your newspaper begins to ask those two questions, and seeks well researched answers, as they did with the King-Drew Hospital story, (and of course still reports about those always titillating cat fights between neighborhoods, NIMBYs, and greedy developers) I will have more respect for the LA Times coverage about transportation. Until then, I rate your coverage as bad as the traffic.
Good luck, this is not as hard a task as you think, if someone just does some homework,
Mark Jolles
Posted by: Mark Jolles | February 03, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Make-believe history
I don't know where Mr. Frankel's view of the Expo corridor history comes from. He writes: "I believe that the Expo rail project would have been a lot farther along today if advocates had not resorted to neighborhood bashing for so long. "
In fact, the project has been on hold for more than a decade because of the opposition of the Cheviot neighborhood association, opposition that has been (as the Lopez column noted) obediently taken up by politicians who have at the same time approved wholesale development aggravating traffic problems. Nobody has been bashing Cheviot. The oppoisite: everyone has been dancing to Cheviot's tune. Years into this, a columnist finally visits and notes that we're wasting a right of way -- and suddenly Mr. Frankel discovers that the reason for the lack of progress is years of neighborhood bashing. I really don't think so.
And I love Mr. Frankel's definition of win-win. He proposes turning the ROW into a park, moving the light rail to Venice and "since the goal for rail advocates is to get their project approved and funded, I believe they should support this detour route, make the Cheviot Hills folks their allies, and that way everyone wins."
So let's see: Cheviot get a publicly-financed park adjacent to their neighborhood, massaging their property values still further, while a right of way bought and paid for with public funds is dismantled. The rest of us get a rail line that is much more expensive, far more disruptive to build, and takes a long detour.
>Tell me why this strategy doesn't make sense
It certainly makes sense for the Cheviot Hills Neighborhood Association. However, to make it make even more sense, I suggest that the taxpayers throw in a million dollars and a pony for each member of the Association board.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 03, 2007 at 01:11 AM
Here's what I think is wrong with not using the Expo right of way next to Cheviot Hills and through Rancho Park for the Aqua Line:
1. The Venice/Sepulveda detour would cost more. Much more if the route were elevated so there would be grade separation.
2. The Venice/Sepulveda detour is longer by about a mile.
3. The Venice/Sepulveda detour would significantly increase the total journey time from downtown to any point west of the 405.
Here's a composite image of what the route could look like using the present Expo right of way culvert near Palms Park:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Expo_parkway.jpg
Note that there is a bike path on either side. In the areas of the right of way in Rancho Park where the right of way is wide, perhaps some of the additional land could be used for parkland.
The Expo right of way is one of West Los Angeles's greatest transportation treasures because it is largely intact. Restoring it to its original function will help everyone in the area by providing a true east-west alternative to the 10.
The residents of Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park would be best served by negotiating for the strongest possible mitigation measures to address the very real issues raised by living near a light rail line. Things like creating overpasses or sinking the line below grade at key intersections like Overland and Westwood, turning wide areas of the right of way to parkland and building noise walls where necessary.
I live near the Gold Line's Southwest Museum station in Mount Washington. Houses are quite close to the line here. I would invite anyone along the Expo right of way to come by and listen to the light rail trains go by. I think you will find that they aren't as noisy as you imagine.
All of us in greater LA need true alternatives to the car so that we have some real transportation options. Giving us the fastest, cheapest and most direct route for the Aqua Line in a way that takes care of its neighbors fairly would be good for everyone. Plus, as residents living near the Gold Line have found out - it helps property values.
Posted by: Jeff Gross | February 02, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Eric Mankin asked: "Is there some reason this issue can't be discussed in terms of the facts on the ground and real impacts?"
I wish most of the discussion of this issue was based on facts, instead of vitriolic neighborhood-bashing. I'm no kneejerk defender of homeowner associations, as I've seen parachial concerns get in the way of good projects. But the issue here is whether the expo rail must follow the MTA owned former train tracks in their entirety, or whether, for the one stretch that runs through a neighborhood instead of an industrial district, that a detour can work. I believe that it can. I have seen no evidence of why the Venice to Sepulveda detour won't work. And I believe that the Expo rail project would have been a lot farther along today if advocates had not resorted to neighborhood bashing for so long. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in light rail all over the city, but to get the support of the taxpayers and to minimize opposition, rail advocates need to use diplomacy with those affected most closely, and to consider, with an open mind, alternative routes that will serve more people and create the least disturbance. That has been lacking for at least ten years in the debate over the Expo rail.
Finally, the MTA strip running through Cheviot Hills could be a beautiful greenway with parks and trails serving the neighborhood; since park space is severely lacking in this city. Locating the rail on Venice and Sepulveda for this short detour will not impact any open space. Since the goal for rail advocates is to get their project approved and funded, I believe they should support this detour route, make the Cheviot Hills folks their allies, and that way everyone wins.
Tell me why this strategy doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Rex Frankel | February 02, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Re: Neighborhood bashing
Mr. Frankel, first of all, since you don't live in the neighborhood and don't seem to be familiar with the configuration of the proposed line, why are you so sure it will have a dire impact?
Second of all, you seem to be setting up a situation in which anyone who takes a polsition contrary to that of the Cheniot Hills homeowners group is ipso facto a neighborhood basher - and, what's more, apparently a hypocrite, because this person supposedly wouldn't support the line if it went through her or his neiighborhood.
Is there some reason this issue can't be discussed in terms of the facts on the ground and real impacts?
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 02, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Re: Grade Separation
Heavy rail is still a necessity, but if no one has the guts to push for that, just do the Light Rail ASAP!
Heading west, after the Expo Line crosses under the 10 it could simply run in a culvert and thus crossing under:
Overland Ave.
Westwood Blvd.
Military Ave.
Sepulveda Blvd.
The 405
Sawtelle Blvd.
Pico Blvd.
Yes, several bridges would have to be built, but that is the cost of doing business and it should pacify all of the NIMBY's to boot.
Once past Pico it could transition to above ground and by Barrington would be high enough for all traffic to clear. The ROW west of 20th is really not in great shape, just west of Cloverfield Blvd. the ROW crosses Olympic Blvd. The line could easily be accomadated above ground on the Olympic median and along the 10 to carry it all the way to the terminus at 4th and Colorado. See the Airtrain in NY. I would propose minimum stations west of Cloverfield, maybe a station around 14th and that is it. This would save 10's of Millions of dollars as above ground stations are extremely costly.
And by the way what is Villaraigosa's position on the ROW through Chevy Hills?
Posted by: R. Moses | February 01, 2007 at 09:08 PM
I was in Australia, and I am writing to Arnold because they have the greatest transportation down there. In Melbourne you have the trams, they are just wonderful, they go all over. I took the train everywhere, like all the Aussies do. Same in Sydney, the monorail of course to Darling Harbour and the shopping mall, trains go everywhere. Transportation is cheap, plentiful, and often. To park in Sydney on a Sat. night is very expensive, like $75, everybody takes the train. And all over the harbour in Sydney, you take ferrys. L.A. had great transportation when they had the red cars, the need to lay those tracks again, and do trams like Melbourne. I can't believe the fwy here now. It took me 4!!!! hours to go on the 91 to Palm Springs leaving on a Fri. at 2:30 p.m. It's gone beyond something people can live with anymore. Politicians need to tax something and take the money and build now or there will be no future. It will be Mad Max. Go to Australia politicians and look at how great they get around.
Posted by: Sherie | February 01, 2007 at 07:44 PM
The issue here is about a choice between putting the Expo rail on two wide and noisy streets (Venice and Sepulveda that could actually encourage existing drivers on those streets to take the rail and not drive), ---or putting the rail on a vacant, green strip in a quiet neighborhood that could just as well become a park and community gardens. But no, instead of supporting the first route I mentioned, you want to waste a lot of energy bashing on residents of Cheviot Hills. In the end, we will get a rail from downtown to the sea. For the record, I don't live anywhere near Cheviot Hills; I live in Westchester next to the freeway, so I get loud traffic noise 24 hours a day from the freeway on the north and from booming jets at LAX on the south. I have sympathy for residents along the Gold line who hear the train horns around the clock. Maybe those on this blog who have been aroused to want to lynch the leaders of residents groups in Cheviot Hills don't live next to the noisy project they are supporting. This is the essence of the hypocricy behind the use of the phrase NIMBY.
What's most important, in my mind, beyond fixing the traffic mess and cleaning up the Bay, is that we need to preserve unpaved open spaces in this concrete monstropolis any way that we can. When there is an alternative to a huge public works project that will save open space and still solve a public need, than we are fools if we don't try to do both. We can have a superb public rail system here again; we can also create and preserve open spaces in this sea of concrete. But when we resort to NIMBY name-calling, we are using the language of the developers and the despoilers of this great city to divide, a propaganda trick that has led to the mess we are in today.
Rex Frankel
Posted by: Rex Frankel | February 01, 2007 at 07:44 PM
I'm not sure how much of Cheviot Hills a light rail, or even a regular freight, route would really impact. The route along/under the Sanat Monica Freeway just skirts Cheviot Hills proper, and some adjacent West LA neighborhoods to the West. Seems like much ado about nothing given the train route is in a ravine/gorge going throiugh Cheviot Hills, and the Exposition Blvd route it then goes into is quite wide. As wide as it was in the 1950s/60s/70s when the freights ran regularly.
Having a train in the neighborhood was fun. As teenagers, we used to watch long freight trains coming out of the railway tunnel under the Santa Monica Freeway. Would put coins on the rails to be hammered by the wheels occasionally. A friend's house's backyard had a back gate that let us right on to the tracks. Never a problem with noise, and a fun place to play around.
To the West, there were active gated railroad crossings at Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Pico, Barrington, Bundy, Centinela, Olympic, 26th, et al. To the East, the trains ran closely along the South side of the Santa Monica Freeway into Culver City - with several more gated crossings.
Posted by: Fred Reimer | February 01, 2007 at 05:53 PM
corrected image url of aerial view of Exposition rail ROW
http://tinyurl.com/2or5xm
note the street architecture west of westwood boulevard.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 01, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Oh, by the way.
Minimum freeway speed limit like in Florida, 40 MPH. I was tailed by a Florida Highway Patrol for ten minutes to see if I would drop below the 40 MPH, even though I was in the right lane.
Extend the Expo/Venice line after reaching West LA at Lincoln Blvd., turning south, to LAX.
Thanks,
Greg S
Posted by: Gregory Santana, Pico Rivera, CA | February 01, 2007 at 11:01 AM
First, thank you for heading the transit problem on the head like "Do as I say, not what I do." This is a prefect example of city & county bureaucracy, Mr. Jaime de la Vega is one of probably thousands and many getting provided vehicles or vehicle subsidies.
Solution;
1. Enforce "slow traffic bare right" 24/7 but specially rush hour.
2. On the cellphone, "right lane only".
3. 10% sales taxes with the extra money for "transit only", politicians keep their grabby little hands off it!
4. Having the above, all county wide buses and light rail free ride. Nothing speaks louder than saving money to get people out of their cars. Also cost saving not maintaining collect & ticket boxes. Metrolink still charges because of out-of-county destinations.
5. Extend the Red line to Van Nuys Metro link station and then on to Sylmar. Gold line to Claremont and the south route to Norwalk Station. Green line spur to LAX and Green to the southern end of Redendo Beach. The Purple line all the way to Santa Monica 4th Street.
6. Build both the Expo line for express service and the Venice line for local, both terminate at the same station. Building both is long term into the late part of the century.
7. Increase the speed of the all light rails & busways with computerize control signals as well as all county signals.
8. Long term planning for heavy rail.
7. County planning to may the above work and not just lip service.
9. Let no politician obstruct transit progress to take of a selected few.
Thank you,
Gregory Santana
Posted by: Gregory Santana, Pico Rivera, CA | February 01, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Regarding Rancho Park:
You can see a satellite image of the part of Rancho Park the Expo line runs through at:
http://tinyurl.com/385nds
For the first block west of Overland, you see a wide vacant lot. Further west,the ROW is bordered both on the north and the south by streets, both planteed with on the right-of-way side.
The trains would be far away from front doors, on the other side of a lawn, a sidewalk, a street, another sidewalk, trees, and lots of ground.
With more landscaping and a little grade separation, this doesn't seem an unbearable prospect.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 01, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Regarding Rancho Park, and Lynn's comments
Yes, the tracks west of Overland cross a wide now -grassy area fronted by houses on both sides, land that now looks like a de-facto park. I can see why people there would rather it be their own park rather than have trains run down it. However, the idea already is to grade separate at Overland, probably by having the tracks go below grade level. Continuing this would remove much of the visual impact; bridges over the cut would assure neighborhood continuity. It'd cost a little more than the cheapest psssible, but it would be good for everyone. But I don't think that the entire city has to be put on hold so one line of homes on one street get to continue to use MTA land for their own purposes, rather than public ones.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | February 01, 2007 at 08:38 AM
I guess to highlight the proposed Expo Line’s proximity to Cheviot Hills (it would skirt the border of it) makes for better headlines than focusing on the real neighborhood affected by the proposed path along Exposition. – Rancho Park.
If they decide to run the line down Exposition Blvd., it will literally be in the front yards of all the people living on both sides of Exposition. The line would dissect our neighborhood, not skirt it. I invite anyone who thinks we are NIMBY’s to come take a look for yourself and see how you would feel if the view out your front door was of a train rolling by day in and day out. We in Rancho Park already deal with the noise and smog caused by the I-10, which runs THROUGH the southern border of the neighborhood and the I-405 which is one street away on the eastern border. Standing outside my house I can hear the din of both freeways AND the planes flying overhead to Santa Monica airport. Our neighborhood is directly in the flight path. I hear planes flying over every 20 minutes or so until 10:00 PM. How much more do we have to put up with before we are not seen as selfish Westsiders? NIMBYS? Too late. We already have all we can deal with in our backyards.
Posted by: Lynn. Rancho Park Resident | January 31, 2007 at 04:54 PM
I am so sick of such chronic westside homeowner NIMBYism, and I had really hoped that in the last mayoral election the populace had somehow grown up beyond this. However, Steve's recent article on Cheviot Hill's total ignorance and basic fear of change I find very disheartening.
here are ome facts that can illustrate my dismay at their blindsided selfishness:
1) if any of these residents have ever actually been close to a light rail line in their life, they would realize that they are in fact MUCH quieter than cars. If the residents are really that concerned about noise, shouldn't they also want to ban all traffic in their neighborhood? (Oh wait, they've already tried that, by instituting "trafficc calming" measures that have only further worsened the traffic nightmare south of century city).
2) concerned about property values? It is a truth that newly constructed rail lines universally INCREASE property values for the neighborhoods they serve.
3) if you actually walk along the existing Expo right-of-way, you will quickly see that the portion of the tracks in question that run up against the Cheviot Hills neighborhood is actually already grade separated from the neighborhood: the hills have been sliced through already, so to speak, meaning the tracks are a good 10 - 30 feet below the houses in question. Where the tracks are at grade level and right up against houses is in the section stretching from Overland to Westwood boulevard (though the rightofway is still quite wide), but again, please refer to my previous note about noise level from electric train versus car.
So basically, the homeowners in question are not only selfish, but also wrong. They might think they are being selfish, but really it would be more selfserving to demand the line be built rather then the other way around. However, they are nonetheless mobilizing to prevent the line from serving all kinds of other people- from westwood boulevard through to Santa Monica, who might find the line very desirable.
So thanks a lot, Cheviot Hills.
Posted by: Ben Phelps | January 31, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Now, some positive comments regarding what Mr. Frankel said.
Yes, Venice Boulevard was once a rail line, as were Santa Monica, San Vicente, Electric Avenue in Venice, Huntington Boulevard (named after Henry Huntington,who built the rail lines) and many others, including Exposition. .Whereever you see a road in Southern California that seems to be wider than usual and misaligned to the street grid, you are looking at an old rail line, most of themm converted to buses after WWII and then turned over to cars.
In all of these, re-railing (or creation of exclusve bus lanes) is possible and desireable - but will not help nearly enough without grade separation.
That said, Exposition is a great opportunity precisely because the ROW remains intact, and has not been coverted to parking (Electric Ave in Venice) or car use. It would be quick and relatively cheap and relatively easy. And - in all seriousness, without minimizing - it would be about as low impact as is conceivable in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | January 31, 2007 at 01:40 PM
Monorails:
The problems with Seattle and Las Vegas are well known. But in other countries, progress continues. A good site to keep up on what is going on is:
http://www.monorails.org/
Posted by: Eric Mankin | January 31, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Regarding NIMBY and Rex Frankel's complaint
>I'm really tired of journalists attacking neighborhoods as being selfish NIMBY's. I'll bet you don't live next to the Expo line. When journalists try to emphasize conflict in stories on land use issues, why is it usually framed as pitting middle class neighborhoods against poor people? L.A.'s transit crisis was not created by the folks in Cheviot Hills. ....
Mr. Frankel, unless you live directly on Northvale Avenue north of Palms Park, you would never see or hear the line. Even if you lived there, it runs so far below grade that you'd have to listen for it and would (as has been noted) likely lose it in the Santa Monica Freeway/Overland Boulevard hum.
Regarding the continuation: The "conflict," such as it is, came about because Cheviot Hlls Neighborhood Association adopted and continues to hold to a no day, no way absolute opposition. If you oppose, you are creating the 'conflict you are complaining about.
Journalists reporting on what neighborhood spokesmen say is not journalists attacking neighborhoods, it's journalists reporting on an issue. If the neighborhood wants to disavow the statements made, they should do so; rather than blaming the mirror for their own reflection.
Finally, to be perfectly frank, Cheviot has contributed more than its share to LA's transit crisis by its obdurate and unthinking opposition to the Expo line over more than a decade.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | January 31, 2007 at 01:23 PM
I must admit that the logic of the Cheviot Hills homeowners is lost on me. As best I understand it, these homeowners appear to PREFER to have extremely long and congested commutes for themselves rather than to allow themselves and their fellow taxpayers to pass near their homes in some sort of railcar? Have I got that right?
I'm not quite sure how these homeowners could afford such fancy homes with mental processes that work like that. If they said that they wanted some say over where the rail stops should be, or if there should be any at all, I could understand that. Or if they said that they would prefer quieter electric rail cars through their area, like they have in San Francisco, I could understand that.
But to completely eschew alternate forms of transportation is foolish, short-sighted, and frankly lowers their property values. Besides, how are their nannies and gardeners supposed to arrive for their shifts on time with the increasing traffic?
Posted by: David Miller | January 31, 2007 at 11:21 AM
I agree with somewhat with one of the other posters that we need heavy rail and not light rail. Light rail is barely better than a Rapid Bus. Heavy rail is expensive but it's a first class system and if LA wants to be a first class world city like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, ect.. they need to just bite the bullet and build heavy rail, especially under Wilshire. Also the Orange line should be a heavy rail extenstion of the red line. Heavy is more expensive b/c it has to be completely grade seperated, contrary to what someone else said it cannot have at grade crossings especially in dense LA. But that will make it faster and more likely to pull people out of their cars. And that is the only way to get cars off the road, provide a public transit alternative comparable to driving times. In the Bay Area taking BART to downtown SF is just as fast and many times faster than driving, and cheaper. Have heavy rail run from the Westside and Downtown to the Valley would help ease traffic along 405 and 101. It is not going to be cheap but in the end it will be worth it.
Also anyone proposing monorails must not know anything about them. Because they are horrible for mass transit. Fine for theme parks and airports, not for mass transit though. Look at Las Vegas' fiasco with their monorail. $5 each way to ride a line less than 10 miles long!
Posted by: Shaun | January 31, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Until I totaled my car in '05, I swore I'd never take public transit. I decided not to get another car, and rely on Metro to get me where I have to go.
Yes, I have to take three buses to get to and from work, but two of those are Rapid lines that don't stop at every corner. Yes, it takes me twice as long to get to and from work as it did when I was driving.
However, during the time when gas was selling for more than $3 a gallon, I rode the bus for the approximate cost of four gallons of gas, and I didn't have to pay insurance costs.
I sometimes take the Red Line and Gold Line, and find those trains frequent and quiet - no clickety-clack that I recall from the old Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Transit streetcars. People are using public transit, particularly to get downtown.
I'm sold on public transportation. Metro service has improved since I last rode the bus some 15 years ago.
Posted by: Sue Kamm | January 30, 2007 at 05:59 PM
With all the breathless enthusiasm for monorails on this thread, I decided to look online to see what was going on worldwide with this futuristic technology. As it turns out, not a whole lot. The funding that helped build the 4-mile $600 million dollar Las Vegas Monorail have been reduced to junk bond status (Bloomberg.com 11/07/06) and the Seattle voters recently pulled the plug on an over budget, poorly designed system that never got off the drawing board two years ago. (Seattle Weekly 11/9/05)
One glimmer of hope has emerged in the rapidly developing city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (gulfnews.com 01/06/07). A consortium of Japanese engineering and construction companies have recently inked a deal with Dubai developers to help build and operate a 5.4 kilometer monorail system to serve between the mainland and the trunk of the Palm Jumeriah artificial reef. However, initial estimates place the system cost at 1.4 billion UAE dinar—which, according to my computer’s online currency calculator, is approximately 381.2 million American dollars for a 3.4 mile monorail line, about the distance from Sepulveda to Robertson Blvds. Assuming that Los Angeles was a self-sufficient, oil-rich nation without need for ADA compliance, earthquake construction codes, a maintenance yard or stringent labor and safety laws, this type of system might pencil out. Otherwise, placing a starter monorail system that is incompatible with existing rail infrastructure in an urban environment like Los Angeles is pure science fiction.
Posted by: MattK | January 30, 2007 at 01:20 AM
Steve, I really enjoy your column. One solution for the city, never acted upon, is to ban truck traffic during rush hour - say 7:30 - 9:30AM and 4:00 - 6:30 PM. I think this should be seriously considered.
Posted by: Roger Curtis | January 29, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Steve:]
I take issue with your claim that "There's no preexisting railroad right of way along Venice Blvd." Of course there is! That's why Venice is so wide and why the sidewalks and parkways are so wide: because there used to be a rail line running down the middle. Of course, there's enough room to put a light rail there, and we do own the land!
If we really want to lessen the traffic mess at Century City, the rail line needs to be IN Century City. For example, Santa Monica Blvd. used to have a rail line on it and it forms the north border of Century City. On the other hand, the expo line is quite a ways away from this dense area.
I'm really tired of journalists attacking neighborhoods as being selfish NIMBY's. I'll bet you don't live next to the Expo line. When journalists try to emphasize conflict in stories on land use issues, why is it usually framed as pitting middle class neighborhoods against poor people? L.A.'s transit crisis was not created by the folks in Cheviot Hills. Let's put blame where it belongs:on selfish, developer-driven City Councils and on the car, oil and tire corporations that wiped out L.A. 's Pacific Electric Railway system. Here, the super-rich got us into a big mess, and yet, you're trying to pit the rest of us against each other. Many of the problems in this country are caused by the selfish top 2% corporate elite that get away with (figuratively) murder, while their corporate media tries to stir up everyone else to fight each other over straw-man issues. Can't find an affordable home? Blame existing residents, or blame the developers that only build luxury homes. Tired of high gas prices? Blame selfish air-breathing environmentalists for demanding clean air, or blame the oil companies and their political buddies that have squelched alternate fuels research. Steve Lopez's article pointed his finger at all but the real culprit for L.A.'s traffic messes.
Lastly, The L.A times has supported every major development in this City's history. The Times helped to create this problem. What's the Times going to do to fix it? Open your own wallet and help out! Don't blame the average folks for a mess created by the corporate elite.
Posted by: Rex Frankel | January 29, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Steve,
I always enjoy your editorials. I wish that every journalist had your innate “common sense”!
I want to express my sincere thanks for writing your editorial, “Something's wrong with unused right of way”.
I share your opinions to a “T”. We needed this rail line 20 to 30 years ago!
I don’t understand all that Cheviot Hills NIBYism. The constant noise generated by the Santa Monica Freeway will easily drown out the “whoosh” of the light rail vehicles as the wheels meet the rails. They don’t pollute the air either! Homes and apartments within ear-shot of a transit station always fetch top dollar, no matter what city!
It makes so much more sense to have the Expo line to go on its intended right-of-way rather than being shoe-horned in the middle of Venice and Sepulveda. The latter would add 10-15 minutes to the route, making it less attractive for the extreme westsiders. The former Pacific Electric right-of-way in the middle of Venice Boulevard was abandoned 57 years ago and finally paved over 20 years after that. Let’s leave it buried. Having LRVs trying to traverse the hilly terrain of Sepulveda would not be a great idea either.
L.A. needs rapid transit, not a streetcar plodding along at 5 MPH, stuck in surface-street gridlock!
-Bob Zwolinski
Santa Monica
Posted by: Bob Zwolinski | January 29, 2007 at 04:49 PM
The issue on Expo, as well as elsewhere, is grade separation.
The rail right of way is intact (mostly) from Santa Monica to USC, but it remains at grade (with the interesting exception of the part that goes through Cheviot.
As long as the cars run at grade, whether on Expo or on Venice Boulevard, they will not be fast or frequent enough to make more than a marginal difference in car usage.
One grade-separation is subway. This works, but is horrendously expensive. Another is classic elevated. This works but is both ugly and noisy.
Which leaves monorail. Which works, Whiich has a very small footprint: just poles. Which is quiet. Which is not much more costly than an at-grade light rail line.
What's particularly nice: in a part of the right-of way like the area west of Overland, where you have a wide swatth of ground around the track, you can buld a park. Doesn't interfere with the commuters. Fun for the children to watch. Safe, even.
Posted by: Eric Mankin | January 29, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Re: Something's wrong with unused right of way
Something's wrong alright and it is called vision. Why is everyone still so short sighted in trying to solve the east/west commute on the Westside of Los Angeles? Everyone, and I mean everyone uses global warming these days as their cause celebre. They rally about auto emissions and poor gas mileage from SUVs, yet the majority of vehicles coming out of Santa Monica heading east on the 10 as well as those coming into Santa Monica are single occupant vehicles and often gas guzzlers to boot. The Wilshire corridor and Santa Monica are destinations for several hundred thousand commuters each day and their option for public transit is a bus? We have an existing, I repeat an existing ROW ready to be utilized and modern equipment with the ability to tunnel under Wilshire to the sea. Can a truly modern, fast, east/west rail option reduce pollution and congestion in the westside of Los Angeles? I think so.
Barring $5/gallon gas and wage suppression most individuals will not carpool and will drive the nicest car they can almost afford. As of today the morning commute west from Downtown to Santa Monica can be done in 1 hour or less provided you leave prior to 0745. The commute east from Santa Monica takes approximately 45 minutes under the same conditions. The evening commutes require similar amounts of time +/- 10 minutes depending on time of departure and this has become acceptable to the unmethodical masses. The Wilshire corridor has similar to worse MPH numbers.
Assuming one can easily afford the existing commute (car, gas, parking) the Commute Time Reduction (CTR) must be in the neighborhood of 30 minutes from Downtown to Santa Monica to provide the necessary incentive to give up the car, thus reducing the rail trip from downtown to about 30 minutes and saving 15 minutes when travelling east from Santa Monica. All of the Expo Line proponents think a light rail line from Downtown to Santa Monica will magically reduce the congestion along the 10 corridor, this is far from the truth. Light rail rarely reduces congestion and that should be the ultimate goal as all other benefits will trickle down.
You need a transit time of under 30 minutes via rail from Downtown to Santa Monica because in the end one will spend about 20-30 minutes additional time getting to the station, waiting for the train and walking to your final destination; in the end if your new total commute time via public transit is less than 1.1 times your existing commute then people will get out of their car. With gas prices as such and parking cheap people will not give up a car if their alternate commute is above 1.1X, it will not happen. The goal of the planners and politicians should be shooting for is the New York City metropolitan area not Seattle, San Diego and Salt Lake.
We need to plan, design and fund express subway tracks below Wilshire and heavy rail, not light rail along the Expo Line. Look to Metro North and the LIRR, heavy rail running through some of the most expensive real estate east of the 405. Heavy Rail can have grade crossings, traffic signals can be integrated; do not believe the myth that Heavy Rail kills children and needs grade separation at every intersection. Under the existing plan the Expo line will take at least 30 minutes from downtown to reach Culver City. 16 MPH via light rail will not cut it, one can almost drive that fast on Interstate 10 today!
The MTA defines their Short Range Transportation Plan as: "focusing on the phasing of transportation improvements through 2009 that will help put together the pieces of our mobility puzzle..." and The Long Range Transportation Plan states: "assesses future population increases projected for the county and what such increases will mean for future mobility needs..." A short term plan in Los Angeles? Clearly that has not worked before, we need to plan for overcapacity today, not existing capacity yesterday.
From the present western terminus at Wilshire/Western four tracks should be built immediately all the way to Wilshire/Third in Santa Monica. This will provide the ability for express tracks and local tracks while dramatically reducing the transit time versus local only service. Tunneling cost an issue? Cut and cover, start today and be done in 24 months; yes traffic will be worse than ever before if we cut open the street, but at least an end in sight.
And back to the Expo Line, nothing short of Fast Heavy Rail will satisfy the public transit needs of the population. Building a fast, efficient, modern rapid transit line along the Expo line should be the goal, not just "Build Expo." We need to entice people out of their cars, the pro Expo group is so focused on building the Expo line that they can not see the "forest for the trees." Think Heavy Rail at regular intervals with large parking garages along the Expo line.
The Route 710 Tunnel will cost at least $6 Billion in today's dollars and benefit how many? Wouldn't these funds be better utilized reducing congestion on Interstate 10, the busiest Interstate in America? Building only light rail along Expo and no Express Subway tracks along Wilshire will provide little more than nice new map at MTA headquarters. Build real options for the Westside and then spend some real money tunnelling through to the valley so one has an option from the local purgatory known as the Sepulvada Pass. The valley needs a reliable option to avoid the 405 too. And any small group that can block the needs of 100,000's of commuters needs to be keenly aware of the worst case scenario of eminent domain.
Posted by: R. Moses | January 29, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Steve, I really wished you had continued a little further on the right of way, past Cheviot Hills into Rancho Park where the real damage of a transit line along the right of way would be evident. There is a difference between NIMBY'ism and literally have the expo line in your back yard, which it would be for many residents in the area. If LA had the money to actually build this portion underground to lower the noise, that would be one thing. However, I think we all know that this city isn't very good at doing things the right way, and all the residents in the area have good reason to be concerned.
While I understand that 40 years ago trains ran through the area, the reality is that in the interim years people have put their life savings into homes in the area, some costing more than $1 Million, and have the right to be concerend that the city will carry out their plans without the care necessary.
I also feel that the argument regarding designing the route to serve the most people, rather than just based on what is the quickest way from point A to point B is a valid discussion.
Let's hold off on accusing residents of NIMBY'ism when there are valid arguments being made, and numerous discussions that still need to take place.
Posted by: Matt Cherniss | January 29, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I have no truck with NIMBYs trying to, ah, derail, a needed transit line. The Westside is surely a place of virulent NIMBYism.
I don't know the relative merits as transit routes of using the existing right of way or Venice Boulevard. It's not always the best solution to use the most expedient route, if that route doesn't serve people as well. The Blue Line would have been more effective--and better at stimulating transit-oriented development--if it ran a couple of miles west of its location and served USC and the Exposition Park museums. The Expo line will now serve that area, but years have been missed. Similarly the Gold Line would almost certainly be more effective if it were in a subway under Colorado Boulevard (at least in the central part of Pasadena) rather than in the expedient but highly unpleasant freeway median. These alignments would have cost more and taken longer, but worked better. Beyond NIMBYism, this seems to be the substantive issue for the Expo line alignments.
Posted by: Simon Dorf | January 29, 2007 at 07:05 AM
"Shouldn't one goal of transit be to get people out of their cars... ?"
While this is an admirable goal Steve, in a city of which Missing Persons said "Nobody walks in LA" and "only a nobody walks in LA", I am hard pressed to picture any of the Cheviot Hills residents giving up their Beemers for a nice shiny new train.
The same holds true for the future residents of the new complex downtown or in Century City.
The argument that these new giga-complexes will reduce traffic is laughable.
Every developer seeks to make their location a "destination", not a self-contained community.
There are people, however, that value and will use mass transit. People that the residents of Cheviot Hills and many other affluent neighborhoods in LA rely on for their standard of living. And those people deserve a functional mass transit system. Who knows, maybe if it didn't take 2 hours to go from Mar Vista to Hollywood on the bus it might become a palatable alternative to more of us.
It seems to me that since apparently most of the infrastructure and rights of way are already in place for this old rail line that it would be the quickest and cheapest to implement. Further, one new mass transit corridor will not begin to solve our impending gridlock. Therefore, it should have other lines it connects with that will provide residents and workers alike options for getting to overcrowded destinations.
We need to be discussing a system with multiple new access lines, not arguing over which "one" is best, as if one will somehow magically solve all our problems...
Posted by: Rich Chrono | January 29, 2007 at 01:04 AM
No one is willing to discuss a well-known fact that one of the reasons the folks in Cheviot Hills, Beverly Hills, and the rest of the affluent Westside did not want any rail line running through their areas is because it would be bring in the "undesireables" i.e., the gangs, the thugs, the thieves, the taggers. It only takes close observation that many of those "undesireables" have been driving cars into and through that part of town for years .
I believe what's more sickening is seeing the ignored homeless living in the midst of extreme wealth. I also believe what is increasingly sad is the horrific Westside traffic that has contributed to the overall declining infrastructure of this increasingly depressing, mismanaged city. Should one wonder if Los Angeles is once again in a decline despite the trophy development that is occurring?
My conclusion is that the true undesireables are those Idiots in Power and their supportive Wealthy Rotten Selfish Nimby Westsiders who have made it that much worse for the rest of us and ironically themselves. Included in the latter group is one long-haired woman who was wearing thousand-dollar sunglasses and yakking on her cell while speeding in her Range Rover. She was too inconsiderate to stop to allow a pedestrian-nobody continue walking (in of all places, a crosswalk). My guess is that it she was LATE obtaining a good spot in her yoga class, but then she probably sincerly excused her tardiness was due to the traffic.
Posted by: bk cunningham | January 28, 2007 at 11:17 PM
See why Cheviot Hills residents think light rail is RIGHT for Cheviot and the Greater Los Angeles area at http://lightrailforcheviot.org/.
Posted by: Jonathan Weiss | January 28, 2007 at 09:45 PM
Mr. Simon needs to get out more. In other cities, mass transit is considered an ASSET in affluent communities. In the finer suburbs of Washington DC, commuters prefer the Metro to get themselves downtown. The same is true in Philadelphia, where the Paoli Local brings attorneys, advertising executives, and other professionals to and from their offices in center city. Cheviot Hills would become even more desirable if this valuable right-of-way was a conduit for mass transit. Only when mass transit is used by people with two car garages will our freeways and congested thoroughfares start to breathe again.
Posted by: Rick Friedman | January 28, 2007 at 06:17 PM
The problem seems to be that no one in the MTA or LA governments seems to be able to think outside the box. Cheviot Hills doesn’t want the noise – well maybe the transit system doesn’t have to be noisy. The planners MTA seem to be stuck on using "light rail." Light rail is really a very heavy rail system, with cars that weight in at hundreds of tons. When these vehicles run into cars or pedestrians, there is little hope of survival for the victims. Rail systems date back over 200 years, and the current proposals for the Exposition Line are just a modernized version of the same old trains. The latest bus-way in the San Fernando Valley was a slightly more creative solution, but it still suffers from the problem of having to stay at the same elevation as cars, trucks and pedestrians.
Disney showed us years ago that a monorail system could work, and cities like Los Vegas are using overhead transportation. But why stop there? Our current amusement park rides now use twin tube rails with rubberized wheels that make very little noise. The transit system could be akin to a horizontal elevator, with cars that hold ten or twelve riders, except with side-rails for stations so through traffic doesn’t stop. The number of stops that a rider would have to make is reduced, and therefore, the trip is much faster. It could be similar to a monorail, except that it could change elevations, going up and over streets and roadways, and then back down, with no expensive aerial platforms. The track would like amusement park track, and there are companies already tooled up to mass produce it. The control systems are similar to elevators, and, the software could be just modified, not created from scratch. The system could expandable - cars could be added as the rider-ship increases. The upfront cost is spread out over several years, and expansion can be paid for by the fare generated. More stations can be added easily, as well as branch lines. Stations could have touch screen maps tied to a computer that would generate a smart ticket, telling the car’s computer where the passenger needed to get off.
Los Angeles has aerospace and aircraft companies with the talented engineers and tradespersons with the expertise to build this system. Instead of outsourcing our mass transit to other states and countries, we could be employing our own people to build LA’s mass transit. Call it Bi-rail. This makes so much more sense than tunneling underground or running trains in conflict with our roadways, not to mention that it would be a lot more fun to ride!
Posted by: Russell Johnson | January 28, 2007 at 06:02 PM
As a Cheviot Hills homeowner for the past 10 years, I read your column in today’s Sunday Times with glee (and of course, just like you, with frustration). It’s about time the light of the local press is being shined upon the selfish, narrow-minded few who run the Cheviot Hills Homeowner’s Association. These self centered people have done everything they can to kill projects in the best interests of greater Los Angeles, and at the same time, they’ve also destroyed the traffic flow in and around Cheviot Hills and Century City. They’ve been able to convince the City of Los Angeles to narrow Motor Avenue with the hope of restricting the flow of commuter traffic on Motor, a street meant to handle that traffic very well. At the same time, they’ve “planted” ugly “rock gardens” that protrude into the street to further impair traffic flow. All they’ve done is screwed up the ability of those of us in Cheviot Hills to leave the neighborhood on our own commutes, or to drive our kids to activities or to school. The residents here have had enough of these myopic people. The only problem I have with your column today is that it doesn’t focus enough on our weak-willed City Councilmember, Jack Weiss, who has allowed these small minded tyrants on the CHHA to run rough shod over the rights of Cheviot Hills residents and the people of the Westside of Los Angeles. Please keep up the good work pushing Mr. Weiss and his friends to a direction that benefits all of the residents of Los Angeles and the surrounding communities, and let’s get that rail line built down Exposition Boulevard as soon as possible.
Posted by: Jeff Nagler | January 28, 2007 at 03:45 PM
I've already posted comments about NANMN ("Not Anywhere Near My Neighborhood) extremism in Cheviot regarding the rails in the "had enough? topic.
Two resources people should be aware of
First, detailed discussions of hte Expo and all the other transit corridors going back years can be viewed at the Transit Coalition website.
http://boards.eesite.com/board.cgi?boardset=ExpoLine
The Expo line discussions include detailed back-and-forths with a determined and vocal anti-rail Cheviot advocate. All the issues large and small, are aired in detaill.
Second, the Cheviot group's website contains its news and views, including its recent decision not just to oppose the line but also to hire a consultant to fight to keep the rails from the (far below grad) extremeley short segment abutting Cheviot. See and follow these views at:
http://www.cheviothills.org/Against%20Expo.htm
Posted by: Eric Mankin | January 28, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Lopez's column is right on; especially the part abuot this is LA so nothng gets done. We should accept this fact and stop wasting taxpayers' money on fantasies. The reality is this a traffic clogged and smog choked city and there will never be any signiificant rail projects that will actually get people to and from where they need to go. I'd rather recind all transit taxes so at least we can know that we're not going to do anything about the situation than pouring millions into one study after the next and into one lawsuit after the next.
Posted by: Msrtin Mansukhani | January 28, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Thank you for this wake-up call. I hope that it causes your readers to demand change and City Hall to fast track some of these sensible solutions!
Posted by: n simon | January 28, 2007 at 01:25 PM
I love how a group of 14 selfish NIMBYs can ruin commute options for the entire city. But Congressman Waxman and Supervisor Yaroslavsky are just as much to blame. As well as the residents and businessmen of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills who don't want easy commute options for "those kinds of people" coming to "our side of town". Enough with years and years of endless studies! It is time for the Mayor to deliver on his campaign promises and make combating traffic his number one priority!
I wonder if a lawsuit (i.e. The City of Los Angeles v. Homeowners Association of Cheviot Hills) would solve anything?
Posted by: Jason Cabot | January 28, 2007 at 12:22 PM