Steve's Cheviot Hills Column...

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:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez28jan28,1,4372719.column?coll=la-news-columns

Comments

[Christine]

I inquired the City of Los Angeles Mayor's office for assistance... four times over 2 months of period, they promised to get back to you... NONE as of today.

I truly feel City of Los Angeles, especially Parking Violation Bureau uses non-democratic and unconstitutional tactic to get back to its resident.

Ticket payment is RECEIVED DATE and not POSTMARK DATE. This means, if the mail is lost, made to other department or wrong address... GOOD LUCK...

That is what happened to me and they have NO mercy... could we all get together and fight this battle... to get it changed to POSTMARK DATE as we do not control US Postal Service or Mailbox that is Federal authority... I got run around and being penalized for paying parking ticket... RECEIVED LATE and their letter of warning was LOST in mail... April 2 dated as of today is lost in LALA land.

You are responsible... They should have a better system... a Democratic and Not Communist system.

City uses whatever virtual authorities to not able you to renew registration, harassing in letter forms and so on... absolutely incredible... WHO knows our mail time is? 3 min and got ticket... paid $50 then now saying... it was received late.

I am absolutely disappointed with our system. This is the worst City... to live.

Please investigate how to have the law changed? I wrote to Sacramento, Mayor and Governor...
I do not wish to recommend LA place to live to anyone... SO unfriendly city.

Thank you.

Christine

[Jennifer Reyes]

"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.

[Jennifer Reyes]

"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.

[Gokhan]

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.

[Wright Concept]

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.

[Rex Frankel]

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.

[Gokhan]

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.

[richard schumacher]

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.

[Scott Mercer]

"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.

[Gokhan]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[Alan Fishel]

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?

[Gokhan]

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?

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Rex Frankel]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Kevin Hughes]

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.

[Mark Jolles]

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?

[Mark Jolles]

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.

[Mark Jolles]

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

[Mark Jolles]

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

[Joellyn Mumcian]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

There is a cut already: the ROW runs way below the neighborhood. See the images that have already been posted on this thread.

[Mark Jolles]

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!

[Mark Jolles]

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?