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

[Mark Jolles]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Mark Jolles]

If you are under 13 years of age, OVERWEIGHT AND HAVE ASTHMA, you may read this message board, but you may not participate.

[Mark Jolles]

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

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Jeff Gross]

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.

[Rex Frankel]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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?

[R. Moses]

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?

[Sherie]

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.

[Rex Frankel]

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

[Fred Reimer]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

corrected image url of aerial view of Exposition rail ROW

http://tinyurl.com/2or5xm

note the street architecture west of westwood boulevard.

[Gregory Santana, Pico Rivera, CA]

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

[Gregory Santana, Pico Rivera, CA]

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

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Lynn. Rancho Park Resident]

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.

[Ben Phelps]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[Eric Mankin]

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/

[Eric Mankin]

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.

[David Miller]

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?

[Shaun]

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!