A fight on the Expo Line, part IV

The Expo Line Construction Authority held a community meeting last night to unveil its proposals for street crossings on the second phase of the proposed light rail line from Culver City to Santa Monica.

The dust hasn't quite settled yet, but this can be said: no one in the community is happy.

The authority is proposing a series of at-grade crossings, among them three very busy north-south routes: Overland, Westwood and Sepulveda. In the authority's view, mitigations such as street widening, no parking restrictions and adding some extra lanes at the crossings would help keep traffic moving at the crossings -- even when there will be 24 trains per hour at peak times.

Even two different groups that have been battling over which route the train will take on the second phase agreed that the announcement was a disappointment.

Karen Leonard, of Light Rail for Cheviot, said that while philosophically she believes at-grade crossings can work, she expected at least one or two of the crossings would be grade-separated to help appease neighborhood concerns that too many street crossings will hopelessly tie up traffic and be a danger to school children.

Her group wants the train to use an existing right-of-way along Exposition Boulevard, a route that cuts through Cheviot Hills and bisects neighborhoods of single-family homes behind the Westside Pavilion.

Terri Tippit, of Neighbors for Smart Rail, said pretty much the same thing, although her group has been pushing for the train to detour around Cheviot Hills and the neighborhood immediately south of the Westside Pavilion.

"It all comes down to money -- they don’t have the money [for grade separated crossings] and they barely have the money to do what they’re doing now." 

I just got off the phone with Rick Thorpe, the president of the Expo Line Construction Authority. He first confirmed that he survived the meeting -- no small task, in my view -- and then explained the authority's reasoning for putting the train at-grade.

"We're trying to treat everyone the same in Los Angeles County because everyone would prefer grade-separated crossings for their light rail lines," Thorpe said. "But it doesn't make sense to do that. If we did, we wouldn't have enough money to build anything."

He said that the authority had three different traffic engineers look at the crossings and determine that they could work with the mitigations in place.

The city of Los Angeles will first get a crack at weighing in on the crossings, but it will ultimately be up to the California Public Utilities Commission to approve them. It's almost certain at this point that some of the crossings will be heavily contested by community groups or members -- just as two at-grade crossings on the under-construction phase one of the Expo Line still must be approved by the PUC.

Construction on the second phase is supposed to begin in 2010, assuming funding is secured. The line is slated to open in 2014 or '15 if all goes well, but prolonged fights over the crossings could easily throw that into doubt.

Click on the following links to see part one, part two and part three of the Expo Line posts.

--Steve Hymon

map: Expo Line Construction Authority

Comments

[JW]

I'm sorry but sinking a tunnel below the storm drains at Overland and Westwood are not worth it.

What would improve the crossing a lot more is restriping the lanes and improving the overall flow of the traffic. These are things that they would have to improve first before they can suggest full grade separation.

The idea of selling the land for development wouldn't work because the same NIMBY's wanting it below grade wouldn't want the "extra traffic" the new residents would create so it's the same madness all over again.

[TonyR]

More random thoughts:

I'm not a huge fan of Cheviot Hills after this whole phase II fiasco but, as a proponent of the expo right of way alternative, I have to admit that the neighborhood that runs along the expo ROW between Overland and Sepulveda does have some reasonable gripes. Sepulveda, Westwood, and Overland are far too busy and critical to westside traffic (and my bus :) ) to have at-grade crossings. The neighborhood is at the confluence of the 10 and 405 that both run above ground and is often overrun with traffic passing through.
I never figured out what the Cheviot folk were complaining about - it doesn't run through their neighborhood, it's all grade separated in the part that comes close (so no horns), there's no stop to bring evil outsiders etc. Those living west of Overland to have legitimate concerns and not just NIMBY complaints. BTW, I live in Palms so I'm not just doing my own NIMBY thing. So here is a thought on how we can appease some folks: why don't we just sink a tunnel along expo between Overland (and the storm drain) and Sepulveda and then subdivide and sell the property on the right of way?
-we would not be drilling under mountains or Wilshire Blvd. It would be a less expensive (even with the MTA) cut-and-cover operation most of the way.
-the proceeds from the sale/lease of land could go towards the considerable additional cost of a subway portion. We are talking about 40-50 parcels zoned R2 (same as the lots abutting expo already) in a very expensive neighborhood. This could generate tens of millions of dollars.
-the property will sell. Even with the real estate market as it is these properties would sell. Two of the best public schools in the city are in the area, it is close to transit already, you can walk to stores and services, and it is safe.
-even the neighbors should agree. The trains are coming. Do you want them at grade blaring their horns and stopping traffic or underground? The new homes/condos could easily be added without changing the character of the neighborhood.
-even if the parcels sell at market rates it will not cover the costs of a subway portion. It will make a significant dent though. You could essesntially do grade separation at half price and add transit oriented development at the same time. Just a thought.

[ThisIsSilly]

I agree with Dan W. that NIMBY's from Cheviot Hills are forestalling the final decision to have the light rail go through the Right of Way. The "Right of Way" route is a MUCH BETTER alternative for the train vs. putting it right through Sepulveda and Venice, which would effectively cause much more traffic congestion on those already busy major streets. The decision is an obvious one: there is already a train route with tracks along Exposition Blvd. and it makes perfect sense to build upon that route rather than to cause major construction delays on the two busy streets mentioned above. Residents in Cheviot Hills that are against the RoW need to open their minds for the greater good of all. At community meetings, it is obvious that some rich Cheviot Hills residents act like spoiled children who don't want to share the use of PUBLIC spaces with everyone else.

[Karen Leonard]

Steve, please note that the existing right of way, the route Light Rail for Cheviot favors for phase 2 of the Expo line, does NOT run THROUGH Cheviot Hills but along the edge of it, and mostly in a 25 foot deep trench at that.

Karen Leonard, co-chair, Light Rail for Cheviot

[JEremy R]

If cheviot hills pays to underground the sepulveda spur and other areas to help make up the speed difference, I am all for it. More access, same speed, same money. Let’s do it!

[Dan W.]

"I want to clarify a misperception: the MTA did not determine that ALL of the Phase II crossings would be at-grade. Assuming the ROW and Olympic are chosen as Expo's route, the approved grade-separations for Phase II are:"

--------------------------

I read that Santa Monica wishes the Expo Line to run on Colorado west of Cloverfield, not Olympic, which sort of makes sense as the terminal will be where the Sears building is.

[Joel C]

I want to clarify a misperception: the MTA did not determine that ALL of the Phase II crossings would be at-grade. Assuming the ROW and Olympic are chosen as Expo's route, the approved grade-separations for Phase II are:

Venice, National/Palms, Motor
Sawtelle, Pico, Bundy
Cloverfield, Olympic
11th, Lincoln.

I think the Sepulveda crossing should be grade-separated. The level-of-service (calculated by MTA) at that location is currently grade B. In 2030, the MTA projects a grade C in 2030 if nothing is built, and a grade D if Expo is built at-grade. To me, that's a big hit.

I also think the Barrington crossing should be grade-separated. That crossing is at grade D now, and is projected to remain at grade D under both scenarios (build vs. no-build). Therefore, it is also a good candidate for grade-separation.

[Spokker]

"Disneyland's system has been running safely and reliably for over 40 years"

They are down to one train, and their new one can barely navigate the track. When all is said and done they will have three monorails as opposed to the four they used to run and maintain. Due to incompetent management the Disneyland monorail isn't even as reliable as it once was.

Disney isn't even investing in monorail expansion. They've lost faith in the technology as well, or else they would have built a station for DCA, or Animal Kingdom, or the Hollywood studios (formally MGM).

A monorail has no place in Los Angeles' transit future.

[TonyR]

Random observations:

1) I, like most it seems, would rather have more grade separations especially at Overland and Dorsey High. Unfortunately, if there is a regional storm drain going down Overland then there is not a whole lot we can do about it.
2) If we are going to restripe, redesign Sepulveda and Westwood why not go through a little extra effort and put in a bus lane for a couple of blocks so the backups will not affect busy crosstown bus lines?
3) Are we expecting the expo line to be at capacity when phase II is finished? The blue line's capacity is three-car trains every 4-5 minutes. The expo line presentation anticipated 5 minute headways. Maybe longer trains with 7-8 minute headways would help cross-traffic and be less expensive to run? Are the current stations being designed with expansion in mind - especially the aerial stations?
4) Clancy - exactly what I, and many others, have been thinking. What kind of neighborhood can get away with creating traffic bottlenecks in surrounding neighborhoods to benefit themselves? Same one that can get the MTA to waste millions on a nonstarter routing option for phase 2 I guess. When you need to go to a hospital, grocery store, school or any other services (which you won't allow in your neighborhood) you drive through adjacent neighborhoods but no one is allowed to go through yours . . .

[Life Long BusRider]

The simple fact is that this city is for all of us to travel and enjoy. "Environmental Racism" is a crock considering Pasadena has many of the same types of proposed at grade crossings. Eventually the rails will unite and rejuvenate the areas it services. Look at Vermont/Wilshire, and Wilshire /Western, although its a horrible terminus, it has still generated micro sprawls that have attracted people and businesses from all over. Remember this is not one property owner's city, We share this city. Waiting less then 12 seconds for a train to pass is reasonable considering Pico to National on Westwood Blvd can take a lengthy amount of time anyway. The goal overall is to get less cars on the road, which in turn will lead to less congestion; Not to mention the investment in the future environmental impact. Motorist need to get over the "what about me" since many who deal with public transit, bus riders especially have dealt with the delays many cause by not carpooling and clogging the road. As some may know Rosecrans.Nash of the Greenline eventually created and trench crossing to improve traffic on Aviation and Rosecrans Blvds. It takes time, and delaying the project will only raise the cost and potentially shorten the line. Lets get this show on the road and show we know how to practice green technologies.

[lsm]

For those of us unable to attend the community meeting, the Build Expo website posted a copy of Metro's presentation of the proposed Expo II at-grade crossings at: http://www.buildexpo.org/phase2/Expo%20Phase%202%20Grade%20Crossing%20Determinations%20PRESENTATION%206.9.08.pdf I have no affiliation with this organization, but assume it is OK to reference it here. The presentation is a slide show and includes estimates for how many minutes per hour at-grade crossings should close the surface arteries and the specific mitigations proposed for each artery to try to keep surface traffic moving.

[lsm]

Our decades of stinting on mass transit systems has seriously jeopardized the quality of life and the economic prosperity we and our children will enjoy here in LA. We have fallen so far behind that many of us gridlocked individuals despair we will ever find the collective will to face the daunting challenge of building the mass transit system we need. As powerless as this may make us feel as individuals, we do have the power as individuals to forego both parochialism and vindictiveness to help build the best LA possible. We do ourselves no favors by focusing on charges of "environmental racism" or "NIMBYism" and have no chance to move forward if we support or oppose an individual project by asking ourselves how often we will ride it or how badly it will interfere with our commute. We do ourselves even fewer favors if we decide to use our scarce resources to build a project hoping to stick it to someone else. Rather we must first ask how much will each project will add or detract from our region. If it adds to our region, we must then ask how much sorely needed bang it will provide for our all too miserly buck. If Expo II solves more problems than it creates and it does so cost-effectively, we must support it. If it merely trades one set of headaches for another or creates more problems than solutions or costs too much for what it will deliver, we must not waste resources on it. Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about my own selfish interests, I do not live along either proposed route, I rarely have to travel north-south across either proposed route, and I virtually never need to travel between Santa Monica and Downtown. I do, however, live in our vitally interconnected community of LA county and very much want to leave to the next generation a better community than we found.

[Dan W.]

"Disneyland's system has been running safely and reliably for over 40 years, even through earthquakes. Maybe we can learn something from them!"

We cannot base our public transit system on the Disneyland monorail. I wouldn't base it on the teacup ride either.

Seattle's monorail project has been shelved and they are expanding their light-rail system instead. I think we can learn from them too.

[Rich]

Apparently, back in the 1960's, the same company which constructed Disneyland's monorail system offered to set up a monorail system for free in Los Angeles, if they got the rights to operate the system.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail)

I don't understand why the MTA refuses to evaluate monorails - the excuse they give is that it is too costly. I am sure that the fact that you don't need to create crossing grades, etc help offset the costs, and it is definitely much cheaper than digging a subway tunnel.

Disneyland's system has been running safely and reliably for over 40 years, even through earthquakes. Maybe we can learn something from them!

[Clancy]

The cries of traffic burden on surface street with at-grade crossing rings hollow to this Westside resident. Cheviot Hills HOA seems to have no problem with creating bottleneck and traffic backups around their neighborhoods now by restricting north bound access on Motor Ave to the Fox Lot from Palms. Or south bound access on Motor Ave by restricting left turn signal from Pico.

If they are concerned that at-grade crossing will create more traffic congestion at Westwood in the future, my question to them is why is it ok to have congestion (through lane reduction and signal timing) on Motor and Pico now? They cannot be on both sides of the argument... either they love traffic backup around their neighborhood or they don't... they can't have both.

[ubrayj02]

"It seems closing all three very busy north-south surface arteries in a three-quarter mile wide transit corridor twenty-four times an hour to allow trains to cross at-grade will markedly slow rather than quicken transit times."

Though this may seem to be the case, it is NOT the case.

These streets will not be "closed". I live and work near the Gold Line, and the delay to motorists of a passing light rail train is typical (or even shorter) than the delay experienced by a red street light.

"Traffic" is not a fluid - so if it is "backed up", drivers are discouraged from driving, and a certain percent of "traffic" vanishes. When a street is closed to traffic, cars do not show up at their old street looking for a place to drive day after day.

Further, why focus on making our surface streets into highways that only move cars? There are much more fruitful and beneficial uses of the public right of way rather than a sewer pipe for cars.

[Alan Fishel]

The good news is that it appears that the line will be built on the right-of-way instead to the politically inspired Venice Sepulveda detour. It also appears that we need to thank Damien Goodmon for all of the Phase II crossings being recommended to be at grade. After all the MTA does not want to be accused of environmental racism.

First lets look at the real numbers on the Blue and Gold Lines at grade and grade separated crossings and the amount of auto and pedestrian traffic that is inconvenience or delayed at the crossings.

Now lets look at the crossings on the entire Expo line and again look at the numbers of auto and pedestrian traffic that will be inconvenience or delayed at the crossings. Lets leave out the color or race of the area where the crossing will be. Then make the decision base on this information not on neighborhood activist weather they are from South Los Angeles, Culver City, Cheviot Hills or Santa Monica. Lets get this line built within the next few years with out the potential delays of grade separation controversy.

If the line is the successes that it should be, adding grade separations later can be done as the importance of rail transit grows along with funding in the years to come.

[Dan W.]

Just commit to building it on the Cheviot Hills ROW already so we can get through the next phase of debate.

If money can be found to build a few grade separated crossings, fine. If not, then build the sucker anyway.

We cannot allow delusional NIMBYs in Cheviot Hills and Hancock Park thwart the common good anymore.

[D. Malcolm Carson]

Expo's caught between the old rock and a hard place here. Even if it's not generally known to those of you who don't spend much time south of the 10, Vermont, Western and Crenshaw are probably nearly or just as busy as Sepulveda, Overland and Westwood. To treat the Phase 2 streets differently than the Phase 1 streets would be environmental racism, plain and simple. Expo knows this, but meanwhile they've just created even more opposition to the project on the Westside, the residents of which are not accustomed to getting the kind of shaft treatment that Metro routinely deals to less affluent areas of town. If they grade separate the whole thing, they end up validating the argument that rail is an expensive, politically-motivated boondoggle that is radically cost ineffective in terms of actually delivering a reduction in traffic congestion and air pollution.

[fed up]

The Transit Authority deciding that it must make ALL crossings at grade is clearly a sop to groups like that one screaming about "Environmental Racism," which goes around to HOA and Transit group meetings. But this makes no sense -- the posters above are right, at least one-two of the westside crossings should be grade-separated: Sepulveda and Westwood are very busy and the heart of the city, sure to grow even more. Last thing we need is for traffic to slow there waiting for the trains to cross.

Decisions should be made based on sound engineering and planning, not because some groups scream "racism" over areas that won't get nearly as much traffic, or have as many other main roads feeding into them.

[fed up]

The Transit Authority deciding that it must make ALL crossings at grade is clearly a sop to groups like that one screaming about "Environmental Racism," which goes around to HOA and Transit group meetings. But this makes no sense -- the posters above are right, at least one-two of the westside crossings should be grade-separated: Sepulveda and Westwood are very busy and the heart of the city, sure to grow even more. Last thing we need is for traffic to slow there waiting for the trains to cross.

Decisions should be made based on sound engineering and planning, not because some groups scream "racism" over areas that won't get nearly as much traffic, or have as many other main roads feeding into them.

[Aaron]

Yikes. I support the original RoW and am car-free and all that, I'm totally pro-transit... but wow, at-grade at Sepulveda? That street is more like a highway, I'm not sure that the Sepulveda stance will make it through to construction. I honestly can't think of any street that Expo or the Gold Line branches cross that would be more appropriate for grade separation than Sepulveda.

[lsm]

It seems closing all three very busy north-south surface arteries in a three-quarter mile wide transit corridor twenty-four times an hour to allow trains to cross at-grade will markedly slow rather than quicken transit times. I suspect at least one of the crossings should be grade-separated to ease gridlock in this busy north-south corridor, but for now would appreciate hearing exactly what mitigations are planned for each surface artery and how they will keep traffic moving despite these frequent closures across all three. I do not reject the proposal out-of-hand, but have not yet heard enough to believe it will work.