PUC punts Expo Line issues to Dec. 18

State approval of the two final street crossings on the Expo Line light rail will have to wait at least two weeks: The California Public Utilities Commission this morning punted the decision to  its Dec. 18 meeting in order to have more time to consider the issue.

Here's a little background. The first phase of the Expo Line is currently under construction from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. The PUC has already signed off on 36 of 38 street crossings on the line, but two crossings still need approval -- one outside the Foshay Learning Center and the other outside Dorsey High School. Both are in South Los Angeles.

The gist of the issue is that the Expo Line Construction Authority, which is building the project, says  street-level crossings will be safe, while the Los Angeles Unified School District and some residents say the train will pose a danger to students. Here's a link to a recent Times story that looks at the dispute.

The reason that the PUC's decision is a big deal is that it will  determine how the line will be built at the two crossings. It  could uphold an earlier proposed decision by a PUC judge to build pedestrian bridges, or it  could allow the street crossings. It  could  also demand that the train be put in a trench at both sites or on bridges. The construction authority is saying anything besides street-level crossings will consume more time and money that it  currently doesn't have.

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[Bob Davis]

This controversy has been going on for months, if not years. One side says trains have been running in Southern California for nearly 150 years and most people have enough sense to stay off the tracks when a train is coming. The other side says we have to make the Expo Line safe for kids who sometimes do stupid things. I lived in Monrovia next to the Pacific Electric line, and don't recall being told to keep clear of the tracks, but my brother and I stayed off the right-of-way until the line was abandoned. And I don't recall any local kids being run over. Nowadays some people don't have a clue about teaching their children the elements of safety, and some neighborhood advocates want the rail system to be idiot proof.

[richard schumacher]

An enclosed pedestrian bridge would be needed to prevent vandals from dropping cinder blocks onto passing trains, but an enclosed bridge would quickly turn into a site for assaults and a toilet. Maybe the LAUSD and the Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association could hire Damien Goodmon to patrol and clean it.

[cph]

The Metro Blue Line runs past several schools. I see kids taking it all the time and have yet to hear of a kid getting killed, etc. just because he was screwing around on the tracks.

The vast majority of fatalities on that line are either
a. adults, in cars, trying to "beat the train" or
b. out-and-out suicides.

Even if the PUC says that there needs to be a bridge, then MTA can build one like the bridge near the Pueblo Del Rio projects (between Vernon and Slauson on the Blue Line). That handicapped-accessible bridge only took a few months to set up.

[alex]

Bob, the Expo Line runs across the center of Los Angeles crossing the busiest streets in the city. It is nothing like a railroad in Monrovia. It is very much like the Blue Line that is quickly approaching a hundred fatal accidents in its short life span. You might like to also read about the history of rail in this country. Before the twentieth century, lots of rail lines ran at grade through the heart of our big cities, but there were so many accidents the public became furious and politicians decided it was better to elevate them or build subways. Now at grade rail is back because it's cheap and stimulates real estate development. The advocates will tell you they have made safety improvements and that the accidents are all the fault of drivers and pedestrians. They said the same things more than a hundred years ago. The results from this real life experiment are already in. Lots of profits for real estate developers, absolutely no improvement in traffic, and lots of accidents.

[richard schumacher]

Could the MTA apply for funds to grade-separate these crossings under Obama's stimulus plan? It would satisfy the critics and avoid slowing the trains to 10 MPH at those streets.

[Greg]

The problem is that any major changes will require new environmental impact studies. That and other regulatory requirements will put the whole project on hold for 1-2 years assuming that funding is not an issue (when is it not?) The contractor is already laying people off due to self inflicted delays and because work can't proceed in some of these areas now that approval is in jeopardy.

It's not a new issue and these projects don't get built overnight. Everyone has had lots of time to deal with this. Bringing it up now it just puts people out of work. Transportation projects generate many well paying union jobs for people in the area.

If they want the bridges, the PUC should let the job proceed but have the overcrossings get approved and built separately. They can be built after the track is in service. Bridges get built and retrofitted over rail and freeways on a regular basis.

[Damien Goodmon]

Here's the Director of Construction Engineering admitting that MTA can build to Vermont and begin operations or build to Crenshaw and begin operations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnbTXhF4JpE

So while any additional environmental review is conducted, which by the way could have been completed by now if MTA acted when a change at Farmdale was original suggested by Supervisor Burke in April of 2007 or January of 2008 when a motion was discussed, the Expo Line can continue operations to a temporary termini. And keep in mind, the real destination of this train is Santa Monica, which wouldn't be open until 2015 at the earliest. So what's the rush?

Why allow an unsafe situation that puts hundreds of children's lives in peril, because of delay that has been caused by the MTA/Expo Authority?

And late? "Greg" the community has been expressing concerns go back to 1993 and your employer, MTA, has been ignoring them: http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2008/10/fact-community-has-been-expressing.html

[Damien Goodmon]

Why do people continue to make uninformed statements when they have loads of information literally at their fingertips?

For example, cph, did you put "blue line" "child" "killed" in the google search before you made your statement?

Robert, did you put "Pacific electric" "accident" in a newspaper archive search before you made your statement?

Both your statements are inaccurate and easily confirmable.

And thank you alex for your succinct and factual statement.

[jerome h. weymouth]

Damien Goodman is quick to publish evert accident involving Metro-trains, but what he fails to realize that the rail-roads and the metro's have an exclusive Right-a-way! and it means that the trains have the right-a-way all the time. What he fails to tell us is that the accident are involving people and atuos who have violated the rail-roads right-a-way!
When he shows an acident he never cites that the person/auto ran the lights and is not yeilding th the train. Therefore the persons/áutos are at fault and not the trains or Metrro.
He would not admit to the truth because he uses every accident/incident on his web-site to tell of the supposely horrors of trains hitting people and or auto!
But remenber the spin fellow readers he is good at using spin and stretching the truth and telling lies to furhter his own political adgenda

[Vlggrngrl]

I live in the Expo Line neighborhood and would greatly benefit (as would my neighbors) from the construction of the Expo Line. The small group that Mr. Goodman represents have done NOTHING to promote better public transportation in my neighborhood. We have absolutely lousy East/West bus service -- and nothing that takes a public transit rider directly to downtown. I don't see Mr. Goodman's group ever raising that as an issue. In fact some of my neighbors who are working with Mr. Goodman that I sincerely respect have made crazy statements to me like "no one goes downtown"... "I've never used public transportation in my life"..."what kind of people would this bring through the neighborhood" ... "I don't want to see any change in my neighborhood" and the ultimate "this won't be good for property values." They have seized upon the "protect the children" issue as an emotional touchstone, but how sincere an interest is that? Mr. Goodman's group is putting obstacles in the way of improving the lives of my community and not doing anything to support it. The world is crying out for the U.S. to take responsibility for carbon emissions; we badly need the Expo Line, including Phase 2.

[Damien Goodmon of Fix Expo]

Two Transportation Commission members, a former Congressional transportation deputy, and the most prominent South LA rail advocate all are proud and vocal supporters for adding grade separation to the Expo Line. They're part of that "small group" of 500 people who showed up at Dorsey HS 11/5/07, 300 people who showed up at Foshay 7/1/08, 18 homeowners associations/block clubs/community groups, UTLA, Dorsey HS Alumni Association, LAUSD Parent Collaborative and all 4 directly impacted South LA neighborhood councils from Figueroa to the Culver City border!

If that's a "small group," what exactly is a broad coalition?

In the 21st century, in the traffic capital of the country only the vocal minority opposes grade separation on this much need mass transit project. It eliminates the hazards of at-grade crossings, eliminates the adverse traffic impact, maintains community cohesion, and provides for the region an Expo Line that is faster, actually attracts more people out of their cars, and has the capacity for spur lines to serve more parts of the region.

Despite all the smearing, innuendo and attacks, Fix Expo is a request for additional investment being put in the Expo Line in South LA. Why is that so objectionable to some? I'm not sure how one can credibly argue the project is worth building, but not worth building right.

And speaking of carbon emissions, Expo's own EIR, with it's understated traffic impact shows that 2020 traffic is worse at every major intersection with the project in comparison to traffic without the project. And every intersection with grade separation is better with the project than it is without the project.

[AB]

The questions are being asked not because they feel that South LA shouldn't get anything but the questionable timing for such asks and the motives behind the groups asking them.

Given that most of the same groups from prior reports, didn't want the line period! End of story.

[Damien Goodmon of Fix Expo]

Sorry that is also inaccurate. From the late '80s to early 2000, in various capacities many of the current group leaders were requesting grade separation and expressing the same issues that every community along this line and every informed community along any light rail line expresses.

In 2002, an alternative proposal was presented to the MTA board by an early group "Concerned Citizens of the Exposition Corridor" that specifically referenced a trench as an appropriate mitigation measure to safety, noise and traffic impacts. It's in the meeting minutes.

At every turn the community has been ignored. What were they supposed to endorse a project that didn't mitigate their concerns and a process that ignored them completely?

Blaming citizens for inadequate projects isn't something most taxpayers believe. Just as most Angelinos don't buy that 2006 was the first time the community expressed concerns. Most Angelinos understand that bureaucracies, particularly large bureaucracies dealing with perceived weak communities have an established tendency to ignore them and proceed.

In response to the community concerns in the early '90s EIR, MTA proposed solutions to address community concerns through grade separated options of varying degrees. They were not followed through (they didn't get to Step #4 below). But the process, which led to consideration of alternatives is what should occur in every public project:
1) Role out baseline project for the community
2) Record the community concerns
3) Propose plans that address/mitigate community concerns
4) Role out those alternatives for the community and ask them which they'd endorse, find tolerable and/or can work with.

With the final EIR, which began in '01 step #3 was replaced with community concern "Ignore community and proceed" and there was no Step #4. Thus, here we are today.

I don't pay taxes for my government to treat my community or any other community in such a manner. Period.