Citing student safety, school board opposes Expo Line rail route

Citing safety concerns for students, the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District unanimously decided to oppose the design of the Expo Light Rail Line, which would pass at street level near Overland Avenue and Charnock Road elementary schools.

Board members said they would not support the Expo Line unless the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority could eliminate all the safety hazards of operating light-rail trains near schools. They also directed the district's superintendent to exhaust all legal options while trying to resolve the Expo Line's safety issues.

The board resolution relates to the second phase of the project, which would run from Culver City to Santa Monica. Phase 1 from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City has already generated considerable controversy about street-level crossings near schools. That segment is under construction.

The resolution notes that MTA's Blue Line from Long Beach to Los Angeles, which has street-level crossings, has become the nation's deadliest light-rail line. It also states that the Expo Line should not be built near the two schools because it could violate the district's 128-foot distance requirement for active rail lines.

-- Dan Weikel 

Comments

[KateNonymous]

What? Kids don't know enough to stay out of the way of trains? How coddled are they?

[WCH III]

This is another example of the mini-minds that run LAUSD. While the safety of children attending school is important, LA's transportation needs certainly trump a couple of schools. Move the schools if it's a problem. Don't oppose attempts to provide an infrastructure that will allow the city to continue to grow.

[RB]

What's wrong with the kids who go to school near the future expo line? Were they not taught to stay off of the tracks, pay attention to warning signs, look both ways before crossing the street. It's a shame we've dumbed down our future leaders.

[The Metro Local]

Believably short-sighted and understandably ignorant. Should we expect more from the LAUSD Board? Look no further than their own affairs; who needs their resolutions on public safety and public transit?

http://213etc.blogspot.com

[Darrell Clarke]

On the same day that "L.A. Unified OKs $1.6 billion in cuts over three years" they've re-emphasized their open checkbook to "exhaust all legal options" opposing the Expo Line's crossings.

And no such "128-foot distance requirement" apparently existed when LAUSD approved its new high school at 1st and Mission right next to the Eastside Gold Line.

[Jason Saunders]

I guess LAUSD made an exception when they built Utah St Elementary School at Mission and 1st and when they did the land swap at Indiana and Third both schools immediately adjacent to the new Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension.

But more importantly Charnock Road Elementary is near Venice and Sepulveda a few miles south from the current Expo alignment which takes it passed Overland Elementary but not Charnock. Someone needs to update their factsheet.

Link to Google Map showing location of school a few miles south of the right of way:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Charnock+Road+elementary&sll=34.029865,-118.384852&sspn=0.018139,0.038924&ie=UTF8&ll=34.023214,-118.426094&spn=0.03628,0.077848&t=h&z=14&iwloc=A

In regards to Overland the alignment comes out of a trench to the east of Overland. I know it's expensive but perhaps the trench can be extended under Overland.

[ImperfectMom]

Wow, there is such hostility towards the idea that kids should be safe going to and from school and actually be able to learn something while in school besides when the next Eastbound train is arriving at the station! Of course kids can learn not to cross tracks. We just dont want them to have to learn the hard way. And what about the drivers, frustrated at being caught at a train crossing who shoot through the other intersections where there are NO tracks? Simply elevating the crossing, or putting it underground, solves the problem. MTA has done so for USC and made arrangements for other private schools, why the feeling that public school kids do not deserve the same consideration?

[ImperfectMom]

My previous post (albeit not yet posted 3 hours after having been entered) neglected to note that the LAUSD motion referred solely to AT GRADE CROSSINGS near schools, meaning (for those of you who may not know) places where trains will cross moving traffic with the sole support of bells and possibly gates. It did not refer to active rail lines that did not affect or interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. So trains moving people to and fro in the vicinity of schools is not the bugaboo.....it is trains slowing down (sort of), blowing horns and whistles, stopping cars, etc. that is at issue. Does that make any of you eager to jump on a new light rail car feel any better about the LAUSD motion? And if not......care to help out with school crossings in your neighborhood?

[D. Blink]

That's funny. The Gold Line passes quite close to schools and hasn't hit a single kid yet. Its only accidents have been with cars trying to race it.

At the same time, there's a huge uproar over the police trying to get cars to stop for school buses like they're legally required to. Kids are hit by cars near their schools very frequently. And they like to pretend it's the train that's the problem?

[Mike C.]

My goodness!!
LAUSD has even less brains than I thought...
No wonder LAUSD is a disaster (and has been getting worse...)
Why don't they oppose Cars, as well? Why is LAUSD neglecting the fact that the number of CAR accidents, and related deaths, is considerably higher than the number of RAIL accidents! If they are truly talking about safety, then they should prevent any Roads and Cars near their schools!
LAUSD, you are truly dumb! Shame on you, bonehead board members!

[eyewitnesstrue]

My kids go to Overland School. We cross Overland Avenue every day. You should see the cards speeding, running the red lights now.
If you think it's coddling kids to ask the MTA to design something right-and safe for everyone, I would like to have you witness the number of near misses of pedestrians by cars NOW. Any open minded person would have to see that this intersection of Overland /Expo is so close to the Ashby intersection, that the "spillback queue factor, kids and other people crossing is a recipe for accidents. Unfortunately it is not what the kids would do that is so dangerous, but what the adults in cars would do that makes it a necessary grade separated crossing. Jason Saunders wonders why LAUSD mentioned Charnock Elementary, this is the school that would be directly affected if MTA chose the Venice Sepulveda route.

[Dan W.]

Utter nonsense.

The School District is powerless over increasing class sizes and teacher layoffs, and in order to look like they are doing something constructive.

If it is THAT much of a problem, then move the school to another location, which would probably be cheaper than grad separating the Expo Line.

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

"On the same day that "L.A. Unified OKs $1.6 billion in cuts over three years" they've re-emphasized their open checkbook to "exhaust all legal options" opposing the Expo Line's crossings. And no such "128-foot distance requirement" apparently existed when LAUSD approved its new high school at 1st and Mission right next to the Eastside Gold Line." - Darrell Clarke.

Darrel is absolutely right. This is just grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding.

[Mike]

I can smell a little bit of NIMBYism from the Cheviot Hills in-play again.

Also, Charnock school is clearly beyond the 128-foot radius to the Exposition Right-of-Way. These LAUSD guys are truly incompetent geographically. No wonder everyone think so lowly of you guys.

[Spokker]

If noise is such a concern exhaust all resources sound proofing the classrooms that are nearest the tracks instead of suing people and impeding progress. Of course, electric light rail trains are not as loud as traditional heavy trains so I don't know what people are complaining about.

A train is going to make it harder for kids to learn. They aren't learning anything now.

[jenny]

I am an Overland parent who crosses Overland with two young children every day (and NO, I don't live in Cheviot). The LAUSD should be applauded for trying to protect children at what is already an extremely busy and dangerous intersection. It doesn't matter how much children are educated about light rail crossings, if you think you can prevent a five, six or seven year old from impulsively ducking under a crossing barrier, you are sadly mistaken. The point is that trains, cars and children all converging on one intersection is a very dangerous combination. Thank you to the LAUSD board for doing its duty to protect children going to its schools.

[Bob]

How many teaching jobs could be saved vs. the high legal cost?

How many kids are getting cancer from being the #1 capital for cancer cases per 100,000? Would not an electric railway reduce this number by reducing air pollution?

How many board members know anything about education? They run on NIMBYism and not for better education for our kids.

Is LAUSD willing to pay any part of the extra cost to grade separation Expo?

Not even looking at all the car accidents that kill and injure kids around schools, should the board be more concerned about education and the safety of the kids while at school so they can learn and not be afraid of gang members?

Should we make our older classrooms less depressing and more comfortable for our kids to learn better?

There are many more critical and important problems that must be addressed than for the board to listen to a "Professor Harold Hill" on his soapbox stating "Ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble right here in..."

[ImperfectMom]

Boys, girls, please no name calling!

First, Charnock School would be 50' away from a previously considered route running north/south on Sepulveda, which is why it is mentioned at all.

Second, LAUSD lawyers are paid and on staff no matter what cases they handle, so "exhausting all legal options" does not translate into siphoning off educational dollars in a Quixotic quest to elevate or submerge the rail line.

Third, MTA has acquiesced to grade seperation for Culver City and Santa Monica...why is it that our own politicians do not advocate as vigorously for LA residents as the other municipalities do?

Fourth, please remember that the issue is not a train passing by a school, but rather a train crossing a major street (Overland) within 75 feet of multiple pedestrian/school crossings.

Fifth, you can ridicule LAUSD Board members all you want, but that is hardly an effective argument for your position, if you have one, on train crossings. The children of Los Angeles would be much better served if you brought constructive ideas forward to change whatever you think is making LAUSD "a disaster". Armchair loose talk criticism is of no help to anyone. Probably not even your blood pressure.

[Interurbans]

No wonder the LA City schools are in such bad shape with leadership like this. Is this where their efforts should be spent? The MTA is still in the design stage and has not decided where the grade crossings will be on the Expo Line Phase II. Has the LA City Schools board decided that crossings at Overland are “not acceptable” but crossings where students cross LRT lines on the Blue and Gold Lines are OK? Not to mention that LRT lines have safe crossings close to schools and parks in Los Angeles, across the state, country and around the world. Why is there such a problem with student safety only at cretin crossings in only Los Angeles which are no different than LRT crossings elseware?

The Blue Line in Los Angeles may have the highest fatalities in the US, but it is a unique line with a transcontinental fright railway with very long slow trains in the same right of way. The deaths were mainly of people trying to bat the train. The Blue Line is also the busiest LRT line in the country with above 80,000 daily riders who are now not driving.

[Bob]

ImperfectMom,

Please note, light rail is not heavy rail.

Now for the overpaid legal staff, would it be better for LAUSD to fire a couple of lawyers to keep a half dozen teachers?

[Space Kimchi]

More kids are killed or are suffering from asthma from
ground level pollution generated by cars than will ever be hit by all the light rail lines running by all the elementary schools in Los Angeles. Why we accept the horribly dangerous and filthy system of using personal vehicles as a primary mode of transportation then get up in arms about the 0.000000001% casualty rate of mass transit will forever be beyond me.

I mean to be fair, I'm for trying to make sure the crossings are safe, and even as a rider I appreciate grade crossings because they allow the trains to operate at higher speeds and be even safer. The rampant NIMBYism drives me insane though as the entire LA transit system reeks of it, as does my daily commute.

[ImperfectMom]

Yes, Bob, I know the difference between light rail and heavy rail. Heavy rail is what USED to run, into the early 80's, on the existing track. And I only hesitate to advocate laying of lawyers and hiring teachers because that would mean LAUSD would require outside counsel even more expensive than in house, as there must always be lawyers! I would perhaps counter with Metro releasing some of their p.r. and planning staff and putting that money toward grade separation. Which, by the way, Space Kimchi, would also help alleviate the idling fumes that will result from vehicular traffic being stopped on Overland Avenue every 5 minutes or so for a train crossing. I absolutely agree that ground level pollution is a serious concern, especially for little kids who are closer to the emissions source.

Many of you seem to mistake advocacy for grade separation as advocacy against the line entirely. That is knee-jerk thinking, and hurling charges of NIMBY-ism at anyone who expresses concerns is lazy especially since these concerns have been properly addressed elsewhere along the line . Again...why are citizens and schools in other municipalities receiving greater consideration than those of us in Los Angeles proper? Do you all really believe our kids deserve less?

[TN]

I applaud LAUSD for doing their jobs well and taking the safety and environment of school children into priority. Keep it up!

[Hat]

So a few people who can't be bothered to look both ways while crossing the rails get run over? Who cares? Should we abolish cars, too, because of a few hit and runs?

The Blue Line is only deadly because drivers ignored crossing gates. Same thing happens when they ignore red stoplights. Again, who cares? The rest of us will be safer with fewer careless people around.

[Darrell Clarke]

A few corrections, ImperfectMom:

"Second, LAUSD lawyers are paid and on staff no matter what cases they handle...."

No, LAUSD has been using outside counsel Strumwasser & Woocher LLP before the California Public Utilities Commission on Expo Line phase 1 crossings.

"Third, MTA has acquiesced to grade seperation for Culver City and Santa Monica."

Just the opposite. The City of Santa Monica requested at-grade along Colorado into downtown instead of aerial along Olympic as proposed by the Expo Authority (not MTA). The Expo board then adopted at-grade as the preferred alignment in March.

"...vehicular traffic being stopped on Overland Avenue every 5 minutes or so for a train crossing."

Vehicular traffic on Overland Avenue stops every 90 seconds at red lights today. Although traffic volume on Overland may yet result in a rail bridge over it.

[the dude abides]

Should we put barriers from street crossings around all the schools too so they don't get hit by cars. I am sure there are far more car/pedestrian accidents that happen than rail/pedestrian accidents, but no one complains. NIMBYism and arrogant car drivers who have never taken a train complain.

[Damien Goodmon]

It looks like the regular at-grade advocacy crowd has emailed the link to this article and posted accordingly. Allow me to inject my responses:

----------
"Should we put barriers from street crossings around all the schools too so they don't get hit by cars."
----------

If by simply spending 30-40% more on roadway CAPITAL cost we could eliminate 100% of all vehicular accidents and 99% of all pedestrian accidents, who among us would be opposed to the investment? That alone makes grade separation a no-brainer. But when one considers that in addition to the safer operation with grade separation comes faster rail service, improved traffic circulation, enhanced communities, reduced long-term transit operating cost, reduced vehicle emissions/air pollution, etc. the more illogical the at-grade solution appears.

The reality is the argument for at-grade rail crossings, especially in the traffic capital of the country, especially near schools is terribly weak. It was weak in 1934, and it is even weaker today 75 years later. The name calling is simply an attempt to mask the inferiority of at-grade rail crossings on this line.

Incidentally, among the LAUSD's many bases for their resolution, is a City Council motion put forth by Council Member Bill Rosendahl (yea he's real anti-rail) and a letter by LADOT. Rosendahl calls for grade separation all throughout West LA, for safety and traffic, and LADOT calls for it for the same reason. Hopefully for the sake of traffic, pollution, the community, better transit operations, and most importantly, for the sake of children and their learning environments, these entities can work together to make MTA do what they have constantly proven they're incapable: building good and safe transit.

---------
On the same day that "L.A. Unified OKs $1.6 billion in cuts over three years" they've re-emphasized their open checkbook to "exhaust all legal options" opposing the Expo Line's crossings.
---------

We can see from the design of the their rail system, MTA believes in being penny wise and pound foolish. Thankfully, the LAUSD does not. They've made the wise decision to, if necessary, spend the resources up front to avoid paying millions in legal liability, millions in school retrofits, and hundreds of millions in lost instruction time over the 100 years of the project. If more government entities and legislatures were as forward thinking as the District, we wouldn't be facing massive budget cuts/layoffs.

---------
And no such "128-foot distance requirement" apparently existed when LAUSD approved its new high school at 1st and Mission right next to the Eastside Gold Line.
---------

Thankfully, LAUSD has learned from past mistakes. Indeed, given Supervisor (and MTA Director) Gloria Molina's statements and the LA Times recent reports about Eastside Extension crossings concerns, it's clear that if the project were being planned today (as opposed to 7 years ago) it very likely would have generated significant opposition. Then again maybe just like Expo in South LA, there was significant opposition to street-level crossings when the Eastside extension was being planned, but it went unreported and was ignored.

It's quite literally tragic, that after operating the deadliest light rail line in the country (the Blue Line, a single line that has killed more than 3 times as many people as the second deadliest light rail SYSTEM in the country) that MTA is repeating the same design on a corridor with more traffic, more people and right next to schools. And by the way, why hasn't MTA gone back and added grade separations to the deadliest rail line in the country? With this track record (pun intended) I'd be concerned about the fitness of a parent of an Overland student, who is NOT concerned.

------------
Kids are hit by cars near their schools very frequently. And they like to pretend it's the train that's the problem?
------------

I'm trying to understand the logic of your argument.

First, on what basis are you stating that people or the LAUSD aren't concerned about cars that hit kids?

Second, how far did you have to leap intellectually to determine that one concerned about a train hitting a kid is not concerned about a car hitting a kid? Show me the rule book that says "Concerns for child crossing safety must be limited to either cars or trains, but not both."

The bottom line is, as all at-grade advocates know, we can't feasibly eliminate all vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-person interactions in a city with over 2 million cars and 4 million people, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of intersections. We only make that investment when building high speed high capacity travel lanes (they're called freeways), where traffic speeds are posted at 55 mph. You know...just like Expo is proposed at Overland.

Furthermore, arguing that because millions of car intersections can't be/aren't grade separated, a single 26-foot wide rail line with a few dozen train crossings shouldn't be grade separated is like justifying not giving a homeless family on the corner a dollar for dinner, because we can't cure world hunger.

Finally, it completely ignores what has long been settled: at 225-tons and lacking steering wheels or Michellins to stop on a dime, trains are the heaviest and most dangerous vehicles on the road.

--------
If it is THAT much of a problem, then move the school to another location, which would probably be cheaper than grad separating the Expo Line.
--------

Hmmm...that's interesting logic. Aside from the required eminent domain and other adverse impacts of what you suggest, comes the terribly weak logics of requesting an existing school move to accommodate a new problematic rail crossing.

What you have in essence stated is that Johnny Model-Citizen:
-After living in his home for 50 years, and by all standards being the town's poster child
-A serial convict should be allowed to move into the home next door without being invited (i.e., increased safety risk to the community)
-Blast their music all day and night (i.e., gates and bells and wall vibrations)
-Habitually double park on the street (worsening traffic circulation) cutting off traffic 40% during rush hour
-And if they don't like it, people should move.

I just have one question: do you think the new, uninvited, loud, double-parking, felon neighbor should at least pay for the Johnny Model-Citizen's moving cost or are they supposed bare that cost as well?

------
The Blue Line in Los Angeles may have the highest fatalities in the US, but it is a unique line with a transcontinental fright railway with very long slow trains in the same right of way.
------

These are the type of inaccurate statements that have been refuted repeatedly, yet the same people continue making the statements in forums like these. First, several far less deadly rail lines operate parallel to freight lines as well. Furthermore, I continually find it interesting that those who profess to know why the Blue Line is so deadly, refuse to acknowledge even MTA's own document titled, "What Makes the Blue Line Different?" which states why the Blue Line is so much deadlier than the rest. The parallel freight line is mentioned as one of four factors and not even the primary one, and not for the reason stated by those who claim it is the cause. The primary reasons, as stated in MTA's own document are lots of people, lots of traffic around the crossing, and little margin for error. It collectively creates an environment unfit for at-grade crossings. Same here with Expo, for many of the same reasons, and then even more. Additionally, the portion of the Blue Line that has recently seen an increase in fatalities, and always been home to the overwhelming majority of accidents is the portion that DOES NOT run next to the freight line.

------
How many teaching jobs could be saved vs. the high legal cost?
------

Better question: how many millions of teaching hours will it take to compensate for the disruption from the train crossing over the next 100 years?

------
How many kids are getting cancer from being the #1 capital for cancer cases per 100,000?
------

At-grade crossings = worsened traffic. Worsened traffic = more vehicle emissions. We're talking tens of thousands of MORE idling engines every day.

Now you know, that LA is #1 in cancer rates. Was not the primary cause vehicle emissions?

-----
Would not an electric railway reduce this number by reducing air pollution?
-----

See above. Furthermore, the large majority of Expo's proposed ridership is from bus users who are currently on low-emissions (CNG) buses. These buses can conceivably become powered by sources as clean or cleaner than the proposed Expo Line, and unlike Expo would not cause the adverse vehicle emissions from a worsened traffic impact. Why aren't more of the riders from cars, you may wonder: the line is not fast enough to compensate for the typical impediments of public transit. Why isn't it fast enough: there aren't enough grade separations.

There is no argument for a "Green Expo" that includes an "at-grade Expo."

------
Not even looking at all the car accidents that kill and injure kids around schools, should the board be more concerned about education and the safety of the kids while at school so they can learn and not be afraid of gang members?
-----

Looks to me like, of all the government entities in the room, the LAUSD is the only one concerned about educating the kids. Aside from the noise and vibration concerns stated in the resolution, it's pretty hard to teach a kid that's six feet under.

[Ken Alpern]

I concur with Darrell that Overland may have enough traffic to warrant grade separation. Centinela also has enough traffic so that the Authority has concluded that grade separation is a must.

As for Overland and Charnock schools, greater protection from cars is also needed. Frankly, a rail bridge with an accompanying pedestrian walkway could help students with respect to protection from these cars as well.

Overland is a wide street with a lotta traffic!

[Damon]

From the descriptions I'm hearing from everyone, the current intersections with cars are at least as dangerous as a light rail crossing would be.

Seems to me that if you really are only concerned about safety, the logical choice is a pedestrian crossing over the Expo line AND street, and make the school district chip in for it.

[ImperfectMom]

I am surprised to see the animated repartee continues almost a full week after the School District Board's vote to support education and safety over transit construction. I hope you all are spending at least as much time voicing your concerns and priorities to your elected officials as you are to a LATimes blogpost.

Thank you Darrell, for correcting my apparent mistake with regard to LAUSD attorneys. I gather, given the severity of the issue, that outside specialized counsel must have been deemed necessary to counter the millions of dollars Metro has allocated to advance work on this project. It is my hope that both agencies could make an effort to minimize such expenditures in favor of doing what they are actually tasked to do: educate and keep kids safe, and operate transit options that benefit individuals and the community. That is why I advocate so heartily for communication, dialogue and compromise. Too bad MTA opted to never fully engage Overland School staff or stakeholders prior to issuing their DEIR. Check the contact list.

On the other hand, I think you are being a bit selective in your 'proof' that MTA has not acquiesced to grade separation issues with regard to other municipalities. Ah, well, we all take from the smorgasbord of conflicting data what we like best.

Your point about traffic already being stopped every 90 seconds begs the point: there are no plans to do away with the traffic signal to which you refer. There has been no pledge to synchronize that traffic signal with passing trains to avoid spill over from stopped red lights onto train tracks,which happens routinely now, so......are you really claiming that stopping traffic MORE FREQUENTLY than is now the case should not be addressed satisfactorily prior to operation? I cannot believe that is the position of someone who has clearly spent alot of time learning some of the issues surrounding Expo Phase II.

As for the prevailing argument that since vehicular traffic is already a concern at Overland and Ashby/Expo so an additional danger need not be considered as an additional problem.....would you similarly say that since you already are taxed, doubling that tax is insignificant? Or that if one is 25 pounds overweight, you may as well be 50 pounds too heavy? Or that if you smoke one pack of cigarettes a day, go for two packs because it makes no difference?

Finally, to those who say let LAUSD pay, or share in any additional expense......just exactly where do you think the money to fund LAUSD comes from? Unless you are suggesting that Metro's expenses be mitigated by sentencing kids to track work in lieu of detention, all the money for both agencies starts with you. In case you have not heard, Sacramento is slashing school budgets. Have any of you suggested that private schools reimburse the District for the educational diagnostic work routinely done at neighborhood public schools regardless of whether or not a child attends that school? Do school sites get reimbursed for their emergency preparedness drills, equipment and supplies even those relate strictly to public safety rather than education? When was the last time anyone sent a bill to an insurance company for the routine vaccinations, etc. that are performed by LAUSD health clinics to comply with state mandates?

MTA forewent federal money in exchange for being free from certain environmental requirements. A couple hours after this posting, sales tax will rise in LA because the majority voted to pay for mass transit improvements ourselves rather than comply with federal regulations that MIGHT have made the extension of Expo eligible for federal funds. Of course, those monies come from us as well.

My core suspicion about those who snicker at and dismiss the issue of safety for school children seems validated: you actually do not believe public school children in Los Angeles are worth a dime...or the time it would take you to think the matter through and perhaps even (gasp!) support local schools.

[Ken Alpern]

Let's not let passion get in the way of common sense, folks. The concerns about cars and trains at Overland shouldn't let anyone conclude that folks don't care about kids and their safety. My son and his friends all go to Overland, so I would never minimize their safety...or the traffic that is huge on Overland already.

Is it too much to ask for a rail bridge at Overland (which the LADOT will probably demand), and have the pedestrian bridge be built alongside the train bridge (with separation, of course) as a way to create a traffic/safety/betterment for the whole region?

In this way, the advent of the Expo Line can actually make things better for Overland pedestrians (including the children) than things are already.

There's gonna be a whole lotta capital investment with the advent of the Expo Line, and there are some LAUSD bond dollars that can ONLY be built for new projects and infrastructure. Let's not let childish namecalling get in the way of a first-rate opportunity to make things better for all parties concerned.

[Darrell Clarke]

Good conversation, ImperfectMom.

Regarding, "There has been no pledge to synchronize that traffic signal with passing trains to avoid spill over from stopped red lights onto train tracks", I recall discussion in Expo presentations that adjacent signals would be synchronized to the crossing gates. Especially, cars cannot be allowed to queue across the tracks. Although as Ken and I have both noted, Overland may likely end up with a rail bridge for traffic reasons.

Second, "MTA forewent federal money in exchange for being free from certain environmental requirements" is a myth. Expo Line phase 1 fulfilled all federal environmental requirements to complete its Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2005-6. The Expo Authority has made clear that phase 2 to Santa Monica will meet the same standards.

[Ken Alpern]

I've had my agreements and disagreements with Metro and the Construction Authority over the Expo Line (although I, overall, entirely favor it...mainly because I recognize that the I-10 freeway is a huge, huge problem that's sundered different portions of the county from each other!).

However, I think we all need to get over any misconceptions of why we're doing this outside of the federal funding process. Our past presidential administration would let only one transit project occur at a time per county, for the most part. We wouldn't even begin to see Expo being built until the Eastside LRT project was completed, by that logic.

So we moved things along 2-3 years ahead of schedule, and will focus on federal funding towards the myriads of other projects, such as the Crenshaw Corridor Project that will link the Green and Expo Lines to each other and to LAX, as well as the Downtown Light Rail Connector, and perhaps also for the Wilshire subway.

No conspiracies, no shirking of environmental process...just another case of the County of L.A. having to save itself with respect to transportation while the feds and the state dicker around with other priorities while ignoring transportation.

In the same fashion, Metro has taken the lead on the last leg of the I-405 widening project while Sacramento (which normally should have led this project vis-a-vis Caltrans) goes through its financial gotterdammerung.

[DJB]

I'm all for grade separated transit. However, until the voters get less cheap and/or more people start riding transit, the money isn't there to fully separate the Expo Line from other traffic.

Does the Expo Line pose an unacceptable safety risk to students? No. If students follow the same rules that keep them safe crossing ANY STREET, rules, which, by the way, are critical for all children to learn, they will not be in any additional danger from trains.

If you want to protect children that much, I say prohibit trains AND CARS from going anywhere near an elementary school.

Oh wait, I don't hear a lot of people clamoring for that.

[Damien Goodmon]

Ken Alpern is wrong on several counts.

First several municipalities are receiving federal funding for more than one project. Federal funding is different than federal New Starts funding, which is a specific pot of money. And even in the case of federal New Starts funding, NYC is receiving it for more than one project, both of which were approved under the previous administration.

The real reason that MTA has difficulty receiving federal funding for Expo is because the project could not show that it would lead to a ridership projections or demographics MTA claimed. This is not speculation, it's stated quite clearly in a letter from the administrator of the FTA.

Regarding local dollars, Ken Alpern has completely neglected that the state passed Prop 1B ($4-6 billion for mass transit available today) and the county passed Measure R ($18 billion over next 30 years for fixed guideway projects). These resources along with several others could fund grade separations, just as stimuluss funds could fund grade separations. But the MTA doesn't want to spend the money. Only way they will is if entities like the LAUSD and community groups force them to.

Citizens need not make excuses for MTA's incompetence, but rather demand they do, which they inexplicably will not.

[Ken Alpern]

I think that Damien brings up a lot of very good points, although my conclusions remain the same. There ARE multiple projects approved for other states and cities, but we just went through an administration in Washington that was as anti-California as they came, and anti-city as well, and there was no way we could ever get anything more than the Eastside LRT from Washington so long as George Bush was President (he hated mass transit with a passion for economic and political reasons, and wasn't much into spending on roads and mass transit in general).

Sacramento is too beholden to interests outside the business/transportation world to spend much on roads, infrastructure, rail transit or anything else the public wants without getting those other interests their CUT first. Hence our current budget crisis. Furthermore, once we passed Proposition 1B, the backfilling began and Sacramento ripped away previously-allotted Expo money and then threw the same amount of money to Expo from Prop. 1B--effectively eliminating the gains we should have had from 1B!

Still, Metro has for years (as Damien implies) never lost an opportunity to lose an opportunity, and their ability to get through the paperwork to please the feds in a timely fashion has not borne fruit as we've seen with other cities.

The big exception, and perhaps the reason I conclude that it's not simply "Metro's fault" but rather a political problem is the money we got from the Bush Administration for the improvements to the El Monte and Harbor Busways. We got THAT money because we had the political will--and the Bush Administration had the political interest--to get the FTA to sign off quickly for something the politicians wanted.

Right now, Metro is getting their EIR's moving forward for several projects, and we've got an administration that's ready to help California out--whether Metro did or still does screw up is a good argument, and I don't think anyone should let Metro off the hook, but methinks that the ultimate way we can have our local investments (Prop. R) pay off is to have cooperation in Washington and Sacramento.

Right now, I see cooperation with Washington; Sacramento is the ultimate problem that needs lots of cleaning up.