Light rail update

The Expo Phase 2 Scoping Comments were published recently on the buildexpo.org website. The CHHOA has been withholding the announcement of that news because there were so many deletions and errors on the part of Expo which we felt prejudiced the interpretation of the comments as a whole. At first the "mailed comments" were not available for several days after the initial publication. After we brought it to Expo's attention it was corrected within 48 hours. Once those were online I found the CHHOA comments, but any reference to Cheviot Hills or our HOA, and the signatures of both me and Kevin Hughes were blacked out. The comments from 4 other HOAs, Friends 4 Expo (3 times), The Transit Coalition, and Neighbors For Smart Rail were intact so we felt it was essential that Expo make this important correction as well. It took them until Friday, May 25 to get the corrected version of our comments back online.

So, everyone please take a look. We are so proud of how many people in the corridor took the time to compose thoughtful comments and are amazed at the number of transit "students" there are out there who went much further and put in tremendous research and thought into their comments.

Statistically speaking many interesting trends can be teased out of the raw data provided in the responses and we will be working in the next few weeks to compile a working matrix of responses. First, however, take the time to scroll through the comments and see if you can spot your own. It goes pretty quickly once you get the hang of it. We already know that many entries have been left out.

There is no separate compilation of faxed submissions. I don't know if those will be added later or if some of them have been sprinkled throughout. I'm checking on it. In the meantime see if you can find your comments. If they were mailed (the ones given to me from the Vista Del Mar scoping meeting were hand delivered so look in mailed. I also kept copies). If your comments were e-mailed scroll through those. We want to make sure that all of our neighborhood comments are included. Let me know if you if don't find yours.

It is interesting to note that the most often selected route throughout the corridor was the Venice-to-the-Sea route, if a route was chosen. If you add the Venice/Sepulveda alignment it would be a landslide. At the Vista Del Mar scoping meeting for instance there were 59 people who actually stated their preference for using the ROW, 157 for using Venice or Venice/ Sepulveda. That only includes people who expressed an actual preference. Many only asked questions or said yes they want it, or no they don't. Unfortunately it is not an election so what we have is a mandate that we are hoping will be fairly evaluated by the EIR based on sound transit planning, not on the boutique interests of a single destination city.

Speaking of which, even in the Santa Monica scoping meeting where WLA had virtually no presence, the Venice-to-the-Sea route had a big following among those who bothered to select a route. Many didn't choose a route but 15 chose the Venice route compared to 45 who chose the ROW specifically. Considering that the Venice-to-the-Sea route was not one of the options offered that's a pretty good showing. Preferences for Culver Boulevard, the I-10 Freeway and the Wilshire Subway added more weight against the ROW. There were some who simply said light rail in residential neighborhoods was stupid. Some said "do it, but do it right and fully mitigate". Those against the ROW were funnier ("Why don't you run one through Beverly Hills while you're at it!"). There were many bitter attacks against the Cheviot Hills community but most of the ROW supporters favored mitigation for the route.

The best news, perhaps, is that we have succeeded in drawing attention to the North-South traffic issues. Many ROW supporters acknowledged gridlock and negative effects on Overland School as concerns. Those were, predictably, mostly from the our local scoping meeting. It is important to keep in mind that there are many places where neighborhood concerns overlap even if they come from different sides of an issue.

So, take a look! Under agency comments ("D") you can read what City Councilmen Jack Weiss and Bill Rosendahl have to contribute. If you really want to get into the minutiae, look at the bottom of page 8 of the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) scoping comment and read Regional Growth Principle 2 calling on decision makers to "Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods." !!!