Blue Line Authorithy requests Av 45 closure.
- A truck was blocking the Av 43 110 onramp South during rush hour this
morning. It reminded me of MWA lawyer Larry Hoffmans concern that
closure of Avenue 45 is a possible outcome of "winning" the PUC grade
crossing protest. Would the closure of Avenue 45 constitute a public
saftey hazard with respect to emergency services access or would it
be merely an inconvenence to those living on the hill? Has this issue
been addressed before? It seems to me the South Pasadena grade
crossing problems are being resolved through street closures.
- You must be kidding! Did you every try to get down from the hill to
find Marmion Way backed up from Figueroa? What about emergency
vehicles access? It would only be via Marmion Way!
If Ave 45 is closed, EVERYONE would have to go around either to
Figueroa or up to Ave 50. Talk about traffic. Closing Ave 45 is not
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Mendel" <commonground@...>
Ave 45 closure is potentially a great idea - might solve way more
than it would create.
- Can't believe closure of the neighborhoods access to the market, gas
station, cleaners, and freeway is a good solution. Maybe it is better than
what is being built but certainly not a satisfactory solution.
MWA Public Safety
From: Robert Mendel <commonground@...>
>Ave 45 closure is potentially a great idea - might solve way more problems
>than it would create.
- I agree!!! Closure of Ave. 45 is a BAD idea. Bad in case of emergencies,
bad for traffic congestion and bad for businesses and their patrons close to Ave.45. There's got to be a better solution!
- I must weigh in on this one. DO NOT CLOSE AVE. 45. It is a main artery and access route, especially for those of us living on that side of the hill. Its closure would most likely change shopping habits and usage of the services on Figueroa, not to mention safety and security issues.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Mendel"Ave 45 closure is potentially a great idea - might solve way more problems than it would create.
- People--wake up. The threat of closing Ave. 45 has been rumored as an argument against pushing for below grade...ie, if we make too much trouble, the powers that be could just close Ave. 45, ergo, don't make trouble. Others have suggested it as a plausible solution, though clearly implausible to many.
As of now, it's on no one's blueprint, so those who oppose a closure can relax. Let's take this energy, though, and put it to some use...ie, supporting the Mt. Washington Association's push for below grade.
- --- In nelalist@y..., "Judith Dancoff" <dancova@c...> wrote:
> People--wake up. The threat of closing Ave. 45 has beenrumored as an argument against pushing for below grade...ie, if
we make too much trouble, the powers that be could just close
Ave. 45, ergo, don't make trouble. Others have suggested it as a
plausible solution, though clearly implausible to many.
I don't know of any legislators, lawyers, architects, designers, or
engineers working on a below grade solution for Mt Washington
If the grade crossing protests are upheled, the Blue Line
Construction Authority may not want to rebuild the alignment
below ground and I don't think the CPUC protests dictate that
they should. The Construction Authority will likely work hard to
make as few changes to the present design as possible. They
have their budget to consider. For the Construction Authority, the
option to close Av 45 is attractive because it makes the train safe
and it's not an expensive redesign/rebuild.
- I do want to respond, though, to the fear of an Avenue 45 closure. While
it's true that if our PUC protest is upheld a solution may be instituted
which we do not want, we need to ask ourselves how likely this is, given our
past success with pushing for below grade crossings. I wonder how many in
the community know, for example, that the fact that French Ave is below
grade is a direct result of the actions of the Mt. Washington Association in
the early 1990s. If the community could act together then, why not now? We
need to fight for what we want, and not get sidetracked by those who spread
rumors and fears.
Show up Nov. 5th for the PUC hearings, and in the meantime write letters to
the PUC, letting them know that you support a below grade crossing. You can
also include in your letter the fact that you would not support a closure of
Ave. 45, if this is your opinion.
Address your letters to:
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
Attn: Hon. Sheldon Rosenthal
Re: CPUS Case No. 00-10-012
Attend the public hearing
Novemember 5 at:
State Office Building
320 W. 4th Street, Room 500
Los Angeles, CA
(This location may change)