|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 30, 2008 8:39:30 GMT -8
The problem then, as it remains today, is that at most of the crossings the Boards refuse to recognize the problem. Should say: "the Boards (sic) refuse to agree with DG." Clearly, there is a need for grade separation in Culver City, due to the high volume of traffic throughout the day. There is no need for grade separation at the Farmdale crossing, because traffic (car and pedestrian) is much lower. To compare the two crossings is specious and intellectually dishonest. Racist rhetoric has been injected into this debate - not by the Board, but by neighborhood activists led by Damien Goodmon. As a person of color myself, I am angered that a simple disagreement over public policy has been turned by these activists into a platform for a divisive racist ideology. What would cause someone to assert that the multi-racial MTA Board value brown people less than white people? I can only guess that someone fancies himself a mind reader who can detect racial motives among people in power. There is a simple reason why Farmdale will not be grade-separated: it is not justified. The criteria for grade separation is public and standardized. The criteria are based on an analysis of cost vs. benefit. There is no conspiracy against brown schoolchildren.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 30, 2008 8:41:58 GMT -8
The lily white remark struck me as odd as well, although it wasn't in quotes so I was assuming that was the writers editorial and not Damien's.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 30, 2008 9:21:16 GMT -8
Exactly right bluelineshawn. I never made the "lily white" remark, and I never would. I just sent out the release. And as I say to everyone MetroCenter, I'm not the type of person that likes to use the "R" word. But there's a pretty clear definition of "environmental racism" and this project meets it to a tee. Call it what it is. I suggest folk that have qualms with the R-word being used regarding this project first find out the definitions of "environmental justice" and "environmental racism," the reason why environmental justice laws were created, and explain why the design of Expo Phase 1 does not violate the laws. I've said this in the past, and few have actually engaged in the converstion. My guess is that they don't even want to begin that conversation because the possibility of uncovering an uncomfortable conclusion. That's perfectly understandable given the seriousness of the issue. But it shouldn't be used to invalidate the argument. Here's our argument (Facts #2-4). We make no secret about it. And by the way, I have never called Board members racist. I make it a point to not call them racists! I just know the discrepancy in the environmental impacts and funding allocation. Our argument is that the design of this project violates environmental justice laws. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 30, 2008 9:35:20 GMT -8
The quoted text refers to "lily-white USC". Let's examine the claim that USC is lily white.
(1) The claim is attributable. That remark is from a press release put out by FixExpo.org. Damien Goodmon is the press contact.
(2) The claim is false. In the previous school year (2006-2007), undergraduate enrollment was 47% white, and graduate enrollment was 32% white.
(3) The purpose of the claim is to exploit neighborhood fears of racial injustice. This is clear from the claim's context: a comparison of the merits of a trench near "lily-white USC" to the grade crossing in mostly black/brown Dorsey High.
An argument with sufficient merits does not resort to ignorant racist claims.
As pointed out below, the term "lily-white" was used by Neal Broverman on la.curbed.com, not by FixExpo.org. Therefore, I retract the above analysis.
jejozwik, in the future, if you quote a blog, please attribute it. And if you quote a blog that in turn quotes a press release, please make it clear who is saying what.
For my part, I will double-check the source of quotes before I make claims about them.
|
|
|
Post by rayinla on Apr 30, 2008 9:45:25 GMT -8
Damien is not the one who threw the "lily white" comment out there. If you look at the original source of the post, la.curbed.com that was an editorial comment made by Neal Broverman.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 30, 2008 11:28:55 GMT -8
I suggest folk that have qualms with the R-word being used regarding this project first find out the definitions of "environmental justice" and "environmental racism," the reason why environmental justice laws were created, and explain why the design of Expo Phase 1 does not violate the laws. Condescension wins no arguments. I will give you respect and assume that you are educated, if you will assume that I am. I've said this in the past, and few have actually engaged in the converstion. I have. And by the way, I have never called Board members racist. I make it a point to not call them racists! I never claimed you did. Actually, I called your rhetoric racist, or to be more precise, racially inflammatory. I have read your argument. Your argument is that MTA is treating this neighborhood differently because it is composed primarily of black people. This argument relies on suspicions about the MTA's motives. If that's your argument, then it'll be pretty easy to refute. The MTA has plenty of justifications and precedents for its decision to keep the Farmdale crossing at-grade. The environmental process was public, we all participated, it is done. Killing the project now, based on unjustified fears, would be an injustice.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 30, 2008 11:38:53 GMT -8
The best solution I can think of to please all parties (well, it won't please all parties because each polar opposite is so far removed against the other, but it would enhance safety and speed of the line) is to have Metro and LAUSD come up with a financial commitment that requires BOTH parties to agree to, and help fund, an ELEVATED line over Farmdale.
I imagine that all parties would find something in this idea to hate, but it would definitely allow us to find out who's serious and who's not serious about this project moving forward. LAUSD should have fought for their grade separation to the same degree that USC and Culver City did years ago (LAUSD, for whatever reason did NOT and so this community-level fight is pretty darn late and I think LAUSD, which has a larger budget than the entire City of L.A., deserves to pay more for their tardy input and should not drag the line's opening more than it already will).
After fighting for years (I still want independent verification by L.A. City engineers) to pursue an Overland trench, I simply DROPPED the idea once I learned that the trench by Palms Park is NOT below Overland but simply cuts through a hill. Anyone who thinks that fighting for a trench at either Farmdale or Overland is realistic if the experts keep giving thumbs-down to the idea is either:
1) An Expo Hater--I recognize a few names among the "Fix Expo" folks as folks who used to scream about Expo for other reasons...now they're just using new arguments to delay or kill the line (this is pretty obvious for those of us who've followed this for years)
2) Someone who needs to grow up, stop behaving like a petulant teenager, and realize that the adult, mature world dictates we can't always have our way. We can fight and fight and fight, but need to recognize which battles are worth fighting, and which battles are not. We need to figure out which fight is worth it in the long run, and which fight will (at best) have us win the battle but lose the war.
I still want independent verification of all grade-crossing issues, because that's the scientific and rational thing to do (it's neither immoral nor unexpected to have Metro and the Authority to have a bias towards moving the project forward), but if we have ELEVATED grade crossings at Overland, Sepulveda and even at Farmdale, this project will move forward...and both the LADOT and LAUSD and private developers who will benefit from Expo-related TOD should all cough up some serious dough to make this happen.
I also remind everyone that this is light rail, and not heavy rail. There WILL be some times that the traffic vs. visual vs. cost impacts will favor grade crossings over elevations or trenches, and we need to be rational and open-minded enough to focus on the FACTS, not just our gut opinions, to make the right decisions.
On a final note, I do hope that the right people give Mr. Broverman a metaphorical kick in his smart-aleck, racist ass (and if he's white, then he's still racist). I remind you all that white, too, is a color, and (speaking as both a dermatologist and for all those who've fought to create Expo as a way to help bring multiethnic L.A. County together) I don't tolerate any racist nonsense whether it comes from white NIMBY's or bigots like Mr. Broverman.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 30, 2008 12:02:40 GMT -8
sorry for my foolishness... but who is Mr. Broverman?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 30, 2008 14:35:25 GMT -8
^ You quoted a blog entry on la.curbed.com by Neal Broverman. This entry, in turn, quoted the press release put out by FixExpo.org.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 30, 2008 17:25:26 GMT -8
He didn't have the byline, but it seemed pretty clear to me. He has a link to the article in the post.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 30, 2008 17:37:11 GMT -8
By the way, I agree the bullying and reality-spinning is wrong (Noted) I happened on Metro's June 28, 2001 Board Minutes for Item 49 on the Expo Line. Here's the entire text with highlights bolded: 49. APPROVED AS AMENDED to:
A. accept the Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR);
B. adopt Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Wilshire Boulevard Corridor to be implemented per the Phased Implementation Strategy with the following provisions: - peak-hour dedicated transit lanes shall be implemented in the initial phase, following the successful demonstration of an in-street segment and concurrence of the affected city or county jurisdiction(s);
- 24-hour dedicated transit lanes shall be implemented at a future date only with approval of affected cities and coordination with communities;
- the preferred site for the Bus Storage & Maintenance Facility shall be the northeast corner of Washington/Alameda (DEIS/EIR site #6);
C. adopt Light Rail Transit (LRT) described in the Draft EIS/EIR Alternative #3A as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Exposition Corridor from downtown Los Angeles to Venice/Robertson, subject to the following conditions: - a Minimum Operable Segment shall be identified from downtown Los Angeles to Exposition Park with priority given to implementing this first segment;
- the Exposition project shall not supplant the Wilshire, Eastside or San Fernando Valley transit corridor projects as a funding priority;
- the Exposition project shall be separated from Wilshire Boulevard BRT as a stand-alone project for purposes of final environmental clearance;
- areas of supplemental mitigation, including a possible tunnel segment at USC/Exposition Park, shall be assessed following an expanded community outreach program and considered for inclusion in the Preliminary Engineering (PE)/Final EIS/EIR at the time the Board approves the PE contract;
D. initiate procurement of Preliminary Engineering for the Exposition LRT from downtown Los Angeles to Venice/Robertson as a necessary component of the Final EIS/EIR with a minimum operable segment as described in recommendation C;
PROO/O’CONNOR AMENDMENT: that the MTA establish the MTA vision and intent to construct light rail to Santa Monica and actively work to accelerate the flow of federal, state and local funds to complete this project as soon as possible without compromising other funding sources for MTA adopted projects; and
BURKE AMENDMENT: include in the subsequent mitigation analysis the need for grade separations at the intersections of Exposition & Vermont, Exposition & Western, and Exposition & La Brea and further analysis on the parallel routes on Jefferson & Adams to the north and Martin Luther King & Vernon to the south; and that bike path projects will be adapted to conform to the light rail project as the light rail project comes to fruition in those specific areas where the bike path comes into conflict with the proposed rail line. Why bring this up? This was the key Metro Board decision that selected light rail over a busway, authorized the Final EIS/EIR and Preliminary Engineering to Culver City, and established the intent to reach Santa Monica. And because Supervisor Burke's amendment started the process to evaluate grade separations at other intersections, that led to the MTA Grade Crossing Policy and FEIS/EIR recommendations to add additional grade separations.One cannot claim Metro didn't consider additional grade separations. They did, through a formal process initiated by Board resolution, the results of which were approved in Metro's certification of the Final EIS/EIR in 2005 and in the FTA's Record of Decision in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 30, 2008 21:34:14 GMT -8
For those who see this as a political issue and not a transit issue or a design consistency/environmental justice issue it's easy to lose sight of the fact that predicating grade separations on an entity's ability to pay for "betterments" WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN AN INEQUITABLE DESIGN with substantially greater environmental impacts in communities underrepresented politically, and these are typically poorer or black and brown communities. Stated more simply, there are environmental justice laws on the books for a reason. The core of Damien's claim is "inequitable design". So, is the Expo Line designed to a lesser standard in South Los Angeles than (1) recent federally-funded light rail lines in other cities, (2) other light rail lines in Los Angeles, or (3) other sections of the Expo Line? The Expo Line is generally at-grade, with a dedicated trackway in streets at 35 mph top speed with signal control, or in private fenced right-of-way at 55 mph top speed with gated crossings. It will also have extensive landscaping, unlike many other lines. (1) Federally-funded light rail lines built since 2000 in Portland, San Francisco, Phoenix, and Houston all are mostly at-grade -- with fewer (if any) grade-separations than Expo -- as I've previously documented here. (2) Los Angeles' Blue, Pasadena Gold, and Eastside Gold Lines all are substantially at-grade. The only grade separations on the Eastside Gold Line are its bridge over the 101 freeway and its tunnel under Boyle Heights where narrow street width precluded at-grade tracks. (3) Applying a grade crossing policy built on industry standards, Metro specified phase 1 grade separations for extraordinary traffic at Flower-Figueroa, La Brea, and La Cienega-Jefferson. The final Culver City station was advanced from phase 2 into phase 1, to save money (vs. building, then building around, and finally demolishing a temporary station at Wesley) and improve service in phase 1. It is not an upgrade. Venice Blvd. for either phase 2 route option will be grade-separated due to traffic. The crossing of National and Washington is unique on Expo: a train blocks two adjacent legs of the intersection at the same time. These are the reasons this segment will be aerial (note: not below-grade). The result of applying the Grade Crossing Policy will be 9,200 feet of Expo Line in South Los Angeles without grade crossings (Ballona Creek to Farmdale, 465+00 -- 373+00, except one private grade crossing at Hauser) vs. 3,900 feet in Culver City (504+00 -- 465+00). That's over twice as much in Los Angeles. (Ironically Clint Simmons lives across the street from this section in Los Angeles. How is it a problem that Culver City gets the same mitigation that he gets?) We know the Expo Authority is applying the same Grade Crossing Standards to phase 2. We also know the City of Santa Monica requested study of at-grade tracks in the median of Colorado into its downtown instead of aerial. Looking at all of these facts, it's awfully hard to see how a court could find the Expo Line in South Los Angeles is designed to a lesser standard than (1) other cities' lines, (2) other lines in LA, or (3) other parts of the Expo Line. Further, courts generally defer to administrative authorities' environmental process. Case dismissed!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 1, 2008 5:54:00 GMT -8
^^^ Notice how there was no mention of how Expo Line Phase 1 will actually operate and impact the respective communities? From the Fix Expo Expo Line Inconvenient Truths fact sheet: * FACT #2: THERE ARE GRADE SEPARATIONS IN CULVER CITY BECAUSE CULVER CITY DEMANDED IT! As the track exists today there are four street-level crossings west of La Cienega: Jefferson/National, Hayden/National and Washington/National (the tracks cross twice). The original plan was to cross each of the streets at-grade, but Culver City opposed the plan, as stated in the Federal Transit Administration's Record of Decision for the Expo Line Project specifies: “The original [preferred Expo Line plan] adopted by the [MTA] in 2001 called for at-grade rail crossings at all intersections in the City of Culver City and an at-grade station at Venice/Robertson...This configuration conflicted with the adopted city General Plan that called for no at-grade crossings and full grade-separation of all crossings in that city. Primarily for this reason, the City of Culver City opposed the project...in 2001.” (pp. 17-18) Four years later, after a “compromise agreement” between the City of Culver City and MTA, the final plan added a grade separation at Washington/National, an extension of the La Cienega/Jefferson overpass nearly 1000 feet beyond Jefferson/National into Culver City, and a complete realignment of National Blvd so the train would not have cross Hayden/National, nor any other street in Culver City at street-level. As a result of these changes and investments, WEST OF LA CIENEGA THERE WILL BE: a) no children forced to walk across Expo Line tracks b) no chance of train-vehicle accident c) no train horns or crossing gate bells d) no blight/privacy impacts to residential communities (see Section 4.4-40 of the EIR/EIS) e) no forced commuter detours f) no delays in emergency services from crossing gates g) no closed off parks This is the polar opposite of how the Expo Line will impact South LA. In fact, the environmental impacts in the Culver City census tract are substantially lower than in any other census tract in the Phase 1 alignment. Additionally, the 2000 Census data reveals that the Culver City census tract, along with the USC census tract, happen to be the only majority Caucasian census tracks along the entire alignment (pink). The remaining census tracts in Phase 1 are majority African-American (grey) and majority Hispanic (purple): For the racial breakdown percentages, download our Census Tract Fact Sheet.Now here's the law, Executive Order 12898: To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth In the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Marian islands. And Title VI: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Darrell Clarke & Co. are saying one of two things. 1) Yes there are negative environmental impacts but they're made up with trees and lighting. (MY RESPONSE: I'll plant the trees myself, give us the money and the grade separation.) 2) Just because in the black and brown census tracts there are adverse and disproportionate noise and privacy impacts to residential areas, a safety hazard, street closures, crossing gates, traffic impacts, delays in emergency response times, and reduced park access to that there's no environmental justice issue. But, as I said above, even Friends 4 Expo steering committee members have stated otherwise. And that member said on the record at an Expo Authority meeting, that because these environmental justice issues exist that the project should be built as quickly as possible so in essence, MTA can get away with it before being caught. How sad. As I said before, the longer it takes to recognize the problem, the bigger the problem becomes.UPDATE: LINKS FIXED
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 1, 2008 7:46:28 GMT -8
But, as I said above, even Friends 4 Expo steering committee members have stated otherwise. And that member said on the record at an Expo Authority meeting, that because these environmental justice issues exist that the project should be built as quickly as possible so in essence, MTA can get away with it before being caught. How sad. ^ Who said these things? The census map you included does not show majorities (50%+1), only pluralities. And USC is pink? I'd like to see the numbers, but the link is broken. Regarding Culver City's pushback on the grade separations: this was one of the main reasons the MTA had established standardized criteria for grade separation. The idea was to have some way of determining the need for grade separation that was based on objective criteria. That's a better plan than basing grade separations on who yells the loudest.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on May 1, 2008 7:51:35 GMT -8
Sorry people. i generally do not read the "article by" list under a title.
Also, Damien your link to census information does not work.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2008 7:56:48 GMT -8
Thank you, Damien, for providing this map, as it clearly shows that this has nothing to do with race, as any reasonable person would agree with.
As you see, at the La Cienega and La Brea overpasses, the population is primarily Hispanic and Black and at the USC trench the population is primarily Hispanic other than the white students and employees at USC. Not only that but the "white" USC has five at-grade crossings (Jefferson, Trousdale, Watt, Menlo, and Vermont).
Thanks for disproving this outrageous mischaracterization and accusation about racism.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 1, 2008 8:34:42 GMT -8
The links have been fixed.
And I think better than anything I can ever explain, this conversation reveals all that people need to know about how and why this project is in it's current state.
All that's being presented as a rebuttal is the repetition of the same lies and spin that is verifiable untrue (Washington/National was based on the grade separation policy, District never voiced complaints earlier, etc., etc.)
As I told some here rather publicly I'm the new kid on the block. I didn't know there were issues until they were brought to me in December 2006. I didn't agree to jump into this thing feet first until mid-2007 when it became clear the problems were severe and few were doing what they needed to do to correct them.
Others knew there were problems well before I even knew what the Expo Line was. And instead of addressing them, they chose then and continue to choose today to act more as agents of MTA instead of advocates. It wasn't just the politicians and Metro that stood silent when problems were presented. People - transit advocates - sat there and did NOTHING. JUST GO THROUGH THE ARCHIVES OF THIS MESSAGE BOARD FOR YOUR PROOF![/u]
Thus, here we are in May 2008. And I say again, continuing to believe and act as though no problem exists, does more to jeopardize this project than any lawsuit or community's actions.
Again, the longer it takes to correct the problems which have been presented, the bigger the problem becomes.
Tick tock. Tick tock. Tick tock.
I'm off to do my part to fix these problems.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2008 10:34:11 GMT -8
Damien is launching his lawsuit.That's what happens when a transit advocate believes in nothing but subways and trashes light-rail. Not only that but he sides with every NIMBY he can find, including Clint Simmons, who opposes the line because it passes right in front of his house, and Colleen Heller, who thinks Cheviot Hills is elite and must be isolated from the rest of the city. He calls the Expo corridor "South LA" and ignores the fact that another at-grade light-rail line is being planned in real South LA in his backyard in Leimert Park. I'm sure Colleen Heller and the rest of the Cheviot Hills NIMBYs are thrilled about this lawsuit. Dear NIMBYs, have fun while you can. The line will be opened to service by the time you realize it. And dear pro bonehead lawyers, have fun while you can as well. Metro isn't the pot of gold you think and with so many supporters of this project and nonsense NIMBY claims, you haven't got the slightest chance.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 1, 2008 12:38:36 GMT -8
BTW, I do happen to agree that the threshold for grade-separation is too high. For instance, given the amount of (foot and car) traffic crossing at Crenshaw, I would think that should have been grade separated.
But alas, the decision was made, and a policy was put into place, via an open public process with participation from all sectors of the community. I see no evidence that the policy was racially-motivated.
Maybe next time I'll fight harder to convince people before and during the public comment period. But guess what: the decision-making process is over. I had my chance, I participated. The result is not perfect. But just because I disagree with the outcome doesn't mean I am justified in throwing the legal equivalent of a tantrum.
At this point, I think the best mitigation is to just close down Farmdale altogether, put up a 20 foot fence surrounding the tracks, and build a pedestrian bridge over it. It's cheap, it's effective, it'll solve everybody's problems.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 1, 2008 14:07:19 GMT -8
MetroCenter, I think you've stated it pretty well. I really don't like litigation, although I recognize it's needed at times. I am aware that, although I personally agree that Crenshaw should have been grade-separated, the locals (in particular, the church) didn't want that big structure next to it...which is their right.
Culver City wants grade separation, Santa Monica prefers as little grade separation as possible, and it's all a balance between the visual impacts of elevation vs. traffic mitigation.
I think that your answer to the Farmdale question makes the most sense, although if the LAUSD really feels strongly about a grade separation, I believe that the Expo Authority has offered to go partway financially with the LAUSD to fund an elevation. If the LAUSD can blame anyone for coming so late to the table, it should blame itself...and yes, that means they owe the community more money if they feel that strongly and suddenly about grade separation (elevation, not trenching is the only realistic and certainly the safest way to proceed).
All this said, I still hold that a high school is different than an elementary school with respect to kids, that Farmdale and Overland and La Cienega are all very different streets with different pros and cons of grade separation, and that compromises are always better than litigation except as a last resort.
While I don't agree with Damien (or his tactics) as to how Expo should be "fixed", I do believe that he is at heart trying to fix mass transit. I also believe that uniting every Expo hater in the City, some of whom have for years stated NIMBY/racist garbage to justify their hatred of the Expo Line, is as horrible a way as any I can think of to promote mass transit in the City and County of L.A.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 1, 2008 17:21:56 GMT -8
FACT #2: THERE ARE GRADE SEPARATIONS IN CULVER CITY BECAUSE CULVER CITY DEMANDED IT! As the track exists today there are four street-level crossings west of La Cienega: Jefferson/National, Hayden/National and Washington/National (the tracks cross twice). Jefferson/National is in Los Angeles. Culver City's boundary at National is the west side of Ballona Creek. It's long been proposed to realign National to not need a grade crossing at Hayden. It's just better engineering (note also that tracks on the north side of National become consistent with tracks on the south side of Exposition west of Arlington). Yes, Culver City wanted grade separation. But it was also called for by the necessary grade separation of Venice Blvd. and problematic intersection of Washington and National. The original proposal for an at-grade station between Washington and Venice was an interim station that would be torn out in phase 2 for an aerial station. I overlooked in my last post, there is another phase 1 location where the tracks cross two legs of a boulevard intersection, and it's also grade-separated: Flower/Exposition. Venice/Sepulveda in phase 2 also calls for grade separation. Consistency. I've been working with census-tract-level data along the Expo Line since the 1980 Census (back when one had to copy from computer printouts!). All that says is, yes, the Expo Line corridor in Los Angeles east of Culver City is heavily minority. People - transit advocates - sat there and did NOTHING. We support light rail as it is generally designed in many US cities, and support the Expo Line as a well-designed light rail line. You chose to disagree with that consensus and final decision, and demand light rail be fully grade-separated. Now here's the law, Executive Order 12898: To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth In the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Marian islands. And Title VI: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Yes, " disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects ... on minority ... and low-income populations" is the question. As I wrote in my last post: (1) Is the Expo Line from Vermont to La Cienega designed to a lesser standard than other recent federally-funded light rail lines such as in Portland, San Francisco, Phoenix, or Houston? (2) Is the Expo Line from Vermont to La Cienega designed to a lesser standard than the local Long Beach Blue Line, Pasadena Gold Line, or Eastside Gold Line? (3) Is the Expo Line from Vermont to La Cienega designed to a lesser standard than the Expo Line in Culver City and phase 2? The burden is on you, Damien, to show such evidence. Got any? Darrell Clarke & Co. are saying one of two things. 1) Yes there are negative environmental impacts but they're made up with trees and lighting. ... 2) Just because in the black and brown census tracts there are adverse and disproportionate noise and privacy impacts to residential areas, a safety hazard, street closures, crossing gates, traffic impacts, delays in emergency response times, and reduced park access to that there's no environmental justice issue. Obviously not.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 2, 2008 10:19:30 GMT -8
Let's set aside charges and countercharges of racism and environmental justice, and look at the actual MTA 2003 grade crossing policy. From the intro (pg. 1, PDF pg 6): The Grade Crossing Policy is intended to provide a structured process for the evaluation of potential grade separations vs. at grade operation along light rail lines. The policy recognizes the operational and safety issues of at-grade versus grade-separated solutions as well as the institutional and monetary implications. It is recognized that local, state and federal government officials are involved in the process as well as the communities along the light rail line and therefore, no rigid MTA policy can dictate the ultimate solution. However, the purpose of the policy is to provide a process that addresses all of the principle concerns and clarifies the trade-offs involved in grade separation decisions.
Damien, which of the following are you saying? 1) The policy should be sufficient for handling the community's safety concerns, but this policy was not properly applied w. respect to the Farmdale crossing; or 2) The policy is not sufficient for handling the safety concerns at the Farmdale crossing.
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on May 3, 2008 19:25:59 GMT -8
I like the non personal factual debate that Darrell presents. Lets please stop bashing Damien on a personal level and act like adults.
Aside from logistical reasoning, I am also a little annoyed at how the MTA magically finds money for stuff when it effects areas with significant non minority populations (as they all are heavily minority, the difference is that by USC and CC there is a large white and middle class demographic missing in areas where the alignment does not seem as safely designed), but still hope the rail line is not stalled.
I also see that demanding a trench is unfeasible, but understand Damien's position as well as those saying the time has passed for this to be solved. The problem to me is the time never passed to find funding for an elevated CC station or a USC station (which i think the college should and could have funded) when the Vermont station is literally a couple hundred yards west.
Anyways, I'm a fence sitter on this one. But PLEASE, lets not get personal. And Damien, I'd advise you to be careful of the Cheviot Hills NIMBY folks, they are NOT working in your best interest.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 3, 2008 19:28:04 GMT -8
From the Fix Expo Expo Line Inconvenient Truths fact sheet: * FACT #2: THERE ARE GRADE SEPARATIONS IN CULVER CITY BECAUSE CULVER CITY DEMANDED IT! As the track exists today there are four street-level crossings west of La Cienega: Jefferson/National, Hayden/National and Washington/National (the tracks cross twice). The original plan was to cross each of the streets at-grade, but Culver City opposed the plan, as stated in the Federal Transit Administration's Record of Decision for the Expo Line Project specifies: “The original [preferred Expo Line plan] adopted by the [MTA] in 2001 called for at-grade rail crossings at all intersections in the City of Culver City and an at-grade station at Venice/Robertson...This configuration conflicted with the adopted city General Plan that called for no at-grade crossings and full grade-separation of all crossings in that city. Primarily for this reason, the City of Culver City opposed the project...in 2001.” (pp. 17-18) Four years later, after a “compromise agreement” between the City of Culver City and MTA, the final plan added a grade separation at Washington/National, an extension of the La Cienega/Jefferson overpass nearly 1000 feet beyond Jefferson/National into Culver City, and a complete realignment of National Blvd so the train would not have cross Hayden/National, nor any other street in Culver City at street-level. As a result of these changes and investments, WEST OF LA CIENEGA THERE WILL BE: ... Fundamental factual errors underlying Damien's argument need to be documented in more detail. His claim is four at-grade crossings west of La Cienega were changed to grade separations after 2001 because Culver City insisted on it. (1) No, Jefferson/National was grade separated in the 2001 Draft EIS/EIR (Plan & Profile sheets 105-106). It's also in Los Angeles, not Culver City. (2) No, Hayden/National was reconfigured with the tracks entirely on the north side of National to remove this grade crossing in the 2001 Draft EIS/EIR (Plan & Profile sheet 106). (3, 4) That left only two crossings opposed by Culver City, at National and Washington. The 2001 Draft EIS/EIR only studied the Venice-Sepulveda route west of Robertson, and proposed an at-grade alignment in the median of Venice Blvd. that would require loss of a traffic lane in each direction. But both current phase 2 alternatives call for a bridge above Venice Blvd. because of traffic impacts. Space to ramp up to an aerial Culver City station south of Venice Blvd. requires bridges over Washington and National -- in addition to the traffic impacts of crossing two legs of a boulevard intersection at-grade.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 3, 2008 19:38:40 GMT -8
The problem to me is the time never passed to find funding for an elevated CC station or a USC station (which i think the college should and could have funded) when the Vermont station is literally a couple hundred yards west. Thanks, Art! I make the point that the elevated Culver City station is not an upgrade to phase 1, rather it's advancing this station from phase 2 into phase 1 to reduce the overall cost (not wasting the cost of building a temporary station at Wesley, building the final route around it, and demolishing it) plus give a more effective interim terminus at Venice Blvd. The at-grade station at Trousdale was in the phase 1 design but un-funded beyond its foundation. I preferred the idea of a single station between Trousdale and Vermont; Steve Polechronis told me they'd put a station right at Vermont to be more convenient to crossing bus riders.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 3, 2008 20:41:04 GMT -8
I also must ask Damien a question about a March 26 quote from "Fix Expo": ... the one intersection in South Los Angeles with a grade separation is an overpass at La Brea Ave that is directly adjacent to residential communities, resulting in substantially greater noise pollution, blight and privacy impacts.
The disparate design and environmental impacts in Culver City/Exposition Park versus South LA are unacceptable to South Los Angeles community members and the basis of our claim that the Expo Line design is textbook ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM. It is immoral and illegal (see Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898). This generic aerial station with retained-fill ramps is " environmental racism" located in Los Angeles, but an unfair " disparate design" located in Culver City?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 4, 2008 0:13:37 GMT -8
metrocenter, Regarding the statement from the Friends 4 Expo Steering Committee member who said on the record at an Expo Authority meeting, the project should be built as designed and not amended to avoid a potential environmental justice challenge, call the Expo Authority and spend $3 getting the cassette tape from the January 2008 Expo Authority Board meeting and hear it for yourself. Speaking of Expo Authority Board meetings, at Thursday's Expo Authority Board Meeting, Darrell Clarke in his capacity as Chair of Friends 4 Expo told the Expo Board that Ballona Creek was in South LA and should be considered a grade separation. Yes, my friends, South LA now apparently extends west of La Cienega. This is the type of stuff I deal with on a daily basis. Ken Alpern has already admitted to some of the political maneuvering that took place to get the Washington/National grade separation in this thread: Wesley St. was chosen to avoid the more thorny issue of National/Washington, where Metro said it was OK to have it at-grade while Culver City engineering studies favored elevation. The Westside Cities COG supported Culver City, not Metro studies so the Wesley St. terminus, just east of National/Washington, was chosen until more money could be found to complete the full line to Venice/Robertson and yet proceed with the Expo Line one way or another. I've already explained the political maneuvering that took place regarding Washington/National as documented by the Federal Transit Administration, in the Record of Decision at pg. 18 (pdf): A compromise agreement was reached in mid-2005 to resolve the above conflict by shifting the Venice/Robertson Station a few hundred feet to the east. Of course the FACT (which Darrell/Expo/MTA so conveniently neglects to mention) is that if the station remained where it was initially intended and was not pushed east a few hundred feet east, there was enough space to cross Washington/National at-grade AND cross Venice elevated with an elevated Venice/Robertson station platform. But doing that would have conflicted with the Culver City general orders prohibiting at-grade crossings. What are these Culver City General Orders I speak of? Take a look at the March 2005 Culver City CRA Meeting Agenda (which I believe Darrell and/or other Steering Committee Members of Friends 4 Expo attended): Staff has prepared a draft DFD for this area which seeks to address three main objectives: 1) improve safety and accessibility (i.e. preclude an at-grade crossing), 2) improve land uses (via pedestrian orientation, shared and dispersed parking) and 3) improve development possibilities around the Washington/National area. This DFD will address access, land use and the development of properties at the intersections of Washington and National Boulevards.
Culver City General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.N prohibits at-grade crossings of light rail within Culver City. Culver City General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.O prohibits at-grade or elevated alignments of light rail transit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. As applied to the facts and circumstances of the proposed EXPO Light Rail Project, the DFD would implement these General Plan policies by prohibiting at-grade crossings of light rail within Culver City and by prohibiting at-grade or elevated alignments of light rail transit that do not adequately mitigate impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods as determined by the Redevelopment Agency. Guess when Culver City General Order 2.N and 2.O were passed? IN THE EARLY TO MID 1990s!!!!!!!Facts. Not spin. And again, none of the Fix Expo critics are even denying the argument that leaving grade separations/type of grade separations up to an area/entities political pull or resources will always lead to a project that has design discrepancies with substantially greater environmental impacts in communities underrepresented politically. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems those critics admit that such true, and at best consider it a necessary evil, and at worst consider it the way business is done around here. You see, what any person willing to actually look at the Fix Expo will see is that our position is simply application of Culver City General Orders 2.O and 2.N (as expanded by the CC CRA) to the Exposition Corridor in South Los Angeles! Apply it from Vermont to La Brea and you see that the only option is below grade, or closing off a whole lot of streets, which is not acceptable or feasible. Anyone could easily figure this out by just asking themselves why the Fix Expo request for below grade only extends to La Brea AND NOT all the way to La Cienega. The answer is because from a little west of La Brea to La Cienega the impacts to the residential community CAN BE MITIGATED WITHOUT HAVING TO REMAIN BELOW GRADE. East of La Brea, they cannot. It's so much easier to question motives, talk about tactics, call someone a NIMBY and other names, than it is to actually evaluate the Fix Expo position from an engineering perspective...you know evaluate the Fix Expo position like a person with some basic understanding of rail transit, as opposed to a herd of "petulant teenagers" conducting a "tantrum"!
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 4, 2008 0:29:27 GMT -8
I happened on Metro's June 28, 2001 Board Minutes for Item 49 on the Expo Line. Here's the entire text with highlights bolded: 49. APPROVED AS AMENDED to:
A. accept the Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR); [....] And because Supervisor Burke's amendment started the process to evaluate grade separations at other intersections, that led to the MTA Grade Crossing Policy and FEIS/EIR recommendations to add additional grade separations.How it is that you looked at the minutes but didn't take a look at the AGENDA for that meeting and see the actual motion that Burke put forward? I can do nothing but laugh and smile. Here's the motion by Supervisor Burke (pdf) presented during Item 49 courtesy the AGENDA for the MEETING!!!: I remain quite concerned over the issues of Environmental Justice reflected in the mitigation and safety issues along the Exposition corridor. I am particularly concerned over the lack of grade separation at congested intersections and I am especially concerned over the fact that there is no recommendation for any grade separation of intersections until La Cienega Boulevard. WHAT?! Environmental justice issues based on safety and mitigation measures?!!! Focusing on a discrepancy in design west of La Cienega vs. east of there?!!!!! THAT CRAZY OLD RACE-CARD PLAYING POVERTY PIMP!Some of the intersections analyzed along Exposition Boulevard have worse levels of service with the proposed light rail project. You mean altering the traffic synchronization plans and adding crossing gates at intersections don't improve the LOS of crossing streets? C'mon now woman, you're starting to sound rational. Due to right of way and physical constraints, it appears that the only feasible mitigation measures should be grade separation at impacted intersections, specifically at Exposition and Vermont, Exposition and Western, and Exposition and La Brea. A box of cookies for the first person who can explain the politics of why Crenshaw and Exposition wasn't on the list too. Also, I would like for MTA staff to expand the study to include intersections along parallel routes on Jefferson and Adams to the north and Martin Luther King and Vernon to the south. Foshay Middle School, Dorsey High School, West Angeles Cathedral and the Mosque are among the schools and churches that will be affected along the corridor. There goes that whole argument that they "Didn't know there were problems at Dorsey and Foshay until recently." Traffic at Crenshaw, La Brea and other heavily traveled north-south corridors will be impacted by delays at the Exposition right-of-way intersections. STOP. BEING. RATIONAL. I believe it is incumbent on this Board to include in its approval of a Locally Preferred Alternative for a light rail project along Exposition Right-of-way a commitment to preserve and protect the residential integrity of all the communities in that corridor. While I ahve supported the Board Policy for a route deviation to bypass the communities of Cheviot Hills and West-of-Westwood, we cannot ignore the fact that these same conditions exist along the eastern portion of the right-of-way that we are considering today. We must treat all neighborhoods and communities along the corridor in a consistent manner. But it gets even better... In our experience with the Blue Line, we have seen how costly and virtually impossible it is to go back retrofit grade separations in areas where they have been left out. The Exposition Corridor traverses far more residential communities that the Blue Line, we cannot make the same mistake twice. NO. SHE. DIDN'T!How I would give to have that Yvonne Burke back in office. Alas, she's been LONG gone.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 4, 2008 1:01:37 GMT -8
Lets please stop bashing Damien on a personal level and act like adults. This is the game that is played. It's just an extension of MTA's bullying tactics. I've stopped taking the attacks personally because I realize some really have nothing more to rally folk to their side other than name calling, the false statement that these complaints are new/recent, and the claim that "it must be built as designed right now or the world will end." Also, as I've known for some time, claiming racism for anything less than a burning cross on a lawn can elicit some of the most visceral reactions for a great variety of reasons that I am none too interested in discussing here. The point I'm making is that they can find the money or alter the project, but this isn't some type of agency that does so willing. They do it when they have to politically (i.e. Culver City won't sign off), or legally (a federal judge forces them). Trench, cut-and-cover tunnel, bored tunnel, or a combination thereof. We'll take any from Trousdale to La Brea. Understand how "the clock" is a crucial component of MTA's "it has to be built now, as it is" talking point. But the clock argument has no weight when you consider the fact that these complaints have been on the record since the early 90s. They've just been ignored. How does one ignore complaints for 2 decades and then, with a straight face claim it's too late to address them? And how does one excuse the fact that they've been ignored en route to justifying building it poorly now? Seriously, for people not in the transit circles "the clock" argument is just not very persuasive. You'd think more would focus on that given that it was THE CENTRAL POINT made in the press release. I'm sincere when I say I don't care what anyone outside my community feels about this project given that they aren't being asked to bear the ultimate burdens and risks. Incidentally, this isn't some exclusive party or conspiracy. It is and will remain South LA led, but I would have had no problem working with Friends 4 Expo if they actually cared about our safety, our community and environmental justice issues. Which begs the question: Darrell & Co. how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond?Be good for the Lessons Learned paper we'll all write.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 4, 2008 12:05:41 GMT -8
Yes, my friends, South LA now apparently extends west of La Cienega. This is the type of stuff I deal with on a daily basis. You provided the Census tract map, Damien. Your burden is to show "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations". Which by your map extend west to Ballona Creek, although we know the residential area ends at La Cienega. And La Cienega to Ballona Creek certainly isn't in Culver City. metrocenter, Regarding the statement from the Friends 4 Expo Steering Committee member who said on the record at an Expo Authority meeting, the project should be built as designed and not amended to avoid a potential environmental justice challenge The Friends 4 Expo Transit statement is here. Here's the main part, including correction of Damien's mis-quote in bold: We support the state-of-the-art safety measures proposed by the Expo Authority for an at-grade crossing at Farmdale Avenue by Dorsey High School — which exceed even the Gold Line standard, by including pedestrian gates, crossing guards, and trains slowing during the time that students cross — and urge the Expo Board to move forward with the current California Public Utilities Commission application and resolve the issue as soon as possible.
Reopening the Expo Line's environmental clearance for a pedestrian bridge that neither improves safety and convenience, nor satisfies opponents demanding the whole line be underground, could upset the consensus for its consistent design standards, break the budget and schedule, and even kill the project.
To not complete this critical transportation improvement would be a tragic loss in mobility, not to mention a huge political embarrassment for Los Angeles that could also hurt our chances at federal funding on future projects. I've already explained the political maneuvering that took place regarding Washington/National as documented by the Federal Transit Administration, in the Record of Decision at pg. 18 (pdf): A compromise agreement was reached in mid-2005 to resolve the above conflict by shifting the Venice/Robertson Station a few hundred feet to the east. Of course the FACT (which Darrell/Expo/MTA so conveniently neglects to mention) is that if the station remained where it was initially intended and was not pushed east a few hundred feet east, there was enough space to cross Washington/National at-grade AND cross Venice elevated with an elevated Venice/Robertson station platform. Where was the Culver City station "initially intended"? That would be here (yellow highlight added), from the 2001 Draft EIS/EIR, sheet 132, and too close to ramp down to cross Washington at grade: In fact, your link shows that's not what it says! It documents the need to grade-separate Washington and National in the future (bolded below). As a result of these coordination efforts, LACMTA staff recommended to the Board that a grade separation of Venice Boulevard would be required at such a time in the future that the line might be extended further to the west. Currently, the adopted LPA stops before it reaches Venice Boulevard and does not cross that street. As a result, crossings of nearby Washington and National Boulevards will also need to be grade-separated in the future because of their close proximity to Venice Boulevard. The traffic analysis prepared by LACMTA did not concur that a fully grade-separated station and crossings of Washington and National Boulevard would be required at this time, if no Venice Boulevard crossing were included in the LPA.
A compromise agreement was reached in mid-2005 to resolve the above conflict by shifting the Venice/Robertson Station a few hundred feet to the east. This location required no rail crossing of any streets in the City of Culver City, but allowed for a future grade separation to be built if the line is extended past Venice Boulevard as a part of a future project. The shift "a few hundred feet to the east" was for the interim station at Wesley. How it is that you looked at the minutes but didn't take a look at the AGENDA for that meeting and see the actual motion that Burke put forward? Supervisor Burke's motion only reinforces my point that it began a formal process in the Final EIS/EIR to evaluate additional grade separations, and adopted one at La Brea. [ Darrell & Co. how many times in the past 5 years alone has Friends 4 Expo been asked to help out regarding these issues, and how did you respond? We support light rail as it is generally designed in many US cities, and support the Expo Line as a well-designed light rail line. More important, Damien, we're just people writing on a transit discussion board. It would be a lot tougher in court going up against attorneys under cross-examination. To make an Environmental Justice claim the burden is on you to prove the Expo Line was designed for the minority communities of Los Angeles to an inferior standard compared with other recent light rail lines and other parts of the Expo Line. Courts tend to defer to administrative authorities in such cases, especially where there's a record of considering issues in their process (e.g. Burke's motion and the MTA Grade Crossing Policy). Your arguments are not doing well when confronted with facts. You've not responded to many questions. Where's your case?
|
|