Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 11, 2008 9:21:18 GMT -8
Just for the record, the emails in the strain Darrell mentioned above:
Damien Goodmon (June 2, 2008):
Hello Karen,
I see you're once again highlighting my name and advocacy efforts on behalf of the South LA community. Funny there was no mention of the additional $222 million appropriated to Expo over the past 6 months that's gone for everything except additional grade separations in South LA. Perhaps for a bit more balanced reading you can check out last week's LA Watts Times article ("City's Black Elected Officials Missing In Action As Residents Fight to Fix the Expo Rail Line") or LA Weekly article ("Yvonne Burke's Crumbling Kingdom").
I do appreciate your interest in the South LA's efforts to fix the Expo Line. Although I can say we thus far have been disappointed by the course Light Rail for Cheviot has taken with respect to this local South LA issue. Your actions are reflective of an organization more concerned with getting the line quickly to the Westside than actually making it a safe and good neighbor for the South LA community in which it will operate for the next 100 years.
Given that you tout the close proximity of Overland Ave as part of your plea for grade separation in your backyard, I must admit many in my community were perplexed to hear you and other Light Rail for Cheviot members speak out against a motion that would have added a pedestrian bridge, overpass or underpass at the Farmdale crossing in my South LA community, where the Expo Authority has applied to run Expo Line trains 55 mph at-grade within 10 feet of the property line of 2100 student Dorsey High School.
Those who actually live in the community and work on campus in addition to the LAUSD, UTLA, Parent Collaborative, Dorsey HS Alumni Association, neighborhood council, and multiple local, state and federal politicians all realize what a great disaster a car-train or child-train accident would be at that crossing where 1800 high school aged children cross a day (at it's peak of 108 per minute) in numbers greater by multiples of than anything witnessed on the Metro system. I know you live no where near the crossing, which is probably why you shouldn't be commenting on these matters unless its a statement in support of our community, so here's a video for your viewing: YouTube.
Nonetheless, my offer still stands, if you change your mind and actually want to support instead of impede South LA's effort for additional safety-enhancing, traffic-mitigating, community-cohesive grade separations on the Expo Line at that problematic crossing and others in our community we'll welcome you with open arms.
Regarding your own backyard, I do want to recommend that you find two better people to champion your cause in the media other than those who assault your female neighbors (Mr. Darrell Clarke) or call your neighbors racists (Mr. Mittelstaedt). As a community mobilizer I can tell you that hitting and labeling racists your next door neighbors, just because they disagree with you is no way to build bridges and find community consensus.
So you know, there are plenty of non-racists non-women-beaters throughout the region who have issues with at-grade crossings, including most in the transit advocacy community. Just a few years ago, the LA Times quoted the Director of Metrolink as saying, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen." And at a very meeting of your very own neighborhood council, John Fisher, the #2 person at LADOT, said he personally believes all light rail should be grade separated.
So I think you'd be wise to conduct a bit more research, I can even help point you in the right direction (you can start at http://www.FixExpo.org), then you may develop more reverence for those along the Expo Line corridor who have concerns about at-grade light rail safety, traffic and community cohesion impacts. Me, I'm just going to report the facts about the impacts and tell my community the truth. I will not compromise the integrity of my research to satisfy my own personal desires.
Oh and while I have you attention I recall you saying in October that you personally had no problem with at-grade crossings in your area, but when I asked if that was the position of Light Rail for Cheviot via email a couple of months ago you failed to respond. Do you have an answer yet? Will Light Rail for Cheviot support Expo with at-grade crossings at Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda and/or Sawtelle?
Damien Goodmon (June 5, 2008)
"People are just dumber and more irresponsible" could never and would never be considered a valid explanation as to why a rail line is exponentially more accident-prone and deadly than it's peers (many of which have fewer safety mitigation measures) under any possible conceivable scientific evaluation. Maybe I've spent too much time with my head in a book, because I just don't understand how that's such a difficult argument for people to grapple with.
The more complex explanation Matthew, is that the transit vehicle and safety mitigation measures are but a few of a compilation of factors to consider whether a crossing actually performs as intended. You can build all the bells and whistles, but the purpose of them is to prevent accidents and deaths. So will it work is the ultimate determination? And specifically in the case of Dorsey: how great is the damage that could occur if it does not work?
I can show you a picture of a stop sign at an intersection of a residential street working well. Does that mean such mitigation measures would work at the intersection of Westwood/Wilshire? Of course not. But why not?
The answer with that, just as it is with Expo is that a systemic evaluation and application of the basic elements of human factors and social behavior characteristics must be considered. I don't deny that some responsibility is always required on the part of the person. But just building some alert system does not fulfill the government's responsibility, which is much greater, to build safe products that provide the maximum benefit for a massive 100 year public works projects. There has to be a certain point where a determination that this is just too much to expect is made and grade separation becomes the preferred alternative. But that's not how the Metro Grade Crossing Policy works, nor is it how Metro works.
Speaking of 100 years, if you have a conservative estimate of 3 deaths a year and 15 accidents a year that's 300 people and 1500 accidents that could be prevented. Couple that with the other adverse impacts of at-grade rail in this city and it's clear that there are long-term costs that all too often are ignored by the decision-maker and some "transit advocates." Don't be confused we pay for it either way. The question is whether it's on the front end or the back end and how great the sacrifice.
Incidentally, Fire Station 34 is about 200 feet from the 7th Ave/Exposition crossing where during peak hours crossing gates will be down roughly 40% of the time. Further disrupting its emergency response times will be the closure of two minor streets closed just to it's east (2nd and 3rd Ave).
Fire Station 94 uses the Farmdale Avenue crossing as it's major access route to the north. In the distance between La Brea and Crenshaw (1.5 miles) Farmdale and Buckingham are the only two alternative arterials, and to the north of Buckingham beyond King Blvd is a massive redevelopment project that will increase vehicular traffic on the street.
I point just those two fire stations out to ask: Are not the emergency service response times of those and other Fire Stations important as well as those in Culver City?
I can think of a thousand reasons to grade separate Washington/National. And I can apply them and more to the other crossings that are the source of the controversy.
And I do not know the specifics of the accident. Metro and Expo since I've started digging and exposing have refused countless of my public record act requests. (I have the reports directed to me from research students.) I do know it's one of a half dozen I can remember just off the top of my head in which a young person was killed or injured in the Washington Blvd section of the Blue Line, which Darrell Clarke himself has admitted is like the Expo Line design from Trousdale to Western.
Just because you can't remember an accident occurring doesn't mean it did not.
National Blvd is being reconstructed so for the 2-3 blocks while the train is down in Culver City, when it's adjacent to the residential properties it has to cross no street, blow no horn, pose no possible risk of vehicle-train accidents, impede no emergency service response times.
But I wasn't at the City Hall meeting. But I know a lot of people who falsely claim that Washington/National is only grade separated because of Metro's Grade Crossing Policy were. All I have are the meeting minutes and things like this (link). The Culver City evaluations, analysis and documents are some of the best we've uncovered regarding the Expo Line true environmental and economic impacts. It goes to show how when one citizenry speaks and is heard that good products can be produced. Unfortunately my community did not have the political clout, legal muscle, or ear of the right folk to be heard. Thus, the struggle goes on.
Mark Jolles (June 6, 2008):
If this was a small town, or a small city, with limited demand and future trip projections than at-grade crossings might be appropriate. However, Expo follows one of the busiest corridors in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, with significant long range trip projections. The calculated cost of the forecasted delays alone far exceeds the initial cost of grade separation. The line has potential to create a significant modeshift in the corridor if it were designed properly. The analysis to understand and quantify this is part of the New Starts process which MTA pulled out of. They said they knew better. The rest of the world uses this analysis and forecast modeling. The true reason MTA pulled out of the New Starts process is because they didn't know how to do it. It's pretty clear from looking at their track record. The FTA was more polite about it simply stating that MTA could benefit from a higher level of "sophistication" in their planning practices.
This is not a third world country, as we grade separated hundreds of miles of eight lane interstates, we could easily afford to grade separate two lane transit lines which have the potential for far more capacity and guaranteed competitive travel times. Aside from the safety issues, just one cost of not grade separating (and a very important one), the cost of lost ridership due to poorer travel times, additional parking supply for that lost ridership, missed development opportunities because of parking limitations, cumulative time lost due to poorer travel times, degraded land values from noise and traffic impacts of a 225 ton at-grade train running every 5 minutes both directions, the cost of divided neighborhoods and closed pedestrian and auto circulation routes, required surface street capacity for the additional auto trips, on and on and on, the question is a moot point. At-grade light rail lines that got stuck in traffic since at least the 1950's were upgraded or replaced with grade separated rail lines for a reason. They had to compete with newly built or proposed fully grade separated eight lane monsters and the millions of cars on the surface streets that feed them. It is clear that Expo as designed will perform no better nor carry any more ridership than a rapid bus route. MTA does not care nor understand why it is important to do better than that. Obviously you guys don't either, but some day hopefully you will.
If only friends 4 Expo were as good at understanding transportation system engineering, transportation demand management, and travel modeling as they are at bullying 225 ton train projects past neighborhood schools and old ladies and minorities homes, Expo would be in a lot better shape now, the feds would have paid for the grade separations, and the project would have been completed. Please put your egos in your pockets and try to learn something instead of thinking that you have all of the answers. You don't.
Damien Goodmon (June 6, 2008):
Darrell:
1) I find it interesting that you and other Friends 4 Expo individuals are the only ones that ever lump Los Angeles in the same category as Portland, Dallas, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. Most the rest of the world, puts the city in a category with respect to population and travel demand stress analogous within the nation only to New York City, and internationally to cities like London. You'd be laughed out of the city if you tried to go to LADOT and suggest our traffic problems and complexities were anything like San Diego, Portland, Dallas or Salt Lake.
2) Metro's own Planning Warrants defines 50K riders/day as the threshold at which a line SHOULD be designed 100% grade separated. How can one argue the demand exists to warrant the investment (68K riders/day) while not arguing that the planning warrants should be applied?
It is, like many of your arguments contradictory and reflective of the short-sighted thinking that has gotten Los Angeles into the traffic and planning mess that it is currently. I know you're smarter than that, but I understand, you're a salesman - out to do whatever, and say whatever it is to give MTA the backbone, the cover, the safety net to build your "dream."
Look Darrell, if Santa Monica wants to build a slow local 2 or 3 mile circulator trolley so you can reminisce about "the good old days," I suggest you go to your friends in the City of Santa Monica and ask them to build one. But the need in both corridors Wilshire and Expo, and throughout the region is for high speed transportation. Members of the Expo Authority staff have admitted that grade separation (i.e. SPEED) is the only way to get the true modal shift to actually make an impact on regional traffic and thereby air quality, parking capacity, etc.
And by the way your cost argument went out the door a long time ago, but especially now since this project is coming in at $115 million a mile (7.6 miles of NEW track) and they haven't even started heavy construction.
You do transit advocacy a disservice by limiting the discussion to capital cost and not life cycle or long-term costs. In some of those other cities transit advocates have the integrity to argue and demand what makes sense.
Damien Goodmon (June 9, 2008):
Mr. Darrell Clarke, Co-Chair of Friends 4 Expo Transit:
And as I and Mr. Jolles have already pointed out, the economic and regional benefits (on top of the safety benefits and others) to the area from grade separating Trousdale to La Brea go far beyond just the travel time savings, which is far more like 5-8 minutes. You can't debate those issued presented, so you ignore them, and continue making the argument that the traffic complexities, travel demands, and mass transit needs in Los Angeles are comparable to Phoenix, Minneapolis, Portland, etc. Like I said, you'd be laughed out of town if you ever tried to make such an argument at LADOT. Again, there are reasons people like the #2 guy at LADOT, John Fisher, have said they personally "believe all rail should be grade separated." Such statements from people in such positions are not easily dismissed by a student of rail transit like myself.
Additionally, the higher the ridership (which was identified as #1 cause of Blue Line's high accident rate in MTA's very own study): the greater the number of trains and the greater the number of people around the stations. The greater the trains = the greater the percentage of crossing gate and traffic signal preemption = the greater the impact on vehicle circulation and the greater the conflict between LADOT and MTA, with LADOT trying to get as much out of the transportation system for the cars and MTA trying to get the highest traveling speeds for their trains.
Again, I've repeatedly and extensively explained the reasons Metro's Planning Warrants, which state that any line with 50K riders or more per day SHOULD be designed 100% grade separated and neither you nor the Expo Authority have disputed these facts, explained how they were applied to Expo, or explained why they're being ignored.
Again, you can not argue the data and the science of the traffic impact and planning warrants, because it is not in your favor. That's why you're response is "Emm look over there" to some other system in some other city that is nothing like L.A. and the policies and challenges we face. It takes a certain willful ignorance to fail to understand that the impact of 30 train crossings per hour in Los Angeles would be different than the impact in Phoenix, and to fail to understand that it makes little sense to be placing more stress on the most overburdened transportation system in the entire country.
Regarding safety, are you really arguing zero deaths? C'mon Darrell, not even the Expo Authority says that.
And even with your now completely reduced argument of "WEST of Gramercy Place" you forget that Crenshaw/Exposition, which is west of Gramercy Place, has no crossing gates, just like Adams/Flower, Jefferson/Flower, Vermont/Exposition, Normandie/Exposition and Western/Exposition, which of course are all EAST of Gramercy Place.
Why don't you point us to the major intersection like those listed above on the Pasadena Gold Line where there is no grade separation or crossing gates? You can't, because they don't exist. And yet you're comparing the far from clean safety record of the Pasadena Gold Line to Phase 1 of the Expo Line???
Perhaps you've forgotten that in February of this year you admitted that the median street running is like the most accident-prone portion of the Blue Line (link to your comment), where people get hit (video) and killed regularly and frequently every year (video). Now you're stating, with a straight face that you can extrapolate the safety record of a completely different system (the Pasadena Gold Line), whose track alignment (primarily isolated from parallel vehicular traffic), safety hazards, crossings, mitigation measures (or lack there of) are for the most part NOTHING like Phase 1 of the Expo Line?
You know in the past I've said to you if you're not getting paid by MTA to make these arguments, you really should, but now I realize that putting you on the payroll MIGHT possibly make you slightly accountable for what you say. Because he's employed by MTA/Expo, Expo Authority CEO Rick Thorpe had to at least "Plead the 5th" (pdf), when we requested he prove his lie that the Expo Line Phase 1 is designed like the Pasadena Gold Line and operates in conditions anything like the Pasadena Gold Line (pdf). His response can be summarized in one sentence: "I will not admit I'm building another Blue Line."
Until we actually began asking questions about the specifics, even Yvonne Burke thought there were crossing gates at every intersection there wasn't grade separation. It was tragic to see her amazement at the Expo Board meeting of the "news" that there were no crossing gates at Western. "There are no crossing gates at Western???...Uh oh uh oh...."
Darrell, as you and every other knowledgeable transit person knows, there are 41 grade separations on the Pasadena Gold Line, and THE ONLY portion of the Pasadena Gold Line where it operates without even the basic safety mitigation measure of crossing gates, let alone the maximum safety mitigation measure of grade separation is the 0.8 mile section on Marmion Way, which is a highly residential street with low-to-no traffic, and the trains are slowed to 15-20 mph. Those Phase 1 Expo Line intersections stated above are major intersections with no crossing gates, substantially greater vehicle and pedestrian traffic coming and going in multiple directions, much more frequently crossing trains (30 crossings per hour during peak hours), operating at a much faster speed (35 mph), with safety hazards that are far greater.
There's no intersection on the Pasadena Gold Line like Western/Exposition, where there are narrow sidewalks incapable of handling the massive outpour of students from the 3500-student adjacent Foshay Learning Center, coupled with bus stops for the 3rd most heavily-used bus line in the system (leading to more pedestrian activity), adjacent street closures all directing more turning traffic (the greatest cause of Blue Line accidents) to the Western/Exposition intersection, backed up for blocks in multiple directions meaning frustrated drivers (which leads to more risk-taking driving behavior that was also identified by MTA as one of the major causes of the Blue Line astronomical accident rate), on top of countless other safety hazards.
And even at the very few crossings on Phase 1 of the Expo Line where there are 4-quad crossing gates (just 6 out of 27 at-grade crossings), there's nothing on the Pasadena Gold Line that compares to the situation at some of these intersections like Farmdale/Exposition, which is 10 feet from the tracks of a 2100-student urban high school, where in the 15 minutes after school 700 students pour onto sidewalks that aren't large enough to handle the capacity (108 students per minute at it's peak), traffic is coming and going in 6 different directions that includes school buses and teenaged drivers, etc.
The South LA community finds it unfortunate that Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot don't care that Dorsey HS will be eternally stamped in the history books right beside Columbine and Virginia Tech, if among other horrible scenarios a train hits a car at the intersection and catches fire right next to the school (like in this Pasadena Gold Line accident last year where the train was going 15 mph and hit a car that ran through the crossing gates: video) or if the train derails or a car is pushed into the holding pen where hundreds of Dorsey students would be standing after school (like in this Pasadena Gold Line accident last year where the train was going 15 mph and crumbled the F-150 truck like a potato chip bag: video).
There's a reason the Executive Director of Metrolink has said, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen," and others have said, "If crossing gates were the ultimate protection, people wouldn't drive through them on their way to getting hit by trains."
After those accidents, multiple individuals on the message boards who were around in the planning and building stages of the Pasadena Gold Line admitted that those who asked for grade separation at those intersections were right. We don't want to be proven right, as we have in so many other respects to this project. This is not about being right, it's about building a safe and good product - it's about saving lives, and if it takes more money and more time, it's worth it. It's regretful that your organizations disagree.
I remind you that if this project is allowed to go through as is, when there is an accident, we will point not just to the elected officials and oversight agencies who allowed this unsafe design, but also those like Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot who opposed safer solutions, per your statements opposing any possible change to the Farmdale at-grade crossing, despite widespread and vocal requests for grade separation (Fox 11 Report). You did not and do not advocate on behalf of the South LA community that is being expected to bear the burdens, hazards and risks. You did not and do not even endorse one of the "safer" options on the the table. Your statements are to build Farmdale as is, because the train needs to get to the westside as soon as possible. You are now equally complicit in these unfortunate and unbelievable actions of our elected officials.
It's unfortunate that you'd more highly value opening Phase 1 to Culver City on time over the lives of children and a community that simply wants the Expo Line to be a good and safe neighbor for the 100 years it will operate.
We in South LA don't want to just hope that every school day for the next 100 years that everything is going to go okay at Farmdale and other intersections. We want the same protection afforded from Trousdale to La Brea, as afforded to the 1 mile portion of Expo Line Phase 1 that is majority-white and middle to upper class (La Cienega to Robertson) where MTA is spending over $175 million dollars so the children in that area won't have to walk across tracks, cars in that area won't have to drive across tracks, the emergency response times in that area won't be delayed, traffic in that area won't be impacted by crossing gates, street closures and altered synchronization plans, air quality in that area won't be worsened from idling engines, and homes, churches and school learning environments in that area won't be disrupted with crossing gate noise and bells and 1000 train horns a day, residential communities in that area won't experience the privacy, blight and noise impacts of the elevated structures. South LA is arguing for simple fairness along all residential communities that abut Expo Line Phase 1.
There's a great saying in politics, "Don't tell me your priorities. Show me your budget and I will tell YOU your priorities." We in South LA find it atrocious that anyone could possibly sit by, let alone justify spending more money in the one mile between La Cienega to Robertson, than all that's being spent in the 4 miles between Vermont and La Brea. Call the Expo Line Phase 1 design what it is: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM.
To be clear, we're not angry at Culver City - our beef is with MTA and their enablers. The Culver City residents stood up and the Culver City politicians responded by vocally stating their willingness to use their power to make sure the Expo Line was a good neighbor in their backyard. That's called DEMOCRACY! The residents there had much the same concerns as South LA then and now, yet South LA was not heard.
Anyone who has any basic understanding of history in this country knows this is nothing new. Black and brown communities have traditionally been literally and figuratively railroaded. That history is why environmental justice laws, which are being violated with Expo Line Phase 1 design, were written. Maybe Friends 4 Expo, Light Rail for Cheviot and the powers that be are just so used to seeing South LA short changed that you consider it an affront when someone has the audacity to fight it.
218 million additional dollars fell out the sky for the Expo Line Phase 1 project from the same source of money South LA has been requesting MTA spend for grade separation in our backyard (Prop 1B) since the same day the bond was passed. 50 million of that bond went to add a grade separation in Culver City! It takes a certain gall for Metro, Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot to tell us there's no money for South LA, so please stop insulting our intelligence. We pay taxes too, and we're not getting the same return as the Culver City residents. We're certainly not getting the same product.
MTA can fund the additional $245-305 million in construction costs for the 4 mile tunnel or trench with cost-efficient open cut stations, a thousand different ways. Within the EIR there is the ability to extend the trench to Watt Way (0.1 miles from Vermont, and begin Expo Line operations to Vermont). It is already approved within the existing environmental document.
Metro can very easily extend the already approved trench the 0.1 miles and begin operations to Vermont by 2010. Simultaneously a supplemental EIR can be conducted to alter the design from Vermont to La Brea to below grade. If this is done, the rest of the Phase 1 to Santa Monica will be brought online by 2011-2012, long before it is intended to reach Santa Monica (2014-2015).
I've offered the elected officials our organizational support for such alterations, and stated we would be there any time they need public support to obtain additional funding for Expo Line Phase 1 to pay for it. They rejected it. They chose to not go after Prop 1B for our schools - our children - our community. I made the same offer to you in your capacity of Co-Chair of Friends 4 Expo and you too rejected it.
You are no more concerned in helping solve these problems today, than you were 16 months ago when the Chief of Staff of a high-level politician requested help from Friends 4 Expo at Farmdale and other crossings and you vehemently told him, "No."
The part that is so misconstrued in the media and among your group, in your hyperbole that I, a very well-known rail transit advocate (link), who rides Metro Rail and Bus every day and does not own a car am out to "kill the project," is the reasonableness of our position (Fix Expo Goals and Purpose pdf). It is based on facts, data, science and it is a compromise. We advocate beginning operations to the temporary termini of Vermont ASAP, ask for alternations - not cancellation, point to the resources where funding can be found, and offer our support to help go after it. That's called ADVOCACY! Letting MTA do whatever they want, and taking it with a smile is not advocacy. And community input is more than pick the type of trees and color of the line.
What your group is doing is distorting, distracting, enabling, dividing and bullying those who dare to demand a higher standard for government work. You've gone to the point of assaulting a woman who disagreed with you at an Expo Community Meeting. I might raise my voice or pound my fist on a podium every now and then, but man, you raised your hand and hit a woman because she had the audacity to disagree with you.
Frankly Darrell, I could actually look at you and still have an ounce of respect for you if you just plainly admit that communities will be disrupted, fewer people will ride the line than could, and people will be hit and killed regularly by the Expo Line Phase 1 in the South LA portion who "all deserve it, because they're all stupid anyway" (like the Fire Department: video). While the morality of such position is highly questionable (as is the tenacity of Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot's opposition to changing any inch of this line), there's more credibility and even more dignity in that position than the spin you're producing on a daily basis. You're desperate that you've been reduced to arguing: there will be zero deaths; at-grade is just as safe as grade separated; sound walls aren't needed for a train coming by 55 mph 30 feet from classrooms; 225-tons traveling at 55 mph produce no vibration; crossing gate disruption time is 20-30 seconds; there will only be 24 train crossings per hour; LA's traffic challenges and needs are like Phoenix, Salt Lake and Seattle; the area impacted in Culver City is majority-minority; Balloona Creek is in South LA, etc. If you're just honest to yourself and everyone else Darrell, you might even find it easier to listen, debate, and not assault, those who have the audacity to disagree with you.
Damien Goodmon (June 2, 2008):
Hello Karen,
I see you're once again highlighting my name and advocacy efforts on behalf of the South LA community. Funny there was no mention of the additional $222 million appropriated to Expo over the past 6 months that's gone for everything except additional grade separations in South LA. Perhaps for a bit more balanced reading you can check out last week's LA Watts Times article ("City's Black Elected Officials Missing In Action As Residents Fight to Fix the Expo Rail Line") or LA Weekly article ("Yvonne Burke's Crumbling Kingdom").
I do appreciate your interest in the South LA's efforts to fix the Expo Line. Although I can say we thus far have been disappointed by the course Light Rail for Cheviot has taken with respect to this local South LA issue. Your actions are reflective of an organization more concerned with getting the line quickly to the Westside than actually making it a safe and good neighbor for the South LA community in which it will operate for the next 100 years.
Given that you tout the close proximity of Overland Ave as part of your plea for grade separation in your backyard, I must admit many in my community were perplexed to hear you and other Light Rail for Cheviot members speak out against a motion that would have added a pedestrian bridge, overpass or underpass at the Farmdale crossing in my South LA community, where the Expo Authority has applied to run Expo Line trains 55 mph at-grade within 10 feet of the property line of 2100 student Dorsey High School.
Those who actually live in the community and work on campus in addition to the LAUSD, UTLA, Parent Collaborative, Dorsey HS Alumni Association, neighborhood council, and multiple local, state and federal politicians all realize what a great disaster a car-train or child-train accident would be at that crossing where 1800 high school aged children cross a day (at it's peak of 108 per minute) in numbers greater by multiples of than anything witnessed on the Metro system. I know you live no where near the crossing, which is probably why you shouldn't be commenting on these matters unless its a statement in support of our community, so here's a video for your viewing: YouTube.
Nonetheless, my offer still stands, if you change your mind and actually want to support instead of impede South LA's effort for additional safety-enhancing, traffic-mitigating, community-cohesive grade separations on the Expo Line at that problematic crossing and others in our community we'll welcome you with open arms.
Regarding your own backyard, I do want to recommend that you find two better people to champion your cause in the media other than those who assault your female neighbors (Mr. Darrell Clarke) or call your neighbors racists (Mr. Mittelstaedt). As a community mobilizer I can tell you that hitting and labeling racists your next door neighbors, just because they disagree with you is no way to build bridges and find community consensus.
So you know, there are plenty of non-racists non-women-beaters throughout the region who have issues with at-grade crossings, including most in the transit advocacy community. Just a few years ago, the LA Times quoted the Director of Metrolink as saying, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen." And at a very meeting of your very own neighborhood council, John Fisher, the #2 person at LADOT, said he personally believes all light rail should be grade separated.
So I think you'd be wise to conduct a bit more research, I can even help point you in the right direction (you can start at http://www.FixExpo.org), then you may develop more reverence for those along the Expo Line corridor who have concerns about at-grade light rail safety, traffic and community cohesion impacts. Me, I'm just going to report the facts about the impacts and tell my community the truth. I will not compromise the integrity of my research to satisfy my own personal desires.
Oh and while I have you attention I recall you saying in October that you personally had no problem with at-grade crossings in your area, but when I asked if that was the position of Light Rail for Cheviot via email a couple of months ago you failed to respond. Do you have an answer yet? Will Light Rail for Cheviot support Expo with at-grade crossings at Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda and/or Sawtelle?
Damien Goodmon (June 5, 2008)
"People are just dumber and more irresponsible" could never and would never be considered a valid explanation as to why a rail line is exponentially more accident-prone and deadly than it's peers (many of which have fewer safety mitigation measures) under any possible conceivable scientific evaluation. Maybe I've spent too much time with my head in a book, because I just don't understand how that's such a difficult argument for people to grapple with.
The more complex explanation Matthew, is that the transit vehicle and safety mitigation measures are but a few of a compilation of factors to consider whether a crossing actually performs as intended. You can build all the bells and whistles, but the purpose of them is to prevent accidents and deaths. So will it work is the ultimate determination? And specifically in the case of Dorsey: how great is the damage that could occur if it does not work?
I can show you a picture of a stop sign at an intersection of a residential street working well. Does that mean such mitigation measures would work at the intersection of Westwood/Wilshire? Of course not. But why not?
The answer with that, just as it is with Expo is that a systemic evaluation and application of the basic elements of human factors and social behavior characteristics must be considered. I don't deny that some responsibility is always required on the part of the person. But just building some alert system does not fulfill the government's responsibility, which is much greater, to build safe products that provide the maximum benefit for a massive 100 year public works projects. There has to be a certain point where a determination that this is just too much to expect is made and grade separation becomes the preferred alternative. But that's not how the Metro Grade Crossing Policy works, nor is it how Metro works.
Speaking of 100 years, if you have a conservative estimate of 3 deaths a year and 15 accidents a year that's 300 people and 1500 accidents that could be prevented. Couple that with the other adverse impacts of at-grade rail in this city and it's clear that there are long-term costs that all too often are ignored by the decision-maker and some "transit advocates." Don't be confused we pay for it either way. The question is whether it's on the front end or the back end and how great the sacrifice.
Incidentally, Fire Station 34 is about 200 feet from the 7th Ave/Exposition crossing where during peak hours crossing gates will be down roughly 40% of the time. Further disrupting its emergency response times will be the closure of two minor streets closed just to it's east (2nd and 3rd Ave).
Fire Station 94 uses the Farmdale Avenue crossing as it's major access route to the north. In the distance between La Brea and Crenshaw (1.5 miles) Farmdale and Buckingham are the only two alternative arterials, and to the north of Buckingham beyond King Blvd is a massive redevelopment project that will increase vehicular traffic on the street.
I point just those two fire stations out to ask: Are not the emergency service response times of those and other Fire Stations important as well as those in Culver City?
I can think of a thousand reasons to grade separate Washington/National. And I can apply them and more to the other crossings that are the source of the controversy.
And I do not know the specifics of the accident. Metro and Expo since I've started digging and exposing have refused countless of my public record act requests. (I have the reports directed to me from research students.) I do know it's one of a half dozen I can remember just off the top of my head in which a young person was killed or injured in the Washington Blvd section of the Blue Line, which Darrell Clarke himself has admitted is like the Expo Line design from Trousdale to Western.
Just because you can't remember an accident occurring doesn't mean it did not.
National Blvd is being reconstructed so for the 2-3 blocks while the train is down in Culver City, when it's adjacent to the residential properties it has to cross no street, blow no horn, pose no possible risk of vehicle-train accidents, impede no emergency service response times.
But I wasn't at the City Hall meeting. But I know a lot of people who falsely claim that Washington/National is only grade separated because of Metro's Grade Crossing Policy were. All I have are the meeting minutes and things like this (link). The Culver City evaluations, analysis and documents are some of the best we've uncovered regarding the Expo Line true environmental and economic impacts. It goes to show how when one citizenry speaks and is heard that good products can be produced. Unfortunately my community did not have the political clout, legal muscle, or ear of the right folk to be heard. Thus, the struggle goes on.
Mark Jolles (June 6, 2008):
If this was a small town, or a small city, with limited demand and future trip projections than at-grade crossings might be appropriate. However, Expo follows one of the busiest corridors in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, with significant long range trip projections. The calculated cost of the forecasted delays alone far exceeds the initial cost of grade separation. The line has potential to create a significant modeshift in the corridor if it were designed properly. The analysis to understand and quantify this is part of the New Starts process which MTA pulled out of. They said they knew better. The rest of the world uses this analysis and forecast modeling. The true reason MTA pulled out of the New Starts process is because they didn't know how to do it. It's pretty clear from looking at their track record. The FTA was more polite about it simply stating that MTA could benefit from a higher level of "sophistication" in their planning practices.
This is not a third world country, as we grade separated hundreds of miles of eight lane interstates, we could easily afford to grade separate two lane transit lines which have the potential for far more capacity and guaranteed competitive travel times. Aside from the safety issues, just one cost of not grade separating (and a very important one), the cost of lost ridership due to poorer travel times, additional parking supply for that lost ridership, missed development opportunities because of parking limitations, cumulative time lost due to poorer travel times, degraded land values from noise and traffic impacts of a 225 ton at-grade train running every 5 minutes both directions, the cost of divided neighborhoods and closed pedestrian and auto circulation routes, required surface street capacity for the additional auto trips, on and on and on, the question is a moot point. At-grade light rail lines that got stuck in traffic since at least the 1950's were upgraded or replaced with grade separated rail lines for a reason. They had to compete with newly built or proposed fully grade separated eight lane monsters and the millions of cars on the surface streets that feed them. It is clear that Expo as designed will perform no better nor carry any more ridership than a rapid bus route. MTA does not care nor understand why it is important to do better than that. Obviously you guys don't either, but some day hopefully you will.
If only friends 4 Expo were as good at understanding transportation system engineering, transportation demand management, and travel modeling as they are at bullying 225 ton train projects past neighborhood schools and old ladies and minorities homes, Expo would be in a lot better shape now, the feds would have paid for the grade separations, and the project would have been completed. Please put your egos in your pockets and try to learn something instead of thinking that you have all of the answers. You don't.
Damien Goodmon (June 6, 2008):
Darrell:
1) I find it interesting that you and other Friends 4 Expo individuals are the only ones that ever lump Los Angeles in the same category as Portland, Dallas, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. Most the rest of the world, puts the city in a category with respect to population and travel demand stress analogous within the nation only to New York City, and internationally to cities like London. You'd be laughed out of the city if you tried to go to LADOT and suggest our traffic problems and complexities were anything like San Diego, Portland, Dallas or Salt Lake.
2) Metro's own Planning Warrants defines 50K riders/day as the threshold at which a line SHOULD be designed 100% grade separated. How can one argue the demand exists to warrant the investment (68K riders/day) while not arguing that the planning warrants should be applied?
It is, like many of your arguments contradictory and reflective of the short-sighted thinking that has gotten Los Angeles into the traffic and planning mess that it is currently. I know you're smarter than that, but I understand, you're a salesman - out to do whatever, and say whatever it is to give MTA the backbone, the cover, the safety net to build your "dream."
Look Darrell, if Santa Monica wants to build a slow local 2 or 3 mile circulator trolley so you can reminisce about "the good old days," I suggest you go to your friends in the City of Santa Monica and ask them to build one. But the need in both corridors Wilshire and Expo, and throughout the region is for high speed transportation. Members of the Expo Authority staff have admitted that grade separation (i.e. SPEED) is the only way to get the true modal shift to actually make an impact on regional traffic and thereby air quality, parking capacity, etc.
And by the way your cost argument went out the door a long time ago, but especially now since this project is coming in at $115 million a mile (7.6 miles of NEW track) and they haven't even started heavy construction.
You do transit advocacy a disservice by limiting the discussion to capital cost and not life cycle or long-term costs. In some of those other cities transit advocates have the integrity to argue and demand what makes sense.
Damien Goodmon (June 9, 2008):
Mr. Darrell Clarke, Co-Chair of Friends 4 Expo Transit:
And as I and Mr. Jolles have already pointed out, the economic and regional benefits (on top of the safety benefits and others) to the area from grade separating Trousdale to La Brea go far beyond just the travel time savings, which is far more like 5-8 minutes. You can't debate those issued presented, so you ignore them, and continue making the argument that the traffic complexities, travel demands, and mass transit needs in Los Angeles are comparable to Phoenix, Minneapolis, Portland, etc. Like I said, you'd be laughed out of town if you ever tried to make such an argument at LADOT. Again, there are reasons people like the #2 guy at LADOT, John Fisher, have said they personally "believe all rail should be grade separated." Such statements from people in such positions are not easily dismissed by a student of rail transit like myself.
Additionally, the higher the ridership (which was identified as #1 cause of Blue Line's high accident rate in MTA's very own study): the greater the number of trains and the greater the number of people around the stations. The greater the trains = the greater the percentage of crossing gate and traffic signal preemption = the greater the impact on vehicle circulation and the greater the conflict between LADOT and MTA, with LADOT trying to get as much out of the transportation system for the cars and MTA trying to get the highest traveling speeds for their trains.
Again, I've repeatedly and extensively explained the reasons Metro's Planning Warrants, which state that any line with 50K riders or more per day SHOULD be designed 100% grade separated and neither you nor the Expo Authority have disputed these facts, explained how they were applied to Expo, or explained why they're being ignored.
Again, you can not argue the data and the science of the traffic impact and planning warrants, because it is not in your favor. That's why you're response is "Emm look over there" to some other system in some other city that is nothing like L.A. and the policies and challenges we face. It takes a certain willful ignorance to fail to understand that the impact of 30 train crossings per hour in Los Angeles would be different than the impact in Phoenix, and to fail to understand that it makes little sense to be placing more stress on the most overburdened transportation system in the entire country.
Regarding safety, are you really arguing zero deaths? C'mon Darrell, not even the Expo Authority says that.
And even with your now completely reduced argument of "WEST of Gramercy Place" you forget that Crenshaw/Exposition, which is west of Gramercy Place, has no crossing gates, just like Adams/Flower, Jefferson/Flower, Vermont/Exposition, Normandie/Exposition and Western/Exposition, which of course are all EAST of Gramercy Place.
Why don't you point us to the major intersection like those listed above on the Pasadena Gold Line where there is no grade separation or crossing gates? You can't, because they don't exist. And yet you're comparing the far from clean safety record of the Pasadena Gold Line to Phase 1 of the Expo Line???
Perhaps you've forgotten that in February of this year you admitted that the median street running is like the most accident-prone portion of the Blue Line (link to your comment), where people get hit (video) and killed regularly and frequently every year (video). Now you're stating, with a straight face that you can extrapolate the safety record of a completely different system (the Pasadena Gold Line), whose track alignment (primarily isolated from parallel vehicular traffic), safety hazards, crossings, mitigation measures (or lack there of) are for the most part NOTHING like Phase 1 of the Expo Line?
You know in the past I've said to you if you're not getting paid by MTA to make these arguments, you really should, but now I realize that putting you on the payroll MIGHT possibly make you slightly accountable for what you say. Because he's employed by MTA/Expo, Expo Authority CEO Rick Thorpe had to at least "Plead the 5th" (pdf), when we requested he prove his lie that the Expo Line Phase 1 is designed like the Pasadena Gold Line and operates in conditions anything like the Pasadena Gold Line (pdf). His response can be summarized in one sentence: "I will not admit I'm building another Blue Line."
Until we actually began asking questions about the specifics, even Yvonne Burke thought there were crossing gates at every intersection there wasn't grade separation. It was tragic to see her amazement at the Expo Board meeting of the "news" that there were no crossing gates at Western. "There are no crossing gates at Western???...Uh oh uh oh...."
Darrell, as you and every other knowledgeable transit person knows, there are 41 grade separations on the Pasadena Gold Line, and THE ONLY portion of the Pasadena Gold Line where it operates without even the basic safety mitigation measure of crossing gates, let alone the maximum safety mitigation measure of grade separation is the 0.8 mile section on Marmion Way, which is a highly residential street with low-to-no traffic, and the trains are slowed to 15-20 mph. Those Phase 1 Expo Line intersections stated above are major intersections with no crossing gates, substantially greater vehicle and pedestrian traffic coming and going in multiple directions, much more frequently crossing trains (30 crossings per hour during peak hours), operating at a much faster speed (35 mph), with safety hazards that are far greater.
There's no intersection on the Pasadena Gold Line like Western/Exposition, where there are narrow sidewalks incapable of handling the massive outpour of students from the 3500-student adjacent Foshay Learning Center, coupled with bus stops for the 3rd most heavily-used bus line in the system (leading to more pedestrian activity), adjacent street closures all directing more turning traffic (the greatest cause of Blue Line accidents) to the Western/Exposition intersection, backed up for blocks in multiple directions meaning frustrated drivers (which leads to more risk-taking driving behavior that was also identified by MTA as one of the major causes of the Blue Line astronomical accident rate), on top of countless other safety hazards.
And even at the very few crossings on Phase 1 of the Expo Line where there are 4-quad crossing gates (just 6 out of 27 at-grade crossings), there's nothing on the Pasadena Gold Line that compares to the situation at some of these intersections like Farmdale/Exposition, which is 10 feet from the tracks of a 2100-student urban high school, where in the 15 minutes after school 700 students pour onto sidewalks that aren't large enough to handle the capacity (108 students per minute at it's peak), traffic is coming and going in 6 different directions that includes school buses and teenaged drivers, etc.
The South LA community finds it unfortunate that Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot don't care that Dorsey HS will be eternally stamped in the history books right beside Columbine and Virginia Tech, if among other horrible scenarios a train hits a car at the intersection and catches fire right next to the school (like in this Pasadena Gold Line accident last year where the train was going 15 mph and hit a car that ran through the crossing gates: video) or if the train derails or a car is pushed into the holding pen where hundreds of Dorsey students would be standing after school (like in this Pasadena Gold Line accident last year where the train was going 15 mph and crumbled the F-150 truck like a potato chip bag: video).
There's a reason the Executive Director of Metrolink has said, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen," and others have said, "If crossing gates were the ultimate protection, people wouldn't drive through them on their way to getting hit by trains."
After those accidents, multiple individuals on the message boards who were around in the planning and building stages of the Pasadena Gold Line admitted that those who asked for grade separation at those intersections were right. We don't want to be proven right, as we have in so many other respects to this project. This is not about being right, it's about building a safe and good product - it's about saving lives, and if it takes more money and more time, it's worth it. It's regretful that your organizations disagree.
I remind you that if this project is allowed to go through as is, when there is an accident, we will point not just to the elected officials and oversight agencies who allowed this unsafe design, but also those like Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot who opposed safer solutions, per your statements opposing any possible change to the Farmdale at-grade crossing, despite widespread and vocal requests for grade separation (Fox 11 Report). You did not and do not advocate on behalf of the South LA community that is being expected to bear the burdens, hazards and risks. You did not and do not even endorse one of the "safer" options on the the table. Your statements are to build Farmdale as is, because the train needs to get to the westside as soon as possible. You are now equally complicit in these unfortunate and unbelievable actions of our elected officials.
It's unfortunate that you'd more highly value opening Phase 1 to Culver City on time over the lives of children and a community that simply wants the Expo Line to be a good and safe neighbor for the 100 years it will operate.
We in South LA don't want to just hope that every school day for the next 100 years that everything is going to go okay at Farmdale and other intersections. We want the same protection afforded from Trousdale to La Brea, as afforded to the 1 mile portion of Expo Line Phase 1 that is majority-white and middle to upper class (La Cienega to Robertson) where MTA is spending over $175 million dollars so the children in that area won't have to walk across tracks, cars in that area won't have to drive across tracks, the emergency response times in that area won't be delayed, traffic in that area won't be impacted by crossing gates, street closures and altered synchronization plans, air quality in that area won't be worsened from idling engines, and homes, churches and school learning environments in that area won't be disrupted with crossing gate noise and bells and 1000 train horns a day, residential communities in that area won't experience the privacy, blight and noise impacts of the elevated structures. South LA is arguing for simple fairness along all residential communities that abut Expo Line Phase 1.
There's a great saying in politics, "Don't tell me your priorities. Show me your budget and I will tell YOU your priorities." We in South LA find it atrocious that anyone could possibly sit by, let alone justify spending more money in the one mile between La Cienega to Robertson, than all that's being spent in the 4 miles between Vermont and La Brea. Call the Expo Line Phase 1 design what it is: ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM.
To be clear, we're not angry at Culver City - our beef is with MTA and their enablers. The Culver City residents stood up and the Culver City politicians responded by vocally stating their willingness to use their power to make sure the Expo Line was a good neighbor in their backyard. That's called DEMOCRACY! The residents there had much the same concerns as South LA then and now, yet South LA was not heard.
Anyone who has any basic understanding of history in this country knows this is nothing new. Black and brown communities have traditionally been literally and figuratively railroaded. That history is why environmental justice laws, which are being violated with Expo Line Phase 1 design, were written. Maybe Friends 4 Expo, Light Rail for Cheviot and the powers that be are just so used to seeing South LA short changed that you consider it an affront when someone has the audacity to fight it.
218 million additional dollars fell out the sky for the Expo Line Phase 1 project from the same source of money South LA has been requesting MTA spend for grade separation in our backyard (Prop 1B) since the same day the bond was passed. 50 million of that bond went to add a grade separation in Culver City! It takes a certain gall for Metro, Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot to tell us there's no money for South LA, so please stop insulting our intelligence. We pay taxes too, and we're not getting the same return as the Culver City residents. We're certainly not getting the same product.
MTA can fund the additional $245-305 million in construction costs for the 4 mile tunnel or trench with cost-efficient open cut stations, a thousand different ways. Within the EIR there is the ability to extend the trench to Watt Way (0.1 miles from Vermont, and begin Expo Line operations to Vermont). It is already approved within the existing environmental document.
Metro can very easily extend the already approved trench the 0.1 miles and begin operations to Vermont by 2010. Simultaneously a supplemental EIR can be conducted to alter the design from Vermont to La Brea to below grade. If this is done, the rest of the Phase 1 to Santa Monica will be brought online by 2011-2012, long before it is intended to reach Santa Monica (2014-2015).
I've offered the elected officials our organizational support for such alterations, and stated we would be there any time they need public support to obtain additional funding for Expo Line Phase 1 to pay for it. They rejected it. They chose to not go after Prop 1B for our schools - our children - our community. I made the same offer to you in your capacity of Co-Chair of Friends 4 Expo and you too rejected it.
You are no more concerned in helping solve these problems today, than you were 16 months ago when the Chief of Staff of a high-level politician requested help from Friends 4 Expo at Farmdale and other crossings and you vehemently told him, "No."
The part that is so misconstrued in the media and among your group, in your hyperbole that I, a very well-known rail transit advocate (link), who rides Metro Rail and Bus every day and does not own a car am out to "kill the project," is the reasonableness of our position (Fix Expo Goals and Purpose pdf). It is based on facts, data, science and it is a compromise. We advocate beginning operations to the temporary termini of Vermont ASAP, ask for alternations - not cancellation, point to the resources where funding can be found, and offer our support to help go after it. That's called ADVOCACY! Letting MTA do whatever they want, and taking it with a smile is not advocacy. And community input is more than pick the type of trees and color of the line.
What your group is doing is distorting, distracting, enabling, dividing and bullying those who dare to demand a higher standard for government work. You've gone to the point of assaulting a woman who disagreed with you at an Expo Community Meeting. I might raise my voice or pound my fist on a podium every now and then, but man, you raised your hand and hit a woman because she had the audacity to disagree with you.
Frankly Darrell, I could actually look at you and still have an ounce of respect for you if you just plainly admit that communities will be disrupted, fewer people will ride the line than could, and people will be hit and killed regularly by the Expo Line Phase 1 in the South LA portion who "all deserve it, because they're all stupid anyway" (like the Fire Department: video). While the morality of such position is highly questionable (as is the tenacity of Friends 4 Expo and Light Rail for Cheviot's opposition to changing any inch of this line), there's more credibility and even more dignity in that position than the spin you're producing on a daily basis. You're desperate that you've been reduced to arguing: there will be zero deaths; at-grade is just as safe as grade separated; sound walls aren't needed for a train coming by 55 mph 30 feet from classrooms; 225-tons traveling at 55 mph produce no vibration; crossing gate disruption time is 20-30 seconds; there will only be 24 train crossings per hour; LA's traffic challenges and needs are like Phoenix, Salt Lake and Seattle; the area impacted in Culver City is majority-minority; Balloona Creek is in South LA, etc. If you're just honest to yourself and everyone else Darrell, you might even find it easier to listen, debate, and not assault, those who have the audacity to disagree with you.