German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseTransit Diplomacy: Open Letter From Damien Goodmon About FixExpo
[tags]expo line, fixexpo.org, dorsey high school, mid city, metro, los angeles, light rail[/tags]
Damien Goodmon, dedicated transit advocate and founder of GetLaMoving.com and FixExpo.org, has come under fire recently from his fellow transit advocates for his FixExpo initiative that aims to increase the safety of the Expo Line through grade separation. There has been heated debate on MetroRiderLA as well as in the Transit Coalition’s forums as to the purpose and timing of FixExpo, with a number of advocates finding themselves (myself included) in opposition to the creator of the well known and much admired Metro “dream map”.
Agree or disagree, Damien is unquestionably passionate, informed, and dedicated to his ideals, and thus he has written an open letter to his fellow transit advocate explaining and defending his position on the Exposition Line.
You can read his letter in its entirety after the jump…
Open Letter to Transit Advocates about the Expo Line
Damien Goodmon, Get LA Moving
I have received emails and comments from many of you regarding my choice to lead the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line (www.FixExpo.org). Like all things rail transit I did not come to the decision to lead the community on this issue easily. It required a lot of internal reflection, thousands of hours of research, and many conversations with experts and political players. After this process, it was clear that my choice was not whether I would lead, it was whether I would betray my faith, community, and region – whether I would violate my long-standing moral belief that “To whom much is given, much is expected.”
The issue is not a dispute of facts, as the box load of internal memos, violated policies and other evidence we have uncovered is clear and conclusive: the Expo Line is poorly designed, will result in countless accidents and deaths, will cost taxpayers more in the long run than grade separation in the short run, and from the politicians to the PUC, to the staffs of Metro, Expo Authority and LADOT, almost all who know it have abandoned those whom they should be working to protect.
Among the evidence is Metro’s own 1998 Booz-Allen Hamilton study that shows that the conditions which are more intense on the Expo Line corridor, like high ridership and traffic volume, are the major cause of Blue Line accidents, and the MTA Transit Service Policy Planning Warrants that suggest any line expected to serve 50,000 riders or more per day be designed 100% grade separated. (Much of this is covered exhaustingly in the Opening Brief and Reply Brief to the PUC filed on behalf of Expo Communities United available here: http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2007/09/protests-to-puc.html).
So the question for me was whether I would walk down the difficult path to rectify the problems or join the crowd of the willfully negligent. The following three particularly poignant recent events have solidified my stance.
1) 2007 September Morning 8:03 am Northbound Blue Line
At 8:03 a.m. on a September morning while reading the Reply Brief to the Public Utilities Commission and traveling northbound on the Blue Line between Compton and Rosa Parks station the operator slammed on the emergency brake. I was lifted out of my seat, and continued to walk to the front of the train to see if the 89th Blue Line death – the 797th Blue Line accident had occurred. The train continued slowly into Rosa Parks station, where a service operator checked to see if anyone was hurt and informed us to de-board the train as it would be taken out of service. It was then, on the platform that September morning, with the ECU Reply Brief in hand that I saw personally the chaos that is the major drawback of street level grade crossings.
From the half dozen paramedics and fire fighters, and half dozen Sheriff deputies whose attention was on Mr. Spears who was in a tipped over wheelchair in the second car…
To the stress on the operator, who sat in the conductor’s chair with her hands over her mouth in a state of shock, likely realizing how utterly dreadful her life would be had that pedestrian – that human being stepped just a few feet closer to the crossing…
To the conductors working hastily to operate the most used light rail line in the country on one track during the heart of rush hour at the busiest light rail station in the system…
To the passengers visibly and vocally disturbed by the delay in their commutes to work…
The consequences of the decision to so freely allow possible pedestrian-train collisions was clear. It was also clear that the event ripples throughout the system.
Some politicians, many at Metro and even some transit advocates claim that the only person to blame in that instance is the individual who almost walked into the train. But the reality is the situations that cause accidents are more often than not a product of site conditions, crossing design, and predictable social behavior. So when designing and constructing rail lines in Los Angeles, the choice is either to put the gas tank next to the open flame and pay for the fire fighters for the assured blazes, or to spend the money up front to build rail right. There is shared responsibility.
There is no costs savings in high frequency street level light rail lines through urban Los Angeles, it is simply placement of cost. Our politicians have chosen to put the costs on the back end – at a much higher cost, with events like those that September morning, instead of on the front end with additional construction costs.
There is a term that is common on Wall Street, defined in the U.S. Department of Transportation guidance manual, and is either misunderstood or completely ignored among our politicians and Metro; the term is “life cycle cost.”
There is a cost for taking the train out of service…
A cost for the medical bills of Mr. Spears…
A cost for the psychiatric therapy and possible workers comp for the operator…
A cost for the on-call service operators and Sheriffs’ deputies…
A cost for red-light cameras, traffic signal upgrades, crossing gates, traffic detours for the closure of nearby crossings, safety instructors and public service announcements THAT STILL WERE NOT ENOUGH to prevent this near casualty on that September morning.
It is you and me – the taxpayers, who got the bill for that incident. A tab that incidentally will be much greater when something similar occurs in the Flower Street section where the Blue Line and Expo Line share tracks and Metro is planning combined 2 minute peak hour headways for both directions (60 trains per intersection per hour).
Why not save the lives, prevent the delays in commutes, keep or enhance connectivity in communities instead of dividing them, allow places of worship and schools to remain undisrupted, and produce better, faster and safer rail lines (and thereby higher ridership) that communities can embrace instead of having to lawyer up and fight?
The only explanation is that building 8 miles of bad rail provides more politicians the opportunity to cut ribbons than building 5 or 6 miles of good rail.
I am not the type of person that finds political ease an acceptable excuse on this issue or too many others. It was politically easier to build the Blue Line without necessary grade separation and the result is thousands of near misses, nearly 800 accidents, and 88 deaths – all numbers that are astronomically more than any other light rail line in the country.
Failing to grade separate the Blue Line initially MAY be forgivable. But the lack of action by those in power who have been slow to fix the many Blue Line problems after their cause has become blatantly clear is not. The lack of action by those in power who continue to sit idly by while the same design is repeated through more intense site conditions on the Expo Line is reprehensible.
2) Finding $314 Million in 2 Weeks
Just days after the California legislature voted with bipartisan support to strip $314 million from the then $640 million Expo Line budget, the California Transportation Commission returned the money. That act alone has essentially ended all arguments about the “high cost” of grade separations, for as you will surely hear me say over the next few months or years: if 314 million dollars can be found in 2 weeks – then there is no reason Expo Line communities should be asked or required to accept the safety risks and other environmental impacts of a street-level light rail line.
3) Finding $18 Million for Blue Line Track Improvements and an Optional Station
Shortly after the Expo Authority found $314M in a couple of weeks, the MTA board approved an additional 23 million dollars for the Expo Line budget, which is about the cost of a grade separation. $18 million of that money was for an optional USC station and track improvements in the section of the Blue Line, which is already operational that the Expo Line is to designed to share tracks. I found out about the motion the day before it went before the board, and called the leaders of the neighborhood organizations I have been working with to go down and protest the allotment, not because we disagreed with the decision to build a USC station (though PUC staff clearly stated that the Trousdale station made the crossing LESS safe), but because like the $314M from the CTC, we highly resented the slap in the face Metro was giving the communities, LAUSD, PUC, and all others who have pleaded for grade separations.
Priorities not Resources
The two budgetary acts, better than any other, illustrate that like almost all things in politics, the issue of grade separation is not one of adequate resources, but instead of priorities. If rail transit, public safety, traffic mitigation and community cohesion were priorities, no community would be forced to accept unacceptable street level crossings of high frequency trains.
Grade separations are not a priority to our political leaders, and this must and can change. But, it will only occur by harnessing and channeling the people who value grade separation. It is through the power of the people who vote (and vote to recall) that political priorities are redefined.
People Must Lead for Politicians to Follow
Last Thursday, at the Expo Construction Authority board meeting, the first half-decent action to rectify the unsafe, proven defective design was made. Councilmen Herb Wesson and Bernard Parks and Supervisor Burke introduced a motion that passed unanimously to evaluate the cost of grade separating the crossing at Farmdale, where over 1800 Dorsey High School students movements occur per day, at a rate up to 108 per minute. (I’ll change my characterization of the act from a “half decent” to “substantive” when the redesign is approved, money for a grade separation is appropriated, and Councilman Parks stops touting the “safety record” of the deadliest, most accident-prone light rail line in the country.)
If not for the actions of myself and the many other individuals who have valiantly stood up in face of those who decry our efforts, question our motives and attempt to demonize us for daring to demand a safe, well-designed, fast, world-class rail line built to the same high standards through black and brown communities as through others, this action – nor any other corrective action would not have be taken. Hopefully, for the sake of the project it is the first of many, because I’m not backing down. I couldn’t back down even if I wanted to.
Not only do I lack the moral ineptitude that is required to turn the other cheek in the face of facts and pending catastrophes, unlike almost all on the other side of this debate, I live in the community. I don’t live in West Van Nuys, I live in Leimert Park, so even if I desired, I could not easily blend into the crowd of the willfully negligent.
It is I, who will have to deal with the consequences of Metro failing to invest in grade separation every day at the grocery store, at church, at the park, at prep football games, at community meetings. I will have to constantly look into the faces of the children, parents, friends and preachers of those who are injured, maimed and killed. If this line is built as designed, when catastrophic events occur it will be my phone that will ring and door that will be knocked on. I am accountable. And unlike the majority of my community’s politicians who are AWOL, I take the responsibility as seriously as it must be taken.
With respect,
Damien Goodmon
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
The Expo Line is poorly designed, will result in countless accidents and deaths, will cost taxpayers more in the long run than grade separation in the short run, and from the politicians to the PUC, to the staffs of Metro, Expo Authority and LADOT, almost all who know it have abandoned those whom they should be working to protect.
Bravo. Anyone who thinks LRT should not be grade separated should spend their time and effort insisting that freeways be constructed at grade to save money and speed construction.
While I agree that grade separation is preferable, I am not convinced that the entire line needs to be grade separated. Muni travels at grade every day without accident. Streetcars traveled at grade level for decades.
If there are specific spots where grade separation is necessary that is a fair point.
I totally support Damien Goodman speaking out and trying to rally support for this position on this issue if that’s what he feels needs to be done. That I find admirable.
For myself, I am not convinced that this particular issue is the right battle at the right time for this transit line. As the saying goes, “sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Anti-rail forces will also no doubt use this opportunity and this argument to sabotage this line and all future rail lines.
Damien Goodman may not mean it this way, but a campaign like this could play right into the hands of the BRU and those who want all transportation money going into futile road building.
But I support his right to speak out if he feels he must.
Dan, understand we are debating a spectrum and not absolutes. Freeways and rail transit are BOTH examples of incompatible transportation modes in a mixed environment. We aren’t talking Boston’s B Line here. We are talking Houston’s Wham Bam Tram writ large.
You want at grade? Fine. Here’s the Green Line in Boston at grade:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=boston,+ma&ie=UTF8&ll=42.350021,-71.106659&spn=0.001257,0.002623&t=h&z=19&om=1
Question: Which block of Wilshire north or south are you proposing to demolish to make this happen?
I didn’t say I wanted “at grade”. I said that grade separation was preferable.
I said I didn’t believe the entire Expo Line needed to be grade separated. I agree that portions may ideally be.
Regrettably, I don’t believe this is necessarily the right fight at this time.
That’s my choice. I totally support Damien Goodman ’s right to make another one.
You are the one speaking in absolutes here.
Hey Rob: They’re planning on running the Expo line down Wilshire? That’s news to me. And I thought I was behind the times. Try not to confuse the issues too much.
Aaron is correct, I was just comparing Commonwealth Ave to Wilshire. Pick whatever route you wish.
I cannot believe Dan Ws reply. Clearly he doesn’t want to discuss merits. I went out of my way to explain the spectrum and he insists that anyone who dare claims all views are worth consideration are absolutists. Sad.
Of course, we the people must demand a reasonable level of safety to be designed into our transit systems. The debate here is how we define “reasonable”.
The location at issue is the Farmdale crossing near Dorsey High, where minors are present for less than 10 hours per week. At a location like this, additional mitigations for safety should always be taken. But what is being demanded here is for the MTA to eliminate all risk at the crossing. This is not, in my view, reasonable.
Each of us that has the courage to leave our house every morning takes responsibility for her/his own safety. But no mode of transit, public or private, is risk-free.
Nothing in life is 100% safe. But what is being asked here is that we aim for 100% safety, at the expense of creating a transit network that would empower tens of thousands of Angelenos, reduce carbon emissions, and lead to a healthier L.A.
It is the government’s responsibility to make the route reasonably safe. It is not the government’s responsibility to “idiot-proof” our transit systems. Life is not idiot-proof.
Am I blaming the victim? Depends on the circumstances. If the flashing lights failed, then the transit operator is obviously at fault. But if the person in question ignored flashing lights or was horsing around near a train crossing, then yes, I’m blaming the person who didn’t have the sense to weigh the risks properly.
To not acknowledge that simple fact is to insult the intelligence and self-preservation instincts of our young people.
Respectfully,
Joel Covarrubias
Wardlow Station
Nice try.
I stated you were speaking in absolutes because you stated “You want at grade?”, when that is not what I stated that all in my original post when I clearly stated that grade separation is preferable.
Just because I don’t believe this is the best fight to pick doesn’t mean I want “at grade” light rail.
Let’s make it clear, in case it wasn’t, all of us here prefer grade separated transit. This is why we want a subway down Wilshire. I would love an Exposition Subway. But the fact is the Expo Line is a at-grade light rail line and it’s been that way for YEARS. The question that isn’t being answered, and that is being deflected by manipulative responses (eg. if you don’t agree with grade separating at this point you are a racist, child hating, immoral, willfully negligent, ignorant buffoon), is WHY DID YOU WAIT UNTIL THE LINE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO START CARING?
Metro may be the most manipulative, racist, lying sack of scumbags ever to call themselves a transit agency, but I never heard anything from them that would ever lead me to believe that Expo was going to be a subway line. If Damien had rallied the troops after the Draft EIR or even after the Final EIR in 2005, I would have GLADLY joined the fight. Like I said, grade separation is unquestionably the way to go. But once construction is underway? Are you kidding me?
Using Rob Dawgs example… it’s as if Caltrans told us for years that they were planning on building an at grade freeway, provided the maps asked for public comments, presented revisions, got approvals, and then years later as they start building the at-grade freeway, someone says “wait, this freeway is at-grade?”.
I’m sorry but for someone who claims to be a major transit advocate, for someone who claims to be so passionate about an issue because it runs through his own neighborhood, for someone so morally driven to action, it seems a little strange to have waited until January of 2007 to get involved.
At what point are we going to pretend like we didn’t know Phase II wasn’t going to be a subway? The spring of 2010 when construction has already begun?
There’s an old saying that goes “You snooze you lose”.
lightrailforchevoit.org, a response site to the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association’s opposition to Expo’s Phase II was register in January of 2007. So was expocommunities.com. The difference is that the latter was created 5 years after the public review of the EIR for Phase I and the former was created 12 months before the public review of the EIR for Phase II.
That letter doesn’t sound all to diplomatic. It sounds like a declaration of war.
I’m new to this whole thing and I live on Phase 2 section in Palms and I took a look at the EIR online and most of the folks did mentioned Dorsey HS crossing safety BUT they also stated in the the same sentence that they did not want the Expo Line.
How can anyone propose a suggestion or mitigation to something if they are against in the first place?
Simple, they are looking for any excuse to kill the whole project and they will ride this one for all it’s worthy.
dan, to quote your website, “the train has left the station.” fred, nail hit directly on head.
Goodmon deserves an award for that thing. I’ve never read anything so wholly and unwaveringly self sacrificial. Whens the documentary come out? I also wonder in all this, if its safety and only safety thats the issue, why can’t the whole line be elevated rather than go underground? after all, in the vein of the bleeding hearts, what’s more important, your view or your children?
I was particularly unmoved by Damien’s anecdote about the accident he experienced first hand on the Blue Line. You could see that scene daily on the 10 highway, with the same amount of ‘chain reaction’ damage. Bottom line is a train is safer overall, and therefore is cost-effective. I also agree that this argument of his comes much too late.
Let’s make it clear, in case it wasn’t, all of us here prefer grade separated transit.
This is a question of safety. The crossing either needs to be grade separated to be safe or it doesn’t. It’s not a question of preference.
The question that isn’t being answered…WHY DID YOU WAIT UNTIL THE LINE WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO START CARING?
Lame. If you notice that something is unsafe you’re not allowed to say anything because you didn’t notice it earlier?
Using Rob Dawgs example… it’s as if Caltrans told us for years that they were planning on building an at grade freeway, provided the maps asked for public comments, presented revisions, got approvals, and then years later as they start building the at-grade freeway, someone says “wait, this freeway is at-grade?”.
More lameness. If you were an engineer and had construction plans that were approved by both the city and your client and you noticed a design flaw just prior to groundbreaking would you just build it according to the plans anyway? It’s the 11th hour. That means it HAS to be built by your logic.
I’m sorry but for someone who claims to be a major transit advocate, for someone who claims to be so passionate about an issue because it runs through his own neighborhood, for someone so morally driven to action, it seems a little strange to have waited until January of 2007 to get involved.
Nice. Now a personal attack on his character and motives.
At what point are we going to pretend like we didn’t know Phase II wasn’t going to be a subway? The spring of 2010 when construction has already begun?
Hyperbole. Fits the rest of your post. No such claims were ever made.
how bout this… if damien can get it grade separated and built, shame on us. if not, and its halted for years to come because of this, shame on him. personally i’m perfectly fine with being shamed, i have very little pride so no biggie, i just wonder if he is.
“This is a question of safety. The crossing either needs to be grade separated to be safe or it doesn’t. It’s not a question of preference.”
That’s bullshit. This is not just about one crossing. Read the petition, it is about making the entire route underground. Furthermore, safety is not absolute. Building it underground may make it safer, but it won’t make it completely safe. What happens if we lose a construction worker in the tunneling process? Is his life not worth anything? Everything has risks and costs, and there’s ALWAYS a trade-off.
“More lameness. If you were an engineer and had construction plans that were approved by both the city and your client and you noticed a design flaw just prior to groundbreaking would you just build it according to the plans anyway? It’s the 11th hour. That means it HAS to be built by your logic.”
This is more than a design flaw, the is an entire redesign. You don’t just “notice” that a rail line that has been planned as at-grade for years is not a subway. What you guys consider a “design flaw” is actually the entire design as it has ever been proposed and agreed upon since the very beginning.
“Nice. Now a personal attack on his character and motives.”
Did you read the letter? Any transit advocates who disagree are “willfully negligent”, exhibit “moral ineptitude”, uncaring, and borderline racist? Since I consider myself a transit advocate, and I do disagree with FixExpo, my character and motives have been attacked. Furthermore, my “attack” is simply an inquiry… if this issue (as blatant as it is) was so important, why was it brought up so late in the game?
“Hyperbole. Fits the rest of your post. No such claims were ever made.”
I never said a claim was made. I was using the precedent set with this project and applying it to the upcoming project.
I read through all the 685 written comments in the Final EIS for Expo Line published in October 2005. I found 28 comments (4%) that specifically mentioned concern over children’s safety as the line passed by schools. Only two of these comments referenced Dorsey High School. None of the comments suggested grade-separation as an alternative, all of them were against light rail along Expo. I found only one comment in the entire review that recommended grade separation, and only at major intersections (pg. 398, Darryl Cherness). I found two comments (pg. 480 and pg. 650) that were against grade separation, specifically tunneling, at USC.
The LAUSD in their comments (pg. 33) acknowledged the safety issues present with LRT and recommended as additional mitigation measures for student safety:
-Fencing or other protective structures to deter students from entering Maintenance yards, Bus-Way lanes, or Light Rail right of way.
-Crosswalk with pedestrian signals to assist pedestrian bus passengers or student pedestrians when crossing Bus-Way lanes or Light Rail property.
-Crossing guards at busiest intersections.
-Information programs at affected school sites to educate student pedestrians to the dangers posed by the Buss-Way lanes or Light Rail right-of-way.
I think we should put padlocks on every front door, to protect our citizens from going outside and getting hurt.
Think of the children! LOL
Where would one be able to find accident statistics for the SF Muni M Line? I took that to SF State, which also had a High School next door. There is a stop right in front of both schools, as well as a shopping mall.
It seems like it would be similar situation.
As I told Fred through email, I don’t consider this much of a debate. It is primarily people on the other side of this issue venting for various reasons. There’s no constructive discussion going on here. Minds were made up here…most were made up a while ago.
Mine is too. The difference is I’ve poured over the crossings, one by one as they were released from late last year to May this year. I’ve spoken to the engineers. I’ve read the manuals and the documents. I’ve identified the possible funding sources for the design changes. I’ve been to the sites. I know the environment…I know when and how the dairy trucks at 11th/Exposition block the entire street…I know that 7th/Exposition is the major access route for Fire Station 34. I said I came to decision to lead after thousands of hours of research…seems to have been glossed over. I’ve laid out most of the issues in the briefs, which by the way NO ONE has challenged, likely because they haven’t been read. Like someone on the Transit Coalition said, “No I’m not interested in reading your briefs.”
You know, I don’t always agree with Tom Rubin, Wad, Rob Dawg and others. Individuals rarely agree all of the time. But I acknowledge they have an understanding of transit that demands my attention, and I have enough respect for them that I would at least hear them out and if I had a comment it would be an attempt to engage in what would likely be a mutually beneficial and constructive dialogue.
That’s not what’s going on here. People FEEL it’s safe, so that’s that. Almost all of the comments have been address in replies on posts on FixExpo.org. But why attempt to read and understand what we’re saying, when you FEEL you already know all that needs to be known, right?
For the record:
1) Yes, people objected. LADOT, PUC and LAUSD continue to object. I was in Metro just a few weeks ago with someone complaining about a recent design. Until we came around some were willing to compromise. Many continue to compromise.
What most anyone who has just an elementary understanding of bureaucracy knows is that staff actions are as much a product of directives that come from higher ups that have predetermined, negotiated and complicated political agendas.
What I and others have attempted to do with the media is shine the light on the issue with the hope that increased attention would provide necessary cover for staff and politicians to voice their concerns freely.
1a) No, not all of local resident objections were recorded. No, they’re not all in the EIR. No, it doesn’t matter WHEN people objected. If its wrong, it’s wrong and it must be fixed. This isn’t a difficult concept to understand, but I realize some need something to hang their hat on, so “timing” seems to be it. I doubt the people will respond any differently when the box load of documents before the draft and final EIR are uploaded to the net. They’ll find some other excuse to complain.
1b) No, I didn’t know what LRT was in 2001, barely knew what it was in December of 2005. Read my posts in early 2006 to see how far I’ve come in 2 years.
I, like almost all others, relied on the people who do what I do now to look out for me and my community. Some spoke up and were ignored. Others kept quiet.
No, I won’t apologize for coming to the game late. I’d rather be late and prevent deaths, than late and sit it out, because of “timing.” Even if the timing argument were substantiated (it isn’t) I think “lame” is the appropriate characterization, and thank the Lord those making it now are not responsible for protecting the safety of any one.
2) No, I’ve never called anyone on the other side a racist. In fact, I have defended many on the other side of this issue against claims that they are racist.
What I have said is that the phase 1 design is textbook environmental racism. I wonder if anyone has bothered looking up the definition, and evaluating the design. Probably not. Again, might force people to actually admit something that is uncomfortable.
3) I do consider spending 30-50% extra for darn near absolute safety is worth it, especially when the added benefit is both a faster rail line that attracts more riders, improved traffic circulation, and preservation of communities. There’s no “may” be safer - everyone knows it IS substantially safer.
4) I suggest individuals genuinely interested in seeing the project completed in time, stop wasting their energy venting here instead write their elected officials requesting more money. But I think the true objections of some here are clear for anyone to see, so I don’t suspect most here who have commented will do that.
Thus, the standoff continues. With the facts, law and community on one side. And whatever else this is, on the other.
What Damien said.
And adding; transit advocates need to carefully consider the repercussions of an “unsafe” design. It is likely that the problems some people foresee with this design could set back plans for more fixed transit another generation.
Damien; I’m sorry that being right isn’t enough. It’s a price some of us pay. Good on ya mate.
I absolutely appreciate Damien Goodman’s point of view, but just because someone doesn’t agree that this is the right fight to pick at this time, doesn’t mean that person does not grasp the facts and the law, or have an understanding of LRT or grade separation, nor does it mean that my “true objections” are anything nefarious.
Perfect reasonable and intelligent people can come to opposite decisions.
As for the “community”, I imagine the Dorsey High School bruhaha will result in grade separation there.
——————
On a side note, for anyone in this blog new to the issue of public transit who gets confused by terms like BRT, LRT, grade separation, etc, and would like to learn a more in depth and comprehensive understanding of the various transit modes from a technical and not just a political standpoint, I recommend the following Textbook — Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for Communities. It was written by one of my favorite professors, Sig Grava, who is a bit of a legend in the public transportation field.
The letter comes off as self-serving, in my view, and Damien taking so much comment space to defend himself only makes it appear more so.
Fred’s point is well-taken. The comment period is over, the line is under construction, and just because Damien didn’t know what light rail was at the time does not excuse that he is pulling a “Diana Lipari” on Expo.
And his open hostility — cursing at Rick Thorpe, yelling at the Metro Board, etc. — only guarantees that his grandiose “master rail plan” will be ignored by the policymakers who would have to anoint it before it has a chance.
Damien has turned himself into “that guy who says he is for rail but acts more like he is against it”, and that is what the politicians will perceive him as even if he mellows out now.
As for his statement near the end of the original letter:
This is the most self-serving statement of the entire letter. I can only say that you put yourself in that position, Damien, by taking on a fight long after it should have been already waged.
As a public transportation advocate whose long-term credibility got her a seat on a Metro sector governance council, I have to say that Damien is giving us advocates a bad name. For that, I will have difficulty ever finding forgiveness.
Damien is giving us advocates a bad name. For that, I will have difficulty ever finding forgiveness.
There seems to be an exceedingly narrow definition of who is a transit advocate.
Only took you ten minutes to try to shut me down, Robert. That’s a new record for you.
Incidentally, there are plenty of comments disagreeing with Damien and agreeing that this is a tactic played too late in the game at the Times’ Bottleneck Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/10/concern-is-grow.html#comments
Not only did I not shut you down I didn’t even try.
You use transit, I use transit.
You think LA needs more transit , I likewise.
You think MTA can do much better, so do I.
You are a self proclaimed transit advocate. I’d never presume as much.
Of course people disagree with Damien (and me for that matter). What we both do on different subjects is likely to attract negative reaction.
What I do not do is try to shut people down. You are way out of line with that comment and you know it.
“I’m sorry that being right isn’t enough. It’s a price some of us pay.”
LOL. Time for the cliche: I’m playing the world’s saddest song on the world’s smallest violin for you. Martyrdom comes at a price.
“I don’t consider this much of a debate. It is primarily people on the other side of this issue venting for various reasons.”
I believe that’s the very definition of debate. People with opposing viewpoints discussing an issue.
rob dawg, its actually spelled, goodogna, like lasagna.
and i also LOVE the debate of who truly is and isn’t a transit advocate. it’s all nonsense. like morons debating how true a lakers fan you are. (i’m not one but i’ve dealt with similar nonsense as a bulls fan during the jordan era). you’re not a true fan unless you’ve coddled kobe’s balls. unless you were the person who coined the term magic. it’s all idiotic. you’re not an advocate unless you go to every single board meeting ever created by Metro. Unless you’re at every single public hearing and ground breaking. Unless you do this or that. Who cares. If you ride public transportation and wish for more, whether you agree with some of Metro’s terrible policies or not, then, goodogna.
damien is such an advocate and has done a great deal of admirable things for public transit in los angeles. this, however, no matter how blood letting it is for him, isn’t one of them. and no, damien we’re not all just ignorant assholes trying put down something we couldn’t possibly understand– couldn’t possibly fathom–so try not to hold yourself so high and mighty. us opposing your views doesn’t make you anymore of a savior.
There’s one “fact” that is continually stated that I can’t seem to confirm in my research. It is the following statement:
“MTA Transit Service Policy Planning Warrants that suggest any line expected to serve 50,000 riders or more per day be designed 100% grade separated.”
It is reiterated in Damien’s Opening Brief to the PUC entitled “The Reasons for accidents are not a mystery”. You can download the document here. In the brief, on Pg. 11-12, under “Agency Opposition and Reservations”, it states:
The at-grade crossings of the Expo Line violate the Authority’s own Transit Service Policy. (LACMTA Transit Service Policy Section 2.14 Planning Warrants - September 2005). The Planning Warrants, identified in Section 2.14 of the Transit Service Policy, establish “minimum demand thresholds that are used to identify the most effective transit solution for a particular corridor.” 50,000 total daily boardings per day is the established threshold for “operating 100 percent within an exclusive right of way”.
The Metro Transit Service Policy can be downloaded here.
Of course, the problem with this “fact” is that it’s not a fact, as anyone who looks at the documents can see. The Planning Warrants section of the Transit Service Policy is about minimum demand thresholds and how they warrant a particular service. Not how they require a particular service. In other words, per the Planning Warrants section of the Metro Transit Policy, Heavy Rail is NOT warranted unless totally daily boardings are greater than 50,000. No where does it say that if a corridor has more than 50,000 Heavy Rail is required. I mean if that was the case then current bus service on Wilshire would be in violation of the policy. There are no maximum demand thresholds in the policy. All the policy says is that Heavy Rail is justified on the Wilshire Corridor. It also says that “Determining the most appropriate transit service in a corridor depends on a number of factors, including level of demand, resource availability, site or corridor characteristics, environmental considerations and community acceptance.”
The Planning Warrants are established to make sure that heavy rail isn’t built somewhere that doesn’t meet the minimum demand threshold. These guidelines are meant to prevent the building of a subway from Palos Verdes to Torrance.
If you’ll notice, another warrant for heavy rail (Metro’s definition: operating 100% within an exclusive right of way) is “Ability to construct a fully grade separated facility”. Have we studied the ability to build an Expo subway? Do we have the money to build an Expo subway? Do we have the community acceptance? We don’t know, and to find out it would require starting from scratch.
So what we have here is someone twisting information into “facts”. The claim is that Metro is in violation of its own policies when it clearly is not, but how many of FixExpo’s supporters have taken the time to read this policy? A link is not provided on FixExpo.org. It takes some digging in the Metro site to find it.
Furthermore, the Planning Warrants have nothing to do with grade crossings, and even less to do with safety, they are only about the minimum demand threshold and what services it warrants. If you want the real Metro Policy on Grade Crossings for Light Rail Transit, you have to read this 44 page document(PDF) filled with equations, charts, graphs, diagrams, and explanations. It was finalized in December of 2003 and created to study and determine grade crossings for Expo and future corridors. So it’s this document that contains Metro Policy for grade crossings, NOT the Planning Warrants section of the Transit Service Policy that FixExpo would have you believe.
I have no problem with facts as long as they are actually facts.
i also LOVE the debate of who truly is and isn’t a transit advocate. it’s all nonsense. like morons debating how true a lakers fan you are.
Tyke, try privately contacting some of the perviously named combatants. This issue goes back more than a decade. I’m very lonely with my position that honesty is the best policy. Ask the others about my predictions of 10-12 years ago. Ask them if they were ever horribly nasty only to ultimately be proved wrong. Ask them if they’ve ever apologized. Silly, that’s not how transit advocacy works. It is a diode analysis. All good news passes, all bad news is denied. Notice all the posts recently over LACMTA experiencing a 10% y-o-y transit decline? Why not?
rob, i wasn’t around a decade ago, and i’ll be the first to say that i’m not as informed as say, you, kymberliegh, tom, wad and many others when it comes to Metro’s past policies. failures or successes. however, that doesn’t really pertain to what you quoted because no matter the history of correct predictions and infighting amongst you all, it’s still hilariously useless. goodogna for being right and shamogna metro for lying and screwing up so many times in the past 2 decades that getting anybody that’s been around LA for that long to trust you is nearly impossible. the ultimate evil Mann and his blind followers would never have had any footing and we would have no BRU to speak of. in fact we’d probably have a subway to sea already, correct predictions or not.
i’m not defending metro–or what i’m assuming you would call their propaganda–i’m just saying damien’s efforts in this instance are misguided, at best. i ride public transit and support it’s expansion because i think it’s the only real answer to this city’s environmental and congestion problems. it has nothing to do with who has and hasn’t apologized.
Yea, I’m really out here on a limb here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5a3EMI17VA
no one disagrees even slightly on this. scrutinize away. break it all down. there are thousands of ways to make sure expo is as safe as possible including all those mentioned in this post and many more that we probably would never think of. however, no where in that speech did watson call for a subway.
this is the real fear. this is whats most precarious because just such a thing will happen. those who oppose rail will jump on this horse and feed it as much as possible to see Expo fail while not having a thing to do with safety.
And I urge everyone not to get behind actions that play into the hands of the BRU and anti-rail advocates.
With our limited time and energy, I encourage us to move on and either focus on a particular crossing that is problem or work on getting other projects going.
The Expo ship has left the dock. I suggest we don’t sink it in the harbor. We may be sinking the entire fleet at the same time.
The perfect is often the enemy of the good.
I agree absolutely with what the congresswoman said. If it really is not safe as it has been planned, then it MUST BE scrapped. The process must begin again. An EIR must be done for an Expo Subway, public hearings and meetings will have to be held, a new budget must be created, and in four or five years construction can begin. But you CANNOT just switch an at-grade light rail currently under construction to a subway without doing just that. Are the residents along Expo ready for cut-and-cover construction on their streets? Are the Dorsey High School kids and parents prepared to have a deep trench near their school as the “cost-effecient” cut-and-cover subway is made. Are residents, business, bus riders, etc. ready for that trench? Do they even know there will be one? Ironically, here’s an image I found of some activists in Vancouver who are very unhappy with the effects of a surprise cut-and-cover tunnel. Some more information on cut-and-cover can be read here. It is clear that if FixExpo and Expo Communities United wants a subway, Expo will have to be started from scratch, at-grade light rail has significantly different environmental impacts than a subway, and obviously the old EIR would not be applicable.
Making a car as safe as possible for your kid doesn’t mean you buy them an armored tank. You get a car with seat belts and airbags and you teach them to drive defensively.
Would Dorsey High School kids be able to resist the temptation to sneak into the cut-and-cover tunnel after hours? How many kids will get hurt? Will any die? How will they study with the construction noise of cut-and-cover equipment during their school day? We need a new EIR if this is the goal.
Would Dorsey High School kids be able to resist the temptation to sneak into the cut-and-cover tunnel after hours?
Sad. There are probably 3 dozen “entrances” to LRT tunnels in Boston. LA kids are not so much more ignorant that they will enter.
Oh, wait. The LRT tunnels in Boston are fully grade separated.
It is painfully clear that some pushing for Expo don’t have any experience with at grade LRT.
It’s painfully clear that rob dawg chooses the worst parts to quote from peoples comments, in that they have little if anything to do with his points.
Fred’s comment, even when taken out of context, doesn’t even support your claim. His point (at least how I read it) was that the dangers of cut and cover to the high school students, which FixExpo is crying out to protect, is just as dangerous as an LRT thats running near the area. Students, who are given no credit of common sense for whatever reason, are considered by the same group to be too stupid or daring to avoid a train. So what should make these same parents believe their children are any less stupid or daring to not fall into a giant, impossible to miss, hole in the ground. Not to mention the rest of the negative effects cut and cover has on a community. And none of which has anything to do with your claim of our complete ineptitude to LRT.
Furthermore, Expo could a be completely grade seperated line the entire way and you’d still be against it since it doesn’t fit your world of proper col-de-sac dimensions and parking parameters.
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about Rob, but I was referring to the open trench that would exist during construction. Kids love construction sites!
I just don’t understand what you mean when you say “The LRT tunnels in Boston are fully grade separated”. I’m assuming tunnels in Los Angeles would be grade separated too. Wouldn’t all tunnels be grade separated?
“His point (at least how I read it) was that the dangers of cut and cover to the high school students, which FixExpo is crying out to protect, is just as dangerous as an LRT thats running near the area.”
I don’t necessarily think it’s “just as dangerous” but I certainly think it presents a safety issue. The point of my comment was that switching from at-grade light rail to a subway requires a complete scraping and do-over of the entire process due to a completely new set of environmental impacts that come along with digging a subway.
Fred’s comment about the Transit Service Policy Warrants provides the answer to those who ask why I feel Damien gives public transportation advocates a bad name.
Those of us who identify as such have credibility, long-term, by not twisting the facts to suit our purposes. If we cannot make a reasonable argument based on the facts at hand, then we do not say a document says something it does not.
We also understand when things have progressed to the point where we cannot make a reasonable case and stop something from happening, even when we know it is wrong. Indeed, we gain credibility every time we are able to say “we told you so” and be able to point at all the times we did tell them so.
And, Damien, you can post all the YouTube links you want, but I will tell you that, within the world of public transportation, credibility is not measured by how many times a television camera is pointed at you, or how many times you get quoted in the paper. Credibility is measured in terms of whether you can sway the policymakers and decisionmakers. Bart Reed obviously doesn’t believe that, and apparently neither do you … but it is the truth.
I have credibility because I have years of a track record of dealing in facts instead of rhetoric, and because I refuse to misquote documents. Based on your actions and statements, I have to say that, in my view, you have neither of those qualities going for you right now.
And Fred is (again) correct. For you to get what you want will mean starting completely over. And if that happens, forget any of the movers and shakers ever believing you are an advocate, and forget them ever taking your plan seriously.
Please, for your and every transit user’s sake, learn to work within the system, not rail (pun intended) against it.
Rob: Quit pretending like you know Boston so well. There aren’t that many portals to the green line subway that haven’t been sealed, especially since they routed Haymarket/North Station underground. There’s the large entrance at North Station, near the Boston Synagogue, the Huntington Avenue portal (which has nothing stopping drunk NU kids from walking down into it), and then of course the Commonwealth Portal for the B, Beacon for the C, and the Fenway one for the D (probably the most “vulnerable” of them all because of the odd way it comes out to Fenway). The only one that’s plausibly serrviceable is the Pleasant Street Incline near NEMC, and that’s sealed pending Silver Line Phase III routing (pigs will fly first, imho).
I’d love to see a tunnel that’s at grade. Unless you mean the D line portal, but thats a pretty odd situation and has little to nothing to do with the Expo line; Exposition Boulevard past Dorsey isn’t an embankment nor does it run alongside a ravine ;p.
Haha. I’m tapping out of this one guys. Thanks for the discussion. But now my head hurts, need to go to the lighter side of things like Tyke has done. Respect to everyone and their respective ideas, agree or disagree. Good night and good luck.
<3, Fred Camino