German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseFriends 4 Expo statement on Farmdale crossing
Friends 4 Expo joins us to offer its position on the controversially Expo Line grade crossing safety issue.
Bumper-to-bumper traffic between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica is a front-page issue. The Expo Line can help significantly, and soon.
Friends 4 Expo Transit is the grassroots group of volunteers who have been supporting the Expo Line, some for over 18 years. Our motto, “Connecting Neighbors” reflects members from Los Angeles, Culver City, Santa Monica, and across the region.
We support the state-of-the-art safety measures proposed by the Expo Authority for an at-grade crossing at Farmdale Avenue by Dorsey High School — which exceed even the Gold Line standard, by including pedestrian gates, crossing guards, and trains slowing during the time that students cross — and urge the Expo Board to move forward with the current California Public Utilities Commission application and resolve the issue as soon as possible.
Reopening the Expo Line’s environmental clearance for a pedestrian bridge that neither improves safety and convenience, nor satisfies opponents demanding the whole line be underground, could upset the consensus for its consistent design standards, break the budget and schedule, and even kill the project.
To not complete this critical transportation improvement would be a tragic loss in mobility, not to mention a huge political embarrassment for Los Angeles that could also hurt our chances at federal funding on future projects.
We look forward to the Expo Line opening and providing safe, fast and efficient service to the communities it serves.
Light rail and pedestrians safely co-exist in many cities, such as here in Portland.
This video (YouTube direct link) shows pedestrian gates on the Pasadena Gold Line. Gates would be down only 30 seconds every 5 minutes in mid-afternoon - much less than the 30 seconds every minute a typical traffic signal is red.
East Los Angeles New High School #1 (left) is being built at First Street and Mission Road, right next to where the Eastside Gold Line will run in the median.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Darrell,
When can we expect an update to your cost pages?
What cost pages are those, Robert? Our 11/29/07 News item notes, “The Metro Board voted for additional funding to cover construction cost inflation and to move the ultimate Culver City aerial station between Washington and Venice Boulevards into phase 1.”
What cost pages are those, Robert?
My point exactly. Pages gone as if they never existed.
Really, I’m not being some stalker or jerk. You used to make proud of the cost per mile when the cost per mile was low. Things have changed. You used to make proud the boardings when they were much higher. Things have changed. A decade later I’d have expected at least a little acknowledgement that I’ve been right and you’ve been wrong. So far. Look back at what your supporters have called me since 1994. Proud are you? Right are you?
I’ve nothing against Expo. As a public works project it has much to recommend. My complaint is in misrepresentation. You know that is not a bias as I have spoken against roads projects for the same reasons.
My question is honest and necessary. Draw the timeline and price increases and make your case. Oh, and use your name. So much more honest.
The October 2005 Final EIS/EIR projected 42,900 daily boardings to Venice/Robertson for the year 2025 (Table 5.2-2). That was necessary for the FTA process, but is not meaningful to cite as the Expo Line most likely will have been completed to Santa Monica well before then. Look for a whole-line ridership projection later this year in the phase 2 Draft EIS/EIR.
This week’s Expo Board meeting includes “FY 08 Phase 1 Mid-Year Budget Revision” and “Phase 2 Preliminary Cost Estimate”. We’ll know more after seeing those reports, and quite a bit more later in the year after the phase 2 route is adopted and Farmdale is resolved.
Note that these posts are on behalf of Friends 4 Expo Transit, “Mr. Dawg”.
Oh, and use your name. So much more honest.
So does that mean we can find you in the phone book under “Dawg” then? I feel so sorry for you, you must have a horrible time at job interviews…
Mr. Dawg, your comments are really below the belt. Instead of addressing the facts, you call him out by name and then insult people. Take your “Dawg” and pony show elsewhere, nobody’s listening to it here.
So does that mean we can find you in the phone book under “Dawg” then? I feel so sorry for you, you must have a horrible time at job interviews…
You might research the singular reason why I was forced to adopt a traceable nickname before making such claims. Oh, and thank you for your honest and heartfelt expression of regret.
What? Is no one going to explain to Aaron the reason? Sadder still.
Here’s a question: why do the parents of students at Dorsey not trust their sons not to be complete dipshits? I say sons because women, with their instinctual sense of self-preservation, generally aren’t going to be inclined to do stupid shit like try to beat a train across a grade crossing. (Unless they’re inside a vehicle, of course, but that’s an entirely different story.)
I grew up in Chicagoland, which has obscene amounts of rail traffic (freight and commuter). You learn certain rules around grade crossings. Do Dorsey parents not believe that their sons are capable of absorbing this knowledge? In which case, I have a question, inspired by the work of John Singleton: why must you persist in infantilizing black men?
I don’t think that is the real Pete. So typical of the transit agitprop.
This is something deeper, Rob. I realize that the people interviewed for TV news stories may not be representative, but why is it that the phrase “babies killing babies” always seems to come up whenever a black teenager gets killed in a gang-related homicide? 16-year-olds are not “babies”; incomplete awareness of the implications of one’s actions does not imply complete unawareness. The opening sequence of John Singleton’s Baby Boy is an extended (and visually arresting) riff on this theme.
I don’t believe that it’s too much to ask that high school kids be responsible for their own safety. Cars, trucks, and buses are much more likely to kill pedestrians than are trains; should we start building pedestrian overpasses in front of every public school in America that fronts on an arterial? (To be fair, most LAUSD schools built adjacent to arterials until the ’60s or so have pedestrian underpasses, probably all of which have been closed off thanks to their “rape tunnel” reputation and their convenience as dwelling places for transients.) And, since it seems necessary in this day and age, let me state unequivocally that I would oppose the grade-separation of Expo at Farmdale if Dorsey High had the same demographics as, say, Harvard-Westlake or La Lycee Français.
FWIW, I support grade separations at places where an at-grade crossing would result in significant delays to vehicle traffic. The fact that Expo isn’t grade-separated at Vermont, Western, and maybe Crenshaw strikes me as foolishness; since the line has to go into a tunnel during the turn from Flower onto Exposition so it doesn’t interfere with the Exposition Boulevard interchange on the Harbor Freeway, it probably wouldn’t have added much to the cost to run it in a trench all the way to Western.
For pedestrian traffic that occurs in two daily windows of 20-30 minutes, though? C’mon.
From Exposing Expo Series Introduction:
What will be exposed are actions of people who claim they’re transit advocates, which are more in line with that of agency apologists and public relations front men.
I’m getting tired of being so right all the time.
Metroriderla readers, forgive the delay in Part I of the Exposing Expo Series. I’ve been without my computer for the past 5 days, and been forced to work on computers without the documents I need to upload to the net.
Hey Peter, simple question:
When a westbound Expo train hits an car caught in the intersection at Farmdale/Exposition, what’s the probability of the car ending up on Dorsey HS property and train derailing?
Peter simple question #2:
How many probable accidents and deaths does it take for you to consider grade separation a necessity at an intersection?
Pete,
Thanks for the expansions. That provides the perspective I have come to expect. You are absolutely correct about the crap concerning high school student endangerment. We let them take 4000 lb missles out on uncontrolled roads. A stupid signaled rail line isn’t an issue.
I too remain less concerned with the strawman safety bits being proffered. What I see instead is Darrell saying with no reservation that traffic will improve on the Westside with Expo and that is sure to backfire. There is a distinct danger of this being the last time transit advocates get believed.
I don’t understand. If you are really worried about these kids, then why aren’t you worried about all of the cars that go through there that aren’t fixed to a railroad? Even in your first example you used the example of a car accident causing a train to derail. In that example, is the problem really the train, or is it the cars? People down there are outcrying against building this train, but if they are really worried about safety, then why is nothing be asked of the cars that travel through the area? Are they untouchable?
Tony,
It’s only complicated for those who want to make is so. The crossing if designed at-grade will operate for the next 100 years (or until enough people die and public pressure forces a grade separation, which given the Blue Line history and lack of MTA board action is still very much in debate).
So every traffic synchronization plan for the next 100 years needs to work good enough to avoid train-car and train-pedestrian accidents as well as car-car and car-pedestrian accidents: every truck and every bus must clear in time; no pedestrian can dart out in the middle of the street preventing cars from turning as currently timed (it would lead to back up on the track); every delivery truck to the campus can’t get caught in traffic as hordes of students and parents in cars scurry to pick up their kids; every person that crosses the tracks will have to cross perfectly.
The very weak analogy by MTA apologists as you yourself have used is “well then why not grade separate all our streets or all our bus stops,” but that’s a non sequitur.
The issue here is that with respect to Expo Line Phase 1, it costs 35-40% more to eliminate all possible train-vehicle and train-pedestrian collisions for the next 100 years. MTA doesn’t want to spend it.
Instead they’ll take the hundreds of deaths (even at a low estimate of 3 per year that’s 300 deaths over the life of the project), thousands of accidents, environmental disruption, slower traveling speeds (which equals fewer riders and thus less environmental and economicy benefits), among other drawbacks.
And the reasons F4E oppose any redesign of the crossing (including a $5 million pedestrian bridge with a street closure) has nothing to do with safety or money - as they clearly state in their position letter. They know the EIR is flawed and are afraid of a challenge. Kids lives in danger and school learning environment be damned.
EDIT ADDITION: Now you asked me a bunch of questions which I think I answered, so here let me ask you one:
If by spending 35-40% more on freeway and road infrastructure we could eliminate every single accident, maintain community cohesion, and improve the productivity of freeways and streets, why would you oppose it?
I might note, I don’t think anyone is saying traffic will improve on the Westside, and if they are, they oughtta be careful how they word it. Traffic is probably getting worse at a rate that nothing short of a nuclear war (or an Arab war) can stop. Instead, transit provides an alternative that will (a) slow down that rate and (b) provide a credible option for people wishing to avoid traffic.
I’m really not trying to sound negative, but I just don’t understand your 3rd paragraph, what are you trying to say here?
Kids already live in danger, adding a train which will move slowly after and before school with crossing guards and pedestrian gates will not increase the danger at all. Who are the people that are in danger with all of these security measures in place?
If by spending 35-40% more on freeway and road infrastructure we could eliminate every single accident, maintain community cohesion, and improve the productivity of freeways and streets, why would you oppose it?
Since we don’t have enough money to pay for the upkeep on roads we have, isn’t this a silly question?
I’m hoping someone could clarify something for me: Is anyone familiar with the M-Oceanview line in San Francisco? It runs past a number of schools, including a stop at SFSU. What is the structural and functional difference between the plan for the Farmdale crossing and, say the M-line on 19th Av in SF? (This isn’t a loaded question - I honestly don’t know).
Why is a car getting caught in that intersection in the first place? A proper design for an intersection like Exposition/Farmdale shouldn’t allow a car to stop between the two boulevards. If a car does stop there, that’s driver error and liability will rest there. Four-quadrant crossing gates, perhaps with extended timing so that they go down with the train further away than is normally the case, ought to deal with that problem.
Another question: are cars routinely getting caught between the two San Fernando Boulevards in the east Valley, on a relatively busy Metrolink and freight route? Did they routinely get caught between the two Chandlers when the Southern Pacific Burbank Subdivision was still in operation?
I’d have to run the numbers. Again drawing on my Prairie State origins, though, I can state with some confidence that safety-related grade separations rarely pencil out: they don’t save enough lives or prevent enough accidents to justify their cost relative to cheaper safety measures that can be applied to a greater number of grade crossings.
There was a big commuter train wreck in the northwest suburbs of Chicago a while back in which a bunch of brainless motorists were waiting for a red light while sitting on an extremely busy rail line. Immediately, calls went up for a grade separation–of a three-track line running diagonally across a four-lane road. Lots of harumphing ensued until a few folks from Downstate Illinois pointed out that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of grade crossings there–on very busy rail lines–that don’t even have lights, let alone bells and gates.
The reason that traffic-related grade separations make sense and safety-related ones generally don’t is that, in urban areas, the aggregate social cost of vehicle delays is far in excess of the social cost of accidents. (In rural areas, this is probably the reverse, due to the much greater likelihood of fatality in vehicle accidents of all types.)
Adam: The Expo opponents are either (a) liars or (b) have never left LA County in their lives. The N-Judah street runs, the M-Oceanview street runs, Boston Green Line streetcars street run, Philadelphia has street-running lines, most major cities with commuter service have multiple railroad crossings for commuter trains. Why this is an issue in LA and nowhere else is outside of my comprehension.
As I understand it, LA’s trains are a bit heavier than most LRT configurations, without being an expert I would guess that they push the limits of the LRT designation. But you’re just as dead if you get hit by a 1-car E train in Boston as you are by a 2-car Blue Line train.
And you’re just as dead if you get hit by a Hummer after you run across the street without checking for traffic.
If anyone and everyone just would treat the rail line the same as ANY STREET that they cross all day, they should be fine. That is, look both ways before crossing, just like your mother (of whatever background) taught you.
The only reason people don’t along the Expo ROW is that trains have not been running there in decades. Freight not since around 1987, passenger cars not since 1951. Even when PE cars did run regular passenger service along there, they only had ONE streetcar per day at the end.
Now, we are going to switch to multiple trains with multiple cars on frequent rapid transit style service. It will take some time for people to adjust, and that would be true no matter who lived in the neighborhood.
Or for that matter if you get hit by a SUV or a bus in Los Angeles.
————
There are still people who delude themselves that the Los Angeles “car culture” will or even could last forever at the same quality. There are others who delude themselves that because their neighborhood was “suburban” back when Sam Yorty was Mayor, that they have an entitlement to keep it that way, even though it hasn’t been suburban for years.
A rail line like the Expo Line is a symbol that the Los Angeles they either grew up in or came to know through popular culture doesn’t exist anymore.
People also fear what they don’t know. And, there are no shortage of politicians in this town who aren’t willing to demagogue or legislate against rail transit for their own short-term political purposes (Waxman anyone?).
Millions more people are predicted to arrive in Southern California over the next few decades and Los Angeles is only going to get more vertical, more dense and more in need of public transit rail lines. The Expo Line, or any rail line, is a symbol to many people that the Los Angeles they have known is changing underneath their feet and there is nothing they can do about it to bring the past back.
Having lived in Los Angeles for many years before living in New York, San Francisco and London, I developed a whole new awareness of what urban living is about. Having returned to Los Angeles for three years now, I don’t fear those things with which I had direct experience.
It would be good investigative reporting to find out how many people in Cheviot Hills are actively trying behind the scenes to sabotage the whole Expo Line project before it gets there.
Dan, before this whole Farmdale mess people were spreading around information about the “loud noises” of LRT and how it “lowers property values.” People already didn’t want this line because of misinformation. Farmdale is just a way for them to legally stop this line from going through their neighborhoods.
Just as a matter of perspective, at three deaths a year over 100 years and $2.5 million in inflation-adjusted dollars per death, and a discount rate of 5%, you’re talking about a present value of $5,703,367.50 if every single one of those deaths could be averted by a grade separation. The present value cost of completely grade-separating the Expo Line is a whole hell of a lot more than $5.7 million.
Now, grade separation might still pencil out if it can prevent enough additional travel delay. Anyone have figures on how much additional aggregated annual delay time there will be by not grade-separating at Vermont and Western?
This is a joke, because it any other city, accessibility to the rail system increases property values. Rents near Eighth Avenue or Broadway were much higher than Tenth Avenue in Manhattan.
What’s interesting is other than “there’s this rail line that runs near these schools somewhere that doesn’t hit too many people/cars that often” there’s really absolutely no analysis. Muni crosses lots of streets and schools and doesn’t kill as many as the Blue Line.
At what point do people ask why? None of the people who continue to make the claims “X line runs here or there” have asked the question. Most really aren’t interested in actually evaluating why Muni has lots of accidents and few deaths, or why the Blue Line has more fatalities or accidents at particular crossings than others. It’s not as simple as tracks and street = level of risk. There’s a whole lot of factors. Too many people are too busy talking and making blanket unsubstantiated statements without actually trying to read and find out why.
I’m not surprised you didn’t answer the original question, which again was, “When a westbound Expo train hits an car caught in the intersection at Farmdale/Exposition, what’s the probability of the car ending up on Dorsey HS property and train derailing?” Your answer is actually the MTA line “every accident is the driver/pedestrian’s fault.”
It’s real simple to put something on paper and build it. Expecting it to work is another issue. Not taking into account multiple contributing environmental conditions that would lead to the design not working is by all legal definitions negligence. Real-world application and behavioral factors have to be considered. Indeed this is the fundamental disagreement between my side and the MTA rail safety crop. And at this crossing and many others, there are conditions that any rational person knows drastically increases the probability of the design not working - accidents and deaths occurring. If this were a design for a swimming pool or a toy or a piece of hardware, MTA would never get away with the design - NEVER.
In case you didn’t know when you responded, which I doubt, my question was intended to point out that there is a large susceptible population and high probability of loss of life and limb at this intersection from a vehicle-train accident. Numbers in the dozens - and factors that will lead to lawsuits that will far surpass the cost of a grade separation at the crossing. Indeed Tom Rubin, who I don’t always agree with, but respect for a variety of reasons including the fact that he was heavily involved in the safety issues when the Blue Line first started running pointed this out, but it was dismissed completely by the Kool-Aid drinkers here:
One person blowing through the gates afterschool - as occured just a few months ago on the Gold Line and happens all too frequently in America, is likely to kill dozens of students. Evaluate the crossing and the traffic patterns and it’s quite easy to understand how a car can get caught in the intersection. No one disagrees with this - not even Rick Thorpe who wants to close the small Exposition street at the crossing for that very reason!!!!
The state program that provides miniscule amount of funding for grade separations evaluates and RANKS various at-grade crossings, and it is NOT much of economic assessment - it’s a RISK ASSESSMENT - as in concerned with saving life and limb not primarily dollars. The numerous factors considered include the proximity of schools and presence of schools and bus routes, hazardous material routes, truck routes, overall traffic volume (not just peak hour per lane like the MTA policy), etc.
With respect to a cost-benefit assessment, it isn’t limited to traffic circulation impacts nor simply safety hazards. There’s a whole list of variables in the “life cycle cost analysis” as defined by USDOT. MTA doesn’t conduct anything that compares to the federal standard.
Damien, to supplement your first question: what are the chance that without the train there that the car in the accident goes to Dorsey and hits kids? Let’s say that any accident that occurs in the road is the fault of a driver. I hope that we can all agree on this. An accident occurs, and someone is at fault. Now, the train is guaranteed to only run at its time, it slows down for school zones, and the cross traffic has enough information to know that it must stop. Say an accident occurs and an EXPO train is caught in the mess. Who’s fault is it?
This of course ignores the train hitting a car head on, which most likely would cause derailment and from there who knows where the train will go? But should we really fault the train for an accident like that? In fact, with quad gates, flashing lights, and horns, how could you ever blame the design of the crossing for an accident like that?
Pete,
With the attention this safety issue is getting in the media and courts, I think it would be wishful to expect anything less than a hundred million dollar class action lawsuits against anyone and everyone that can be sued. To quote Joe Namith: “I guarantee it.”
I can’t believe that human lives are being expressed in terms of dollars here. Every life that is lost in an accident is tragic. If this train had no horns and no lights and no signals on the road, then I would be out there with Damien campaigning that it is an accident waiting to happen. However, look at everything that we have on this. My opinion is that if anyone dies at this crossing, it is not the fault of the train or the MTA, it is the fault of whoever caused the accident, and there is nothing that the MTA can do to make sure that no accidents occur on any stretch of road. Accidents happen, people get hurt. To blame the design of this crossing is just absurd.
If you put a stop sign behind a tree what is the probability of someone blowing through the intersection en route to an accident? And when an accident occurs who is to blame?
Let me spell it out: warning devices are only as good as the conditions under which they operate!
I’ll say it again: warning devices are only as good as the conditions under which they operate!
It’s not a difficult concept.
If that were the case there would be absolutely no design standards at crossings!
If there are no design criteria for crossings, then why do trains operate with gates in some locations and without them in others?
Why are there differen types of horns the train is required to use based on the crossing?
Why is the speed of the train limited based on the crossing design?
Your statement is absurd because it assumes that just because SOMETHING is placed at a crossing - something as little as a sign that says “Train tracks” - that SOMETHING is sufficient warning and thereby there is no liability or no responsibility.
It assumes all the bells and whistles are literally JUST bells and whistles, and not warning devices that are the minimum required safety mitigation measures given a crossing configuration.
You obviously did not listen to my argument. I said THIS design. There is nothing wrong with what they are going have there.
This crossing has nothing like the stop sign behind a tree. It will be painfully obvious that a train will go by there. Crossing gates, bells, and lights. And if that is not enough for the driver then that driver should not be driving.
The FTA issued its Record of Decision for the Expo Line phase 1 Final EIS/EIR, confirming it meets “federal standards” including safety.
Mostly-at-grade light rail lines are typical for recent federally-funded New Starts projects, including Portland’s Interstate MAX line, Phoenix’s Valley Metro Light Rail, and the LA Gold Line Eastside Extension.
In fact, the proposed Central Corridor light rail line between Minneapolis and St. Paul may have to change a tunnel section under the University of Minnesota to at-grade in order to meet the federal Cost Effectiveness Index to qualify for federal funding.
I know we are all Metro teat suckers here, but when you’ve got Rob Dawg and Tom Rubin on your side, two advocates against rail, you really have to wonder if you are fighting the “good fight”.
Rob Dawg, who has agreed with Fix Expo on this site on the safety issue, just admitted in this very thread of comments that the safety issue is a strawman… his concern, as usual, is that rail doesn’t cure auto congestion.
But what he said is true. We cannot expect this to relieve congestion, and I too believe that this crossing is a just a ploy by the anti-rail people to stop this line.
Pete’s cost benefit analysis is pretty convincing. The rebuttal — class action law suits — is not flushed out, and includes some speculation. Additional information that would be relevant: What is the average settlement in a lawsuit of this nature? What, if any, have the settlements been w.r.t. the Blue Line?
Yes it seems completely heartless to view this issue in this prism, but its clear that this country has limited resources to spend on infrastructure . . . but the fairness of how those dollars are allocated is a different story entirely.
Aaron you just earned a great big negative for that baseless attack. I’ve gone over the MBTA Green Line configuration in past discussions and it isn’t an applicable comparison. That FAct that you didn’t learn from that exchange in the past provides evidence that you are not listening.
Find a comment where you actually addressed this point, which I’ve made repeatedly and you’ve always responded to with personal attacks, and I’ll acknowledge it. But usually you just respond with personal attacks.
Rob Dawg,
No one here is interested in discussing the differences in alignments, speeds, train types, traffic circulation, mitigation measures, population density, ridership, crossing designs, traffic generators, and all that other stuff that actually help explain why some lines/intersections have more accidents/deaths than others or particular designs are more effective than others.
People would then have to actually attempt to get up to speed. Much easier to look for a track next to or that crosses a street, call it safe, and say thereby all at-grade is safe.
Look at how F4E still pushes the Gold Line comparison lie.
Fred,
I know this may shock you, but there are esteemed and credentialled people who have issues with the line that don’t quite make it over to Metroriderla to post. LOL!
Darrell,
Point to the document that states that an accident prediction formula, hazard index analysis, or life cycle cost analysis are a requirement for light rail lines to obtain a Record of Decision from the FTA.
None of them are REQUIREMENTS for receiving a R.O.D. for a light rail, heavy rail or even freight rail for that matter in many states, and I have never suggested the were! It’s one of your many straw man arguments.
What I and others have said, rather clearly, is that there are actual legitimate and long established state and federal formulas and safety standards that any agencies actually interested in assessing the safety risk of a crossing can utilize. MTA is not one of those agencies. They do not apply them. That is the point. Safety is NOT a priority.
As I’ve said many times and which anyone who actually reads the policy knows, the MTA’s grade crossing policy pretty clearly states that the only justification for grade separation is traffic impact. The policy automatically places all crossings that fail to meet a certain vehicular lane per hour by train frequency threshold into a category where grade separation is very difficult to justify. Further, crossings that don’t meet that threshold are only considered for grade separation when an adverse traffic impact can be shown in another way besides vehicular lane per hour by train frequency - NOT a safety hazard.
The GCP has NOTHING to do with rail SAFETY, and everything to do with TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
Now go ask Rick how to respond and copy and paste his response here.
You know perhaps I was reading too quickly.
First, I just pulled 3 deaths per year out of no where to make a point. In fact, it’s rather conservative, and given the number of deaths in the Washington Blvd section over the past few years and the comparative vehicular traffic on those streets and Exposition and the crossing streets among other factors, it is likely low. But here’s the point:
1) How many people has the Green Line or Red Line killed in their many years of operation? Less than the Blue Line typically kills in one year. So I think you can safely presume the overwhelming number of deaths would be averted with grade separation.
2) 3 people per year over 100 years is 300 people. How did you come to the conclusion that the cost would only amount to $5.7 million? By the way the cost to build Vermont to La Brea below grade is an additional $200-250 million to the existing project budget.
3) Your cost analysis is incomplete. Even if we’re just talking life and limb, why consider the cost of lawsuits for deaths and not collisions and near misses?
Nonetheless, here’s the clearly defined definition of life cycle cost per the Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings manual:
The decision to grade separate a highway-rail crossing is primarily a matter of economics. Investment in a grade separation structure is long term and impacts many users. Such decisions should be based on long term, fully allocated life cycle costs, including both highway and railroad user costs, rather than on initial construction costs. Such analysis should consider the following:
- eliminating train/vehicle collisions (including the resultant property damage and medical costs, and liability);
- savings in highway-rail grade crossing surface and crossing signal installation and maintenance costs;
- driver delay cost savings;
- cost associated with providing increased highway storage capacity (to accommodate traffic backed up on a train);
- fuel and pollution mitigation cost savings (from idling queued vehicles);
- effects of any “spillover” congestion on the rest of the roadway system;
- the benefits of improved emergency access;
- the potential for closing one or more additional adjacent crossings; and
- possible train derailment costs.
And with respect to this line there are also several other cost savings, including rail safety outreach program, rail safety staff, increased development opportunities at station locations, increased economic activity as a result of higher patronage around stations, everything down to the elimination of psychological services and workers comp for train operators involved in accidents.
Life cycle cost analysis are standard in corporate America. Again Metro conducts nothing that even compares.
I agree with the increased development opportunities putting the line underground would create but I ask, would the same folks along the segment be subject to the extra density and buying up of related properties around their community to make this improved development opportunity pan out?
I’ll save you the time Mr. Goodmon, the answer is a HELL NO! So with that aspect taken away from the discussion this is nothing more than a ploy to bury the line to it’s death, period, end of story!
Notes from the Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings:
* Its Executive Summary includes:
* Its GUIDANCE section includes information on all levels of crossing safety devices:
* Its Grade Separation section states (this may be the origin of the upper Threshold 3 (”grade separation usually required”) in Figure 3 of the MTA Grade Crossing Policy):
That was mostly done in 2001, after which the MTA board approved the Draft EIS/EIR and LPA for phase 1 of Expo light rail, and completed in the 2005 Final EIS/EIR.
The Expo Line west of about Gramercy Place is like much of the Pasadena Gold Line that’s on private right-of-way, fenced with gated crossings and a few overpasses. East of Gramercy (and crossing Crenshaw) is rather like the Eastside Gold Line in the median of Third Street or along the side of Alameda, under signal control, except for the Alameda-Flower underpass that’s rather like the Pasadena Gold Line Alameda underpass. But Expo will have more landscaping.
hey damien, aren’t you pressing onto us some ten part series expressing your viewpoint as to why the expo line needs to be stopped. a view point that probably 90 percent of this board and i’m pretty positive, fred disagrees with, yet he’s allowed you to post it anyway. its all good to have your view points and you and rob dawg can make out over a piece of cake all you want but if this is such a pointless blog, expressively LOL-able, please refrain from wasting all our times with your next 9 posts. or better yet, put it on your OWN blog or rob dawg’s.
Very tactful Damien. I provide you with a forum for your ideas, in 10 parts no less, and you attack and mock that forum, its contributors, its readers, and its creator.
I invite you, actually I implore you, to take your series to grounds that are more regularly frequented by the intellectual elite and cognoscenti who are more responsive to your words than us small minded Kool-Aid drinkers. It would be a pity for you to waste your time reporting your findings to those who lack the capacity to appreciate or even comprehend them.
However small-potatoes it may be, I’ve spent a lot of time, energy, and money on this blog, so it’s a *little bit* insulting when someone, especially someone that I’ve allowed to contribute, takes it upon themselves to degrade and defame the product of my labor. Diplomacy is clearly not your strong suit, but I encourage you to use a little tact before you post something that attacks the very podium you’ve been given.
And if you laugh that off because you feel this podium is so below you, then I repeat again, take it elsewhere. I’m sure the L.A. Times is eager to host your 10-part series.
tykejohnson,
Why do you mischaracterize our position? When and where have I ever said the Expo Line should be stopped? Point to it.
tyke & Fred,
There’s this certain release from responsibility from all on pro-at-grade side, and such a placement of responsibility on the pro-grade separation side.
-Only the people who get hit by trains are to blame - there’s no responsibility to construct safe crossings or a decent transit system.
-Only the community demanding safe, effective and community cohesion are to blame - not the transportation agency who ignored their comments for 15 years and designed and are attempting a build a line with more faults than the state of California.
-Damien Goodmon who didn’t appear before the Expo Board until December 2006 is to blame for the current state of the line - not Friends 4 Expo who stood silent and did NOTHING at Dorsey and other crossings for how many decades?
This mini-discussion is no exception. Simply, it takes a certain audacity and arrogance to attempt to lecture a person about “mocking” and “attacking” people, who are doing the mocking and attacking.
Fred, I’m plenty good at diplomacy and other aspects of politics, including returning fire. I’ve never thrown the first punch, yet so many recoil in horror when I return the favor.
Indeed it is my refusal to stay silent in the face of wrong, and my tenacity to point and effectively highlight that wrong that so angers the other side.
But to answer your question, I choose this forum to post the series in part for strategic reasons, but primarily because I was under the impression that this was a COMMUNITY transit blog - interested in a community debate about transit that is rather interesting and which there are some respective views on both sides.
If your intent with MLA is to create a pep rally, forgive me for misreading, but don’t complain about the tone disintegrating down to a level similar to that which can be expected when hundreds or thousands of people get in an arena and start screaming and yelling in support of a team and against another.
Indeed if your actually interested in having a debate, which you invited me to participate in, and think is worth having, why not as the creator and moderator of the blog show me the same respect I would show you if I invited you to one of my meetings, and attempt to set some rules of civility and enforce them instead of enabling a breakdown in civility through either silence or direct comments?
How conveniently you neglect that it was your own post which was the source of my reply:
First you attempt to tally support and opposition, as though this is some sort of sports game instead of a worthwhile discussion, then you attempt to dismiss the merits of my arguments by demonizing those who may agree, while at the same time implying that the support for my position/concerns is limited to those who choose to post in this forum.
So it is clear, the purpose of my comment was to convey in the same snide manner as you delivered your comment, that there are a whole lot of people who are share my concerns who choose to not post here for a lot of reasons, chief among them the tone of this debate. You see I knew I would have to be the one to convey the message of my community and these issues, because few others have either the knowledge, patience or authenticity to stand firm under constant assault, which you again show absolutely no concern for moderating despite the fact you invited me to post here on this topic, and thereby just might have some RESPONSIBILITY to provide.
Either way I’m as comfortable debating under Robert’s Rules as I am under these circumstances.
Damien,
You’re asking for the project to be scrapped and re-designed as an underground project. The process would grind to a halt at the “scrapping” part because of the massive loss of funds and credibility that Metro would suffer. On a theoretical level, the project could be re-constituted as a subway or El. On a practical level, no public works project survives that sort of re-write. As a result, what you’re “saying” is that it should be redesigned, but if your words have the effect you want them to have, Metro will be forced to drop the project and implement either nothing or another Orange Line-style system (which, by the way, sure seems pretty accident-prone).
Fred,
I think this has pretty thoroughly deteriorated. I can’t speak for anyone else but I don’t think Damien is here for “discussion.” If you had a dollar for every personal insult originating from Rob and Damien on this thread, you could probably host the site with those proceeds for a year.
That is my biggest fear about this. That the Expo Lines and Crenshaw Lines will end up as busway projects.
Some anti-rail NIMBY in Cheviot Hills is very happy about all of this.
I never invited you. As you know I’m quite liberal with this blog and leave it open for people to register and write. I never once contacted you and said “please write a 10-part series discussing your views”. I woke up one day, and there it was, pending review. The equivalent would be if I walked into one of your meetings, uninvited, took to the podium and said I was going to give a 10 hour speech on views contrary to yours and your audience and then expected you to moderate the crowd for those 10 hours.
Take your knowledge, patience, and authenticity elsewhere. Not only do I lack those traits, I also don’t have the time, energy, money, interest, and, despite your claim, the responsibility to provide you with anything. Your series is canceled on MetroRiderLA.
Actually I’m not.
And the only reason I’ve failed to respond to the claim thus far is that I’ve wanted those who continue to misrepresent the Fix Expo position to show their colors. Not you Dan, but Darrell.
Every neighborhood council resolution passed and every piece of literature printed by Fix Expo has asked for an underground alignment (trench, cut-and-cover or bored tunnel with open cut stations) from the Figueroa trench to La Brea - not the entire line. Not the Flower Street segment. Not the segment west of La Brea. We have consistently stated to the Expo Board that our request are limited to the SOUTH LA portion: Vermont to La Brea.
Although I personally have issues with the Flower Street segment, and Hauser crossing needs to be moved, that has not been the Fix Expo coalition position.
Despite what F4E and Expo Authority claims, the Expo EIR already has provisions in it to allow them to comply with our request. Simply, it is NO WHERE NEAR as difficult as they claim it is.
The EIR has minimum operable segments at Vermont and Crenshaw. (Go to chapter 2.4.4.2 of the EIR: link here) They can build to one of those temporary termini and begin operations to that point.
The EIR clears an extended undercrossing from the Figueroa trench to Watt Way. (Go to Chapter 2.4-22 of the EIR; same link as above). You’d have to get approval to move the Vermont station to Watt Way (where it should be anyway) and extend the trench about 500 feet from what has already been cleared. It would require an environmental assessment that is far less extensive than a supplement. A supplement is likely needed for a redesign west of Vermont.
Understand what I’m saying: without delay, Expo could begin operation to Vermont by 2010 and do the remaining environmental work to spend the $858 million budget as far as funding will allow (likely Crenshaw or La Brea, optimistically La Cienega by 2012 or 2013).
Wait a couple of years and save a few hundred lives and preserve a community (traffic, noise, etc.).
I’ve presented this to the office of every local politician on the Expo Board and Friends 4 Expo. They stand opposed now just as they have been over the past 2 decades. They’re wrong.
For me, the most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is that THERE IS A WAY to fix this problem, the powers that be just don’t want to exercise them. So often in politics there’s no good alternative, no good place to be. This isn’t one of those issues. There are alternatives. The community position IS both reasonable and do-able.
And of course your afraid of them being turned to busways. Why else would knowledgeable transit advocates stand in support to something they have reservations about.
Again, look at the F4E statement. They don’t say a redesign would cost too much, they don’t say additional safety at Farmdale wouldn’t be a good thing - they oppose a redesign because they FEAR a legal challenge.
Question: If there is no environmental justice issues then how could a legal challenge hold water in court? They admit through their statement that our complaints are legitimate!
Yet they chosen not to stand with us to support this project through the very difficult road over the next year, but instead stand for a project that is wrong.
For the record, Southern California Transit Advocates has submitted written testimony both to the Expo Authority and the CPUC, supporting the proposed safety enhancements at the Farmdale crossing and rejecting the call by Damien, et al, for complete grade separation.
It will be on the So.CA.TA website as soon as a technical glitch is corrected which is preventing me from posting on our news page.
Damien, it is that kind of egotistical attitude which likely factored into Fred’s decision to cancel your series. You bit the hand that fed you, sir.
Although things clearly got heated, I hope you can at least appreciate the fact that you’ve been able to post your views even amidst the dissent. Of course, as I think you know, you even have the ability to write your own formal post if you wish. And at least from my perspective I’d like to tell you that everything I’ve stated on the topic is strictly from my personal point of view based on how I see the issue from my admittedly limited research and any comments that attack your character/intention/etc. are strictly theoretical in nature since clearly I don’t know you personally and am shielded by the relative freedom/anonymity provided by internet forums. Of course, I still believe discussion (whether it is a debate or not depends on your perspective, clearly) is positive, and thus appreciate the availability of a forum, and I hope you do as well. If only if it serves to prove that which you already knew (that many transit advocates are in opposition, for whatever reason).
-Email from Fred to Damien on November 8, 2007