Damien Goodmon speaking during the Januray 29, 2008 City Council meeting on transportation.
I've seen Damien Goodmon publicly speak about the Exposition Line this year. I am not very familiar with the topic, but his speeches swayed me to his cause.
He has come under a lot of fire and criticism lately, and that has garnered him some negative press in local L.A. blogs. Friends 4 Expo (a pro-Exposition Line group) member Darrell Clarke wrote a critical essay about Goodmonthat ran on City Watch.
Curbed LA ran a story entitled
Fight, Fight! Expo Line Smackdown about the beef between Goodmon and the Friends 4 Expo.
Many of the negative comments I've read online about Damien seem to carry with them a hysterical intent to build a train line to the westside of Los Angeles as fast as possible, consequences be damned. Here is a quote from Curbed LA's comment section:
Damien is an ignorant idiot. Apparently he's never been outside of Los Angeles. Many light rail lines in other city's run at grade level (they Bay Area, Portland, etc).
-guest
I think that giving this young community leader a chance, and making the changes he (and those he is working with) suggest, will see a better light rail project in the end.
Damien Goodmon is a part of Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line. He also organized a groups of Los Angeles residents around a dream map of transportation in L.A. that you can check out at http://getlamoving.com/
Darrell Clarke is Co-chair of the Friends 4 Expo Transit.
Curbed LA is the home of snark and real estate news-like substances.
Posts
43 comments:
Culver City only has one complex major crossing where Robertson, Washington, Venice and National all come together that requires a grade separation.
Although, what Damien is saying is true, it is misleading.
Nothing is 100% safe. Where is the campaign to Grade Separate all streets next to schools? Or close all roads around schools before, during and after school hours when kids are present?
Damien uses the Blue Line as an example, that we learned a lot from and did improve safety. Why does he not quote problems with the Gold Line that even goes down a street where kids play? Because we built the line safer, like Expo has been planned.
anonymous,
I am not an expert on the Expo Line, so I appreciate your comment.
I have a feeling (after a weekend of reading and though about the issue) that Goodmon (and his group) is also fighting against the ruling elite of South L.A. politics.
If someone would bring this young man into the fold, and treat his concerns (and those of the community) as serious, and real, and try and be open about why some of those concerns are unreasonable, then I think he might be willing to stop the lawsuit he has planned.
That is just my opinion, and I am not knowledgeable about the political ins and outs of this issue. The rhetoric Goodmon uses, to me, has as much to do with the local elected leaders in this area as it has to do with the Expo Line.
This Damien Goodmon guy speaks nothing but nonsense. The scope of the Expo Line has always been light-rail. If it had to be a subway, it would simply never been built.
People who give him credit are the ones who understand nothing about future rail transit in LA. These rail projects are costly and the money is extremely scarce.
The only subway project right now is the Wilshire Line extension. Even that is not certain to be funded.
It is ridiculous to built a subway line through single-family residential areas in South LA or West LA. It is even more so when there is already a railroad right-of-way that exists.
Can you imagine someone daring to wait for a train in secluded sections of South LA in a subway station late at night?
A working transit system needs a combination of light-rail and subway lines. In fact more light-rail lines than subway lines, being more cost-effective an more convenient to access (see the waiting in a subway station late at night argument).
Just because a half crazy man says that these lines should be built as subways doesn't mean that they should be built as subways. And it is complete insanity to claim environmental injustice to build a light-rail line that would rejuvenate a neighborhood that is currently in poor condition.
Damien not so long ago at the Metro fare restructuring hearing was denouncing the BRU for playing the race card. It is sad that now he is doing just that, based on flimsy arguments in service of barely hidden NIMBYism. This project has been in the works for over a decade--where were these folks all those years? It is NOBLAG all over again. There is something other than community empowerment going on motivating this. Those of us trabsit activists who have been around a while just shake our head in sad disbelief.
Though the last two comments came from people knowledgeable about the issue, I wonder - why are a few grade separations such a big deal to those who oppose them?
The Gold Line has a grade separation at Figueroa and Marmion Way, and another heading into Memorial Park station in Pasadena.
This train is going underground near USC, and will be flaoted above an intersection in Culver City - so what is so bad about this idea to tuck the line under a few intersections near Dorsey High?
Regardless of his intentions, Goodmon has alienated himself from pretty much all L.A. transit advocates. Anyone who disagrees with him, or agrees with his ideas but thinks the timing is off is dismissed as a fake transit advocate, part of a larger conspiracy, heartless, and of course, racist.
The idea that those who don't agree with Goodmon have "a hysterical intent to build a train line to the westside of Los Angeles as fast as possible" is quite absurd considering how many years most who disagree with him have been laboring to bring the project to fruition.
I personally don't really care about the Expo Line one way or another. I do happens to personally disagree with the claims that it will be a wanton child murdering machine, although I'm sure they will be accidents and unfortunately deaths. That's the risk the comes with anything that is not grade separated, roads included (as a previous poster mentioned).
http://metroriderla.com/2008/02/04/friends-4-expo-statement-on-farmdale-crossing/
This isn't about grade separations. It is about some NIMBYs camouflaging their attempt to kill the project by claiming adding millions to the project cost is to protect children. Damien is taking advantage of the hysteria for self-promotion.
About a year or so when all this started to emerge I contacted Damien when I was trying to list the Expo United meetings on the SO.CA.TA calendar (http://socata.net/calendar). I got the impression the folks he was working with were a tad dubious as to intent. It has been all downhill from there.
And even if you take his comments and crusade at face value, is it advisable at every juncture to denounce and alienate potential allies, etc. with strident rhetoric, etc? Just on tactics one can fault Damien.
Well, that is certainly more cogent an analysis of the situation than I've read online in the past few months!
Thank you both for giving Damien's (eloquent) comments some background.
He gets quotes in local papers now because ... well he throws out some great quotes, and seems to be all about angering people into action.
I think that the Expo right-of-way ought to be used to move the rail line. I also think that a very clear, and public, online and in print, explanation of the route and the choices being made about it would deflate Damien's balloon (if what his detractors say is true of him being opportunistically opposed to the Expo Line).
He is killing everyone on the P.R. front, in my opinion. Heck, I bought his side of things in one gulp after hearing him talk about the issue. The guy is a natural speaker and communicator. I don't think his opponents are doing so well.
Thanks again for opening my tiny mind to the other sides of this issue
Alright, I read the heated debate Fred linked to above and I think I've got my mind around the issue now.
Damien Goodmon has, rightly, pointed out that people will die regularly at several crossing points along the Expo Line. The solution he proposes will add a 30 to 40% cost increase to the project.
Transit advocates are afraid, or "know", that a cost increase and redesign of the project at this point will potentially stop the project (and maybe stop it forever). The few deaths that the line is likely to generate every year as seen as an emotional bait to prevent this line from being built. Damien is seen as an actor for community groups opposed to the rail line based on something other than the safety problems he (rightly) cites. Cheviot Hills homeowners, for example, raise the same sort of unwarranted fears about the rail line as the Gold Line evoked in its construction.
Wow. Thank you internet. I have a lens to view this issue with.
Wow someone killing public officals on the PR. Big news flash.
The problem with that is when someone shouts foul for so long that he begins to help his opponents to win the case and argument quietly and decively in one big swoop.
Case in point, the claim that more money is being spent in Culver City than on the at-grade portion of the right of way
Notice what amenities and pieces are being included to make up the station. A major bus transit center for 7-10 bus routes and space for breakroom and bus parking spots, parking structures along with the elevated station. Of course it's going to cost more and they'll spend more money there because there are more pieces that are needed to make that station happen.
Also lets look at the reason why the three aerial grade seaparations, 2 of which are in minority areas (La Brea and La Cienega) and one of them is a specially designed bridge (La Brea) to minimize the visual blight of a typical freeway like overpass.
Now let's take the political route and use the words of our mayor Antonio Villar "Dream with Me".
If Metro had suggested parking structures, pedestrian bridges, pedestrian tunnels and bus transit centers at every Expo Station then we would have an equitable allocation of resources.
When reality hits this idea, you would see a lot of unneccessary overkill to build the project but at least it would be equitable (George Carlin smile). Also when you unneccessarily Gold plate the project like this it becomes more expensive the Wilshire Subway. Do you see how little sense that makes?
Originally I had agreed with him on these statements until I took a look at these things for myself and logically put two and two together. Once you read his argument coupled with the location and what was going to be included in the design of the line (street configurations) and what other additions (bus depots, parking lots/structures) are added in then the claims fall apart.
D.B.
"Damien Goodmon has, rightly, pointed out that people will die regularly at several crossing points along the Expo Line. The solution he proposes will add a 30 to 40% cost increase to the project."
Are we positive that it is ONLY a 30-40% increase. Given that you would have to suspend all remaining contracts, legal fees, rebid, resubmit EIR and other related documents essentially start from Scratch! Also jeopardize future state and federal funding on transit projects due to the perception that we haven't learned from the 1990's subway debacles.
So 30%-40% is a figure only a snake oil salesman will use. Make it more like 400% more expensive because our LA's trust will to our taxpayers and to the other holders of the purse strings will be breached.
I read you loud and clear, anonymous.
I just didn't have a way to frame all of the rhetoric flying around.
Damien really has people by the nuts on the "people will die" issue. Nobody on the pro-Expo Line side seems to have successfully rebutted his VERY thorough and well-researched information about the likelihood of regular, annual, fatalities and injuries along the proposed line.
Do I think that concern alone should stop construction of the Expo Line?
I don't rightly know. My kids don't go to Dorsey. I haven't spent close to 10 years fighting to bring this line's construction to the table. I don't have any horses in this race, nor any dogs in this fight.
I think that until the question of accepting fatalities and deaths is dealt with, Damien and his supporters will be able to kick everyone around the courtroom with safety concerns.
We're able to overlook death and injury numbers for cars, bad sidewalk design, plastics, air pollutants, factory farm employees, etc. There is a way around this issue, but I don't think it is in the courts - which is where this is all heading (as far as I can see).
Perhaps it is time for some all-out pandering, catering-to, and public bribing of portions of the opponents to the currently designed Expo Line?
Find out a way to give each neighborhood group something that will let them say, "Well, it is only a *probability* my neighbors will get killed by this train, and I take risks every day" as opposed to "This train will run over our babies!"
For every visionary transit advocate, there is a grand-parent or parent who has told his or her kids about the bad old days of Chief Parker, or Chavez Ravine, or the building of the freeways through their old neighborhood. That is just the big stuff.
With someone with the skills of Damien ... it is going to be a great, if depressing, public fight.
Thank you for the kind words Ubray.
Comments like those in this thread is why I once got so angry in these debates. But now I think they do more to help me explain why not only transit planning in this region must change, but also transit advocacy.
The day I realized I would have to part from transit advocates on this issue was when I was in the living room with the leaders of a very prominent transit advocacy group and the chief of staff and transportation deputy of a very prominent politician, where the C.O.S. quite simply said, "We have a problem at Dorsey, what can we do about it?" The leaders of the "transit advocacy" group went round and round for nearly a half hour explaining why there was no problem and they couldn't help. It was an eye-opening experience.
That was a year ago.
They don't argue the research because they can't. It's overwhelming. Read, compile, present and advocate is what I do. It's what Get LA Moving is and what Fix Expo is. Why expect me not to follow the data and research? The question is: why isn't the other side?
Just look at their arguments:
-Motives
-It's all about his self-promotion (I'm supposedly running for some office)
-Look at who supports him
-At-grade rail is just as safe as grade separated rail
-Only stupid people get hit by trains
-A couple dozen accidents and 4 or 5 fatalities a year really isn't that bad
-It's too late/you should have brought these up before
-You're going to kill the rail line
-Going the legal route is just so clearly anti-rail.
Of course, each of those are untrue or simple distractions and they've been dissected piece by piece. So at the end of the day, you just have rage from possible delay and possible cancellation.
You're exactly right: some folk just want to get the line to the Westside as quickly as possible, traffic, transit, child safety, South LA community, environmental justice be damned.
The hilarious part of course is that a lot of these people were at those meetings in the '90s and early 2000s where folk were saying the exact same thing Culver City residents were, and what South LA is saying today. Yet they question pursuing legal avenues. I'm trying to figure out what recourse such communities are supposed to have other than legal in such an instance, and the intent of laws if not to protect the rights of the underrepresented. And I'm trying to figure out how those who heard these concerns in the planning stages but ignored them are suddenly not to blame for the current state of the project.
Let me explain the way I responded in November 2006 when the issues were presented to me:
a) I actually listened and researched and came to my own conclusion which I decided to act upon
b) I presented it to the group of people who came to me and tried to find a consensus position that all in the community (the most pro-rail and the most anti-rail) could agree upon
c) I presented the facts professionally as long as I could realizing we'd fight against a clock
d) After realizing that changes were not going to be made we took it to the people of the community and the media
I say it over and over again: outside transit circles, this is a no brainer. The illogical arguments that are allowed to stand in the transit circle are just mind-boggling. That ubray is why they're getting beat on the PR front. Arguing "at-grade rail alleviates traffic and kills fewer people than cars (and all of them will be stupid), and it doesn't matter that none of the accidents will be in the one portion that is getting dramatically more funding per mile and just so happens to be wealthier and whiter" just doesn't sway most folks.
And by the way among the people who have signed our petition for an extension of the underground from Figueroa to La Brea are two City of Los Angeles Transportation Commission members and a very major leader of a California transit advocacy organization.
Not included on the petition are the #2 guy at LADOT, John Fisher, who famously said, "I think all rail should be grade separated," the former Executive Director of Metrolink who said, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen," and Congresswoman Diane Watson who said "Don't give us second hand safety less than the residents of Culver City...We can find more time, we can find more money." They're all anti-Expo opportunists running for office being bankrolled by the BRU, Cheviot Hills HOA and gas company too of course.
I've explained with as much detail as I can deliver (while still permitting myself to stomach the duplicity and dishonesty) much of the Fix Expo position on the Transit Coalition message board: http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=66&page=12
http://transittalk.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=expoline&action=display&thread=74
It's long. A lot of it is argumentative. But if you want to understand the frustration and disappointment I experience with some transit advocates, and understand why those who have the same concerns as myself are less than public about them read the whole thing - both threads.
And if you want to get just a glimpse of the type of research we've uncovered read the Reply Brief submitted to the CPUC: http://www.expocommunities.com/info/ECU_Reply_Brief.pdf
Fixed Links:
Transit Coalition Message Board Thread #1
Transit Coalition Message Board Thread #2
ECU Reply Brief
Latest from Cheviot Hills (Colleen Mason Heller and Co.). This is NIMBYism at full power. Note how closely they are following Damien's steps. Same tactics. South LA, West LA, NIMBYs all look and sound the same. You can tell them from a mile away.
NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL
**MARK YOUR CALENDAR**
EXPO AUTHORITY
COMMUNITY GRADE CROSSING MEETING
When: Monday, June 9, 2008
6:30 pm to 8:30 pm
Where: Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services
Gymnasium 3200 Motor Avenue
You must attend this Expo Authority update on grade crossing determinations for both the Expo Right-of-way (ROW) and the Venice/Sepulveda alternative, including: Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington, Centinela, & Charnock.
A mixed-use project, including retail stores, 500 apartments, and An Expo station is proposed for Expo/Sepulveda (the cement
factory). This additional density will create even more of a traffic nightmare in West L.A.! Development at the expense of neighborhood quality of life is unacceptable!
If the Overland Avenue crossing is at grade it will have a negative impact on student safety, student health and the learning environment. Hundreds of ROW homes will suffer noise and vibration impacts, and lose privacy. Train-blocked intersections will stall north/south traffic up to 50% of the time, creating air pollution, commuter delay, and serious economic impacts to local businesses. The proposed 200 car parking lot on Overland Avenue across from Overland School will create a crime magnet and yet more traffic to the area. At-grade or elevated rail crossings near schools and homes are dangerous and unacceptable!
You need to demand below-grade separations at Overland, Westwood, Military and Sepulveda. Attend this important meeting and let your voices be heard.
Neighbors For Smart Rail
POB64496 Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.smartrail.org
and
neighborsforsmartrail@smartrail.org
Expo@cheviothills.org • Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association
Sick_of_same_old_NIMBYism,
If you think that you have posted something that will settle the debate, you're wrong.
I have been busy reading and watching what I could find on the internet about this issue, and the NIMBY point you raise is true. Neighbors in areas near the Expo Line are sometimes just bat-shit crazy oppossed to the line being built. This is similar to the opposition around the construction of the Gold Line.
That is not going to counteract the facts about how this rail line will induce a few deaths every year that otherwise would not occur.
People dying is bad, but we're able to accept the risk of death or dismemberment for all sorts of other things that are publicly built.
Why not just deal with that issue instead of suppress the voices calling for an investigation into that matter? With someone as talented as Damien Goodmon fighting for this, you're going to have on hell of a time suppressing complaints about safety.
Suppression of legitimate grievances also makes the aggrieved feel like this is part of a trend to ignore or suppress their interests - and they are less likely to back down.
So, maybe a re-design is financially impossible. However, I doubt this needs to be anything more than a hiccup in the completion of the Expo Line, and in the end dealing with these legitimate concerns will create a better light rail line.
So, deal with it either by making the case that lives are lost in travel all the time, and that safety concerns are being mitigated according to the law and official policies OR prepare to fight it out in court.
A van rad a red light in Hyde Park the other day and killed 5 people, including 3 children, in a fiery crash.
Who the hell allowed Crenshaw and Florence to be built without grade separation??
ubrayj02,
What you don't realize is this is not about Dorsey, as Damien himself admits it.
They will still (try to) sue if they make Farmdale below-grade. They want below-grade all the way from Figureoa to La Brea. Same thing with Cheviot Hills, they want below-grade throughout the Westside.
The point is below-grade will never happen. NIMBYs know that very well and they are using it to kill the line -- same thing with Expo Communities United/FixExpo (South LA) and Neighbors for Smart Rail/Cheviot Hills (West LA).
Now, do you get it ubrayj02?
His real agenda is to advoate for subways across the region, not surface light rail. Laudable, yes, but expensive.
This thing about grade separation near Dorsey, kids getting hit, etc. is just a method for him to push for what he wants (Expo line in a subway). Otherwise, just build an overhead walkway (there are two or three along the Blue Line, and other places as well) and be done with it.
It's not known if his real agenda is to promote subways or simply become a city councilman, but I know that he doesn't give a darn about the Expo Line. That's why he is just a NIMBY.
Ubray, I was going to suggest reading the debates on The Transit Coalition's discussion board, but Damien Goodmon posted their links first. I'd start here. They cover the facts of light rail well, including:
* The standard for light rail in many cities is mostly at-grade, with occasional grade separations where necessary. Conversely, there is no modern (post-1980) light rail line built in an extended trench.
* Standard operation for light rail trains is 35 mph with traffic signals in boulevard medians, like the new Eastside Gold Line (opening next year, that passes three LAUSD schools), or 55 mph on private fenced right-of-way with crossing gates, like the (very safe) Pasadena Gold Line.
* The 1.3 miles along Exposition Blvd. from Vermont to Gramercy will be the former. West of there to Ballona Creek (where Culver City begins) will be the latter, with gated crossings except for bridges over La Brea and La Cienega-Jefferson and a signal at Crenshaw.
* The one bridge grade separation in Culver City was necessitated by both traffic on Venice Blvd. and the diagonal crossing of the Washington-National intersection.
* The City of Santa Monica requested study of an at-grade median alignment along Colorado into downtown Santa Monica instead of aerial.
* The choice before the MTA Board in 2001 was mostly-at-grade light rail or a busway. They chose light rail largely because of widespread grass-roots support.
* The California Public Utilities Commission approved all but two crossings last December. The PUC will consider an at-grade crossing, pedestrian bridge, and rail bridge at Farmdale by Dorsey, and the existing ped tunnel or a ped bridge at Harvard by Foshay, final decision due this fall.
Thank you all for spelling things out for me (and hopefully others) who have seen this rhetorical battle rage across several web-sites, but have not been clear on what the underlying issues were.
I personally think that this whole grade separation debate is about how little the people of htis area feel they were consulted about this entire idea, and the lack of faith in thier elected leaders.
A POLITICAL strategy to end this fight would involve someone with power to make things happen visiting each group in "Fix Expo" and asking them what they need to see to support the project.
Grade separation to prevent car crashes, or to keep cars moving faster, or to prevent several likely ped deaths per year might not be worth it to everyone in the long run (as cold and callous as that sounds).
It seems as though every other community along the line has had its chance to sel itself out to the Expo Line, except the community organized with Goodmon.
Anyway, thanks again to everyone!
"Grade separation to prevent car crashes, or to keep cars moving faster, or to prevent several likely ped deaths per year might not be worth it to everyone in the long run (as cold and callous as that sounds)."
When cars crash into trains and pedestrians get run over, it is more often than not the individual's fault for getting hit.
When I ride the Blue Line I am NOT AT ALL worried about the train hurting me. The train is on a fixed guide way and will not deviate from its course. "Looking both ways," as our parents instructed us to do, is the best defense again these "deadly" light rail vehicles.
I am however worried about cars. They are more unpredictable than trains and many drivers hold contempt for pedestrians for something as simple as having the nerve to walk across the street. Many car owners believe they own the road and that pedestrians or bicycles, or even buses and light rail vehicles, don't belong, no matter how many times PSAs tell them to share the road.
You want to save lives? Remove all cars from the road, and replace them with tracks.
It is a public process and we'll see how far Mr. Goodmon and his crusaders get. If things are going as well as he wants to claim, why does he need to run all over the place, yell non-stop and post a brick of a long post?
Oh, well. Back to real life and a front row seat.
I personally think that this whole grade separation debate is about how little the people of htis area feel they were consulted about this entire idea, and the lack of faith in thier elected leaders.
A POLITICAL strategy to end this fight would involve someone with power to make things happen visiting each group in "Fix Expo" and asking them what they need to see to support the project.
To quote Damien's motto, "It's not over until it's under!"
That means there is no compromise. Like CPH said, he wants a subway. Crossing gates, pedestrian bridges, even grade-separated elevated stations are out of the question. Is a subway the only way to mitigate the dangers to the community? My personal opinion is of course, "no". But like you, I don't have any horses in the race or dogs in the fight, I just happen to disagree.
To quote Damien's motto, "It's not over until it's under!"
That means there is no compromise.
Okay. With Damien there may be "no compromise". I don't perceive it that way, but you know more about the issue and people involved than I ever will.
With the other groups involved there must be some point at witch they would remove their opposition, which may fall short of full grade separation (a costly alternative that many think will permanently stop the project).
So, why not spend some time picking away at the coalition members and give them things they want - access, information, help, etc.
Some people are insane, and will oppose a train line for stupid reasons. This safety issue seems real enough to a lot of people that they are willing to stall the benefits of light rail and a huge investment in their long term economic stability.
I would ratchet down the rhetoric and personal attacks, and get to work chipping away at a way 'round the crazies.
Maybe the oil company drone and future president of the galaxy (he's filed papers on Alpha Centauri) Damien Goodmon will (gasp!) be willing to compromise and negotiate in order to see a better rail line built. It does not seem like that has even been attempted by those advocating the construction of the line.
So, why not spend some time picking away at the coalition members and give them things they want - access, information, help, etc.
A simple question needs a simple answer because they don't want any of those things. The other groups in which Damien is both leading and assisting have a different motive and that is to stop the project so chipping away at the crazies also mean chipping away at his arguments.
I'm sorry ubrayj but this is part of the reality.
This isn't about a group of people who feel they weren't represented properly or some who want safety betterments but they want to stop Expo altogether.
brayj:
What you're trying to get is exactly what I tried unsuccessfully to get months ago: an honest discussion about Expo Line Phase 1 safety hazards, adverse environmental impacts and a systemic view of how light rail fits into this community. But doing so conclusively shows that at-grade rail is not a fit: it worsens traffic, slows up the line (losing potential riders), delays emergency services response times, will cause dozens of accidents and countless deaths and disrupts a community, with its homes, schools and places of worship. So instead you get the "he's running for office," "the people behind him are anti-rail," "he's really trying to kill the line," "it's like the Pasadena Gold Line" (even though they can't prove it), and my personal favorite, "at-grade rail is just as safe as grade separated rail."
The reality is we're right, and most of the knowledgeable folk on the other side knows we're right. They just don't feel that the necessary modifications will ever be made by those in power.
The telling part is how they react under these circumstances?
Well there are pretty much three options:
1) You can stay silent (notice how Darrell Clarke is pretty much the ONLY prominent figure who speaks strongly in support of the current design).
2) You can pressure the elected officials to make the modifications in unison with the group or independent from the group.
3) You can attack, often personally, the community making the requested changes.
Unfortunately most have chosen #3, primarily because they find it easier than actually applying the pressure on the Board.
I offered Friends 4 Expo and every politician the following deal
Extend the Figueroa trench to Vermont (which is easily done within the existing EIR), AND BEGIN OPERATIONS while a Supplemental EIR is done to continue the below grade alignment to La Brea in a tunnel (bored or cut-and-cover) or trench, we'll work with you to lobby for the additional funding, AND THEN WE WILL BUILD IT.
Everyone has said no. Ask yourself why? You already know the answer, and you can see it all throughout these message boards: people want to get this thing to the Westside as quick as possible, so a 2-3 year delay for a 100 year vital transportation project is unacceptable to them. Yet we're the radicals?
The fact is our position is very reasonable. It's thoroughly supported by research AND LOGIC, and Metro has the money to make the modifications, just not the will.
And has anyone ever actually explained how making the modifications would "kill the project" or is that just another unsubstantiated assumption?
It's a 225-300 million dollar modification to a 2.1-2.4 billion dollar project (a 9-14% increase).
They found $222 million NEW DOLLARS in just 100 days last year from the same PROP 1B source we've been asking them to go after for grade separations in South LA!
Has anyone explained why more money can't be found from Prop 1B?
Has anyone explained why the LA CRA can't bond the money for the stations and/or tie it to adjacent mixed-use projects (since Vermont, Crenshaw, La Brea, and soon to be Western are all in CRA project areas)?
Has anyone explained why Metro can't bond the money?
Has anyone explained why the money can't come from a November '08 local ballot measure?
Has anyone explained why the money "would be lost" and not simply reprogrammed to bring another project in the queue at Metro online sooner (call it Project A), while the money from Project A that was to be spent in later years is reprogrammed to Expo after a Supplemental EIR is done?
Has anyone explained why portions of the project couldn't be tacked on to the Phase 2 New Starts application?
No one has, yet this "will kill the project" meme is allowed to float around completely uncontested.
The line needs to be built uniformly all the way to Santa Monica. If you put it into a trench through Figureoa - La Brea, you need to put it in a trench all the way from Washington/Flower to 4th/Colorado. Otherwise, wouldn't this be environmental discrimination or racism? (Hint: the answer is "Yes, it definitely would be!" Also, Cheviot Hills and all other neighborhoods would ask for the same anyway.)
But if you want to do that, you need another $2 billion. This would kill the line.
Something as simple as this is something Damien still argues about, making the same misleading and false statements everyday.
Not to mention that the line is already under construction the way it was originally planned. The tracks will be laid in six mnonths.
It's also ironic that what Damien is asking for is environmental injustice (to build a different line through their neighborhood), while he claims that there is environmental injustice in building the line uniformly throughout, as it is currently being built.
"the people behind him are anti-rail,"
Read the EIR comments. Pay attention to one of the names listed (Clint Simmons) are the same leaders "trying to ask for betterments". Notice what he states in his comments.
"he's really trying to kill the line"
Aligning yourself with groups who's sole intention is stopping the project has put you in the same category.
"it's like the Pasadena Gold Line" (even though they can't prove it),
Much like YOU can't prove that it's going to be like the Blue Line.
"at-grade rail is just as safe as grade separated rail."
In fact it is. Look at the Gold Line which is the latest Light Rail project in Los Angeles. Notice again the active pedestrian signage, directed 65dBa horns, extra pedestrian gates and quad gates at 55 mph private right of way for crossing car traffic and 20-35 mph in median running.
"Extend the Figueroa trench to Vermont (which is easily done within the existing EIR), AND BEGIN OPERATIONS. Everyone has said no. Ask yourself why?"
Extending the trench was not to Vermont but through Trousdale only if USC steps up to the plate and excepts it. Here's the key USC didn't want that, so they would have to add that to the Supplemental EIR again to extend the trench to Vermont. So the project would stop period.
What happens if they perform this Supplemental EIR and come to the exact same conclusion and go with at-grade Light Rail. Will that satisfy your concerns?
Look at the Orange Line busway when the group COST did the same thing.
Damien,
Are you SURE that grade separation is the right way to go?
My anecdotal evidence that at-grade might work: I have visited the Mission station of the Gold Line on Thursdays for the past one or two years and have seen hordes of 2-3 year olds run and play adjacent a light rail station along an "arterial" (Mission Street in South Pasadena).
I have yet to see or hear of anyone getting killed or maimed at, or near, this station.
Also, when referring to the drawbacks of at-grade crossings, you would do yourself a favor to cite "traffic" OR to cite "pedestrian injuries and fatalities", but not both at the same time.
"Congestion" (i.e. slower car speeds) means there will be fewer bad things happening with cars.
Slower car speeds near rail crossings also make an area more accessible to other modal user groups - bike riders and pedestrians, specifically.
Sorry for the patronizing tone of the above post.
I'm an arrogant writer.
So lets boil down that statement: It's NOT environmental racism to spend multiples more money to completely realign the street, extend an overpass and build an additional elongated elevated structure to avoid having any at-grade crossings and any elevated crossings directly adjacent to residential properties in the majority white most affluent census tract, while at the same time having all the at-grade crossings in the poorer and majority-minority communities. But it IS environmental racism to build a project to the same or higher standard in black and brown communities.
LOL! Okay.
I think Ari Noonan had the best quote on this whole environmental racism thing: "I never have heard of a white neighborhood complaining that government funding was unfairly poured into a largely black neighborhood while there wasn’t enough money to do the same for them."
By the way, we don't oppose elevated crossings next to residential communities: there's one at La Cienega. But that one is 150 feet away from residential properties providing plenty of room for mitigation, while from Vermont to La Brea the ROW literally abuts residential property lines or is within 50 feet of properties.
Spend some time actually reading what we're arguing and the position is clear.
And an additional 2 billion dollars? Really?
I'm telling you some people will really say anything.
"I never have heard of a white neighborhood complaining that government funding was unfairly poured into a largely black neighborhood while there wasn’t enough money to do the same for them."
That is a humorous quote, because theres a ring of truth to it. The minute a white neighborhood does it, Minorities shout from the "Red Hills" 'Environmental Racism'.
A trench costs about an additional $200 million per mile. The Expo Line is more than fifteen-miles-long. If you Damien, the Harvard drop-off, know how to multiply, that's $3 billion extra. And, no, no, no, no, no -- don't say again that we want a trench only from Figureoa to La Brea: the line needs to be built uniformly throughout the route to Santa Monica. Also, even from Figureoa to La Brea is four miles -- that's $800 million extra, that is doubling the cost of Phase 1!
Stop trying to jerk people around, Damien! It's enough with your lies! What you've been proposing is completely unreasonable and unfeasible!
ubrayj:
Read the fact sheet on the Fix Expo website that explains why the Pasadena Gold Line (isolated ROW, with grade separations at almost every major intersection) is not an appropriate analogy. The fact sheet likely needs updating but the basics are there.
Then move on to the MTA's 1998 Booz-Allen Hamilton study that explains why the Blue Line is the deadliest and so accident prone in comparison to other lines.
And even at Mission Station, which has comparatively very low traffic, the area experiences a substantial traffic delay from the crossing gates - but that's because of the crossing geometry.
Regarding your point about safety vs. traffic - you can't divorce them, because these aren't things that can be taken independently. The rail line isn't going to just be safe or just impact traffic. It's as simple as which is stated in the MTA's '98 study about the Blue Line, slower traveling speeds leads to more risk-taking behavior and thus, more accidents.
You have to pull back from the tracks and actually see how it integrates into and impacts the community.
For example, crossing gates at 7th Avenue might seem to make that intersection safer than it would be without crossing gates, but it also drastically impacts emergency service response times, with additional congestion in the area and gates that are down 24-25 minutes out of every hour during rush hour.
And also consider crossing gates in themselves have limited function; Farmdale is the great example. It's not just about infrastructure. It's about how and whether the infrastructure can actually serve it's purpose: mitigation of safety, traffic, noise, etc.
Additionally, building transportation projects that cause congestion is like screwing for virginity. It's a transportation system, that is supposed to be alleviated and have air quality benefits. Fewer riders (due to slower operating speeds) means fewer cars taken off the road, and idling engines means poorer air quality.
A good transit system doesn't force people to use it by making traffic worser or hoping it will get to a point where enough people ride it. It actually attracts them by being able to travel as fast or faster than the automobile.
anonymous:
I wonder if the "anonymous" person telling people to read the EIR actually know what Clint Simmons and others said in the EIR. You see I don't comment anywhere near as much because I can't simultaneously debate people who say "this should have been brought up in the planning stages" and "people made their complaints known now it's time to move on...too bad you didn't have the money to hire a lawyer or elected officials to represent you."
Nonetheless, go to Page 104 of Volume 2C the Public Hearing transcript at West Angeles Church in 2001 and what you see from Simmons is a screed against surface rail, environmental racism and quotes like this:
"[T]he best way to go is underground."
"If you're going to put something in here, let's make it practical and make it compatible with the community."
Clint also tried to present the trench idea to the Metro board way back in 2002 - you can go down to Metro library and see it for yourself.
He was ignored. The entire community was ignored.
Nonetheless, I find it rather amusing that instead of actually debating the points there's this intensity to make this personal. Say everything is true that's been said about motives (many of which are completely conflicting, but nonetheless). Now what does that have to do with the thoroughly researched issues that are being presented?
The only responses we have to them are "at-grade is as safe as grade separated" and "sound walls aren't need for trains coming by at 55 mph 30 feet from classrooms." I don't have the time or inclination to even entertain such arguments - I just point to them to explain why it's not possible to have a rational debate on this issue on the web.
LOL! I love the insults especially when they're inaccurate, unsubstantiated and come from the anonymous.
Ubrayj can you ask people who launch the insults to at least sign their names. :-)
Damien Goodman is a handsome man but he's wrong about Expo.
The quarter-mile-long USC trench cost $50 million, and that doesn't have any trench stations. It also didn't have any major storm-drain relocations.
Given the trench stations (Trousdale, Vermont, Western, Crenshaw, La Brea, and beyond), storm-drain relocations, and inflation thanks to delaying the project, $200 million per mile extra for a trench design is merely an underestimate.
Therefore, $800 million extra for a Figueroa - La Brea trench, and $3 billion extra for a full (not creating environmental injustice) trench are only underestimates.
In addition to the unreasonable cost (more than doubling the current cost), there are serious difficulties associated with the construction, as well as big environmental challenges regarding storm drains, flooding issues, etc.
A few more important corrections to Damien Goodmon:
You can stay silent (notice how Darrell Clarke is pretty much the ONLY prominent figure who speaks strongly in support of the current design).
Nearly all the blog commenters here and elsewhere support the current design, but I suppose they're not "prominent figures". Certainly all the elected officials supporting it are.
in the majority white most affluent census tract, while at the same time having all the at-grade crossings in the poorer and majority-minority communities.
Actual fact: Census Track 7024, Block Group 2 (the neighboring area north of National between Ballona Creek and Washington Blvd. in Culver City) is 67% non-White (2000).
Conversely, Census Tract 2247 north of USC (between Jefferson and Adams) west of the at-grade Expo Line on Flower, is 54% White.
Pasadena Gold Line (isolated ROW, with grade separations at almost every major intersection)
Figueroa St. north of Avenue 60, Monterey Rd.-Pasadena Ave., and Mission St. are major at-grade Gold Line crossings carrying more traffic than the similarly gated Expo Line crossings from Arlington to Farmdale.
"I wonder if the "anonymous" person telling people to read the EIR actually know what Clint Simmons and others said in the EIR..."this should have been brought up in the planning stages" and "people made their complaints known now it's time to move on...too bad you didn't have the money to hire a lawyer or elected officials to represent you."
I finally had a free moment to take a look at that transcript you sited but you omited the context of what was said.
Clint stated that a study said that the only way to do rail is underground. Not a specific study just "a study". Now I'll take your word for it that Clint wants the line below grade, however.
That is a lot different than him organizing 50 other people saying to place Expo below grade or specific crossings below grade.
Just because ONE person states to put the train below grade (I counted only 4 people making that suggestion, with two of them making additional offers of slower speed 35mph running. 4 out of a lot more commenters)doesn't make it enough of a consensus to justify or review putting the entire Light Rail below grade.
Also within those comments you neglect to mention Jimmy Smith who looks at the project and finding whatever betterments- above grade, at grade or below grade- to improve the pedestrian safety at Dorsey High School.
"If that means the same thing that is done at SC underground or whatever, that's the way it has to be done"
Let's look at context here.
1)USC isn't getting a grade separation between Vermont and Trousdale Pkwy which was originally proposed. Flower/Exposition separation is for the freeway off-ramp not for USC, so take that up with Caltrans.
2)Cheviot Hills isn't getting grade separations and will not have the route diverted.
3)Santa Monica is suggesting putting the line at-grade down Colorado instead of the elevated on Olympic that is right near a busy freeway!
4)Elevated grade separations are being planned along the right of way in areas of high traffic and odd street geometries (La Brea, La Cienega, Venice/Wash./National, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy, Olympic).
So there again lies consistency to what is being built along the entire corridor.
D.B in SoPas
Post a Comment