Tax-Base vs. Safety

A politician's job is to build our tax-base. That's where the money comes from for schools, parks, roads, & police. Transportation projects serve that tax-base. But do politicians need to be ruthless to get these projects built. Must transportation projects create unsafe conditions for school children?

Excerpts from LA Times article & a local politician's comments:

Youth on scooter killed in crash
with MTA train in Watts

By Stuart Silverstein, Times Staff Writer
January 26, 2007

A teenage boy riding a scooter was struck and killed by a Blue Line commuter train Thursday afternoon at a crossing in Watts, authorities said.

The boy, whose name was not released, was apparently trying to cross the tracks on a nonmotorized scooter near East 92nd Street and Graham Avenue shortly before 3:45 p.m. when he was hit by the Long Beach-bound train.
...
According to Gilstrap (MTA), this was the transit agency's second fatal accident this month.

THERE ARE 12 SCHOOLS NEAR THE PLANNED EXPO LIGHT RAIL LINE, FIVE ARE WITHIN 60 FEET

Comments from Herb Wesson's staff:

"As Councilmember Wesson has stated in the past, and will
state now and in the future, this project (Expo) is coming and ...
It is important that the community is realistic in their
expectations about what can be accomplished given this fact."
...
"This project will be mostly at-grade, that will not change."

Safe Light Rail vs Just Any Light Rail

Light Rail, Are Quality AND Safety Necessary?

--- hnunlee@aol.com wrote:

>
> I really am looking forward to the Expo Line coming
> to our community. My biggest hope is that you and
> others will soon embrace this wonderful opportunity.
>

Hi hnunlee,

Thank you for your response, but I'm surprised by your
comment. What gave you the impression that we're not
supportive of Expo? We embrace it, at least I do. I
took subways, buses, and light rail most of my life.
Actually, I could not afford a car when I was younger,
and wouldn't have been able to go to college if there
wasn't good transit available where I lived.

It wasn't until I moved to Southern California that
I've had to drive so much. But I still try to take
the bus or ride my bike as much as possible. I bought
my house in this neighborhood BECAUSE the light rail
line was coming.

But there are some major technical issues with the
Expo Line that we are trying to get LACMTA to resolve,
safety being the foremost. We're working hard to
assure that Expo is safe and works better when it
opens than the other light rail lines have been since
they started service. Basically, we're trying to
assure that LACMTA avoids the planning and engineering
mistakes that occurred on the Long Beach, Pasadena,
and Green lines.

I'm glad that you read our e-mails and keep up to date
on what we are doing, but I think that you may be
misinterpreting some of our statements. Think about
raising the standards of what you expect from
government. They just might rise to your
expectations. I hope to see you on a safer, more
successful Expo Line.

Mark Jolles

Grade Separations - To Separate Or Not To Separate?

Above Grade, Below Grade, or At Grade?

--- Jackie Ryan wrote:

> so are you for above grade or below grade if you
> embrace it?
> jackie

Hi Jackie,

The decision on grade separations are dependent on
what the travel forecast model shows. If it is at
grade (street level) it would have to go slower
because of the crossings and the safety issues.

That's the problem that they are currently having with
the Pasadena Line. If Expo would attract
significantly more ridership by increasing the speed,
the line would have qualified for Federal New Starts
money. That would have paid for grade separations and
the increased revenue from the ridership would have
helped as well. I estimate the Pasadena Line is
losing $30,000 a day from lost ridership compared to
the forecast due to the CPUC slowing it down for
safety reasons.

This example is one reason many metropolitan areas
grade separate in sensitive right-of-ways. Doing this
has a far higher cost/benefit over the long term which
is how FTA rates projects for federal matching funds.


Unfortunately MTA didn't complete the travel forecast
modeling which would have shown how the line should
have been designed. FTA told them that as currently
planned they saw no benefit compared to the baseline
alternative and asked them to adjust their modeling.
At that point MTA pulled out of the New Starts
program. Certain grade separations are against their
grade separation policy.

FTA did tell me though that the market demand for the
corridor was for higher speed service. This could be
accomplished with grade separations but again is
against MTA policy and the travel forecast modeling
for this was not completed.

Forecast modeling is a complex process but is the
standard for any large capital project like this one.
FTA basically adopted the industry standard for this
type of analysis which has been in use since the mid
1940's. The decisions to build all of the large
transit systems in the U.S. and other parts of the
world are based on this type of modeling.

I do recall Ms. Burke stating at a construction
authority board meeting that she felt forecasts don't
really mean anything. The transportation industry
takes them very seriously though, from airline
scheduling to freeway planning, even for planning
elevator service in large highrises. Forecast
modeling is even done for water systems, electrical
systems, any big system. I'm not sure what she meant
by her statement.

There was also a study by a UC Professor, Martin
Wachs, on the Long Beach Blue Line in which he
documented that LACMTA adjusted both cost and
ridership forecasts to make the project look better
than it really was.

That's probably because they didn't want grade
separations on that line either. I'm not sure that
they understand the long term benefits of safe
crossings in terms of speed and ridership. That is
the only conclusion that I could come to, because they
will be spending more money on fixing the Blue Line
than it would have cost for them to do it right in the
first place.

The solution that our group came up with for Expo was
to address this problem the best we could based on
what the FTA told us and what we thought would fit
into the current budget and environmental approval.
It is described on our fact sheet.

I have sent out a lot of this information previously.
Were you able to look at any of it?

Mark Jolles

Mitigating Impacts of Light Rail

EXPO COMMUNITIES UNITED

Coming Together to Assure a Safe and Successful MTA Expo Light Rail Line Through Our Communities.

FACT SHEET

Following are a list of concerns regarding safety, noise, and pollution impacts of the Expo Line on our schools, traffic, and economic development.

1. The Expo Line statistically may be more deadly than the Blue Line which has had 72 deaths and multiple accidents to date. With Expo:


• There are 54 street crossings, 51 at grade (street level)


• Twelve (12) schools are along the Expo alignment, five directly adjacent, with 20,000 to 30,000 students within walking distance of the tracks.


2. MTA has approval to run 49 ton rail cars at three cars per train, 225 tons fully loaded, 55 mph, every 5 minutes, both directions, 225 times per day, with whistles and bells from 4 a.m. all day to 2 a.m. the following morning.


3. Existing roads are at capacity. To improve speed and safety up to seventeen north-south streets will be closed. This will increase congestion at the remaining streets and have an economic impact on the area. The line will likely cause more travel problems north-south than it will relieve east-west.


4. Forecasts show that the Expo Line, as currently planned, would provide no travel benefit compared to a base case Rapid Bus Line.


5. After six years of planning, MTA failed to correctly model the project under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts standards. “FTA concerns were related to shortcomings with the Los Angeles travel demand forecasting model used to Forecast project ridership and corresponding transportation user benefits for the project.”1. Verbally FTA stated they had “no confidence” in MTA’s modeling data. 1. Federal Transit Administration Letter dated October 25, 2006


6. A preferable alternative is a below grade cut and cover express tunnel with open cut stations at Vermont, Crenshaw and Venice complemented by local Rapid Bus service on Exposition or Jefferson. If modeled correctly, this should meet FTA standards and provide better service. The bicycle parkway would be at street level. Taking full "life cycle costs" into consideration, this option would cost less than the current plans. (costs to correct the Blue Line will exceed initial grade separation costs, in addition to social costs of deaths to date)

Contact : Expo Communities United

P.O. Box 781267, L.A., CA 90016
Phone: (323) 932-1959
Fax: (323) 932-1959
Email: ExpoCommunities@yahoo.com

updated January 30, 2007

Planning Around the Elephant in the Room

MUST LOS ANGELES PLANNERS IGNORE COMMUNITY CONCERNS
OVER LIGHT RAIL SAFETY & TRAFFIC IMPACTS

Gabriela Juarez
Planning Department
City of Los Angeles

January 24, 2007

Ms. Juarez:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me yesterday
regarding the update of our community plan.  While I
applaud your efforts, I think that the planning
department is ignoring the elephant in the room.

You must remember that your purpose is not to ignore
problems, but rather to meet the needs of the
community you serve.  And our needs have been stated
loud and clear.

For your benefit I have attached a fact sheet and
other documents regarding our concerns for the
planning and impact of the Expo Line on our
communities.  These concerns are unignorably
interrelated to what you are proposing.  As I
mentioned, the planning staff at the Federal Transit
Administration, who evaluate the benefits of light
rail projects, stated emphatically to me that
"Transportation Planning IS Land-Use Planning."

It would be disingenous and even insincere for you to
approach our community saying that you want us to be
an equal partner in this plan update and that you want
to build our trust, when at the same time you exclude
from consideration the primary problems this update is
meant to address, even those that are at the root of
what ails our community.

In regard to the City of Los Angeles' inability to
have an impact of the planning and design of the
Exposition Line, I recall Mayor Alioto of San Francisco,
as well as other civic leaders across the country,
testifying on the actions they took locally,
before Congress, to stop the damage transportation
projects through their cities were causing.  The Bart
system, grade separations for San Francisco's light
rail, even the Washington, DC Metro system followed.
At the same time East Los Angeles was cut up by five
interstates.

Mayor Villaraigosa should show both the integrity and
courage to stand up to the MTA board (of which he is a
member).   He must insist on no less than what other
mayors have for their cities.  He must require full
protection of communities of the city that he
represents.  He must stop this bullying by LACMTA of
insufficiently mitigated transit projects through poor
and minority urban communities.  The Federal
Government was fully willing to pay for mitigation of
the Expo Line if the project was planned properly, but
it was not.

If you want to contact our entire group, Expo
Communities United, regarding your program, please
contact Carol Tucker.  She is in possession of our
e-mail list.

Mark Jolles

Separating Light Rail & Land-Use Planning

LIGHT RAIL IN PLANNING -
L.A. planners offer to plan but "unable" to change
impacts of Light Rail Line before it is built.

Hi there,

I hope you remember me. We met at the West Adams NC where I did the focus group for the Neighborhood Council. Given that you are comprised of five community groups and outreach to six more, I was wondering if you would like to do the same focus group with that audience?

Please let me know and I hope you are doing well in this new year.

Best regards,

Gabriela Juarez
Planning Assistant, Community Planning Bureau
Department of City Planning
200 N Spring St, Room #667 Mail Stop 395 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Light Rail Pain or Gain?

LIGHT RAIL DEATH - WHO IS AT FAULT?

MTA'S "SALAMI" TACTICS

--- Greg Nunlee <hnunlee@aol.com> wrote:

> Do we know the particulars of why this gentlemen was
> hit before we assume fault of Metro?

Hi Greg,

Rail safety engineering takes into account stupidity
(naivite) of the average person.  It's based on
accident history of 110,000 rail crossings in the U.S.
and probably around the world.  They do a statistical
analysis of the number of crossings, train frequency,
population density, traffic, etc.  It's pretty cut and
dry.  I'm sure you've heard of the Transportation
Research Board.  That's what they do.

Ever see a label on an electrical appliance that
says don't use near water?  Statistically there are
some people who wouldn't figure it out without the
label.  Rail does similar statistical and safety
analysis.  For example, rail safety standards are
higher near schools because kids safety judgment is
not as developed as adults and there's also typically
more pedestrian traffic.  Should kids be at higher
risk because they have statistically less developed
judgment?

MTA avoids paying for safety improvements to make
their projects look less expensive upfront.  Industry
standard is to look at the lifecycle costs of safety
improvements.  MTA looks at up front costs and decides
its not worth it.

I hope that your expectations of MTA are not so low
and of the average person on the street so high, that
you believe the average person should pay with their
life so that Metro can save a little money.

I've attached a study with excerpts from a U.C.
professor that explains pretty clearly how and why
Metro doesn't have a good safety record.  Also, you
may want to get a copy of what is called a "Hazard
Analysis Report" from the CPUC or Metro which shows
how a rail line is evaluated for safety.  Educate
yourself a little, you may raise your standards for
LACMTA.

http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/killing-time-on-the-ghetto-blue/2052/

Mark Jolles, Coordinator
Expo Communities United

FROM:

APA Journal,  Summer 2002,  Vol. 68, No. 3 289
UNDERESTIMATING COSTS IN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS,
ERROR OR LIE?

...It is one thing, however, to point out that
investors, public or private, were deceived in
particular cases. It is quite another to get those
involved in the deceptions to talk about this and to
possibly admit that deception was intentional, i.e.,
that it was lying. We are aware of only one study that
actually succeeded in getting those involved in
underestimating costs to talk about such issues
(Wachs, 1986, 1989, 1990). Wachs interviewed public
officials, consultants, and planners who had been
involved in transit planning cases in the U.S. He
found
that a pattern of highly misleading forecasts of costs
and patronage could not be explained by technical
issues and were best explained by lying. In case after
case, planners, engineers, and economists told Wachs
that they had had to “cook” forecasts in order to
produce numbers that would satisfy their superiors and
get projects started, whether or not the numbers could
be justified on technical grounds (Wachs, 1990, p.
144). One typical planner admitted that he had
repeatedly adjusted the cost figures for a certain
project downward and the patronage figures upward to
satisfy a local elected official who wanted to
maximize the chances of getting the project in
question started.
...

...Another objection to using cost at the time of
decision to build as a basis of comparison is that
this supposedly would entail the classical error of
comparing apples and oranges. Projects change over the
planning and implementation process. When, for
instance, the physical configuration of the original
Los Angeles Blue Line Light Rail project was altered
at substantial cost to comprise grade-crossing
improvements, upgrading of adjacent streets, better
sidewalks, new fences, etc., the project was no longer
the same. It was, instead, a new and safer project,
and comparing the costs of this project with the costs
of the older, less safe one would supposedly entail
the apples-and-oranges error. A problem with this
argument is that existing research indicates that
project promoters routinely ignore, hide, or otherwise
leave out important project costs and risks in order
to make total costs appear low (Flyvbjerg et al., in
press; Wachs, 1989, 1990). For instance, environmental
and
safety concerns may initially be ignored, even though
they will have to be taken into account later in the
project cycle if the project lives on, and the project
is more likely to live on if environmental and safety
concerns are initially ignored. Similarly, ignoring or
underplaying geological risks may be helpful in
getting projects approved, and no other risk is more
likely to boomerang back and haunt projects during
construction. “Salami tactics” is the popular name
used to describe the practice of introducing project
components and risks one slice at a time in order to
make costs appear low as long as possible. If such
tactics are indeed a main mechanism in cost
underestimation, as existing research indicates, then,
clearly, comparing actual project costs with estimated
costs at the time of decision to build does not entail
the error of comparing apples and oranges but is
simply a way of tracking how what was said to be a
small, inexpensive apple turned out to actually be a
big, expensive one.
...