Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line

As covered in:

• The Wave – Judge Rules Against Street-Level Expo Line Crossings
• Daily Trojan – Commission Judge Blocks Light Rail Work at Crossings
• Our Weekly – PUC Judge Denies Expo Line Crossings
• LA Times – Judge Throws A Curve at Expo Line
• LA Watts Times – Judge Rules Expo Line Unsafe

In a landmark decision regarding the MTA/Expo Line Construction Authority’s two proposed Expo Light Rail Line crossings next to 2,100-student Dorsey HS and 3,400-student Foshay Learning Center, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Judge Kenneth Koss ruled MTA’s plans unsafe, and the community and LAUSD’s safety concerns valid. The ruling is a tentative decision that will either be adopted or amended by the full CPUC commission on November 21, and it is a major milestone in a heated struggle pitting a scrappy South LA community coalition with the support of LAUSD, against the MTA and their local elected leaders building the project.

Judge Koss’ influential decision recommends the CPUC deny both proposed crossings and MTA submit the appropriate environmental review documents regarding the alternative options.

This is a major battle victory in a long and unfortunate war.

We are relieved that the Judge heard the concerns of the rail safety experts, traffic experts, LAUSD and the community. And we are regretful that the Commission didn’t allow hearings on any of the other crossings, and basically rubber-stamped them believing what MTA said.

Two crossings went to hearing and two crossings were found to be unsafe by the judge. We believe that as the evidentiary hearings on Farmdale and Harvard Avenues revealed, the ‘evidence’ used by the MTA and Expo Authority to support their assertions that they are building a safe project is both unfounded and has been manipulated. (More on that this weekend)

The manipulation of data, unfounded assertions, and dismissal of valid safety concerns for decades, speaks volumes to the deficient rail safety cost-benefit analysis that our region’s transportation agencies and politicians have been implementing with impunity. Our transportation agencies’ Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis is why the MTA’s Blue Line at 90 deaths and over 821 accidents, is by far the deadliest light rail line in the country, and Metrolink is one of the deadliest commuter rail systems in the country.

MTA simply doesn’t value life.

For more about our response to possible project delay, the cost of redesigning the crossings, the project’s financial background, excerpts from the evidentiary hearing, and excerpts from the Judge’s proposed decision, and our requests of our elected representives click here to continue reading…

RE: POSSIBLE PROJECT DELAY

If the Judge’s proposed decision is adopted by full CPUC, it may delay the full opening of Phase 1 of the line to Culver City, currently scheduled to begin service in 2010.

And true to form MTA’s inflated estimates of delay and cost, exaggeration of impacts of the more expensive elevated and trench options, and undervaluing of the impacts of the cheaper options is a textbook example of a public agency cooking the books. This is their attempt to blackmail the Commission into approving unsafe crossings next to our schools of all places.

First off, since when is building something more quickly more important than building it safely?

Second, let’s look at the facts: On the stand MTA’s executive admitted they could build up to the previous station and begin service.

UCA/Fix Expo Question: Assuming the regulatory approvals were granted to operate the line in the segmented way that’s described in Exhibit 21, wouldn’t Metro then be able to operate the line in that fashion?

Expo Authority Executive Eric Olson’s Answer: That would be a decision of the Metro Board to make.

UCA/Fix Expo Question: But again, physically possible; right?

Olson’s Answer: I mean, as far as the construction goes, yes.

Exhibit 21 is Pg. 2.4-72 of the Expo Line EIR (large pdf) which reads:
Partial Operation Construction Option

The Partial Operation Construction Option would phase-in LRT operations in three segments as construction milestones are met. LRT operations from 7th Street/Metro Center to the Vermont Station would begin upon completion of this portion of the Project’s route in approximately 2008; while LRT operations to the Crenshaw Station would begin upon completion of this segment in approximately 2010. The final segment, from Crenshaw Boulevard to the Venice/Robertson Station, would be scheduled for completion in 2012.

And more importantly, the full line to Santa Monica isn’t even scheduled to open until 2014-2015 – at the earliest!

There is no need to rush to compromise safety.

It is more important that we get this right, make the appropriate investments on the front end to save lives – particularly the lives of children, so the public isn’t paying on the back-end with accident lawsuits and inexplicable pain from deaths and injury. This is a 100 year project – build it right.

Furthermore, if there is a delay to the project, the delay is of MTA’s own making and due to the failure of political leadership to address legitimate community concerns.

As we showed in a post earlier this week, MTA’s own documents on this project prove that from its inception, the community has repeatedly and loudly said that the street-level crossings, in particularly near our schools, are not safe and were unacceptable. But out of bureaucratic arrogance and political indifference, MTA and our political leaders have fought the community at every turn.

RE: THE COST OF REDESIGNING THE CROSSINGS

In the backdrop of one of the most horrific train accidents in this country’s history that cost us 26 innocent lives, seriously injured and maimed 135 people, and has made our region’s public transportation agencies an embarrassment to the world, please tell us that our elected officials and transportation agency bureaucrats aren’t claiming that they don’t have the money to make the Expo Line safe.

Tell us that they’ve learned their lesson – unfortunately the hard way.

Tell us that they’re not still of the mindset that has led to hundreds of preventable deaths on our tracks like last month’s Chatsworth accident. Tell us they don’t still believe that time and money is more important than saving peoples lives and limbs.

This is the problem with the term “safe.” It is by definition a relative term subject to misinterpretation by elected officials.

For example, before the Chatsworth accident it was too expensive to implement positive train control and that segment of track was ’safe.’ After the tragedy it is clearly unsafe and the cost of the technology is a drop in the bucket. It shouldn’t take multiple deaths and worldwide embarrassment to make our elected officials realize that.

RE: BACKGROUND REGARDING THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

In 2004, MTA pulled this project out of the federal New Starts program, in the process walking away from $320 million federal dollars, saying they’d build the project primarily with state and local money instead, because they wanted to speed up construction. That doesn’t sound like an agency that can’t afford to build grade separation to me. That sounds like an agency with plenty of financial options.

In the past year alone, MTA has appropriated $222 million extra dollars to the now $862 million project, including $54 million to add an overpass in Culver City to Phase 1 of Expo. And they appropriated these funds while telling us with a straight face that there’s no money for additional grade separation in South LA.

It is insulting to the intelligence of the people that have followed this issue to suggest this multi-billion dollar agency led by the most powerful politicians in the county, can’t find a way to make the Expo Line safe in our community – particularly right next to our schools.

MTA has the resources. MTA has many options – they can scale the project back for one. The fundamental problem is MTA has and unfortunately continues to lack a concern for safety in South LA.

RE: EXPERT EXCERPTS FROM THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

At the evidentiary hearing three expert witnesses testified on behalf of the community group including Professor Najmedin Meshkati, an internationally renowned expert in human risk analysis and creator of USC’s Transportation System safety program, Ed Ruszak an nationally-renowned expert in traffic impacts and vehicular accident causation, and West Point graduate and retired Major Russ Quimby, who for 22 years led the rail and rail-transit accident investigation group at the National Transportation Safety Board before he retired in 2007.

Quimby testified that there was a high risk of catastrophic accident from MTA’s street-level crossing plan at Farmdale Ave, which abuts the school’s property line, and where after-school every day 700 hundreds of students flood the narrow sidewalks in 15 minutes at rates as high as 108 per minute:

As proposed, the Farmdale Avenue crossing creates a high risk that students will be injured and killed because the proposed safety mitigation measures essentially put the burden on students to maintain their own safety. The proposed crossing also creates a higher risk of a catastrophic accident. [....]

By ‘catastrophic accident,’ I mean an accident involving fatalities and/or injuries to a large number of people. As proposed, the at-grade Farmdale Avenue crossing creates the notable risk that a catastrophic accident may well occur under one of several different scenarios.”

(More excerpts from Quimby’s testimony.)

EXCERPTS FROM THE JUDGE’S DRAFT DECISION (link to the full draft decision)

“Expo Authority proposed a state-of-the-art system of gates and other warning devices at the Farmdale crossing, including swing gates to allow pedestrians to exit the rail right-of-way when all other gates are down. All of these gates, however, can be avoided easily by pedestrians. Considering the large number of crossings during peak periods, and the student populations using the crossing, we find that any system of gates or other warning devices at-grade would not eliminate all potential safety hazards.”

“The parties discussed several other crossings at or near school sites along other light-rail lines. However, none of these cases presented the unique characteristics of the proposed Farmdale crossing at Dorsey. This issue, therefore, provided little or no weight in our determination of practicability.”
[....]
“A.07-05-013, for authority to construct an at-grade crossing at Farmdale Ave. in the City of Los Angeles, should be denied.

“Authorization to construct a light rail line over an existing pedestrian tunnel crossing at Harvard Blvd., in the City of Los Angeles, requested in A.06-12-020, should be denied.”

OUR FINAL PLEA TO THE CITY COUNCIL

Prior to the issuance of the decision, we delivered a statement on Wednesday before the LA City Council challenging the other members of the chamber to intervene and persuade our local black council members and MTA who have ignored legitimate concerns and data and instead, “declared war on the very community they were elected to serve and the neighborhood council system in general.”

We believe it is now incumbent upon our elected officials from the council members to the congressional leaders, to do the responsible thing and listen to the safety concerns expressed by the experts and Judge, and take into account the impacts to the community and schools of the grade separated options. This is a transportation project that will impact this community and serve this region for 100 years. It is important we have a safe light rail line that is a compliment and a good neighbor to the South LA communities that it passes through.

Our intent is to now go back to the community and discuss this draft decision further, but for now we are relieved that MTA’s unsafe street-level crossing was denied – it is a cause for celebration. Today the judge choose life over the risk of death next to our schools.

Stay tuned for the next community meeting, likely the week after the election.

Popularity: 13% [?]

On October 22, 2008 at the Los Angeles City Council meeting, the following statement was delivered by the coordinator of the Fix Expo Campaign, regarding the declaration of war on our community by MTA and our Council Members:

In a matter of hours the CPUC judge will render the draft decision regarding the proposed Expo Line crossings near Dorsey and Foshay, which will either be adopted or amended by the full CPUC commission in November.

It is disappointing that the community and children whose lives hang in the balance have to rely on a decision from a regulatory agency susceptible to political pressures.

For two years, we have been bringing to the Expo Authority board, which Council Members Bernard Parks, Jan Perry, Herb Wesson all serve on, what others have been bringing to them for 20 years.  We’ve presented the studies, testimonies, media reports, documents – including MTA’s own documents, showing that the street-level crossings will be unsafe and will worsen traffic.  We’ve given them the census tract racial breakdown map and shown them how the hazards and adverse impacts of Expo Line Phase 1 are ALL in the directly adjacent poor and/or majority-minority communities and none in Culver City community next to the track, which is white and middle-to-upper income.

These documents are not of our creation – I, and the Fix Expo Campaign, are simply a conduit.

Popularity: 2% [?]

In their desperate attempt to justify building Expo Line street-level crossings that will result in countless preventable accidents and deaths, the Expo Authority staff and board members (in particular Councilman Bernard Parks, Council Member Jan Perry and Supervisor Yvonne Burke) have resulted to falsely claiming that the community’s concerns about public safety, child safety and requests for grade separation are new and untimely. The following are just some of the public comments regarding public safety, child safety and grade separation that can be found in MTA’s own Expo Line environmental review documents.

(We’ve added a 4-page fact sheet for print and distribution: download pdf)

Excerpts from the December 1994 MTA Expo Alternatives Refinement EIR Study

Pg. S-21 & S-22 – Design Enhancements to the Refined Alignment in the ROW:

Based on the community meetings there are additional operating and design features that could make the refined alternatives outlined in this section more acceptable to community groups and individuals. Two features, transit guideway depressed below ground level and additional grade separated crossings and underpasses at intersections are discussed in Section 3.7. [….] The additional enhancement features discussed below are not part of the recommended refined alternatives in this Report. Rather, it may be appropriate for these design features to be determined as mitigation treatments for adverse impacts of the project alternatives. [….]
Option 1: Grade Separate at All Major Arterial Street Crossings [….]
Option 2: Depressed Profile Through Residential Areas [….]
Option 3: Grade Separations at All Major Crossings Plus Depressed Profile Through Residential Areas

Pg. 3-2 – Public Input to the Refinement of Alternatives:

Major community concerns about implementing a transit project along the ROW [tracks] centered around the following: [….] Public safety especially for children where the transit project would cross intersections or operate near schools.

Pg. 7-2, 7-3, & 7-6 – Public Comments at Dorsey H.S. Community Workshop on May 4, 1993:

“An elevated line would open up more streets.”
“Do not put an aerial crossing at La Brea Avenue – do cut and cover.”
“Put the line underground or not at all.”
“Do grade separations at all major intersections.”
“Use below-grade crossings at intersections.”
“Separation should be underground at La Brea Avenue.”
“Where 7th Avenue is connected to the fire station the street should stay open.”
“Pedestrian crossovers are needed.”
“Student access will be a safety problem.”
“Children crossing the ROW [tracks] is dangerous.”

Pg. 8-2 & 8-3 – Public Comments at CA. Afro-American Museum Community Workshop on May 6, 1993:

“The entire line through this area must be aerial for safety reasons.”
“At intersections, the system should go underground.”
“MTA needs to grade separate at major cross streets, i.e., Crenshaw Boulevard, and Western and Vermont Avenues.”
“Speed is better with an aerial line.”
“Whatever is put in at Wilshire Boulevard should be treated the same at Exposition Boulevard – they should be comparable.”
“Hide an aerial system behind trees and shrubs.”
“Put a pedestrian bridge crossing at Harvard Avenue for school.”
“Noise from horns is a big problem; an elevated line means no horns.”
“Safety is a big concern.”

Excerpts from the Feb. 2000 MTA Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Study Re-Evaluation/Major Investment Study Report

Pg. A-5 – Community Involvement/Perceptions – Exposition LRT – Summary of Public Comment:

[S]ubstantial discussion occurred regarding safety at crossings and how design features could accommodate safety concerns, and about environmental issues such as noise and vibration.

Excerpts from the Oct. 2005 Expo Line Phase 1 – Final Environmental Impact Study/Report

Pg. 6-5 – Community Participation – Summary of Scoping Comments (May 23 – June 23, 2000):

The following provides a brief summary of the primary issues raised by commentors during scoping.

Public Safety. Members of the public expressed concern about the safety aspect of rapid transit, especially in residential areas, adjacent schools and at intersections, and indicated pedestrian safety at intersections and near schools as their most significant concern.

Excerpts from the Oct. 2005 Expo Line Phase 1 – Final Environmental Impact Study/Report
Volume 2-C Public Hearing Transcripts on the 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Hearing Transcript – West Angelus Church on May 9, 2001:

Pg. 90 – John Freund: I am disappointed. What our present transportation authorities envision is basically what we have since the end of the 19th century. [….] This public transit I believe should not run on the surface. Below ground it is a little more expensive, as we know from the subway, but we can elevate it, we can put it in the air. And we can have monorails or we can also have what they call air bus, gliding at 30, 50 or 100 feet above us, no level crossings, no danger to pedestrians, no congestion on the street, more room, more space available under these corridors for commercial and public purposes. In short, something which looks into the 21st century.

Pg. 95 – 96 – Charles Adelman: As for the Exposition corridor, the proposal again, you have a choice of bus or rail. Rail is clearly the alternative that is much nicer…The only poroblem you have with it here again is that on the segment from USC down to…whatever the street it is, that it runs down the middle of the street in a residential street – Arlington I guess it is – it is a residential street. There will be people running across the street, and human nature being what it is, you will have accidents. So I think the desirable alternative, we need to find a way, to find the money to run it underground as a subway through that segment. And then when it gets off of the middle of the street and is on its own right-of-way, running the high-speed run there, but having grade separation at grade crossings so as to avoid the accidents like we have on the Blue Line all the time with the people who seem to think that they can beat the train. So I think that would be a greatly preferred alternative.

Pg. 100 – Presley Burroughs: Those homes east of La Brea, the right-right-of-way facility needs to be trenched, separated, and secured.

Pg. 101 – 102 – Evenlean Jackson: I have nothing against the MTA where they are traveling, but going through our community, like we said, we have schools. We have Dorsey High School, Foshay, and all the school kids.

Pg. 105 – 106 – Clint Simmons: There was a study done in France, as well, I think as Switzerland or one of the others, where they’re putting this type of rail in. And they have found the best way to go is underground. USC recognized it. They hav ea lot of technical people here, and they knew what problem that would – what they would experience, and that’s why they don’t want the so-called surface rail to pass through that area. They want it to go underground. Cheviot Hills knew it, and they didn’t want it to come through their area. But yet the MTA and I find people who live in the area can sit and tell us what is best needed. [….] If you’re going to put something in here, lets make it practical and make it compatible with the community. At the present time what I’m looking at is not compatible with the community at all.

Pg. 108 – 109 – Tony Clarke: The MTA does not have a very good track record as far as keeping people’s safety concerned concerning the tracks. What about Foshay? What about Dorsey? Are our kids less important than Palms’ aesthetic effect as far as they’re concerned? I think our kids should be thought of more besides the community in not going through there. You know. What about our kids? That’s the issue. Or at least that’s one of the issues that I have. You know, you guys haven’t thought about that, or from what I have read, it has not been thought out completely. You know. Like I said before, you guys do not have the best track record in trying to keep people safe. And I’d really hate to hear on the news that a kid got hit. That would be really great for you guys. You know. In conclusion, this should not go through anybody’s community. Just like Palms area it made a detour, if that’s the case, at least for our kids, detour it through our areas. Do not put our kids’ safety in jeopardy.

Pg. 113 – Evelia Cervantes: We do not need an elementary to get hit by a Metro or an MTA coming through. Kids crossing the street on San Pedro get hurt every day – just about every day just crossing the street, because the cars passing by. Just a car, let alone – let alone a train coming 10 miles per hour like she said. It’s going to hit somebody. It’s going to hit a car, it’s going to hit a truck, it’s going to hit something, and we do not want no problems.

Pg. 114 – Frederico Aguilar: [I]t’s going to be dangerous for our kids. We have a school on 28th and San Pedro. It’s a bunch of little kids going through those streets, and it’s – some of them are accompanied by an adult, and some of them are on their own. So it’s very, very dangerous for our kids, and it’s going to be not too good for our community.

Pg. 118 – Elizabeth Blaney: This route, this right-of-way will go right through residents’ backyards; it will be dangerous for children.

Pg. 120 – 121 – Jimmy Smith: I’m in favor of the project. Not as is. [….] It has to be built properly. If that means it has to be built with more money, so be it. An example would be Dorsey High. I live right next door to Dorsey High. I went there. It has to be separated completely from Dorsey High. If that means the same thing that has to be done at SC underground or whatever, that’s the way it has to be done.

Pg. 122 – Martha Vazquez: In your proposal the train is going to pass right next to our homes, and this is going to be very dangerous for our children.

Pg. 123 – Luz Vizcarra: I oppose this proposal because I have grandchildren and children that go to 28th Street School and this is going to be very dangerous for them.

Pg. 124 – Rogelio Macedonio: The community has informed me that there is 28th Street Elementary School with many children in this school, and the train running right next to it would cause many dangers to these children, and so therefore we are very much opposed to it.

Pg. 124 – Raul Elizariasus: This proposal will be running the train right behind our yards, and it’s going to be very dangerous for our children.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Hearing Transcript – Peterson Museum on May 7, 2001:

Pg. 27 – Rudyard Clark: I’m all for that light rail particularly. The only comment I have about the project would be if it were to – the subway portion near USC, if it possibly could be extended a little farther west for safety reasons and to help speed up the line. And also I have comments on other projects, too. The Blue Line, Long Beach to Los Angeles Blue Line, there’s been a number of fatalities there since 1990. If perhaps maybe grade separations could be added, maybe a subway cut, uncovered subway situation on the Blue Line between downtown Los Angeles and city of Long Beach.

Pg. 41 – Linda Bradshaw: I’m very gratified to know that you’ve got an elevated section over La Cienega…But I would wonder why you don’t have the elevated section going all the way down.

Pg. 61 – 62 – Chris Ford: One way to improve the speed, as has been mentioned, obvious is grade separations. Up in the Bay Area BART carries 450,000 passengers a day, and I believe succeeds in great part because its own its own rail; sometimes it’s raise like a monorail, sometimes it’s grade level, but it is fenced off, grade separated, there’s no way a human being or car can touch BART or its third rail, and you don’t want to. But the point is it goes on its own track, and nothing stops it except the rain. We could improve on that here, I think.

Pg. 63 – Bill Mullins: [T]he term seems to be grade separation, but if light rail or monorail or subways don’t have to stop with the traffic – I’m from Boston, and I think that’s the whole point. If you don’t have to stop for the traffic, it’s the one thing that gives the Blue Line a black eye. The Blue Line is great. But every once in a while some joker tries [to] beat the train.

Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Hearing Transcript – Veterans Admin. Hospital on May 15, 2001:

Pg. 218 – Jamie Corcio: Having a train, a light rail running on streets is not the safest. And we know. We’ve had accidents with the Blue Line. We’ve had terrible accidents there.

Excerpts from the Expo Line Phase 1 LRT Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement Supplemental Public Review Period October 14 – November 28, 2005

Pg. c-3 – City of Culver City – City Council and Redevelopment Agency:
Approximately 139 comments/issues were raised by the City of Culver City, including those related to parking (8), pedestrian crossing (1), traffic (3), transit (20), construction effects (10), land use (11), air quality (6), public safety (3), bus service (8), noise and vibration (33), water resources (4), bikeway/bikeway facilities (7), visual (1), geology and soils (2), and general comments (21).

Pg. c-8 – City of Los Angeles:
Comment. The proposed Project should be modified to extend the Flower Street Design Option Undercrossing to Vermont Avenue to eliminate the visual barrier of safety walls.

Pg. c-12 – University of Southern California:
Comment. A rail line between the park and campus would become a safety hazard to increasing number of students and visitors in the area.

Pg. c-17 – Natural History Museum:
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Museum) has expressed concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicular safety and access, and visual barrier posed by the Flower Street Design option.

Pg. c-19 – Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association:
BNHA’s safety and security concerns include the queuing areas that will be provided between the LRT tracks at Farmdale Avenue as well as the type of fencing proposed, the type of security that will be provided, and the at-grade crossings adjacent to Dorsey High School and Foshay Middle School.

Pg. c-21 – South Park Stakeholders Group:
The South Park Stakeholders Group stated their concern about the possible noise, vibration, pedestrian safety, and vehicle safety hazard impacts the Project may contribute to from increased LRT operations in the community adjacent to the existing Metro Blue Line located in the South Park District of Downtown Los Angeles.

Additionally at the September 18, 2002 MTA Planning & Programming Committee meeting, Mr. Clint Simmons, who was then leading a predecessor group, Concerned Neighbors Along Exposition Right-of-Way, had his presentation put on the record.  The presentation begins with the clear statement that one of the group’s primary concerns is “SAFETY FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN.”  Included in the presentation, which is part of the MTA meeting minutes (link to large file) are pictures of trench structures the group was proposing as an alternative.

Popularity: 3% [?]

At the CPUC evidentiary hearing at the crossings near Dorsey High School (Farmdale) and Foshay Learning Center (Western), Russ Quimby, an internationally renowned rail safety expert testified on our behalf.

The 1974 West Point graduate spoke about his integrity, his qualifications and background after spending 22 years at the National Transportation Safety Board (”NTSB”) as the Investigator-in-Charge or Chair of rail and rail transit accidents Investigation Groups. Quimby testified about NTSB studies, which determined that slowing down the trains “creat[es] as many problems as you solve,” how the Metro policy used to determine whether crossings qualify for grade separations “cannot seriously be described as a safety policy,” how the Western Ave crossing right next to Foshay, has “‘no time’ for safety,” as mentioned below, how the Farmdale crossing creates a notable risk of catastrophic accidents, and how the crossings near the school are not safe.

A 2-page brief excerpt of Russ Quimby’s testimony and qualifications has been added to our flyers list (direct link)

I. Excerpts from the Prepared Testimony of Maj. Russ Quimby (Ret.)

Maj. Quimby’s background and qualifications (pg. 2):

From July 2007 to May 2008, I was Asst. V.P. for Operations, Planning & Analysis at Rail Sciences Inc., where I served as an expert witness in legal cases, conducted risk assessments of railroad operations, training, track, and equipment, and investigated rail related accidents.

From 1985 to 2007, I was a safety engineer and investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). While with the NTSB, I was the Investigator-In-Charge and/or Chairman of the Mechanical, Track, or Operations Investigation Groups for all severity levels of railroad or rail-transit incidents, accidents, and disasters. I conducted investigations, wrote and prepared factual and analytical reports for public record, examined witnesses at public hearings and depositions, and supervised simulations and equipment test by carriers, vendors, and manufacturers. I participated in 57 major accident investigations, 32 field accident investigations, 10 public hearings, 16 depositions, and 6 special studies. I personally wrote 11 major accident reports for publication, 8 field accident reports, and I conducted 10 sworn depositions proceedings. I was also the originator or major collaborator for over 157 NTSB adopted recommendations.

Maj. Quimby’s expert opinion on the Farmdale Ave. crossing, which abuts 2100 student Dorsey H.S. (pg. 5):

In my opinion, the proposed at-grade crossing at Farmdale Avenue is not safe because it poses an unreasonably high safety risk to the students at Dorsey High School.

Maj. Quimby describing the potential for catastrophic accidents at the Dorsey HS/Farmdale crossing (pp. 7 – 8):

By “catastrophic accident,” I mean an accident involving fatalities and/or injuries to a large number of people. As proposed the at-grade Farmdale Avenue crossing creates the notable risk that a catastrophic accident may well occur under one of several different scenarios. For example:

First, that a train will collide with a vehicle with sufficient force to either derail the train into and/or push the vehicle into the proposed ‘holding pens’ where several hundred students are trapped inside, killing or seriously injuring scores of students in a single accident.

Second, that a train will collide with a vehicle (particularly a truck or bus) rupturing and igniting a fuel tank which would engulf students in the holding pen in flaming diesel or gasoline.

Third, a combination of the above two scenarios where the students are crushed and burned simultaneously by vehicles and/or a derailed train.

Maj. Quimby describing the Western Ave crossing, which is 50 feet from 3400 student Foshay Learning Center (pg. 9):

This crossing lacks any safety margin for failure in human behavior. The timing is so precisely choreographed and tight that there was no time left in the design for the activation and movement of gates, so they were eliminated. This, in itself, tells me that this intersection has ‘no time’ for safety.

Any number of likely scenarios could trigger a delay in the crossing sequence resulting in an accident at the crossing, either separately or by interaction between vehicles and pedestrians, resulting in serious injury or fatality.

Maj. Quimby on MTA’s Grade Crossing Policy, which determines whether crossings are grade separated (pp. 10 & 11):

Metro’s Grade Crossing Policy is not a safety-based policy. In fact, as far as I can tell from [Expo Construction Authority CEO] Mr. [Rick] Thorpe’s testimony, the policy has nothing whatsoever to do with safety and is concerned almost entirely with Metro’s operational convenience regardless of safety concerns.

The policy cannot seriously be described as a safety policy because traffic volume and train frequency alone tell you very little about the safety of a rail crossing, particularly when traffic volume is reported on a per lane basis. As far as Metro’s Grade Crossing Policy is concerned, for purposes of grade classification, a crossing that intersects a single lane street going in one direction with no pedestrian traffic is analyzed identically to a crossing that intersects twelve lanes going in six directions with peak pedestrian traffic in the thousands per hour. As long as train headways and per lane traffic volumes fall within acceptable standards, a crossing will be designed at-grade with no need for further review or analysis.

The Metro Grade Crossing Policy is a logical operational policy from a rail perspective, but it does not nor should not replace a responsible, comprehensive system safety analysis, which should include a human performance study. The risky designs of these two proposed crossings illustrates the point that factors beyond train frequency and vehicle traffic must be taken into consideration to create designs that are reasonably safe for the public – and particularly for children. If the proposed crossings at Western Ave. and Farmdale Avenue do not qualify for grade separation from a safety perspective, then no crossings would.

II. Cross Examination from the Hearing Transcript (pp. 762 – 764)

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
I also gave [UCA/Fix Expo] a warning that after I reviewed the material, I may give them an opinion they might not like. [….] I emphasize the fact when I got into this business, I won’t trade my integrity for money.

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
And what happens is if you slow the trains down, your window of hazard lengthens. And then you get the condition, the population to believe, well, the train is slow. It’s hard to judge a train coming head on at you with a headlight on. And that basically causes the students, emboldens them to basically say, well, the train is only going ten miles an hour, I can beat it, and run across the tracks in front of the trains. I guess in [National Transportation] Safety Board studies that we’ve done you end up creating as many problems as you solve by slowing the train down. You just create a longer window of opportunity or hazard.

Expo’s Question:
And your statement that the students would be embolden to run across the tracks, what do you base that on?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
Well, they’re going very slow, and you got students who are impatient and standing there waiting for a slower train to go by, and they feel like they have more time to beat the train across the tracks.

Expo’s Question:
What about gates that go down, wouldn’t that?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
With pedestrians in particular, a lot of people feel, even if you have pedestrian gates there, they duck under them, walk under them, whatever. People ignore signs and gates. 25 percent of all vehicle collisions at grade crossings that had gates result in fatalities. I mean so if you’ve got 25 percent of the people being killed at crossings with gates, you know, they drive around them and things of that nature. So a gate is like – it’s more – obviously more active than a sign, but it doesn’t prevent behavior.

Expo’s Question:
Well, informing that opinion, wouldn’t it have been useful for you to observe whether or not that’s the case on other lines within Los Angeles?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
I saw that at the Vernon Station.

Expo’s Question:
You observed people crossing with the same sort of crossing barrier?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
Yes.

Expo’s Question:
And often, right, just all the time racing across?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
Pretty much.

Expo’s Question:
And you translate that opinion back to the same thing is going to happen at Farmdale?

Maj. Quimby’s Answer:
I would say most certainly. And it happens generally. I’m not a behavioral scientist, but generally speaking, the younger the population, the younger the person, generally the more apt they are to do that, because they’re physically able to. And I don’t know, when you’re young you don’t have the rationale and experience as you do as you get older where you’re more careful.

Popularity: 3% [?]

On July 5, 2007, Save Leimert, a lead member of the Fix Expo Campaign, sent a letter to the MTA and Expo Authority Chairs requesting that they essentially admit that they’re building another Blue Line with the Expo Line design, and put to paper the design differences between the environment, track alignments, and traffic conditions, between the Expo Line and Pasadena Gold Line. (View the letter)

Expo CEO/MTA executive Rick Thorpe pleaded the Fifth to almost all of the questions asked (see below). “This request is outside the jurisdiction of Expo” was Thorpe’s response to 12 of the 14 questions in one form or another.

The fact that MTA/Expo believes they can sell the project as one thing, and then when confronted with facts showing it’s another, refuse to answer stakeholders questions, exposes their willful deception and disrespect of the community, which Expo Authority is supposed to serve.

To see Expo/MTA pleading the Fifth, continue reading…

Popularity: 3% [?]

Professor Najmedin Meshkati’s op-ed on grade-crossing deaths, titled “Grade-crossing Deaths Are True Rail Problem” ran in the Daily News:

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 74 people have died in Metrolink crashes since 1999 in California, out of which 20 have been killed in grade-crossing accidents. Ninety people have died on the MTA’s 22-mile L.A.-to-Long Beach Blue Line, which has had more than 821 recorded incidents between its inception in July 1990 and last July.

The above-mentioned, significantly higher-than-national average rates of accidents and fatalities along the Metrolink and MTA rail network attest to the dire state of rail safety, which is primarily caused by outdated and messy safety-related policies, procedures and practices.

One of the requisite pillars for the safety of any modern technological system’s safety today is transparent, total-system-oriented accident and incident investigations, including the reporting of them and unfettered access to them by analysts or any interested party. This pillar is either broken or missing at both Metrolink and MTA.

Other serious system-related problems that have plagued our rail safety include the tragically narrow MTA Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit and the woefully incomplete MTA Grade Crossing Preliminary Hazard Analysis, which has been used in the now-under-construction Exposition light-rail project.

If the link breaks, here is the full text of the op-ed:

Grade-crossing Deaths Are True Rail Problem
By Najmedin Meshkati

If there is a silver lining to the deadly Metrolink crash in Chatsworth last month, it is the heightened attention to rail safety in the country, and especially in Southern California.

At the federal level, the House of Representatives passed sweeping rail-safety legislation last week that requires more rest for workers and technology that can stop a train in its tracks if it’s headed for a collision. This rail-safety bill was passed by the Senate this week, and it is expected that President Bush will sign it into law soon.

At the state level, last week the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its board, chaired by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, voted unanimously to approve a series of safety directives for Metrolink. And last Friday, the Metrolink board of directors unanimously passed a wide-ranging measure to improve safety that included adding a second engineer to some of its trains, using technologies to slow or stop trains when a warning signal is not heeded, and appointing a panel of experts to recommend safety improvements.

These are all good steps. However, it’s unrealistic to hope that by showering our transit-rail-system operators with more cash and throwing high technology at their safety problems, we will be much safer.

The lion’s share of the earmarked funds are for new devices that could only slow down or stop a train locally or remotely, as in the case of positive train controls. They would not have any impact whatsoever on the other major causes of deaths on the tracks on our light-rail and high-speed commuter rail systems, which are grade-crossing accidents.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 74 people have died in Metrolink crashes since 1999 in California, out of which 20 have been killed in grade-crossing accidents. Ninety people have died on the MTA’s 22-mile L.A.-to-Long Beach Blue Line, which has had more than 821 recorded incidents between its inception in July 1990 and last July.

The above-mentioned, significantly higher-than-national average rates of accidents and fatalities along the Metrolink and MTA rail network attest to the dire state of rail safety, which is primarily caused by outdated and messy safety-related policies, procedures and practices.

One of the requisite pillars for the safety of any modern technological system’s safety today is transparent, total-system-oriented accident and incident investigations, including the reporting of them and unfettered access to them by analysts or any interested party. This pillar is either broken or missing at both Metrolink and MTA.

Other serious system-related problems that have plagued our rail safety include the tragically narrow MTA Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit and the woefully incomplete MTA Grade Crossing Preliminary Hazard Analysis, which has been used in the now-under-construction Exposition light-rail project.

Villaraigosa has already offered good and specific policy recommendations for transportation safety in a report titled “After Sprawl: Action Plans for Metropolitan Los Angeles (2003).” This report, which I had the privilege of contributing to in 2002 is, according to his official mayoral biography, “a policy blueprint for addressing the issues facing many urban centers.”

What he now recommends concerning the major safety improvements of the MTA and Metrolink rail network in the Southland is precisely what he suggested previously in his report. We are simply asking him to put the money where his mouth is by helping implement his vision.

Najmedin Meshkati is a professor at the University of Southern California. He teaches and conducts research on the safety of technological systems and created USC’s Transportation Safety Program in 1992.

Popularity: 4% [?]