[Editor’s Note: In email correspondence yesterday, citizen/transportation activist Damien Goodmon sought answers to pressing questions about the Expo Light Rail project from two key officials, Rick Thorpe, chief officer of the Expo Construction Authority, and County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. Mr. Goodmon’s first email was timed at 11:03 a.m., his second at 5 p.m. Mr. Thorpe’s response was marked at 6:28 p.m.]
From: Damien Goodmon <damienwg@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 20, 2007 11:03 AM
Subject: Questions for Clarification on the Expo Line Culver City design
To: Yvonne B. Burke <seconddistrict@lacbos.org>; Rick Thorpe <rthorpe@exporail.net>
cc: Marguerite Lamotte <marguerite.lamotte@lausd.net>
; Vernail Skaggs <vernail.skaggs@lausd.net>
; Herb Wesson <councilmember.wesson@lacity.org>
; Andrew Westall <andrew.westall@lacity.org>
; Joel Sandberg <jsandberg@exporail.net>
; Mike Bohlke <mbohlke@bos.lacounty.gov>
Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke and Mr. Rick Thorpe:
In an effort to clarify the political spin that has been distributed from some elected official’s office regarding the Expo Line design through the City of Culver City, would one of you please verify the following facts by the close of business today, Nov. 20:
1) There is no street in the city of Culver City that the proposed Expo Line will cross at street level.
2) There is an overpass at every intersection in Culver City that the Expo Line is proposed to cross.
3) Between Wesley/National and Eastham/National, the Expo Line is designed to operate at ground level but completely walled off and fenced off like the Green Line, a light rail line that operates in most portions in the middle of the Century Freeway, completely walled off and fenced off.
4) Operating at ground level but completely walled off and fenced off is a form of "grade separation" and is not the same as operating at ground level across an intersection where vehicular and pedestrian traffic is allowed to cross, which is known as "at-grade?"
5) "At-grade" is the currently proposed Expo Line design at:
- Farmdale/Exposition, which is adjacent to Dorsey High School.
- Western/Exposition, which is adjacent to Foshay Learning Center.
- Crenshaw/Exposition, which is adjacent to West Angelus mega-church and Al-Madinah School.
- 7th/Exposition, which is 150 feet south of Fire Station 34, which accesses the Leimert Park community through that street.
- Normandie/Exposition.
- Vermont/Exposition.
- Arlington/Exposition.
6) The Expo Line operates 100 percent grade separated in the city of Culver City.
7) Additionally, Supervisor Burke, the South L.A. community wants to know what involvement you had as a member of the MTA board in the “compromise agreement” that resulted in an overpass at Washington/National that MTA staff did not agree was necessary, as is specified in the Record of Decision that was issued by the Federal Transit Administration.
To refresh your memory, here is the quote from the FTA Record of Decision that is available on Metro's website at pp. 17-18:
“The traffic analysis prepared by LACMTA DID NOT CONCUR that a fully grade-separated station and crossing of Washington and National Boulevards would be required at this time, if no Venice Boulevard crossing were included in the LPA.
“A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT was reached in mid-2005 to resolve the above conflict by shifting the Venice/Robertson Station a few hundred feet to the east.
“This location required NO RAIL CROSSING OF ANY STREETS IN THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, but allowed for a future grade separation to be built if the line is extended past Venice Boulevard as a part of the future project.
“This alternative [temporary] station site (now referred to as the Washington/National Station) was supported by Culver City in action by their City Council on Nov. 21, 2005, and was forwarded to the LACMTA Board of Directors AS A CONDITION OF THE CITY’S SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.”
So again, what involvement did your office have in this “compromise agreement?”
As questions 1 through 6 are clearly verifiable facts, your response is expected by the close of business today.
A timely response to No. 7 by Dec. 5, is greatly appreciated.
Additionally, Supervisor Burke, I’d be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to convey the community's clear disappointment in your failure to attend the community meetings that were held on Oct. 17 and Oct. 30 in your district on this issue. You neither attended nor even sent staff. The PUC Public Participation Hearing on Nov. 5 provided yet another opportunity for you to hear the concerns of over 500 of your constituents.
How can you attempt to characterize constituents’ statements or concerns if you do not hear them for yourself?
To compensate for your busy schedule and long commute, we have taken the liberty of uploading some of your constituent comments to our youtube webpage. More information on this issue is available at our website: www.FixExpo.org
We do hope you will personally attend the next community meeting we call on this issue likely in the New Year.
In the interim, we called, emailed and have left voice messages for your staff for over a month requesting time to sit down and meet with you to discuss the issue. Your office has failed to respond. When will you make yourself available to discuss this important issue with you personally anytime in the near future?
Thank you,
Damien Goodmon
Coordinator, Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line
Still Waiting
Supervisor Burke and Mr. Thorpe:
It is now after 5 p.m. Question 1 through 6 are very simple questions about the current design of the rail line. Is there a reason the very straight forward questions have yet to be answered?
The community and press await your reply.
Sincerely,
Damien Goodmon
Coordinator, Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line
The First Response
On Nov 20, 2007 6:28 PM,
Thorpe, Rick <RThorpe@exporail.net> wrote:
Mr. Goodmon;
Unfortunately, I have had other previous commitments scheduled for today, including discussions on the re-evaluation of the various options at Farmdale per Expo Board direction. All of my staff are currently committed to preparing our response to the Board and therefore answers to your questions must wait until that work is complete. In addition, we must also respond to four separate motions pending before the CPUC. All these reponses are due by early December. They, for obvious reasons, are also a priority since the CPUC has identified certain dates by which we are required to respond.
While your questions may appear to be simple to answer, I have found that much of the information we have provided in the past is being misconstrued by the general public, so I would therefore like to take the time for staff to properly prepare and respond to your specific questions. To this end, I would request that you contact Joel Sandberg of my staff to set up a time to meet with you so that he can properly respond to your questions. Since our responses to the CPUC are due in early December, I’m sure he will have time to meet with you shortly thereafter.
Sincerely,
Rick Thorpe
The Final Words
Mr. Thorpe:
The amount of time you spent typing why you couldn't respond to questions 1 through 6 was more than ample time to pull out your design documents and confirm the alignment of the line over one mile in the city of Culver City.
Simply, which of these very straight forward questions requires the time to research that exceeds the time you spent writing your reply?
Thank you for your response though. I have already received a reply from a person on the BCC list who has simply said: “With responses like that, I can't imagine what you go through to get complex questions answered.”
A meeting with Mr. Sandberg is not necessary. An email confirming the above is all that is necessary. When can that be expected and why would it take any more than 5-10 minutes of staff time?
Thank you,
Damien Goodmon
Coordinator, Citizens' Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line
