Your title was "Environmental Racism Explained".

Your post explains nothing, merely states the fact that millions of dollars were spent, and continue to be spent, in an effort to bring low cost public transportation into predominately black areas.

This is in direct accordance with the directive.

If they didn't bring public transportation into the inner cities, that's "racism", because it makes it easier for them to escape the inner city and go to other parts of the city they weren't likely to be seen before.

You can't have public transportation without some inconveniences, such as the at-grade crossings and so on. That's the price paid.

There's no way to comment on why more money is being spent in a specific period of time, on one section of track vs. another. Go find out why, and what projects are in the pipeline, then make such claims.

Which is in and of itself, pretty contradictory. Your post complains about the trains' negative impact on a particular part of town, then claim it's also racist because the MTA is spending more on providing services in another, presumably not-so-black part of town.

Which is it? Is it "racist" because taxpayer money is being used to provide subsidized transportation, albeit noisy, to inner city, black neighborhoods, or is it "racist" because they aren't spending "enough"?

It's neither.

Go ask the residents of South Central if their lives would be improved by the removal of those trains and their annoyances, then make your judgment. Until then, quit with the "racism" nonsense. I'll bet you aren't even old enough to have experienced real racism.