|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 8, 2010 16:23:19 GMT -8
Agreed with metrocenter.....as much as the muni in San Francisco looks fantastic; it's very impractical for Los Angeles in terms of distance and speed. I've been to San Francisco many times and have never ridden Muni outside of the F Line. I'd rather walk it as the distances are short in the City.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 8, 2010 18:46:19 GMT -8
Thank you for the photo update Darrell. They are moving fast for sure!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 8, 2010 19:19:17 GMT -8
The Muni line in the illustration, N-Judah, used to be a "fun run" back in the PCC car days, especially if you rode a late-night run with one of the more lead-footed motormen. Today, numerous STOP signs slow things down, but back then they could literally put the pedal to the metal and "just hit the high spots" from 9th & Judah out to the beach. Time to reach into the old jazz record rack and cue up Johnny Hodges' "Things Ain't What They Used to Be". To bring things back to the local scene, back when the Gold Line was still being designed, there was a pressure group called NOBLAG for No Blue Line At Grade. When the matter came before the PUC, I wrote to each of the Commissioners, stating the case for building the line as it is today, and citing Muni lines as examples.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 8, 2010 19:23:26 GMT -8
^^ I remember NOBLAG. Their name always reminded me of NO MA'AM (a parody of concerned citizens groups on Married With Children):
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 9, 2010 14:46:03 GMT -8
RAILS ACROSS FARMDALE!!Mid-day today, a lot has happened in 24 hours! Looking west toward La Brea, they're finishing rail clips across Farmdale, but still have a section of rail to install beyond it. Looking east toward Buckingham you see a rail hopper spreading ballast on the new track, refilled from the pile on the left.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 9, 2010 15:19:40 GMT -8
Wow, great scoop Darrell!
So they finished the underground utility work, or at least enough of it to allow them to lay rails. It now is likely they will get this finished enough to avoid major disruptions to Farmdale when the classes begin on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 9, 2010 18:49:50 GMT -8
More pictures from Farmdale this evening, showing that the track installation has now been completed: We aren't the only ones who are interested in the construction: The elderly Japanese couple were curiously observing the construction of the at-grade tracks across Farmdale, probably reminding them the memories of streetcars from their country: Grade-crossing panels are already being installed and should all be in place by tomorrow: And a video: Well, we send our condolences to the Fix Expo and NFSR NIMBY opposition and celebrate our victory. The Dorsey students will walk across the new tracks on Monday. We celebrate this lovely at-grade crossing, which will be the landmark of the Expo Line, set in a peaceful neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Sept 9, 2010 22:30:50 GMT -8
Fantastic! Thanks for the updates Gokhan and Darrell. And lolz at the "RIP"!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 9, 2010 22:47:18 GMT -8
I say, those navvies are really getting their backs into it! (as our British friends might say). A big tip of the hard hat to the workers who turn drawings into reality! (I can speak from experience about building a railway--having been on the "track gang" at Orange Empire.)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 10, 2010 17:23:05 GMT -8
Farmdale progress about 2:00 this afternoon ... Our friendly flagman was on duty as the ballast grader (official name?) passed by (great video, Gokhan!). Lot of other workers were there to get it all done before Monday.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 12, 2010 10:22:26 GMT -8
Crossposted from the general phase 1 thread... The Farmdale crossing was open as of yesterday (9/11) afternoon. You can see work remaining on the final pedestrian crossing and station platforms in the simulation.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 12, 2010 10:46:26 GMT -8
Until the Fix Expo NIMBYs come back as zombies, no need to crosspost them here.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 17, 2010 18:06:29 GMT -8
As you know the CPUC Farmdale proceedings have been reopened at the rehearing request of the NIMBYs. Yesterday Expo Authority have filed their response to the NIMBYs. CPUC is expected to deny the rehearing request and close the proceedings again. Meanwhile Fix Expo NIMBYs claim that they will sue CPUC at an appeal court. The latest documents for you to enjoy: CPUC Farmdale master linkA notable thing is that FTA hasn't yet certified the Farmdale Station EIR. Expo cannot start the final design and construction of the Farmdale Station until FTA approves the EIR. The long story short, the ghosts of the Fix Expo NIMBYs are still around. Let's hope they don't return as zombies.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 28, 2010 20:27:54 GMT -8
If this segment were to have been in an open cut trench, could incidents like these happen? Man jumps, hits train in Pasadena in attempted suicidePosted: 09/28/2010 09:03:24 AM PDT PASADENA - A 45-year-old man jumped from an overpass and struck a Gold Line train near the Pasadena Memorial Park passenger station Tuesday morning, Los Angeles County Sheriff officials said. The man survived the attempted suicide after he hit the back of the train and bounced onto the track at 6:26 a.m., Sgt. Neal Thomas with the Los Angeles Sheriffs said. He was treated at the scene and transported to Huntington Memorial Hospital, Thomas said. The man is in critical condition, the sergeant said. Surveillance cameras in the area caught the man jumping from the bridge at Arroyo Parkway and Holly Street, Chief Neal Tyler said. The train resumed service at 7:12 a.m., authorities said. Read more: www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16194318#ixzz10tCcevFT
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Sept 28, 2010 21:37:10 GMT -8
I'm reasonably sure the site of the incident is an open-cut trench. It's where northbound trains come out of the Colorado Blvd. tunnel and run below grade level in the open before going through the former Santa Fe tunnel to reach the I-210 median. At least it wasn't a fatality with all the attendant waiting for the Coroner's representative to show up.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 29, 2010 9:44:50 GMT -8
This is so good that I'm crossposting it.
I have uploaded this clip on YouTube. In this hilarious movie, Harold Lloyd, who always did his stunts himself, runs from one vehicle to another to make his way to the girl he loves. In this clip from Girl Shy, he attempts to operate a Pacific Electric trolley in the streets of Los Angeles in 1924. This clip is dedicated to Harold as well as the extensive streetcar system of Los Angeles back then.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 15, 2010 11:58:15 GMT -8
World's longest rail tunnel, 35.4 mi, $10.6 billion, $300 million/mi, was finished today in Switzerland. News storyIf Fix Expo was successful, we could have had it here. LOL
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 10:51:38 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas is proposing changes to the Metro Grade Crossing Policy. The existing policy is here. Ridley-Thomas' proposal is here. The proposal seeks to allow consideration of concerns beyond just traffic/safety issues (including community concerns and economic development issues). (Crossposted on the Crenshaw forum.)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 21, 2010 11:41:35 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas basically wants to modify the Metro grade-crossing policy so that all opposition demands could be incorporated into new light-rail lines: www.metro.net/board/Items/2010/10_October/20101020P&PItem9.pdfWe know what this would result in: the opposition accepting nothing but underground and possibly every politician asking for underground lines in his/her district. This new policy has no intention but killing light-rail in Los Angeles in favor of heavy rail. If this goes through, none of the Measure R light-rail projects could be built. We also know that the opposition use the underground card to kill rail transit in their neighborhood. Also, the opposition are against new development and the new policy wants to bring more development into the equation, which contradicts both the demands of the opposition and the support for light-rail. I hope this anti-light-rail policy will be dead on arrival. It's contradictory in many ways and it disguises itself as promoting community input, safety, and economic development, whereas in reality it's coming from the same opposition base to light-rail. It even contradicts itself by failing to realize that the light-rail opposition also oppose new development.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 12:35:00 GMT -8
The key NIMBY provision is item 4: Analyses of grade crossing alternatives shall include thorough consideration of non-traffic and non-rail issues affecting each crossing. These analyses shall be in narrative form, with special attention to schools, parks and social service facilities, areas of high pedestrian activity and anticipated changes in land use or demographics. These analyses will allow for community input, and for the evaluation of subjective community considerations, such as safety and economic development, which do not lend themselves easily to quantitative analysis.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 21, 2010 12:48:08 GMT -8
I see nothing wrong with the evaluation of transportation methods outside of automobile counts...does that make me a NIMBY? I think we are jumping up a storm on something that needs to be re-evaluated. For example, outside of Dorsey HS (which I still believe should not be grade seperated), I do feel a serious need for grade seperation should have occurred at Trousdale, which has extremely high pedestrian counts during the day and especially at events. Already, we are seeing the effects of the ridiculous carpet being put over rails. Now, the City or Metro is going to have fund the cops to control this crossing during game days or special events. Besides USC football games, there's tons of weekend events (Monster Massive this weekend may get 100,000 people). Don't forget all the Race for the Cures, 5K/10K walk/runs that happen at Exposition Park. We did a run last March and ran over the tracks at Vermont...does that mean the Expo Line will be shut down during big events. Events that will draw huge ridership? I hope not! But, I do agree with MRT, that an evaluation of non-automobile traffic should be evaluated for grade seperation. Of course, within reason. I.e. we cannot grade seperate near a school park, just because it's a park. But if we look at significantly high pedestrian areas...Trousdale would have definitely qualified.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 13:00:18 GMT -8
I see nothing wrong with the evaluation of transportation methods outside of automobile counts...does that make me a NIMBY? I think we are jumping up a storm on something that needs to be re-evaluated. LAOfAnaheim, I agree with you that some consideration has to be made for other factors. When I say "the key NIMBY provision", I am referring to how Item 4 (in the vague form currently being considered) will be used by opponents of every rail project going forward, to use any excuse in the book to block these projects. The considerations being requested are subjective (non-fact-based), to be documented "in narrative form". This will encourage not just NIMBYism but favoritism. For instance, a company might be able to argue for Metro paying for and building a grade separation near its location using these new vague criteria, even when the grade separation benefits nobody except that company.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 21, 2010 13:27:57 GMT -8
This MRT amendment is a perfect way to de-rail measure R completely. A "narrative" format, what exactly does that mean? As I said before, he is only interested in the Crenshaw line being 100% grade separated and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 21, 2010 13:33:59 GMT -8
This MRT amendment is a perfect way to de-rail measure R completely. A "narrative" format, what exactly does that mean? As I said before, he is only interested in the Crenshaw line being 100% grade separated and nothing else. A documented reason why there is or why there isn't grade seperation. It's just a method to cover your a**.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 21, 2010 15:16:09 GMT -8
Looking at the Item 4 part of the proposal to modify the Metro grade-crossing policy :
Dividing it up by sentences, it reads - Item 4: 1. Analyses of grade crossing alternatives shall include thorough consideration of non-traffic and non-rail issues affecting each crossing.
2. These analyses shall be in narrative form, with special attention to schools, parks and social service facilities, areas of high pedestrian activity and anticipated changes in land use or demographics.
3. These analyses will allow for community input, and for the evaluation of subjective community considerations, such as safety and economic development, which do not lend themselves easily to quantitative analysis.
Now, here's how it doesn't work! Item 4 lacks specificity, leaving the door open for wide latitude in interpretation and consequently, litigation. I’ve numbered the 3 sentences for comment.
4.1 – “Analyses” is so vague. Hmmm at say $80/hr for a reasonable consultant, wow, the money to be made here is awesome! Further, if I’m the opposition, the vague requirement for analyses opens the door for me to say, “Woops, …I see you didn’t analyze the impact of global warming on ridership under the demographic expectation of a reduction in the number of riders!” and this creates delay after delay with the city on the hook to get the analyses letter-perfect. Further… “thorough" is obviously quite subject to interpretation and litigation--you might call that subjective. “Non-traffic” and “non-rail” suggests anything and everything imaginable that might affect each crossing. In both cases, for this sentence to pass muster, the desired “analyses” should be specified rather than doing the equivalent of pointing a finger “over yonder.”
4.2 – What is the purpose of specifying narrative form? What does “special” mean? Isn’t “attention” sufficient? Shouldn’t “or” be replaced by “and?”
4.3 – This sentence is an explanation and does not specify anything. “Subjective considerations” always have objective points associated with them otherwise they can't be assessed! Metro would be unable to “easily” respond to additional analytical requirements—especially if they are “subjective” issues.
Any recommendation to change the request to modify the Metro grade-crossing policy should require operational, non-subjective terminology to enable effective fulfillment of the new requirements.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 15:35:26 GMT -8
Item 5 is where the rubber meets the road: Final determination of each grade crossing or grade separation decision shall be made by the Metro Board of Directors, based on a balanced evaluation of technical considerations, such as traffic flow and queuing, and communitybased considerations, such as public safety and economic development. Thus the amended policy would replace the clarity of objective criteria with an analysis by staff, plus a requirement for Board approval of each individual crossing. The new policy would shift responsibility for grade-crossing decisions from staff/consultants to elected representatives. Now I am a big fan of representative government, and on the surface this sounds good. But the cynic in me says that this would subject every grade crossing to the very lobbying the originally policy was created to prevent.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 21, 2010 15:42:10 GMT -8
I wish you had given a heads-up before, Joel. The motion has passed the planning committee and is now headed to the Metro board.
If the Metro light-rail grade-crossing policy gets modified, the NIMBYs will demand the Phase 2 grade crossings to be reanalyzed, according to the Phase 1 precedents (La Brea, USC, Jefferson, Washington got grade-separated after the policy was introduced). This will delay Phase 2 for years.
The enemies of light-rail are using every available means to attack light-rail now: Expo Inspector General, Metro Grade-Crossing Policy, you name it.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 21, 2010 17:02:40 GMT -8
Now, the City or Metro is going to have fund the cops to control this crossing during game days or special events. Or USC; photo taken 10/14/04.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 21, 2010 17:14:48 GMT -8
Now, the City or Metro is going to have fund the cops to control this crossing during game days or special events. Or USC; photo taken 10/14/04. Even though it happens...it's not a pretty site. Would be nice to see hundreds of people just strolling along Trousdale. Now, they'll be bunching up and walking together. And when the train comes near (from the westside), it will go slower than normal. Which will draw the complaints of the normal layperson "why are our trains so slow?". My hope is that Pardee Way becomes the new Expo Park/USC walkway...
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 21, 2010 17:25:00 GMT -8
From the motion: The MTA Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit (the "Grade Crossing Policy") was adopted by the Metro Board of Directors on December 4, 2003. ...
The Grade Crossing Policy was applied on the Exposition Line and the Pasadena Gold Line. In both instances, it engendered substantial controversy, and has been subject to review and, in some cases, reversal by the Public Utility Commission of the State of California. Sloppy. Not the Pasadena Gold Line, which was already open in 2003 before the GCP was adopted. And what are the "some cases"? The CPUC has not mandated any new grade separations, only a reconfiguration of grade crossings by Trade Tech and at Farmdale. On the traffic analysis, the Expo phase 2 Final EIR already analyzed traffic for 2030, more than the 20 years of point 2). What does point 3)'s "full build-out of land development entitlements" mean? What is actually entitled, i.e. approved for development, or only that could be built under current zoning / general plan? Sloppy again. Both ends of the Gold Line have excellent safety records with at-grade crossings. So how are "subjective community considerations, such as safety" to be analyzed? Finally, what are the implications for Measure R light rail projects besides Crenshaw? There's not much at-grade light rail beyond Expo phase 2, which is already approved; the impacts could be more on post-Measure R projects. But I agree, the threat is a replay of the Valley busway, where the superior light rail option was precluded through political means.
|
|