|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 16:48:32 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification, Gokhan. I guess the sections question in Expo would be considered semi-exclusive which according to lightrail.net makes the train speed restricted to that of the adjacent traffic and of course the train still stops at the traffic light LIKE A BUS. :*) This classification is not from lightrail.net. It's from California Public Utilities Commission, as I linked above.The idea is to get signal priority for the LRT at crossings which are not gated, as it is done at most places in LA. LRT does get signal priority in LA County at most crossings and as a result even the Eastside Gold Line, which runs in a 9.04(b)(4) alignment, is much faster than a rapid bus. You are also forgetting that even without signal priority, semiexclusive alignments avoid traffic and gridlock. So, even without signal priority, it's much faster than a rapid bus, and it doesn't have the capacity and pollution problems of BRT.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 16:51:42 GMT -8
SAUNDERS, I looked at your Web site, and you are indeed a great metalsmith artist. Have you ever looked into getting a grant for Expo Phase 2 station art or other MTA light-rail project? They pay really well, up to $1 million.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 17:08:05 GMT -8
That will squash more claims that gated LRT maximum speed is only 55mph, it can go much higher with ATS or ATP (Automatic Train Signaling, I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong) I think you are correct, Jerard. I believe 55 MPH was introduced by MTA, not CPUC (as cited in the Blue Line Booze - Allen study). I think in grade-separated sections (perhaps not in gated sections) like the Gold Line trenches, freeways and Green Line freeways etc., the speed should be 65 MPH or more. But there is the equipment limitation, power-supply limitation, and track limitation in some cases. I think the new Breda LRVs were designed for 75 MPH. Another thing I noticed is that in fenced median-running sections, the maximum allowable speed is 45 MPH. 45 MPH over 35 MPH makes a huge difference and it's silly that they are not taking advantage of this by fencing the median-running sections, for example for the Eastside Gold Line. Time is the most important thing, and they could save a lot of time by increasing speeds up to 70 MPH or so in grade-separated sections and 45 MPH in median-running sections, with no extra cost.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 19, 2009 20:40:22 GMT -8
ATS = automatic train stop
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 21:34:32 GMT -8
Here are the definitions from the CPUC LRT regulations linked above. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.01 AUTOMATIC BLOCK SIGNAL SYSTEM (ABS). A series of consecutive blocks of track over which entry to each block is governed by block signals, cab signals, or both, which are actuated by the presence of an LRV or train or by certain other conditions affecting the use of the block. 2.02 AUTOMATIC TRAIN PROTECTION (ATP). A system for assuring safe train movement by a combination of train detection, separation of trains running on the same track or over interlocked routes, overspeed prevention, and route interlocking. 2.03 AUTOMATIC TRAIN STOP (ATS). A device so designed and installed that, should the operator permit a train to pass a signal indicating "stop", there will be an automatic application of the brakes which cannot be released until the train is brought to a stop. 2.04 CAB SIGNAL SYSTEM. A signal system whereby block condition and the prevailing civil speed commands are transmitted and displayed directly within the train cab. The cab signal system may be operated in conjunction with a system of fixed way-side signals or separately. 2.05 CARRIER. Unless the context indicates otherwise, "carrier" means a LRT system. 2.06 COMMISSION. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. 2.07 FAIL-SAFE. A characteristic of a system which ensures that any malfunction affecting safety will cause the system to revert to a state that is known to be safe. 2.08 LIGHT-RAIL TRANSIT (LRT). A mode of urban transportation employing light-rail vehicles capable of operating on all the alignment classifications described in this General Order. 2.09 LIGHT-RAIL VEHICLES (LRV). A wheeled vehicle, for the conveyance of passengers, which is electrically propelled and operates upon a track or rails on the alignment classifications described in this General Order. 2.10 OPERATOR. The LRT employee on board the train having direct and immediate control over the movement of the train. 2.11 PUBLIC TRANSIT GUIDEWAY. A system of public transportation utilizing passenger vehicles that are physically restricted from discretionary movement in a lateral direction. 2.12 SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY. A corridor within which LRVs operate apart from parallel motor vehicle traffic but may contain locations of mixed traffic crossings. 2.13 STREETCAR. An LRV operated in mixed street traffic. 2.14 TRAIN. A single LRV or multiple LRVs combined to operate as one unit.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 20, 2009 9:27:36 GMT -8
Here is the concept once again. You are in a bus going with the flow of traffic. It gets to a red light. The bus stops, just like the cars and trucks next to the bus. When the light turns green everyone goes. Now, at the intersections mentioned above: Normandie, Crenshaw, Vermont and Western, the exact same thing happens. The train is moving right along with the trucks, buses and cars. The light turns red, they ALL stop. OK? This is called "Street Running". I find it amazing how people continue to avoid accepting what is a well-documented fact: at 225-tons, without steering wheels or Michellins that allow them to stop on a dime, trains are the most dangerous vehicles on the road. In 2007 2,005 people were killed in traffic accidents in Los Angeles County, including 228 pedestrians and 24 bicyclists Anyone with a brain knows the reason there are numerically more accidents and fatalities with cars is because there are numerically millions more cars on the road every day in L.A. County than there are trains. The Blue Line makes just 250 runs a day. 250 is the equivalent to the number of cars that cross the Wilshire/Westwood intersection in one lane in 10 mins. during rush hour. The point of course, is that the rate of Blue Line accidents is astronomically higher than cars, as is the rate of deaths, and the severity of the accidents. The number of annual Blue Line deaths would be in the hundreds of thousands if the train made a million runs a day like cars. If there were as many light rail trains on the roads as cars we all would be dead! Just the stats (sources linked through via the link above): And keep in mind FY 08 was a "good year" for the Blue Line. Comparing raw data between one system that has 250 runs a day and another that has millions to avoid accepting what common sense and governments around the world long ago proclaimed as fact and law is desperate and deceptive - very much like most of the arguments made by Friends 4 Expo leadership. Can we just get some quad gates for Vermont, Normandie, Western, and Crenshaw; and then call it a day? First, in the case of Vermont, Normandie and Western, they won't fit without major property takes. And not just sidewalk shortening, actually purchasing and demolishing structures. Second, there is the room to fit them at Crenshaw, but there and everywhere else they're implemented they drastically worsen the traffic flow of an intersection to well below failing. Signal-controlled train crossings in the traffic capital of the country is bad (traffic cycle length increases providing less time for motorists and pedestrians movements), but at a busy intersections gated crossings are horrendous. They were originally proposed at Crenshaw, but the gates were removed in favor of signal-controlled crossing for just that reason. The exact same thing will happen through the EIR/negotiation process in Phase 2 if grade separations aren't added politically or legally. Gates at these major intersections will be removed in favor of a signal-controlled crossing - all of which will have significant priority for the cross street (Overland, Sepulveda, etc.). In fact, I believe at the last Expo Board meeting Zev was the first politico to let the cat out of the bag in suggesting signal-control at some of the at-grade gated intersections. This of course, would further SLOW DOWN THE TRAIN. Best case scenario given the current at-grade crossings in Phase 1, and proposed at-grade crossings in Phase 2 (many of which I GUARANTEE will change to signal-control) is 52-54 minutes end-to-end. SAUNDERS said something very important in a previous post: I have personally worked with government engineers in a profesional capacity who wanted to build the quickest simplest easiest project to the disregard of function and aesthetics. You have to look at the entire environment in which the train will operate and frankly a lot of engineers and people here don't. If you do, you can understand why a lot of things that make since solely from the train-view, do not make sense from a broader traffic, circulation, community or regional view. And for all this talk about 4-quad gates vs. regular crossing gates, 92% of the vehicular accidents on the Blue Line occur at crossings that have no gates - at crossings in the street-running sectionAgain, this whole "look over there so you don't pay attention to the problem right here" tactic of at-grade advocates is tiring. And make no mistake, there are at-grade advocates in this forum within TTC and filled in F4E, though they never ever say this publicly. They're not reluctant at-grade advocates (the kind that says, "Yea grade separation would be great, but..."), but rather passionate at-grade advocates who claim it is superior for these type of long-distance high-speed systems for a whole bunch of unsubstantiated reasons. Regarding the Blue Line, which contrary to Mr. Alpern imagination, is the deadliest light rail line in the country, the only system that competes in the number of accidents per year is the SF Muni. (It is to be said MUNI operates multiple more track miles than the 22 mile Blue Line and the significant portions of the system there operate in mixed-flow). And contrary to the gospel preached around here, many of these accidents are not just the cause of motorists and pedestrians making mistakes (Alpern calls it Darwanism, an opinion which unfortunately is shared by many people in this debate), they're operator created. When in street-running, the 225-ton train is completely controlled by the operator. Another fact, completely glossed over when talking about how 225-ton trains operating at 35 mph is no problem. And even if you think the accidents are just and Darwanism at work, while no Blue Line passenger has yet died in an accident (225-ton train is pretty good protection against a 150lb person or 2 ton car), thousands of passengers have been injured in the over 824 accidents. Where is Gloria Molina looking at installing gates? I can't think of anywhere that might need them. Indiana is the only place that comes to mind, although I don't see that as necessary. Atlantic might need them when it is extended. Her motion calls for them to be explored at all at-grade crossings on the Eastside extension. They won't be implemented and everyone knows it, but we'll see what comes of the discussion. Nonetheless, I'm glad Bart brought up Molina's motion. Now perhaps people will stop saying, "East LA is just fine with the street-running light rail there" when suggesting South LA should expect a lesser project than Culver City...but I seriously doubt it. We can spend millions on engineering to prevent accidents, millions on education to prevent accidents, or millions in repairing property damage (insurance will cover I assume). Direct quote from one of Metro's rail safety school program coordinators: "If Metro built grade separated rail I wouldn't have a job."
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 20, 2009 10:44:29 GMT -8
I find it amazing how people continue to avoid accepting what is a well-documented fact: at 225-tons, without steering wheels or Michellins that allow them to stop on a dime, trains are the most dangerous vehicles on the road. That's your personal view. It's too bad that you hate trains. I'm guessing that you were heartbroken by MTA in the past when you were advocating rail. It seems to be the case with most MTA antagonists, whether they are MAVE, professor, CAVE, and so on. Also, you are unaware that there is a deceleration limit for public-transit vehicles, which is the same for buses. That's because people who use public transit don't wear seat belts. Regarding crossing gates: They are not allowed by CPUC in median-running street sections. They are only allowed in private rights-of-way and side-running street sections. End of story. See my link to CPUC regulations above. You keep comparing apples and oranges when you compare the acident rates. You need to compare accidents per passenger miles, not vehicle miles. Then, you will see that LRT is much much safer than anything with rubber tires. Most injuries on Blue Line trains are hardly injuries: extreme stress, minor back pain, minor bruises are results of emergency braking for a few passengers. You get more of these "injuries" in a typical roller-coaster ride in Disneyland. I suggest you try Space Mountain. You say there are more accidents in street-running sections but you are overlooking the fact that most of them are fender benders or people grazed by trains. Most fatalities occur at the high-speed gates sections. Aren't we trying to create jobs during the recession? And, hey, you wouldn't have a job if MTA built grade-separated rail! LOL Please give us a heads up before Fix Expo detonates the nuclear bomb on Friday; so, we could get into the shelters.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 20, 2009 12:44:11 GMT -8
Most injuries on Blue Line trains are hardly injuries: extreme stress, minor back pain, minor bruises are results of emergency braking for a few passengers. You get more of these "injuries" in a typical roller-coaster ride in Disneyland. I suggest you try Space Mountain. Boy, that's the truth. I personally was in an Orange Line accident, where our bus was blindsided by a motorist who didn't "notice" our bus crossing directly in front of it. They we're initially stopped at the limit line but felt like accelerating instead. Of course, nobody was hurt. Our driver asked who among us was hurt, and a few people raised their hands. When the driver came back with stacks of paperwork for them, the passengers realized they weren't hurt anymore and took off with the rest of us for the next bus. (Also understand that the presence of an at-grade busway in no way caused the accident. A red light is a red light, period. And it just so happens that motorists excel at running red lights. Attributing motorists running red lights to a busway or a light-rail line is poor reasoning at best. Streets around busways and light-rail lines are SAFER than regular streets because of the extensive engineering work involved in installing the line.)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 21, 2009 18:35:54 GMT -8
"Adrianna Bachan, 18, a freshman at USC, was killed Sunday when a driver ran a red light and struck her and a friend about 3 a.m. as they crossed Jefferson Boulevard near Hoover Street, authorities said." A reason I posted this was to emphasize the dangerous consequences of drivers breaking the law. They ran red lights and killed people.Would one counter with an Excel bar chart of automobile fatalities per mile driven vs. pedestrian fatalities per mile walked, or focus on drivers taking responsibility, reinforced with enforcement to reduce these deaths?
|
|
Matt
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by Matt on Apr 22, 2009 20:29:08 GMT -8
Meanwhile, everywhere else in the world, life goes on and "holding pens" are a non-issue. I took this picture a few weeks ago in Buenos Aires, Argentina, along their equivalent of Wilshire Blvd. This particular rail line is at-grade HRT and powered by 3rd rail.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 23, 2009 11:38:27 GMT -8
MTA/Expo is not building a Pasadena Gold Line; they’re building a Blue Line ... According to MTA's June 2008 Summary of Blue Line accidents, 92% of the 647 recorded vehicular accidents on the Blue Line, the deadliest most accident-prone light rail line in the country, have occurred in the street-running section, and 76% of the 821 total accidents recorded on the Blue Line have occurred in the street-running sections. You argue that most of the hazard is from street running, which the Pasadena Gold Line doesn't have except for the half-mile 20 mph section in Highland Park. You've thus agreed that Expo's gated crossings west of Gramercy - which are like the Pasadena Gold Line's - are not at issue. Even "street running" is a generality. What were the specific types of accidents recorded (e.g. drivers turning left who didn't stay back at a red light)? You're also not calling for grade separation north of USC. (Because USC students don't matter, or because side running is different than median running?) Therefore your only real issue is the 1.3 miles - 7 signal-controlled intersections - of median tracks from Vermont to Gramercy. (Crenshaw is not the same median configuration.) Below is the Expo Authority's simulation of Vermont, showing the typical median tracks, far-side split-platform station, signal-controlled intersection, left-turn lanes, and landscaping: The Blue Line on Washington Blvd. also has median tracks and signalized intersections with left-turn lanes (although Expo's split stations cut in half the pedestrian load at the station entrance): But median tracks with signalized intersections are standard in many other cities' recently-opened light rail lines. Here are a selection, all with median tracks, signal-controlled intersections, and left turn lanes. I've omitted the Eastside Gold Line and Seattle because they haven't opened yet. San Jose's Tasman West extension is more like Expo's landscaping: Here's Portland's Interstate MAX line, passing Ockley Green Middle School on the right: Here's San Francisco's new T-Third Street line: Here's Houston's initial line: And here's Phoenix's new line, passing Osborn Middle School, out of frame on the right: The fact is, Expo from Vermont to Gramercy follows the standard shared with a number of other cities' recent light rail lines. The burden is on you to show it won't be as safe as they are. If you argue none of these should have been built as they were, that's an argument against light rail itself.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 23, 2009 20:00:06 GMT -8
Gotta give Darrell credit for consistency.
Makes me wonder how many decades he's been ignoring people who question his tactic of showing pictures with absolutely no context as to train speed, frequency, length, surrounding population and environment or accident data. I don't think there's a forum or place he's made this argument and someone hasn't pointed it out. Yet he persists.
And who knows how many years he's been ignoring people who point to light rail being defined by its flexibility to operate at-grade, elevated or underground and point to specific examples? Heck that debate is taking place right in this forum in other threads.
The big question is, why don't the people who agree with Darrell on the final design of these projects, be honest debaters and advocates and simply request he cease the deception, or at the very least explain why he has not altered his argument after countless back-and-forth with people pointing out the gross inaccuracies in his assertions?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 24, 2009 0:45:39 GMT -8
be honest debaters ... cease the deception I offered a series of factual statements and specific examples seeking to advance a discussion about the safety characteristics of the Expo Line's 1.3 mile median section compared with a number of similarly-configured other light rail lines. Where's your "honest debate" in response? You know, evidence, logical argument, that kind of stuff. In particular, do you argue that the Blue Line is different from or the same as the other examples? In what ways?Per "train speed, frequency, length, surrounding population and environment or accident data": 1. Train speed for signal-controlled intersections is, of course, limited in California to 35 mph by the CPUC. Speed at intersections will often be less. Adjacent traffic speed limits ranged from 30 to 45 mph at the cited intersections. 2. Do you have evidence of accident rates varying with train frequency? 3. Train length, by your statements about weight disparity with automobiles, is irrelevant. 4. Do you have data on kinds of accidents and their frequencies at these type of intersections?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 24, 2009 7:17:29 GMT -8
I offered a series of factual statements and specific examples seeking to advance a discussion about the safety characteristics of the Expo Line's 1.3 mile median section compared with a number of similarly-configured other light rail lines. Where's your "honest debate" in response? You know, evidence, logical argument, that kind of stuff. In particular, do you argue that the Blue Line is different from or the same as the other examples? In what ways?Let me just ask these particular forum members: bluelineshawn, antonio, mattapoisett, LAofAnaheim, crzwdjk and wad this question: Have I not answered this question thoroughly over the past 2 years on this forum and others, in the process citing multiple documents and stats among them MTA's, "What Makes the Metro Blue Different?" Do you have data on kinds of accidents and their frequencies at these type of intersections? I and others have pointed to them repeatedly Darrell. Just because you want to ignore them, doesn't mean it hasn't been stated and shown. As many others have done right here in this forum, just last week your comments were directly rebutted both by SAUNDERS and bluelineshawn. SAUNDERS: All these cities, with the exception of San Francisco NOT having the same population density or traffic congestion as Los Angeles. None of them even come close to the population of Los Angeles bluelineshawnI don't have a problem with street running light rail, but we shouldn't have to pretend that it doesn't have an inordinate number of accidents compared to cars and buses. It is what it is.
We can spend millions on engineering to prevent accidents, millions on education to prevent accidents, or millions in repairing property damage (insurance will cover I assume). To me if we can engineer a way to have fewer accidents by spending a few million on a project that costs hundreds of millions, then that's a no-brainer.
Dublin
Phoenix
Houston This forum and others are filled with comments just like these. Just off the top of my head, I can recall that in this very forum when you cited Boston, antonio pointed to slower running speeds of the trains; and when you mentioned a MUNI line Jeremy pointed out the shorter track length and running speeds. And me, I'm constantly pointing to accidents on each and everyone of the lines, the stats on the Blue Line, in particular street-running portions, (that includes Flower street, which you not coincidentally have omitted), along with documents from MTA, TRB, NTSB, FRA, CalTrans, etc. testimony from rail safety experts, etc. etc. Your response: 1) here's a picture of another system being built on a street. 2) why shouldn't we do it here. Then, again, people explain quite specifically why we shouldn't do it here, and you return to your pictures of another system built or operating on a street. Round and round you go. LOL! AND...even within the pictures YOU JUST POSTED, without knowing anything else, a person can see the weakness in your comparison. The Blue Line is shown in a packed 4-lane environment with traffic backed-up in the turning lane, multiple traffic lights down Washington Blvd. Comparatively, the San Jose system has one car in sight on a 2-lane street that lacks a sidewalk on one side (an indication of low pedestrian volume) and empty platforms. And what's your comment about - the landscaping. I don't see how people witness this and not fall out laughing. People give the documentation and point to common sense, and you just return to your original tactic of showing pictures, very often in other cities, where people have the least amount of personal experience, which in itself is clearly deliberate. If this were Houston, people would think you went to school riding the little yellow school bus for suggesting their light rail system is as an example of a safe rail line that should be replicated. The system is nicknamed the Wham Bam Tram for goodness sake! The same would occur in Phoenix where accidents are averaging once every 6 days (on pace for 60 this year) per bluelineshawn's article. And the comment forums for San Francisco Chronicle accident articles on MUNI trains, which again competes with the Blue Line in the number of accidents for rail systems annually, are FILLED with criticism of the system and it's train operators. No one there would claim without being laughed out the place that San Francisco is model for safe rail lines that should be replicated. You're constantly attempting to dumb this debate down to a level where your arguments appear mildly credible, and every time people say something of substance you ignore it, let time pass and return to your original argument, which was thoroughly debunked. I see through it. Just as I see through your tactic of rarely copy the full comments which your responding to. It's too consistent and too deceptive for people not to see it as deliberate Mr. Clarke.And honestly, I can't be mad at a leopard for having spots, and given the weakness of your arguments I understand you have little else to support your assertions. My issue is that there's a section of people here who claim to be honest advocates, people who agree with you on the end result, but they don't call you out on your deceptive arguments. Steering committee members of your organization, Friends 4 Expo, don't request you or your sidekick Gohkan stop the misrepresentations. They don't see or they don't care to see your tactics as damaging to the organization's credibility. For me, a person who similarly spent sleepless nights fighting the deceptive, astroturf-creating, cult-like Bush administration, THAT is the REALLY interesting part. The similarities are daunting. As Rob Dawg, who I guess you know very well, said a while back in another forum: try privately contacting some of the perviously named combatants. This issue goes back more than a decade. I’m very lonely with my position that honesty is the best policy. Ask the others about my predictions of 10-12 years ago. Ask them if they were ever horribly nasty only to ultimately be proved wrong. Ask them if they’ve ever apologized. Silly, that’s not how transit advocacy works. It is a diode analysis. All good news passes, all bad news is denied. I didn't realize when coming to Transit Coalition meetings, and putting together Get LA Moving on these boards and others that it wasn't just you, but a group of people intent on being salesmen not advocates. People intent on "giving MTA the grassroots political cover they need to do what they want," as Mr. Alpern so candidly said in this very forum. Perhaps that's why I was caught off guard by the hostility Fix Expo received from the beginning. I didn't realize that was the mentality, focus and purpose of the people and transit advocacy organizations I was dealing with. If I did I may have taken a different approach.
|
|
Matt
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by Matt on Apr 24, 2009 8:51:27 GMT -8
Have I not answered this question thoroughly over the past 2 years on this forum and others, in the process citing multiple documents and stats among them MTA's, "What Makes the Metro Blue Different?"
Damien, what does it matter? What ultimately matters is what the PUC decides to approve. You have to make your case with them, not Darrell or anyone else on this forum.
If this were Houston, people would think you went to school riding the little yellow school bus for suggesting their light rail system is as an example of a safe rail line that should be replicated.
Are you making fun of people with mental disabilities? Or trying to call Darrell mentally retarded? For someone who's been "caught off guard by the hostility", I find that statement extremely hypocritical. Taking it to a personal level is not going to win you friends.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 24, 2009 10:07:00 GMT -8
I have no doubt Damien has lots of data. So does Darrell. But public policy is not a science, where decisions are made by optimizing some mathematical function. Public policy is a game of competing values and interests.
We use data, historical precedent, politics, etc., to provide meaning and context for our values. But ultimately, the argument is always motivated the values themselves, and by the interests with which we align ourselves.
So what are the values/interests represented in this argument? Damien feels like the safety of schoolchildren is being taken for granted by the MTA and others. His interest is the getting Expo built in a trench, to minimize its impact on the community near Dorsey High. Darrell feels like the safety issue is comparatively minor, compared to the improvement in quality of life that Expo will provide. His interest is in getting Expo built, for the benefit of the entire region.
I hope these motivations/values/interests aren't a surprise to anybody. So why bring them up over and over?
I happen to agree with Darrell on this issue. And we'll continue to make our arguments, over and over, to support our particular perspective. In the end, all we have are our arguments. Those that have to resort to personal attacks and other false arguments only harm their own cause by destroying their own credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 24, 2009 10:20:12 GMT -8
So, the nuclear attack by Fix Expo turned out to be a flop as well, just like their march and rally three weeks ago? Why don't Fix Expo just accept the defeat and call it a quit? Because this has got sooooooo awfully boring. Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 24, 2009 10:36:37 GMT -8
This whole debate is pure politics, nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 24, 2009 13:25:08 GMT -8
... Blue Line ... San Francisco ... Phoenix ... Houston ... Where are the details from your Freedom of Information Act requests to Metro for data on Blue Line accidents? You've only posted photos of crumpled cars, no substance about how they were caused. Notwithstanding the primary issue of driver irresponsibility that kills 2,000 people a year in Los Angeles County, categorization could help find ways to reduce them. But that and your latest citations of other cities have answered my question: To you the Blue Line is not different from other cities' standard light rail lines, you oppose them all. Never mind that standard mostly-at-grade modern U.S. light rail is a growing success in many cities. An evolution of European trams and U.S. streetcars, it has provided many more miles of rail service with limited funds, a middle ground between buses in streets and half-billion-dollar-per-mile Red Line and BART-type heavy rail systems. For those confused by photos taken on Sundays, perhaps returning to familiar photos taken on weekdays in San Jose and Portland will help: Ah, yes, Rob Dawg, aka Robert Cote. He was fond of arguments like those used by well-known transit opponents Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole, but couldn't defend their generalities when confronted with specifics. Such role models for one claiming to be a transit advocate.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 24, 2009 21:02:46 GMT -8
But public policy is not a science, where decisions are made by optimizing some mathematical function. Public policy is a game of competing values and interests. We use data, historical precedent, politics, etc., to provide meaning and context for our values. But ultimately, the argument is always motivated the values themselves, and by the interests with which we align ourselves. Well-stated. I don't think that Damien is interested in the safety of school children or minimizing Expo's impact on the community near Dorsey High, his interest is in his own political future. This is pure politics, nothing else. I've seen more a combination of: 1. Transit ideologues who promote their one true mode over all others, unlike transit professionals who understand a network includes a mix of modes each doing what it does best. I especially think of monorail / personal rapid transit / buses-can-do-everything / jitney / and heavy rail transit proponents. 2. Tapping into a feeling of inferior treatment, framing it as an issue that "We deserve a subway like those rich white people are getting." This is why objective criteria are applied. I'd also note that loudly criticizing elected officials in public forums is more likely to get one typecast as another John Walsh than develop supporters for a political future.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 24, 2009 23:40:41 GMT -8
"Adrianna Bachan, 18, a freshman at USC, was killed Sunday when a driver ran a red light and struck her and a friend about 3 a.m. as they crossed Jefferson Boulevard near Hoover Street, authorities said." A reason I posted this was to emphasize the dangerous consequences of drivers breaking the law. They ran red lights and killed people.Would one counter with an Excel bar chart of automobile fatalities per mile driven vs. pedestrian fatalities per mile walked, or focus on drivers taking responsibility, reinforced with enforcement to reduce these deaths? I think the main problem here is the education. Fix Expo's philosophy is that people are as dumb as animals, if not dumber; therefore, they shouldn't be expected to obey any traffic signals or signs and the interaction between people and trains should be completely eliminated. Well, according to that philosophy, we should design the subway platforms like elevator doors, with the doors opening only when the cars are aligned with them. Otherwise, people could throw themselves onto the tracks and get run over by the train. After I listened to the husband of the lady who ran over the unfortunate girl at USC, it appears that his wife might have only barely run the red light. While the girl's mother wants them to be hanged, should we hang every driver who can't clear an intersection before yellow turns red? Who on this board has never failed to clear an intersection before yellow turns red? After all none of us expect an accident to happen. The point is that even in this case simple education would prevent this tragedy: Look both ways before crossing the street, regardless of the light. In fact I see many USC students jumping on the street as soon as it goes yellow for the cars, without even paying attention to the cars themselves. With education not only rail accidents could almost be entirely prevented, but also pedestrian - auto collisions can be greatly reduced. People are animals, yes, but the diference is that they can be much easily educated. All this said, safety still can be improved with at-grade rail, especially the Blue Line. Confusing signals and signs should be eliminated and replaced with clear ones. More pedestrian safe zones should be provided. Left-turn signals and lanes should be improved. Rail obstructionists should accept the fact that at-grade rail deserves as much chance as the at-grade automobile.I'm making the last sentence my signature line.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 25, 2009 9:14:40 GMT -8
<snip> Fix Expo's philosophy is that people are as dumb as animals, if not dumber; therefore, they shouldn't be expected to obey any traffic signals or signs and the interaction between people and trains should be completely eliminated.<snip> I don't think it's that people are as dumb as animals it's that we are human and even the best of us make mistakes. Unfortunately, sometimes those mistakes are catastrophic. The belief is that such a huge and wonderful project like this needs to be engineered to minimize the possibility of those mistakes. Los Angeles is the second most populated city in the nation and what might do for a second or third tier city may not work for a first tier city like ours. Also, as we have discussed before it's not just a safety issue. There is an efficiency issue. Lastly, at this stage there is not much if anything that will be changed for phase one so discussion is purely academic. I really hope phase two is built with more grade separations. I am not concerned with social inequality because a better phase 2 makes a better line overall. With respect......
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 25, 2009 12:10:18 GMT -8
I think damien is very wrong in using vehicle-miles as the benchmark to compare accident rates for cars and light rail. They're just not substitutes for each other. If everyone on a Blue Line train decided to drive instead, each Blue Line vehicle-mile would be replaced by some 200 automobile-miles, and if the per-vehicle-mile accident rates were the same, there total number of accidents would increase. The challenge here is finding the actual substitution rates between light rail vehicle-miles and automobile vehicle-miles, which is a pretty tricky and business. And ultimately, you also have to weigh the benefits of safety against those of mobility, which is even trickier and more subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 25, 2009 14:55:34 GMT -8
I think damien is very wrong in using vehicle-miles as the benchmark to compare accident rates for cars and light rail. They're just not substitutes for each other. I think his concept of comparing the statistics is completely flawed. We have laws and codes governing the motion of vehicles on our streets. These laws are applied uniformly for all vehicles (including cars, buses, bicyclists, and light-rail trains) in all places in California. Pedestrians obviously have different rules, but the guidelines are the same. Vehicles may not move when they have a red light or a red arrow. Pedestrians may not move when they have a red "do not walk" signal. Simple. People follow these rules. Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 25, 2009 16:45:42 GMT -8
There is a lot of comparing apples vs. oranges, in fact apples vs. sunflower seeds, by Fix Expo. One fundamental flaw in the comparison is that the overall California grade-separated freeway average is being compared with a very particular light-rail line that goes through very particular surface streets in very particular neighborhoods. Not only freeways are safer than surface streets but also in some of the neighborhoods that the Blue Line goes through, many people are very poor drivers because of lack of education. A more honest comparison would be the automobile accident rates in nearby intersections compared with the Blue Line accident rates. I bet there are thousands of automobile accidents in the Blue Line surface-street corridor every year, much much higher than the California freeway average. Heavy rail (subway or elevated) is not the only mode of urban rail transit. Light-rail, which has several at-grade crossings, is used in every big city in the world, regardless of being first-world, second-world, or third-world. Therefore, we need heavy rail, light-rail, buses, commuter rail, and probably even jitneys. It has now become clear that Fix Expo have lost for good, with their April 24 nuclear attack aborted. This is no surprise, their San-Francisco-based lawyers having realized that this is not the BRU lawsuit they filed in the past, and the common sense clearly shows that Fix Expo is nothing beyond an obstructionist group with self-interests. As far as Phase 2 grade separations are concerned, they will be decided in a few months after discussions between Expo, LADOT, and CPUC, and we will have something at the end that is the best for the community. Every half- reasonable person knows and understands that light-rail is something livable with that improves people's lives considerably, as opposed to being the transportation mode from hell with the sole purpose of inducing gridlock and slaughtering people, as claimed by some people on this board.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 25, 2009 17:01:09 GMT -8
A more honest comparison would be the automobile accident rates in nearby intersections compared with the Blue Line accident rates. I bet there are thousands of automobile accidents in the Blue Line surface-street corridor every year, much much higher than the California freeway average. Excellent point, and illustrated by how much higher auto insurance rates are in inner-city areas. That is a typical fallacious Wendell Cox-style argument, comparing a single transit line to statistical averages across a metropolitan area.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 25, 2009 17:07:13 GMT -8
I think damien is very wrong in using vehicle-miles as the benchmark to compare accident rates for cars and light rail. They're just not substitutes for each other. I think his concept of comparing the statistics is completely flawed. We have laws and codes governing the motion of vehicles on our streets. These laws are applied uniformly for all vehicles (including cars, buses, bicyclists, and light-rail trains) in all places in California. Pedestrians obviously have different rules, but the guidelines are the same. Vehicles may not move when they have a red light or a red arrow. Pedestrians may not move when they have a red "do not walk" signal. Simple. People follow these rules. Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense? Well to be fair Damian's graph doesn't assign fault to either the LRT or the cars/pedestrians but I don't think that's his point. He's merely demonstrated the relative number of collisions. Damian is advocating for what he thinks is good engineering. For example, We design freeways with center median K-rails not because it's the 'fault' of the vehicle that strays from the designated lane but to minimize the damage that is caused if someone does. Undoubtedly, there would be many more deaths if K-rails were not installed in center medians. Good engineering knows that people make mistakes and plan for it regardless of who is at fault. To point out that there are this many accidents with a particular design and to advocate modifying that design is perfectly valid. As long as I am making a comparison to freeways, we grade separate them for efficiency don't we? It must be very expensive to build a road overpass over a freeway but for some reason it's too expensive if we want to do it for a train. We are currently doing feasibility studies to send freeways under neath mountain ranges but it's too expensive to grade separate a rail intersection.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 25, 2009 17:39:31 GMT -8
I think his concept of comparing the statistics is completely flawed. We have laws and codes governing the motion of vehicles on our streets. These laws are applied uniformly for all vehicles (including cars, buses, bicyclists, and light-rail trains) in all places in California. Pedestrians obviously have different rules, but the guidelines are the same. Vehicles may not move when they have a red light or a red arrow. Pedestrians may not move when they have a red "do not walk" signal. Simple. People follow these rules. Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense? Well to be fair Damian's graph doesn't assign fault to either the LRT or the cars/pedestrians but I don't think that's his point. He's merely demonstrated the relative number of collisions. Damian is advocating for what he thinks is good engineering. I'm not claiming that Damien says the light-rail trains are at fault. I am merely pointing out that he associates simple traffic violations with the light rail line. His numbers say nothing about the light rail line, only about at-grade intersections. These violations would have resulted in just as much of a collision had the light-rail line not been there. People ignoring traffic control devices = collisions. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 25, 2009 17:42:55 GMT -8
As long as I am making a comparison to freeways, we grade separate them for efficiency don't we? It must be very expensive to build a road overpass over a freeway but for some reason it's too expensive if we want to do it for a train. I think you are not understanding the fact that the equivalent of freeways for rail transit is not light-rail but heavy rail. Likewise the equivalent of light-rail for road transit is not freeways but highways. Just like not every crossing on Highway 1 (Sepulveda/Lincoln/PCH), Highway 2 (Santa Monica Blvd), Highway 187 (Venice Blvd), Highway 42 (Manchester Blvd), Highway 170 (Highland Ave), Highway 107 (Hawthorne Blvd), etc. is grade-separated, not every crossing on the Expo Line will be grade-separated. Equivalently, if you claim that all light-rail should be grade-separated, you should also claim that all highways I counted above should be grade-separated. In summary: Heavy rail <--> Freeway Light-rail <--> Highway Streetcar <--> Street There is a lot of public misconception about rail transit -- what is heavy rail, light-rail, etc., but we try to educate people on rail transit on this board; so, I hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 25, 2009 18:25:12 GMT -8
A more honest comparison would be the automobile accident rates in nearby intersections compared with the Blue Line accident rates. I bet there are thousands of automobile accidents in the Blue Line surface-street corridor every year, much much higher than the California freeway average. Excellent point, and illustrated by how much higher auto insurance rates are in inner-city areas. That is a typical fallacious Wendell Cox-style argument, comparing a single transit line to statistical averages across a metropolitan area. If your argument is that people in these area are more prone to accidents isn't that an argument for "better designed safer LRT" in the inner-city? Further, isn't Expo also in an inner-city area?
|
|