|
Post by bzcat on Jun 2, 2014 15:42:26 GMT -8
To say I am looking forward to the day I can take the Expo Line from home in Santa Monica to work at USC would be an understatement. The money I will save in parking (about $100/month), gas, and wear and tear on my car will be significant, not to mention USC's metro subsidy for staff. In the meantime, what would be the best way to get to USC from SM via mass transit (I live near St. John's hospital)? The BBB #10 to 7th St/Metro Center and then catch the Expo Line? Or would it make sense to try and make a connection further south of downtown? The BBB #5 local to the Culver City Expo station would take longer, correct? There is only 1 way to find out... take both and report back BBB #10 is probably faster overall for you if you live walking distance to Santa Monica Blvd (due to less time walking), and there is no traffic problems on I-10. But there is a big variable of travel time since traffic conditions varies. BBB #5 to Expo takes the I-10 traffic guessing game out of the picture and avoids the really slow part of Expo (Metro Center to USC). Personally, In the morning, I would take BBB #10 at Santa Monica/20th and get off at 7th/Hope and take Expo to campus. The reason being BBB #10 is fairly predictable time wise while still in Santa Monica. It starts to run behind schedule once it hits Bundy and the I-10 freeway. However, in the evening, I would probably take Expo to Culver City and catch BBB #5 home. The reason being Culver City Station is the terminus for BBB #5 and #12 so they put extra "floater" buses there for the west/north bound trips just in case the outbound east #5 and south bound #12 buses get caught up in traffic - in another word, BBB buses always leave Culver City Station on time even if the buses are running late towards Culver City. If you timed your trip correctly, there will be very little wait time for BBB #5 (the bus should be waiting for you). The downside is you may hit some traffic in Century City and the ride from Culver City to St John's may take longer than the Expo ride from USC to Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 2, 2014 16:26:47 GMT -8
To say I am looking forward to the day I can take the Expo Line from home in Santa Monica to work at USC would be an understatement. The money I will save in parking (about $100/month), gas, and wear and tear on my car will be significant, not to mention USC's metro subsidy for staff. In the meantime, what would be the best way to get to USC from SM via mass transit (I live near St. John's hospital)? The BBB #10 to 7th St/Metro Center and then catch the Expo Line? Or would it make sense to try and make a connection further south of downtown? The BBB #5 local to the Culver City Expo station would take longer, correct? I bike from Water Garden to Culver City station nearly daily and vice versa (I live in downtown LA, off of Pico station). It takes approx 35 minutes to bike from Cloverfield/Broadway to Culver City station and another 20 minutes to USC station, so that's less than 1 hour. Plus you get a great workout! Everyday, is biking day!
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Jun 3, 2014 10:21:42 GMT -8
Thanks for the tips. According to the Metro trip planner the BBB #10 to Expo WB in the morning and the Expo WB to BBB #5 in the evening would take about the same amount of time, so maybe I'll take the Pepsi challenge this summer while things are slow at work. One question, since BBB and Metro are on different transit cards, how do transfers work? According to the Metro trip planner taking the BBB #10 to Expo is a $2 fare plus a 50-cent transfer, and taking the Expo Line to BBB #5 is a $1.50 fare plus a 35-cent transfer.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 4, 2014 10:58:50 GMT -8
The trip planner is correct, but it doesn't give you the gory details of how inconvenient and illogical this process really is...
When you board BBB buses, you ask the driver for a Metro rail transfer and you will get a paper ticket with a chip imbedded inside. The paper transfer is 1-use only and will unlock the gates at Metro rail stations. The upside? You pay less to ride Expo (50 cents instead of $1.50). The downside? You still need TAP card if you ever want to ride Expo without transfer from BBB so the paper transfer is cheap but doesn't eliminate the need for you to have a TAP card in your wallet. Also, don't throw away your paper ticket after you go past the gate because Sheriff Officer may ask to see your proof of payment and you need that paper ticket.
The reverse is even more complicated, you need to purchase a Metro rail "fare" and muni transfer on your TAP card (i.e. not reload the stored value purse) at the ticket vending machine at Metro rail station. It's really stupid and antiquated practice. Most people I know just forget it and pay $1.50 for the Expo fare (tap and go with your stored value TAP card) and pay another $1.00 to board BBB buses.
BBB is supposed to switch to TAP card sometime this fall and Metro is supposed to work out automated transfers with muni buses when they implement the new fare policy. This would make life much easier but don't hold your breath...
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Jun 5, 2014 9:41:54 GMT -8
Thanks for the explanation. Oh, the humanity!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 5, 2014 9:54:06 GMT -8
So Dave... if you are serious about trying the commute on an occasional basis (rather than committed daily commute), you should just buy the 13 ride pass from BBB (for $12) and get a TAP card and loaded it with some money. Forget the annoying transfer dance - it will just make you pull out your hair. If you are going to do this daily, just get an EZ pass sticker for your TAP card... also no need to deal with the transfer madness. bigbluebus.com/Transit-Store/Content.aspx?pass=ThirteenRidewww.metro.net/riding/fares/ez-transit-pass/
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 5, 2014 11:02:52 GMT -8
Big Blue Bus, at least No. 12, is a joke. It often skips a bus and the long headways could leave you waiting for an hour. I usually make it a lot faster walking for more than a mile. Big Blue Bus definitely needs to get its act together if it wants to attract some ridership. The only people who seem to be riding it seem to be the Santa Monica College students on No. 7. They need frequent and reliable service.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Jun 6, 2014 15:55:02 GMT -8
Arising from this, I've always wondered why the S-curve in Cheviot Hills is there at all. Wasn't the whole point of an air line that there wouldn't have to be any curves? Was the S curve added when the freeway was built? Ah, I see, you're talking about the Northvale Road (formerly Exposition Boulevard) Trench east of Overland Ave, not this section. The reason is that the Palms / Cheviot Hills section is very hilly, and the line would have to climb steep hills if it had to go straight in this section without the S curve. In fact, the reason for the trench is to level the line through the hills. Without the trench, it would have to follow the up/down grades on the adjacent Northvale Road. The S curve and trench were there ever since they built the line in 1875. They deepened the trench a little when they built the freeway in 1963 because they added the Palms Park Pedestrian Bridge as part of the freeway project. Without deepening the trench a little, there would be two little clearance between the newly built pedestrian bridge and double-stacked rail cars. Before they built the pedestrian bridge, kids living in Cheviot Hills would have to climb down and up the trench in order to go to school. I thought there must be some good reason. I'm quite familiar with the pedestrian overpass, where I've been going every so often to check the progress of the Expo construction. December 2013 February 2014 May 2014 (All views looking North)
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 13, 2014 8:53:06 GMT -8
I've been riding Expo a little more recently around rush hour.
Two years after opening, travel times seem unimproved, with each trip taking a minimum of 30 minutes. It's no wonder why the ridership remains far below the Gold and Green lines - no doubt the slowness has hurt the line's immediate reputation, despite its many destinations.
Phase 2 will alleviate some of this - the slow down at Culver City station will end. However, we're still stuck with the 10mph speed limit at Farmdale, the grade crossings on Flower, and the slow down at 7th St./Metro Center (which will alleviated by the Regional Connector, but not for 6(!) years).
Hopefully, they will take a cue from the Gold Line and find ways to speed up the line. If the full Expo Line can't make it to Santa Monica in under an hour, I don't see how people would view it as a realistic alternative to their cars.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 13, 2014 9:35:15 GMT -8
Phase 2 should reliably make Santa Monica to Culver City in less than 20 minutes due to gated crossings and that will be the baulk of the ridership for phase 2 - people going to/from within the West side.
Despite our fixation with end to end run time, the vast majority of phase 2 riders won't take the train from 4th & Colorado to Metro Center.
Also, even if the trip does take 1 hour, it is a predictable 1 hour. Given the choice of variable driving time (35 minutes or 2 hours) vs. predictable 1 hour, a lot of people would still take the reliable 1 hour.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 13, 2014 11:31:34 GMT -8
Phase 2 should reliably make Santa Monica to Culver City in less than 20 minutes due to gated crossings and that will be the baulk of the ridership for phase 2 - people going to/from within the West side. Despite our fixation with end to end run time, the vast majority of phase 2 riders won't take the train from 4th & Colorado to Metro Center. Also, even if the trip does take 1 hour, it is a predictable 1 hour. Given the choice of variable driving time (35 minutes or 2 hours) vs. predictable 1 hour, a lot of people would still take the reliable 1 hour. True, it is still a long shot to do the whole trip in the stated 46 minutes IMHO without some other improvements. I just don't see LADOT being able to do much about the signals when trains are going to be going both directions every 5 minutes. To me, waiting for light signals at Crenshaw, Western, Normandie, Vermont and Jefferson are more annoying than the rest of the Flower stretch. I just don't ever see that changing, but hope I am wrong. Farmdale is a disaster - never should have built a station there. Yes, they would have had to build an elevated crossing with elevators, but it would have been so much better for the line. The long travel times do cost Expo a lot of the ridership who lives in Culver City and the Westside but works in Downtown crowd. When I ride, I see almost none of these people. If the line were closer to 20 minutes, you'd have a ton of them, but they don't want to waste an extra 30 minutes of their lives (when you count both ways and time to travel to the stations). Nevertheless, the line is doing fine with ridership - nearly 32k for a 8.6 mile line. The Gold and Green Lines are both 20 miles long and only average 40-45k, so when Expo is completed it will have far more ridership than these lines even with it only being a less than 16 miles.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 13, 2014 17:12:05 GMT -8
I rode from Culver City to 7th & Flower in 29 minutes on 7/23, leaving at 6:06 p.m. There were small delays at Crenshaw, Western, Jefferson, Washington, and 18th, but not as bad as I was expecting. Here's the breakdown by station:
6:06 left Culver City 6:09 La Cienega 6:11 La Brea 6:13 Crenshaw 6:19 Western 6:22 Vermont 6:23 USC 6:25 Jefferson 6:28 23rd 6:32 Pico 6:35 7th
My modeled best / worst cases were 23 and 28 minutes; the Phase 1 FEIS projected 27 minutes (before the Farmdale station was added).
For Phase 2 my estimates are an additional 15 to 17 minutes, for a total of 38 to 45 minutes.
These make me appreciate the reliable 20 minutes from Pasadena Del Mar station to Union Station on the Gold Line with no signal delay.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 13, 2014 17:35:12 GMT -8
I rode from Culver City to 7th & Flower in 29 minutes on 7/23, leaving at 6:06 p.m. There were small delays at Crenshaw, Western, Jefferson, Washington, and 18th, but not as bad as I was expecting. Here's the breakdown by station: 6:06 left Culver City 6:09 La Cienega 6:11 La Brea 6:13 Crenshaw 6:19 Western 6:22 Vermont 6:23 USC 6:25 Jefferson 6:28 23rd 6:32 Pico 6:35 7th My modeled best / worst cases were 23 and 28 minutes; the Phase 1 FEIS projected 27 minutes (before the Farmdale station was added). For Phase 2 my estimates are an additional 15 to 17 minutes, for a total of 38 to 45 minutes. These make me appreciate the reliable 20 minutes from Pasadena Del Mar station to Union Station on the Gold Line with no signal delay. I've been on it when it takes 29 minutes. Even been on a few times where I thought we'd get there early, but then the train just stayed at 23rd street station for 2-3 minutes. Presumably, that is because an early train would screw up the arrival at Metro Center or the Washington Junction. Frustrating to say the least. Bundy was supposed to be 35 minutes, but even saving a minute at Culver City would only allow for a trip from Culver City to Bundy in 7 minutes. Doesn't seem realistic at all. The Gold Line is a pleasure compared to Expo, especially on a time basis, but really everything else too.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 14, 2014 10:35:21 GMT -8
I've been on it when it takes 29 minutes. Even been on a few times where I thought we'd get there early, but then the train just stayed at 23rd street station for 2-3 minutes. Presumably, that is because an early train would screw up the arrival at Metro Center or the Washington Junction. Frustrating to say the least. Bundy was supposed to be 35 minutes, but even saving a minute at Culver City would only allow for a trip from Culver City to Bundy in 7 minutes. Doesn't seem realistic at all. The Gold Line is a pleasure compared to Expo, especially on a time basis, but really everything else too. Culver City to Bundy is supposed to take 11 minutes, not 7 minutes. The distance from Culver City to Bundy is 3.9 miles. Station dwell time is about 20~30 seconds so 3 stations (Palms, Rancho Park, Sepulvada) should take about 60~90 seconds out of the total travel time. Let's split the difference and say 75 seconds - so that leaves 9:45 of actual run time between Culver City and Bundy (run time 9:45 + dwell time 1:15 = total time 11 minutes). That means the train will have to average 24 mph while it is moving (or average 21 mph for the entire 3.9 miles including dwell time when the speed is 0 mph). Seems about right given that this stretch is completely grade separated and gate controlled. The EIR says average speed for Phase 2 is 20.3 mph including the very slow approach to Downtown Santa Monica, so 21 mph through Palms and Rancho Park to West LA is pretty spot on. If we use 7 minutes like you suggested, the actual running time drops to 5:45 [5:45 + 1:15 = 7:00]. The average speed would need to be 40 mph... that seems unseasonable, even with grade separation and gate control. For the purpose of furthering this discussion, these are the estimated total travel time (inclusive of dwell time): Red = current Expo phase 1 scheduleBlack = my estimates 0:00 Metro Center 2:00 Pico 5:00 23rd St 9:00 Jefferson USC 11:00 Expo Park USC 13:00 Vermont USC 16:00 Western 20:00 Crenshaw 22:00 Farmdale 24:00 La Brea 26:00 La Cienega
29:00 27:00 Culver City [note: 2 minutes could be shaved off phase 1 travel time with elimination of Culver City crossover slowdown approach] 31:00 Palms 34:00 Rancho Park 35:00 Sepulveda 38:00 Bundy 40:00 Bergamot 42:00 17th St SMC 44:00 Downtown Santa Monica
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 14, 2014 12:20:56 GMT -8
My timetable base case is 2 minutes for stations 1 mile apart with private right-of-way and gated crossings. Add time for distance, curves, 35 mph top speed, and/or signalized intersections.
Your estimates look good, except I'd reduce the time for the 1.1 miles from Sepulveda to Bundy to 2:00 and increase it for the mile on Colorado from 17th to 5th to 3-4 minutes, depending on signal delay. So hopefully worst case is 45 minutes end to end.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 14, 2014 14:44:35 GMT -8
I've been on it when it takes 29 minutes. Even been on a few times where I thought we'd get there early, but then the train just stayed at 23rd street station for 2-3 minutes. Presumably, that is because an early train would screw up the arrival at Metro Center or the Washington Junction. Frustrating to say the least. Bundy was supposed to be 35 minutes, but even saving a minute at Culver City would only allow for a trip from Culver City to Bundy in 7 minutes. Doesn't seem realistic at all. The Gold Line is a pleasure compared to Expo, especially on a time basis, but really everything else too. Culver City to Bundy is supposed to take 11 minutes, not 7 minutes. The distance from Culver City to Bundy is 3.9 miles. Station dwell time is about 20~30 seconds so 3 stations (Palms, Rancho Park, Sepulvada) should take about 60~90 seconds out of the total travel time. Let's split the difference and say 75 seconds - so that leaves 9:45 of actual run time between Culver City and Bundy (run time 9:45 + dwell time 1:15 = total time 11 minutes). That means the train will have to average 24 mph while it is moving (or average 21 mph for the entire 3.9 miles including dwell time when the speed is 0 mph). Seems about right given that this stretch is completely grade separated and gate controlled. The EIR says average speed for Phase 2 is 20.3 mph including the very slow approach to Downtown Santa Monica, so 21 mph through Palms and Rancho Park to West LA is pretty spot on. If we use 7 minutes like you suggested, the actual running time drops to 5:45 [5:45 + 1:15 = 7:00]. The average speed would need to be 40 mph... that seems unseasonable, even with grade separation and gate control. For the purpose of furthering this discussion, these are the estimated total travel time (inclusive of dwell time): 0:00 Metro Center 2:00 Pico 5:00 23rd St 9:00 Jefferson USC 11:00 Expo Park USC 13:00 Vermont USC 16:00 Western 20:00 Crenshaw 22:00 Farmdale 24:00 La Brea 26:00 La Cienega 29:00 Culver City 31:00 Palms 34:00 Rancho Park 35:00 Sepulveda 38:00 Bundy 40:00 Bergamot 42:00 17th St SMC 44:00 Downtown Santa Monica Looks like 9 minutes per your timetable. I had seen an earlier version where they had Bundy estimated at 35 minutes. I don't think Culver City to La Cienega takes 3 minutes once Phase II is open. No need to have crossover tracks there then.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 14, 2014 16:11:30 GMT -8
Looks like 9 minutes per your timetable. I had seen an earlier version where they had Bundy estimated at 35 minutes. I don't think Culver City to La Cienega takes 3 minutes once Phase II is open. No need to have crossover tracks there then. Right... The run time for the phase 1 station is based on current times but phase 2 is my estimate. I added back 2 minutes for the elimination of the slow down approaching Culver City Station, which gives me a bit of a slack (9 minute plus 2 minute from elimination of crossover, to give me 11 minutes). Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The point I was trying to make is that it is quite possible to keep the end to end run time to 45 minutes that Darrel mentioned. The EIR actually estimates 46 minute total run time from Metro Center to 4th/Colorado. See page 36: www.buildexpo.org/phase2/Phase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/TBR%27s/TBR%20OperatingPlanandAssumptions%20Final_Dec09.pdf29 minute phase 1 run time + 19.5 minute phase 2 run time - 2~3 minutes eliminated from the Culver City stop = 46 minutes
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 15, 2014 9:32:57 GMT -8
I feel like 15 minutes from Culver City to 4th Street is really optimistic.
The Colorado street segment appears as though it will be fairly slow, with Lincoln probably being the toughest light to make. I could see it easily becoming the "Adams" of the west portion of the line.
Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 15, 2014 10:26:13 GMT -8
Still much faster than driving...
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Aug 15, 2014 10:46:26 GMT -8
I feel like 15 minutes from Culver City to 4th Street is really optimistic. The Colorado street segment appears as though it will be fairly slow, with Lincoln probably being the toughest light to make. I could see it easily becoming the "Adams" of the west portion of the line. Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also. The thing about Colorado is that Santa Monica has agreed to Signal Priority along Colorado so we will have to see how that works out: . Phase 2 MOU on 5 Minute HeadwaysAt Overland, there are going to be gates, so there should be no reason to have to sit at Overland.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 15, 2014 10:52:53 GMT -8
I feel like 15 minutes from Culver City to 4th Street is really optimistic. The Colorado street segment appears as though it will be fairly slow, with Lincoln probably being the toughest light to make. I could see it easily becoming the "Adams" of the west portion of the line. Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also. More like 17 or 18 minutes, not 15 because there should be a 2 to 3 minutes shaved off from phase 1 when phase 2 opens - I should edit my post for clarity The EIR estimates 19.5 minutes for phase 2 total travel time. Overland is gated so the train won't stop.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Aug 16, 2014 8:10:56 GMT -8
I feel like 15 minutes from Culver City to 4th Street is really optimistic. The Colorado street segment appears as though it will be fairly slow, with Lincoln probably being the toughest light to make. I could see it easily becoming the "Adams" of the west portion of the line. Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also. I find that less than 20 minutes to go from Culver City to Santa Monica is realistic, 15 would have to be very aggressive. BTW City of Santa Monica is programming Colorado Boulevard for transit priority unlike Los Angeles Department of Transportation with Expo Line on Flower Street. Overland will be a gated crossing (preempted), so there's no stopping there.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 16, 2014 8:31:43 GMT -8
Why aren't there gates on phase one of expo? Did they want it to be more dangerous and slower?
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Aug 16, 2014 12:34:40 GMT -8
Why aren't there gates on phase one of expo? Did they want it to be more dangerous and slower? All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. goo.gl/maps/11hhu
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Aug 16, 2014 12:36:29 GMT -8
I feel like 15 minutes from Culver City to 4th Street is really optimistic. The Colorado street segment appears as though it will be fairly slow, with Lincoln probably being the toughest light to make. I could see it easily becoming the "Adams" of the west portion of the line. Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also. I will take the over, if they can do 20 min "door to door" 80% of the time that would be a small miracle.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 18, 2014 9:26:11 GMT -8
Why aren't there gates on phase one of expo? Did they want it to be more dangerous and slower? All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. Not all... just the "major" intersections. Some of the minor ones are gated. It's totally backwards I asked this before here and the answer was something about how LADOT did not like the added traffic delay from gates on major roads so they didn't want gates along Flower, and at Vermont, Crenshaw, and Western. Basically - if you force the train to follow traffic signal for cars and stop at the red light, there is no reason to gate the intersection. Vermont, Crenshaw, and Western have train stations on either side so if you gate those intersections, traffic will be delayed by as much as additional 20 seconds while the train is stopped at the station. Seems really crazy but check out the Blue line on Washington Blvd... same idiotic car-centric thinking.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 18, 2014 12:35:39 GMT -8
...Then, there's also Overland, which is pretty busy and might involve some decent dwell times also. As someone who lives quite close to Overland --and who very much wishes Expo Phase 2 a great success-- I find myself at great odds the Overland crossing. Overland is a busy street for a few hours a couple of times a day --as it's one of the few streets around with access to the 10 freeway. When it's busy, it's very busy and it doesn't take much --a break down, a lane closure or even someone trying to change lanes at peak hours-- to back things up considerably. LADOT in cahoots with Metro decided that the best thing to do is turn a four lane street into a six lane street so that the train could cross at the gate successfully and at the same times give the cars "somewhere to go". I'm sure there are traffic studies which back up this kind of thinking but I remain skeptical. I suspect there will be times --despite what they call "street improvements" when cars are on the track as the gate needs to come down. Even if that's not the case and the additional lanes prove to be effective there still remains the other 20 hours in the day when a six-lane road isn't necessary and the environment afforded for the cars will basically give them permission to drive as all-out fast as they please.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 18, 2014 13:22:07 GMT -8
Overland should have been grade separated but the storm drain under the road means Expo cannot be put below grade in a trench. And because the up hill curve through Cheviot Hills, the train will not be able to make the grade for an elevated crossing of Overland. So we are reduced to the best remaining solution - widen the "catch" area for cars queuing at the crossing.
The only part of Overland that is going to be widened to 6 5 lanes is the stretch between just north of Northvale and immediately south of Exposition (about 200 ft total) Cushdon Avenue and Coventry Place (about 1000 ft total). The rest of the Overland will remain at 4 lanes.
edit: found the section dealing with Overland in EIR
So to recap:
1. Overland will not be 6 lanes at any point 2. South bound will have 3 lanes between Cushdon Avenue and Coventry Place, primarily from removal of parking spaces (another section of EIR noted removal of 28 parking spaces on Overland overall) 3. Travel time will increase 5 to 47 seconds depending on time of day and direction of travel using 2030 estimates 4. Some of the additional travel time from addition of gates at Exposition will be recouped from less delays at Ashby and Coventry
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 18, 2014 13:55:08 GMT -8
I appreciate the clarification bzcat and even though I understand the choices which were made, I remain skeptical as to how it's all going to 'work'. The EIR for the crossing has to back-up this solution otherwise, as you characterize, the line couldn't be built. I expect there was a similar EIR stating the equivalant for the Sepulveda at-grade crossing yet an alternative was found which didn't require widening --ahem, improving-- the road.
EDIT TO ADD: when one counts the turning lane at Coventry and Overland the total is 6 lanes. A small point admittedly but one that aptly illustrates the width of the asphalt laid down for this occasion.
Also, the distance from Covenrty to Cushdon is not 1,000 feet but roughy twice that amount.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 18, 2014 15:12:54 GMT -8
There could have been an Expo bridge over Oveland, but it had no neighborhood supporters and could have created an unmitigateable visual environmental impact.
I now live close to the Del Mar Blvd. at-grade crossing of the Pasadena Gold Line. Despite its short queue distances from Arroyo Parkway and Raymond Ave. (less than anything on Overland) it seems to work and not trap inattentive drivers on the tracks. I've noticed that the downstream signals are left green to clear any queues that could extend back onto the tracks. Reasonably often the gates stay down for trains to pass in both directions.
|
|