|
Post by mattapoisett on Aug 18, 2014 17:35:33 GMT -8
Then Darrell you missed the fun today. On the Gold Line at 33rd Ave, where someone took a wrong turn onto the tracks and had things all clogged up for a couple of hours. I've enclosed a picture I took of the scene. I now live next to Expo/Western and would have loved it if it were grade separated along with Vermont Crenshaw and Normadie, plus gates for Denker Halldale Raymond and Budlong. I can't tell you how many times I see the train approaching an intersection, only to have the light change on them. Some of the time it seems to be the result of the driver slowing down too soon but many times it's the lights not waiting for the train. For all of the optimistic prognosticating being done for run-times to Santa Monica, I believe we're going to find things, like with Phase 1, that we could never have imagined that will slow the train down. 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. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Aug 18, 2014 21:39:11 GMT -8
Seriously, as long as Overland is gated and the train doesn't have to stop, I don't see why as transit advocates we should care about car traffic on Overland.(Unless you are part of the traffic, in which case you would be complaining about a problem that you help create) During rush hour those trains will be carrying hundreds of people each. I could care less about SOVs.
LADOT puts traffic first and foremost. The train could be moving a million people over those damn crossings every hour and they would still try to make the train stop for SOVs.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 19, 2014 10:40:41 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. Sepulveda didn't have the grade issue - money was not the problem for Overland... I think the City of LA would have gladly paid for the grade separation like it did with Sepulveda if it was technically feasible and NIMBY approved. Two problems: 1. The Northvale trench means trains start off below grade so in order to make an aerial crossing at Overland, it would have to climb a very steep grade, and you will also need to build a huge embankment that would tower over Overland Elementary school. 2. The neighbors next to the ROW in Rancho Park didn't really like the idea of an aerial structure between Overland and Westwood, which would be necessary for Overland grade separation.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 19, 2014 12:25:54 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. Sepulveda didn't have the grade issue - money was not the problem for Overland... I think the City of LA would have gladly paid for the grade separation like it did with Sepulveda if it was technically feasible and NIMBY approved. Two problems: 1. The Northvale trench means trains start off below grade so in order to make an aerial crossing at Overland, it would have to climb a very steep grade, and you will also need to build a huge embankment that would tower over Overland Elementary school. 2. The neighbors next to the ROW in Rancho Park didn't really like the idea of an aerial structure between Overland and Westwood, which would be necessary for Overland grade separation. The Northvale Trench is not below the grade of Overland Avenue. It is at or above it from the curve and all the way to the intersection. I wasn't living in the neighborhood at the time the train was being discussed but, in fact, moved here once it was understood that a train would be nearby, so I can't or won't comment on what the neighbors did or didn't say. That said, there's nothing that can dissuade me from disliking the way that the Overland crossing has been designed. It's awful what they've done to the road to accommodate the needs if the cars and the train. 2 parking lanes + 5 transit lanes + 1 turning lane leads to an expanse of asphalt that's a sad excuse for a neighborhood street. It's 8 car widths wide at some points!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 19, 2014 21:45:24 GMT -8
Here are three scale Photoshop studies of what an Overland bridge could have looked like - we had a lot of conversations about how to handle that crossing! Looking north on Overland Looking west on Northvale Looking east on Richland Ave., showing the massing of a ramp down to an at-grade station at Westwood I'd also note the L.A. City Councilmembers worked hard to come up with the money for the Sepulveda bridge out of other existing city road funding.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 20, 2014 8:07:52 GMT -8
Thanks Darrell. These are great. I'm familiar with the first image but not the other two. For my druthers this would have been the saner solution.
So these were technically feasible? I'm assuming the choices to do without was dictated by the budget. Cheaper to widen the neighborhood road to highway proportions and gate the thing rather than a grade separated solution?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 20, 2014 12:06:07 GMT -8
Thanks Darrell. These are great. I'm familiar with the first image but not the other two. For my druthers this would have been the saner solution. So these were technically feasible? I'm assuming the choices to do without was dictated by the budget. Cheaper to widen the neighborhood road to highway proportions and gate the thing rather than a grade separated solution? Cheaper, yes, but my impression was that the Expo Authority would have recommended a bridge if that would have satisfied the neighborhood regarding traffic impacts and safety for the elementary school children. But the NFSR opposition adamantly demanded only a long tunnel or nothing. Note that there were two versions of a bridge, Overland only ramping down to the at-grade Westwood station and grade crossing, or bridging both Overland and Westwood with an aerial station. The latter would have been significantly more expensive and visually obtrusive, and I don't think was a possibility.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 20, 2014 14:07:33 GMT -8
So it was feasible from a practical engineering standpoint. So when the NFSR opposition "demanded a long tunnel or nothing" --the 'nothing' meant no rail line at all I assume? Since they couldn't get either of their options Expo Authority denied the crossing a bridge?
I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just not following the reasoning. Because it sounds as if the crossing was put at grade to spite the neighborhood with wider streets and crossing bells. That can't possibly be the case. Was there a time when a choice was presented between a bridge and a gated crossing --and both neighbors and Expo Authority chose a gated crossing?
I understand your speaking from your impression so perhaps you don't know definitively. Certainly school children are safer crossing beneath a bridge rather than a set of train tracks and two additional car lanes (depending on the direction they come from). A simple bridge would have made world of difference and without a doubt assured uninterupted passage for the train and would have maintained status quo for automobile transit.
Either way, thanks for the info! Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 20, 2014 16:39:47 GMT -8
The starting point for all of the Phase 2 crossings was Metro's Grade Crossing Policy: I don't have the traffic numbers in front of me, but I know that Overland did not fall in the green area - but by spreading the traffic over three rather than two lanes then it did. Other considerations were also evaluated, like queued cars backed across a crossing - which is why Centinela became a bridge - and safety of school children. A short shallow underpass would have been ideal, but was not feasible due to the large concrete box storm drain running down Overland. The Overland grade crossing was determined to not have any significant environmental impacts (especially traffic, noise, or safety) after mitigation, while a bridge probably would have had an unmitigatable aesthetic impact. The 2/4/10 Expo Authority board report (PDF) explicitly addressed the Overland and Westwood crossings in quite a bit of detail on pages 7-10 - probably best to read that for the long, official version.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 20, 2014 21:51:54 GMT -8
Is that how those sneaky bastards made the numbers work on all the insane grade crossings of phase 1? Streets like Vermont are two lanes with a third lane thst is permanently parking.
I'm guessing the sneaks took the traffic volume and divided by 3 rather than 2 and foisted all those awful phase one crossings on us by claiming traffic density on the road is 50% less than it actually is.
All typ0s courtesy of Samsung.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 20, 2014 22:36:13 GMT -8
Is that how those sneaky bastards made the numbers work on all the insane grade crossings of phase 1? Streets like Vermont are two lanes with a third lane thst is permanently parking. I'm guessing the sneaks took the traffic volume and divided by 3 rather than 2 and foisted all those awful phase one crossings on us by claiming traffic density on the road is 50% less than it actually is. All typ0s courtesy of Samsung. I expect the chart applies to gated crossings where random arrival of a train triggers the crossing gates to stop traffic, not signal controlled intersections like Vermont where the train has minimal effect on cross traffic.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Aug 21, 2014 9:32:07 GMT -8
Darrell thank you for posting this information. It's most enlightening. The section you indicate in the report doesn't go into traffic counts but does give the official version accounting the process which led to an at-grade crossing. It seems the dominant factors were cost --$31 million was the extimated expense of a short bridge across Overland-- and aesthetic impact of a large ariel structure.
I have to agree with CulverCityLocke when in comes to characterizing their rationale as sneaky --or perhaps I'm unaquainted with the nomenclature of these kinds of reports-- because how they get from A-B in their rationale comes off as a little hinky at times.
They say that widening the road doesn't raise safety concerns and that's hard to accept given that wider roads typically mean faster moving vehicles. They also indicate that at grade crossings noise levels will be "acceptable" which, again is suspect. Faster moving cars are noisier. Signal bells are noisier and, most importantly, the requirement that all trains toot their horn approaching an intersection is noiser. That is, all of it noisier than it is now. I'd feel a lot more confident in thier reporting if they'd simply acknowledge this in print.
I can't help but wonder if the neighbors who live intersection-adjacent understood that if given a choice between lving beside a landscaped ariel structure or a wider street with signal bells and tooting trains, which would they prefer? It doesn't sound as though the Expo Authority was particularly interested in expressing it that way. Easier to characterize the opposition as "all or nothing types" (which there were!) rather than appeal to the moderates.
Moreover, the Expo Construction Authority to this day won't call it what it is: street widening. In all official documents and correspondence the work is always characterized as "street improvements". As if.
What remains to be seen in all this is how the intersection performs over time.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Aug 21, 2014 10:10:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Aug 21, 2014 20:35:20 GMT -8
expect the chart applies to gated crossings where random arrival of a train triggers the crossing gates to stop traffic, not signal controlled intersections like Vermont where the train has minimal effect on cross traffic. But maximum effect on the train's speed.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Aug 26, 2014 19:48:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 26, 2014 19:53:45 GMT -8
Expo runs on 6 minute headways for SC football games and the Blue Line goes to 12 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Aug 26, 2014 20:34:44 GMT -8
Expo runs on 6 minute headways for SC football games and the Blue Line goes to 12 minutes. Thats better, but I still dont expect Expo to be able to cope with both events. The transfer downtown might be a cluster too. Also, apparently the Expo Parking lots are closed on Sundays? Thats day 2 of the festival.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 26, 2014 22:16:49 GMT -8
Expo runs on 6 minute headways for SC football games and the Blue Line goes to 12 minutes. Thats better, but I still dont expect Expo to be able to cope with both events. The transfer downtown might be a cluster too. Also, apparently the Expo Parking lots are closed on Sundays? Thats day 2 of the festival. Where are you getting that Expo lots are closed on Sundays? Never experienced that and can't imagine both La Cienega and Culver City lots would be closed on the same day and I can't think of why.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Aug 27, 2014 11:49:50 GMT -8
Thats better, but I still dont expect Expo to be able to cope with both events. The transfer downtown might be a cluster too. Also, apparently the Expo Parking lots are closed on Sundays? Thats day 2 of the festival. Where are you getting that Expo lots are closed on Sundays? Never experienced that and can't imagine both La Cienega and Culver City lots would be closed on the same day and I can't think of why. Sorry, I misread Consider parking at Expo/Crenshaw Station on Saturday only. Parking is not permitted at Expo/Crenshaw Station on Sunday.Just one lot.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Aug 27, 2014 11:56:46 GMT -8
Where are you getting that Expo lots are closed on Sundays? Never experienced that and can't imagine both La Cienega and Culver City lots would be closed on the same day and I can't think of why. Sorry, I misread Consider parking at Expo/Crenshaw Station on Saturday only. Parking is not permitted at Expo/Crenshaw Station on Sunday.Just one lot. Yeah, they use the Church lot at Crenshaw - Metro shares it with the Church, so it isn't available on Sundays, which is usually no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2014 20:53:00 GMT -8
Blue Line Long Beach loop closure that started yesterday morning will help greatly with the Expo Line Phase 1 train shortage. Two of the six Expo Line Phase 1 trains have been frequently running with two cars instead of the normal three cars, which have been causing a lot of problems. Overcrowded Expo Line two-car trains have been frustrating passengers and almost causing fights.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 21, 2014 21:02:38 GMT -8
Blue Line Long Beach loop closure that started yesterday morning will help greatly with the Expo Line Phase 1 train shortage. Two of the six Expo Line Phase 1 trains have been frequently running with two cars instead of the normal three cars, which have been causing a lot of problems. Overcrowded Expo Line two-car trains have been frustrating passengers and almost causing fights. The Blue Line closure is only for 30 days. They need to get those two new Kinko cars in service before the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2014 8:33:47 GMT -8
Blue Line Long Beach loop closure that started yesterday morning will help greatly with the Expo Line Phase 1 train shortage. Two of the six Expo Line Phase 1 trains have been frequently running with two cars instead of the normal three cars, which have been causing a lot of problems. Overcrowded Expo Line two-car trains have been frustrating passengers and almost causing fights. The Blue Line closure is only for 30 days. They need to get those two new Kinko cars in service before the end of the year. Oh, no, that's certainly not going to happen that fast. Those cars are meant for testing and training, not immediate service. The second car won't even be delivered before the end of the year. Once the production cars start being delivered, they need to be tested for at least 60 days. You can only hope that they will repair or service some of the old Nippon Sharyo or Siemens cars during those 30 days.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 7, 2014 2:54:33 GMT -8
I haven't seen any comment about the Coliseum crowds on Saturday, so I guess the Expo Line is handling the crowds without any notable glitches. The only glitches were in the USC defense.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Oct 10, 2014 6:36:48 GMT -8
I haven't seen any comment about the Coliseum crowds on Saturday, so I guess the Expo Line is handling the crowds without any notable glitches. The only glitches were in the USC defense. Tell me about it! Almost a week later, and my anger has just now started to subside. I hope that USC's defensive coordinator has been doing some deep soul-searching this week!
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Oct 14, 2014 12:18:09 GMT -8
Last week Tuesday i needed to go to a rally at Universal city at noon; I decided to take the Expo and Red line to get there to evade parking troubles. When I arrived at the Culver station there were no parking spots so I went to the La Cienega parking structure: also completely filled up to the top deck. I had to find street parking... I think it will not take long before this free parking honeymoon will be over.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 14, 2014 16:04:24 GMT -8
Last week Tuesday i needed to go to a rally at Universal city at noon; I decided to take the Expo and Red line to get there to evade parking troubles. When I arrived at the Culver station there were no parking spots so I went to the La Cienega parking structure: also completely filled up to the top deck. I had to find street parking... I think it will not take long before this free parking honeymoon will be over. Consider utilizing Lyft, Uber or taxi services to/from rail stations as well. I use Lyft if going between Santa Monica to Culver City station sometimes. Then the train will take me the rest of the way to DTLA.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 14, 2014 17:18:24 GMT -8
Reminds me of last January, when I had Jury Duty in downtown LA. I usually parked at the Sierra Madre Villa station, but one morning SMV was full--EVERY non-reserved space was taken. I wound up parking at the Del Mar underground structure. It will be interesting to see what SMV looks like when the extension to Azusa is open for service.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 14, 2014 19:45:35 GMT -8
Reminds me of last January, when I had Jury Duty in downtown LA. I usually parked at the Sierra Madre Villa station, but one morning SMV was full--EVERY non-reserved space was taken. I wound up parking at the Del Mar underground structure. It will be interesting to see what SMV looks like when the extension to Azusa is open for service. I imagine parking would overall improve. People from Arcadia, Duarte, Monrovia, Bradbury and unincorporated Mayflower Village that would otherwise drive to park at SMV will have new, closer parking options. Between Arcadia, Duarte, and Monrovia Stations there will be 775 new parking spaces.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Oct 20, 2014 13:43:57 GMT -8
Revisiting this conversation from August... The new lanes on Overland Avenue were set down over the weekend. Final count: EIGHT lanes : Six dedicated to thru traffic, One dedicated for turning, and One for parking -- Posted speed limit is 35 mph --not that anyone is hindered by that on road designed to get as many cars across the tracks as quickly as possible before the gates go down. The signals at the tracks won't be operating for many, many months until then the place is a speedway. Dissapointing to see a neighborhood street get this kind of treatment and hard to imagine this is a more satisfying "aesthetic impact" than a bridge would have been.
|
|