|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 30, 2015 12:25:33 GMT -8
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jun 30, 2015 12:30:41 GMT -8
Yup. Creating conditions which enable reckless LA drivers = also a problem. Blood is going to be on a lot of agencies hands I'm sorry to say.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Jun 30, 2015 13:00:56 GMT -8
Establish "slow down" traffic lights at the intersection of Dunleer and Ashby. At Laurel Canyon and Coldwater Canyon they work perfectly. Once a car exceeds the speed limit well before the intersection they will activate and turn red.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jun 30, 2015 13:52:58 GMT -8
Establish "slow down" traffic lights at the intersection of Dunleer and Ashby. At Laurel Canyon and Coldwater Canyon they work perfectly. Once a car exceeds the speed limit well before the intersection they will activate and turn red. Anything to mitigate the problem would be a start. The worst of it happens at Ovetland & Ashby and Overland & Northvale. Though it seems to me that if they didn't really want faster moving traffic they would have kept it at the original four lanes. The additional lanes were added because they wanted to get as many cars as they could across the tracks before the gates came down for the train. This, of course, was a solution for a problem that only occurs 4 hours out of the day, I.e. rush hours. You can imagine the free-for-all driving during the other 20 hours of the day. Not so long ago a car at night was traveling at such great speed that it flipped over upon hitting a median curb. Many of the neighborhood concerns have been expressed over rush hour driving which should tell you how out of hand the crowded peak hour driving is becoming. The reckless environment is born of flawed planning and design. It doesn't bode well for vehicle meets train collisions either.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2015 10:15:59 GMT -8
Establish "slow down" traffic lights at the intersection of Dunleer and Ashby. At Laurel Canyon and Coldwater Canyon they work perfectly. Once a car exceeds the speed limit well before the intersection they will activate and turn red. Anything to mitigate the problem would be a start. The worst of it happens at Ovetland & Ashby and Overland & Northvale. Though it seems to me that if they didn't really want faster moving traffic they would have kept it at the original four lanes. The additional lanes were added because they wanted to get as many cars as they could across the tracks before the gates came down for the train. This, of course, was a solution for a problem that only occurs 4 hours out of the day, I.e. rush hours. You can imagine the free-for-all driving during the other 20 hours of the day. Not so long ago a car at night was traveling at such great speed that it flipped over upon hitting a median curb. Many of the neighborhood concerns have been expressed over rush hour driving which should tell you how out of hand the crowded peak hour driving is becoming. The reckless environment is born of flawed planning and design. It doesn't bode well for vehicle meets train collisions either. Unfortunately, we live in a city by the car, for the car and of the car. All anyone cares about is whether their commute and speed will be affected. No one cares about pedestrians, especially in West Los Angeles where pretty much the only people who walk are the hired help. In the end the EIR is mostly about traffic impacts. I know there are some changes in CEQA that are just coming out that will lessen the traffic Level of Service requirements, but we'll see the real effect. It is pretty sad overall. Our two biggest light rail lines (when Expo II opens) as far as ridership are beset by traffic lights for autos. There seems to be some reluctance to give the trains real priority over autos here. Also, Measure R+ is seen as a public transit initiative, but it will really fund road improvements more than transit capital (likely 25% for rail capital with another 4% to Metrolink, while roads get 20% directly and another 15% in city returns, which will mostly go to roads). While Measure R+ will likely fail to garner 2/3 vote, if it were just public transit it would fail miserably. The only real support in the County is for roads, which polls much higher than transit.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jul 1, 2015 11:38:00 GMT -8
Well we need the road work and improvements more than public transit given the per capita use of roads by residents is far greater than transit use, and the vast majority of transit uses the roads as well. Granted, we have a vastly bigger hole/ deficit of transit that needs filling, which is why the r money is disproportionately skewed to transit relative to resident use, so we are closing the gap / filling the hole, although we are wasting billions on rail when that money would have a far greater impact per capita invested in buses. But no one wants to vote for buses, because buses are a terrible, soul crushing experience every rider flees at the first opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Jul 1, 2015 12:38:22 GMT -8
It's interesting to see how Overland became this speedway in order to accommodate the LTR. This street is basically on off ramp for the 10 freeway towards Pico where it more or less deadends into a residential street. It is together with Westwood the only access from the freeway into the Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park neighborhoods. As such it should be given the same status with one traffic lane in each direction and a bike path. All the traffic for Century City and Beverly Hills can use the Santa Monica Blvd off ramps since that street has been completely turned into a car haven anyway. Let's gradually move the through traffic out of residential neighborhoods by slowly taking away the automotive privileges. The 3rd lane will become obsolete when train crossings on a 6 minute headway in each direction will close the street intermittently every three minutes. It would be amazing to see how a train can actually make a neighborhood more livable.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 1, 2015 15:35:22 GMT -8
It's interesting to see how Overland became this speedway in order to accommodate the LTR. This street is basically on off ramp for the 10 freeway towards Pico where it more or less deadends into a residential street. It is together with Westwood the only access from the freeway into the Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park neighborhoods. As such it should be given the same status with one traffic lane in each direction and a bike path. All the traffic for Century City and Beverly Hills can use the Santa Monica Blvd off ramps since that street has been completely turned into a car haven anyway. Let's gradually move the through traffic out of residential neighborhoods by slowly taking away the automotive privileges. The 3rd lane will become obsolete when train crossings on a 6 minute headway in each direction will close the street intermittently every three minutes. It would be amazing to see how a train can actually make a neighborhood more livable. The problem is not just freeway traffic. A significant portion of the traffic on Westwood and Overland is local circulation so diverting Century City traffic to Santa Monica won't necessarily do anything because the freed up capacity on Overland will be filled by local circulation that get congested out from Santa Monica Blvd and other streets. And besides, LADOT doesn't control freeway off ramps. There is no physical way for us to direct Century City traffic away from Overland. Look at what the city did on Motor Ave... it hasn't changed the volume of rush hour traffic there at all. As long as there are freeway on/off ramps, these streets will remain N-S arterial streets. But least you think I'm against your idea... I'm actually in agreement. We may not be able to meaningfully change the traffic volume on these street but there are things we can do to slow them down.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 1, 2015 15:48:49 GMT -8
It sounds as if we're all in agreement. I'm skeptical that anyone in a position to do so actually wants to slow the cars down. The entire stretch is designed to maximize the amount of moving cars. That was the intention. Get as many as possible across the tracks as quickly as possible before the gates come down again.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 1, 2015 18:33:05 GMT -8
It sounds as if we're all in agreement. I'm skeptical that anyone in a position to do so actually wants to slow the cars down. The entire stretch is designed maximize the amount of moving cars. That was the intention. Get as many as possible across the tracks as quickly as possible before the gates come down again. Unfortunately, most people in the City would be against anything that slows down traffic regardless of the few voters in the immediate vicinity that may want to. This is true most everywhere in the City. People want traffic slowed near their homes, but fast everywhere else so they are not delayed. Trying to find a politician to do something that is unpopular amongst his voters is going to be near impossible.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Jul 1, 2015 19:22:53 GMT -8
If the issue is protecting pedestrians (students) on the sidewalk, put up some K rail and be done with it.
A crossing guard is at place during school hours; is that not sufficient?
Also, seems like an ideal place for a vehicular/train collision.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Jul 1, 2015 21:19:38 GMT -8
A crossing guard is at place during school hours; is that not sufficient? Sadly no. After the road widening, the task of the crossing guard has expanded to seven lanes of traffic. Incursions into the cross walk, even with the guard present have increased for the simple reason that two more opportunities have opened up. A road that wide really needs two crossing guards, one for each direction of traffic. It's too much for one person. That street (highway now, really) is hectic in the mornings.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jul 6, 2015 7:21:33 GMT -8
I for one am shocked that the agency has made things worse for pedestrians. Shocked.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 6, 2016 8:52:09 GMT -8
Southbound Overland Avenue was shut down last night for over two hours following a three car collision. I passed the scene after police and paramedics had arrived and snapped these pictures. It appears that the incident took place at the intersection of Ashby (that's the crosswalk at the elementary school) and given the evidence of impact, as well as the breadth of the debris field, it's obvious some of the cars involved were traveling at high speeds. This six-lane, get 'em through the crossing gates as quickly as possible solution really sucks. The responsible parties that signed on to the Faster, Better, Cheaper (pick two) solution for the problem of the Overland Crossing should all to a person be ashamed at what they've done for the neighborhood and safety of those who live in it. --though clearly that they conceived this solution in the first place amply demonstrates they haven't any shame to begin with. Does anyone know of a public resource that monitors traffic incidents? In other words, where can one go to see 'year over' collision statistics for a given highway segment such as Overland. I know the collision rates have increased since the road was widened but I'd like to see the actuals.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2016 15:18:06 GMT -8
Thank you for sharing this, f ron. I blame the reckless LA drivers and smartphone use for accidents, not the roads. Both vehicles that are involved are luxury vehicles, which is no surprise at all. Most pedestrian deaths in LA, the city that ranks near the top in the nation for that, also happen by luxury vehicles.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 6, 2016 16:37:57 GMT -8
Thank you for sharing this, f ron. I blame the reckless LA drivers and smartphone use for accidents, not the roads. Both vehicles that are involved are luxury vehicles, which is no surprise at all. Most pedestrian deaths in LA, the city that ranks near the top in the nation for that, also happen by luxury vehicles. I agree, this accident was very likely the result of recklessness but I don't absolve those who accommodate recklessness through poor planning and design. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Nor are they exclusively a byproduct of the telecommunication age. When environments are created where recklessness is more likely than not to cause this kind of damage then one should seriously question the motives of those who fashioned such conditions in the first place. Turning a four lane neighborhood street into a six lane neighborhood highway is a rotten idea.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2016 16:49:16 GMT -8
Thank you for sharing this, f ron. I blame the reckless LA drivers and smartphone use for accidents, not the roads. Both vehicles that are involved are luxury vehicles, which is no surprise at all. Most pedestrian deaths in LA, the city that ranks near the top in the nation for that, also happen by luxury vehicles. I agree, this accident was very likely the result of recklessness but I don't absolve those who accommodate recklessness through poor planning and design. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Nor are they exclusively a byproduct of the telecommunication age. When environments are created where recklessness is more likely than not to cause this kind of damage then one should seriously question the motives of those who fashioned such conditions in the first place. Turning a four lane neighborhood street into a six lane neighborhood highway is a rotten idea. Is there really any scientific evidence that the new configuration has any significant contribution to accidents here? Without seeing that, I would blame the new configuration no more than a nearby house the was recently painted to a different color. It's easy to make correlations and they are often made by the public but without good statistics and scientific evidence, they don't mean anything. I see so many incidents of drivers going off the road on perfectly straight segments of roads around here these days that I don't assign any fault to the roads unless there is some really bad configuration. Drivers take parking meters, poles, fences, walls on perfectly straight and easy-to-drive streets all the time and I am guessing recklessness and smartphone use in most cases. Drive along Exposition Boulevard in the Phase 1 segment and you will see many sections where the fences are broken and replaced by orange fences. Someone hit a tree at the stop sign on my street. On Vermont Ave by USC, cars often go off the road and take down the USC wall. On National Blvd in Palms, the drivers miss the mild curve near Jasmine Avenue and take down the street signs.
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on May 6, 2016 18:22:00 GMT -8
Is there really any scientific evidence that the new configuration has any significant contribution to accidents here? Without seeing that, I would blame the new configuration no more than a nearby house the was recently painted to a different color. It's easy to make correlations and they are often made by the public but without good statistics and scientific evidence, they don't mean anything. I see so many incidents of drivers going off the road on perfectly straight segments of roads around here these days that I don't assign any fault to the roads unless there is some really bad configuration. Drivers take parking meters, poles, fences, walls on perfectly straight and easy-to-drive streets all the time and I am guessing recklessness and smartphone use in most cases. Drive along Exposition Boulevard in the Phase 1 segment and you will see many sections where the fences are broken and replaced by orange fences. Someone hit a tree at the stop sign on my street. On Vermont Ave by USC, cars often go off the road and take down the USC wall. On National Blvd in Palms, the drivers miss the mild curve near Jasmine Avenue and take down the street signs. Are you familiar with Charles Marohn of Strong Towns? He wrote " Confessions of a Recovering Engineer" detailing the problems that civil engineers like he helped create with our infrastructure today, in particular by blindly adopting highway engineering recommendations for local streets.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 10, 2016 11:18:50 GMT -8
I agree, this accident was very likely the result of recklessness but I don't absolve those who accommodate recklessness through poor planning and design. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Nor are they exclusively a byproduct of the telecommunication age. When environments are created where recklessness is more likely than not to cause this kind of damage then one should seriously question the motives of those who fashioned such conditions in the first place. Turning a four lane neighborhood street into a six lane neighborhood highway is a rotten idea. Is there really any scientific evidence that the new configuration has any significant contribution to accidents here? Without seeing that, I would blame the new configuration no more than a nearby house the was recently painted to a different color. It's easy to make correlations and they are often made by the public but without good statistics and scientific evidence, they don't mean anything. I see so many incidents of drivers going off the road on perfectly straight segments of roads around here these days that I don't assign any fault to the roads unless there is some really bad configuration. Drivers take parking meters, poles, fences, walls on perfectly straight and easy-to-drive streets all the time and I am guessing recklessness and smartphone use in most cases. Drive along Exposition Boulevard in the Phase 1 segment and you will see many sections where the fences are broken and replaced by orange fences. Someone hit a tree at the stop sign on my street. On Vermont Ave by USC, cars often go off the road and take down the USC wall. On National Blvd in Palms, the drivers miss the mild curve near Jasmine Avenue and take down the street signs. Yea... I wouldn't blame this incident on road design per se. From the photos, it is clear that the collision involved a vehicle turning left and possibly a vehicle running a red light (either the vehicle turning left ran a red or the car going straight ran a red). Either way, that's just typical anti-social behavior that has long been socially acceptable in LA. Looks like the black Fore Edge was turning left from Ashby to Overland and the BMW was going straight on Overland when they collided.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on Oct 12, 2017 8:35:15 GMT -8
The LADoT issued letters announcing that they plans to INCREASE speed limits on Overland Ave. south of Pico, from 35mph to 40mph. Evidently, the standard for such a bump is when 85 percent of vehicles traveling on a street travel in excess of the posted speed limit, this triggers an action to increase the posted speed limit.
So, Metro decides the best solution for Overland was an at-grade crossing. This was made possible by adding lanes so the numbers penciled out (the need to get as many cars as possible past the gates before the next train comes through). The additional lanes create a highway-like environment which in turn promotes speeding. Which in turn creates conditions for which a speed limit increase is warrented. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Tell us again how Metro and LADoT give a rat's a** for the neighborhoods that they claim to serve. The cascading effects of the at-grade crossing at Overland is rapidly becoming a huge and potentially life threatening mistake.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Oct 12, 2017 13:12:26 GMT -8
Metro had plans to build an overpass on Overland and Westwood but it was not even considered when nimby's in our neighborhood insisted on going underground. Because of the year round flowing creek that was decades ago put in a massive storm drain that resurfaces West of Military, this was not possible so the only alternative was to build the crossings we now have. I do agree that adding an extra lane and increasing the speed limit seems to go straight in the face of the current LA policy of making the city less car friendly.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 13, 2017 9:17:35 GMT -8
The LADoT issued letters announcing that they plans to INCREASE speed limits on Overland Ave. south of Pico, from 35mph to 40mph. Evidently, the standard for such a bump is when 85 percent of vehicles traveling on a street travel in excess of the posted speed limit, this triggers an action to increase the posted speed limit. So, Metro decides the best solution for Overland was an at-grade crossing. This was made possible by adding lanes so the numbers penciled out (the need to get as many cars as possible past the gates before the next train comes through). The additional lanes create a highway-like environment which in turn promotes speeding. Which in turn creates conditions for which a speed limit increase is warrented. Lather, rinse, repeat. Tell us again how Metro and LADoT give a rat's a** for the neighborhoods that they claim to serve. The cascading effects of the at-grade crossing at Overland is rapidly becoming a huge and potentially life threatening mistake. The recall bonin campaign got major results fast, your neighborhood should consider the same.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 13, 2017 11:10:37 GMT -8
The recall bonin campaign got major results fast, your neighborhood should consider the same. That's a very strange thing to say. Unless I clearly missed the sarcasm. The recall Bonin campaign was in favor of increasing vehicle speed and restoring travel lanes. I don't think f ron wants more car lanes and higher vehicle speeds on Overland.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Oct 13, 2017 18:48:31 GMT -8
There's nothing stopping someone from mounting a recall campaign to get speeds reduced though
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 3, 2017 15:26:18 GMT -8
The LADoT issued letters announcing that they plans to INCREASE speed limits on Overland Ave. south of Pico, from 35mph to 40mph. Evidently, the standard for such a bump is when 85 percent of vehicles traveling on a street travel in excess of the posted speed limit, this triggers an action to increase the posted speed limit. So, Metro decides the best solution for Overland was an at-grade crossing. This was made possible by adding lanes so the numbers penciled out (the need to get as many cars as possible past the gates before the next train comes through). The additional lanes create a highway-like environment which in turn promotes speeding. Which in turn creates conditions for which a speed limit increase is warrented. Lather, rinse, repeat. Tell us again how Metro and LADoT give a rat's a** for the neighborhoods that they claim to serve. The cascading effects of the at-grade crossing at Overland is rapidly becoming a huge and potentially life threatening mistake. If the 85th Percentile speed is 40 mph, then that means drivers are going to drive at that speed regardless of what ridiculously low speed limit you put up. Having the speed limit at 85th percentile reduces the speed differential between cars, which makes the roads safer. The gates are already pre-empted for the train, so its not like transit riders are inconvenienced. LADOT had to do something to address the impact to traffic. As much as we all want everything to be to given to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians; we are going to have to be realistic and expect compromise. Creating grid-lock just because cars are going too fast in your opinion is not going to happen anytime soon. Really, the best solution is to not build at grade crossings like this in first place.
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Nov 4, 2017 12:56:22 GMT -8
At the last HOA meeting in our neighborhood council member Paul Koretz stated that the speech limit would stay 35 mph.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 5, 2017 4:13:52 GMT -8
"Having the speed limit at 85th percentile reduces the speed differential between cars, which makes the roads safer."
That may be true for rural roads with few intersections and no vehicles other than cars, but it's not necessary true for urban areas with lots of foot traffic, bikes and turning cars. Vehicles entering the street will always be at low speed, as will people on bikes and people walking.
Increasing the speed limit to the 85% speed will lower the differential between the speeders and average drivers going straight, but cars turning, bikes and peds will face an even higher speed differential. Since many urban crashes happen at interesections, and many fatal and serious crashes are motor vehicle vs person walking, increasing the speed limit can increase the risk of fatal and disabling crashes.
The law should be changed. It was meant to stop rural police departments from setting up speed traps on country roads, not to kill people walking in cities.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Nov 5, 2017 15:36:11 GMT -8
The 85th percentile rule is a good thing, because the speed limit should match the road geometry. Two roads that look similar should have similar speed limits, not have ones that differ depending on how much influence the people nearby have on their city councilman. You can argue that we shouldn't have roads designed for relatively high speeds running through urbanized areas, but since we already do, we should be talking about changing that, not putting arbitrary numbers on signs. At the last HOA meeting in our neighborhood council member Paul Koretz stated that the speech limit would stay 35 mph. No surprise from Paul "the rules don't apply to CD5" Koretz. Doesn't this keep the speed limit unenforceable, though?
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 6, 2017 9:03:28 GMT -8
At the last HOA meeting in our neighborhood council member Paul Koretz stated that the speech limit would stay 35 mph. Politics over rationalism prevails as usual. That's why our transportation system is the mess that it is now. "Having the speed limit at 85th percentile reduces the speed differential between cars, which makes the roads safer." That may be true for rural roads with few intersections and no vehicles other than cars, but it's not necessary true for urban areas with lots of foot traffic, bikes and turning cars. Vehicles entering the street will always be at low speed, as will people on bikes and people walking. Increasing the speed limit to the 85% speed will lower the differential between the speeders and average drivers going straight, but cars turning, bikes and peds will face an even higher speed differential. Since many urban crashes happen at interesections, and many fatal and serious crashes are motor vehicle vs person walking, increasing the speed limit can increase the risk of fatal and disabling crashes. The law should be changed. It was meant to stop rural police departments from setting up speed traps on country roads, not to kill people walking in cities. You clearly don't understand what is happening. Speeders on this road are not just the average, they are the vast majority of reasonable, prudent drivers. Almost 9 out of every 10 cars are ignoring the speed limit right now. That's practically not even enforceable, especially since it's now public widespread knowledge that LADOT has already determined that the speed limit is too low based on their data. The current 35 mph limit sign is pretty much just for show right now. The limit increase will help increase traffic flow for the small few of die hard's who will go the speed limit even if it impedes the flow of traffic, which causes a bunch of unnecessary dangerous lane changes as drivers try to go around the slow moving cars. Unless there is hard data shown that the speed limit increase will cause more accidents, "not to kill people walking in cities" is purely hyperbolic BS.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Nov 6, 2017 14:16:25 GMT -8
Perhaps if the neighborhood, et al behaved proactively vs reactivity a grade crossing solution could have been realized. Diverting a "year round" stream in LA when you have 9 mths of near guaranteed dry weather is certainly possible, just depends on the budget.
|
|