|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 14, 2007 20:51:31 GMT -8
Blue Line Train Involved in Fatality20-year-old Female Run OverLOS ANGELES, Apr. 14, 2007 (KABC-TV) - A young woman was fatally run over by a Blue Line train on the south side of downtown Saturday, a fire official said. Paramedics were sent to the 1800 block of South San Pedro Street at 12:28 p.m., said Los Angeles city fire spokesperson d'Lisa Davies. The Long Beach-bound light-rail train was unable to stop before striking 20-year-old Maxmiliana Gomez. The Blue Line driver stated that a group of three -- two males and Gomez -- attempted to run across the tracks in front of the train. The young woman was unsuccessful in her attempt and she was declared dead at the scene. "Maxi Force Airbags" were used to extricate the body from underneath the train, which took an hour. The accident delayed service on the downtown-to-Long-Beach line. Blue Line collides with SUVBy Tomio Geron, Staff writer Article Launched: 04/13/2007 10:45:10 PM PDT An SUV traveling southbound on Long Beach Boulevard made a wrong-way turn onto Seventh Street in front of a Metro train, which totaled the SUV and resulted in severe damage to the front of the train. A passenger in the SUV was treated at the scene. The accident occurred when the driver of a silver Ford Expedition traveling southbound on Long Beach Boulevard made a wrong turn heading east onto westbound Seventh Street. The southbound train, with about 75 passengers aboard, struck the SUV and dragged it a short distance through the intersection before stopping. The driver of the SUV was uninjured, but was taken to a hospital as a precaution, said Will Nash, a Long Beach Fire Department spokesman. A passenger in the vehicle was treated and released at the scene. There were no injuries reported among the train riders, said Metro spokesman Jose Ubaldo. Long Beach Boulevard was closed to traffic for several hours between Sixth and Eighth streets while emergency crews responded to the scene and removed the SUV, which was stuck to the front of the train. The Blue Line was diverted around the damaged train and continued to operate in both directions. Ubaldo said the damaged train would be taken to a yard to be inspected or repaired. Nash said he did not know why the driver tried to make the illegal turn. The SUV had Pennsylvania license plates, Nash said. Trenton Barnett, 31, of Long Beach, was eating breakfast in a McDonald's restaurant that is directly in front of where the accident occurred. "I heard screaming, then I saw the train was dragging the truck to a complete stop," Barnett said
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 1, 2007 8:53:41 GMT -8
There were two fatal blue line accidents again last week. People always underestimate the speed of the train. Man, 27, Killed By Metro Blue Line Train
FLORENCE, Calif. (CBS) ― A 27-year-old man who climbed over a fence onto Metro Blue Line tracks was fatally struck by a southbound train, authorities said.
The accident occurred at 6:13 p.m. Monday, north of the Florence Station just south of Gage Avenue in unincorporated Florence, said Metropolitan Transportation Authority Senior Communications Representative Rick Jager.
The area was fenced, but the man climbed over the fence, he said.
Trains were still running "because we are able to single track through the area," Jager said.
The man's body was still on scene, awaiting the arrival of representatives of the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, he said.
And Man Dies Trying To Outrun Blue Line Train
LOS ANGELES (CBS) ― A man who ran across the tracks, apparently trying to beat an oncoming Blue Line train, tripped and fell and was run over, the fire department reported.
The man, believed to be in his 50s, died at the scene of the 5:48 p.m. accident at Hill Street and Broadway, said d'Lisa Davies of the city fire department.
He was not immediately identified.
Davies said authorities hoped to have the train moved out of the intersection soon so other trains could resume their regular schedules.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 1, 2007 15:10:54 GMT -8
These killer trains! We should dismantle them because they're accidents waiting to happen. It has nothing to do with people who are acting foolishly . . .
That recent article about Dorsey High really got me fired up.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 1, 2007 16:12:12 GMT -8
Oh how intelligent, dismantle the trains and replace them with cars and buses - I wonder if there have ever been fatality car accidents? As for Dorsey High, how many years did it operate successfully with red line cars nearby? Many years.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 1, 2007 16:15:14 GMT -8
Oh how intelligent, dismantle the trains and replace them with cars and buses - I wonder if there have ever been fatality car accidents? As for Dorsey High, how many years did it operate successfully with red line cars nearby? Many years. Is your sarcasm monitor turned off?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 1, 2007 16:51:23 GMT -8
Lol, well I guess I'll post that article here. This is from Klamedia over at SSC.
Groups decry design of Expo LineProject divides foes, supporters
By Shirley Hawkins OW Staff Writer
It’s been a contentious topic that in the past several months has ignited and snowballed into a battle royal between South Los Angeles community residents and proponents of the Expo Light Rail.
The $686 million dollar construction of the Expo Light Rail, specifically the site at the Farmdale location near Susan Miller Dorsey High School, has sparked a lightning rod of criticism from many South L.A. residents who feel the street-level construction could jeopardize the lives of thousands of Dorsey High School students.
The Exposition Construction Authority is seeking state approval to lay tracks at three dozen intersections from downtown Los Angeles to Culver City, a massive project that won’t be completed until 2010.
“As it stands right now, the design at the Farmdale location would be constructed at street level,” said Damien Goodmon, a member of the Citizen’s Campaign to Fix the Expo rail line and perhaps the most vocal critic of the proposed project. Goodman pointed out that at least 20,000 students would cross or live around the Expo rail line if completed. “We--and many other community residents--are requesting that the train be at grade--meaning, we want to see it running either below ground or above ground.
We wrote a 108-page document that shows how each of the street level crossings are unsafe and the elevated crossings are undesirable to the community.”Kevin Freidlington, who attended the Nov. 17 community meeting on the Expo line hosted by the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable in Leimert Park, observed, “People are saying, ‘We want underground.’ I don’t think it’s too late to get exactly what we want. I think it is an opportunity to get the best we can.”
In a report from the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line listed on their blog pointed out that the Expo Authority might be building another “blue line” at Farmdale, which remains the most accident-prone and deadly light rail line in the country. There have been 172 accidents and 28 deaths on the blue line in the past 5 years, and over 796 accidents and 88 deaths in its 17 years of operation, making it the most accident-prone and deadly light rail line in the country.
“At-grade crossings with trains that are scheduled to operate 240 times a day at speeds between 35-55 miles per hour are accidents waiting to happen,” maintains CCFERL.
Emotions ran high at an Oct. 17 meeting hosed by the West Adams Neighborhood Council and the Dorsey High School Alumni Association who invited the members of the Expo Authority who updated the community on the project. Nearly 200 community residents, Dorsey alumni and teachers railed against the design and gave panelists pause.
Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of the Community Health Councils who attended the meeting asked Councilman Herbert Wesson, who sits on the Expo Authority board, if he would support the Expo Line at Farmdale if it were built underground. “Our concern was that the rail line will create a hazard for children at Dorsey high school and Foshay Learning Center, and that it will create a traffic nightmare as it crosses Crenshaw Boulevard and Western and Vermont Avenues,” said Galloway-Gilliam. The councilman recently asked for a motion to explore other alternatives to the street level construction.
LAUSD Board member Marguerite LaMotte, who also attended the meeting, expressed her concern for the proposed design, saying that she opposed the line for safety and environmental justice issues. She said “The only thing I can personally support is underground.”
Charles Stewart, chief deputy for Congresswoman Diane Watson, read a statement at the meeting which stated, “We can lose time on Expo, we can find money, but we can’t afford and we will not forgive you if we lose lives, if we lose children. You have cared too little about those who live here,” she stated, referring to MTA.
“South Los Angeles has had to carry the burden of so many issues for our city,” Galloway-Gilliam maintained. “We have been displaced by freeways, such as the Century Boulevard and 110 freeways. It just seems we are always being asked to carry a disproportionate amount of the burden for the entire city. As far as I’m concerned, this rail line could make us just more community that they kill off.
People will leave (the community).”Pausing, Galloway-Gilliam reflected, “You have to wonder if this (rail line) is not about eliminating our political power. Our hope is that the MTA and the mayor will reconsider and demonstrate some respect for this community. On the other hand, if our black officials don’t support us, then what are we really losing?”
Pressley Burroughs, a member of Friends4Expo, an organization that supports the line, felt that community opposition to the line is “too little, too late.”
“I grew up around the proposed rail line and I’ve been involved in the project since the early 80’s,” said Burroughs. “We had been knocking on doors, calling and e-mailing residents about this line.
We kept asking, ‘Please come out and express your interests or concerns about this project.’ All the way from the early concept, we’ve been knocking on doors. And guess what? Nobody showed.”
Another attendee at the recent LAUPR Expo Rail Line meeting who did not want to be identified said that community residents needed to become more proactive when it came to projects affecting their community. “I was around when they were building the blue, red and green lines. I was appalled that when these lines were being built, members of our community didn’t show up. It broke my heart.
When you don’t come out and give your input to design the project, it’s going to cost the city more. People need to show up, and not at the last minute.”Michelle Colbert, a Crenshaw resident, who heard about the proposed Expo Rail Line a year ago, observed, “We get shown Norman Rockwell pictures that are many times duplicitous.
They are not going into detail about what impact the ideas will have coming into the community. Some of these ideas are not well thought out. What I don’t want is something that’s going to come in and have a negative impact on our community and South Los Angeles should not be the community that has to be the sacrificial lamb.”Colbert was particularly concerned about the environmental impact of the project.
“My position is about the quality of life regarding the Expo Line. If the train is built at street level it will be running 22 hours a day from 6 a.m. to 4 a.m. Obviously, there re certain safety issues. There is also the issue of a decent quality of life.
“With 30 crossings per hour, we will have traffic congestion. Idle cars are going to be emitting toxic air just from the emissions of cars. The noise and pollution are huge health issues. There is a report I read recently indicating that insidious noise creates stress, high blood pressure, and exasperates cardio vascular disease and chronic ringing in the ear which may very well translate into higher rates of respiratory disease in our community, so there’s also a mortality issue.”
Pausing, Colbert continued, “Residents will suffer from sleep deprivation. We will get two hours of silence between trains. There’s no human being that should be placed in those living conditions,” said Colbert, who theorized that the rates of infant mortality rates will also increase in the community. How completely nonsensical.
“Basically, this community is being asked to bear the high burden to benefit those with higher political power and influence. This burden is too great for any community to undertake. We definitely need a transit system, but put it underground.”
Eddie Jones, president of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Association, agreed. “My concern is safety. I agree we should evolve and progress in our community. As long as safety an issue on the project.”
At a meeting on Nov. 5 nearly 400 people turned out to inform Public Utility Commissioner Timothy Simon and an administrative law judge that running trains along an old railroad right of way would jeopardize the lives of students at Dorsey High School.
Despite the fact that Expo Authority consultant James Okazaki produced computer simulations of what the Dorsey intersection would look like after the installation of traffic signals, wider sidewalks, crosswalks and a holding area next to the tracks, attendees were not reassured. Okazaki stated that the intersection would be safer with trains operating that it is today.
The two were met with a veritable wall of opposition as numerous speakers approached the microphone and demanded that the rail line be built below street level to ensure the safety of motorists and Dorsey high school students. The proposed site of contention was where Exposition Boulevard crosses Farmdale Avenue.
Attendees voiced their concern that high school students might see the crossing gages and fencing around the tracks as a “challenge” and play “cat and mouse” with the trains as they sped down the tracks. Oh my f**king god!
Pastor Perry Crouch observed, “The leaders don’t care about the safety of our children. It’s our leaders who are not looking out for the safety of the community. They are going along with what the boss tells them to do.”
Simon was particularly moved by the resident’s criticism. “This process has been extraordinarily informative to me,” he stated. “The people have spoken. I’m looking at all the crossings and their risk factors from a different perspective.”
Simon promised that he would pay particular attention to the safety of the line where it would pass the high school and the Foshay Learning Center near Western Avenue and Exposition. Goodmon pointed at County Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, who recently stated in a letter sent to the press regarding her concern about the “misinformation” that has circulated in the community regarding the project.
“Burke has been invited to three different community events to hear her constituent’s concerns, but she has never showed up,” said Goodmon. “Burke is AWOL on this issue. She has known about these unsolved safety issues for the past 10 years. She has done nothing about the Blue lie, which is the deadliest, most accident prone rail line in the country.”
During a MTA board meeting in September 2002, Burke introduced a motion for a series of grade separations along the Exposition corridor, including the current LaBrea (Farmdale) design.
“The current LaBrea design, worked out in consultation with the principal of Dorsey High and the safety division of the LAUSD, is anything but a potential “death trap,” she stated.
“At present, the Farmdale pedestrian safety design proposes to organize the existing traffic and pedestrian chaos that occurs each day as school lets out in order to help channel both the pedestrian and vehicular traffic into specifically designed waiting areas; whereupon pedestrians can cross the railroad tracks safely or proceed safely to an area where students can access waiting automobiles.”
Burke went on to say in the letter that the staff of the Public Utilities Commission concurred with the safety of the design , that a present review of the Farmdale intersection was requested by the Administrative Law Judge in response to community concerns.
“Many of the speakers at the public participation hearing presided over by the Administrative Law Judge on Nov. 5 proposed that the line go underground at Farmdale. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that such an alternative must take into consideration.
First, there is an extremely large sewer system approximately twenty-one feet under the right-of-way. There is also a major drain box adjacent to that same line. The moving of the sewer would depend not only on City approvals, but would also raise issues of under whose property outside the right-of-way it should be relocated.
Most people familiar with the surrounding community know and have experienced issues with sewer odors in and around the area of Rodeo and La Cienega Boulevard.”
Goodmon also felt that other communities, specifically Culver City, were able to curtail the ground level crossings. “If Culver City children don’t have to walk across the tracks, why should children in South Los Angeles?” he maintained. “If Culver City residents don’t have to hear train horns and noise of 240 trains per day, why should South Los Angeles residents?”
But Burke said in her letter that that was another misconception that community residents somehow feel that Culver City is receiving preferential treatment in terms of having the light rail line pass through the city entirely in an aerial configuration.
“That’s simply wrong,” stated Burke. “In fact, the design of the line passes over La Cienega Boulevard and very quickly descends into east Culver City at street level until it reached the Phase 1 terminus at the confluence of intersections at National/Robertson and Venice Boulevard.
The one and only reason that Culver City would received an aerial station where those three intersections come together is the same reason that La Cienega and La Brea are also being elevated: Traffic congestion. There is no other grade separation at Culver City.”
Goodmon also pointed out that the University of Southern California would also be spared a ground crossing. “At Figueroa at USC there’s an underpass which costs more than the overpass that we’re getting at La Brea and Exposition, which is near Foshay school.
That’s the only place where there is a grade separation in South Los Angeles.”Carol Tucker, president of the Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association, said that she became concerned about the proposed Expo Rail Line in 2005. “I initially heard about the project at a homeowner’s meeting in Culver City,” said Tucker.
I found out that they were going to have an overpass at LaBrea and La Cienega, which I hadn’t heard about. The train would come down to cross LaBrea and descend through our neighborhood.
“We have a north-south traffic problem,” Tucker pointed out. “I had always questioned the train crossing behind Dorsey and Foshay. I tried to contact David Meiger, who was the project manager for the MTA at the time. We directly spoke to him and he promised to meet with us, but he never did. So we waited several months and then we sent the letter.”
Tucker said that the letter cited the north and southbound traffic problem. “I was citing environmental justice,” said Tucker. “They responded and said that an investigation would take place but I don’t think they did anything. I waited over a year and I never heard from the MTA.”
Simon agreed that a full-scale public hearing was needed to examine the safety of the proposed crossing near Dorsey. The construction authority’s board of directors voted recently to study alternatives to the street-level design. A full evidentiary hearing on the application to lay tracks across the intersection was postponed until January.
But Goodmon said, “We intend to file a environmental racism complaint at the end of the year in regard to the separate and unequal design of the Expo Line. If our politicians refuse to stand up for the safety of our children and the preservation of our community, then we will have to go to federal court to see if they will grant us justice,” he observed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 1, 2007 19:02:32 GMT -8
It's hard not to notice how the MTA bends over backwards for communities that they view as powerful and practically ignores communities that they view as powerless.
If they had done a better job at community outreach we wouldn't be having these problems at this late date.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Dec 1, 2007 19:43:15 GMT -8
I can see it now: MTA agrees to a foot bridge over the intersection to get people across the street safely. One day, some nut jumps off the bridge. falls on the tracks, gets run over by an oncoming train and dies. Is the MTA to blame because they didn't build the station underground?
The MTA is not the only party responsible when it comes to safety issues. As long as people tempt fate by running in front of trains, this issue will never go away.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Dec 1, 2007 19:44:47 GMT -8
I think part of the problem, was there were few people at the previous meetings. Most people didn't pay much attention to it, and it was for the most part a non issue. Until very recently.
With grade crossings, they can either be dangerous like the Blue line crossings, or painstakingly slow, like Gold Line's Marmion Way. Best to avoid that situation.
Would tunneling be cheaper than an above ground flyover bridge ?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 1, 2007 20:07:14 GMT -8
It's hard not to notice how the MTA bends over backwards for communities that they view as powerful and practically ignores communities that they view as powerless. If they had done a better job at community outreach we wouldn't be having these problems at this late date. That's hogwash! MTA will build the elevated to the sea right through Beverly Hills, Hancock Park and Condo Row.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 1, 2007 20:08:22 GMT -8
By the way, I was the person - the only person mind you - who spent the public comment period of the Thursday MTA board meeting mentioning the two Blue Line deaths. They couldn't find space on their agenda to even acknowledge/discuss them.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 1, 2007 20:58:48 GMT -8
I think part of the problem, was there were few people at the previous meetings. Most people didn't pay much attention to it, and it was for the most part a non issue. Until very recently.. That's why I say that their outreach failed. Fair or not much of the burden is on the MTA to inform the community. When that doesn't happen we end up with potentially costly situations like this.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 1, 2007 21:14:25 GMT -8
By the way, I was the person - the only person mind you - who spent the public comment period of the Thursday MTA board meeting mentioning the two Blue Line deaths. They couldn't find space on their agenda to even acknowledge/discuss them. Probably because it was the fault of the car drivers and pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 2, 2007 9:41:07 GMT -8
Probably because it was the fault of the car drivers and pedestrians. There's this really illustrative statistic: One light rail line alone produced as many fatalities as the San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, San Diego, Portland, Dallas and St. Louis light rail SYSTEMS COMBINED![/b] It takes the seven largest light rail system in the country COMBINED to equal the number of deaths from the Blue Line. It takes 356 miles of light rail across the country to kill as many people as the 22 miles it takes on the Blue Line. Seriously, if it took nearly 16 counties to equal the number of cancer victims in one county, what scientist would even think to blame the people in the county instead of the conditions in the county? My point is, the design is primarily at fault here. There are loads of manuals that explain principles of rail and light rail engineering that were ignored/violated with the Blue Line. I've read most of them that have been published in the past 10 years and I can definitively say the same mistakes are being made with Expo Line Phase 1. One of them was the 1998 study, where MTA asked, "What makes the Blue Line different." Here's the excerpt from the report: What Makes the Metro Blue Different from Other Light Rail Systems?:
One aspect of this study is to analyze those factors that may contribute to the MBL's high accident rate as compared to other light rail systems. There are several factors that contribute to the accident rate including:
1. The MBL travels through a high population density area with a diverse varied social-economic community. The high density results in increased pedestrian and automobile traffic as compared to other transit properties. In addition, the communities through which the MBL travels requires special attention to language and literacy issues when disseminating public outreach and education information.
2. The MBL traverses through an industrial center of Los Angeles. The industrial center results in increased trucking and shipping traffic near the MBL. The increased truck traffic results in increased driver frustration due to slower street traffic speeds. This frustration may result in increased crossing gate running and illegal left turns.
[snip]
4. The MBL has one of the highest ridership counts for light rail lines in the Country. This factor is perhaps the most important contributor to the grade crossing accident rate. The high ridership results in increased pedestrian traffic near stations as compared to other light rail systems. In addition, although MTA Operations does not allow high passenger loads dictate safe operations, there is pressure to maintain travel times and headway schedule requirements (e.g., passenger trip from Los Angeles to Long Beach in less than one hour)."
The increased headways since the '98 study (6 min peak hour are now 3-4 min peak hour) are likely why despite the increase in safety enhancements in some sections the fatality rate remains steady if not higher (29 deaths from 2002-2007). The rate of accidents have declined from about 45-60 per year to 30-40, but I've yet to definitely determine why that is, as somewhere between '02 and '04 the federal government redefined what constituted an "accident" and I don't know if that allowed MTA to reduce the number of incidents they report. The total number of accidents/collisions being reported by MTA now is over 800 in 17 years. It too is multiples more than any other light rail line in the country. The third reason in the '98 MTA study that isn't in the post (because it's not as applicable to the Expo Line) was the parallel freight track in the section between Washington Station and Artesia station: 3. The MBL shares its right-of-way with a busy freight railroad. The MBL shares its right-of-way with the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad. The freight railroad traffic also likely contributes to driver frustration and increased gate running. In addition, the freight railroad also contributes to a factor known as the "second train phenomenon." This phenomenon is caused by a freight train passing a crossing and the crossing gates remaining in the lowered position. Automobile drivers believe the gates are broken and proceed to drive around the gates. The vehicle then collides with a light rail train coming from the opposite direction. The parallel freight track also produces varying travel speeds that confuse pedestrians and drivers. What is the time it takes to safely walk across the track with a freight train coming, is significantly less with the Blue Line coming at 55 mph. This is why slowing the trains down at Farmdale during school safety hours is NOT safer. Speed consistency, along with crossing design consistency are very important for at-grade crossings. As I said somewhere on the net I'm not leading this effort just because I don't like at-grade light rail and think subways are great. I read the manuals and evaluated the crossing designs (the finals of which didn't even come out until May '07), spoke to the experts and engineers. At-grade rail on this corridor will be tragic.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 2, 2007 13:55:35 GMT -8
Here's the thing Damien. I will argue that there should be separation for traffic, because I think that is fair. To say that it should be grade separated because of deaths seems like a scare tactic. The one constant that I saw in that 1-4 list is TRAFFIC. All of these problems come about from traffic. However, this is something that the community should have been arguing for long ago if they really wanted to be taken seriously.
There is no traffic near Dorsey, no station, so what's wrong with just putting crossing guards there?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Dec 2, 2007 14:03:44 GMT -8
You know, I'd like to see the difference in fatalities for different time periods and how about we include the Gold Line there too?
We can't just skew statistics in our favor and expect to find truth with that.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 2, 2007 18:11:41 GMT -8
I'm not getting into any of this debate, but I'll limit my input to as follows:
Los Angeles has a car culture that transcends all ethnicities and socioeconomic levels, and I won't lose any sleep over someone who tries to outrace the train or move around or crash through crossing gates anymore than I'll lose sleep over someone who purposefully runs a red light and leads to accidents and/or death.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 2, 2007 21:05:42 GMT -8
The blue line runs at 5 minute 30 second headways at rush hour, not 3-4 minutes. Headways are for one direction, not both.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Dec 2, 2007 21:28:44 GMT -8
With all due respect: what were the nature of the fatalities? How many were suicides, people trying to 'beat' the train, faulty crossing gates, blind spots, drunken drivers, drunken train operators, bad weather. et al?
Further, will the Expo trains be travelling upwards of 50 mph like they do on the Blue Line?
Just throwing statistics around is one thing, imbuing them with meaning is something entirely different. I would like to see a breakdown, for better or for worse. I think it would be instructional.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 3, 2007 12:09:46 GMT -8
Here's the thing Damien. I will argue that there should be separation for traffic, because I think that is fair. I believe this crossing has more peak hour pedestrian traffic than any other on the corridor. Additionally, I'm part of that crop of transit advocates that values lives and limbs as much as traffic circulation. To say that it should be grade separated because of deaths seems like a scare tactic. Sorry for pointing out the facts. If it's uncomfortable to simply TALK about the resulting accidents and deaths of failing to grade separate imagine how it is to live with it. However, this is something that the community should have been arguing for long ago if they really wanted to be taken seriously. So if people were complaining about this back in the planning stages what then would you say? I mean I don't know how many people have to say it, but people did complain. They were ignored. Do you really think that no person got up in a meeting and said, "You know you should grade separate here at Arlington" and MTA said, "Why thank you ma'am we'll take care of that right away." What fantasy world do you live in? By the way a woman did do that to Thorpe back during the EIR and the man's response was, "Well do you have $25 million dollars ma'am?" The onus is not on the community to show up in bulk to protest something that is blatantly and clearly wrong. It's on the MTA to build a safe and acceptable product! Some here are so apt to just completely give a pass to MTA (the experts - the people who know the consequences of failing to grade separate) and the elected officials who the people vote to put in office to know these issues, and instead put so much of the blame on the community. People are so apt to blame people who are hit and killed, and not a word about crossing design. There's a interesting psychological phenomenon going on in this debate that someone needs to study. I'm curious, do these same people blame the American people for taking us to war with Iraq, or do they blame Bush, the then Republican Congress and go-along Democrats, along with the many government bureaucrats who knew better and/or cooked the books? In another post on this message board, I pointed to the pages in the EIR comments section people could go to see people who asked for additional grade separation. People who were actually at those meetings have said people protested. Yet, people still find some way of blaming the community. I could show these same people the box load of letters, statements, transcripts, etc. and some here still would find some other way of blaming the community. And those are just the recorded statements! Do you really think people didn't ask the engineers about traffic and safety at Crenshaw and Western? Just because they weren't as organized as we are now is irrelevant. I wouldn't need to be doing this NOW if MTA designed the line right THEN. The implication that no person raised issues is insulting to people's intelligence, and for some is nothing but an excuse to permit wrong to be done to this community. There is no traffic near Dorsey, no station, so what's wrong with just putting crossing guards there? Have you seen the crossing design? Have you been to the site? You know, I'd like to see the difference in fatalities for different time periods and how about we include the Gold Line there too? We can't just skew statistics in our favor and expect to find truth with that. I'm confused by the nature of your comment. The point made is that the Blue Line is astronomically more accident-prone and deadly than any other light rail SYSTEM in the country. I've presented data to support that statement. Do you have something similar to challenge this information? And how are the statistics skewed? It's really a very simple graph that shows the number of deaths in the light rail systems across the country compared to the Blue Line. And again, this isn't the Gold Line. I've explained it over and over again. On the www.FixExpo.org website there's a flyer (that needs to be updated) that shows the distinct design differences between this line and the Expo Line. Los Angeles has a car culture that transcends all ethnicities and socioeconomic levels, and I won't lose any sleep over someone who tries to outrace the train or move around or crash through crossing gates anymore than I'll lose sleep over someone who purposefully runs a red light and leads to accidents and/or death. It is convenient to say, "Well that person was dumb they deserve to die," and that's worthy of a moral debate, but in this case it's conveniently simplistic. Accidents don't solely impact one person. Accidents on this corridor lead to cars ricocheting in people's bedrooms. Derailment leads directly into the path of where school children are standing. To say nothing of the safety of the passengers on the train. Would tunneling be cheaper than an above ground flyover bridge? Now that we've passed the $100 million a mile mark it seems like it. But not at this location solely. Again the savings in tunneling is through economies of scale. Tunneling from Adams/Flower to La Brea would have been near the same if not slightly more in cost. But again, this has nothing to do with money. The MTA found $170 million in their budget alone in just a couple of months for this one project. They walked away from $320 million federal dollars?! They successfully lobbied to have the CTC return the $315 million that was stripped by the state legislature with bipartisan support. This is not now nor has this ever been about money. It's about political priorities. It's about political power. And more powerful communities get a better product than less powerful communities. With all due respect: what were the nature of the fatalities? How many were suicides, people trying to 'beat' the train, faulty crossing gates, blind spots, drunken drivers, drunken train operators, bad weather. et al? Further, will the Expo trains be travelling upwards of 50 mph like they do on the Blue Line? Just throwing statistics around is one thing, imbuing them with meaning is something entirely different. I would like to see a breakdown, for better or for worse. I think it would be instructional. There is a 55 mph section (known as cab signal section) between Arlington and Washington/National, with just one crossing in between where it reduces to 25-35 mph (Crenshaw), because there is no grade separation and no crossing gates there. They found that putting crossing gates at Crenshaw would have too drastic an impact on traffic so they present an even less safe solution. LOL! At least the people who die there won't have to go far for their funeral - West Angelus Church of Christ is right on the corner. Only 8 of the accidents up to '06 are from intoxicated drivers and none of the fatalities. MTA reports that 20 of the deaths were suicides, but more than one person within MTA Rail Safety and in the PUC thinks that number is exaggerated. Why would the Blue Line have exponentially more suicides than other system in the country? Then again, even without the suicides the Blue Line has multiples more deaths and accidents than any other line in the country. The overwhelming majority in the street running section Flower Street, Washington Blvd, and City of Long Beach are from left turns. There's not a lot of info on the pedestrian accidents either in the 55 mph section or the street running section. Really the information MTA supplies especially in the cab running section is spotty, especially since the installation of additional gates to prevent drivers from maneuvering around them, which was the major cause in the 90s. (This is what led to the 4-quad gates on the Gold Line, and their installation at 6 of crossings on the Expo.) For most of the incidents there's no cause and only go as far as saying car/pedestrian violated sign/signals. They don't say whether a pedestrian fell down, was running, whether traffic was backed up onto the adjacent street, etc. When I go to the crossings and see the activity with the knowledge of design principles (both those adhered to and those violated) it becomes easy to see why, as the Metrolink Executive Director is famous for saying, "Every at-grade crossing is an accident waiting to happen." In the past I was one of the people who was actually persuaded by statements like, "I've never seen a train jump the tracks and hit a car" and "The only people who get hit are dumb." But when you actually look at these overall designs and the conditions in which the crossing operates its easy to see how ridiculous it is to expect the crossing to operate 100% right 100% of the time. Maybe that's why I'm more apt to put the blame where it belongs: on MTA/elected leaders for placing these rail lines in locations they know the crossing won't operate 100% right 100% of the time. People saw the $50K simulation of the proposed at-grade Farmdale crossing and they were insulted. They didn't even mention the fact that the level of traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) was significantly less than actually anticipated, the simulation had no sound, the train was going by at about 10-20 mph when the Authority has asked for approval for 55 mph, and that the people didn't move. They didn't go into the specifics like I can and do. They were insulted that MTA/Expo thought an informed community would be so stupid as to have confidence in that simulation. So dumb as to not know how kids and cars move at that intersection. People dart out or walk more slowly across an intersection than expected, which can leads to cars queuing on the tracks, that impacts the driver trying to make a left turn at an adjacent street, that is exacerbated by a pedestrian backlog due to insufficient sidewalk width - a sidewalk that is already packed because there's a busy bus stop, that leads to people walking in the street towards the bus. And if you think I'm exaggerating, then spend 20 minutes at a major Blue Line crossing during rush hour any day of the week. If you see how frequently those crossings don't operate as perfectly as the papers/simulations showed when the line was being designed and upgraded, it becomes easy to understand how the frequency of trains has some correlation to the frequency of accidents. We're just getting by a lot of the time. One major aspect of both state and national safety risk formulas is the ratio of trains to vehicular and pedestrian volume (not just per lane per hour - which is about circulation, but actual volume overall). If we operated 3 min headways on the Blue Line, I'd put $1000 on the number of deaths doubling in the first year. It's why despite the additional safety mitigation measures implemented in the past 5 years the rate of deaths has increased. The frequency of trains has increased. Nonetheless, I have a freedom of information request in. I'm trying to get as much information as I possibly can, but as I'm sure you understand, they're going to make me fight and claw for the information. I'm planning a legislative briefing sometime in January to bring people up to speed about the safety issues and design flaws at most the Phase 1 crossings, perhaps a similarly wonky meeting can be planned for transit advocates.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 3, 2007 14:46:45 GMT -8
Here's the thing Damien. I will argue that there should be separation for traffic, because I think that is fair. Sorry for pointing out the facts. If it's uncomfortable to simply TALK about the resulting accidents and deaths of failing to grade separate imagine how it is to live with it. Are there any other design differences between the other cities like Boston, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Dallas, etc (the cities with fewer accidents) that can be compared to with Blue Expo as to why fewer fatalities occur? I know you've heard me state that if that bike lane wasn't there a 10' wide landscaped median is the pedestrian buffer that is needed so that if pedestrians are caught between the tracks or miss crossing the full light this would be a safety buffer. The problem is there's a bike lane that's incorporated into this project that eats up the very space you'd need to have it operate safely. There are other cities in North America that operate LRT like Calgary that have frequent headways (every 3-4 minutes), high ridership, large pedestrian activity around stations and suffer fewer accidents/fatalities. Now I've taken a look at this document that you highlighted many were concerned about the safety of Expo but in the same sentence turned around and stated they didn't want the line. There were about 5 that mentioned grade separations, 2 that didn't like the idea of the USC grade separation and three that specified a Grade separation. One I think was James mentioned elevating the whole thing through Expo and the other Preseley suggested either a trench or 35 mph operation around Crenshaw. Nell I believe wanted to see electric buses or if it is a train to grade separate it. Walk away is a bad choice of words simply because they'd have to wait 2-3 years longer for the funds which would really eat up the costs of the line which would put us in this situation regardless. This I agree with. Exaggerated in which direction, Up or down? There are hundreds of suicide deaths a year on the Tokyo , London and NYC subways so should subway platforms have expensive glass barriers to protect folks jumping on the tracks to save those suicides? (A rhetorical question, doesn't need to be answered) With the Blue Line there are some design issues with the freight track that is running right next to it causes the bulk of confusion because a person can't accurately time how slow and fast the train will clear the tracks and which train clears it. The at-grade running of Washington, I think is a poor design whereas on Long Beach Blvd in Long Beach is done much better and safer. Why, it's the landscaped median. It helps to cross a wide boluevard safely because it provides a protective buffer for when the light changes quicker than anticipated. That's how many boulevards were designed a long time ago that expected a lot of traffic. One thing the 1998 Booz-Allen-Hamilton study didn't mention (unless it was covered but it wasn't applicable to the discussion) is the design of the platforms. The width of the platforms or lack of width (they're 10'6") on the Vernon, Florence and 103rd St at-grade platforms (they are center island platforms with many boardings in either direction) on the stations are a serious concern to pedestrian safety. If another platform was added to these stations pedestrian accidents will go down because there's more room for passengers to clear the platform and a better distribution of entry and exiting of the stations.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Dec 3, 2007 19:26:26 GMT -8
Are there any other design differences between the other cities like Boston, San Francisco, Denver, San Diego, Dallas, etc (the cities with fewer accidents) that can be compared to with Blue Expo as to why fewer fatalities occur? Those were the 4 major sources Booz Allen Hamilton identified and MTA acted on. And in the process you'd push thoroughfare traffic even closer to the already narrow sidewalks (which force people to walk in the street). And keep in mind, with the additional stations and crossing closures, there will be more east-west pedestrian traffic on Exposition. The fact that Expo Authority has determined it's feasible to fit all this crap in the median running section between Vermont and Arlington (trees, tracks, stations, bike lanes, oh my), but can't find the space on Venice Blvd, which already has two bike lanes and 15-25 foot each parkways on both side of the streets has me calling shenanigans. I'm not even saying it should go down Venice, but I think the conclusion that elevated was the only option there (and thereby basing all there calculations from that) is B.S. And once more they're stonewalling request for the info to point out their inaccuracies. The C-train is not really analogous. It has more in common with the Green Line than the Blue or Expo. -A lot of the track of the C-train operates in the median of highways, and there are several underpasses and overpasses, leaving a bulk of the at-grade crossings in lower density areas. -The majority of the at-grade station platforms can only be accessed via pedestrian bridge, which are connected to large parking lots (the majority of people arrive by bus or car). -I believe the only section in which the train operates in a dense area and pedestrians can access the platform without having to take a pedestrian bridge is in the downtown section, where the train operates in a transit mall. (Incidentally, Calgary is recognizing their capacity problems in the transit mall section and is thus discussing putting the downtown section below grade, as they had originally planned.) Simply, there aren't anywhere near as many at-grade crossings and forced vehicle/train and vehicle/pedestrian interaction at the distance of the lines and ridership would seem to imply. Similar comments were made at an Alternatives Analysis/EIR meeting in '94 at Dorsey HS. You know what MTA did then: they evaluated additional options that included depressed around residential areas and found that the additional cost was 33% more (though it didn't grade separate all crossings in full disclosure). The point remains: that's how an EIR is supposed to be done. You hear complaints and you come up with an solution that alleviates them and you clear it through the EIR process and leave it up to the politicians and community to decide. A shift happened somewhere in the early 2000, where the majority of people spoke saying the same things as before, yet MTA just kept moving as if they had said nothing, so obviously people opposed the project. They weren't being presented options! They were presented take it or leave it. So many said leave it. Show too many suicides. They're implementing platform screen doors on the new lines in Tokyo and London (and other cities), and are talking about implementing them on the 2nd Avenue subway in NYC. And you can defray almost all of the maintenance cost by putting advertising on them. And if it's seriously becomes a problem, why not? If you have hundreds of people jumping in front of the Red Line every year what's the cost of service disruption to thousands of passengers every day/time there's an incident compared to the cost of installing the gates? By the way how many people jump in front of the Red/Purple/Green lines every year? Waiting 18-24 months would not have eaten up $320 dollars. They could have primarily used the local money for '08-09 and built '10-12 on federal dollars, so says the FTA. FTA had problems from the beginning with their cost projections and then had issues with the modeling. Those were the main reasons for the pull out. Nonetheless, my point remains, no agency that's starved for cash leaves $320 federal dollars on the table. Interesting. I need more info on the cause of the pedestrian accidents to say whether it would have much of an impact. It clearly would have some, but how much is the question.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Aug 24, 2008 15:41:16 GMT -8
A car went over the bridge and onto the tracks at Artesia station again. Trains were single tracked between Del Amo and Compton. It didn't look like there was any major damage and they were able to run an out of service train through the cleanup area after they were done. I assume that both tracks are back in service by now although they weren't yet when I was there a couple of hours ago.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Aug 24, 2008 21:18:08 GMT -8
This happened about two years ago in the same location and disrupted service for about 4 days. Apparently, the grade separation doesn't seem to work here; well, the problem is that this is a freeway incident that involved the Blue Line tracks. As we all know, freeways are flawed by the fact that error-prone Class C drivers are the majority users and cause most of the accidents. In this case, I'm sure it was a speeding or drunk driver on SR91 that lost control. For those who knows this area, this is close to the Crystal Park Casino. A car went over the bridge and onto the tracks at Artesia station again. Trains were single tracked between Del Amo and Compton. It didn't look like there was any major damage and they were able to run an out of service train through the cleanup area after they were done. I assume that both tracks are back in service by now although they weren't yet when I was there a couple of hours ago.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Aug 25, 2008 7:08:05 GMT -8
so the car flew off the road and onto the tracks? are there no barriers in place on the freeway edge or near the bridge opening? seems like this should not be happening at all
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 25, 2008 7:55:51 GMT -8
We've been told that putting tracks below the grade of automobile drivers will prevent any disruptions to train service. Guess not.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 2, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -8
Cost benefits aside for a moment, there is no doubt that grade separated crossings are safer. This is evident by the 792 collisions between Blue Line trains and autos/pedestrians up to June of last year. (I don't know what current figures are.) The vast majority of those collisions were at grade.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 4, 2008 8:35:59 GMT -8
Depends on how that crossing is grade separated. The same thing can be said for at-grade streets and roadways, can it not?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 4, 2008 14:18:14 GMT -8
Depends on how that crossing is grade separated. The same thing can be said for at-grade streets and roadways, can it not? I don't think the two are analogous. There are tens of thousands of automobile intersections that don't exactly have three hundred person busses coming through them with three hundred foot plus stopping distances. Secondly, I suppose it is possible to design unsafe grade separations but that doesn't change the fact that they are safer (and more efficient). The question is wither the cost is worth it or not. By the way, there have been over 60 blue line deaths due to collisions with trains.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 4, 2008 15:23:04 GMT -8
I guess semi trucks don't count then? But in one end it's ok to build an unsafe grade seperation but not ok to build a safe at-grade crossing. And that efficiency is based on what you're carrying and how fast you're going.
|
|