|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 23, 2009 9:17:04 GMT -8
Has Metro done a study of what are the specific causes of deaths and injuries on the Blue Line? Having all that information compiled could give a better idea of what devices or procedures can reduce these "accidents"
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 23, 2009 12:32:19 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a matter of people seeing one train go by, and assuming it's safe to cross without looking for another train in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 23, 2009 17:38:40 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a matter of people seeing one train go by, and assuming it's safe to cross without looking for another train in the other direction. Exactly! I think that aside from suicides that is nearly always the case. People hear the bells, see the gates, and spot the approaching train. When it passes they step out not realizing that another train was approaching on the tracks next to them. Installing signage to "Watch for second train" or something like that similar to "Mind the Gap" signs in the London Underground might help greatly. Along with a radio campaign.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on May 23, 2009 18:57:41 GMT -8
I believe in the UK there actually are "watch for second train" signs with a warning light that indicates that another train is coming, and I believe there's a different warning sound as well. Metro should look into that, as well as into other technologies like CCTV monitoring of crossings.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 23, 2009 20:53:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 29, 2009 12:57:00 GMT -8
Many years ago Southern Pacific had signal lights that would light up a red lens with the words "TWO TRAINS" displayed. I was told that SP installed these at stations where two trains might be meeting or passing to warn pedestrians, motorists and/or company employees to watch out for another train. The example I saw was in a collection of railroad relics. Maybe it's time to revive this concept.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 30, 2009 10:50:45 GMT -8
I hadn't really noticed before but there are yellow warning signs with a picture of a train with an outward facing arrow on each end say "Look both ways". They aren't really positioned well for pedestrians, but they're there.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 30, 2009 19:21:40 GMT -8
Another Blue Line accident this week. _______ Los Angeles Times latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/train-crash.html Metro Blue Line train hits car 2:45 PM | May 26, 2009 Firefighters were trying to free a woman who remained trapped inside a truck after it was struck by a Metro Blue Line train in downtown Los Angeles, a fire spokesman said. The unidentified woman reported having shortness of breath, said Brian Humphrey, spokesman for the Los Angeles Fire Department. Two other passengers were able to exit from the wrecked vehicle. Their ages and conditions were not known. The accident was reported about 1:25 p.m. at the intersection of Los Angeles Street and Washington Boulevard. There were no injuries reported among passengers in the train bound for Long Beach, Humphrey said. -- Ruben Vives
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 30, 2009 19:30:10 GMT -8
One problem with "just plain signs" is that many people don't notice them. Ever notice how some TV commercials have both a "text crawl" and a "voice-over"? Some people are "eye-minded" and some are "ear minded". The latter type are unlikely to respond to signs, but if someone hollers at them, or bells start ringing, they pay attention. Then there are those who are, if not actually hearing-impaired, tend to ignore spoken words (small children can be like this).
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 31, 2009 11:49:49 GMT -8
Several points:
Often, and by often I mean 25-40% of the time, the alerts on the Blue Line (the line I have the most familiarity with/ride the most) are malfunctioning by either LED signs not blinking, LED signs blinking at the wrong time (when a train doesn't come), crossings gates coming down when no train is coming, etc. Lack of consistency is confusing to motorists and pedestrians, and quite understandably convinces some that the signs lack legitimacy.
A look both way LED sign has been operating at the Vernon Station (the location of the most Blue Line fatalities and pedestrian accidents) for some time. It too is not consistent.
Many times, the signs themselves are confusing, and may not function in a society where motorists and pedestrians aren't used to seeing them.
Too many signs can be distracting. The Flower/18th Street/I-10 on-ramp crossing is a great example of this.
And finally, some times the signs might serve to reduce train-vehicle accidents, but increase vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-pedestrian accidents. Red-light cameras are a good example. Motorists react in otherwise unpredictable ways by stopping on a dime or speeding through an intersection trying to avoid getting the picture and fine. It's why red-light cameras have been banned/removed in several states - they're shown to increase the severity of accidents and often the number of accidents.
And again, the bottom line is international rail safety experts, national vehicular accident causation experts, and even MTA have all stated IT IS NOT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ANY ONE OR MULTIPLE ALERT SYSTEM THAT CAUSES ACCIDENTS - but the overall crossing environment.
It's the amount of stress placed on a system - it's the crossing being overwhelmed by multiple things occurring at once with a 225-ton train coming at 35 or 55 mph. These isolated factors perhaps independently or in some combination MINUS one factor may not have resulted in an accident. But when they come together (the perfect storm so to speak) train go boom. And when a 225-ton train go boom people get hurt.
Often with the Blue Line, as will be the case with the Eastside extension, and as is currently the case with Expo, MTA has designed intersections where the margin for error and/or recovery for pedestrians and motorists is too little, and well the trains cannot simply stop on a dime. That's asking for an accident to happen, just like many other things in our society (placing something that is high risk of accident or fatality in a circumstance is already prone for error). Designing a high-traffic intersection that can only operate under perfectly choreographed sequencing - which very rarely occurs any where in L.A. - is negligent. The accidents are "design-induced errors" so yes, many of the accidents MTA is equally if not more so responsible.
The signs are simply MTA's way of claiming in court and in the press that they aren't negligent/liable ("We put up the sign - they didn't obey it"). But often the courts don't see it that way, in both train and non-train related cases, and neither do most people who have to cross the intersections.
Part of the reason MTA hasn't paid out more in liability cases is because the people getting hit often are not affluent. No way would they be allowed to get away with this stuff if the Blue Line was rolling through Beverly Hills, Hancock Park and Century City. They long ago would have hit multiple people with DEEP POCKETS who would have sued the pants off them.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 31, 2009 19:06:42 GMT -8
A look both way LED sign has been operating at the Vernon Station (the location of the most Blue Line fatalities and pedestrian accidents) for some time. It too is not consistent. Many times, the signs themselves are confusing, and may not function in a society where motorists and pedestrians aren't used to seeing them. Too many signs can be distracting. The Flower/18th Street/I-10 on-ramp crossing is a great example of this. I agree that poorly-done signage can create visual noise rather than safety. As a start on improving Blue Line safety it would help to understand what crossings have had the greatest problems, and what occurred in detail. Then contrast with crossings that have worked well. For example, how is Vernon different from the gated crossings on the Pasadena Gold Line? For one, Vernon lacks quad gates and full pedestrian gates.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 31, 2009 21:06:41 GMT -8
After all that's been said and done with respect to grade crossings and safety improvements, it's amazing that things aren't completely up to speed with any cost-effective and relatively minor improvements that could be done ASAP. It's disturbing and depressing that better signage and education haven't yet been done, and I hope that any shortcomings are brought to light immediately.
On that point, we should all be in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 2, 2009 9:24:20 GMT -8
Reported today, in the San Jose Mercury News of all places (via Streetsblog LA): Bus strikes, kills pedestrian in LA street
The Associated Press Posted: 06/01/2009 06:41:54 PM PDT
LOS ANGELES—A man has died after getting hit and dragged by a bus in a Los Angeles street.
Los Angeles fire spokesman Devin Gales says the man was dragged for an unknown distance under the bus before the driver stopped Monday afternoon in the Venice area. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The man's name has not been released, but Gales says he was 30 years old.
Gales did not know whether the bus was city operated.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 2, 2009 12:40:38 GMT -8
I am not sure if this has been discussed before but in terms of comparing bus and rail "major incidents" which is more common in terms of passengers per mile? Is PPM the appropriate way to make a comparison?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 27, 2009 14:57:44 GMT -8
latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/man-struck-and-killed-by-metro-blue-line-train-in-south-los-angeles-1.htmlMan struck and killed by Metro Blue Line train in South Los Angeles December 27, 2009 | 12:19 pm A Metro Blue Line train struck and killed a man at a South Los Angeles crossing today, a Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman said. The man was hit at about 10 a.m. by the southbound train at the intersection of Vernon Avenue and Long Beach Boulevard and thrown clear of the tracks, according to spokesman Brian Humphrey. "Despite our quick response, the man was sadly beyond our help and died at the scene," he said. Metro spokeswoman Gayle Anderson said the man was described as a Latino in his 60s. She said the crossing-gate bar would have been down. Both the gate and a light should have stopped the man from crossing. The speed of the train was unknown, but Anderson said the speed is governed automatically and designed to slow at crossings from the regular rate of 55 mph. -- Margot Roosevelt
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 27, 2009 16:59:34 GMT -8
I'm going to guess that once again that was a case of not watching for the second train. It's so common in these incidents. And they mean Long Beach Ave, not Blvd.
And I've been wondering what can be done about the train horns on the blue line. I was on a train one night a week or two ago and the T/O pressed the train horn for perhaps 80% of the length of the ROW between Washington and Artesia. It seemed like it would be so disruptive to the people that live along the line. And this T/O didn't always used to do this. My guess was that he was in an accident recently, but who knows?
There is absolutely no way that this would be tolerated on the gold line or Expo Phase 2 (or Phase 1 for that matter). But with the blue line continuing to have these types of accidents they can't really quiet the horns. Unfortunately maybe it's time to look at slowing the trains down. Something needs to be done to make the intersections safer and I don't know what else it could be.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 0:12:54 GMT -8
Something needs to be done to make the intersections safer and I don't know what else it could be. Actually it's quite simple. If they put pedestrian gates like in the Gold and Expo Lines, it would eliminate such pedestrian fatalities. Horns hardly help with the safety -- they are merely a CPUC requirement. Speed is not the real issue either. The train must have been doing around 15 MPH at the Vernon crossing because of the station. The problem with the Blue Line is that it was designed without pedestrian gates. There were also no four-quadrant gates initially. On top of that you have poorly designed crossings from the freight days, with four tracks, such as where this accident happened. Some pedestrians get confused at the tracks, especially older and mentally unhealthy ones and not-so-athletic ones will have difficulty avoiding coming trains. Looking at the Google street view, it appears that they put a single pedestrian gate at this crossing, instead of four. This probably increases the confusion of pedestrians and contributes to such accidents. So, in principle, with around $50 million dollars worth of safety improvement, the Blue Line can be made virtually "deathproof." Redundancy in safety is the only way to be safe. So, death-proof all the crossings by putting pedestrian gates and better signals, building barriers to direct pedestrian and auto flow, etc. And, finally, another thing that is redundant, a movie poster, but it was a good horror movie and it fits the post. LOL
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 28, 2009 0:15:40 GMT -8
Yet another pedestrain killed at the Vernon crossing. Despite the presence of a station there (so the trains are going slower) and crossing gates and lights, it seems like someone is killed there once a year. Nothing will prevent suicides (even subways are an easy suicide at platform, unless you have glass wall and gates on the platforms, but people find a way...), but these accidents should NOT keep happening. I believe most are either due to confusion due to the 4 tracks (2 for freight) and poor signage, or due to two trains passing. The pedestrian waits for one train to pass, but then is hit by the other while crossing without looking the other way, due to the other train being hidden by the first. Almost all these deaths could be prevented by 1) pedestrian gates that close and open automatically 2) quad gates on the roadway (to prevent cars and pedestrians from walking around the single gates) and 3) better signs and auditory warnings if 2 trains are passing. The Gold Line and many commuter rail systems (which are largely at grade, so you cross the tracks at the platform) have these features and are very safe. I still think the blue line is safer than driving. It has a rate of only 1 death per 36 million trips, or 1 death per 250 million passenger miles, and no fatalities to train passengers, compared to 1 death per 100 million passenger miles for driving overall in California, including lots of rural and highway miles. I'm sure the death rate per mile for driving in the neighborhoods around the blue line is much higher. (Reference: cacrash.org/fvmtcnty05.html). However, the improvements needed to prevent ALMOST ALL accidental deaths would only cost a few million dollars. The State or County should pay Metro to fix these crossings, seeing that this is a public safety issue. It is frustrating that the Eastside and Pasadena Gold Lines get nice quad gates and other crossing infrastructure, while the blue line does not have the necessary gates even at 55 mph crossings where they are plainly needed.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 28, 2009 0:18:28 GMT -8
Bluelineshawn, I believe the FRA regulations about using horns say that you can be quieter if the crossing is better. So, good quad gates and pedestrian gates at every grade crossing would reduce (though not completely eliminate) the noise. I think they would still use bells and such, but not the loud horns, or at least they would not be required to sound the horn. Grade separations mean no horns at all, but I don't see that happening for the blue line unless ridership is more like 300,000 a day rather than 80,000. Maybe when we run out of oil in 10 years our priorities will change.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 28, 2009 3:50:48 GMT -8
I don't buy into the fact that pedestrian gates will "death proof" the crossing (people may see the train pass by and start to go around the gates to save time), but if they installed one pedestrian gate, why didn't they install four? It's the same with Florence Station, there's only one pedestrian gate, lol. They attempted to address the problem at Vernon Station. www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-06-blue-line-usat_x.htmHere's a picture of it: www.flickr.com/photos/guacamole/2692188552/Also, here's a video where someone clearly goes around the one pedestrian gate at Vernon Station after a train has passed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh-YB5G4pgwHere's another scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8LMP6HAGHMWhat was happening here is that a freight train was blocking the way East for over an hour according to the video. Do those tracks really serve that many customers? I thought the Alameda Corridor made it obsolete?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 11:48:54 GMT -8
No, that's not true. He is not going around a down pedestrian gate. That's because there is no pedestrian gate at all there. If it's the same point as the currently present single pedestrian gate, that means it wasn't installed at the time of the video. Same problem in the second video. People can approach and freely interact with the trains because there are no pedestrian gates or fences. While this is fine for street-running light-rail like the Eastside Gold Line or Phoenix Line, it's not fine for such private rights-of-way. That's because with street-running light-rail, the trains work like buses and they integrate into the existing street-signal system. The disadvantage is the low speed. With private rights-of-way such as this, things can be complicated for the pedestrians, with the wide right-of-way, four tracks, and confusing crossings. Yes, you can death-proof these crossings. Just build (1) four-quadrant auto and pedestrian gates everywhere and build (2) fences and barriers to prevent pedestrians from walking into the right-of-way or going around the gates. It's simple to do, perhaps not too cheap, but it will work, and it will fix the reputation of the Blue Line's and Metro's.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 28, 2009 13:58:28 GMT -8
The blue line doesn't have pedestrian gates (except maybe at Florence), but IIRC many of the crossarms block both the street and the sidewalk effectively making it a pedestrian gate. Again IIRC Metrolink does the same thing. If I'm stating the obvious it's because I can't access those videos to see what you're looking at.
But if pedestrian gates will help why haven't they been installed? Regardless of law, if safety changes are made to one line, shouldn't all of the lines get the same treatment? And if some lines or intersections are worse they should get more.
Also, trains will very often cross Vernon at faster than 15 mph. I'd say very often as fast as 30 mph. The same with Florence when headed southbound. Interestingly I'd say that trains enetr Florence faster when southbound than they do when NB even though there is no crossing NB. They usually slow way down immediately prior to the station when NB, but don't do that SB. Blue line trains can sometimes enter stations at a very high speed. Especially the stations between Washington and Del Amo.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 14:46:31 GMT -8
The blue line doesn't have pedestrian gates (except maybe at Florence), but IIRC many of the crossarms block both the street and the sidewalk effectively making it a pedestrian gate. Again IIRC Metrolink does the same thing. If I'm stating the obvious it's because I can't access those videos to see what you're looking at. But if pedestrian gates will help why haven't they been installed? Regardless of law, if safety changes are made to one line, shouldn't all of the lines get the same treatment? And if some lines or intersections are worse they should get more. Also, trains will very often cross Vernon at faster than 15 mph. I'd say very often as fast as 30 mph. The same with Florence when headed southbound. Interestingly I'd say that trains enetr Florence faster when southbound than they do when NB even though there is no crossing NB. They usually slow way down immediately prior to the station when NB, but don't do that SB. Blue line trains can sometimes enter stations at a very high speed. Especially the stations between Washington and Del Amo. You can clearly see in Google street view that the gates don't block the crosswalks for pedestrians on the north side of the crossing and there is a single pedestrian gate at the southwest side of the crossing: maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.003918,-118.243432&spn=0,359.99673&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.003918,-118.243432&panoid=QCpEsC0dGuPdwoVajd-Jjw&cbp=12,94.71,,0,7.81 Both four-quadrant auto and pedestrian gates must be installed at all Blue Line crossings along the private right-of-way section (that is excluding Downtown Los Angeles and Downtown Long Beach street-running sections). Also barriers and fences are needed as well to make the gates work. This would ensure that there would be no more pedestrian deaths. You made a good point that when new safety features are introduced in the new lines (the Pasadena Gold Line and Expo Line), similar old lines (the Blue Line) must be upgraded with the same new safety features.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 28, 2009 16:08:21 GMT -8
Gokhan, the guy in the video not only ignored the pedestrian gate but three other warning signals, the bells, the flashing red lights, and that stupid screen that's supposed to show that another train may be coming in the other direction. If this guy ignores signals regularly, he not only risks getting hit by a train, but by cars and trucks as well, which don't have gates or bells.
I believe that four-quadrant gates will reduce most auto accidents since people don't want to hit the gates with their cars and ding them. Pedestrians are far more nimble than vehicles. They will go under gates. They will go through swing gates. They will exploit crevices and cracks in the barriers. Where there are fences, they are already climbed over. Where there are gates, they are already circumvented.
Don't delude yourself that importing all the safety features from the Gold Line will eliminate all deaths. There is a stark contrast between the nearly 80,000 boardings per day on the Blue Line and the nearly 25,000 boardings per day on the Gold Line. Many of the crossings on the Gold Line are far less congested than the Blue Line. The fine safety record of the Gold Line is probably not so much a product of its safety features, but the fact that fewer people interact with it on a daily basis.
People take risks of their own free will (this is as true for the people of South Pasadena as it is for the people of South LA). They briefly weigh their ability to beat a train against the risk of getting hit, and decide to circumvent a barrier to save a insignificant amount of time. Many times they choose right, and escape unscathed. Some overestimate their abilities and pay the ultimate price. And they don't take risks just around trains, but they risk life, limb and fine jaywalking or speeding.
The vast majority of people are not walking around dumbstruck and unknowing of the risks of living in a big city. We take risks and when we get hurt we scream with our dying breaths, "I didn't know!" If we're pulverized into a bloody pulp, then our families do it for us.
The Booz Allen study cited literacy and language issues as one of the reasons there are so many accidents on the Blue Line. I don't buy it. There is something intuitive about a railroad crossing and their flashing red lights, warning bells and gates for those that have them. I believe that the people of South LA are smart enough to know the risks and some choose to ignore them of their own free will.
The only way to prevent the majority of deaths on the Blue Line is to grade separate it completely. You would only see a suicide every couple of years or so. Until then, people will continue to choose their own fate on all rail lines.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 16:22:14 GMT -8
Gokhan, the guy in the video not only ignored the pedestrian gate but three other warning signals, the bells, the flashing red lights, and that stupid screen that's supposed to show that another train may be coming in the other direction. If this guy ignores signals regularly, he not only risks getting hit by a train, but by cars and trucks as well, which don't have gates or bells. spokker, there is no pedestrian gate there. How could he ride his bicycle through a down pedestrian gate? You are not getting the point. Warning signals, whistles, bells, and lights are not the same as pedestrian gates and fences. Anybody, including you and I, can get distracted or confused and not obey the warning signals, but nobody can walk through a down pedestrian gate or a fence. Also, according to your boardings logic, we should have had 90*25,000/80,000 = 30 deaths with the Gold Line. Safety has nothing to do with the number of boardings. There are at-grade light-rail lines elsewhere in the world that carry 300,000 people a day without a single death.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 28, 2009 16:32:10 GMT -8
Gokhan, I think the amount of deaths would be reduced, but you would not eliminate all deaths, and the Blue Line would still output a good number of corpses. It isn't just the amount of boardings that's different, but the kinds of roads that the Gold Line interacts with. The Gold Line crossings are ghost towns compared to the Blue Line. How does the train hit anybody when there's nobody to hit? The pedestrian gates on the Gold Line also have swing gates in the event of an emergency. All of these are very easily circumvented. Since they have swing gates anyway, I think something like this would be better, though the guy who took the photo is complaining about it. All of your magic safety features don't prevent things like this either. But no, everybody is innocent, distracted and confused, meandering through life like Goofy.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 16:48:53 GMT -8
Gokhan, I think the amount of deaths would be reduced, but you would not eliminate all deaths, and the Blue Line would still output a good number of corpses. It isn't just the amount of boardings that's different, but the kinds of roads that the Gold Line interacts with. The Gold Line crossings are ghost towns compared to the Blue Line. How does the train hit anybody when there's nobody to hit? The pedestrian gates on the Gold Line also have swing gates in the event of an emergency. All of these are very easily circumvented. Since they have swing gates anyway, I think something like this would be better, though the guy who took the photo is complaining about it. All of your magic safety features don't prevent things like this either. But no, everybody is innocent, distracted and confused, meandering through life like Goofy. It's true that you can never entirely eliminate accidents. Deathproof doesn't mean 100% death proof, just as shatterproof, waterproof, etc. don't mean 100% proof. But if we could have very rare deaths instead of ten deaths per year as we are having now, I would consider it practically deathproof. It's also true that more the people interact with the line, more there will be accidents. (But it's not true that the Pasadena area is a ghost town -- there are still a lot of people there using the crossings.) But installing pedestrian gates and fences would make it virtually impossible for anyone to interface with the trains. This would in turn make the accidents virtually impossible. Again, the point is that we can't make anything 100% safe, no matter what we do, regardless of whether we grade-separate or not. Someone is going to end up falling off a platform or getting caught by a door even on a subway. Or they might even end up wandering into a tunnel or touching the third rail. But we need to include crucial safety features. We can't blame everyone for not following the signs or warnings. Cars can swerve around people and can brake but the trains can't do that. On top of that, people are not as familiar with the trains as they are with cars, and we have complicated, poorly designed grade crossings. That's accidents waiting because there will always be human error. But installing fences and gates would practically eliminate the human error and the source of the accidents.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 28, 2009 16:52:01 GMT -8
I think we both agree that it would be an improvement and it should be done, I guess we differ on how much of a difference it would make.
But since we agree that it should be done anyway, there's no point arguing. Though I like to argue.
At the end of the day, I think our culture coddles people and leads them to believe that nothing that happens to them in life is their fault. I think that people would be far more careful in their daily lives if they knew they would not be able to sue and settle out of a court for a million dollars if the accident was their fault. The system is so broken that for a while people were fake falling in supermarkets to sue the owners. It's not as prevalent anymore since supermarkets now carry logs that prove they sweep the floor every 30 damn minutes. In any case, whatever happened to being a stupid ass who falls down a lot? It's always someone else's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 28, 2009 17:19:36 GMT -8
Well, as I said above, there is street-running light-rail, which is found in many places. It's not much different than buses and doesn't require gates to increase the safety. Also, it would be difficult to install gates on a narrow street. But the problem is it's like a bus and it's slow.
What we have in Los Angeles is an unusual form of light-rail, where it's more like a commuter train. The light-rail trains run in private rights-of-way like a commuter train does. In that sense the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines are basically Metrolink with electric trains. The advantage is that, unlike street-running light-rail, it's super-fast. It's basically rapid transit, not any slower than a subway.
You can't ensure safety of such commuter trains like the Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines, unless you design the crossings carefully and isolate the pedestrians and autos by four-quadrant pedestrian and auto gates. This is needed because of the population density and the speed and frequency of the trains. This wasn't done for the Blue Line, but it was done for the Pasadena Gold Line, and it's being done for the Expo Line. As a result the Pasadena Gold Line is very safe and the Expo Line will be very safe as well.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 28, 2009 17:43:36 GMT -8
Will the Expo Line have pedestrian gates? I'm willing to trudge through documents and threads to find it, but do you have any designs or concept art of the Expo crossings readily available?
|
|