|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 21, 2009 21:56:52 GMT -8
Spokker, I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or being tongue-in-cheek on this issue. I can't think of anyone more than Gokhan who has made himself clear on this issue...but I suppose the points that Gokhan will explain do bear repeating.
As for Santa Monica, I'll go on record as saying it's their decision, but I really don't like the slowdown, perceived or otherwise, that might in any way hinder ridership to the end (or beginning, depending on how you look at it) of the line. Not in the slightest way do I even want to approach the example we have in Downtown Long Beach, where serious riders jump on in North Long Beach with their cars.
Perception can easily overcome reality, but if the reputation for the line being too darn slow at the western terminus (remember: the Authority did NOT want the Colorado routing, even though it's cheaper than the original Olympic routing), we WILL see more commuters from Santa Monica jump in their cars to either Exposition/Sepulveda or Venice/Robertson and park THERE to jump on the train and save themselves a lot of time and hassle.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 21, 2009 21:59:45 GMT -8
I understand his general viewpoint, I'm just hoping he provides a more detailed explanation of his philosophy when it comes to rail.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2009 9:12:55 GMT -8
When too many people have a voice on a project, a worse design comes as the outcome at the end. Representative government is a messy thing. It has its benefits and its drawbacks. But as a citizen, I like very much having my voice heard. Santa Monica has every right to determine its urban design policies. And frankly, IMO they've done a better job in that department than just about any other city in Southern California. Also: to be fair, Colorado Avenue east of 4th Street is not exactly a pedestrian thoroughfare. So as long as the station area is ped-friendly, this shouldn't be too much of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2009 9:57:06 GMT -8
Grade-separated construction is significantly more expensive than at-grade construction. What you get for this cost is a nearly idealized system, in terms of speed, reliability, safety, and (in the case of subway) immunity from noise and visual impacts.
It really is as simple as that. If money grew on trees, we would have far more subways in L.A.
Since money does not grow on trees, we have to consider:
* In what situations will speed and reliability be compromised by going at-grade? * In what situations does safety become an issue? * In what situations do noise and visual impacts become a problem?
Some will say: let's just go all subway, to avoid any negative impacts. This point of view ignores cost in context. (For instance, subway makes no sense in Azusa.)
Others will say: let's just go at-grade everywhere, to keep costs low. This point of view ignores negative impacts in context. (For instance, at-grade makes no sense in the Financial District of downtown L.A.)
I think Metro's grade-crossing policy, overall, is pretty good. Personally, I'd probably allow more grade separations. But the approach is good because it provides objective criteria for when to grade separate.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2009 12:40:34 GMT -8
I understand his general viewpoint, I'm just hoping he provides a more detailed explanation of his philosophy when it comes to rail. This is a complicated matter. Los Angeles is a suburban city with many distributed neighborhoods, mostly single-family homes. This is thanks to Pacific Electric, which let people commute before the freeways were built in the 50s and 60s. Some of these abandoned rights-of-way are preserved, others not. In my opinion it's best to build at-grade rail with crossing gates where such rights-of-way exist, Expo Line being one of them. There is a common misconception that gated at-grade light-rail is slower than subway, which was just repeated by you and metrocenter. This is absolutely false, as the trains do not slow down at the gated crossings, known as signal preemption. Moreover they travel at 55 MPH. Effectively it's faster than a subway, as the passenger immediately access the stations, as opposed to going several stories up and down through a maze of hallways and escalators, saving them 5 - 10 minutes per trip. What is slow is median- or side-running light-rail with no signal priority, such as the Eastside Gold Line. In that case you get no speed advantage over a bus. In fact an agressive bus driver will get you there faster. If there is signal priority, which in my opinion should always be provided, median-running light-rail is faster than a bus or a rapid bus. Then, the question of safety and traffic impacts come to in place. You can't obviously run a train at 55 MPH through any intersection. La Brea and La Cienega are examples of such intersections. Although, there are stations there; so, the trains wouldn't be riding faster than 15 MPH. But putting crossing gates on such busy crossings might impact the traffic too negatively. Question of safety mostly circles around whether the cars backup across the tracks or other intersections. Traffic studies muct ensure that this never happens. This is what the studies at Overland and Sepulveda have found. After adding the extra lanes and connecting the nearby traffic signals to the crossing gates, this can be prevented at these intersections. Metro grade-crossing policy is mainly about the traffic impacts, and, in fact, contrary to common belief, it favors cars to trains, and it's very conservative about allowing at-grade crossings. When Metro grade-crossing policy is satisfied, there are virtually no impacts to the traffic. I don't always advocate at-grade. For example for the Downtown Connector I advocated a full subway, and my design for the Little Tokyo subway configuration has now been adopted by Metro. There are places you don't want to run rapid transit at-grade, such as Downtowns. The problem with the grade separation is the cost, visual impacts, and operational impacts. When you put too many grade separations on a light-rail line, you get a roller coaster, which slows down the line and gives the passengers an unpleasant ride. Building elevated lines might not be favorable in all areas. Building subways takes away the light-rail experience -- you are not in sunny Southern California anymore when you are riding in a tunnel. Ideally the grade separation would be done as it's done in a freeway. This is by building large trenches or embankments. Then you could have rapid transit under the sun, just like on a freeway, and not affecting the nearby communities that much. But you need about 200 ft of right-of-way to do that and we are no longer in 1925 -- so, we don't have the land anymore. So, in summary, we will have light-rail whenever possible, elevated rail where not possible, and subway where that's not possible. Certainly, light-rail is the best for your buck if it can be done. After the Expo Line, we will be building Gold Line to Ontario, Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood, Harbor Subdivision Line as a loop, and hopefully many more.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 22, 2009 13:32:58 GMT -8
There is a common misconception that gated at-grade light-rail is slower than subway, which was just repeated by you and metrocenter. I did not say that. I said that a grade-separated system is a "nearly idealized system" in terms of speed, reliability, etc. At-grade rail, on the other hand, varies widely in it's capabilities, depending on many conditions. Put another way, at-grade rail is capable of the same speeds as grade-separated rail only if it meets certain criteria. This is a big "only if". Expo is a good example. The line is very fast along much of its route. This is because the ROW, crossing streets at right angles, provides a very nearly idealized route over much of its length. So clearly there is no need to grade-separate the line along the ROW. However, on the same line, there are parts of Expo that would definitely be faster if they were aerial or in a tunnel. An example is the stretch of Expo along Flower Street. There is no way it will be as fast at-grade as it would be in a tunnel. If it were as fast as a subway, running at 55 MPH, it would be a very unsafe line. This is not to say the difference in speed along Flower Street justifies the cost of grade separation. I don't think it does. But clearly there will be some tradeoff.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 22, 2009 14:44:55 GMT -8
I like light rail, but light rail does have it's limitations. One of those is capacity. The blue line is fairly close to capacity at rush hour in the direction of the preponderance of commutes. Had it been built as heavy rail it wouldn't even be close to capacity. Of course that would have been 3 times what was spent to build the line (although heavy rail subway cars are much cheaper than lrv's). For the same money as a completely grade separated line we could probably have parallel lines down Vermont and Crenshaw. It's really hard to justify building heavy rail, when for the same money you can build 3 light rail lines that can operate within capacity.
However Metro doesn't really build typical light rail lines. For a variety of reasons - often political - our lines have more grade separation than normal. We get these hybrid lines that are more expensive than light rail, but cheaper than a subway/aerial. We have high platforms but still use lrv's with operating cabs at each end of each car.
The other issue that I have with light rail is reliability. Conditions on the street can't be controlled and trains are often delayed for relatively minor incidents. For example, the blue line can be delayed when there is an accident next to the tracks. Even when trains aren't involved the LAFD will sometimes shut down the line while they are responding because they need to bring in equipment and so on. Sometimes the delays are minor and sometimes major. Wait until Expo opens and we'll see how these little delays can add up and effect both lines.
Los Angeles is a suburban city with many distributed neighborhoods, mostly single-family homes.
That is very true, but that has been changing fairly rapidly. The city of LA has added about 400,000 people in the last 20 years and the last 10 have seen a desire to increase density, especially around transit lines. It is very possible that should all of the stars align that LA could add 1 million people over the next 20 years when many of the proposed lines are completed.
Transit lines need to be designed along those lines since that it what LA wants to have happen. But this is not an exact science. If I were to find out that in 20 years Crenshaw will have 25,000 riders per day or 100,000 riders per day neither number would really surprise me. But if Expo doesn't have 75,000 riders per day within 3 years after opening to Santa Monica I will be very surprised. 10 years from now if trains become as popular as I think that they will, we'll see more of a focus on heavy rail instead of light rail because light rail lines won't have the capacity to grow with the city.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2009 16:28:00 GMT -8
I did not say that. I said that a grade-separated system is a "nearly idealized system" in terms of speed, reliability, etc. That's fine -- just trying to clarify misconceptions about grade separation. Looking at the Phase 2 plans, it confirms that grade separation causes trains to travel slower. This is because of the turtle-shaped ramps required for these structures. The Bundy, Centinela, and Pico/Sawtelle bridges are causing the speed to be reduced to 35 MPH at these locations. Bummer! Therefore, if you can build a gated crossing, it's best for the speed -- it's faster than a bridge or trench, which have ramps that slow down the trains substantially.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 22, 2009 17:01:45 GMT -8
I like light rail, but light rail does have it's limitations. One of those is capacity. The blue line is fairly close to capacity at rush hour in the direction of the preponderance of commutes. Had it been built as heavy rail it wouldn't even be close to capacity. Of course that would have been 3 times what was spent to build the line (although heavy rail subway cars are much cheaper than lrv's). Also keep in mind that the rush hour ridership and capacity limit is in a heavy peak direction (Downtown in AM, Long Beach in PM). Once we start adding more north-south lines into Downtown, I believe these things will change and adjust and relieve demand on just the only North-South corridor we have. Not only that when you have such a large pot of money and a lot of communities wanting their lines in their part of the region or down their corridor, that reall y complicates the need for our transit network. Well the High platform was more due to the fact that at the time there was no standard or reliable Light Rail vehicle that had low floor. Had we had it earlier, I believe our rail system would look a lot different and have the potential to be even more flexible in its operation. Even if the Expo Line were to get 75,000 riders a day to Santa Monica, that number doesn't worry me because if I know that it's ridership pattern is equal in both directions unlike the Blue Line, then we'd have more capacity to spare. However, I doubt it will immediately go towards Heavy rail, I think what we will see is more of a demand to continue building more lines (LRT, HRT even Bus only lanes) parallel to the busier ones to grow the transit network. Imagine what will happen when the Wilshire subway to Westwood would go over capacity, what would we have to do? Will the sky fall becuase our Wilshire Subway is over-capacity? Will our transit network fall to pieces because of it? NO!We'd need to be diligent and plan and build a line parallel to that, personally I don't see an issue with that, in fact that is an encouraging thing because that means it will need more $$$ and provide more political will across the entire county to build more of it.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 22, 2009 22:08:42 GMT -8
I originally posted this as a reply on Streetsblog, but perhaps Damien will respond here:
Mr. Goodmon, I believe your original vision from a few years back (http://getlamoving.org/) was for grade-separated rail lines along Expo, Crenshaw, and all the other planned and future corridors. My understanding is that you are opposed to surface light rail, but would be in favor of these routes as subways.
Damien, could you give us any more insight into your perfect solution, considering current political and economic realities? Would you rather that Expo never be operated? Would you like it to open only to Culver City and then stop? Would you support spending 1 billion to grade separate the crossings on the first segment, if it meant we had to delay the Crenshaw line or Regional Connector or Wilshire subway?
Will you support the Crenshaw line if it is mainly grade-separated, but has a couple of grade crossings and surface stations? If you will not settle for that, would you support building the tunneled segment from Wilshire to Expo first?
Which heavy rail lines should get funded right now? Which should be studied right now, considering the money we have available this year?
Damien, I would love to see the "Get LA Moving" plan built, and much much more, over the next 10 years. But that will take new federal, state and local commitments, and several years of study, even if the voters and politicians would get us the money to do it. What should we prioritize right now?
Joseph E Long Beach, CA
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 22, 2009 22:43:44 GMT -8
New York Subway speeds: Per Google Transit, the subway from central Brookly to central Manhattan (10 miles) takes 28 minutes, or 21 mph. If you go from Brooklyn all the way to Harlem, your average speed drops to 16 mph. North-east bronx to Midtown on the 5 subway averages 19 mph (38 minutes, 12 miles). So New York's heavy rail seems to average between 16 and 21 mph, depending on whether they stations are close (1/4 to 1/2 mile in manhattan and downtown brooklyn) or "far" (1/2 to 3/4 mile in the Bronx). Of note, some of these speeds may be on "express" trains, I am not that well versed in the MTA's routes. Local routes thru Manhattan may be even slower, 14 mph or so. So 55 mph light rail with stations spaced every 1 mile is quite a bit faster than late 1800's metro rail with closely-spaced stations. On the other hand, BART achieves higher max speeds and averages 25 mph from the Embarcadero to Colma, about 10 miles. Crossing the bay, you can get from the Embarcadero to Berkeley in 31 minutes (about 12 miles) for 24 mph, and Embarcadero to Fremont is a blazing 35 mph. But should BART even be grade-separated in Richmond and Fremont? For comparison, the Richmond to San Jose segment of the Capitol Corridor, an largely at-grade commuter railway, averages 34 mph. It stops much less frequently than BART, but also is not electrified. And the Caltrain system manages to stop every 1 to 2 miles, despite many grade crossings, and still average 31 mph (from San Bruno to San Jose) without electrification. If electrified, it could average close to 45 mph. So the speed of a rail system is not the most important characteristic for success. The New York subways have huge ridership because they have stations right next to dense residential and dense employement areas, entertainment and cultural centers, and in all parts of the city. Despite being as slow as a good Light Rail line, the subway is plenty fast in comparison to Manhattan traffic. Meanwhile, Caltrain has merely respectable ridership, because the town centers along the line are nowhere near the density of Manhattan, and there is only a couple of other good transit connections available along the route. A 45 minute subway ride in Manhattan can get you to the home address of 5 million people, or the office of address of 10 million workers, even though you will not have traveled more than 16 miles. Meanwhile, a 45 minute trip in the Bay Area could take you most of the way to San Jose, but will only get you to a couple million homes and a couple millions businesses, best-case. Check out this map for 45 minute trip areas on BART versus the Washtington Metro, Seattle's buses, and Portlands buses and rail: www.walkscore.com/transit-map.phpThe Bay Area would look better on that map if bus routes were included as well, but you can clearly see that fast trips on BART are of little use when large areas of the city are just too far away by transit, despite fast speeds. Los Angeles currently suffers from this same problem. We need more development near stations, but we may also need something faster than subways. California needs High Speed Rail, not just long-distance, but for interurban and commuter tranist.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 22, 2009 23:29:03 GMT -8
Bluelineshaw, did you really mean to say "heavy rail subway cars are much cheaper than lRV's [Light Rail Vehicles]"? I though subway cars were more expensive, or at least that an 4-car subway train was more expensive than an (equivalent-capacity) 3-car light rail vehicle. How much is the cost savings?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 22, 2009 23:29:20 GMT -8
Come on guys, let's forget about light-rail or subway and let's build maglev everywhere throughout the county. It's pretty darn fast and it will be all grade-separated. I will draw the getlamoving map version 2. Or we could call it getlalevitating. LOL
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 23, 2009 0:01:12 GMT -8
Come on, Gokkan, Maglev is vaporware.
Gondolas are the real transit technology of the future.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2009 0:03:25 GMT -8
You mean these? But I'm scared to ride them.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 23, 2009 0:12:41 GMT -8
Yes that's what I meant to say. And I wouldn't say that a 3-car lrv train is equivalent to a 4-car subway type train. Our lrv's are 87' long and 9' wide (783 ft2) . The subway cars are 75' long and 10' wide (750 ft2). Then think of how each lrv has an operating cab at each end taking up passenger space while IINM subway cars only have one cab for every two cars . The capacities are similar depending on how they arrange the seating. The operating cabs also make lrv's expensive. I think that they are around 50% more on average.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 23, 2009 1:13:09 GMT -8
You make a lot of good points. I didn't mean to say that the New York Subway was bad. It's slow, decrepit and it's falling apart, but it gets the job done. Sort of like the Blue Line? And BART is grade-separated all the way out to the boonies. That's insane, and why it costs so goddamn much. Revolting against BART construction is going out of style among Bay Area transit advocates.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 23, 2009 11:03:15 GMT -8
There is a common misconception that gated at-grade light-rail is slower than subway, which was just repeated by you and metrocenter. This is absolutely false, as the trains do not slow down at the gated crossings, known as signal preemption. Moreover they travel at 55 MPH. Effectively it's faster than a subway, as the passenger immediately access the stations, as opposed to going several stories up and down through a maze of hallways and escalators, saving them 5 - 10 minutes per trip. How many gated at grade crossing with trains traveling at 55 MPH will Expo LRT have, Gokhan? Frankly I can't think of any. I think it's safe to say such a crossing would be the exception not the rule because of the many restrictions of at grade LRT. It doesnt' take 10 minutes, I doubt even 5, to get to your average subway station platform from the portal. Further, Walking in a concourse at a larger subway station might be the same distance as walking along the sidewalk/crosswalk to get to the at grade platform. The difference being that your walking under the cars instead of next to them. Also, commuters will be going "up OR down" not "up AND down" to get to the platform. When you put too many grade separations on a light-rail line, you get a roller coaster, which slows down the line and gives the passengers an unpleasant ride. Passengers will not be be experiencing the G-forces of a roller coaster nor the height changes. The slopes are going to be pretty gentle. Less then many of the hills people encounter in their cars routinely. Frankly, I'm looking forward to this aspect. I think it's going to be pleasant experience, not scary or nauseating like a roller coaster.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2009 11:12:39 GMT -8
How many gated at grade crossing with trains traveling at 55 MPH will Expo LRT have, Gokhan? Frankly I can't think of any. I think it's safe to say such a crossing would be the exception not the rule because of the many restrictions of at grade LRT. On top of my head: Arlington, 7th, 11th, Buckingham, Hauser, Bagley, Overland (45 MPH because of the curve), Military, Barrington, and Stewart. The rest have either stations or are grade-separated (not counting the street-running segments). The problem is that the trains need to slow down to 35 MPH at these ramps.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Dec 23, 2009 18:30:15 GMT -8
On top of my head: Arlington, 7th, 11th, Buckingham, Hauser, Bagley, Overland (45 MPH because of the curve), Military, Barrington, and Stewart. The rest have either stations or are grade-separated (not counting the street-running segments). I'm skeptical about 55 mph but that's really great. By the way, Hauser currently dead ends at the alignment. There are stations on the ramps so they need to slow down to 0 MPH.
|
|
|
Post by travelman on Dec 23, 2009 19:37:00 GMT -8
I like the Sears Store as the end of the line for Expo 2, but why is the Purple line terminus several blocks away? We are creating yet another gap in lines again... Why can't the Purple turn south for the several blocks to the Sears Location and maybe push the prior station back a block or two to restring the station spacing..
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 23, 2009 20:57:10 GMT -8
On top of my head: Arlington, 7th, 11th, Buckingham, Hauser, Bagley, Overland (45 MPH because of the curve), Military, Barrington, and Stewart. The rest have either stations or are grade-separated (not counting the street-running segments). I'm skeptical about 55 mph but that's really great. By the way, Hauser currently dead ends at the alignment. There are stations on the ramps so they need to slow down to 0 MPH. There is going to be a four-quadrant-gate crossing at Hauser, primarily for access to the industrial driveways there. You're right that some of these crossings may not reach 55 MPH due to technical issues, but I will give them at least 45 MPH. For example the distance between Military Ave and the Sepulveda Station might be barely enough for the trains to come to a stop from 55 MPH with service acceleration. But the trains are certainly allowed to go 55 MPH through these gated crossings, except at Overland, where the curve limits the speed to 45 MPH. In fact, technically, the speed limit is (or more precisely the speed of light c = 671 million MPH) according to CPUC regulations, but Metro doesn't operate them faster than 55 MPH. (If tracks permit it, it would be OK to go around 65 MPH in secluded sections.) You are also right that it's great when you have an elevated station. This way you use the gravitational potential energy to slow down the trains to the station and speed up the trains from the station, saving a lot of electricity and wear in the brake pads and electric motors and the gear coupling. But there is no station at Centinela for example.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 23, 2009 23:51:11 GMT -8
"Why is the Purple line terminus several blocks away?..." I can see this being a problem for connecting bus services (buses will need to get to both the Purple line and Aqua line station), but otherwise not a problem. Very, very few people will need to transfer from the Exposition Blvd line to the Wilshire line. Look at the map and put in some directions on the Metro Trip Planner. It will almost always make more sense to take a north/south bus from Wilshire to Expo/Colorado than it would to go north-west, transfer, and go back north-east (for example) on the rail lines.
If you are coming from South LA, for example, stopping in Santa Monica to go to the Beach, and then heading to Westwood to see a movie, you will have to walk 1/4 mile at some point... but the beach is that far anyway.
So the real problem could be connecting buses. Currently, Santa Monica operates about 7 lines that go thru downtown SM along 4th street, stopping at both Wilshire and Colorado/Olympic. There are also about 5 routes that go down Santa Monica Blvd and fail miss both of the other streets... but most of these are local east-west routes that parallel the future rail lines, and are not likely places for transfers. I think the gap will be fine, for now.
If anything, Expo should be arranged with the potential to turn north-west and continue down 4th, if Santa Monica wants to connect the two lines. It makes less sense for the Wilshire line to turn south right at the beach, considering the geometry, and the expense of building subways!
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Dec 23, 2009 23:56:42 GMT -8
Re: "You are also right that it's great when you have an elevated station. This way you use the gravitational potential energy to slow down the trains to the station and speed up the trains from the station"
This is another reason why shallow subway stations would be better. The tracks can dip down at either side of the station, to save energy and maintenance, as you mentioned, and to keep the tunnels deep enough for utilities and building foundations, etc, overhead. Better yet, instead of having multiple levels of escalators and mezanines (like at Wilshire/Vermont), I wish we could build stations just one level below the surface, with the station and ticket machines at ground level, and the platforms just below the surface. This would greatly reduce the time it takes to get up and down (especially with small children or heavy luggage) and make stations more pleasant, with plenty of light.
In the same way, trenched stations are preferable to deep tunnels, all else being equal.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 24, 2009 9:01:20 GMT -8
I like the Sears Store as the end of the line for Expo 2, but why is the Purple line terminus several blocks away? We are creating yet another gap in lines again... Why can't the Purple turn south for the several blocks to the Sears Location and maybe push the prior station back a block or two to restring the station spacing.. Subway to Santa Monica is decades, decades away from realization. A lot can change about it in the FEIR, including the location of a Santa Monica terminus station. The priority is to get it to UCLA or a little further to West LA, not to Santa Monica. I don't think we will see an FEIR for a Santa Monica segment of the subway anytime soon. Much that I want it to be done as soon as possible, we will be lucky if they can find the money and extend it to UCLA or further to West LA in 20 years from now. Ideally the Expo Line would also be extended southeast to meat with the Green Line, just like the Pacific Electric version of it did, but this would also be many decades away, unless all of a sudden transit money pours. Another problem is that the Expo tracks will dead-end at the freeway, making a continuous extension difficult.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 24, 2009 13:30:05 GMT -8
Gokhan is entirely right!!! There is NO high priority whatsoever at this time for the Purple Line to anywhere west of the Santa Monica/Los Angeles border, if that far. Just getting it to poke its nose west of the 405 freeway is really all that's desired at this time.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 30, 2009 17:08:14 GMT -8
The Phase 2 Final EIR includes two design options in Santa Monica worth discussing here. 1. Colorado Parking Retention Design Option In response to comments from the City of Santa Monica, a Colorado Parking Retention Design Option was added to preserve on-street parking along Colorado Avenue. Under this design option, the width of the LRT trackway would be reduced by using track spacing less than 14 feet and the sidewalks would be less than 10 feet along selected portions of Colorado Avenue. Further, the Overhead Contact System (OCS) poles would be located within the sidewalks on either side of the street (versus in the center of the tracks), requiring the contact wires to span the entire street overhead. With the reduction in track spacing and sidewalk width, as well as placement of the OCS poles within the sidewalks, it may be possible to retain on-street parking along Colorado Avenue on both the north and south sides of the street. CPUC approval would be required for the reduction in track spacing. The Colorado Parking Retention Design Option is shown in Appendix E (Plans and Profiles), Drawing TX-001. (page 2-33) Following are a sketch of the original Colorado design option and section drawings of both. An important consideration is that Colorado today is generally only 55 feet curb-to-curb (measured at 10th and 12th Streets). That and the existing street trees could be retained if the proposed 15-foot lane were narrowed. Conversely, the significant sidewalk and parkway narrowing for parking spaces is hard to support. 2. Colorado/4th Parallel Platform and South Side Parking Design Option In consultation with the City of Santa Monica, a Colorado/4th Parallel Platform and South Side Parking Design Option was added to the FEIR for the terminal station. Under this design option, the proposed Colorado/4th Street Station would be located on the same commercial block, but parallel to 4th Street. In addition, the track geometry leading to the station would be modified between the terminus and approximately 11th Street. With this track reconfiguration, the onstreet parking would be retained on the south side of Colorado Avenue rather than the north side, between 5th Street and Lincoln Boulevard. The proposed platforms would be at-grade and would have a two-platform/three-track or a one-platform/three-track configuration. No parking would be built for the Colorado/4th Street Station under this design option, but instead, the approximate 110 parking space demand would be accommodated through the City of Santa Monica’s Downtown Parking Program. The Colorado/4th Parallel Platform and South Side Parking Design Option is shown in Appendix E (Plans and Profiles), Drawing T-013A and Drawing TX-001 and Appendix F (Station Plans and Maintenance Facility), Drawing A-200A. (page 2-34) This new design option (second plan below) for the Colorado terminus station is interesting because it could be more compatible with future extension south along the Lincoln Blvd. corridor. It also appears to retain the existing office building on the southwest corner of 5th and Colorado. I’d not heard of it until the Final EIR.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 30, 2009 18:31:05 GMT -8
Having OCS poles along the sidewalk with the support wires then crossing the street seems like a bad idea. I know there are places where this has to be done, San Francisco is a good example, but it raises more problems than it solves. Presumable these wires will have to be higher than the minimum required bridge clearance, so that any/all emergency vehicles will be able to get around. But even then, it will be a constraint on any construction along the street from now till hell freezes over. Anyone doing any kind of demolition and/or construction will find themselves constrained if they have to work around a pole that is 6 feet away from the point where a building meets the sidewalk.
If you have the ROW width, which it looks like they do, I think you lose the parking on one side of the street instead.
RT
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 30, 2009 19:24:55 GMT -8
I do not support the sidewalk-poles option with the track-spacing narrowing. The whole idea of the Colorado option was to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. This option narrows down the sidewalks to nothing and places frequently spaced poles in the middle of them. Also, narrowing the track-spacing is potentially dangerous if someone is caught between two trains.
I do not support the parallel-platform option for the 4th St Station either. The original option has a nice pedestrian plaza but this option has rail tracks where the pedestrian plaza will be. It kind of reduces the terminus-station, with a nice pedestrian plaza, feeling. It also gets too far from 5th St. Perhaps most importantly the sharp 90-degree turn would cause a lot of rail and wheel wear and produce sharp squeals, and the trains would have to slow down to 3 MPH or so, adding another 30 seconds to the travel time. Also, this option doesn't have any significant advantage over the original design as far as a future Lincoln Blvd or Main St extension is concerned.
It looks like all the options the City of Santa Monica have come up with so far are intended to squeeze the Expo Line as much as possible -- narrower tracks, sharp 90-degree turns, smaller pedestrian plazas, smaller sidewalks, etc., etc. I don't understand this mentality, as Santa Monica used to be previously very pro-light-rail, and this is now not helping the Expo Line.
|
|
davek
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by davek on Dec 31, 2009 12:15:46 GMT -8
Some of the comments about the New York subway system appear to be from those from those unfamiliar with it. "Average" speeds are not indicative of overall performance because the system is a combination of local trains (which are quite slow) and express trains (which are quite fast). It is possible to travel from midtown Manhattan to outer Queens in a very few minutes on the "7" (rush hour express), "E" or "F", or to the Bronx on the "D", "4" or "5", or Brooklyn on the "A', "2" or "5". The adept New York commuter can move from a local to an express or vice versa and shorten their trip significantly.
It would be nice if we could build our system in a way that would enable express running. Sadly, it just is cost-prohibitive.
|
|