|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 10, 2008 15:54:37 GMT -8
We might reflect as to why there originally wasn't, and now there always is, a police presence at these hearings. No one likes a bully.
|
|
joequality
Junior Member
Bitte, ein Bit!
Posts: 88
|
Post by joequality on Jun 10, 2008 16:05:48 GMT -8
These two guys behind me were laughing at and trashing the older woman who spoke up for the bicyclists. Then "Jay" of West LA council or something agreed with them how the Expo will be the worst thing since it will increase traffic. I guess they didn't understand the Expo people are trained professionals who know more than these armchair urban planners.
It's sad how some of those wealthy people have such ignorance, selfishness, and a closed mind.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 16:17:13 GMT -8
Yes, joequality, everyone in the room acted like an expert in urban planning and traffic engineering last night.
This shows how democracy can lead to self-destruction of a community. In Islamic countries democracy leads to Islamic fascism, like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. Here it is leading to "NIMBY fascism."
The people who mocked the lady who spoke for the bike path don't realize that the bike and pedestrian trail is the most important component of the "transit parkway." Without the trail the Expo Line would be a Blue Line. With the trail you would get an Orange Line with trains.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2008 16:41:10 GMT -8
Anyway, any thoughts about the particular grade-crossings in the ROW between Overland and Barrington?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 17:28:44 GMT -8
Since when do you need a degree in rail transportation to know that crossing gates have an adverse impact on traffic? As I said to so many of you via email, when the Expo Authority first stated that Venice didn't have the width to fit light rail at-grade, you do a disservice to "transit advocacy" when such verifiable untruths are presented and you say nothing - let alone endorse the results - and I'm not even for the bloody diversion or at-grade rail there! If all those who spend so much time on this issue could spend half the time discussing the issues and challenging Metro/Expo to be honest and respectful of the communities, instead of fixating on tactics and personalities of those who themselves are responding to tactics and personalities, they just might be a better agency! But that's not the goal here. It's to just help Metro continue making poor decisions by giving them the "cover they need to do what they want." Those two statements were conflicting? I was pointing out your hypocrisy and metrocenter was pointing out your NIMBY attitude (and your complete loss of credibility to everyone in the transit community). We all know your deal, and you are going after something impossible. Some would call it you trying to kill the line, while I would call it you being a NIMBY. They are not conflicting. Perhaps that's because you've done too much postulating on what you THINK the position and goals of our organization are, instead of actually reading what they are and our basis. And the "transit community" lost it's credibility the day it advocated against any possible change to the Farmdale crossing. Friends 4 Expo and Darrell Clarke began losing it's credibility with me the day the Chief of Staff of a major politician asked for the organizations help at the Farmdale Crossing and others, and they said, "No!" "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."We might reflect as to why there originally wasn't, and now there always is, a police presence at these hearings. No one likes a bully.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 18:14:33 GMT -8
Anyway, any thoughts about the particular grade-crossings in the ROW between Overland and Barrington? The most important element of the environmental study is the Metro's ridership model, which has only recently been approved by FTA. The authority needs to study all configurations with the ridership model and see how much the grade separation at various crossings changes the ridership and travel time. Once these numbers are produced, the final analysis is to calculate the FTA cost-effectiveness rating, which is the total (including every person in the city and every transit mode) travel-time savings over transportation-systems management divided by the cost. The more the FTA cost-effectiveness rating is the better, which also determines if the project will qualify for federal funding or not. Grade separation leads to increased ridership and faster travel, as well as faster cross-traffic (the cars), therefore more travel-time savings for the riders of the trains and cars. But since it also makes the project more expensive, there is a tradeoff. Once all configurations are studied, the configuration with the maximum FTA cost-effectivenes rating is found, and it's recommended in the draft environmental study as a locally preferred alternative. So, if the authority has done the study correctly and the result is at-grade rail, that means that grade separation will not benefit the project substantially, and it will lower the FTA cost-effectiveness rating of the project. Note that FTA encourages grade separation if it improves the FTA cost-effectiveness rating. Grade-separating Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington, and Centinela would increase the project cost for Phase 2 by about 50%. Since they were recommended at-grade, I am assuming that the travel-time savings increased less than that with the grade separation, hoping that the study and the ridership model are both correct.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 18:23:31 GMT -8
Grade-separating Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington, and Centinela would increase the project cost for Phase 2 by about 50%. Seriously man I really do believe you pull these numbers out of thin air. But this is how the process works. Say something unfounded and ridiculous, post it everywhere, soon it morphs into "the truth," thereby Friends 4 Expo endorses Metro's recommendations "because otherwise it would increase project cost by 50%" and anyone who's for that must just want to kill the project and is an anti-rail NIMBY.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 10, 2008 18:43:43 GMT -8
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Are you comparing yourself to Jesus now? Oh my, now you've gone and become delusional. You haven't even allowed the possibility that you're wrong about this.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 10, 2008 18:58:48 GMT -8
Are you comparing yourself to Jesus now? Oh my, now you've gone and become delusional. You haven't even allowed the possibility that you're wrong about this. Tony, this is getting a little ridiculous now. Are you really arguing that by changing the design to below grade from Figueroa to La Brea, no lives and accidents will be prevented, the line would not operate faster (leading to more ridership), traffic would not disrupted less, among other mitigations? Because I've been really clear stating that people will be hit and kiled, the line will be much slower, traffic will be disrupted, and only those that are truly "delusional" have suggested otherwise. And no I'm not comparing myself to Jesus, I'm quoting the Bible man! Is that really the first time you've seen someone quote a biblical scripture? Wow. But now Gohkan will say, "He thinks he's Jesus" will post it in multiple forums, it will become "truth" same show different day. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 19:03:28 GMT -8
Seriously man I really do believe you pull these numbers out of thin air. Use $40 million for each overpass (this includes inflation) and $30 million for each elevated station: you have $260 million. If you also throw in Bagley, you have $300 million. I believe this is roughly half of a mostly at-grade Phase 2. I don't get paid for providing the most accurate numbers, nor can I do so with the reosurces I have. Check with the authority if you need 100% accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 10, 2008 19:06:27 GMT -8
But now Gohkan will say, "He thinks he's Jesus" will post it in multiple forums, it will become "truth" same show different day. LOL! Really? Maybe I should do so then. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 10, 2008 19:07:00 GMT -8
I'm only arguing that any accidents would not be the fault of the trains. There are people here who can argue about the impacts better than I can anyway.
You know exactly what you did, don't play dumb. The way you used it was to say that you're like Jesus in this whole situation and we're all like the Jews. Kind of a bold claim on your part, and I hope that you're berated for it.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 11, 2008 7:24:26 GMT -8
I'm only arguing that any accidents would not be the fault of the trains. That is exactly the point. When you create a rail line, you must implement reasonable safety measures appropriate to the surroundings. These measures include flashing lights, warning signs, bells, and gates. In certain situations (e.g., blind curves) additional mitigation will be needed. Again, the key here is to be reasonable and prevent avoidable accidents. Once this is done, it is up to the public to respect the danger of violating the numerous warnings near the tracks. There is no such thing as a risk-free project. Freeway on-ramps are risky: homeless people could wander onto one and start walking around the freeway. Subway tunnels are risky: kids might decide to use it as a shortcut. Elevated rail is risky: a tagger might decide to climb up there to tag. Every set of statistics will show that at-grade light rail results in more deaths and injuries than grade-separated rail. Of course this is true: there are more opportunities for people to try and illegally cross when the rail is at-grade. That doesn't mean that at-grade rail should never be used. That means that people need to take care near rail lines. Just as they need to take care near busy streets, intersections and freeway ramps.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 11, 2008 7:53:33 GMT -8
Grade-separating Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington, and Centinela would increase the project cost for Phase 2 by about 50%. Seriously man I really do believe you pull these numbers out of thin air. But this is how the process works. Say something unfounded and ridiculous, post it everywhere, soon it morphs into "the truth," . Hey Damien the above statement you made is what I feel your doing...all the time!! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 11, 2008 8:29:26 GMT -8
Here's an interesting little story for you to chew on....
Things that make you go hhmmm…
The Ant and the Grasshopper OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself.
------------------------------------------- MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Obama gets his old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008
Now this sounds like Damien and his bunch, working feverishly to kill the Expo-line, which when they killed the line they will press for no trains of any kind and go after the dreaded and hated Blue Line. In their attempts to destroy the Blue-Line they’ll make statements like “it’s to dam bad for the 75,000 daily riders of the Blue Line. There just going to have to get off their asses and drive their cars to work. Forget that the gas is over $7.00 a gallon! We will mold Los Angeles into a new auto-utopia. A new world that was brought forth by the struggle of the classes. Which Fix Expo lead the way to reform all light rail systems in Los Angeles County. We are now the Ruling class! We sing a new song “God bless us NIMBY’s “we got our way! No trains, no nothing, but cars, and cars, today!
Moral of this story don’t trust a Nimby, because thatT irritating bunch want to return to a 1970’s type of Los Angeles.
Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 11, 2008 9:26:01 GMT -8
^ Well as a card-carrying leftist myself, I don't think it's that cut-and-dried.
The left does tend to focus on social responsibility. And sometimes, when taken to the extreme, this tendency tends to downplay the need for individual responsibility.
However, don't let the right-wing off the hook so easily. It has its own set of tools - intimidation, the politics of fear, corporate law, and religion-based legislation - that it uses to enforce its own idea of morality and 'protect people from themselves'.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 11, 2008 10:13:03 GMT -8
The following are the street-rail crossings along the ROW for Phase II, east of Olympic. Bold means the MTA has approved a grade separation.
Olympic/ROW Cloverfield near Olympic 26th near Olympic Stewart near Olympic Centinela/Exposition Bundy/Exposition Barrington/Exposition Pico/Gateway/Exposition Sawtelle/Exposition Sepulveda/Exposition Military/Exposition Westwood/Exposition Overland/ROW Motor/ROW National/Palms/Exposition Bagley/Exposition Venice/Robertson
It does appear that the stretch between the 405 and the 10 (which includes Cheviot Hills, BTW) got the shaft. Westwood and Overland have a lot of traffic. People at the meeting were not happy, and I can't say I totally blame them.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 11, 2008 10:44:21 GMT -8
It does appear that the stretch between the 405 and the 10 (which includes Cheviot Hills, BTW) got the shaft. No one is getting the shaft, metrocenter. I will be on Damien's side this time because that's the exact word you used that infuriated him at the meeting and caused him to start yelling at you. These kind of words and phrases don't belong in this or other transit discussions. I would correct your list as follows: Olympic/Cloverfield/ROW26th near Olympic Stewart near Olympic Centinela/Exposition Bundy/ExpositionBarrington/Exposition Pico/Gateway/Sawtelle/ExpositionSepulveda/Exposition Military/Exposition Westwood/Exposition Overland/ROW Bagley/Exposition Here bold face indicates grade separation and the rest are at-grade. In this list I've combined adjacent crossings, which cannot be dealed separately because of insufficient distance, into one. I also deleted Motor and Palms/National because these are naturally (and existingly) grade-separated because of topology. In fact building at-grade rail there would be more expensive than grade separation, because it would involve building retainings walls. I also removed Venice/Robertson because it's in Phase 1. I don't see any unfair treatment in the above list, with only three grade separations present and fairly distributed. Note also that the area to the west of I-405 is unusually congested. This is not any different than La Brea, La Cienega, and Venice/Robertson getting grade separation in Phase 1, being in an unusually congested area. In a similar way to Phase 2, the rest of Phase 1 was built at-grade, from La Brea to Figureoa, because the traffic didn't indicate grade separation in that area.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 11, 2008 10:59:35 GMT -8
I'm only arguing that any accidents would not be the fault of the trains. There are people here who can argue about the impacts better than I can anyway. You know exactly what you did, don't play dumb. The way you used it was to say that you're like Jesus in this whole situation and we're all like the Jews. Kind of a bold claim on your part, and I hope that you're berated for it. I think that you're reading too much into it. That quote is often repeated to indicate objection to a morally wrong action. I read it to mean that he thinks that a transit advocates position against the grade separation is morally wrong, not that he personally was being betrayed.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 11, 2008 11:08:03 GMT -8
Seriously man I really do believe you pull these numbers out of thin air. But this is how the process works. Say something unfounded and ridiculous, post it everywhere, soon it morphs into "the truth," . Hey Damien the above statement you made is what I feel your doing...all the time!! Sincerely The Roadtrainer Actually I think that he has been fairly consistent in either citing sources or stating that he is extrapolating from other areas. Most everyone has from what I've seen although I've skipped some of the posts. Lately the arguments on both sides have been rehashing old issues and have sometimes been a little childish.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 11, 2008 12:03:45 GMT -8
It does appear that the stretch between the 405 and the 10 (which includes Cheviot Hills, BTW) got the shaft. No one is getting the shaft, metrocenter. I will be on Damien's side this time because that's the exact word you used that infuriated him at the meeting and caused him to start yelling at you. These kind of words and phrases don't belong in this or other transit discussions. I'm not sure what's wrong with the term 'the shaft', but sure, I can avoid the term if you want. I don't see any unfair treatment in the above list, with only three grade separations present and fairly distributed. My argument wasn't about fairness, but traffic/need. I guess I wasn't clear about that. Note also that the area to the west of I-405 is unusually congested. I agree. For that very reason, Barrington should be grade-separated. This is not any different than La Brea, La Cienega, and Venice/Robertson getting grade separation in Phase 1, being in an unusually congested area. In a similar way to Phase 2, the rest of Phase 1 was built at-grade, from La Brea to Figureoa, because the traffic didn't indicate grade separation in that area. I think Crenshaw should have been grade-separated. In a similar way, I think Westwood and Overland should be grade-separated, due to traffic. I certainly don't agree with everything the MTA decides. BTW, it's nice to know that we can disagree without resorting to personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 11, 2008 12:36:21 GMT -8
I have always thought that Crenshaw should have been grade-separated, but my understanding is that local input from the church favored at-grade crossing.
It is also my understanding that the LADOT favors grade separation for Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington and Centinela...and my own CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee favored those separations as well.
I certainly believe that of all the disputed Westside crossings, Overland MUST be grade-separated, and that although lots of alterations to parking and left turns can be done to make a case for at-grade crossing at Overland, it doesn't hold up in the long run for a better line.
Westwood and Sepulveda are adjacent to stations, as with Crenshaw, so the argument can be better made for at-grade crossings there. I'm not sure about Barrington, but I'm pretty sure that Centinela will be too heavily congested to justify anything but grade separation.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Jun 11, 2008 14:12:14 GMT -8
Without wishing to enter an interminable "fairness" argument, I do have a concern about Bagley. The volume of traffic at this point is not especially heavy. But, the crossing will immediately follow a freeway underpass. Automobile drivers may not expect to encounter crossing lights and gates.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Jun 11, 2008 15:10:24 GMT -8
Most of it phase II would use the ROW but would need some grade separated crossings in the ultrasensitive Cheviot area. And possibly an underground section in Downtown Santa Monica as the area is too dense. Santa Monica has already decided that it wants Expo at grade.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 11, 2008 16:45:56 GMT -8
That's unfortunate about Santa Monica wanting at-grade. They're treating this line as a trolley, instead of a true light rail line. Well...I guess the same can be said about the Blue Line in downtown Long Beach, which would be more effective as an underground line the last mile (for speed reasons).
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 11, 2008 19:04:34 GMT -8
That's unfortunate about Santa Monica wanting at-grade. They're treating this line as a trolley, instead of a true light rail line. Well...I guess the same can be said about the Blue Line in downtown Long Beach, which would be more effective as an underground line the last mile (for speed reasons). They are treating it like a "true light rail line", tracks in a dedicated street median with signal control like in ( click the links for photos) Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Eastside LA, Phoenix, Houston, etc. Santa Monica's new Land Use and Circulation Element Strategy Framework includes this explicit policy: D5.3 The City shall strongly encourage the Exposition light rail line to be at-grade in the Downtown and discourage the light rail above grade as this would negatively impact the quality and character of the street and Downtown. ("Santa Monica's Districts", page 3.4-12)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 11, 2008 20:16:50 GMT -8
Street running light rail in Santa Monica will be great for getting from one area in Santa Monica to another area in Santa Monica, but not so great for people commuting farther distances. Downtown Long Beach is walkable, but the section of the blue line that runs through there is far and away the slowest and most frustrating part of our "rapid" transit system. Since most commuters in LA generally commute relatively long distances I prefer grade separation and faster speeds as much as possible. I guess that I like street running as a tourist, but as a commuter I'd rather have it faster.
"Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Eastside LA, Phoenix, Houston, etc." are all very different cities from each other and very different from LA. How those cities design their transit shouldn't be a factor in our decisions. And besides Houston's light rail has had so many accidents that we probably shouldn't use that as a positive example to emulate. It also takes 30 minutes to travel 7 miles on Houston's light rail. Hopefully we're not paying over a billion dollars for that kind of speed.
And are you sure that Seattle is true light rail? It looks to me like they have a significant amount of grade separation on the downtown portions.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 11, 2008 20:48:41 GMT -8
They are treating it like a "true light rail line", tracks in a dedicated street median with signal control like in ( click the links for photos) Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Eastside LA, Phoenix, Houston, etc. Santa Monica's new Land Use and Circulation Element Strategy Framework includes this explicit policy: D5.3 The City shall strongly encourage the Exposition light rail line to be at-grade in the Downtown and discourage the light rail above grade as this would negatively impact the quality and character of the street and Downtown. ("Santa Monica's Districts", page 3.4-12) Sorry Darrell...this is LOS ANGELES. We're not a 3rd tier US city like that of Phoenix, Sacramento, San Jose, Sacramento, Houston, etc.... And San Francisco runs BART at full grade seperation, that's what our comparison to San Francisco should be, not Muni ("a train that acts like a bus"). I just did a recent east coast swing of DC, Philly, New York, and Boston. Me and a cousin took the rails everywhere, we even took Amtrak between every city. There was 100% grade seperation everywhere. We didn't have to worry about stopping for cars to make left turns on any line. I want the same in LA, but unfortunately, the powers that be differ. I have to agree with Damien on many points. At first I was angered that this discussion is taking place during construction, however, after much thought, we should be building 5 miles of great grade seperated rail, not 10 miles of half-a**ed rail. After my east coast swing to cities that COMPARE to Los Angeles, all rail should be grade seperated. If Boston and Philly can do it, what about Los Angeles? Why do we treat rail as 2nd class? But, I do agree with some of y'all, that this push for grade seperation should have been done during the EIR & Planning process, not in the construction phase. We have a chance to do it NOW for Phase II of Expo Line and the future Crenshaw Line. We need full grade seperation on our rail lines! I want our lines to average over 50K riders/day. Also, grade seperation will allow better use of our land (i.e mid to high density construction near rail stations). We are Los Angeles, and shouldn't copy what's been done in Salt Lake, Denver, San Jose, etc... We need to copy Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. I try to take Metro whenever I have the chance. Living in downtown does give me a great chance. However, I cringe taking the Blue Line purely b/c of that Flower/Washington segment. The travel between Grand Station & Flower station can sometimes vary from 2 to 7 minutes. No joke. I can't tell you the amount of times I've had to wait for cars turning left. I can imagine the same sitution happening on Vermont, Western, Crenshaw, Overland, Centinela, Sepulveda, Farmdale, etc... with the future Expo Line. You think that will attract riders? It's really frustrating when you're in a train and you have to wait for cars to turn left. Who has priority now? If Santa Monica wants trains to go between distances IN Santa Monica, they should invest in their own trolley system, not utilize the light rail.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 11, 2008 21:14:05 GMT -8
"Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Eastside LA, Phoenix, Houston, etc." are all very different cities from each other and very different from LA. Eastside LA is very different from LA? Important to note is the Colorado section is only a mile long, also not very different from the alternative median section along Olympic. And besides Houston's light rail has had so many accidents that we probably shouldn't use that as a positive example to emulate. Houston's tracks share left turn lanes with cars in at least a couple of places, and even cross lanes from one side of a street to the other, both unlike anything proposed for Expo. Not to mention the general reputation of Houston drivers bumping into each other. And are you sure that Seattle is true light rail? It looks to me like they have a significant amount of grade separation on the downtown portions. Seattle has some of everything ( map). Downtown (Westlake to Chinatown stations) the tracks share the existing bus tunnel. South of downtown (Stadium and SoDo stations) is at-grade and aerial, then tunnels through Beacon Hill. The middle half (Mount Baker to Ranier Beach stations) is at-grade in the median of Martin Luther King Way through Ranier Valley. Then the south end is aerial along a couple of freeways to SEATAC airport, surprisingly with only one intermediate station (Tukwila).
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 11, 2008 21:42:30 GMT -8
Why do we only consider the US when talking about light rail? The main way to get people onto transit is not with speed (as that has not been enough for the Gold Line) but LOCATION! The Gold Line gets great speed but so what? Those stations along the route don't take you anywhere. There are only a few well-placed stations.
The second is transit dependency. Look at the Blue Line. I haven't been on it for a while, and I don't remember it having any places that I really wanted to go (except for Long Beach), yet it gets great ridership despite the very long trip (and the slow section in Long Beach). This goes in line with parking availability, but that seems to be pretty consistent along the line (decreasing parking along our system would increase ridership across the board). Decreasing availability of cars will get people on transit (explaining how high gas prices have made transit numbers ride).
Speed is not nearly the most important factor. Speed will not get people out of their cars (unless the speed advantage is enormous).
|
|