saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 17, 2008 23:18:25 GMT -8
Regarding speed this will be determined by signal sync. With signal sync the Expo Line could reach Santa Monica from 7th/Metro in 30 minutes, which is as fast as a fully grade-separated line. I drive along Exposition Blvd from La Brea to Figureoa a lot, and the wait at red lights is only a few minutes. The Flower St should be very good as well. Therefore, with no signal sync at all, I would guess the worst-case scenario is 45 minutes. But is there any reason for them not to sync the lights to trains? Roland Genick, the world-famous urban architect who has designed Expo Phase 1 told me a good story from his hometown Köln, Germany: He said that in Köln there is a boulevard equivalent of Wilshire Blvd, which leads to Downtown. They built a light-rail line that runs in the median of the boulevard and they synced the lights along. As a result, the cars were benefiting from the sync and driving alongside the trains, and the capacity and speed of the boulevard increased so much that Downtown Köln was flooded with cars and it was impossible to find parking. The solution: they kept the sync for the train tracks and they deliberately got rid of the sync for the automobile lanes. Things were back to normal again and everybody started to take the light-rail. He said that the problem with the Expo Line is the grade separation, which is very, very expensive, that is driving up the cost through the roof. He then said both La Brea and La Cienega, as well as all other crossings, should have been built at-grade. He said that Metro 2003 grade-separation policy for light-rail is only to benefit the automobile traffic and is really unneeded and unnecessary. Without grade separation, he said, we could build much more than we are currently building. So, this is all about mentality, Roland says. Is grade separation actually transit advocacy or automobile advocacy? I personally think grade separation is pedestrian advocacy not automobile advocacy. I don't think people really care if a car gets crushed, its more about the people in that car.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 18, 2008 0:28:42 GMT -8
Is grade separation actually transit advocacy or automobile advocacy? Excellent quote to remember! I personally think grade separation is pedestrian advocacy not automobile advocacy. I don't think people really care if a car gets crushed, its more about the people in that car. Motor vehicles killed 32,092 drivers and passengers, 4,784 pedestrians, and 773 bicyclists in the U.S. in 2006 ( FARS). Meanwhile, here are three views of pedestrians with light rail: Grade-separated stations are much less convenient for pedestrians to access.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 18, 2008 0:42:43 GMT -8
I personally think grade separation is pedestrian advocacy not automobile advocacy. I don't think people really care if a car gets crushed, its more about the people in that car. Also, people in that car aren't pedestrians. People on the street are pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 18, 2008 12:10:22 GMT -8
Grade-separated stations are much less convenient for pedestrians to access. grade separated stations dont have to be like that, that station is an extreme example. also with that logic all the redline stations are inferior design. as most of them have several hundred steps.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jun 18, 2008 12:24:51 GMT -8
Grade-separated stations are much less convenient for pedestrians to access. Yeah..I don't understand the purpose of this. If anything, I prefer this station, b/c there is no interaction between the rail lines and the streets (less chance for collision, train delays, speed restrictions, etc...). With your logic, the subway stations, which are 100% grade seperated, are not convenient??? Metro rail lines that will criss-cross the westside should not be built like trolley standards. If i'm not mistaken, the Expo Line is being promoted as an alternative to the I-10? Aren't I right? Yet, we would prefer at-grade alignments for something that's marketed to get you between SM & DT within xx minutes??
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Jun 18, 2008 12:47:55 GMT -8
I will say that the grade separated crossings at La Brea and La Cienega will be difficult for people because according to Roland Genik the Expo Designer, MTA has not made provisions for installing escalators at those stations.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 18, 2008 13:16:05 GMT -8
I will say that the grade separated crossings at La Brea and La Cienega will be difficult for people because according to Roland Genik the Expo Designer, MTA has not made provisions for installing escalators at those stations. they will have elevators correct? isnt that a legal requirement?
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Jun 18, 2008 14:24:11 GMT -8
they will have elevators correct? isnt that a legal requirement? Yes, but If I remember from the Drawings it will only be at one end so Some users will have to cross the street.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 18, 2008 15:52:01 GMT -8
The point is that light-rail stations are more convenient to access than elevated or subway stations. There is no claim that light-rail is superior to heavy-rail or other types of grade-separated rail. But this accessibility and visibility of light-rail also helps it create more pedestrian-friendly environments.
In addition light-rail can also help create pedestrian-friendly environments by removing automobile lanes, as in the one-mile-long section of Colorado Blvd in that alternative for Downtwon Santa Monica.
There is also no claim that light-rail should be the only form of transit mode that should be built. For example the Purple and Red Line extensions are equally important but since they require about $400 - $500 million per mile, it will be long years before they could be built. The choice for light-rail, heavy-rail, or bus is made according to geography, including the amount of right-of-way that exists (minimum 30 ft for light-rail [more for stations], 10 ft on the ground and 30 ft in the air for elevated grade-separated rail [more for stations], 130 ft for natural-trench/embankment grade-separated rail, the Expo Line right-of-way being 30 - 100 ft), surrounding environment both above and below ground, population, traffic, cost, etc.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 19, 2008 1:13:41 GMT -8
I personally think grade separation is pedestrian advocacy not automobile advocacy. I don't think people really care if a car gets crushed, its more about the people in that car. Also, people in that car aren't pedestrians. People on the street are pedestrians. haha... I suppose you are right. Regardless grade separated is about advocacy of people not cars. I think elevators are a small inconvenience when you are talking about creating a more effective transit system and saving peoples lives.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 19, 2008 1:47:01 GMT -8
Is grade separation actually transit advocacy or automobile advocacy? Excellent quote to remember! I personally think grade separation is pedestrian advocacy not automobile advocacy. I don't think people really care if a car gets crushed, its more about the people in that car. Motor vehicles killed 32,092 drivers and passengers, 4,784 pedestrians, and 773 bicyclists in the U.S. in 2006 ( FARS). Meanwhile, here are three views of pedestrians with light rail: Grade-separated stations are much less convenient for pedestrians to access. If this isn't spin I don't know what is. These pictures are a so biased. I don't think the inconvenience of steps is an adequate argument against the safety and speed benefits of grade separated. I'll take a subbed toe any day over a game of chicken with an on coming train.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jun 19, 2008 7:07:56 GMT -8
As has been said before: grade separation does not save time over gated crossings and if it is allowed to run at full speed. As for the safety, if you can make it across a street then you can make it across railroad tracks with flashing lights and gates and horns.
|
|
fredcamino
New Member
Los Angeles Public Transit Lifestyle
Posts: 28
|
Post by fredcamino on Jun 19, 2008 8:42:00 GMT -8
I pray we aren't spending money to grade separate just to save you from playing chicken with an oncoming train. Here's an easy way to save you from death by playing chicken with an oncoming train: don't do it.
I still do not understand how a train crossing is more dangerous than any street crossing? Trains are on a fixed track, pass by at regular intervals, are driven by professionals, and generally there's not more than two tracks, which is a much shorter distance to cross than 4 auto lanes with any number of cars crossing at random intervals and random speeds each driven by a unique driver who's mind state and level of awareness is anything but insured.
|
|
fredcamino
New Member
Los Angeles Public Transit Lifestyle
Posts: 28
|
Post by fredcamino on Jun 19, 2008 8:49:02 GMT -8
Regarding speed this will be determined by signal sync. With signal sync the Expo Line could reach Santa Monica from 7th/Metro in 30 minutes, which is as fast as a fully grade-separated line. I drive along Exposition Blvd from La Brea to Figureoa a lot, and the wait at red lights is only a few minutes. The Flower St should be very good as well. Therefore, with no signal sync at all, I would guess the worst-case scenario is 45 minutes. But is there any reason for them not to sync the lights to trains? Roland Genick, the world-famous urban architect who has designed Expo Phase 1 told me a good story from his hometown Köln, Germany: He said that in Köln there is a boulevard equivalent of Wilshire Blvd, which leads to Downtown. They built a light-rail line that runs in the median of the boulevard and they synced the lights along. As a result, the cars were benefiting from the sync and driving alongside the trains, and the capacity and speed of the boulevard increased so much that Downtown Köln was flooded with cars and it was impossible to find parking. The solution: they kept the sync for the train tracks and they deliberately got rid of the sync for the automobile lanes. Things were back to normal again and everybody started to take the light-rail. He said that the problem with the Expo Line is the grade separation, which is very, very expensive, that is driving up the cost through the roof. He then said both La Brea and La Cienega, as well as all other crossings, should have been built at-grade. He said that Metro 2003 grade-separation policy for light-rail is only to benefit the automobile traffic and is really unneeded and unnecessary. Without grade separation, he said, we could build much more than we are currently building. So, this is all about mentality, Roland says. Is grade separation actually transit advocacy or automobile advocacy? Great post. And so true. If transit advocates are truly worried about safety, all efforts would be made not the grade separate the transit (which increases costs, makes access less convenient, etc.) but to remove cars from the grade. Since the vast majority of accidents and deaths are caused by the rail/auto interaction, simply getting rid of the car (not moving the train) makes the most sense for a transit advocate to promote. Streets could become pedestrian/bicycle only enclaves with easily accessible at-grade transit running down the middle. And the cars? f**k 'em. We're transit advocates, remember.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 20, 2008 4:03:58 GMT -8
I pray we aren't spending money to grade separate just to save you from playing chicken with an oncoming train. Here's an easy way to save you from death by playing chicken with an oncoming train: don't do it. I still do not understand how a train crossing is more dangerous than any street crossing? Trains are on a fixed track, pass by at regular intervals, are driven by professionals, and generally there's not more than two tracks, which is a much shorter distance to cross than 4 auto lanes with any number of cars crossing at random intervals and random speeds each driven by a unique driver who's mind state and level of awareness is anything but insured. hahaha...Ok I'll promise not to play chicken with a train. I think the idea is if we are going to introduce a new element into the neighborhood, I would hope that it is going to make the environment safer, or at least make it as safe as possible. Based on all the positives associated with grade separated lines the added safety plus the ability to travel at faster speeds, I think its a far better solution for a route that is going through neighborhoods. If this route is not grade separated I believe it is going to face the same speed restrictions that gold line has.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 20, 2008 4:06:54 GMT -8
As has been said before: grade separation does not save time over gated crossings and if it is allowed to run at full speed. As for the safety, if you can make it across a street then you can make it across railroad tracks with flashing lights and gates and horns. The restrictions the community is going to put on an at-grade rail line are going to dramatically effect line speed. The speeds of the gold line already show this in effect.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 20, 2008 7:44:28 GMT -8
If this route is not grade separated I believe it is going to face the same speed restrictions that gold line has. Grade-separated At-grade doesn't automatically mean slower trains. It's important to to distinguish (1) at-grade crossings of major streets, (2) at-grade crossings of clusters of small residential streets, and (3) street running. In this order, they create increasing limitations on train speed. The Gold Line has lots of (2) and (3), especially in the Highland Park area. This means that the trains are forced to run much slower, to prevent accidents with cars and pedestrians. The Expo Line in the ROW, on the other hand, has very little (2) and (3): most crossings will be highly-visible crossings at major streets. For instance, in Cheviot Hills, the ROW is physically separated from the neighborhood streets, except for the bigger crossings at Overland, Westwood, etc. These bigger crossings are easier to control, with lights, bells and gates. Therefore, the train doesn't have to move too slowly through these intersections. It's important not to over-generalize about at-grade operations, and fail to consider the important differences between different environments.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 20, 2008 7:56:06 GMT -8
^ Having said this, I think the crossing at Farmdale Avenue will have to be dealt with in one of the following ways:
(1) Close off the street, thereby eliminating the crossing. (2) Make the crossing a highly-visible crossing, like you would see at a major boulevard crossing. (3) Grade-separate the train from the street. (4) Slow the train down to a crawl as it goes through the neighborhood.
As I've argued before, (3) is unnecessarily expensive, and (4) has too great of an operational impact.
That leaves (1) and (2), either of which I support.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jun 20, 2008 10:57:01 GMT -8
(1) Close off the street, thereby eliminating the crossing. (2) Make the crossing a highly-visible crossing, like you would see at a major boulevard crossing. That leaves (1) and (2), either of which I support. what would be the con of closing the street? this seams to be a very simple fix to the issue. the only one i can think of is people needing to get to the other side, that could be done with a ped bridge or at most a gate/barn door
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 20, 2008 11:25:58 GMT -8
If this route is not grade separated I believe it is going to face the same speed restrictions that gold line has. Grade-separated doesn't automatically mean slower trains. It's important to to distinguish (1) at-grade crossings of major streets, (2) at-grade crossings of clusters of small residential streets, and (3) street running. In this order, they create increasing limitations on train speed. The Gold Line has lots of (2) and (3), especially in the Highland Park area. This means that the trains are forced to run much slower, to prevent accidents with cars and pedestrians. The Expo Line in the ROW, on the other hand, has very little (2) and (3): most crossings will be highly-visible crossings at major streets. For instance, in Cheviot Hills, the ROW is physically separated from the neighborhood streets, except for the bigger crossings at Overland, Westwood, etc. These bigger crossings are easier to control, with lights, bells and gates. Therefore, the train doesn't have to move too slowly through these intersections. It's important not to over-generalize about at-grade operations, and fail to consider the important differences between different environments. I think that you mean grade separated doesn't necessarily mean faster trains? Or maybe the inverse. Either way I disagree. Grade separated means faster 100% of the time. Plus with grade separation you don't have to deal with accidents that happen at the intersection that don't have anything to do with the trains. That happens from time to time of Washington where cars will have an accident and disrupt blue line service when trains aren't even involved.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 20, 2008 13:53:51 GMT -8
I think that you mean grade separated doesn't necessarily mean faster trains? Yes, my mistake, I meant to say "At-grade doesn't necessarily mean slower trains." I have now corrected. Either way I disagree. Grade separated means faster 100% of the time. Yes, we disagree. I have made my argument, above: crossings where rail is given complete priority will not increase train speed. Why would they?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 20, 2008 13:54:35 GMT -8
The open cut Memorial Park station platform is roughly the same number of "steps" from the street to the platform as it would be if the station were built at-grade with the pedestrian queuing area and ADA mandated ramps.
Incidentally, I'm a big believer in the elimination of the mezzanine level and shallow stations where possible (the below grade utilities and station location allows).
And yes, it is ridiculous to suggest the travel time savings are minimal, especially when compared to 35 mph and having the cross streets with high-levels of vehicular volume. The Blue Line with a mix of 35 and 55 mph running is 21 miles and takes 52 mins to travel end to end. 21 miles with a max speed of 64 mph between stations (the max speed of the Green Line) and that goes down to 35-40 minutes, with the actual number likely closer to 40 than 35 given the close proximity of the stations in Downtown LA and Long Beach. This is a region that for the most part has long commutes, so losing 5-15 mins on one line then 5-10 mins on another begins adding up and results in fewer riders/fewer cars off the road.
Green Line operates at 64 mph because it's totally grade separated. I don't know why there's a restriction, as I believe the trains can reach 75-80 mph. (Anyone know for fact the top speed of the vehicles?) There are several stretches where it would actually reach 75 or 80 (I can think of Norwalk to Lakewood, and Lakewood to Long Beach off the bat) resulting in travel time savings of 3-4 mins.
Additionally, to get to 55 mph requires crossing gates. Crossing gates pre-empt an intersection for typically 40-45 seconds when there's no station and the train is crossing at 55 mph and when its directly adjacent to a station it's typically 55-70 seconds. LADOT knows this, as does Polechronis, as does anyone whose been to a Blue or Gold Line station directly adjacent to a crossing with crossing gates, but what's Expo going to do, go say the crossing gates will be down 47-58% of the time at these high traffic volume streets in one breadth and then tout the project as a transportation enhancement in the next?
Like I've been saying for months now, any of these major streets without grade separation (Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda & Barrington) will get the same design and treatment as Crenshaw: signalized crossing with no crossing gates.
|
|
saadi
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by saadi on Jun 21, 2008 4:36:50 GMT -8
I think that you mean grade separated doesn't necessarily mean faster trains? Yes, my mistake, I meant to say "At-grade doesn't necessarily mean slower trains." I have now corrected. Either way I disagree. Grade separated means faster 100% of the time. Yes, we disagree. I have made my argument, above: crossings where rail is given complete priority will not increase train speed. Why would they? LIGHT RAIL IN LA largely AT-GRADE GOLD LINE average speed 15.83 mph largely AT-GRADE BLUE LINE average speed 24.19 mph all GRADE SEPARATED GREEN LINE average speed 35 mph The tendency is for community concern regarding train speeds and safety are higher with the expected arrival of an at-grade line vs. a grade separated line. As a result the likelihood of a line being slowed to temper these concerns is higher. The speed of an at-grade Expo line will in no way achieve speeds of the green line and it is doubtful that it would even achieve speeds of the blue line, because the blue line is going through industrial areas for much of its trip. I can't imagine the Expo line getting an average speed higher then 20 mph at best. As a result the best time in your wildest dreams for expo from santa monica to downtown will be 46 to 49 minutes (depending on it being route 1 cheviot hills or route 2 sepulveda). If you need to get to union station add another 9 minutes (for transfer and red line trip) on top of this making the trip at best 55 to 58 minutes. The transfer wait time lowers the lines average speed to roughly 18 mph. To make this line viable it would need to travel at green line speeds the only way that would be achieved is by slightly reducing the number of stations along the line and building it as grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 21, 2008 6:18:19 GMT -8
And as I think I've said here before, the importance of speed becomes even greater when there aren't major destination stations directly on the route. Between USC and Santa Monica all of the major activity/economic centers require shuttle service - increasing the total commute time of riders.
But saadi and others are inadvertently understanding why Phase 1 had such difficulty making it through the New Starts process, and why Phase 2 is/will have similar difficulty. Expo dropped their projected ridership from 43K to 27K overnight. That type of dip isn't just academic or even public relations, it's because they're now pushing Phase 2 through the New Starts process and have to produce more accurate numbers about the ridership projections and travel time of Phase 1.
FTA believed that the line would be too slow to attract the ridership to justify it's high capital cost in comparison to a busway. The only way to address this problem was to speed it up by making a greater investment in the project for grade separation. So, to put it simply, because MTA was too cheap to make the investment to bring about the speed to produce the ridership, they didn't qualify for any match from the feds, let alone the 50% match.
We may never know if Phase 1 were budgeted at $1.1-1.3 bill instead of $860 mil, whether we would have $320-650 million dollars of federal money in the project. But boy would I like to know.
Interesting fact #567 about the Expo Line: Expo Authority CEO Rick Thorpe has NEVER produced a project that has received New Starts funding.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 21, 2008 11:17:08 GMT -8
understanding why Phase 1 had such difficulty making it through the New Starts process, and why Phase 2 is/will have similar difficulty. When Expo Phase 1 went through the process they weren't going to get additional money due to them already having the East LA Gold Line getting New starts money within the same funding cycle. True, they did. But I always thought that 43K was dependant upon completing the entire line to Santa Monica. This also proves why such figures shouldn't be extrapolated based off old information because it leads to errors when other factors are neglected. I wonder why Portland's Light Rail has been getting 60-80% FTA funding matches lately and their lines serve fewer riders than ours and is 50% slower. Interesting, I think it has something to do with the fact that he's built many new start up systems that have performed well and have been built on time and on budget without federal money that those systems are now capable and strong candidates of recieving FTA New Starts funding. Confidence FTA lacked in LA due to the problems constructing the Red Line and the same confidence the LA needs to desperately gain back from FTA with other projects.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 21, 2008 13:00:29 GMT -8
When Expo Phase 1 went through the process they weren't going to get additional money due to them already having the East LA Gold Line getting New starts money within the same funding cycle. First, that just intuitively doesn't make sense: "We should bring the project online 18-24 months sooner instead of waiting and getting a 50% match." Plus, the additional time would have allowed them to complete the environmental review process for the entire corridor and possibly submit the line as one project. But really there's no need to speculate. One phone call to the FTA will explain that the Eastside LRT being in the funding cycle was not the reason the application was held up for 3 years. The 43K was for Phase 1 alone, assuming no Phase 2 would be built. I know you'll remember back to when the discussion about whether to dead end the line at La Cienega or the temporary Wesley station was taking place. The numbers being produced (39K for La Cienega) were all predicated on the line only operating to that point and that point alone. My guess would be speed is not as important to those Portland projects compared to those in Los Angeles. I don't doubt that he builds projects cheaply and typically on-time. My point is New Starts isn't just about an agency proving they have the competency to build on-time and on-budget, but to plan the line accordingly (station locations, alignment, travel speed, etc.) to deliver the ridership that justify the investment from the feds. And if our goal is to bring in billions of federal dollars to the region, we should have someone that has successfully navigated through the process, which is the gold standard, if you will, in public transportation.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 21, 2008 14:24:58 GMT -8
LIGHT RAIL IN LA largely AT-GRADE GOLD LINE average speed 15.83 mph largely AT-GRADE BLUE LINE average speed 24.19 mph all GRADE SEPARATED GREEN LINE average speed 35 mph The tendency is for community concern regarding train speeds and safety are higher with the expected arrival of an at-grade line vs. a grade separated line. As a result the likelihood of a line being slowed to temper these concerns is higher. The speed of an at-grade Expo line will in no way achieve speeds of the green line and it is doubtful that it would even achieve speeds of the blue line, because the blue line is going through industrial areas for much of its trip. I can't imagine the Expo line getting an average speed higher then 20 mph at best. As a result the best time in your wildest dreams for expo from santa monica to downtown will be 46 to 49 minutes (depending on it being route 1 cheviot hills or route 2 sepulveda). If you need to get to union station add another 9 minutes (for transfer and red line trip) on top of this making the trip at best 55 to 58 minutes. The transfer wait time lowers the lines average speed to roughly 18 mph. To make this line viable it would need to travel at green line speeds the only way that would be achieved is by slightly reducing the number of stations along the line and building it as grade separated. I just looked at my previous post and saw that the '94 Expo EIR showed with grade separations at every major intersection, depressed in residential areas, with a few crossing gates in industrial areas travel time was 37 minutes from Santa Monica to UNION STATION (not just 7th St. Metro). That's a travel speed of 27 mph. You probably get that down to 33 minutes (and up to 30 mph) with full grade separation (crossing gates restrict speed to 55 mph vs. 64 mph, which is the Green Line's max). However, keep in mind, especially when going through residential areas, even an elevated alignment could have speed restrictions to mitigate the noise and vibration down to legal levels. Thankfully, using economy of scale bored tunnel now costs essentially the same as elevated structures, and depending on the area, trenches. Also, "viable," is a terribly subjective term. I get what you're saying but there are people in this forum who spin that the Gold Line's ridership (24K riders per day) is good for a LRT, which of course is true, when it's compared to other LRT lines across the country. But evaluating "success" based on a national model that includes cities that are far smaller than ours is ridiculous. A fully grade separated Expo could serve spur lines to LAX and Westwood and be a corridor that serves 200-250K riders per day, which is undoubtedly an incredible success, worth every penny and converts a lot of drivers to mass transit users.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 21, 2008 20:42:09 GMT -8
I am as big a supporter as anyone of grade separation (when appropriate), but in all fairness I really don't think that we'd get a federal appropriation from THIS administration even if we had a fully-grade-separated line that went 55 mph.
I do not believe the fight for federal funds has much to do with Rick Thorpe at all (although I'll be the first to disagree with his decisions at times), and that Metro has had to scratch and claw for every federal dollar for every project for the last eight years or so.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 21, 2008 22:26:13 GMT -8
The open cut Memorial Park station platform is roughly the same number of "steps" from the street to the platform as it would be if the station were built at-grade with the pedestrian queuing area and ADA mandated ramps. Memorial Park station ramp switchbacks detail, above. Typical at-grade station ramp in South Pasadena, below. Others can judge whether these are " roughly the same". Like I've been saying for months now, any of these major streets without grade separation (Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda & Barrington) will get the same design and treatment as Crenshaw: signalized crossing with no crossing gates. The Expo Authority, with three traffic consultants, showed how to mitigate these gated crossings with an added traffic lane. Your standing to claim otherwise? largely AT-GRADE GOLD LINE average speed 15.83 mph The 13.7-mile Pasadena Gold Line is scheduled for 30 minutes northbound and 29 minutes southbound. That's a very-respectable average of 27.86 mph. Where do you get 15.83? We may never know if Phase 1 were budgeted at $1.1-1.3 bill instead of $860 mil, whether we would have $320-650 million dollars of federal money in the project. But boy would I like to know. We can know pretty well that less than 5 minutes faster for 50% more cost is a non-starter, based on other FTA-funded at-grade projects, NO projects in an extended trench, and the current Minneapolis-St. Paul experience having to remove a tunnel at the University of Minnesota. We do expect phase 1 to be the local match for federally-funded phase 2. So no federal money was lost, just deferred to get the line built sooner. Interesting fact #567 about the Expo Line: Expo Authority CEO Rick Thorpe has NEVER produced a project that has received New Starts funding. Wrong again. Salt Lake City's North-South LRT (the original line) received a $243.99M FFGA, and their CBD to University LRT extension received a $89.56M FFGA.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 22, 2008 7:55:12 GMT -8
|
|