|
Post by JerardWright on May 15, 2008 17:51:46 GMT -8
I read somewhere the the Transit Coalition opposes heavy rail in favor of light rail. I think that's absolutely insane, but perhaps they are bigger realists than I. You take what you can get I guess. If you can send us the link we would gladly tell that person where our group stands. ;D A lot has gone on in the past 4-5 years in terms of transit and what we can or can't build. Where around 1998 you couldn't say the word subway before you got thrown a flaming bag of dog poop. Before that time from 1998-2003, You couldn't get any public official to go for a subway or below grade transit project after the Prop A ban and media slams during the construction of the Red/Purple Line subway even say the word heavy Rail, below grade or subway. That is how Expo and East LA are even LRT because we had to look at projects that would provide an immediate impact and had things already available to us. In the East LA LRT, we had close to half a billion dollars earmarked by the Federal Government for the original heavy Rail project that changed to use the funding for a LRT subway through Boyle Heights while new local monies built the surface/elevated running portions. With Expo through all of it's past studies was looked as an good project to provide service between Westside, Mid-City and Downtown with an already owned railroad right-of-way. With subway funding from the original Wilshire/Mid-City extension gone and up in the air we needed a good alternative that will have an immediate impact. Thankfully, time has proven again to heal all wounds because some important advances have occured that we can even get interest in subway/heavy rail again along with busways, light rail, commuter rail and even Monorail has a small look, a very small look. (Insert Simpsons Monorail song here) To paraphrase, our position has been to think of our transit system hollistically and advocate how pieces fit together with current projects and sow seeds of future projects that would help to add greater interest and improve our network. One of those goals is to complete the already slated Light Rail projects (Expo, East LA, Crenshaw, Foothill to Azusa) already slated in order while advocating for more projects (Regional Connector, Westside Subway, Vermont, 405 Parallel Corridor, Harbor Subdivision) and have them ready to go so when funding windfalls present themselves we'll have a shelf ready projects that are ready to go which means more can get built with the available funding to us. While we are pushing for new projects we have to keep our existing system running in good order and stop things that would have a negative impact to our system such as the removal of Owl service that through our persistance got the board to overturn those decisions and keep those services running.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 15, 2008 18:04:22 GMT -8
How did you determinate that, deadliestlightraillineinthecountryshawn? Your complaints about sound walls negatively impacting your train ride. Views being blocked is a NIMBY argument.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 15, 2008 19:22:52 GMT -8
How did you determinate that, deadliestlightraillineinthecountryshawn? Your complaints about sound walls negatively impacting your train ride. Views being blocked is a NIMBY argument. Just to defend him, complaining about something and speaking out to the public about such complaints are different. I equate NIMBY with the second, not the first. He's just saying that he doesn't like it, not that he wants them torn down; the phrases have very different implications.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 15, 2008 19:26:49 GMT -8
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Main Entry: NIMBY Pronunciation: \ˈnim-bç\ Function: noun Etymology: not in my backyard Date: 1980 : opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable (as a prison or incinerator) in one's neighborhood — NIMBY·ism \-ˌi-zəm\ noun Come on guys, let's stick to definitions please. The Blue Line as a whole is not considered to be anyone's neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 15, 2008 19:58:46 GMT -8
Your complaints about sound walls negatively impacting your train ride. Views being blocked is a NIMBY argument. Actually NIMBY arguments surround things that everybody wants but that nobody wants to suffer for. The residents who built or rather, enjoy the benefits of the sound wall, will complain about traffic. And yet they chose to live out in the suburbs, buy multiple cars, and live near an active railroad track. And then they shun public transit. I'm not going to confront them or ask them to tear down their wall. But I am going to call it what it is, selfish. That is much more selfish than complaining about a sound wall blocking mine and my fellow passenger's view. Those of us who have sacrificed our personal comfort to take the train, taking cars off the road, something they benefit from, then have to deal with their ugly walls and scorn. I was going to make the argument that the sound wall impedes the scenic view of more Metrolink passengers than benefits those who live in that community, but then I realized more people probably live in that community than ride the 91 or IE/OC lines. It sucks being a realist sometimes... but as of now it's a minor inconvenience in what is otherwise a pleasant train ride. In any case, I hope more developers don't build their ugly tract housing next to railroad tracks and then erect their walls. After all, the track was there first. Not in the path of my train, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 15, 2008 20:54:33 GMT -8
I've never heard that TTC favors any one mode over another, with perhaps the exception of MagLev or monorail because of their poor track record. As President of TTC, this is news to me that we'd favor LRT over HRT, because we support the Wilshire Subway effort all the way.
Perhaps what might have been heard was that we prioritize the projects in the following order: Expo to the beach and Green Line/LAX first and foremost, then Crenshaw and Downtown Connector, and throw in Gold Line to Azusa somewhere in that mix for political and geographic balance. Then and only then do we favor the Subway because we need to get past that group of projects that allow the entire county access to mass transit.
Of course we favor the Subway at TTC, though! We also favor more exploration of a Vermont Subway/HRT as well as one that might be needed between the Valley and the Westside.
Our political and economic reality, however, dictates that we need to get past these LRT projects first, but I can proudly say that I voted against the anti-subway funding initiative and that I still want it built ASAP.
I'll reiterate what I've said on a previous thread: the Subway is expensive and will be built in segments. If the City of Los Angeles, who will benefit from Expo and Crenshaw and Downtown Connector projects more than any other entity, wants a subway sooner and not later, it should take command of the Green and Purple Line extensions and try to fund them on its own by taking advantageous of the fact that these segments will occur entirely within City limits.
Otherwise, we'll have to wait another 10-20 years before we can get to that first subway segment, which I still favor as Alternative #16.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 7:19:51 GMT -8
Why omit the fact that the following locations were found to not need sound walls: a) directly adjacent to Dorsey HS, despite the fact that crossing gate bells and a 55 mph train was assumed to be crossing 10 feet from the property line and 30 feet from classrooms. b) northside of Exposition from Farmdale to Crenshaw (heavily residential) c) northside of Exposition from Arlington to 4th Ave (residential) From the excerpt of the EIR I provided: At Helms Avenue, where the residential neighborhoods start, the trackway would be approximately five feet high. The trackway would achieve its full height of 25 feet at Wesley Street, however, there are no residences on Wesley Street directly across from the ROW. No visual intrusion to nearby residences is anticipated due to the Aerial Station option. Darrell do you find it at all disingenuous to attempt to equate the privacy/visual impact of a 25 foot elevated structure with a station platform (adding 15 more feet) like at La Brea to a 5 foot ramp like at Helms Ave in Culver City? And what is the track elevation at Caroline 1 foot? I don't know what better example I can provide of what I've been going through when I mention these project problems to some individuals than that, which is above. Darrell, how about this, you stop the spinning and we work together to:
a) get Metro to extend the Figueroa trench to Vermont and begin operations to a joint Vermont/Expo Park temporary termini below grade station (which is very easy to do within the existing EIR)
b) get Metro to begin a Supplemental EIR for a below grade alignment (trench or tunnel) from Vermont to La Brea
c) barnstorm the City Hall, County Hall, Sacramento and D.C. together for the additional funding to fix Expo.
What do ya say?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 17, 2008 7:28:26 GMT -8
;D Mr. Goodmon: I looked at your website and seen this little discrepancy: Similarly, at Crenshaw Blvd the train will travel directly adjacent to a mega church (West Angeles Church). Crenshaw, like Vermont, Normandie and Western (where Foshay is located), has no crossing gates at the intersection. The compilation of these added risk factors should have resulted in underpasses or overpasses (known as “grade separations”) at the locations but did not. A deadly calculation has been made to not invest in grade separations in South LA and instead jeopardize the lives of South LA residents. no crossing gates? there hasn't been a train there in the past ten years or more. And the fact that Metro will run trains there will no crossing gates---instilling the fear in the hearts of the naive. Aw come on!! Sincerely The Roadtrianer
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 7:49:17 GMT -8
There are no crossing gates or grade separation at the above intersections or countless other major intersections on the Expo Line. And if there were crossing gates, the traffic impact and noise impact would have been exacerbated.
The most accident-prone section of the Blue Line is the median and side street 35-mph running sections. In fact, while the number of accidents and deaths on the 55 mph running portion has gone down over the years, they've gone up in the median street running portion. The reasons for this and the reason the Blue Line stands out among other light rail systems in the country among deaths have been explained ad nauseum on this board.
For example, MUNI in San Fran for it's over hundred of track miles, including many where cars drive directly in front of and behind the trolleys, killed fewer people in the 12 years from 1990-2002 than the Blue Line killed last year.
Just last month in separate incidents ON THE SAME DAY a 75 year old motorist was killed in Long Beach and hit a 19 year old male pedestrian was put in critical condition in Los Angeles from accidents with the Blue Line.
The only thing naive is to assume that accidents won't occur at these locations that are actually more problematic than even the existing ones on the Blue Line. If the Expo Line is built as designed, there will be accidents - lots of them, many of them horrendous, countless fatal. People in this thread admit as much. It doesn't have to be that way. And if the same $$$ per mile investment were made from Trousdale to La Brea as is being made from La Cienega to Robertson it wouldn't have to be that way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 17, 2008 12:06:44 GMT -8
Darrell, how about this, you stop the spinning and we work together to:
a) get Metro to extend the Figueroa trench to Vermont and begin operations to a joint Vermont/Expo Park temporary termini below grade station (which is very easy to do within the existing EIR)
b) get Metro to begin a Supplemental EIR for a below grade alignment (trench or tunnel) from Vermont to La Brea
c) barnstorm the City Hall, County Hall, Sacramento and D.C. together for the additional funding to fix Expo.
What do ya say? Time to stop dreaming and start doing more useful things with your time, Damien. You have been repeatedly told that Friends 4 Expo supports the project as it is already being built and further supports a similar mostly at-grade design for Phase 2. Yet, you sound like a broken record even though you've been repeatedly told no, no, no, no, no. One more time: We, as Friends 4 Expo, believe that the project is already being built to the highest safety and quality standards within its scope, that is light-rail. We do advocate that project is finished to Venice/Robertson on schedule, that is June 2010 or earlier. Earlier the project is finished, more the people will benefit from it, and more the money will be saved against inflation and work hours. Moreover, once again, Friends 4 Expo supports a similar, mostly at-grade design for Phase 2, with the grade separation decisions made solely based on the Metro 2003 criteria, as they were made for Phase 1 at Figureoa, La Brea, La Cienega, and Washington/Venice. None of these decisions had anything to do with race, community, or demands by the city officials.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 17, 2008 13:14:27 GMT -8
My neighborhood council (the Mar Vista Community Council) and the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee (which I co-chair at the request of Bill Rosendahl) weighed in on Phase 2 of Expo. While the MVCC chose NOT to weigh in favor of full grade separation, the transportation committee did...although some streets were recommended overall more for grade separation than others.
Light rail is NOT a subway or a monorail, and is meant to fit in with the neighborhood, not loom above it or hide below it. Grade separations are a necessary evil when safety and traffic have to be taken into consideration...but grade separation for its own sake should be limited to subways and monorail projects.
This is light rail, and light rail only.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 17, 2008 14:17:16 GMT -8
And, to add to Ken's comments, and to re-emphasize mine, that's exactly why there is only one Bible that tells how these light-rail lines are to be grade separated or not: 2003 Metro light-rail grade-crossing policy. The neighbors, such as Mar Vista, Culver City, Cheviot Hills, Leimert Park, Rancho Park, West Los Angeles, Santa Monica, will demand many things, but it is never these demands that determine where and how these grade separations will be.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2008 17:29:41 GMT -8
Darrell, how about this, ... we work together to ... What do ya say? How about ... Let's look at your choices ahead. ALJ Koss wanted to have the range of choices for Farmdale and Harvard, not just what was applied for. He also has offered a number of opportunities to seek agreement between the parties. If not an at-grade crossing at Farmdale, it's easy to expect a pedestrian bridge to be approved that addresses student safety issues and is practicable. Suppose you discussed the available options with the community, concluded something, and offered a settlement without dragging things through the whole process? And then we all move on to the larger transit system?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2008 20:32:03 GMT -8
The most accident-prone section of the Blue Line is the median and side street 35-mph running sections. In fact, while the number of accidents and deaths on the 55 mph running portion has gone down over the years, they've gone up in the median street running portion. The reasons for this and the reason the Blue Line stands out among other light rail systems in the country among deaths have been explained ad nauseum on this board. For example, MUNI in San Fran for it's over hundred of track miles, including many where cars drive directly in front of and behind the trolleys, killed fewer people in the 12 years from 1990-2002 than the Blue Line killed last year. Interesting observation; the result of implementing the Booz-Allen recommendations? How do you think the Blue Line median-running sections differ from median-running sections in San Francisco? The Eastside Gold Line? San Jose? Portland? Phoenix? Just last month in separate incidents ON THE SAME DAY a 75 year old motorist was killed in Long Beach and hit a 19 year old male pedestrian was put in critical condition in Los Angeles from accidents with the Blue Line. That 75 year old driver made an illegal left turn, the wrong way into a one-way street, and could well have killed one or more innocent people if the train hadn't hit her car first.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 17, 2008 21:41:04 GMT -8
Why omit the fact that the following locations were found to not need sound walls: a) directly adjacent to Dorsey HS, despite the fact that crossing gate bells and a 55 mph train was assumed to be crossing 10 feet from the property line and 30 feet from classrooms. b) northside of Exposition from Farmdale to Crenshaw (heavily residential) c) northside of Exposition from Arlington to 4th Ave (residential) I'm glad you acknowledge the sound walls that were specified. a) You and I discussed some time ago the noise impacts identified in the Final EIS/EIR. Expansion of classrooms closer to the right-of-way caused addition of a soundwall along Dorsey. b, c) Those houses are separated from the tracks by Exposition Blvd. traffic. They're identified in FEIS Table 4.6-7 as not impacted. The Farmdale pedestrian bridge alternative would add a wall along the north side of the tracks, but is such a wall really a positive for the neighborhood? From the excerpt of the EIR I provided: At Helms Avenue, where the residential neighborhoods start, the trackway would be approximately five feet high. The trackway would achieve its full height of 25 feet at Wesley Street, however, there are no residences on Wesley Street directly across from the ROW. No visual intrusion to nearby residences is anticipated due to the Aerial Station option. Darrell do you find it at all disingenuous to attempt to equate the privacy/visual impact of a 25 foot elevated structure with a station platform (adding 15 more feet) like at La Brea to a 5 foot ramp like at Helms Ave in Culver City? And what is the track elevation at Caroline 1 foot? From the Plan & Profile drawings, the right-of-way at Helms is about 60 feet wide, tracks on the south, bike path on the north, immediately adjacent to homes. Yes, it is the beginning of the ramp-up there. Conversely at the first single-family property west of La Brea (east side of Sycamore), the ramp is around 15 feet up. It's down to about 5 feet by the second single-family property (west side of Sycamore), and essentially at ground level by the third at Alsace. (The tracks are at ground level passing Clint Simmons' house, no different from Culver City.) These houses are separated from the tracks by 50-foot-wide Exposition Blvd., vs. 30 foot bike path in Culver City. Also, being to the south, there's not the shading impact that being on the north can create. The station platform extends very little west of La Brea, not close to any houses. Gotta say, Damien, you're really splitting hairs here. One house near La Brea faces a taller wall, but farther away, across a street, and on the un-shaded side. Based on how close houses happened to be located, decades ago, to boulevards that will both have rail overpasses.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 17, 2008 22:38:48 GMT -8
So Darrell that's a NO?My neighborhood council (the Mar Vista Community Council) and the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee (which I co-chair at the request of Bill Rosendahl) weighed in on Phase 2 of Expo. While the MVCC chose NOT to weigh in favor of full grade separation, the transportation committee did...although some streets were recommended overall more for grade separation than others. Light rail is NOT a subway or a monorail, and is meant to fit in with the neighborhood, not loom above it or hide below it. Grade separations are a necessary evil when safety and traffic have to be taken into consideration...but grade separation for its own sake should be limited to subways and monorail projects. This is light rail, and light rail only. If the current definition of light rail, you're prescribing to it, actually existed then I'd have to say that anyone that advocates for a "light rail system" in metropolitan Los Angeles is actually only making traffic worse and should be immediately ignored. But that's not the definition of light rail, as has been stated here repeatedly: I do agree that we shouldn't get caught up in the definition of light rail, as it is a very weak argument to say "it can't go in a trench because it's light rail," since not many people care about the definition prohibiting safety and environmental enhancements. But it's one of the points the other side hangs their hat on because their argument lacks similar substance.
I point to this definition for the reasons mentioned above in my repl y post to Darrell, and to point out the fact that there IS a definition of "light rail" that is the exact opposite of what has been stated here, and instead of actually going out and looking for it and stating the FACTS, people push things that are verifiably untrue, even AFTER the inaccuracy has been pointed out.
FACT: A "formal definition" of "light rail transit" was adopted in 1989 and placed in the Transportation Research Board's Urban Public Transportation Glossary:
"A metropolitan electric railway system characterize by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or occassionaly, in streets and to board and discharge passengers at track or car floor level." I found that information through a report titled "This Is Light Rail Transit" provided by the Light Rail Committee of the National Research Council's Transportation Research Board! (Page 3 of the pdf).
FACT: "Light rail" is defined in the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Part 10 (titled "Traffic Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings"):
Light rail transit is a mode of metropolitan transportation that employs light rail transit vehicles (commonly known as light rail vehicles, streetcars, or trolleys) that operate on rails in streets in mixed traffic, in semiexclusive rights-of-way, or in exclusive rights-of-way. Grade crossings with light rail transit can occur at intersections or at midblock locations, including public and private driveways.
An initial educational campaign along with an ongoing program to continue to educate new drivers is beneficial when introducing light rail operations to an area and, hence, new traffic control devices.
Light rail alignments can be grouped into one of the following three types:
1. Exclusive: A light rail transit right-of-way that is grade-separated or protected by a fence or traffic barrier. Motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles are prohibited within the right-of-way. Subways and aerial structures are included within this group. This type of alignment does not have grade crossings and is not further addressed in Part 10.
2. Semiexclusive: A light rail transit alignment that is in a separate right-of-way or along a street or railroad right-of-way where motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles have limited access and cross at designated locations only.
3. Mixed-Use: An alignment where light rail transit operates in mixed traffic with all types of road users. This includes streets, transit malls, and pedestrian malls where the right-of-way is shared. Generally speaking the only distinguishable characteristic is shorter platform lengths and better turning radius than "heavy rail." It's the flexibility that is the basis of many of us here suggesting that we should be building grade separated lines with light rail vehicles.
There is NOTHING that says it can't be in a subway or trench. It's actually the TOTAL OPPOSITE - the definition specifically says IT CAN BE in a subway or trench.
The actual definition of light rail is why Buffalo's system is considered "light rail," and the Newark system is "light rail." It's why the Green Line, which is 100% grade separated is considered "light rail." Having an existing right-of-way provides rail transit with the opportunity to operated grade separated and enjoy the capital cost benefits typically associated with light rail, because design options exist when there's 30-50 or 100 feet of right of area to work with as opposed to directly under a street. Additionally, too many have blended light rail trolleys with the type of light rail we're building. This is not a trolley line, that has short trolley cars traveling 15 mph and stations every 1/4 of a mile intended to be a community circulator and "fit in with the neighborhood." This is heavy rail line at-grade with long walls dividing communities, much larger and faster running vehicles, blowing a loud darn horn, intended to serve a regional need. And the need in Los Angeles is now and will ever more in the future be SPEED! But I think the best possible example of the division is this debate is illustrated through your statement that "grade separation is a necessary evil."At worst I'd expect the opposite side to say, "at-grade crossings are a necessary evil," which at least SOUNDS like a perfectly reasonable position and I could/have debated the merits of which (life cycle cost, lost of life and limb, community impacts, traffic impacts, transit facility limitations etc. etc.), and objective people can come to their own determinations. But calling grade separation a necessary evil, well that pretty much automatically makes it difficult to convince the other side. Thus, the debate/the standoff continues......
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 18, 2008 8:03:29 GMT -8
There are no crossing gates or grade separation at the above intersections or countless other major intersections on the Expo Line. And if there were crossing gates, the traffic impact and noise impact would have been exacerbated. Mr. D. ;There are no crossing gates there because the r.o.w. was abandoned. There is no metro train crossing without gates unless approved by the PUC, your gripe shouldn't be with the Metro But with the PUC. Get the Laws changed with Sacramento! The most accident-prone section of the Blue Line is the median and side street 35-mph running sections. In fact, while the number of accidents and deaths on the 55 mph running portion has gone down over the years, they've gone up in the median street running portion. The reasons for this and the reason the Blue Line stands out among other light rail systems in the country among deaths have been explained ad nauseum on this board. YAWN, COME ON NOW! People kill people, Metro train operators do not kill people, Guns do not kill people, poison doesn't kill people, electricity does not kill people. I was having lunch at Washington and San Pedro when a teenager tried to out run the train to the station, she foolishly ran in front of the train. Do you need more? The people who commit suicide by jumping in front of the train, cars going around the lowered crossing gates? You group paints a picture that Metro is evil, are you going after bridges next? People jumping off the bridges is evil so therefore we must fight to have all bridges removed.!! Then there's an argument being made one day at work that the Democratic párty is going to lower all Gas prices, And I told this guy Ïf the Democrats are in control of Congress (which they are!) Then why hasn't the Bill been put on the Presidents desk for his signature or Veto?"" The idea that there no crossing gates are designed for the new Expoline is the same as the Democratic party will lower all the gas prices. For example, MINI in San Francisco for it's over hundred of track miles, including many where cars drive directly in front of and behind the trolleys, killed fewer people in the 12 years from 1990-2002 than the Blue Line killed last year. I was visiting some friends in San Francisco and went for a ride in downtown when this guy I was ridding with cut purposely in front of a Muni train almost getting us killed, I hollered at him and he told me that people in San Francisco cut in front of the Muni trains all the time! So much for an highly educated San Francisco! Just last month in separate incidents ON THE SAME DAY a 75 year old motorist was killed in Long Beach and hit a 19 year old male pedestrian was put in critical condition in Los Angeles from accidents with the Blue Line. Again You argue The Train did it !, the train did it!, the train did it!. But do you state the facts? Trying to cross in front of an on-coming train, Maybe these people that got hurt should get an award-- not cash, but the moron of the day award! The only thing naive is to assume that accidents won't occur at these locations that are actually more problematic than even the existing ones on the Blue Line. If the Expo Line is built as designed, there will be accidents - lots of them, many of them horrendous, countless fatal. People in this thread admit as much. It doesn't have to be that way. And if the same $$$ per mile investment were made from Trousdale to La Brea as is being made from La Cienega to Robertson it wouldn't have to be that way. I personally think you won't get your trench, But you may succeed in the better solutions for Farmdale and Foshay. Remember the Federal Government signed off on this issue. Maybe you should sue them for their alleged A--in-ine decision Sincere The Roadtrianer
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2008 8:04:17 GMT -8
That's a counter-offer. And responded to repeatedly, including just the next post: ... these definitions don't change the fact that light rail lines have usually been built mostly at-grade, as are the Expo Line and Eastside Gold Line. The actual definition of light rail is why Buffalo's system is considered "light rail," and the Newark system is "light rail." It's why the Green Line, which is 100% grade separated is considered "light rail." LOL! From APTA's 4Q 2007 Light Rail Ridership Report (pdf), here are all cities with over 10,000 Average Weekday trips (000s below), in descending order. Buffalo (highlighted) is such a model to follow! Boston -- 257.5 San Francisco -- 132.5 Los Angeles -- 127.3 San Diego -- 118.4 Philadelphia -- 106.9 Portland -- 104.3 Saint Louis -- 73.2 Dallas -- 63.4 Denver -- 62.9 Sacramento -- 53.5 Houston -- 40.0 Salt Lake City -- 39.7 Baltimore -- 31.1 San Jose -- 30.4 Minneapolis -- 30.4 Pittsburgh -- 25.6 Buffalo -- 19.6Newark didn't report Average Weekday. But as I noted before, Your Newark Light Rail Line link points to a subway opened in 1935, hardly a new light rail line. The better-known recent light rail line in New Jersey is the at-grade Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. Additionally, too many have blended light rail trolleys with the type of light rail we're building. This is not a trolley line, that has short trolley cars traveling 15 mph and stations every 1/4 of a mile intended to be a community circulator and "fit in with the neighborhood." Per above, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Portland MAX are "short trolley cars traveling 15 mph"?! Thus, the debate/the standoff continues...... Transit industry and FTA standards for LRT are clear, and consistent with the Expo Line as designed and approved for construction over two years ago. The Expo Line never would have been substantially grade-separated. As I noted on the Crenshaw thread, LA's fully-grade-separated east-west corridor has long been intended to be the Wilshire subway.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 18, 2008 9:57:17 GMT -8
Darrell,
You make it sound like the Newark Light Rail is a regular subway. It does have a subway part in downtown Newark, but most of it is above ground on it's own ROW. It used to be a streetcar system, but now uses the same type of LRV as the HBLR. It has platforms and the vehicles have pantographs. Stations are closer together than modern light rail (1/2 mile or so), but I think that it still qualifies. If and when the downtown connector is built below ground our light rail lines will have a similar mix of subway, ROW, and street running. Our lines will be 2 and 3 times longer though.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 18, 2008 10:20:49 GMT -8
NOT THE HORN! WHAT A TERRIBLE EVIL!
This is exactly what I mean about Damien's arguments. He brings something up, someone answers and refutes his arguments, and he moves on to something else. Then he presents another question, and the unending cycle continues. We just left blight, and now we're moving onto the definition of light rail and efficiency again. How many times must we go over this? How many refutations will it take for Damien to drop this?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2008 21:05:36 GMT -8
Darrell, You make it sound like the Newark Light Rail is a regular subway. It does have a subway part in downtown Newark, but most of it is above ground on it's own ROW. It used to be a streetcar system, but now uses the same type of LRV as the HBLR. It has platforms and the vehicles have pantographs. Stations are closer together than modern light rail (1/2 mile or so), but I think that it still qualifies. If and when the downtown connector is built below ground our light rail lines will have a similar mix of subway, ROW, and street running. Our lines will be 2 and 3 times longer though. Thanks, Shawn, you inspired me to research Newark more. Between Light Rail Now, Jon Bell, and MS Live Search, I got a pretty good picture. (What did I miss, not having visited there?) Here's a map: Its older history, from Light Rail Now, is: The City Subway (actually, a subway-surface line) – constructed in the bed of the old Morris Canal – opened in 1934. An extension to Pennsylvania Station opened in 1937, and a northern surface extension to Franklin Avenue was completed in 1940, bringing the total length of the City Subway line to 4.3 miles (6.9 km), with 11 stations. Downtown it's in subway; the rest appears to be in a shallow trench, mostly along Branch Brook Park with street overpasses. Is it all the former canal bed? There were two extensions this decade beyond the historic line, entirely at-grade: [1] In the fall of 2001, the line's northern terminal at Franklin Avenue and the nearby Heller Parkway station were replaced with a new Branch Brook Park station about halfway in between. In June 2002, the route was extended from Branch Brook Park to Grove Street Here's the Silver Lake station (maps.live.com). Note the at-grade street crossings at Belmont Ave. (left) and Franklin St. (right). [2] Formally opened with fanfare on Monday, 17 July 2006, the Broad Street extension adds about a mile (1.6 km) to the 4.3-mile (6.9-km) long Newark City Subway – now renamed the Newark City Light Rail Line. ...
Branching from the established City Subway line between Penn Station and Military Park, the new extension runs through a relatively short section of the rehabilitated Cedar St. tunnel to emerge from a to run in a northwesterly direction both alongside and in city streets. Here's where it emerges from the old tunnel by the Passaic River waterfront (maps.live.com) to cross Center St. This and the remainder are at-grade. Here's a photo at the terminus at the Broad Street Station ("Newark Broad St." on the map), also showing a new LRV ( source). So, Damien, all of Newark's grade separations predate the "light rail" era. What was built post-2000 is all at-grade, on private right-of-way and along city streets. Therefore you have yet to show even a single example of a recent (post-1980) light rail line in an extended trench like you advocate for the Expo Line between Vermont and La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2008 21:15:24 GMT -8
It's why the Green Line, which is 100% grade separated is considered "light rail." You never answered: would you prefer the aerial Green Line (here in El Segundo) to at-grade Expo Line?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 20, 2008 20:23:21 GMT -8
Mr. D. HAS SAID: The most accident-prone section of the Blue Line is the median and side street 35-mph running sections. In fact, while the number of accidents and deaths on the 55 mph running portion has gone down over the years, they've gone up in the median street running portion. The reasons for this and the reason the Blue Line stands out among other light rail systems in the country among deaths have been explained ad nauseum on this board. ;D THE ROADTRAINER HAS THIS TO SAY: READ THIS ABOUT THESE TWO GUYS THAT GOT KILLED BY THEIR STUPIDITY! Man Hit by Seattle Train was on Cell Phone Kathy Mulady and Casey McNerthney, reporters, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer A man talking on a cell phone while walking Wednesday on railroad tracks was hit by a train and killed. He was the second person in the area to be killed by a train while talking on a cell phone in the past two weeks. Auburn Police spokesman Scott Near said the man killed just after noon was walking on the tracks between the 1200 and 1400 blocks of C Street Northwest, where the rails parallel the street and there are no signs or crossings. Security personnel at Emerald Downs racetrack said the man was a 49-year-old groom at the track, and co-workers there said he had been hired about two months ago after working with horses in Texas. Witnesses, including the train conductor, saw the man talking on the phone. The engineer sounded the horn, but the man apparently didn't hear it. The train was going about 80 mph and couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting the man. The Amtrak Cascades train was heading north from Eugene, Ore., to Seattle. The accident is under investigation, but Near said the death appears to be accidental and not a suicide. On April 21, Angellina Rodriguez, 17, of Kent, was killed by a train on the same main railroad line. Witnesses told police that they saw Rodriguez talking on the phone as she was walking across railroad tracks about 200 yards north of East James Street in Kent. REMEMBER PEOPLE GET THEMSELVES KILLED! USING YOUR EFFORTS TO GET THE STATUS QUO CHANGED TO REDUCE DEATHS BEGINS WITH THE MEDIA, THE PRESS AND BY THE WORD OF MOUTH. SINCERELY THE ROADTRAINER
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 20, 2008 20:26:16 GMT -8
;D DARRELL LOVE THOSE PICTURES, KEEP THEM COMING! SINCERELY THE ROADTRAINER
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 23, 2008 12:26:29 GMT -8
See the Friends 4 Expo CounterPoint in today's CityWatch.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 26, 2008 12:31:35 GMT -8
No worries anyone, the Expo Line cannot be derailed. I am including the link for the best story on this issue again!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 27, 2008 9:04:06 GMT -8
^ Rather than windmills, this modern-day Quixote charges against other imagined enemies, like Friends4Expo and TTC. To him, Los Angeles is El Dorado, "City of Gold". Money is no object: not only should we not only build all the lines on his getlamoving.org/ map, but they must all be underground, for zero environmental-justice impact. I for one am looking forward to Expo getting built, exactly as specified.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 28, 2008 8:32:30 GMT -8
Latest from Cheviot Hills (Colleen Mason Heller and Co.). This is NIMBYism at full power. Note how closely they are following Damien's steps. Same tactics. South LA, West LA, NIMBYs all look and sound the same. You can tell them from a mile away.NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL **MARK YOUR CALENDAR** EXPO AUTHORITY COMMUNITY GRADE CROSSING MEETING When: Monday, June 9, 2008 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm Where: Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services Gymnasium 3200 Motor Avenue You must attend this Expo Authority update on grade crossing determinations for both the Expo Right-of-way (ROW) and the Venice/Sepulveda alternative, including: Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, Barrington, Centinela, & Charnock. A mixed-use project, including retail stores, 500 apartments, and An Expo station is proposed for Expo/Sepulveda (the cement factory). This additional density will create even more of a traffic nightmare in West L.A.! Development at the expense of neighborhood quality of life is unacceptable! If the Overland Avenue crossing is at grade it will have a negative impact on student safety, student health and the learning environment. Hundreds of ROW homes will suffer noise and vibration impacts, and lose privacy. Train-blocked intersections will stall north/south traffic up to 50% of the time, creating air pollution, commuter delay, and serious economic impacts to local businesses. The proposed 200 car parking lot on Overland Avenue across from Overland School will create a crime magnet and yet more traffic to the area. At-grade or elevated rail crossings near schools and homes are dangerous and unacceptable! You need to demand below-grade separations at Overland, Westwood, Military and Sepulveda. Attend this important meeting and let your voices be heard. Neighbors For Smart Rail POB64496 Los Angeles, CA 90064 www.smartrail.org and neighborsforsmartrail@smartrail.org Expo@cheviothills.org • Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 28, 2008 11:19:29 GMT -8
Overland Avenue's existing traffic, passing Overland School on the right-of-way route option: Sepulveda Boulevard's existing traffic, passing Charnock School on the Venice-Sepulveda route option: The signal at Ashby Ave. (corner of Overland School) stops traffic 30 seconds out of every 90 seconds today. The question is, can trains be timed with signals to not worsen delay or queuing? We'll know more June 9. Even "elevated rail crossings ... are dangerous"? The Mark Jolles / Clint Simmons / Damien Goodmon refrain, never mind there are no modern US light rail lines in extended trenches. Not to mention the problem of large underground storm drains crossing the right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 28, 2008 12:00:24 GMT -8
Overland carries the freeway traffic. The same traffic in an out of their neighborhood Cheviot Hills have been fighting against.
Even if traffic slows on Overland a bit, it won't make a difference because it is slow on the freeway itself.
In most neighborhoods in LA, the freeway traffic is so bad that it spills on the neighborhood streets as traffic jam. The traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway is not that bad yet, compared to freeways near Downtown. But with this mentality the Santa Monica Freeway will eventually be completely jammed and, as a result, the traffic on Overland will come to a halt -- light-rail or not.
The question with light-rail is not whether it will hurt the traffic but it is whether they can operate the trains through crowded crossings. And to answer that question, Expo Authority have been doing an honest study, having hired three independent consultants.
The development at Sepulveda is in fact a TOD I believe. They are also providing parking for Expo in their basement and working in close collaboration with them. But there is nothing wrong with it. Cheviot Hills have used the argument that the light-rail should be built where there is opportunity for TODs.
|
|