|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 12:52:09 GMT -8
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but the longer you make a train, doesn't the time for it to clear an at-grade crossing get longer? That's hardly a concern considering it's only a second or two more for 90 ft extra length at 55 or 35 MPH. But unfortunately MTA light-rail system is designed for three-car LRVs. The platform at 7th/Metro can't accommodate four-car trains. And there are concerns about two intersections simultaneously being blocked by four-car trains. So, four-car trains, as in Sacramento for example, would be great and add a lot to the capacity, but right now this is far from being feasible. I hope they design the Downtown Connector for four-car trains though.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2009 13:11:18 GMT -8
Correction: over four times --> over five times The capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus is 120 passengers, wheras for a fully loaded three-LRV train, more than 600 passengers. So run five buses at a time. We have scarce resources and other places need transit too. When the rail line gets more crowded, they simply add more vehicles. So why not add more buses? Why can't you do that? No one has said that you couldn't however not only are you paying for more buses and it's fuel but additional operators compared to a train you're simply adding additional vehicles with a slight increase in costs to power the extra vehicle because they are electrically powered to handle the load.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 26, 2009 13:13:34 GMT -8
Second, Culver City by the Expo Line is also majority-minority, not predominantly white. Gentlemen, this is a perfect example of a deliberate distortion of facts by Clarke. On multiple occasions people have pointed out that Darrell is both illogical and incorrect. Here's what mattapoisett said nearly a year ago: Darrell, You may want to find more up to date numbers than the 2000 Census. My wife is a Demographer with an expertise in Los Angeles and has said that neighborhood had its make up changed radically in the past 8 years. We live on the other side of Culver City and have felt the effects of the city's redevelopment strategy which is to gentrify the Neighborhoods, as evidenced by the harassment of the homies on our street by CCPD. He followed-up with: Outside of the Decennial Census, there are many companies that collect data (Census, ACS, Yearly Pop Estimates and other sources) and model population, demographics etc. at a very minute level. This data is used by people like my wife for specific businesses and/or city planning purposes and for very good reasons (depite her own feelings about public transportation, which is why I still love her) she refused to let me quote real numbers directly here. But also note that the data can be admissible in a court of law.
The reason I questioned your numbers in the first place is not because I happen to have a data fairy on hand, but I know the neighborhood. 2 years ago we were looking to live there and lost out on several apartments because we were not quick enough and we have several friends who now live within the boundaries of your map. Next time you're at Surfas, Fathers Office, Beacon Etc. go across the street in to that neighborhood I believe you will find the change and the various shades of blue, pink and orange hair dye is noticeable. Furthermore I pointed out how deceptive Clarke's being: Darrell has introduced a new level data - block data from a different screen on the census website. For those who don't know, census data is basically broken down like this: County > Census Tract > Block Group > Block.
Darrell, through his argument implies that the census tract level data isn't a good indicator and supplies the block group. This begs two questions, one academic and the other about the methodology decided by the author: a) how does the census tract show a majority white area while the block group level doesn't and what does that mean? b) if the author is really interested in seeing which communities that are directly adjacent to the tract are affected, why isn't the block data referenced instead of or in addition to the block group data?
By the way the blocks are those numbers on the image Darrell produced (2001, 2015, 3004, 3014, etc):
Let's take "b" first. If Darrell is really interested in seeing the communities effected why did he choose block group and not block level? So you know, he had a choice - to pick block group or block on the drop down menu, and he deliberately choose block group instead of block level.
My guess is he saw that the block level data did not fit the argument he's making, but the block group level data does. Because if you look at the block data AND assess the changes in the area that have been referenced by Matt that EVERYONE knows about and it's clear this is a majority white area and Darrell's argument holds no water. But that won't stop Darrell & Co.
Now regarding "a," back when the environmental justice complaint was sent to the FTA (BEFORE THE RECORD OF DECISION WAS ISSUED BY THE WAY), those that were working on this issue were specifically asked by the feds to send not the block level, not the block group level data, but the census tract level data.
I followed-up in 2007 and asked why they asked for census tract data instead of block group or block data, and their response was two-prong:
1) Adverse effects are both down to the street level, but also community-based and census level is the best when assessing, in the case of light rail, the large impacts of traffic and related air pollution from idling engines from street closures, diverted traffic and crossing gates.
2) Though block group and block level data can be useful in less densely populated areas where the census tracts are geographically large and impacted minority populations can be hidden (in which case field investigations are required), in large urban areas where the block group and block are geographically so small and the populations transient they can serve to do the exact reverse and mask benefits being felt by a majority white area. (THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT DARRELL HAS DONE!)
Also, stated was the fact that the Census is a calculation/extrapolation/assumption that mathematically compensates for those who do not fill out the forms. Therefore, the "margin of error" with a larger sample (census tract) is much lower than at block or block group level. This again is why field investigations are necessary.
And as has already been stated by Matt, and stated in my reply, any person that actually lives or visits the area knows it's become increasingly more white, and was majority white in '05 when the original environmental justice complaint was sent to the FTA BEFORE the Record of Decision was issued. I've specifically said why I use census tract level data, how about you do the same Clarke: #1: Explain why you're using the level data you've chosen to use in your argument.
#2: If you chose to use another level of data in your argument why didn't you provide a link that show all of that level data within the 7024 census tract and if it fails to amount to the same percentages reflected in the census tract data, explain why.
#3: Why haven't you responded to mattapoisett's response of nearly a year ago, where he cited the currently occurring demographic changes in the community since 2000?I won't hold my breadth on waiting for you to answer. In fact, I expect you to completely avoid the three questions, because they will expose your argument for exactly what it is. You, like everyone else, know this area in Culver City is majority Caucasian. You're just trying to provide justification for your group to avoid addressing the resource and impact disparities, and the manner in which is inequity/discrepancies evolved. The disapproval I and others have is not that people come to differing conclusions. It's that you've predicated your conclusions on a manipulation of factual information and unsubstantiated arguments, AND when confronted with such you refuse to acknowledge such, apologize or change. People can completely disagree with me or Fix Expo's request without being deceitful. Try it sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 13:17:17 GMT -8
So run five buses at a time. We have scarce resources and other places need transit too. When the rail line gets more crowded, they simply add more vehicles. So why not add more buses? Why can't you do that? No one has said that you couldn't however not only are you paying for more buses and it's fuel but additional operators compared to a train you're simply adding additional vehicles with a slight increase in costs to power the extra vehicle because they are electrically powered to handle the load. Actually, you couldn't, as I explained above. As a very well known fact (this is explicitly stated by MTA on why they are unable to put more buses in the Vermont and Wilshire corridors), too many buses cause gridlock (buses stop traffic when they pull to and from stops) and too short headways for BRT turn it into a rapid bus instead, again, as I explained above.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 13:19:15 GMT -8
That's hardly a concern considering it's only a second or two more for 90 ft extra length at 55 or 35 MPH. Thanks for your help. By playing devil's advocate I end up learning new things, like that study on the 2003 transit strike. I never knew it existed. I still have no idea who to believe though. It seems like supporters and the opposition alike can skew the data to say anything. Hopefully the end result isn't too bad.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 13:25:54 GMT -8
So, Fix Expo are basing their case entirely about the grade separations in Culver City. Let's talk about the actual technical facts about these crossings.
(1) In Culver City one and only grade separation was added on the existing Southern Pacific right-of-way. The right-of-way was otherwise not altered. This new grade separation is the Washington/National grade separation.
(2) The Venice/Robertson Station had to be put south of Venice in order to allow both the right-of-way and Venice/Sepulveda routes for Phase 2, on which the elimination process was only finished on April 2, 2009.
(3) The Venice/Robertson Station had to be put south of Venice in order to allow future Venice and/or Culver Blvd extensions.
(4) With the Venice/Robertson Station south of Venice, Washington/National has to be grade separated.
(5) Even without the station, the trains would block both Washington and National simultaneously, which is not a preferred geometry according to the Metro grade-crossing policy. So, even without the Venice/Robertson Station, the Washington/National grade separation would be desirable.
(6) In Expo Line in South LA and in other projects, grade-separation structures are built to grade-separate adjacent or nearby crossings simultaneously. There is no example of a major intersection being grade-separated and another major intersection only six-hundred-feet-away being left at-grade. Such poor design practice is not used anywhere in Los Angeles in any light-rail project.
Also, note that the realignment of National Blvd at Hayden Ave had to be done because of the new LRT bridge and ramp over Ballona Creek.
Therefore, Fix Expo unfortunately have no case. This whole "racism lawsuit" they were basing upon a single grade-separation structure at Washington/National would have been thrown out as soon as they filed it. But it just happened that it was thrown out by Fix Expo's own San-Francisco-based lawyers from the BRU lawsuit, who deemed it worthless. The nuclear attack was the final and biggest flop by Fix Expo.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 26, 2009 13:28:00 GMT -8
Has Gohkan still not gotten the memo that his propensity to be deceitful and overall negative demeanor and personal attacks have forced him to sacrifice interaction with me on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 26, 2009 14:32:03 GMT -8
I personally don't give a damn about the number of kids that'll get run over by some train. I also don't mind crossings at small streets. What I want to see is a train that doesn't slow down for street lights or other cars. I want to see 65 MPH runs between Downtown LA and Santa Monica with no 35 MPH slow sections because some jerkoff kid doesn't know how to cross the tracks. Contrary to the adolescent arguments made by the at-grade side, when dealing in the real world and in the trenches (pun intended) you have to have the maturity to recognize that when taking on City Hall a strong coalition is need, and as long as people have and agree with the same conclusion, their premises are inconsequential. I clearly state Fix Expo's position is a consensus position and agreement among those who want Expo, those who don't want Expo and those who are indifferent. We recognize that the little things are just that. We look at not what divides us, but what unites us: our common principles and an agreement as to what is an adequate solution. That's the only way you build a true community coalition. This whole divide and conquer only serves to benefit Metro, or more specifically the politicians who want to see these lines built for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with traffic relief or all of the other things folk PUBLICLY claim in their PR literature. As I always say, Flower Street will take care of itself. We pointed to Prop 1B, R, stimulus, air mitigation funds, infill development funds, redevelopment funds, everything in the bank. There's a way they just lack the will. Recognize the at-grade folk have no argument - at least no credible argument without the premise that "grade separations are too expensive." But what the leadership really believes and is showing in their opposition to pursuing Measure R and stimulus funds (just as they opposed pursuing Prop 1B funds), is even when there is the money they don't support adding some grade separations. I really wish Clarke would say that much more publicly. Just read this forum and you'll see why they believe that even when their is the money grade separations shouldn't be built.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 26, 2009 14:56:07 GMT -8
Despite Darrell's attempt to dismiss this by bringing in "boogeyman Cox," calculating accident rates by travel miles is the scientific standard. Indeed, the primary statistic (other than the raw data) on the quarterly Blue Line accident reports is the accidents per vehicle miles. ... The ONLY time and the ONLY agencies/organizations who ONLY use passenger miles are those who try to spin the well documented fact that light rail vehicles are dangerous. WRONG, documented by this slide from last week's national APTA-TRB Joint Light Rail Conference: And to provide an appropriate comparison, how do you possibly accurately tabulate passenger miles of automobiles in a Metropolitian area of over 14 million people? Data widely exist of total VMT and average vehicle occupancy, both commute and overall. If we don't compare the accidents rates of a design - regardless of whether it's a train, swimming pool, or chemicals - how are we to ever determine whether something needs to be improved or prohibited? So where is your data, by category of accident, to do just that?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 26, 2009 15:22:14 GMT -8
#1: Explain why you're using the level data you've chosen to use in your argument.
#2: If you chose to use another level of data in your argument why didn't you provide a link that show all of that level data within the 7024 census tract and if it fails to amount to the same percentages reflected in the census tract data, explain why.
#3: Why haven't you responded to mattapoisett's response of nearly a year ago, where he cited the currently occurring demographic changes in the community since 2000? 1. Because for lower-density Culver City the Census tract doesn't accurately describe the East Culver City neighborhood adjacent to the line, exactly the situation cited in "useful in less densely populated areas where the census tracts are geographically large and impacted minority populations can be hidden". 2. Why bother, when you so rarely provide any substantive responses to objective questions? 3. Because the 2000 Census was current for the decisions made on the Expo Line phase 1. I'd also note that he had no more recent data to post. People can completely disagree with me or Fix Expo's request without being deceitful. Try it sometime. That's quite self-referential, coming from the one who writes, "allots more money to constructing the one-mile of the line west of La Cienega than in the entire 4.5 miles in South LA.", when he's been corrected multiple times that only the last 0.7 miles is in Culver City and there are over twice the length of grade separation in Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 15:29:35 GMT -8
Has Gohkan still not gotten the memo that his propensity to be deceitful and overall negative demeanor and personal attacks have forced him to sacrifice interaction with me on this issue? I thought you were the one who was forced to sacrifice interaction with me because you are simply unable to address my technical and factual posts, like Post 665 above. You can't answer when I present the real technical facts to you and you conveniently choose to ignore them by claiming "propensity to be deceitful and overall negative demeanor and personal attacks." Although this is convenient for you, it has shown that Fix Expo has no case, and, as a result, the grand environmental-justice lawsuit has been thrown out before even it is filed. Once again Post 665 above shows with clear evidence that Fix Expo's attempted racism lawsuit had no justifiable basis whatsoever but it was only based on misrepresentation and manipulation of facts. It was the job of mine and other Friends' 4 Expo to defeat Fix Expo of Phase 1 and Neighbors for Smart Rail of Phase 2, and we are proud to have done so. Mission has been accomplished through our campaign to educate and inform people and gather public support by the presentation of real facts. Long-live light-rail and so long to anti-light-rail groups like Fix Expo!
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 26, 2009 16:29:03 GMT -8
Actually, you couldn't, as I explained above. As a very well known fact (this is explicitly stated by MTA on why they are unable to put more buses in the Vermont and Wilshire corridors), too many buses cause gridlock (buses stop traffic when they pull to and from stops) and too short headways for BRT turn it into a rapid bus instead, again, as I explained above. Yet another reason why the corridors we should be developing are Wilshire and Vermont not Expo and Crenshaw. In fact there are additional comments on here the last few days that allude to other reasons why that is the case as well. For example the mess at Pico with both Blue Line and Expo trains and the fact that our rail system cannot handle more than 3 light rail car trains. With the DTC, it is possible that the Blue Line and Expo may be at capacity in the not distant future. Instead of developing our main transit corridors like Wilshire and Vermont we have made Expo (with Crenshaw) and the Blue Line the heart of our rail system and this is serious long term mistake because of their limited ability to grow the system and the fact we are not developing our main corridors leaving all sorts of ridership out in the dark. With extra heavy rail cars and a maintenance facility able to handle the additional heavy rail lines, we don't have to make the tough decisions that are bogging down the MTA now with the maintenance facility decision for Expo still to address and the continuing light rail car acqusition problems. Not to mention another battle for grade separations for Crenshaw. All these things give public transit a bad name in Los Angeles. We need to develop a scalable model. I don't want a rail system for just 400 or 500k for Los Angeles. I want one for 1 to 2M. However, if we want to build a system just to say how many miles we have and in all the politically powerful neighborhoods like Crenshaw, the Foothill cities, and so forth we are doing a good job.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 26, 2009 16:33:58 GMT -8
Actually the FACT is that a 225-ton train is a severe safety hazard. It is not a theory up to debate it is a fact, just like the world being round. People on the other side of the argument may feel that their only recourse is to debate this fact, (and argue that the world is flat), and to distract discussions by challenging this fact, but it is a FACT just the same. Arguing the issue in question by declaring your own position to be fact. Simply brilliant. ...there are powers you had/have as a motorist to avoid an accident that a train operator does not? You know like a steering wheel or shorter breaking distance, better line of sight, etc.? Relevance? We look at not what divides us, but what unites us: our common principles and an agreement as to what is an adequate solution. That's the only way you build a true community coalition. Fear-mongering, appealing to the emotions of the unaware, and all-around making everyone hate you is an interesting method of coalition-building. We pointed to Prop 1B, R, stimulus, air mitigation funds, infill development funds, redevelopment funds, everything in the bank. There's a way they just lack the will. Until the San Fernando Valley gets a SINGLE grade separation for its "mass transit" line, you have no right to whine for MORE money for your local project.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 26, 2009 17:50:11 GMT -8
I would agree with those comparisons and assert that the population and traffic congestion in Los Angeles calls for a better solution then an urban thoroughfare/highway that turns into congested streets periodically. OK, you are still not understanding that if you argue that every light-rail line should be converted into heavy rail, then, to be fair, you should also argue that every highway (Venice, Santa Monica, Sepulveda/PCH, Highland, Manchester, Hawthorne, etc.) should be converted into a freeway...I hope this time it helps. It's still an apples to oranges comparison. Moving a larger volume of cars is only part of the reason that highways are grade separated. And the reasons that most highways are not grade separated has little to do with why rail is often not grade separated.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 26, 2009 18:23:21 GMT -8
I think damien is very wrong in using vehicle-miles as the benchmark to compare accident rates for cars and light rail. They're just not substitutes for each other. If everyone on a Blue Line train decided to drive instead, each Blue Line vehicle-mile would be replaced by some 200 automobile-miles, and if the per-vehicle-mile accident rates were the same, there total number of accidents would increase. The challenge here is finding the actual substitution rates between light rail vehicle-miles and automobile vehicle-miles, which is a pretty tricky and business. And ultimately, you also have to weigh the benefits of safety against those of mobility, which is even trickier and more subjective. No, it makes sense if you're looking at accidents from the perspective of the commuter. It may even be a low ball figure in that sense. If we wanted to compare a commuter's likelihood of being in an accident we should multiply each of the numbers in Damien's chart by the average number of people involved in each accident. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story because car accidents on average will result in much more serious injuries that train crashes (for pax, not the cars or peds that run into the train).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 26, 2009 18:46:11 GMT -8
Despite Darrell's attempt to dismiss this by bringing in "boogeyman Cox," calculating accident rates by travel miles is the scientific standard. Indeed, the primary statistic (other than the raw data) on the quarterly Blue Line accident reports is the accidents per vehicle miles. ... The ONLY time and the ONLY agencies/organizations who ONLY use passenger miles are those who try to spin the well documented fact that light rail vehicles are dangerous. WRONG, documented by this slide from last week's national APTA-TRB Joint Light Rail Conference: You can see how that statistic makes sense. They take the total number of fatalities (people) and divide that by the number of miles traveled by people. The other way takes the total number of accidents (trains) divided by the total miles traveled by people. It should be (depending on your frame of reference, which hopefully we can agree should be people) the total number of accident victims (people) divided by the total miles traveled by people.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 26, 2009 19:20:30 GMT -8
Therefore, Fix Expo unfortunately have no case. This whole "racism lawsuit" they were basing upon a single grade-separation structure at Washington/National would have been thrown out as soon as they filed it. But it just happened that it was thrown out by Fix Expo's own San-Francisco-based lawyers from the BRU lawsuit, who deemed it worthless. The nuclear attack was the final and biggest flop by Fix Expo. Gokhan, can you give us more information on this lawsuit being tossed out, I haven't seen anything in the newspaper about it. Thanks THE ROADTRAINER
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 19:49:35 GMT -8
Therefore, Fix Expo unfortunately have no case. This whole "racism lawsuit" they were basing upon a single grade-separation structure at Washington/National would have been thrown out as soon as they filed it. But it just happened that it was thrown out by Fix Expo's own San-Francisco-based lawyers from the BRU lawsuit, who deemed it worthless. The nuclear attack was the final and biggest flop by Fix Expo. Gokhan, can you give us more information on this lawsuit being tossed out, I haven't seen anything in the newspaper about it. Thanks THE ROADTRAINER It has never become into a lawsuit because apparently Fix Expo's lawyers have declined to take it. It was supposed to have been launched last Friday.
|
|
|
Post by crzwdjk on Apr 26, 2009 20:24:55 GMT -8
Just to be perfectly clear: the only argument I intend to make is that the important thing is to reduce the total number of people killed as a result of our transportation system. I believe that the way to analyze this situation is to compare the safety of the transportation alternatives that people have (or that we are considering giving them), in this case car versus light rail. To make things clear, I'll provide some examples. Suppose that the light rail per-vehicle-mile accident rate is 17 times that of the freeway per-vehicle-mile accident rate (from Damien's graph). Suppose the average Blue Line train carries 200 people, and that each LRT passenger-mile foregone results in 1/4 of a vehicle mile on the freeway. Then, one Blue Line train-mile foregone means 50 vehicle miles, and almost thrice as much total accident risk from that group of 200 people. All this is just marginal analysis such as you'd find in economics, and it's a useful tool to understand how a slight change to the system would alter its state.
It's important to remember the limitations of this sort of analysis though: for example, it assumes that accident rates are constant, which they may not be. Maybe familiarity with LRT operation from an increased number of lines decreases the per-vehicle-mile accident rate. It's almost certainly true that the design has a very significant effect on accident rates for both freeways and LRT, as do various local factors like traffic levels, driver attitudes, and things even harder to quantify. And this analysis can't account for huge global changes, or impacts that increase or decrease overall travel levels: it only works at the margins. It also depends on having reliable and valid data. As just one example, I think damien's comparison of the Blue Line to "all roads in California" is rather unfair, given that accident rates are almost certainly correlated with surrounding traffic density, speed, etc. For a proper comparison, you'd have to at the very least limit your sample to LA County, and better yet, an area around the actual line in question, then figure out how much traffic the light rail line will divert, and then compare marginal accident rates. Oh, and I almost forgot: the underlying assumption of all of this is that we're trying to minimize fatalities for a given level of travel. Obviously, if you have a different goal, you'd get a different answer.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 26, 2009 21:55:35 GMT -8
I think that all sides are presenting arguments that, from their frame of reference, have at least some merit that each side ignores at its peril.
However, the ad hominem attacks reflect poorly not on the attacked but on the attacker. Please stop referencing political aspirations, FRN's, nuclear attacks and anything meant to goad the other side.
I think that this project was meant to bring another mode of travel and that there was some unavoidable inconvenience to motorists while increasing convenience and usage of mass transit. The amount of inconvenience and increased convenience, respectively, is either appropriate or inappropriate, in the opinions of the different posters here.
I think that there will be a lot of questions that are unanswerable as of yet until the first phase of the Expo Line is built. If it turns out that there are accidents, forced slowdowns of the trains and cars to prevent accidents, and operational problems then many will be disappointed with this project; if it turns out that these do not occur, then there will be a lot of people who interpret this as a success.
For so MANY years, the Expo Line was addressed as the average Angeleno as "riiiiiiiiight....", and now heads are a-spinning that it will actually become reality. Now it's the DTC and Wilshire Subway and even the CAHSR projects that folks are now forced to confront. It's indeed possible that the first phase of the Expo Line would have been built differently if a DTC had been planned as a reality...but I can ASSURE you that for years the political and legal response was also "riiiiiiight".
I have a sneaking suspicion that as more transit lines change from the mindset of science fiction to cold, hard reality (did Americans of the 1940's really have a clue as to how the Interstate freeway system was going to change the landscape of our society?), there will an increased emphasis on grade separation and speed.
Until then, the Blue, Expo and Orange Lines were a political dogfight just to become a reality. If the paradigm of treating freeways and rail lines equally with respect to funding ever became a reality (as spokker mentioned a few posts ago), things would be a lot different.
Right now, the lobbies in Sacramento and Washington and even in L.A. County who want to shortchange transportation (which is the underpinning of our economy that pays for everything else) are much greater threats to our shared goal of a successful Expo Line and Southern California mass transit system. Please don't forget that as this debate at times gets way too personal.
I don't always agree with Darrell and Gokhan, but I really appreciate the way their advocacy has kept transit activism alive in the Westside...and I anticipate that their efforts will help the Westside far beyond the completion date of the Expo Line.
I don't always agree with Damien, but I really appreciate the way his advocacy has kept transit activism alive in the Mid-City...enough to want the Crenshaw Corridor Project to be a LRT (or maybe a HRT, but definitely a train come hell or high water) that puts the Red/Purple Line Connector on hold until it's determined how far and where the Crenshaw Project should proceed northwards.
I like the statistical debate, but I think it's as limited as statistics are in predicting the economy or weather or earthquakes or anything else...they've got their limitations! So long as we're all capable of realizing we don't know everything and that we always can each be proven wrong, this discussion/debate will be more helpful and more readable than it has at times.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 27, 2009 9:19:43 GMT -8
Has Gohkan still not gotten the memo that his propensity to be deceitful and overall negative demeanor and personal attacks have forced him to sacrifice interaction with me on this issue? Right, you haven't been negative at all! BTW, why are you afraid to address anyone's comments directly, as opposed to in the third-person?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 27, 2009 9:55:04 GMT -8
Damien, you're not going to convince Darrell, Gokhan, or me that LRT at-grade is inherently unsafe. And you're not going to convince anyone else that you have a serious argument to listen to, as long as you're firing six-shooters into the air.
And in fairness, Gokhan, you are contributing to the tensions by taunting Damien with the "nuclear" stuff.
Damien, I've asked a question before, and have gotten no answer, so I'll ask you again. Is it your assertion that (a) the grade-crossing policy is flawed in a way that makes it unjust/discriminatory, or that (b) the grade-crossing policy is not flawed but is being misapplied in an unjust/discriminatory way?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 27, 2009 10:50:37 GMT -8
And in fairness, Gokhan, you are contributing to the tensions by taunting Damien with the "nuclear" stuff. Well, the "nuclear" option had been brought up by Fix Expo themselves but I've now edited the post above referencing to it, given that it never actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 27, 2009 13:03:07 GMT -8
. Also, note that the realignment of National Blvd at Hayden Ave had to be done because of the new LRT bridge and ramp over Ballona Creek. I was looking through some old conversations with friends and came across these pictures of the Exposition Right-of-way pre 2007 construction. The first picture is looking west, where Jefferson turns left and National continues straight across Ballona Creek. The old track (here covered with dirt) was on the left side of National. This will become the retained fill section of the La Cienega/Jefferson bridge. You can slightly see where the rails cross eastbound National, just to the left of the orange sign that says "No Left Turn". The second picture is looking east, showing how National splits around the old track at Hayden. With the reconfiguration this would eliminate the right of way weaving in and out between Jefferson/National and National/Hayden, the distance between the two is a little over one quarter-mile.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 27, 2009 14:55:26 GMT -8
Kenalpern is exactly right. However, I don't think his call for civility is going to end the fighting, myself included. Things get emotional and things will continue to get emotional. I think that's just human nature and the best remedy for it, in my opinion, is to not take things said on the Internet too seriously. That's my philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 27, 2009 16:02:55 GMT -8
Just to be perfectly clear: the only argument I intend to make is that the important thing is to reduce the total number of people killed as a result of our transportation system. I believe that the way to analyze this situation is to compare the safety of the transportation alternatives that people have (or that we are considering giving them), in this case car versus light rail. To make things clear, I'll provide some examples. Suppose that the light rail per-vehicle-mile accident rate is 17 times that of the freeway per-vehicle-mile accident rate (from Damien's graph). Suppose the average Blue Line train carries 200 people, and that each LRT passenger-mile foregone results in 1/4 of a vehicle mile on the freeway. Then, one Blue Line train-mile foregone means 50 vehicle miles, and almost thrice as much total accident risk from that group of 200 people. All this is just marginal analysis such as you'd find in economics, and it's a useful tool to understand how a slight change to the system would alter its state. Continuing your example those 200 people would drive 50 miles on average 250 days per year. That would be (200x50x250=) 2,500,000 miles per year. At a rate of 1.09 accidents per million miles they might be expected to have 2.7 accidents per year. Since they are assumed to be driving individually that amounts to 2.7 people in accidents per year. Those same people on the train would travel (50x250=) 12,500 miles per year and at 17.1 accidents per million miles would be expected to be involved 0.21 accidents per year. However since each accident involves 200 people there would be (200x0.214=) 42 people in accidents per year. Of course as you and others have mentioned, generic freeway vs. blue line may not be a fair comparison. Also freeway accidents tend to be much more severe than what a train pax would experience.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 30, 2009 20:58:16 GMT -8
I would like FixExpo advocate for the poor minority communities rethink their positions on gay marriage before they scream about environmental racism on transit. South LA has no problem displaying bigotry to homosexuals and the Prop 8 results for LA County by precinct pretty much confirm that.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 1, 2009 9:01:59 GMT -8
I would like FixExpo advocate for the poor minority communities rethink their positions on gay marriage before they scream about environmental racism on transit. South LA has no problem displaying bigotry to homosexuals and the Prop 8 results for LA County by precinct pretty much confirm that.
I totally agree, environmental racism for a "select" group only - bigotry against gays - it's all bad.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2009 23:35:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 2, 2009 7:51:37 GMT -8
I have two comments in relation to this Antalya LRT: First, It may be an example of how un-litigious their society is by the fact that people are walking around what appears to be active construction sites pursuing their normal every day lives. In the U.S. these areas would be fenced off and or have temporary railing and ramps installed because of the threat of litigation. It's kind of refreshing. Second, I really like how there is grass between the tracks in one of the photos. I know having grass complicates things (plumbing + maintenance) and thus is unlikely to happen here but it would be real nice thing if it were to happen here. Even gravel ballast that allows water to percolate and replenish the aquifer in my mind is a good thing. Because L.A. is an arid environment and water is becoming a ever precious resource for the Southwest, it is unfortunate that so much of L.A. is covered in asphalt and concrete that directs water to a storm drain and then out to sea instead of being allowed to replenish the aquifer. Material like that in the below photographs allow green terrain and automobiles to occupy the same space. It would be great for Dodger Stadium and it's vast asphalt parking lots.
|
|