|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 21, 2010 17:27:08 GMT -8
I wouldn't get too concerned about crowds from USC crossing the tracks to attend games at the Coliseum--the Trojans only have six or seven home games, and on Saturdays, the trains are less likely to be carrying time-sensitive passengers.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2010 17:32:48 GMT -8
Finally, what are the implications for Measure R light rail projects besides Crenshaw? There's not much at-grade light rail beyond Expo phase 2, which is already approved; the impacts could be more on post-Measure R projects. This could impact "Gold Line Foothill Phase 2B" (to Montclair) and the "West Santa Ana Branch". MRT's proposal is to weaken the legitimacy of the policy. But already, the Metro Board retains the option to overrule the policy and mandate a grade separation in special circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 21, 2010 17:45:31 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas is Fix Expo and NFSR come to power. We've all heard these things from the Fix Expo and NFSR NIMBYs and now we're hearing the exact same broken record from the mouth of a politician. How sad it is.
Mark Ridley-Thomas and the NIMBYs he is supporting are now using every ammunition possible to attack Expo Phase 2 and have the Crenshaw Line a full subway: Expo Inspector General, this Metro grade-crossing policy nonsense, him abstaining on the Expo board votes, and many more are all parts of it.
Why did it have to come to this and why should we have had a divisive person in LA County as a leader? His base is against the vast majority of the people and politicians but only serving a sliver of special interest groups in South LA and the Westside. This rubbish is against all common sense.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 21, 2010 20:21:27 GMT -8
Mark Ridley-Thomas is Fix Expo and NFSR come to power. We've all heard these things from the Fix Expo and NFSR NIMBYs and now we're hearing the exact same broken record from the mouth of a politician. How sad it is. Mark Ridley-Thomas and the NIMBYs he is supporting are now using every ammunition possible to attack Expo Phase 2 and have the Crenshaw Line a full subway: Expo Inspector General, this Metro grade-crossing policy nonsense, him abstaining on the Expo board votes, and many more are all parts of it. Why did it have to come to this and why should we have had a divisive person in LA County as a leader? His base is against the vast majority of the people and politicians but only serving a sliver of special interest groups in South LA and the Westside. This rubbish is against all common sense. Sorry...but a grade crossing policy that says trains should go at-grade on Vermont (2nd busiest bus corridor), Western (3rd busiest? can't confirm that), and Crenshaw; but not La Brea or La Cienega does sound sketchy. And, the grade crossing policy is very automobile favored. I think everybody can agree on that. Instead of grade seperation for a street like Overland, it was recommended to widen the streets; thus allowing more automobile traffic (road widenings always lead to more cars..not less). I agree with all the grade crossings for Crenshaw Line, except Expo/Crenshaw station....so I don't think anything would change. 48th to 59th is pretty safe on going at-grade, because the new policy doesn't have any significant pedestrian activity in that area...unlike Dorsey (4,000 students) or Trousdale. A re-evaluation is a good thing and I'm sure won't do anything to Expo Phase II, as that's already been certified and approved by the Board. This new policy doesn't say to grand-father old approvals. BTW..kinda funny about all this backlash about how it's going to kill rail projects. It reminds me of a similar past motion that now traffic counts will have to include non-automotive transportation for traffic calming studies, which everybody praises. It just sounds like hear we are treating it as the death of rail...which it won't.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 6:52:07 GMT -8
Let's not overstate the impact of this policy change. Yes this will make it more difficult to build at-grade rail. But it isn't the end of light rail development.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 7:05:26 GMT -8
A re-evaluation is a good thing and I'm sure won't do anything to Expo Phase II, as that's already been certified and approved by the Board. This new policy doesn't say to grand-father old approvals. NFSR is suing to have the Phase 2 EIR thrown out (decertified). If they were to succeed (let's hope not), the new EIR could be subject to the new policy.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 22, 2010 8:44:01 GMT -8
NFSR is suing to have the Phase 2 EIR thrown out (decertified). If they were to succeed (let's hope not), the new EIR could be subject to the new policy. I cannot see any modification to the existing at-grade policy change within a year. If anything, it would take a couple of years with debates, provisions, modifications, etc... Plus, I don't think much will change in the end, except a true consideration of non-automobile impacts of at-grade rail; which in reality, makes a ton of sense. That policy would most likely impact the Pico and Trousdale station, if it was in effect today. And quite possibly the downtown Long Beach and downtown Santa Monica segments of the Blue and Expo Lines, respectively. Which, in retrospect, would have made for more efficient rail in those areas....
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 22, 2010 9:06:52 GMT -8
NFSR is suing to have the Phase 2 EIR thrown out (decertified). If they were to succeed (let's hope not), the new EIR could be subject to the new policy. I cannot see any modification to the existing at-grade policy change within a year. If anything, it would take a couple of years with debates, provisions, modifications, etc... Plus, I don't think much will change in the end, except a true consideration of non-automobile impacts of at-grade rail; which in reality, makes a ton of sense. That policy would most likely impact the Pico and Trousdale station, if it was in effect today. And quite possibly the downtown Long Beach and downtown Santa Monica segments of the Blue and Expo Lines, respectively. Which, in retrospect, would have made for more efficient rail in those areas.... What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 9:32:30 GMT -8
What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale? The big difference is, we would like our trains to go faster than buses and cars, if possible. That's the whole point of making it a rail line instead of a bus line. Metro Rail lines are rapid transit lines, not the streetcars of 80 years ago. In the cases of Farmdale and Trousdale, both involved periodic heavy flows of pedestrians. And in both cases, the problem was solved by a full stop of the trains. I'm not terribly happy about the Farmdale solution. But if they want to add pedestrian traffic to the policy, that's fine with me. On the other hand, consideration of vague notions like "community development" are very ominous. Those could be easily twisted by groups like NFSR to force grade separation through Rancho Park, where there is little justification for it. I would recommend a full discussion by Metro staff and board members of the proposed changes to the policy before anything gets rushed through. This popped up only a few days ago, so I hope the Board will not try to pass this motion next Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 22, 2010 9:52:33 GMT -8
What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale? The big difference is, we would like our trains to go faster than buses and cars, if possible. That's the whole point of making it a rail line instead of a bus line. Metro Rail lines are rapid transit lines, not the streetcars of 80 years ago. You're ignoring the fact that this is light-rail, and light-rail can take many forms: it can run as a streetcar, in can run in a street median without sharing lanes with cars, it can run in a private right-of-way, in a tunnel, on an elevated structure, etc. Of course, if the Expo Line ran as a streetcar all the way to Santa Monica, it would be very slow (in fact it never runs as a streetcar), or if it ran in a signal-controlled median all the way, it would be very slow, but this is not the case. Trousdale: 6 games a year, all on Saturdays. A subway station in this questionable neighborhood would be dreaded by the students in late-night, early-morning, or weekend hours because of security concerns. Farmdale: Yes, there are crowds, but only for ten minutes a day. To build a tunnel here would be to burn the mattress for a flea. Colorado: The City of Santa Monica specifically insisted on having the line at-grade, and they strongly objected to the line being grade-separated, which Expo had recommended. Again, don't forget that light-rail is almost as fast as heavy rail, and it's without the inconvenience of having to go down and up multistory levels to access stations, which itself adds a considerable amount to the travel time. As an added bonus, people literally see light-rail as opposed to a hidden subway, and they know that it's there, which makes it more familiar and attractive to them. Out of sight is out of mind for many. Again, I'm not saying that light-rail is superior to subway or vice versa, but they're both efficient forms of transit. The advantage of light-rail is that it doesn't have to be constrained to a tunnel. The whole Mark-Ridley Thomas deal is politics. It's not any different than what Fix Expo has been arguing. It's hiding its real face behind vague arguments. Metro Grade-Crossing Policy has been written by experts, not politicians. Now, a politician wants to write it. The existing policy is not only about cars but has many elements. Moreover, CPUC must approve any crossing before it can be built -- an additional outside layer of expertise and safety. Mark Ridley-Thomas simply doesn't know what he is talking about and he is blinded by a push for subways and he is bringing dirty and radical politics into a working rail-transit plan for Los Angeles, which is making it more difficult to implement this plan. We don't need these things from him.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 22, 2010 12:14:01 GMT -8
What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale? First of all..I could care less about Farmdale. I supported closing the street and having elevators/stairs cross above the train like the Fullerton Metrolink station. But whatever.... Agreed with metrocenter, we want speed in LA. I don't want a bus or car experience with a train. I don't want to stop at red lights when in a train. Do you know how many times the Blue Line stops at 12th street before/after Pico station? Ridiculous. Pico station is in a high pedestrian area, so if the new policy was there, maybe that would have been grade seperated. Then, we could just speed past the crowds. And we're not talking about making it a subway, it can be below grade as beautifully as Memorial Park station in Pasadena. The Blue Line through downtown Long Beach is a pain as well. With such a heavy pedestrian area, it should be underground. With MRT's motion, this area would have qualified for grade seperation as back in the '80s there was plans to turn their downtown around from an eyesore to a rocking hip area. This would have cut minutes off the Blue Line. I think MRT has the right idea that pedestrian counts need to be taken into concern. Right now, they don't. Hence the reason we have some areas at-grade (Pico, Trousdale, downtown Long Beach), when should have been grade-seperated. I don't think this policy will change anything on the current Expo Line Phase II or Crenshaw Line. Plus, I don't see it passing next Thursday; maybe being tabled for a future discussion. Trousdale: 6 games a year, all on Saturdays. A subway station in this questionable neighborhood would be dreaded by the students in late-night, early-morning, or weekend hours because of security concerns. There's a subway station in MacArthur Park...and look at how many demonstrations (May Day '08) and riots (recent police shooting of immigrant) happen there. Again, don't forget that light-rail is almost as fast as heavy rail, and it's without the inconvenience of having to go down and up multistory levels to access stations, which itself adds a considerable amount to the travel time. That's a strong matter of opinion. I find my travel time on the Red or Purple Line is way shorter than on Gold or Blue lines (Green Line is the exception..though I wisht the norm). The subway makes up for the "considerable amount to the travel time" by its high speed and no waiting for intersections. We are in this sphere of transit advocates who just want progress. Talk to the average joe...and see what they prefer..the Red Line or the Blue/Gold Lines. My friends all love the Red Line..but the light rail lines are 50/50. As an added bonus, people literally see light-rail as opposed to a hidden subway, and they know that it's there, which makes it more familiar and attractive to them. Out of sight is out of mind for many. Hmm......isn't our Red Line ridership around 150K, which is just one line (okay, it does take in consideration the 2 Purple Line stations) compared to 150K for all the other light rail lines. Using your logic of "out of sight, out of mind" would mean that people in London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, etc.. wouldn't use their subways because it's "out of sight, out of mind". I don't think that works. Again, I'm not saying that light-rail is superior to subway or vice versa, but they're both efficient forms of transit. The advantage of light-rail is that it doesn't have to be constrained to a tunnel. Wow, constrained in a tunnel is a problem? Wonder why 12 million people a day ride the London tube! But, I agree with you that light rail and subways are both forms of efficient transportation. And yes, I agree with you that people in LA don't want a streetcar. And, as metrocenter said, people in LA want to take rail over a car/bus because it shouldn't stop at red lights. I'm not starting an arguement of subways v. light rail; I think this has been beaten to death. What I'm saying is that we should consider non-automobile impacts to grade seperation (pedestrians and bikes); we could have built an even more efficient transit system with less slow-down areas like Pico, Trousdale, and downtown Long Beach. MRT has the right idea in mind, but, his motion will have to be scrubbed clean so we don't take years to build another rail line. I'm sure Metro won't let that happen..nor will the people of LA.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 12:20:18 GMT -8
The big difference is, we would like our trains to go faster than buses and cars, if possible. That's the whole point of making it a rail line instead of a bus line. Metro Rail lines are rapid transit lines, not the streetcars of 80 years ago. You're ignoring the fact that this is light-rail, and light-rail can take many forms: it can run as a streetcar, in can run in a street median without sharing lanes with cars, it can run in a private right-of-way, in a tunnel, on an elevated structure, etc. I'm not ignoring anything: I am answering your question: "What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale?" Clearly we want to go faster than buses and cars are currently going. That's why most people want to build this train. Whatever forms light rail "can take", Metro Rail is not a streetcar system, but a rapid transit system. Metro Rail lines are designed for long-distance commutes, they are not local lines with frequent stops. L.A. County is huge and would be poorly served by a streetcar/tram system. Even the interurban Red Cars ran fairly fast over most of their route, with few stops. Streetcars are irrelevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up them up. I will repeat: I do not support changing the policy as Ridley-Thomas has proposed. If there are any changes, they should involve input from all of the Metro Board as well as staff. But to decry this policy proposal as if it is the end of rail transit in Los Angeles is going a bit overboard.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 22, 2010 12:27:57 GMT -8
But to decry this policy proposal as if it is the end of rail transit in Los Angeles is going a bit overboard. Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 12:28:36 GMT -8
What I'm saying is that we should consider non-automobile impacts to grade seperation (pedestrians and bikes); we could have built an even more efficient transit system with less slow-down areas like Pico, Trousdale, and downtown Long Beach. MRT has the right idea in mind, but, his motion will have to be scrubbed clean so we don't take years to build another rail line. I'm sure Metro won't let that happen..nor will the people of LA. I agree that bikes and pedestrians should be counted as well as cars. But I disagree that MRT has the right idea in mind. He is proposing to open the criteria up to include "economic development concerns" and "subjective community considerations". That is way too broad IMO, and could give NIMBY groups a virtual veto on any proposed route. I am guessing the Metro Board will narrow this vague and broad language if it has any serious chance of passage. (Frankly, the Metro Board may toss the proposed changes altogether. MRT has not been making any friends lately with some of his recent actions.)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 22, 2010 14:54:49 GMT -8
You're ignoring the fact that this is light-rail, and light-rail can take many forms: it can run as a streetcar, in can run in a street median without sharing lanes with cars, it can run in a private right-of-way, in a tunnel, on an elevated structure, etc. I'm not ignoring anything: I am answering your question: "What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale?" Clearly we want to go faster than buses and cars are currently going. That's why most people want to build this train. Whatever forms light rail "can take", Metro Rail is not a streetcar system, but a rapid transit system. Metro Rail lines are designed for long-distance commutes, they are not local lines with frequent stops. L.A. County is huge and would be poorly served by a streetcar/tram system. Even the interurban Red Cars ran fairly fast over most of their route, with few stops. Streetcars are irrelevant to the discussion, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up them up. I know you always insist on saying the last word, but you didn't even read my post this time. Where did I say that I was promoting streetcars? In fact I specifically said that the Expo Line does not run in the streetcar mode. You ignored my comments about the flexibility of light-rail and you also ignored my comments about the speed of light-rail. The Pasadena Gold Line for example goes to Pasadena in 29 minutes, not slower than heavy rail. The flexibility of light-rail, where it can go street level when needed, is the main advantage, and it's only a small compromise to the speed. Don't forget that it's more than twice cheaper to build light-rail than heavy rail -- a big difference. It's also important to have different transportation alternatives at hand. I support the Westside subway as well for example.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 22, 2010 15:58:45 GMT -8
So I'm still trying to figure out your original, cryptically-worded question: What's the difference between driving a bus or even a car and operating light-rail on Colorado, Farmdale, or Trousdale? Maybe I misinterpreted that question because it wasn't clear what you were getting at. LAOfAnaheim was simply stating what we all know is true: the street-running parts of Metro Rail feel excruciatingly slow when you're anxious to get somewhere. We all agree that light rail is flexible, so why do you keep bringing it up? Nobody here is arguing against light rail or its flexibility. But in the center of the line, I think we all want it to run fast. The Pasadena Gold Line for example goes to Pasadena in 29 minutes, not slower than heavy rail. Over 13.5 miles, that is very slow. 27 mph actually, and along Marmion it's as slow as 20 mph. That's much slower than our Red Line. Don't forget that it's more than twice cheaper to build light-rail than heavy rail -- a big difference. Not necessarily. Crenshaw is light rail and the price has ballooned to nearly $2 billion, over $200 million/mile. It really depends on how much of it is built in a tunnel. This is why use of grade-separations has to be limited. But anyway, there is only one heavy-rail project on the horizon (the Wilshire Subway), and all the rest will be light-rail. I know you always insist on saying the last word I've never insisted on that. I welcome the ongoing discussion.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 22, 2010 17:08:53 GMT -8
Over 13.5 miles, that is very slow. 27 mph actually, and along Marmion it's as slow as 20 mph. That's much slower than our Red Line. Gotta disagree on that one. From past discussion here the Gold Line and Red Line average about the same speed in the same distance: Gold Line from Union Station to Memorial Park (9.4 miles, 9 stations) -- 27 mph Red Line from Union Station to Hollywood/Highland (9.5 miles, 11 stations) -- 27 mphTrue the half mile in Highland Park at 20 mph, with signal pre-emption, loses a bit less than one minute (takes 30 seconds at 60 mph, 36 seconds at 50 mph, 90 seconds at 20 mph). And the Red Line has two more stations. I omitted the I-210 median and Santa Monica Mountains tunnel sections as special cases.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2010 10:57:02 GMT -8
Thank you Darrell. It looks like the misrepresentation of light-rail has now stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 24, 2010 15:26:13 GMT -8
Over 13.5 miles, that is very slow. 27 mph actually, and along Marmion it's as slow as 20 mph. That's much slower than our Red Line. Gotta disagree on that one. From past discussion here the Gold Line and Red Line average about the same speed in the same distance: Gold Line from Union Station to Memorial Park (9.4 miles, 9 stations) -- 27 mph Red Line from Union Station to Hollywood/Highland (9.5 miles, 11 stations) -- 27 mphTrue the half mile in Highland Park at 20 mph, with signal pre-emption, loses a bit less than one minute (takes 30 seconds at 60 mph, 36 seconds at 50 mph, 90 seconds at 20 mph). And the Red Line has two more stations. I omitted the I-210 median and Santa Monica Mountains tunnel sections as special cases. To be fair, this travel time is possible because of the many grade separations and stretches of the Gold Line that do not cross major intersections. There are only three grade crossings of minor streets between Union Station before the Highland Park crawl. There are about 20 grade seperated intersections between the two points you mention and dozens of streets that do not go through. Gold Line grade separations between Union Station and Memorial Park: - Ceasar Chavez, (rail aerial structure) - Vignes, (rail aerial structure) - Main, (rail aerial structure) - Alameda, (rail aerial structure) - College (rail aerial structure) - Broadway (Road Bridge) - Ave 19 (Rail bridge) - San Fernando (Rail bridge) - 5 freeway rail bridge (of course this is necessary) - Ave 26 (Rail Bridge) - 110 (Rail Bridge) - Marmion Way (Trench) - Figueroa (Trench) - 110 Second bridge (grade seperates Arroyo Ave.) - Oaklawn Ave. (Road bridge) - Columbia St. (Road Bridge) - Fair Oaks Ave. (Road Bridge) - Green St. (Trench) - Colorado Blvd. (Trench) - Holly St. (Trench)
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 24, 2010 15:54:24 GMT -8
Thank you Darrell. It looks like the misrepresentation of light-rail has now stopped. It's not misrepresentations..it's observations/concerns that the rest of us. Keep in mind, Darrell did note that the Red Line was able to serve 2 more stations within the same speed and mileage as the Gold Line, thus giving more access to riders than the Gold Line can. I'd like to see that same time speed analysis of the Blue Line, considering the Expo is more like the Blue than Gold; due to the significant number of grade crossings on Flower and Expo between Trousdale and Farmdale. And as Jason Saunders noted...there are way more grade seperations on the Gold Line than Blue Line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2010 17:56:01 GMT -8
2 more stations would have added less than 2 minutes to 27 minutes -- big deal. And the reason for this little difference is the Marmion Way and 55 MPH vs. 70 MPH (because of frequent slowing down at curves and stations, 55 MPH vs. 70 MPH makes little difference). Don't forget that you still save about five minutes (down + up) from deep-underground station access.
I don't know why people still couldn't learn this but here is the fact:
Gated at-grade light-rail is virtually as fast as subway because trains never slow down or stop at grade crossings, and the speed limit is 55 MPH.
The reason why the Gold Line is fast is because of the fact above, not because it doesn't have many grade crossings. The Expo Line will be similar to the Gold Line between Exposition/Rodeo and 17th St in Santa Monica.
Light-rail is only slow if the trains have to stop at red lights. This is never the case for the current preemptive-gated light-rail segments in Los Angeles.
Public transit can never be as fast as driving with no traffic because of frequent stops. I say this so that you don't get the idea that subways are super-duper fast means of getting from one place to another. Because, every stop adds a minute, and say with twenty stops, you lose about 20 minutes with respect to driving without traffic. In other words driving without traffic is about twice as fast as taking the subway. And taking the light-rail is as fast as taking the subway if the grade crossings are gated.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Oct 24, 2010 20:06:34 GMT -8
I respectfully do not agree 100% with that.
IMO, generally, subways will be more direct because they do not need to adhear to a street-grid pattern. Light-rail, generally, will be paying more respect to such conditions.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2010 20:28:49 GMT -8
IMO, generally, subways will be more direct because they do not need to adhear to a street-grid pattern. Light-rail, generally, will be paying more respect to such conditions. Which light-rail line in Los Angeles adheres to a street-grid pattern?
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 24, 2010 20:47:50 GMT -8
They all do for most of their routes. Light rail generally does not go under buildings and neighborhoods for long periods of time. Most of the time the train is in the median of a street or a freeway, or on an old right of way that is next to a major street.
Subways are fast because they not only have no grade crossings but because they can go to a destination more directly.
That's not to say light rail isn't competitive when it's on a well designed right of way.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 24, 2010 21:14:37 GMT -8
They all do for most of their routes. Light rail generally does not go under buildings and neighborhoods for long periods of time. Most of the time the train is in the median of a street or a freeway, or on an old right of way that is next to a major street. Subways are fast because they not only have no grade crossings but because they can go to a destination more directly. That's not to say light rail isn't competitive when it's on a well designed right of way. Well, actually, the existing light-rail lines in Los Angeles follow old rights-of-way, which don't follow the street grid. But the street grids follow the rights-of-way to a certain extent. Exposition Boulevard for example is a disconnected frontage road by the Air Line right-of-way. Freeways don't follow street grids either. The exceptions are the light-rail segments on Flower, Colorado, and Washington, and most notably the 1st and 3rd Streets in the Eastside (which used to be a streetcar, as opposed to private-right-of-way, route), along with few other locations. On the contrary subways are usually built under major streets because it's easier to provide the easements for ventilation etc. They certainly don't have to and the Beverly Hills segment diagonal routing under the houses and the opposition to it is the current example.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 24, 2010 22:46:11 GMT -8
Yeah, I realize this. The Blue Line is very lucky because it isn't really on a busy street where the right of way is. But it's severely disadvantaged by the street running portion. I remember just a few weeks ago being stuck at an intersection on Washington because a large bike rally had decided to stop traffic thinking to myself "this isn't how this is supposed to work..." I'm slightly worried how the expo line will do because of all the busy streets it will cross, West L.A. is a much bigger beast than South L.A. in terms of traffic. So while the right of way may have been there before the street, the street definitely makes an impact on a right of ways efficiency because of the added complication of making sure things don't collide
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 25, 2010 3:51:58 GMT -8
In terms of following the street grid, the red/purple lines pretty much do so, and there's a big fuss in BH over a proposed deviation to serve constellation. I would say that the directness of the routing is likely to be similar with either technology.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 25, 2010 7:39:20 GMT -8
Thank you Darrell. It looks like the misrepresentation of light-rail has now stopped. Last word huh? Heaven forbid I take the weekend off! I honestly don't understand why you're getting so upset Gokhan. Nobody here is attacking light rail. We are in agreement on at least 90% of the issues. Is it really blasphemy or heresy to state that the street-running sections of our system (e.g., Long Beach, Marmion) are slower than they could be?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 25, 2010 7:42:10 GMT -8
Well, it's true the Red and Purple pretty much follow the street above however, they do deviate. Off the top of my head at Wilshire/Vermont, under downtown and at Union Station. And of course they are looking at the Purple Line between Century City and Westwood not following the street. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and baring an existing ROW a subway can do this a bit easier then above ground rail.
Gokhan is right signal priority is a valuable tool in the tool box. One of the best, however it's not the only tool. We are so very fortunate to have these existing right-of-ways that make our burgeoning new Metro possible. But looking at these great maps people are making I can see how grade separation at certain points may be beneficial, particularly as the available right-of-ways are consumed. Yes, it is expensive. Yes, you don't want to use it at every intersection but there are situations when it is beneficial.
When Darrel posted the travel time comparison in this thread I was genuinely surprised. It seems counter intuitive. Then I looked at the Gold Line Map and I saw these large sections where streets do not cross the alignment. A right of way such as this, signal preemption and a modest amount of grade separation make Darrel's comparison possible.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 25, 2010 11:29:37 GMT -8
Although there are a number of grade separations on the Pasadena Gold Line, it's been important to note six significant boulevard grade crossings at Figueroa/Ave. 61, Pasadena/Monterey. Mission/Meridian, Glenarm, California, and Del Mar.
|
|