|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 15:11:15 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 13, 2009 15:11:15 GMT -8
This is the time table for the Gold Line extension: Union Station | 0.0 miles | 0 minutes | Little Tokyo | 0.5 miles | 4 minutes | Pico/Aliso | 1.2 miles | ? minutes | Mariachi | 1.7 miles | 10 minutes | Soto | 2.3 miles | 11 minutes | Indiana | 3.5 miles | 14 minutes | Maravilla | 5.0 miles | ? minutes | East LA | 5.4 miles | 22 minutes | Atlantic | 5.8 miles | 25 minutes |
The line is currently averaging only 13.9 miles per hour. This is obviously very, very slow, about the same as a regular local bus. I'm hoping that this is only because we are still in the quasi test phase. The travel time on this line needs to be cut by about 10 minutes. How about the two subway stations separated by only 0.2 miles? Didn't it require a ton of money and was it really necessary, given that it adds an additional minute to the travel time? And if this line was going to be this slow, was the subway section needed at all? Again, hopefully, the speed on this line will increase significantly in the future. And, if the time to Little Tokyo is 4 minutes, who really cares if the Downtown Connector wye is underground or at-grade?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 16:17:12 GMT -8
Post by masonite on Nov 13, 2009 16:17:12 GMT -8
There were going with 22 minutes, same as Darrell's ride, from what I have seen. However, it was supposed to be 17 minutes per the EIR I believe. 25 minutes for 6 miles with almost 2 miles of that underground is horrible and 22 minutes isn't much better.
How can it be so far off? That is around 30% slower. That doesn't give me much comfort for the Expo times in the DEIR.
If the Little Tokyo segment to Union Station can't go faster I am not sure there are too many other places to shave off time. It looked pretty slow coming out of Soto going east even in the tunnel, which didn't make sense to me. Even though this is a critical section in the system, once the DTC is built this LAUS to LT section won't apply to the Eastside line, it will just be the Pasadena to Long Beach Line that will have to deal with this along with Marmion Way. It is probably going to be over 1.5 hours from Ontario Airport to DTLA if the entire Foothill Gold Line is built.
I hope I am wrong, but I am thinking ridership on this is going to be disappointing with such slow times and no DTC. Also, I hope Farmdale is a pedestrian bridge and not a station even if it costs a little more and takes longer. Need to keep Expo as fast as possible as ridership suffers otherwise.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 16:40:14 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 13, 2009 16:40:14 GMT -8
Let's just hope that they are just playing it safe now and will gradually increase the speed.
According to my calculations, the travel time for this line should be about 15 minutes. I don't allow for any wait at the station for the initial and final stations. If the Metro timetables have that, it would come to about 16 minutes. So, the EIR time sounds about right.
We all wished that Farmdale would be a pedestrian bridge but LAUSD is not allowing street closure I believe. And, Expo, as usual, wants to save as much money as possible and avoid spending money on an expensive bridge (especially these days when the project seems to be going to be tens of millions of dollars overbudget [again]). And Metro probably doesn't want to maintain the elevators. So, we will likely have to live with the 1 minute extra travel time because of a Farmdale Station.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 17:39:53 GMT -8
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 13, 2009 17:39:53 GMT -8
That's funny...I was complaining about speed earlier this week and some of the boardsters here were saying "train is still faster from Union Station to Little Tokyo".
Duh. The train's speed will be a point of ridicule for the Eastside Gold Line. Sounds, like it'll screw up the timing of the Pasadena Gold Line as the time fluctuates between 22 - 25 minutes.
I don't think the underground stations are unneeded. Soto and Mariachi Plaza will be very popular stations. It's like Pershing Square and Civic Center are .2 miles a part and both are heavy duty stations. The area in East LA is pretty dense. Plus, it's the underground that "catches up the speed" compared to the street running 3rd street portion. Average Joe/Jane rider is going to come out of riding the Gold Line next week saying "WTF", that's my belief.
A few areas the MTA has to look into speeding up: - the curve between Union Station and Little Tokyo - the exit out of the east portal between Soto and Indiana station - Turning of the train from Indiana station to 3rd street - Train between Maravilla and Atlanta/Pomona station
These are unbelievably slow segments. Why is there no dedicated street running synchronization like there is for the Blue Line on Washington street? Or even for the eastside Gold Line on 1st street?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 18:04:53 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 13, 2009 18:04:53 GMT -8
It's like Pershing Square and Civic Center are .2 miles a part and both are heavy duty stations. Pershing and Civic are actually 0.47 miles apart. This is quite reasonable. Correct me if I'm wrong but Mariachi and Soto seem to be only 0.21 miles apart. This is only a four-minute-long walk. I think it is way too close.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 18:32:26 GMT -8
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 13, 2009 18:32:26 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong but Mariachi and Soto seem to be only 0.21 miles apart. This is only a four-minute-long walk. I think it is way too close. Those numbers don't seem right. My numbers show the Mariachi Plaza and Soto stations at 0.61 miles apart. Also the distance from Pico/Aliso to Mariachi Plaza is closer to 0.3 miles, rather than the 0.9 miles you indicated.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 13, 2009 19:14:41 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 13, 2009 19:14:41 GMT -8
Correct me if I'm wrong but Mariachi and Soto seem to be only 0.21 miles apart. This is only a four-minute-long walk. I think it is way too close. Those numbers don't seem right. My numbers show the Mariachi Plaza and Soto stations at 0.61 miles apart. Also the distance from Pico/Aliso to Mariachi Plaza is closer to 0.3 miles, rather than the 0.9 miles you indicated. This makes sense. I'm neither very familiar with the area nor the line, and the official map in the Metro Gold Line schedule shows the station location incorrectly as on the east side of I-5. It's actually at Boyle Ave. 0.6 miles between the subway stations would be OK. I've corrected the distance of the Mariachi Station in my table. Let me know if you think anything else is incorrect. Pico/Aliso might be off as well.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 12:43:48 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 14, 2009 12:43:48 GMT -8
I wonder if they are deliberately running the trains so very slowly for political reasons so that any possible risk of an accident will be eliminated and people like Gloria Molina won't be able to say I told you so, which could hurt the Expo Line and other LRT projects.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 15:59:29 GMT -8
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 14, 2009 15:59:29 GMT -8
Gokkan, good thought. Seeing that Metro is planning to spend a few million on further safety improvements over the next few months, it may be best to keep the trains going slowly through those turns and near the stations, at first. Once the neighbors and local riders are used to the trains, things can speed up safely. Didn't that happen with the Pasadena segment as well?
But I hope they can speed up on the bridge over the freeway, sooner. I do not understand why 30 mph would not be possible. Is the turn really that tight, or the grade that steep?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 16:14:10 GMT -8
Post by kenalpern on Nov 14, 2009 16:14:10 GMT -8
I think you've raised a VERY good point, Gokhan. Besides, just enjoying the view will be something that the riders will want in the next few weeks. By three months, however, I'm hoping that speed will be a goal for the Metro staff to improve...big time...
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 16:30:28 GMT -8
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 14, 2009 16:30:28 GMT -8
The updated Gold Line timetable on Metro's site (listed as 804) shows a consistent 24 - 25 minute run time between Atlantic/Pomona and Union Station. Taking La Linea de Oro's section separately, this may as well be Metro's slowest rail line, putting it's average speed (14 - 15MPH) in line with Houston's METRORail (which takes a half hour to complete 7.5 miles). Metro Rapid buses average 14 - 17 MPH and as much as 20 MPH on good days; and the Orange Line's average is also 20 MPH (even with the 4 year old slow order that has yet to be lifted).
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 17:37:49 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 14, 2009 17:37:49 GMT -8
According to my calculations, la LÃnea de Oro Eastside extension is currently running at 20 MPH in the street-running sections instead of 35 MPH. Note that 20 MPH is the CPUC speed limit for light-rail in a pedestrian mall, i.e. where the light-rail tracks are literally shared with pedestrians walking on them. This way they are eliminating any slight chance of an accident. The only culprit behind this is Gloria Molina.
So, currently, the entire Eastside extension is in the Marmion Way mode. Let us know your individual experiences tomorrow. Perhaps there are some short street-running sections where the trains accelerate to 25 - 30 MPH but not more than that I'm guessing.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 18:07:46 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 14, 2009 18:07:46 GMT -8
While I shot my cab video last week I recall noticing the speed around 25 mph at some point along 3rd Street. The operator was definitely holding back below 35 mph, but it was above 20 mph.
The operator's speed may be tied into the signal synchronization. My eastbound train waited to turn onto 3rd Street but then pretty much never stopped except at stations. What train speed is that "green wave" set for?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 18:33:57 GMT -8
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 14, 2009 18:33:57 GMT -8
A couple of weeks ago I left Little Tokyo just as a Breda left the Little Tokyo Station. We kept more or less the same speed except that it caught a light somewhere before Boyle Heights and I missed that light. I then also missed most of the lights in Boyle Heights, but drove at a normal speed with everyone else. I was ahead of it at Indiana, but I had to wait forever at that light and it passed me again. When I turned on Indiana it was already turning onto 3rd. When I made that turn I hit those lights and it got a series of greens as far as I could see. I stayed behind it the rest of the way, but I got to Atlantic not long after it did because I could see it pull in.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 20:22:02 GMT -8
Post by spokker on Nov 14, 2009 20:22:02 GMT -8
Would four-quadrant gates allow trains to be operated at a higher speed?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 20:35:39 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 14, 2009 20:35:39 GMT -8
Would four-quadrant gates allow trains to be operated at a higher speed? Apparently crossing gates for LRT are not allowed by CPUC in the street medians (at least there is no precedent); so, this seems to be a wild-goose chase. Metro probably already knows this but they will spend a $100,000 for the study just to make Molina stop talking about safety. CPUC safety rules and regulations for light-rail transit(See the table at the bottom.) In the future I might record the train's position and velocity along the route with a GPS sensor. That would tell us what is going on.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 23:09:03 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 14, 2009 23:09:03 GMT -8
Suppose the original Eastside Red Line had been built; how fast would it have been, given its multiple turns? Let's start with the map and estimate a timetable based on the existing Red Line. Station -- approx. miles -- approx. minutes Union Station Santa Fe/Fourth -- 1.1 -- 3 Boyle/First -- 1.0 -- 3 Cesar Chavez/Soto -- 0.8 -- 2 Lorena/First -- 1.1 -- 2 Whittier/Rowan -- 1.2 -- 3 Whittier/Arizona -- 1.2 -- 2 Whittier/Atlantic -- 0.6 -- 1 Total -- 7.0 -- 16 Red Line to Boyle would have been about 6 minutes, 2 minutes faster than the Gold Line. Speed through the tunnel is the same, but add a minute the rest of the way to the Indiana Gold Line station. Third Street is the biggest difference, although probably less important to many riders. Although this may be a trick question, that the Eastside Red Line may have gotten no farther east than Lorena by now.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 23:19:40 GMT -8
Post by masonite on Nov 14, 2009 23:19:40 GMT -8
Suppose the original Eastside Red Line had been built; how fast would it have been, given its multiple turns? Let's start with the map and estimate a timetable based on the existing Red Line. Station -- approx. miles -- approx. minutes Union Station Santa Fe/Fourth -- 1.1 -- 3 Boyle/First -- 1.0 -- 3 Cesar Chavez/Soto -- 0.8 -- 2 Lorena/First -- 1.1 -- 2 Whittier/Rowan -- 1.2 -- 3 Whittier/Arizona -- 1.2 -- 2 Whittier/Atlantic -- 0.6 -- 1 Total -- 7.0 -- 16 Red Line to Boyle would have been about 6 minutes, 2 minutes faster than the Gold Line. Speed through the tunnel is the same, but add a minute the rest of the way to the Indiana Gold Line station. Third Street is the biggest difference, although probably less important to many riders. Although this may be a trick question, that the Eastside Red Line may have gotten no farther east than Lorena by now. I do remember with the Eastside Red Line they were really worried with the wear and tear that the sharp turns were going to do on the trains. Also, I am not really defending the Eastside Gold Line, but when people are comparing against having the Red Line, we should remember: 1. That it was only going to go to Lorena not the length of the Gold Line. 2. Even though Zev passed the anti-subway law, which I fervently voted against, it may be possible at this point that even now the Eastside Red Line may not have been built by now.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 14, 2009 23:31:37 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 14, 2009 23:31:37 GMT -8
Apparently crossing gates for LRT are not allowed by CPUC in the street medians (at least there is no precedent); so, this seems to be a wild-goose chase. Metro probably already knows this but they will spend a $100,000 for the study just to make Molina stop talking about safety. A line could be built in a boulevard median with full fencing and gated crossings and operate at 55 mph. That is essentially the Blue Line on Long Beach Avenue south of Washington, or the short stretch of the Pasadena Gold Line between Pasadena Avenue and Marmion Way south of Figueroa. The main issue is that gated crossings have more impact on cross traffic than signalized intersections. The staff report on the proposed EIR for Eastside gates (8 MB PDF!) from this month's Metro Planning and Programming Committee agenda noted that, 3.5 Traffic Impacts
While the traffic lanes were maintained, the introduction of gates will cause significant impacts to the efficiency of the intersections. CPUC requires that the gates be down 20 seconds prior to the train entering the intersection, as well as an advanced signal preemption at all crossing locations to allow sufficient time for vehicles and pedestrians to completely clear the track areas prior to gate activation and train arrival. This requires much longer signal cycles, and the automobile queues may not clear the intersection before the next train approaches, especially during peak travel times when the trains have 5 to 7 minute headways. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this EIR shows significant environmental impacts of gating the EGL, while it accumulates a good safety record that shows gates would not help, and the idea is quietly dropped.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 9:57:38 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 15, 2009 9:57:38 GMT -8
Suppose the original Eastside Red Line had been built; how fast would it have been, given its multiple turns? Let's start with the map and estimate a timetable based on the existing Red Line. Station -- approx. miles -- approx. minutes Union Station Santa Fe/Fourth -- 1.1 -- 3 Boyle/First -- 1.0 -- 3 Cesar Chavez/Soto -- 0.8 -- 2 Lorena/First -- 1.1 -- 2 Whittier/Rowan -- 1.2 -- 3 Whittier/Arizona -- 1.2 -- 2 Whittier/Atlantic -- 0.6 -- 1 Total -- 7.0 -- 16 Red Line to Boyle would have been about 6 minutes, 2 minutes faster than the Gold Line. Speed through the tunnel is the same, but add a minute the rest of the way to the Indiana Gold Line station. Third Street is the biggest difference, although probably less important to many riders. Although this may be a trick question, that the Eastside Red Line may have gotten no farther east than Lorena by now. I agree that there is not much speed difference in general between light-rail and subway. But the problem is that the Eastside extension currently runs even slower than a local bus. Although, I'm highly optimistic that this is due to political reasons now and will be fixed in the near future.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 10:04:37 GMT -8
Post by Tony Fernandez on Nov 15, 2009 10:04:37 GMT -8
I'm just speculating here, but is this speeding up/driver comfortability issue something that would have normally been done during testing phase but had to be postponed because of the signal issue and the concrete replacement? They were in a rush to get this done, so after the safety tests for the signals were done, might they have just opened it up for revenue service and decided that the drivers would get comfortable with time? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 10:32:29 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 15, 2009 10:32:29 GMT -8
Apparently crossing gates for LRT are not allowed by CPUC in the street medians (at least there is no precedent); so, this seems to be a wild-goose chase. Metro probably already knows this but they will spend a $100,000 for the study just to make Molina stop talking about safety. A line could be built in a boulevard median with full fencing and gated crossings and operate at 55 mph. That is essentially the Blue Line on Long Beach Avenue south of Washington, or the short stretch of the Pasadena Gold Line between Pasadena Avenue and Marmion Way south of Figueroa. The main issue is that gated crossings have more impact on cross traffic than signalized intersections. The staff report on the proposed EIR for Eastside gates (8 MB PDF!) from this month's Metro Planning and Programming Committee agenda noted that, 3.5 Traffic Impacts
While the traffic lanes were maintained, the introduction of gates will cause significant impacts to the efficiency of the intersections. CPUC requires that the gates be down 20 seconds prior to the train entering the intersection, as well as an advanced signal preemption at all crossing locations to allow sufficient time for vehicles and pedestrians to completely clear the track areas prior to gate activation and train arrival. This requires much longer signal cycles, and the automobile queues may not clear the intersection before the next train approaches, especially during peak travel times when the trains have 5 to 7 minute headways. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this EIR shows significant environmental impacts of gating the EGL, while it accumulates a good safety record that shows gates would not help, and the idea is quietly dropped. I disagree with you, Darrell, on the various aspects of this post. There have often been claims by Fix Expo that the Blue Line is a median-running light-rail, as you now claimed as well and I thought you had disputed before. This is not quite correct. Median running strictly means that the light-rail runs in the middle of a street and takes no more space than about 25 ft. In other words it's tightly integrated into the street, except possibly for curbs, fences, etc. Both the Expo Line (west of Gramercy) and Blue Line (south of Washington) have private rights-of-way wider than that and it's not really like trains taking up lanes from a street. There is usually an extra buffer between the vehicles and LRT. This makes an important difference when the automobiles are making turns. In fact, if you examine in it clearly, CPUC 143B-9.04(2)(2) clearly distinguishes between private right-of-way and median/side running, and restricts there the use of gates to fenced street- side running only, in the case street-median/side running. There is also striking restriction for the speed limit -- from no speed limit in the private right-of-way case vs. 45 MPH for street-median or -side running. No one (except for Fix Expo) on this board claims that street running is unusual or requires gates and therefore is not safe. We all know that it's safe. I'm guessing that you are afraid that if they ever install gates for the Eastside Line, they will ask for them for Colorado Ave in Santa Monica as well. I don't think gates would ever happen on Colorado. Everyone knows that light-rail does run without gates when it runs in the middle of a street. It would be unprecedented if they put gates on 1st or 3rd St, with automobiles running adjacent to the gates. But I also do disagree with you in that the environmental impacts would be severe. (Again, I'm guessing that you are worried about cry for gates on Colorado.) If the environmental effects of the gates were severe, the Expo Phase 2 would be problematic, the opposite of what we have been saying, that is the gates have not severe effect on traffic. I still strongly hold my position that properly designed gates at Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, and Barrington will not severely impact the traffic there. Once again, with street-median or -side running light-rail, there is no safety issue without gates. In fact without gates for street-median running is standard; perhaps it could be better with gates for street-side running. Speed is altogether a different issue. I don't think long sections of street-running light-rail is desirable in LA. And, certainly, the Eastside extension needs to be brought to the speed it's capable of (operating at 35 MPH instead of 25 MPH, signal priority, eliminating unnecessary slow-downs, reducing the waits at the stations, etc.). It's more comfortable than a local bus but certainly not any faster than a local bus at the moment. This was exactly why the streetcars were dismantled throughout America after World War II -- the lack of speed despite being expensive systems. We certainly don't want the same thing to happen again and we want to bring back light-rail. And the way to do this is to properly design these lines and properly operate them after they open. This is especially important given the complexity and sprawl of Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 21:10:40 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 15, 2009 21:10:40 GMT -8
This is what I had in mind, Gokhan, in citing the Blue Line on its fenced right-of-way with gated crossings between the two sides of Long Beach Ave. south of Washington Blvd. (2004 photo), and would not confuse the Blue Line on Washington Blvd. under signal control with it: The tracks are about as close to the lanes as median tracks are, and the fence is just past the median curb (granted the east side of the right-of-way is not the same, with its old freight tracks). I completely agree as to what customary median running under signal control is in many cities, such as Phoenix and Portland (note the chain fence between the tracks in the latter to discourage jaywalking): No, I don't expect crossing gates on Colorado. But there is some difference in cross-traffic flow capacity for signalized intersections vs. gated crossings, a reason Crenshaw is signalized vs. gated. The EIR on Eastside gates may find that difference is significant for some cross streets, and a reason to drop the whole idea.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 21:15:18 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 15, 2009 21:15:18 GMT -8
While I shot my cab video last week I recall noticing the speed around 25 mph at some point along 3rd Street. The operator was definitely holding back below 35 mph, but it was above 20 mph. Riding today I looked at the speedometer at times. On 3rd Street the train seemed generally around 25 mph (its limit was 35 mph). Through the "Downey Dip" and rise to the east it went up to 30 mph. On the bridge it was exactly 10 mph.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 15, 2009 21:50:53 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 15, 2009 21:50:53 GMT -8
I know what you mean, Darrell, but the thing is that CPUC distinguishes between private right-of-way and fenced street median. It's probably arguable what the difference is in certain cases, especially where streets are widened around former private rights-of-way such as Exposition or Long Beach Boulevards. But CPUC assigns different speed limits to them (none for private right-of-way vs. 45/35 MPH for street median) and apparently they don't specify gates for median running in their rules and regulations posted above.
I think it's still political that the trains are running at 25 MPH instead of 35 MPH. I also wish they had built a straight bridge over the freeway instead of the double 90-degree turns.
In principle Expo is capable of being run at 45 MPH between crossings with fences on Exposition. But I'm guessing they will run the trains at 35 MPH there.
Again, the Eastside Line is perfectly safe without gates and so is the Expo Line on Flower, Exposition east of Gramercy, and Colorado. Although if Molina has gates installed for the Eastside Line, I wouldn't be very unhappy about it, even though this probably will not happen as you said.
So, with gates on the Eastside Line, answering spokker, you would be going 45 MPH instead of the standard 35 MPH or currently chosen 25 MPH. But there would be some impacts on the cross traffic, probably not severe though, as the gates come down only every 2.5 minutes (compared to every 80 seconds for a traffic signal) and stay down about 45 seconds, not much different than a 40-second standard red phase. Besides there needs to be signal priority with or without gates anyway. Without signal priority LRT won't do much better than a rapid bus as far as speed is concerned.
But the problem is that there would be major design challenges to have the gates installed afterwards. One of the main safety problems, which is still not resolved, for the Blue Line is improperly designed crossing gates left (rehabilitated) from freight days. It is quite likely that if they install gates on the Eastside Line now, they won't or can't be properly designed and will be more dangerous than not having gates at all.
So, I do find Gloria Molina's behavior disturbing, as most people do. A project has just been completed and there is no need to mess with it now. This is very like Fix Expo's imaginary "South LA grade-separation project."
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 9:33:15 GMT -8
Post by Gokhan on Nov 16, 2009 9:33:15 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see what the study and CPUC will say about gates. Perhaps CPUC can consider a strictly median-running configuration private right-of-way and allow gates. I am skeptical that any more than 45 MPH can be allowed. The tracks are probably not built for higher speeds than that. But the installation of the gates and fences would be very problematic from a technical and design point of view.
Saying that, I maintain that "a project has just been completed and there is no need to mess with it now."
Building public transit in LA has always been a battle -- LRT against subway, rail vs. buses, and much more. While these battles sometimes hurt transit, they sometimes help. But when the studies spin the facts to counter opposition, it may be bad at times. For example, in this case, if the study says gates would have severe impacts on the traffic, this statement would have a severe impact on the future of LRT. So, now, we are facing a dilemma. Hopefully the study won't bend the facts not to build gates but will just explain why they are not worth the trouble in this particular case (post design issues etc.), while emphasizing the safety of the line -- the reason they are asked for by Gloria.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 10:41:05 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2009 10:41:05 GMT -8
The biggest challenge for this line right now is the intersection at 1st/Indiana. In my opinion, that is the most dysfunctional intersection along the route. It really is too bad that the tunnel was not extended to 3rd/Indiana, as originally planned.
Of course, the other issue is the huge S-curve out of Union Station. Did it have to cross the 101 at 90 degrees? I realize that the spans would have been longer if it had crossed at an angle: was that the reason they didn't do that?
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 11:27:03 GMT -8
Post by metrocenter on Nov 16, 2009 11:27:03 GMT -8
BTW, if the locals want gates at 1st/Indiana and 3rd/Indiana, I see no problem with that. Otherwise, people stopping their cars on the tracks are going to cause train delays.
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 11:34:19 GMT -8
Post by darrell on Nov 16, 2009 11:34:19 GMT -8
BTW, if the locals want gates at 1st/Indiana and 3rd/Indiana, I see no problem with that. Otherwise, people stopping their cars on the tracks are going to cause train delays. Gates at those crossings could make sense, and be rather similar to Mission/Meridian in South Pasadena:
|
|
|
Speed
Nov 16, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -8
Post by masonite on Nov 16, 2009 17:45:08 GMT -8
Looks like the LAUS to Little Tokyo leg of the Gold Line will get a little faster. Like they say, every little bit helps. blogdowntown.com/2009/11/4858-software-upgrade-should-speed-gold-linesI wish they could have addressed these items before opening the line since there were an extra few months to play with. Nevertheless, with this, a few other adjustments like coming out of the Soto station a little quicker and the new fencing along the at grade portions which will hopefully let them go 35 mph once it is up, then we can get some decent times on this line.
|
|