|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 7, 2013 17:31:08 GMT -8
Safety criteria? Very simple--just keep you eyes open and your brain engaged, and don't get in front of the train! Noise? If you want quiet, don't live in a city; head for one of those "dying on the vine" towns in the boonies where three cars constitutes rush hour.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 7, 2013 20:06:34 GMT -8
Safety criteria? Very simple--just keep you eyes open and your brain engaged, and don't get in front of the train! Noise? If you want quiet, don't live in a city; head for one of those "dying on the vine" towns in the boonies where three cars constitutes rush hour. Yes, they should all pick up and move to Zzyzx in San Bernardino. With emotions running so high, it could only mean that they're finally seeing that the writing's on the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2013 23:08:09 GMT -8
Safety criteria? Very simple--just keep you eyes open and your brain engaged, and don't get in front of the train! Noise? If you want quiet, don't live in a city; head for one of those "dying on the vine" towns in the boonies where three cars constitutes rush hour. Yes, they should all pick up and move to Zzyzx in San Bernardino. With emotions running so high, it could only mean that they're finally seeing that the writing's on the wall. Joke would be on them if they moved to Zzyzx and someone decided to convert the abandoned Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad running through Zzyzx to light-rail. ;D
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jan 8, 2013 7:56:20 GMT -8
Joke would be on them if they moved to Zzyzx and someone decided to convert the abandoned Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad running through Zzyzx to light-rail. ;D I just visualized sitting in an LRT car and hearing the automated conductor say "this is Zzyzx Station".
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jan 8, 2013 19:50:10 GMT -8
Ha-ha! I went to Zzyzx (/zĭ-zĭks/) years ago as part of an overnight CSULB Geology Field Lab where we observed sand formations and visited an extinct, million year old volcano. I had no idea there was an abandoned RR ROW! Good to know!!!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jan 8, 2013 21:49:43 GMT -8
Not sure how much is left, but back in 1979 I stopped in Ludlow (on I-40 and Historic Rte. 66) and took photos of the ruins of the Tonopah and Tidewater facilities west of "old town Ludlow".
Regarding Zzyzx: Look up "Curtis Howe Springer" on the internet--you'll find quite a story. I used to hear him on the radio at 5:30 AM while finishing up my LA Times delivery route in the mid-1960s. "This is your old friend Dr. Curtis Springer coming to you from Zzyzx Mineral Springs in the heart of the beautiful Mojave Desert."
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 22, 2013 12:51:57 GMT -8
While everything was going great with the Expo construction, we just got very bad news! It looks like CPUC has reopened the Expo Line crossings ( PDF file). The reopening is based on the EIR concerns. Since the EIR is also subject to an appeal to the CA Supreme Court, there is now a chance that the commission may not approve the crossings until that is resolved. However, we were told that the CA Supreme Court case will not be resolved at least until next year. This could delay the construction for many months or even more than a year, as no track can be laid out until this is resolved.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 22, 2013 12:59:35 GMT -8
Damn
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 22, 2013 13:21:12 GMT -8
Based on our nightmare with Farmdale, when CPUC opens something, it's a can of worms. We had thought this would be a slam dunk until this ruling regarding the EIR. Now, I am pessimistic that the CPUC will approve the crossings until the CA Supreme Court case decision, which won't be until next year. Since they cannot install track before then, I now expect possible serious delays as well as cost increases for the Expo construction.
|
|
|
Post by simonla on Mar 23, 2013 16:57:06 GMT -8
Can you tell us more about why the Supreme Court case won't be decided until next year? Where did that information come from?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 23, 2013 17:04:43 GMT -8
Can you tell us more about why the Supreme Court case won't be decided until next year? Where did that information come from? It came from Expo Authority. I guess it's a slow process. They probably have a lot of backlog, as NFSR is only one of the many who like to sue around here.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Mar 23, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -8
Can you tell us more about why the Supreme Court case won't be decided until next year? Where did that information come from? It came from Expo Authority. I guess it's a slow process. They probably have a lot of backlog, as NFSR is only one of the many who like to sue around here. :)Can any Rail be laid in the sections that are not in litigation? and what crossings are in question?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 24, 2013 10:46:16 GMT -8
It came from Expo Authority. I guess it's a slow process. They probably have a lot of backlog, as NFSR is only one of the many who like to sue around here. :)Can any Rail be laid in the sections that are not in litigation? and what crossings are in question? All crossings. That's a good question about laying rail. Since they were approved once, perhaps Expo can go ahead and lay them since it would be cheaper to tear them out and rebuild if necessary rather than delaying the project, which would cost millions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 26, 2013 14:17:43 GMT -8
Not to "rub it in" but on the Gold Line to Azusa, all crossings have been approved, and there have been no attempts to reopen any of the cases. At least on Expo, the bridge projects (which usually take the longest) are well along. Gold Line has some major challenges in two bridges crossing Historic Route 66 at oblique angles. One of the ironies will be that an "alternate route" when Huntington Dr. has to be closed in Arcadia will be a street that runs where the Pacific Electric "Day & Night Spur" was located until 1961.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 4, 2013 16:10:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Apr 4, 2013 16:19:44 GMT -8
*sigh*
Such a waste of time, money, and energy better spent elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 9, 2013 12:04:19 GMT -8
I was told by Expo Authority that a decision will now be issued in 60 - 90 days. So, this puts the decision date somewhere between early July and early August.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 9, 2013 16:05:23 GMT -8
A few weeks ago, I biked the ROW (or as much of it as I could) from Culver City to 4th/Colorado in Santa Monica. I did this once before, but going the opposite way and it was long before major construction had begun.
Seeing the new construction in person was quite a sight. Lots of progress, with the exception of the Colorodo segment and stations. The line will truly be a revelation when it opens in a few years.
Now, something I observed: Overland/Expo. I don't spend much time in this area, but this is a very busy street (so busy that in lieu of attempting some type of left turn in the street, I retreated to the nearest stop light and crossed there). Continuing on, I was amazed to see how close the ROW was to the adjacent homes between Overland and Sepulveda. The train really does run right through their neighborhood.
Now, I'm no opponent of the Expo Line, but I do think it's unfortunate that Overland could not have been grade-separated; I have a feeling this will be a tough crossing for the train to make at-grade. I feel the same way about Lincoln Blvd. in Santa Monica; yes, Santa Monica requested an at-grade alignment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes another crossing that winds up stopping the trains dead in their tracks, no pun intended.
To reiterate: I'm no supporter of NFSR, but playing devil's advocate, I can see why they're expressing concern. Unfortunately, neither an elevated (too noisy/visual) or underground (too expensive) option was going to work, so at-grade was really the best Metro could do, short of not building the train at all.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 9, 2013 19:26:50 GMT -8
I live live just east of the Expo-Overland crossing. I'm no NFSR type either though I'm inclined to agree. That's going to be a tough crossing. Overland means freeway access for many people everyday. It's a slow moving wall of traffic each weekday morning and evening. How that's not going to interfere with the train-crossing is hard to imagine. I understand that Overland will be expanded to three lanes in both directions in order to better handle the load. I'm not so sure it's going to make that much difference.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 10, 2013 11:36:18 GMT -8
Overland Ave crossing will have crossing gates and the trains will have signal preemption, meaning that they will never slow down or stop at the crossing. Therefore, there is no problem with trains being delayed there.
Regarding the effect of the crossing gates on traffic, it's no more than a traffic light. There are already traffic lights at National, Coventry, Ashby (a block north of Exposition), and Pico. The existing lights will be synced to the crossing gates to lessen any delay on the traffic. Extra lanes will help with the queuing and queue-cutter signals will ensure that the tracks are never blocked with cars.
They did a very careful study on this and they are confident that the effects on the traffic are minimal. It's really hard to judge anything from personal observation without crunching and analyzing numbers. Many people had the intuition that the Exposition/Rodeo/Gramercy crossing would be unsafe but it's been more than a year and it has a perfect safety record, like virtually the entire line. I personally somewhat worry about the safety of the Barrington Ave crossing but I am probably wrong as well.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 10, 2013 12:19:09 GMT -8
... I do think it's unfortunate that Overland could not have been grade-separated; I have a feeling this will be a tough crossing for the train to make at-grade. I feel the same way about Lincoln Blvd. in Santa Monica; yes, Santa Monica requested an at-grade alignment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes another crossing that winds up stopping the trains dead in their tracks, no pun intended. Here's an image of approximately how an Overland bridge would have looked. NFSR was calling for only a tunnel all the way to Sepulveda, not a bridge. Even if only under Overland it would have had to be long and deep to go under two storm drains (my Photoshop from Expo's other profile drawings). I've also noted that there is no U.S. precedent for a light rail tunnel beneath an existing rail right-of-way. A good thing is that trains are intermittent. As Gokhan noted, the gated crossing will stop traffic less than adjacent signals, and a third lane will be added in each direction for mitigation. Lincoln will be under signal control. I hope the City of Santa Monica gives priority to trains, so they're not just waiting for a green light on Colorado.
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 10, 2013 12:46:26 GMT -8
A tunnel beneath Overland sounds just plain silly. The bridge --were it in the budget seems the better of two fantasy options. When I wonder about traffic delaying trains my concerns aren't about the signals and their timing. I don't doubt the mechanics of that. My questions come from observing driving practices on Overland during peak hours. When I say it's a wall of cars, I mean it's a wall. Cars frequently block the intersection of Overland and Coventry when the signals change. They do it at the other lighted intersections as well. I expect that bad habits will have to change but people are what they are and it won't happen overnight. Overland is a very busy street when it's busy. Three lanes each direction or not, there will invevitably be cars "parked" on the tracks when the signal changes with nowhere left to go. The progress of the train will be affected. My 2¢ -- and I would cheerfully love to be proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 10, 2013 12:57:19 GMT -8
Traffic queuing space was one of the criteria for grade separation. Centinela was originally to be a grade crossing, but cars queue all the way from Olympic to Pico and the final decision was to extend the Bundy aerial across Centinela.
My understanding is that the traffic signals at Coventry and Ashby will by synchronized with the crossing gates' timing to prevent queues across the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 10, 2013 13:09:00 GMT -8
I wanted to point out an irony in NFSR's position: They argued before the California Supreme Court that traffic impacts should be " existing": Two critical issues are central to NFSR’s complaint: First, contrary to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law which states that a proper baseline to evaluate project impacts is the existing environment, the Expo Authority contends that studying hypothetical projected traffic conditions 20 years in the future is sufficient. NFSR disagrees. We believe that, consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings, “existing” can only mean that which currently exists. But concurrently they're arguing before the CPUC that it should be incorporating the FEIR for the Casden project, which certainly doesn't exist now and for which we can't know what form it would finally take.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on May 10, 2013 13:10:27 GMT -8
I've actually lived near the Overland Crossing, and I've lived at USC as well, and know the Vermont Crossing well. I'd say that Vermont and Western both have a heavier traffic volume than Overland does. Yes Overland does have a hefty volume of traffic because of the freeway onramp, but the crossing is north of the freeway, North of the freeway, Overland only extends to Pico, after that it becomes a narrow, difficult to navigate two lane road that experiences extremely little traffic.
In other words, Overland appears to have a lot of volume, but most of that volume is from the Culver City side, or heading towards Culver City, Overland offers no especially convenient Road Route north and really does not merit a grade separated crossing. If Overland was a true north/south thoroughfare it would be much more heavily traveled.
Particularly not if Vermont--with incredibly massive traffic volumes that are in my opinion at least double that of Overland--is an At Grade intersection.
If they can make Vermont work at Grade, they should have no problem making Overland work At Grade.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on May 10, 2013 13:14:51 GMT -8
... I do think it's unfortunate that Overland could not have been grade-separated; I have a feeling this will be a tough crossing for the train to make at-grade. I feel the same way about Lincoln Blvd. in Santa Monica; yes, Santa Monica requested an at-grade alignment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes another crossing that winds up stopping the trains dead in their tracks, no pun intended. Here's an image of approximately how an Overland bridge would have looked. NFSR was calling for only a tunnel all the way to Sepulveda, not a bridge. Even if only under Overland it would have had to be long and deep to go under two storm drains (my Photoshop from Expo's other profile drawings). I've also noted that there is no U.S. precedent for a light rail tunnel beneath an existing rail right-of-way. A good thing is that trains are intermittent. As Gokhan noted, the gated crossing will stop traffic less than adjacent signals, and a third lane will be added in each direction for mitigation. Lincoln will be under signal control. I hope the City of Santa Monica gives priority to trains, so they're not just waiting for a green light on Colorado. Lincoln Blvd is a state road, even if it was not the traffic on Lincoln both north and southbound can not sustain anything more than street running, no signal control. Lincoln's traffic count at Colorado and proximity to the 10 demands street running. West of Lincoln, signal control could work IMO.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 10, 2013 13:22:37 GMT -8
A tunnel beneath Overland sounds just plain silly. The bridge --were in in the budget seems the better of two fantasy options. When I wonder about traffic delaying trains my concerns aren't about the signals and their timing. I don't doubt the mechanics of that. My questions come from observing driving practices on Overland during peak hours. When I say it's a wall of cars, I mean it's a wall. Cars frequently block the intersection of Overland and Coventry when the signals change. They do it at the other lighted intersections as well. I expect that bad habits will have to change but people are what they are and it won't happen overnight. Overland is a very busy street when it's busy. Three lanes each direction or not, there will invevitably be cars "parked" on the tracks when the signal changes with nowhere left to go. The progress of the train will be affected. My 2¢ -- and I would cheerfully love to be proven wrong. Vermont, Western and Crenshaw are awfully busy during rush hour, but nobody is parking on the tracks and delaying Expo Line trains. Maybe it happened once, but it's not a habit, nor remotely common. Thus, you have already been proven wrong
|
|
f ron
Full Member
Posts: 222
|
Post by f ron on May 10, 2013 13:31:33 GMT -8
Well, technically I wasn't doubting the effectiveness of the Vermont, Western and Crenshaw crossings. We'll see!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 10, 2013 13:39:52 GMT -8
Lincoln Blvd is a state road, even if it was not the traffic on Lincoln both north and southbound can not sustain anything more than street running, no signal control. Lincoln's traffic count at Colorado and proximity to the 10 demands street running. West of Lincoln, signal control could work IMO. You may be correct about needing street running (no train priority) at Lincoln, but it will be the City's decison, per " Lincoln Boulevard was recently relinquished to Santa Monica by Caltrans ..."
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 10, 2013 14:02:07 GMT -8
I drive on Overland everyday. This is my take on the crossing issue:
Overland - the impact from Expo will be minimal during rush hour. The average speed between Pico and I-10 during rush hour is already less than 10 mph so adding another synchronized signal is not going to have that much effect on average speed. In fact, it may speed up due to signal synchronization.
Right now, the signals are not in sync so you could (well, you are almost guaranteed to) spend 90 seconds at Coventry and again at Ashby, and again at Blythe (in front of the mall). In the future, this will probably never happen - i.e. you will most likely only stop once at either Coventry/Expo/Ashby/Blythe - never twice, three times, or four times.
During non-rush hour, you could encounter 4 extra red light cycle per hour at Expo on Overland that takes about 30 seconds to clear... chances are remote that will cause any sort of traffic problem. The light at Expo will change sooner than existing traffic signal at Ashby and Coventry.
Coventry - people who use Coventry as a short cut to bypass traffic on Westwood or National to reach Overland will be severely impacted. They will likely have to wait much longer. Instead of on-demand signal change in place now, they will have to defer to the synchronization on Overland. Their wait time may be twice as long.
This is probably an interesting trade off for the people living here. The cut-thru traffic will diminish significantly but they will add maybe another 30 seconds on the way in and out of their house.
Ashby - I don't see much impact here. It's not a major bypass to National Blvd like Coventry and the presence of the elementary school with heavy pick up and drop off traffic will continue to deter people from using this street unless they live on the street.
Blythe - There is no neighborhood traffic here so the signal here is strictly for people entering and exiting the mall. I think it needs to be synchronized with Expo but I actually don't know if that is the case. I don't really foreseen any issue here either way. There are lots of other mall parking garage exits so people will adjust quickly.
|
|