|
Post by wad on Dec 25, 2008 3:11:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 27, 2008 15:02:34 GMT -8
I'm not familiar with Phoenix so it's hard for me to judge whether it's a good thing or not, but watching the bickering in the comments sections on some of these articles about the new train is fun. There seems to be an even-split among people who are for the light rail and against. Typical protests include, "It will be full of bums/illegals!" and "What a waste of money! Improve freeways instead!" It's the same everywhere you go
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 29, 2008 17:49:47 GMT -8
I would suspect that Phoenix would have more "right wing" influence than Southern Calif. Remember where Senators McCain and Goldwater came from. Folks of that political persuasion often have the "I will give up my car (or pickup truck) when they pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Dec 30, 2008 5:04:34 GMT -8
Bob, so did Charlotte and Houston, and those cities took to their light rail systems.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 30, 2008 5:36:28 GMT -8
...and the right-wing San Gabriel Valley has no problem lionizing their Foothill Gold Line. The big question is what sort of planning and ridership will this service enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 30, 2008 21:07:02 GMT -8
I posted some Phoenix construction photos from last May here. And note the federally-funded at-grade median tracks pass schools without even any crossing gates!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 31, 2008 2:30:20 GMT -8
San Gabriel Valley is not particularly "right wing"; I think our local newspapers (Tribune and Star-News) may give that impression. Following on an earlier comment about "politics making strange bedfellows", at least three SGV residents I know who would feel insulted if you called them "right-wingers" voted against Measure "R".
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 31, 2008 13:28:03 GMT -8
Regarding potential ridership for the Foothill Extension, earlier this week I took the Gold Line downtown for some "photo ops", encouraged by the weather, which was beautiful. After some Expo, Angels Flight and Eastside (at Union Station) shots, I headed back to Sierra Madre Villa around 2 pm. As the train rolled eastward in the I-210 median, I noticed that we were running faster than freeway traffic, even the "HOV" lane. Note that this was on a Monday, well before the "official" start of "rush hours". I'm sure there were many automobile drivers who noted that they were being out-run by a "trolley car". I'd be willing to bet that when the line to Azusa opens, some of them will be boarding there.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Dec 31, 2008 13:45:42 GMT -8
First crash: www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/12/30/20081230abrk-lightrailcrash1230.htmlIt was a hit and run. Driver fled. Of course, the train itself gets derided in situations like this. The train gets nicknames like "The Streetcar named Disaster" and comments like, "So who had day 2 in the pool?!" It was probably more likely that the driver would have just as easily hit another car or some other object. In any case, there's going to be a whole lot more accidents. I'd like to see more light rail projects separated from traffic, not for the safety of drivers, but for the safety of the train and its passengers. Also, here's a very negative article about the light rail: www.sonorannews.com/archives/2008/081231/FrntPgLightRail.htmlAt least students get to ride for free
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 31, 2008 14:41:30 GMT -8
Sorry to hear that they had an accident so soon. There are pics of the opening day on Subchat if anyone is interested. And I agree about the grade separation. And I guess Metro agrees as well as Crenshaw seems to be proposed as mostly grade separated. And it's not just the US. Dublin had 22 accidents in the first 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 31, 2008 18:19:38 GMT -8
Remember when the Houston light-rail line opened about five years ago? It was almost a demolition derby for the first few months. Not sure whether the local drivers have finally realized that even a Chevy Suburban or a Ford Excursion (one LA Times columnist called them "Ford Extinctions") comes out a poor second when it collides with a rail car, or such events are no longer considered "news".
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 1, 2009 20:50:05 GMT -8
It might be at grade, but I like it. It does a lot of things that our Metro trains don't.
Low floor boarding: means stations are more accessible for pedestrians.
Destinations: Train goes from somewhere to somewhere. Only 20 miles long (With a Northwest extension opening in 2012)
But it creates a direct route from Downtown to the Airport (Via terminal shuttle of course) and from Downtown to Arizona State University.
Also has a station near Chase Field ballpark. Something that LA Dodger fans can only dream of.
ASU students ride free, and ASU employees get 56% discount .... sounds like something Metro should consider for USC students.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 1, 2009 21:02:12 GMT -8
OH AND BIKE RIDERS WILL LOOOOOVE THIS: *Four bike racks in each light rail vehicle *Bike lockers at each park-and-ride *Bike signs on the outside of the train windows show riders which door is nearest to the bike rack *There is room inside the vehicle for bicyclists to stand with their bikes BICYCLE HEAVEN
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 1, 2009 22:09:30 GMT -8
Unfortunately, that wasn't the first accident. There was at least one or two that occurred before the line opened.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 8:47:55 GMT -8
I really like Phoenix's light rail. It doesn't just go from somewhere to somewhere, it's entire route is somewhere compared to our light rail lines. They built it where people need to go, not just where a ROW existed. It hits many of their job centers. Still with all of the street running I bet that it's slower than what we're used to. It was reportedly packed all opening weekend and into the week, but I wonder over the long term. The bus usage along the light rail corridor seemed very low to me compared to any of LA's major corridors. Or even our less than major corridors really. There could be many reasons for that. I'm not all that familiar with Phoenix.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 2, 2009 11:51:06 GMT -8
The biggest obstacle for Phoenicians (That's what they're called.) to use light rail would be the slow speed. Unfortunately due to the lack of grade separation, the 20 mile track takes 1 hour to go from end to end.
20 mph is just not acceptable to a car centric city. The trains are fully air conditioned, but for the people waiting at stations, it could be unbearably hot in the summertime.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 12:24:19 GMT -8
Well Valley Metro can't do anything about the weather. The stations do have shade, but I get the point. And it's not just waiting. What about having to walk once you get where your going? Who wants to get to work all sweaty?
Still probably not any (or much) worse than Houston. In high humidity shade doesn't seem to help as much and it's worse to walk around in. Oh, and what about the people that have to wait around outside in Minneapolis? I've been there in the winter and it's brutally cold and not all of their stations have shelters.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 2, 2009 13:54:46 GMT -8
If I recall correctly the national speed average for light rail is somewhere around 18-20 mph. So at 20 miles in one hour Phoenix would be around the national average. Now I don't know if the average includes true trolleys vs. this cheaper version of heavy rail that we're building in LA with Expo, Eastside LRT, Crenshaw, etc. If it blends the two, then that stat is a bit skewed. (We should distinguish between the Little Rock street car and the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis.) I don't know enough about the Phoenix light rail, so I don't know whether it's more like the Little Rock street car of the Hiawatha line.
But having said all of that, the national average, even for comparable light rail projects, is pretty irrelevant. It's the comparative trip time for bus and auto on the corridor and in the region that better determines whether this project was a good investment or not.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 2, 2009 16:01:00 GMT -8
Actually, the schedule puts the ride time for the entire 20 miles at 1 hour and 10 minutes. Elsewhere on the web site they claim it takes 60 minutes. Is 27 stations too many for 20 miles of track? That's a station every .74 miles. I thought the standard for this sort of thing was a station roughly every mile.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jan 2, 2009 17:10:35 GMT -8
It seems alot more like a Portland Streetcar than a light rail. Which is fine for busy Downtown areas and the ASU campus, because it provides a useful alternative to driving and parking constraints. The outside suburbs like Mesa, Glendale, and Gilbert are very hard to serve with light rail since they have a lot of sprawl.
The benefits will outweigh the costs in the long term. Many TOD developments are going up along the line. And building a vibrant Downtown has been a top priority for many years.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 18:19:43 GMT -8
Actually, the schedule puts the ride time for the entire 20 miles at 1 hour and 10 minutes. Elsewhere on the web site they claim it takes 60 minutes. Is 27 stations too many for 20 miles of track? That's a station every .74 miles. I thought the standard for this sort of thing was a station roughly every mile. I think that 1 station per mile is more or less LA's target, but there is no standard. The gold line East LA extension has about the same ratio as Phoenix even though there's a huge gap between Indiana and Maravilla.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 4, 2009 6:11:12 GMT -8
I really like Phoenix's light rail. It doesn't just go from somewhere to somewhere, it's entire route is somewhere compared to our light rail lines. They built it where people need to go, not just where a ROW existed. It hits many of their job centers. Still with all of the street running I bet that it's slower than what we're used to. It was reportedly packed all opening weekend and into the week, but I wonder over the long term. The bus usage along the light rail corridor seemed very low to me compared to any of LA's major corridors. Or even our less than major corridors really. There could be many reasons for that. I'm not all that familiar with Phoenix. Light rail is a replacement of what used to be the Red Line bus. (Color lines in Phoenix are routes that run through multiple cities. Don't ask why.) The L.A. equivalent would have been something like Line 420. A newspaper report said the Red Line carried 11,000 boardings. It's not eye-popping, especially in L.A. where 11,000 is considered mediocre. However, as a bus line it took about 2.5 hours end to end. From what I understand, light rail is about an hour to cover the same distance. In a place like Phoenix, there's always the complaint that "if light rail can't go everywhere, it should go nowhere." Light rail doesn't go anywhere -- only to the places that matter. Downtown Phoenix is the government center for the city, county and state. There's also the airport, sports venues, Arizona State University and about a half-dozen shopping centers. It can be a surprising route. We should check after 5 and 10 years how the ridership grows. Phoenix is already planning extensions to the Metrocenter mall and west along I-10.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jan 4, 2009 6:18:02 GMT -8
One of the sites I really like about Phoenix's light rail is RailLife.com. The site serves as a directory of what is around light rail that's good for residents and visitors. It has advertisers, including a business called Light Rail Cafe (!). It has an interactive Microsoft map of the stations, which are helpful. The only thing lacking over the Valley Metro site are the stations' bus connections.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 4, 2009 11:44:28 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. wad.
I drove the entire length of the line was I was in Phoenix a few months ago and I was really impressed with the route. It goes through many commercial and business districts. Not as many residential however.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 4, 2009 11:55:49 GMT -8
If the bus was only carrying 11,000 it makes me wonder why they didn't first try out true BRT or simply peak hour dedicated lanes and if ridership, growth plans, etc. justified, then convert it to LRT.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 4, 2009 12:42:12 GMT -8
Having checked out the satellite photos on Google (which are probably dated 2005-2007 when only the eastern section had rails laid), the routing (pretty much all dedicated at-grade) runs in the median of a lot of major streets except the portion between Washington Street and Apache Boulevard in Tempe (which seems like a preexisting railroad ROW); this shows the importance of connection destinations. But with the limitation of unused railroad ROWs like how our Metro Orange, Gold, Green (some portions), and Blue Lines run, they take part of the roadway to run their trains. It'll be like how we should run rails on Ventura (Rapid 750) instead of the current Orange Line, Los Feliz/Brand/Colorado (Rapid 780) instead of the Gold Line, Wilshire (Rapid 720 future Purple Line)/Olympic (728)/Pico/or Venice (333) instead of Exposition Blvd (USC would be served via a Vermont, following Rapid 754). Pretty much the story here is that the best place to put rail in L.A. is where our Rapids run. Of course, taking away roadway for transit use would be detrimental to Los Angeles' car crowds; however, it's the only way to serve destinations.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 4, 2009 13:25:56 GMT -8
Pretty much the story here is that the best place to put rail in L.A. is where our Rapids run. Of course, taking away roadway for transit use would be detrimental to Los Angeles' car crowds; however, it's the only way to serve destinations. Create the new capacity through grade separation!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 4, 2009 17:29:51 GMT -8
Pretty much the story here is that the best place to put rail in L.A. is where our Rapids run. Of course, taking away roadway for transit use would be detrimental to Los Angeles' car crowds; however, it's the only way to serve destinations. Create the new capacity through grade separation! There's no money, bro. *gives billions to GM, Chrysler* The "no money" argument is going to be a lot harder to swallow from now on. I'm thinking to myself, "What the hell kind of tax hike did we just pass?" Running the trains in the street is not the answer to our mobility woes. It might help (and I don't think it's as dangerous as Goodman thinks it is), but I still don't like it because it doesn't serve our real needs like dedicated, hardcore, grade separated rail will do. Goodman is right because if you add a train, but you take away from roads, what have you really done to capacity? There might be a net increase, but was it really worth it in the long run? This is part of why Centerline was ultimately canned! They wanted to run it in the street. Put crossings in the boondocks if you want, suburbs even. But crossings shouldn't be tolerated in our cities. I don't care if grandma gets run over by light rail, but I do care that she gets on the train to get where she needs to go in a reasonable amount of time. I've heard arguments against the Phoenix line such as, "Only the poor will use it!" THE POOR DESERVE TO GO 65 MPH TOO!
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 4, 2009 19:12:49 GMT -8
For LA, grade separation for rail on Rapid bus corridors means building a subway; and that laundry list I put up are great candidates (and add my hometown Van Nuys 761 to it, Valley to West L.A. would make our Metro Rail ridership balloon). Only problem is L.A. hasn't completed the original subway plan, Wilshire Blvd, hence why we must utilize existing ROWs to the best and cost efficient means while we wait for rapid transit that goes to many places. I'm sure Phoenix would want a subway in place of the line they got, but they would be waiting decades while larger cities like us gobbles up federal dollars. Houston fared no better either, they are a city of our magnitude with a dedicated at-grade street running rail that averages equal or less than the speed of our Orange Line; also at half that length too. We should be fortunate for having urban heavy rail, as we, in addition to San Francisco's BART, are the only urban heavy rail operators west of Chicago (and Mississippi River), it's just taking so long to put together a system as good as WMATA.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Jan 4, 2009 21:45:14 GMT -8
Does it have to be underground though? Many sections of BART are above ground and grade separated. Where did they find the room to do that?
|
|