|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 8, 2009 13:30:58 GMT -8
There will always be occasional delays, more due to breakdowns than accidents. These breakdowns happen on the Red and Purple Lines too, and they are unavoidable. A friend of mine told me that the Red Line recently broke down in between the stations. It was pitch dark and they had to get out of the train and walk inside the dark tunnel to another train. She was really scared. I think buses break down more often than the trains. Even though the trains cannot usually detour, other trains can be brought nearby and the passengers can be shuttled via a bus if necessary. So, the argument that at-grade running introduces occasional delays because of grade-crossing accidents is not significant in the light of delays typical to transit systems.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Mar 8, 2009 13:51:55 GMT -8
Darrell, A few days ago you posted that a benefit of a center median alignment is that emergency vehicles could use the tracks then above you say high enough curbs can keep cars off the tracks. Can emergency vehicles traverse the tracks with high curbs? Is that advisable?
On another note, I am surprised about your forthrightness in regards to a traffic cop at 4th and Colorado being a revenue generator for the city. What does that say as to the role of police in society when it is an explicit goal to collect money from the people in the guise of behavior modification? It sets up a natural distrust of the government and law enforcement particularly among people of lower economic status whom these fines weigh much heavier on as a percentage of their income.
I am reminded of the 7 a.m. street sweeping time in my old neighborhood of Ocean Park (it's been many years so it may have changed) I always felt that setting the time so early was an intentional and punitive revenue generating scheme by the City. I was aware of the hours as were my neighbors but when I came home from my evening job I could find no other place to park. So I would set my alarm to move the car early n the morning. Unfortunately, as the city had anticipated myself and my neighbors would frequently find a nice fat notice for us to pay up. I can't tell you how many times I found a ticket at 7:04 A.M. or 7:08 A.M. on my windshield. As a poor student who worked a job that paid a little more then minimum wage it was extremely disheartening to loose a day's wages over something obviously designed to collect money from us. If it was really about street sweeping the hours would have been set at something more reasonable like 11 a.m. when most people were at work and it was easier to find a spot to park.
That my rant....
J
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 8, 2009 14:38:32 GMT -8
If you believe that traffic cops are a revenue generating scheme for the city then it sounds like you already distrust law enforcement.
Because a fine would affect low income earners more than high income earners, does that mean we should fine low income earners less often?
A fine is a punishment for bad behavior no matter what your economic status. People start driving with the understanding that there are certain rules and when you break those rules you may receive a hefty fine.
If the cost of a ticket would impact a low income earner so much, then how about getting rid of the car?
They can't sweep everybody's street at 11AM. Also, consider that your situation is not the only possible situation. Whatever schedule they decide on won't make everybody happy.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 8, 2009 14:48:46 GMT -8
Darrell, A few days ago you posted that a benefit of a center median alignment is that emergency vehicles could use the tracks then above you say high enough curbs can keep cars off the tracks. Can emergency vehicles traverse the tracks with high curbs? Is that advisable? Umm... He is referring to the fact that there are no curbs across the intersections, which the emergency vehicles can use to access the otherwise curbed light-rail right-of-way and then follow the right-of-way, which is free from traffic. Sigh...
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Mar 8, 2009 16:49:43 GMT -8
Spoker said: "If you believe that traffic cops are a revenue generating scheme for the city then it sounds like you already distrust law enforcement." I was referencing this comment by Darrell in post #863 above. "A traffic cop enforcing not blocking the intersection could provide some revenue to the city while educating drivers. " But your implication is correct I do believe law enforcement and street sweeping is used as a revenue collection tools. Also, I recognize all streets can not be cleaned simultaneously. however a 7 a.m. street cleaning time on a residential street with high parking demand is set up to catch the late sleepers. Why else would the parking enforcement officers come within ten minutes of the allotted parking black out time, when the sweeper may not come for another hour. It's not about the cleaning it's about the money. One Santa Monica council member once bragged the cities parking enforcement is the fastest in the west. Gokhan: If your assertion is correct that emergency vehicles could only enter and exit the curbed right of way at intersections then some potentially dangerous situations could occur where LRT vehicles and Emergency vehicles are both locked into the LRT ROW mid street. My impression is that without curbs emergency vehicles can hop in and out of the LRT ROW with ease but so could other vehicles. Conversely with a curbed right of way high enough to keep regular vehicles out some emergency vehicles may have trouble using the right of way. I'm thinking low floor ambulances or some police vehicles. It seems to me high curbs have their advantages and disadvantages. Another poster made two statements that appear to conflict and I asked him if he could clarify. Gokhan, I fail to see why you use "ummm and sigh" in your reply as if it was not a reasonable question.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 8, 2009 17:26:26 GMT -8
On curbs, I'm thinking a typical curb height but a little more slanted, that would be easy for a fire truck or ambulance to mount but would be clear that cars are not allowed. Perhaps there would be rail operator rules that a train is to stop for an emergency vehicle in the trackway?
I agree about the ever-rising price of parking and traffic tickets, thus the smiley (which did not display as an image). I've seen Santa Monica traffic control officers at 4th and Broadway just to keep the intersection from gridlocking, so there is precedent.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 8, 2009 18:24:44 GMT -8
Saunders, I imagine it must be frustrating to receive a parking ticket (I have not received one in my seven years of driving), but I applaud the City of Santa Monica for its quick response to parking violators. Far too often people think they can simply ignore parking rules and regulations for a split second and get away with it. They often do, which is why the practice is so common. It's all a moot point to me, though. I want to reduce the amount of driving I do anyway so I don't have to care about parking fees, fines and frustrations (as it stands, I've eliminated the majority of my weekday driving). I imagine you do as well, Saunders, since you are on a forum about bus and rail boosting
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Mar 8, 2009 18:49:48 GMT -8
Well, bully for you!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 8, 2009 21:06:12 GMT -8
It seems to me high curbs have their advantages and disadvantages. Another poster made two statements that appear to conflict and I asked him if he could clarify. Gokhan, I fail to see why you use "ummm and sigh" in your reply as if it was not a reasonable question. OK, I thought you were just being argumentative that emergency vehicles cannot use the LRT right-of-way for this or that reason. It turns out that the standard curb height for light-rail is 6". I also didn't know that CPUC doesn't put a speed limit on light-rail as long as automatic train protection, automatic train stop, and crossing gates are used. Since new light-rail lines built here would use both ATP and ATS, 55 MPH maximum speed is not really a CPUC requirement. Here is the CPUC Bible entry on light-rail. It's must-read information on light-rail. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the table where the types of rights-of-way, configurations, and speed limits are described.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 8, 2009 23:36:36 GMT -8
If one proposes an alternative light rail route that reduces environmental impacts and costs, yet still has similar effectiveness in attracting riders, that is a reasoned response. By every cost standard (other than initial capital cost, which is a fraction of the real cost of these projects) below grade separation attracts more riders and has substantially lower environmental impacts. Yet that somehow is not seen as "reasonable" by the leadership of Friends 4 Expo. By that standard every advocate of the Colorado Blvd alternative is a NIMBY, because the only standard by which the Olympic alignment is more environmentally disruptive is aethetic - and even that's highly questionable. And the Santa Monica City Council Members who want below grade separation at Centinela and a below grade maintenance facility are NIMBYs too. Repetition does not convert a lie into truth: MEMO
TO: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors FR: Damien Goodmon, Fix Expo Coordinator DATE: February 28, 2008 RE: The Fix Expo Campaign Goals and Position
[....]
Begin Operations ASAP The Expo EIR/EIS identifies and clears minimum operable segments at Vermont and Crenshaw. The project can begin operation to one of these temporary termini (or possibly further through EIR modification) while environmental clearance and additional funding is obtained.
The EIR/EIS also clears an extended undercrossing to Watt Way (0.1 miles from Vermont). Extension of the undercrossing to Vermont should be easily obtained. Further utilities under the right-of-way are being moved not just around the trench (at Figueroa), but all the way to Vermont.
By not requesting the Flower Street portion be grade separated, the Fix Expo Campaign position allows the Expo Line construction to continue and operations to begin at least to Vermont with little modification to the EIR/EIS. Question: just how long have you guys been using this "will kill the project" claptrap?Anyone who has been around this discussion long enough should be smart enough to see the "too expensive; would kill the project" statement is nothing but a rally cry to get people to support ridiculous decisions being made by MTA. Friends 4 Expo leadership made the same argument ("too expensive; would kill the project") regarding the Washington/National grade separation, when that ordeal was going on. Yet it was included in the project and the project wasn't "killed." ( True or False: City of Culver City and East Culver City residents were labeled NIMBYs too.) Strike 1. Friends 4 Expo leadership made the same argument ("too expensive; would kill the project") regarding the USC extended undercrossing option which would have increased the project from a then estimated $505 million to $545 million. Yet now the project budget is $862 million and the project isn't "killed." Strike 2. Friends 4 Expo leadership made the same argument ("too expensive; would kill the project") when you were arguing against adding a grade separation at Dorsey HS back in January of 2008, when the project was $808 million? Strike 3. Expo started off as a $350 million dollar project. Then a $505 million dollar project. Then a $640 million dollar project. Then a $808 million dollar project. Then a $862 million dollar project. Now it's a $880-$890 million dollar project. Phase 2 was a $800 million dollar project. Then $900 million. Then $1.2 billion. Now $1.4 billion. Inquiring minds want to know: Exactly when will Expo actually be "so expensive it kills the project?"I'm just waiting on you to state it's "too expensive; would kill the project" regarding the Rosendahl-LaBonge motion and CD-11 Transportation Empowerment Congress recommendations for grade separations on Phase 2 at all major intersections in Los Angeles. Question: Incidentally, why hasn't Rosendahl's motion or the LADOT letters been posted or discussed in this forum?Question: Is it hypocritical for the leadership of Friends 4 Expo who fought/demonized/ridiculed attempts for grade separations in Phase 1 of the project, to demand grade separations for Phase 2 of the project?Being more specific, your argument that any change would kill the project has never been supported by any fact. You have never ever explained how or why - you've simply repeated it with the hope that repetition would make a lie a truth, even after it has been repeatedly disproved. Question: Why don't you or others that have said any change would kill the project now admit that the minimum operable segments option which I pointed out nearly 2 years ago are now being executed, and it allows Expo keep building the project being while needed change is added to the project???Once again repetition of a lie does not make it truth. You've effectively admitted that "modern light rail" (which again is however you want to define it) has portions that are below grade by removing several cities off the "light rail cities list," which you love to parrot any and every time someone dare states "Street-level rail doesn't make any sense in the middle of the traffic capital of the country in the 21st century." No longer on your "list of light rail cities" are Buffalo, Pittsburgh or Seattle mentioned - several projects with significant below grade separation. I recently pointed you to a recent 8-mile project in St. Louis built with just one at-grade crossing, so I fully expect that city to be dropped from the list as well. LOL! If anything "the standard" that is being stretched here is regarding the lack of grade separation on Expo. Any objective observation of other LRT projects across the country reveal grade separation at several intersections that have far less traffic than those left at-grade on Expo. I'm talking about places in even Portland, Minnesota and Salt Lake City. Heck even streets with far less traffic than Expo are grade separated on the Pasadena Gold Line! And what exactly is this "standard" you reference? Observation shows, that your "standard" is a bit of a moving target. Question: Do you claim that the adverse traffic impacts referenced by opponents of at-grade crossings are not accurate or just that it's done other places so we should repeat their mistakes?
And if one repeatedly misstates facts used to "give MTA the grassroots political cover they need to do what they want," and will not respond to corrections, is it fair to label such as "tactics of a MTA apologist?" Despite the fact that nearly 90% of the street-level crossings on Expo Phase 1 (40 out of 45) are NOTHING like ANY crossing on the Pasadena Gold Line, you repeatedly make the false analogy that Pasadena Gold Line = Expo Line. You continue this repetition of the lie attempting to make it truth, even after international experts in transportation system safety/system user interaction specify the differences: - Almost all streets with high vehicular cross-traffic volume are grade separated on the Pasadena Gold Line (“PGL”), while streets with comparably high vehicular cross-traffic volume on the Expo Line are at-grade.
- Several long portions of the PGL are fully grade separated, while the overwhelming majority of the Expo Line from Downtown LA to Hauser Blvd is at-grade, like the Blue Line.
- The Expo Line at-grade stations are expected to serve large numbers of riders like the Blue Line at-grade stations, not like the low-ridership Pasadena Gold Line at-grade stations.
- The anticipated pedestrian activity around Expo Line crossings is expected to be high like the Blue Line crossings, not like the overwhelming majority of Pasadena Gold Line crossings, which have substantially lower pedestrian activity.
- The PGL crosses no high vehicular cross-traffic volume intersection in street-running design, while comparatively the Expo Line crosses several high traffic volume intersections in street-running design, like the Blue Line.
- The PGL operates almost entirely on an isolated right-of-way, while almost the entire Expo Line alignment is directly parallel to vehicular traffic like the Blue Line, including several sections in street medians and side alignment.
If you have ever disputed any of these facts please show us where. You simply refuse to acknowledge them and talk about a line that is not analogous. Are you really denying this? Here is your recent response to Bill Bauer's op-ed stating that 92% of all vehicular accidents and 76% of all accidents on the deadliest and most-accident prone light rail line in the country occur at crossings with no gates, which is similar as proposed at nearly 90% (8 of the 9 crossings) on the Colorado alignment (granted the Colorado alignment is even LESS SAFE) being advocated for by SM Planning Dept, it's contracted "Transportation Planner" and the City Council. Darrell Clarke op-ed: [Bill Bauer] should understand that mostly-ground-level light rail is the safe standard in many U.S. cities, including Los Angeles' newest, the Pasadena Gold Line. This was similar to your response to my op-ed last year in the Business journal: Here's my op-ed in the Business Journal: As it traverses from downtown L.A. to Culver City, the 8.5-mile Expo Line is proposed to slice across nearly all intersections in South L.A. at street level 240 times a day. In addition to the adverse traffic impacts, noise pollution and other environmental concerns, the street-level design poses a significant safety hazard, with 225-ton trains planned to operate at speeds up to 35 and 55 miles an hour. At Vermont, Normandie, Western and Crenshaw, which abut large urban schools, parks and places of worship, crossing gates aren’t even proposed. Twenty one of the 27 proposed street-level crossings have no gates.
This design has proved to be unsafe, evidenced by the accident record of the MTA’s Blue Line, which en route to Long Beach from downtown L.A. carves through the communities of South L.A., Watts, Willowbrook and Compton, and is the deadliest light rail line in the country with 818 accidents and 90 deaths. And here's your response: Safety is very important, and the excellent record of the Pasadena Gold Line demonstrates the effectiveness of current standards. -Darrell Clarke I mean seriously, are you expecting people to ignore that which they can clearly read?Honestly, I don't know which is more ridiculous: your insinuation that you've been referencing the safety record of the Eastside Extension, a line that isn't operational - or - your expectation that a person who is literate would believe your claim that you've been referencing the Eastside Extension. Where do you think you are: the Laugh Factory? Most of the people here are smarter than that - and they have pointed out to you numerous times that this line is not like the Pasadena Gold Line. Incidentally, it will be interesting to see how you and the MTA PR department alter this false analogy after the Eastside Extension opens (with all of that street-running) and those accidents are added to the Pasadena Gold Line statistics. Don't attempt to confuse signal pre-emption and signal priority. They are not the same. Signal pre-emption stops all traffic regardless of where it is in the cycle. Signal priority doesn't guarantee all greens; it's just gives a 10% advance of the train cycle or 10% hold for the train cycle. Signal priority exists on the Blue Line in Downtown and still trains are halted at intersections, that typically aren't as busy as some on Colorado. The N-Judah Photo you posted is a disingenuous portrait of the line, since it looks like it is a lovely picture taken early on a Saturday morning in the outer sunset district. This photo doesn't remind me of my time taking the N-Judah. There are no double parked cars, slow drivers or anyone darting off and on the tracks to beat the traffic and the train which happens constantly, Especially on that line. For example: What happens in this photo is not a rare occurrence on the N-Judah. This one happened at the end of January during rush hour. mattapoisett, Darrell knows the N-Judah is not what any normal person would consider a safe rail line. It's been pointed out to him before, in person and in this forum in fact. This is the standard Darrell Clarke/MTA PR tactic: show a picture, with absolutely no context. Google "N-Judah" and "accident" you see that accidents are a frequent occurrence, especially over the past year. Indeed a witness to the accident you posted, reveals that the whole "drivers are only to blame" claptrap is just that: I had a great view of the whole thing. I actually have better pictures than the ones you posted..so hey if you want them let me know. I live on the corner of 9th and Judah on the top floor and the view was perfect for pictures. Anyway, I diagree in some respect as to what happend. Being as I witnessed the whole thing-Muni DOES hold some fault. The drivers up Muni BOTH of them tried to speed up to beat the driver to the spot, that is why the car is wedge. ONE WAS TAIL GATING THE CAR DRIVER. Now, I think the driver wasn't very smart-i'll give you that-but what does it say about the Muni driver who choose to teach the lady a lesson when-they up high-had the obvious advantage seeing everything early. The lady did NOT suddenly turn on the muni line-SHE WAS ALREADY ON IT. Muni was acting a fool as well and instead of just honking the horn to move or WAITING they kept pushing as to scare her off the road. It happend so fast she had no idea what hit her. She was at fault as well, but so was Muni.
witnessed the whole thing. February 8, 2009 - N-Judah accident kill reporter: Bill Brand, a former longtime reporter for the Oakland Tribune, was the victim of last night's crash involving an N-Judah train at 2nd and King Streets. December 2, 2008 - N-Judah AccidentOctober 1, 2008 - N-Judah Accident on Church-DuboceAugust 21, 2008 - Woman badly hurt by N-Judah streetcar while crossing streetA 63-year-old woman was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries this morning in San Francisco after being struck by an N-Judah streetcar while she was walking across a Sunset District street, authorities and witnesses said. June 14, 2008 - T-Third MUNI train runs into N-Judah trainSAN FRANCISCO - Three days after a train rammed into another train near AT&T Park, Muni officials are still searching for an explanation about the collision that injured 16 people, including 12 who were sent to local hospitals.
Transit officials said they will release more information this week about what caused a one-car T-Third train to rear-end a two-car N-Judah train. January 16, 2008 Man dragged to death by N-JudahFrom the comments: My boyfriend and I live on 33rd and Judah. We had a glimpse of the scene while walking back home. Many apologies if this may sound quite graphic. However, the police have sectioned off 28th and 30th Ave., not only to investigate the accident, but to scrap up what appears to be human remains off the asphalt. It is definitely a horrific and shocking sight. January 7, 2008 N-Judah AccidentAn elderly woman was struck by an outbound N-Judah this evening around 5:45 p.m. at 9th Avenue and Irving Street.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 9, 2009 10:42:06 GMT -8
^ You've provided no context, just several descriptions of accidents. Were these accidents determined to have been caused by train operator error? Or were they caused by people disobeying signs, lights and laws?
Maybe for you the cause of the accident doesn't matter, but for me it does. If the train was operating according to established policy, and if there were adequate signs and signals to pedestrians and drivers, then the train operator fulfilled its commitment. It is up to people on the street to act legally and take personal responsibility for their own safety.
As far as I know, there is no call for grade-separating or shutting down the N-Judah, due to these accidents. The benefit this line provides to the quality of life of the city is enormous, and you would hear a massive hue and cry from San Franciscans if anyone suggested any existing line should be shut down due to accidents caused by inattentive pedestrians and drivers.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 9, 2009 12:37:47 GMT -8
Since there are NO below-grade modern U.S. light rail lines except Buffalo, do tell your data on attracting more riders! Omitting the key criteria of "costs much more" and "attracts fewer riders", which apply to Venice-Sepulveda but not Colorado. No one in Santa Monica asked for "below grade separation at Centinela". A below-grade maintenance facility is not NIMBY if (yes, that's a big IF) it makes sense as an economic decision to develop above it because of high land values. No kidding, Mr. G! And the truth is the construction contract was for all of Phase 1 to Culver City, not one of the shorter segments in the Final EIS. F4ET supported the compromise of the interim terminus east of Washington/National, but sought to move the final Culver City station into phase 1, which, as we've noted many times, is more cost-effective to build once and must be aerial because Venice must be aerial. The estimated cost of extending the USC underpass to west of Vermont was at least $100 million. USC declined to pay for it, and it was not built. The cost of a pedestrian bridge, rail bridge, and rail underpass are very different. The CPUC only called for a pedestrian bridge. Asking again, do you support that decision? It would have been some 50% more and likely a mortal blow to Expo to stop and build underground. Such funding did not exist. It would have flunked FTA cost-effectiveness standards, and not only was there no Measure R then, the embarrassment of such a cost-escalation could have lost Measure R's close margin of passing. Calling for the $1.4 billion elevated Venice-Sepulveda route? F4ET isn't. Note the political phrasing "major". F4ET supports consistent use of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy. What's your position on NFSR/CHHS demands for underground at Overland and west? Ah, yes, that great success in Buffalo. Pittsburgh is not a new light rail city, and its recent construction was a tunnel under the Allegheny River (should Los Angeles and Culver City have gotten a tunnel under Ballona Creek??). Seattle is half boulevard-median (photo), and tunneled under hills where there is no surface right-of-way. Except SIX major gated crossings: Figueroa, Monterey, Mission, Glenarm, California, and Del Mar. Yes, facts are pesky things. Like the Eastside Gold Line, Portland Interstate line, Phoenix, etc., and their stations. A fenced right-of-way with gated crossings, even if along a boulevard, is similarly "isolated". Still denying the gated crossings west of Gramercy are like the Pasadena Gold Line's? Or that the signal-controlled crossings are like many other cities'? I have been referring to signal priority, which can take different forms, not just its implementation for the Metro Rapid bus lines you cite. How does a train tailgate a car where no cars are allowed on the trackway?? The majority of the N-Judah line west of Sunset Tunnel is in mixed traffic, not comparable to the Colorado proposal. Only several blocks are in the reserved trackway, and none of the accidents cited were there. Even that section has numerous intersections without signal control, unlike the Colorado proposal.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 9, 2009 18:22:13 GMT -8
Maybe for you the cause of the accident doesn't matter, but for me it does. If the train was operating according to established policy, and if there were adequate signs and signals to pedestrians and drivers, then the train operator fulfilled its commitment. It is up to people on the street to act legally and take personal responsibility for their own safety.As far as I know, there is no call for grade-separating or shutting down the N-Judah, due to these accidents. The benefit this line provides to the quality of life of the city is enormous, and you would hear a massive hue and cry from San Franciscans if anyone suggested any existing line should be shut down due to accidents caused by inattentive pedestrians and drivers. It's funny how the assumption is that Damien G. wants to shut down the Expo Line when there is an issue of grade seperation. Wouldn't you prefer a grade-seperated line than an at-grade line through some of the most busiest streets in all of Los Angeles? Phoenix, Houston, San Jose, etc... are nothing compared to the auto traffic on streets like Overland, Westwood, Sepulveda, etc... Have you been on the Blue Line in downtown Long Beach? Enjoy that 15 mph commute after 5th street? Wouldn't it be more 'pedestrian friendly' to be underneath Pine Avenue than at-grade? By the way, I agree the people/cars are at fault for all train crossing accidents. I just want us to have a faster and efficient 1st class train system...and not a 3rd world light rail line.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Mar 9, 2009 18:43:41 GMT -8
By the way, I agree the people/cars are at fault for all train crossing accidents. I just want us to have a faster and efficient 1st class train system...and not a 3rd world light rail line. I feel the same way, except that it would be wrong to call them 3rd world light rail lines. In Argentina there have been riots because rail transit got so bad! query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E4DB1031F934A25756C0A9619C8B63I should be more careful though. I don't want to give anyone any ideas Disclaimer: I don't mean to say that Argentina is third world, just that America doesn't have the worst passenger rail transit.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 10, 2009 9:57:27 GMT -8
It's funny how the assumption is that Damien G. wants to shut down the Expo Line when there is an issue of grade seperation. I have made no such assumption. Damien has repeatedly said that Expo should either be grade separated or it should not be built. Wouldn't you prefer a grade-seperated line than an at-grade line through some of the most busiest streets in all of Los Angeles? Of course I would. I'd also love to have world-class schools, crime-free streets, and universal health care. All of these things cost money. That's what public policy is all about: prioritizing where to allocate scarce resources (including money). In my opinionated opinion, there are far better ways to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars proposed for undergrounding Expo. How about saving the bus lines that are currently on the chopping block? Or how about increasing the reach of our currently-meager rail system, by extending the Green Line to Westchester or the Eastside Gold Line beyond Atlantic/Pomona? By the way, I agree the people/cars are at fault for all train crossing accidents. I wouldn't go that far: trains cause accidents too. No system is 100% safe - not the freeway system, not the health-care system and not the rail transit system.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 13, 2009 14:09:27 GMT -8
Samantha Bricker has it right in this Daily Trojan article. Federal stimulus funds are for "shovel-ready" environmentally-cleared projects ready to start construction quickly. The Expo Line phase 1 is environmentally-cleared, funded, and under construction as a mostly-at-grade project, not an extended trench that has never been built on a modern U.S. light rail line. Sad to see people wasting their time, not understanding either how the funding process works or how light rail is designed. Community groups campaign for stimulus package funds Campaign hopes to send 1,000 letters to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by
Callie Schweitzer
Published: Thursday, March 12, 2009 Updated: Thursday, March 12, 2009
The North Area Neighborhood Development Council, which represents the University Park and Jefferson Park communities, has teamed up with several community groups in a letter-writing campaign to request that funds from President Barack Obama’s stimulus package be used to move the Exposition Light Rail Transit Line underground for a four-mile stretch in South Los Angeles.
The form letter asks Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to dedicate state money from the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Package” to extending the trench at Figueroa Street by USC four miles to La Brea, just past Dorsey High School.
On March 10, The Associated Press reported that California will most likely receive $50 billion in federal stimulus funding, 8 percent of which will fund transportation projects.
The letter to Schwarzenegger and Villaraigosa was written by members of the Citizens’ Campaign to Fix the Expo Rail Line, a coalition of local residents, administrators, teachers and students who have long been working to entrench the crossings in this area.
Samantha Bricker, the chief operating officer for the Expo Construction Authority, which is building the line, laughed when asked if she thought the groups would receive the money.
“Four miles of an underground trench is not the project that’s been environmentally cleared,” she said. “[It] certainly does not meet the intent of the stimulus package. This is a letter that really is not meaningful because it can’t be applied.”
Damien Goodmon, the coordinator of the Citizens’ Campaign, said although he has yet to formally announce the effort, he has already received nearly 350 letters. He said he hopes to send 1,000 letters to Schwarzenegger and Villaraigosa by the end of March.
Goodmon said the biggest public endorsements to date are from 51st Assemblyman, Curren Price, who is also a candidate for the 26th senatorial district, and Carmen Trutanich, who is a candidate for city attorney.
Max Slavkin, a NANDC representative and a USC senior majoring in political science, said the letter’s request fits the purposes of Obama’s stimulus act because it would create immediate jobs and work toward long-term improvements in infrastructure.
Slavkin said he is “hopeful” that the governor and Villaraigosa will give some thought to the request.
“I think it’s a very worthwhile and qualified project, but I do know there are requests coming in from all over that we’ll be competing with,” he said.
Goodmon said estimates based on public statements by the Expo Authority construction engineers and the cost of the Figueroa trench from Jefferson Boulevard to Trousdale Parkway put the cost of building the four miles of underground track at under $400 million.
“There is money out there to address our concerns,” Goodmon said. “We are hopeful that our [local] politicians will now join with us [in] our effort to secure those funds.”
Bricker called Goodmon’s $400 million estimate “totally inaccurate” and said “the project he is asking for does not exist.”
Many community members have long opposed the crossings in this area, which are near neighborhood schools, including Foshay Learning Center and Dorsey High School, where hundreds of students cross the street each day.
According to Celia Castellanos, a NANDC representative and the liaison between NANDC and the Citizens’ Campaign, the council has always believed that every at-grade crossing in the area should become grade separated.
A letter from December 2007 written by the NANDC states that the council “supports the community’s efforts to grade separate all currently proposed at-grade crossings on the Expo Line” and “demands that the political leadership of South Los Angeles fulfill the need of its citizens for a safe and efficient grade-separated Expo line.”
When Castellanos presented the idea of a letter-writing campaign to the NANDC at its March 4 meeting, she said the board was “completely behind it.”
“I think the Expo Line could be a great project and it could be extremely beneficial for the community if it was built in a way that was safe,” she said. “Right now, I believe it’s not safe and it’s going to put the children of South L.A. around Foshay Learning Center and Dorsey High School at great risk.”
In the meantime, Goodmon and members of the NANDC said they’re looking for all the support they can get.
Slavkin said he has sent the form letter to different student organizations on USC’s campus, and Goodmon said he is preparing to write a letter to USC President Steven B. Sample asking for his support.
But Bricker said Goodmon’s requests are “not feasible” and part of his longtime attempts to stop the project.
Goodmon said he disagreed.
“Our argument has always been not to kill the project,” he said. “Our argument has been to put more money into the project so it can be built, and be built right, faster and safer for the community.”
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Mar 13, 2009 21:11:42 GMT -8
So from your comments Mr. Clarke are we to assume that Friends 4 Expo does not support an effort to secure additional dollars being put into the Expo Line for the South Los Angeles Grade Separation Project?And tell me, what do you think would be required to obtain the environmental clearance to grade separate the 3.5 mile portion of the line in question, from Trousdale to Farmdale? You're still peddling that lie? That may work with people who have no idea how other "modern U.S. light rail lines" operate, but this has already been explained here. People here know about the St. Louis Cross County Extension, which is over 8 miles and just has one at-grade crossing. (They also know, that since this was pointed out you've taken St. Louis off the "Darrell Clarke list of light rail cities"). They know about the University Link extension in Seattle that has a 3 mile (federally funded) bored tunnel. (They also know, that since this was pointed out you've taken Seattle off the "Darrell Clarke list of light rail cities"). They know about the North Shore Light Rail Extension project in Pittsburgh. (They also know that since this was pointed out you've taken Pittsburgh off the "Darrell Clarke list of light rail cities"). They know about the Buffalo light rail line that is 80% subway (cut-and-cover and bored tunnel). (They also know, that you've never mentioned Buffalo on the "Darrell Clarke list of light rail cities"). And the people here know that the Green Line is elevated for 3.5 miles after it turns off the Century Fwy. (Same distance as the requested trench/tunnel) If you think it fits your pro-at-grade rail argument you mention it, if you don't you don't. This is clear as day. On this corridor trench makes the most sense if we're trying to comply with environmental regulations, but cut-and-cover tunnel will do the job just the same. Heck if Metro wants to take those TBMs needed for the Wilshire subway for a spin they can break them in on Expo. But if you're honestly hung up on your personal rule that this line MUST be like other modern U.S. light rail lines...which reminds me of Rain Man's insistence that he would NOT fly anything but Qantas: Rain Man: "Qantas...only Qantas" Darrell Clarke: "At-grade...only at-grade" But as I said, if you're honestly hung up on your personal rule that this line MUST be like other modern U.S. light rail lines, would your concerns be addressed if the request was for a 3.5 mile elevated structure like the Green Line? Would that prevent you from having a hissy-fit in the Airport terminal? Or will a 3.5 mile bored tunnel like the federally funded Seattle LRT University Link do it? LOL! Or how about a 3.5 mile bored tunnel like the one in Dallas, which connects to Mockingbird Station, which is a, wouldn't you know it, light rail trench station: That right there looks like light rail in a trench ladies and gentlemen. Given that Mockingbird Station connects to a bored tunnel, is a bit deeper than Colorado Station in Denver: There's another light rail in a trench. LOL! (Darrell are you okay - or are you screaming like Rain Man in the Airport terminal from these images of light rail trains operating safely in a trench?) By the way, I took a look at that Colorado Station in Google maps satellite view and tracked the route into the station and guess what was revealed: a fixed guideway system with a series of elevated structures, under-crossings, trenches, and at-grade grade separated sections collectively amounting to a light rail line that has to travel over 14 miles from the Lincoln terminus station until it reaches it's first at-grade crossing at Bayaud. And then from Bayaud there's another 1.6 miles of grade separation, including a really long elevated structure, before the next at-grade crossing at 13th Ave. So the distance between 10th Ave-Osage station and Lincoln station is about 15.3 miles, a comparable distance as Expo from Downtown LA to Santa Monica. Travel time for the distance on the 15.3 mile segment with just one at-grade crossing in Denver: 32 mins.How horrid! Grade separated light rail performing at fast speeds. Who are you kidding? You're pro-at-grade rail for a host of very weak and indefensible reasons and this new concoction is constantly evolving talking point. "Light rail must be at-grade" turned into "They don't build light rail underground" turned into "They don't build modern US light rail in a trench." The fact that you've added "U.S." makes me inclined to think you found some European or Asian example that you're now selectively choosing to not tell people about.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 13, 2009 23:49:06 GMT -8
Way too easy. The fact remains that the continuing demand of UCA – “below grade, which includes the possibility of trench or tunnel (bored or cut-and-cover) or some combination thereof, from Trousdale to La Brea with cost-efficient open cut stations” – has never been built in the 30 years of modern U.S. light rail.
Are any of the examples cited in such an extended trench or subway beneath an existing right-of-way? Nope. Certainly not the Mockingbird single station in a short trench before the line rises to grade crossings in two directions.
The St. Louis Cross County Extension has fenced ground-level right-of-way, lots of bridges, some underpasses, and a section below a boulevard, but no extended trench/subway. Denver's T-REX is along the edge of a freeway right-of-way. The others I already addressed above, including a photo of a boulevard-median station in Seattle that you seem to pretend isn't there.
Congratulations, you just admitted that your demand has no precedent in any other modern U.S. light rail line. Yet claim it is an injustice not to get it. Riiiight.
Hmmm, 28.7 mph. At-grade light rail with gated crossings and stations one mile apart averages 30 mph.
When all is done Expo will probably travel its 15.4 miles in 39-40 minutes, 23-24 mph. Same distance, a few minutes slower.
But it never would have been fully-grade-separated; the alternative was a busway.
And do tell us:
Do you support NFSR's / CHHA's call for underground grade separation at Overland and west? Do you support the CPUC decision calling for a pedestrian bridge with Farmdale closed?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 14, 2009 2:36:36 GMT -8
So from your comments Mr. Clarke are we to assume that Friends 4 Expo does not support an effort to secure additional dollars being put into the Expo Line for the South Los Angeles Grade Separation Project? South Los Angeles Grade-Separation Project? What the? Are you awake or dreaming? The last time I checked, there was no such project on the Metro short- or long-range plans. Perhaps it's in the long-long-range plan, i.e. 60 years from now. When all is done Expo will probably travel its 15.4 miles in 39-40 minutes, 23-24 mph. Same distance, a few minutes slower. Actually the difference is even less. Expo has 18 stations. E Line has fourteen. Each station adds about a minute. So, add four more minutes to 32 minutes, you get 36 minutes. Therefore, there is hardly any difference in travel time between the two lines, despite one being mostly at-grade, the other mostly grade-separated as claimed. Let's see... Western Station platforms have already been built. USC trench has already been finished as a short trench. USC Station is being built. The overhead-pole foundations have been cast. They are about to start installing tracks soon. The line is going to start service to Crenshaw in a little over a year. So, sure, let's operate the line for a few months, and then tear it down and build grade separation. It makes a lot of sense. Money grows on trees and time is completely expendable. You also seem to confuse building rail transit with buying a car. If someone (say Obama) gives you money, you can't just go to a dealer, get a train off the lot, and cruise with it around South Los Angeles. It takes about a decade to build a rail-transit line, especially so with federal money. If you seek money for your South Los Angeles Grade-Separation Project, you will have it built around 2020 if you succeed. Let us know how that goes. Expo Line will open next year. You're welcome to ride it if you like unless you don't ride anything but a fully grade-separated line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 14, 2009 2:59:54 GMT -8
...which reminds me of Rain Man's insistence that he would NOT fly anything but Qantas: Oh my God, thanks for posting this. It's hilarious! Rain Man thinks flying is "dangerous" and won't fly with anything but Qantas because the other airlines crashed at one point. And he knows by heart every single accident and accounts a full list of these accidents. His brother has no choice but he has to fly him with Qantas to Australia first and then from there to LA at all the ridiculous cost and inconvenience! Now, with all due respect, who is the one who's been claiming light-rail is "dangerous?" Who is the one who has been listing and recounting every single light-rail accident? Who is the one who won't settle on anything but only fully grade-separated light-rail, despite all the ridiculous cost and inconvenience? LOL I can't believe you posted this. LOL
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 14, 2009 7:15:19 GMT -8
The South Los Angeles Grade Separation Plan also proposes to extend the Expo line from the terminus at Santa Monica to Tokyo under the Pacific ocean, with a stop in Honolulu.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 14, 2009 9:22:15 GMT -8
The question isn't environmental clearance, it is FTA approval for federal funding. Chances of that for such a grade separation any year soon are about zero. What is the cost-effectiveness of raising the cost by some 50% to reduce travel time by a couple of minutes? Look at the Phase 2 Cost per Annual Hour of User Benefit (Table 7) for a similar answer. For the right-of-way options it is a competitive $20. For the 50%-more-expensive Venice-Sepulveda options it is a no-way $32. Like Denver's T-REX the Green Line was built as part of a freeway construction project, only in the (very noisy) median. Funny you should mention the Green Line aerial structure in El Segundo. That's another question you've never answered, would you support the Expo Line like this east of La Brea? (And great points, Gokhan!)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Mar 15, 2009 10:52:02 GMT -8
I post this to include context of some projects. This is not to show that grade separations aren't needed but provide information as to why other cities have those things and how they relate. Dallas...the next station if Mockingbird and is the first station heading south that is served by both the Red Line and the Blue Line. It has side platforms and is located in a trench slightly below the surrounding grade. This station has the highest population density within three miles of any mass transit station in Texas. Cityplace stationCityplace station is an infill station (i.e.: added to the line after it opened) and was the first public subway station in the southwestern USA... ...The two lines share tracks through downtown Dallas, running at grade along streets that have been converted to pedestrian/transit malls... There is a 3.5-mile tunnel under the Central Expressway with one deep underground station at Cityplace. Pittsburgh Their North Shore extension is linking their Downtown under a major river to the Stadiums and emerging Business District with no available Right-of-way. Seattle - Beacon Hill Tunnel To deal with the steep hill on their initial starter LRT line that has a mix of tunnels, at-grade and elevated structures to cross over busy intersections. The neat piece of this new starter line are located in the medians of the at-grade pedestrian crossings, they are protected islands with simple markings and railing between the two tracks that aid pedestrians in case they can't cross the wide boulevard in time in lieu of station platforms. Seattle - University Linkwww.soundtransit.org/x1698.xmlThink of this as their version of our Wilshire Subway, connecting their Downtown, a major job center and a major university with no available right of way and hilly terrain. Ridership estimate for this 3.0 mile segment 40,000 riders a day or over 13,000 riders/mile. St. LouisThese are the best links for St. Louis that shows the context as to why there are more grade separations for that corridor. The construction photos are facinating because one of the tunnels is actually wrapping landscaping around an existing elevated freeway to prepare it for the I-64 widening project. You can see the progress and how they are building their structures. A system that makes the most out of abandoned bridge and tunnel infrastructure which they leverage to receive higher funding grants, the new corridor is along a reconstructed Forest Park Parkway (this is precluded mitigation for a highway widening on parallel I-64) similar in thought to our Green Line and Denver's T-Rex LRT/Highway project and abandoned railroad right of way linking very dense centers in Suburban St. Louis including Washington University and Clayton.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 19, 2009 11:14:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 19, 2009 15:11:09 GMT -8
Great photos, Gokhan! The falsework at La Brea is new since I last drove by there, only yesterday. And I like the juxtaposition of the old rails and new prepared right-of-way.
They seem to be boring a number of holes east of the east La Brea abutment. Are they for footings for the ramp retaining walls?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 19, 2009 15:50:13 GMT -8
They seem to be boring a number of holes east of the east La Brea abutment. Are they for footings for the ramp retaining walls? They were shoveling the earth east of the east La Brea abutment with a giant auger. They were only drilling a few feet at random locations, lifting the earth up with the auger, and repeating at a different location. It looks like they are working on stabilizing the earth there. I didn't see any drilling for cast-in-drilled-hole structures. Not pictured they were also preparing the deck for the Ballona road bridge and there was a lot of activity to the west of Ballona, where it looks like they are getting ready to build the Ballona rail bridge. It's very hectic indeed. Perhaps they are aiming for a 2010 opening to Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 19, 2009 16:45:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 19, 2009 18:57:33 GMT -8
Folks: These photos were so over sized in width, they froze the discussion board. When Eric is able to down size them, then we will repost for all to enjoy. If anyone wants to resize them, drop me an email and I will send you the files.. erict et al: The fastest and easiest way to resize and post them is photobucket.com. (It's free.) When you upload them, it will automatically resize them for you. Choose 800x600 for the resize option, which is appropriate for this board.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 20, 2009 17:24:33 GMT -8
A closeup of the east split platform of the Western Station, photographed this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 27, 2009 18:32:44 GMT -8
And here is the picture of the day, fresh from the camera. This is at Buckingham Rd, looking toward Crenshaw Blvd (toward east). This is nice in that it shows the soundwall supports on the south side of the newly graded right-of-way, the pole supports in the middle, and a curb on the north side. To the north of the curb, there will be landscaping. So, the line is sure coming soon.
|
|