|
Post by darrell on Jun 7, 2009 16:00:50 GMT -8
The above picture is an example of what I don't want for LA. Such a line would be a good candidate for grade separation in LA. Or just use buses. I find an image like the one below a benefit to urban design with its grassy median's greening the boulevard in front of these (presumably residential) buildings. The whole composition is a nice pedestrian amenity, especially station platforms a quick walk from the sidewalk. The ride quality is quieter and smoother than buses, not to mention higher capacity. And this city density makes trips shorter and speed less important. Conversely an aerial structure would be no more welcome than an elevated down Wilshire. Not to mention the far-greater cost of aerial or subway. ![](http://images.nycsubway.org/i62000/img_62664.jpg) In L.A., unfortunately, we don't have the water for grass track. We will have low-water landscaping alongside the Expo right-of-way. Given the many miles of boulevards in L.A. and the cost of even at-grade street car track and overhead, we'll continue to have far more bus route-miles than light rail.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 7, 2009 16:15:03 GMT -8
I find an image like the one below a benefit to urban design with its grassy median's greening the boulevard in front of these (presumably residential) buildings. The whole composition is a nice pedestrian amenity, especially station platforms a quick walk from the sidewalk. The ride quality is quieter and smoother than buses, not to mention higher capacity. And this city density makes trips shorter and speed less important.
Yet very few* Europeans prefer at-grade compared to subway (grade separated doesn't necessarily mean aerial). They prefer train to bus, but not to Metro. This is something that might work in areas like Broadway in downtown LA or perhaps in Santa Monica and other select areas, but it really has nothing to do with Expo, which is essentially a light rail rapid transit system.
*Few on the internet which skews young. Older riders may prefer being able to board at street level.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 7, 2009 16:30:16 GMT -8
According to Railway-technology.com this tram travels just under 5 miles, has a stop every 1,300 feet and has an average speed of 12 MPH. For reference walking speed is about 4 MPH. Source = www.railway-technology.com/projects/paris_light_rail/I think something like this as a downtown circulator (I.E. Red Car) would be appropriate but not anything like the distances Red, Blue, Gold or Expo run. In fact to much of our system efficiency is dragged down by portions running as a slow running tram. Wikipedia compares trams and light rail nicely I think: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 7, 2009 17:43:51 GMT -8
My point for these photos was that there is a use for all the transit modes - subway, light rail, and buses - even in large cities like Paris and Los Angeles.
With the good fortune of the passage of Measure R Los Angeles will get relatively short subway extensions along Wilshire Blvd. and the Regional (Downtown) Connector. Light rail will fill in lesser corridors, and buses do the rest. (Although I'd like to see some use of streetcars as a big improvement over buses.)
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 7, 2009 18:28:32 GMT -8
I agree with Darrell's points. The big concern I have is that we don't blow this wonderful opportunity on stupid financial endeavours. We've already got a bunch of defined, beneficial projects involving buses, trains and trams--let's stick to the good ideas and not get sidetracked.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 7, 2009 21:05:14 GMT -8
So why post the picture of the T3 train in the Expo thread then? It seems like you were trying to make a point about Expo and grade crossings by posting a picture of a line that isn't comparable.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 7, 2009 22:04:25 GMT -8
So why post the picture of the T3 train in the Expo thread then? It seems like you were trying to make a point about Expo and grade crossings by posting a picture of a line that isn't comparable. I wanted to learn more about the new French tram lines - what cities, urban design - and found they included even Paris. I found the fact that as large and dense a city as Paris, with numerous subway lines, still has a role for new trams is relevant to the complementary roles of subway and light rail in Los Angeles. Plus comparisons of their trams' urban design vs. our light rail.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 7, 2009 22:16:27 GMT -8
okay. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 8, 2009 1:43:56 GMT -8
So why post the picture of the T3 train in the Expo thread then? It seems like you were trying to make a point about Expo and grade crossings by posting a picture of a line that isn't comparable. Are you beginning to notice a pattern? ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I found the fact that as large and dense a city as Paris, with numerous subway lines, still has a role for new trams is relevant to the complementary roles of subway and light rail in Los Angeles. And your analogy is still just as flawed. Over 13 heavy rail lines, plus the RER which act as express lines crisscross Paris proper. The number of tramways in Paris proper: 1 (the T3). Here we're building the exact reverse: a network of light rail lines with one heavy rail. Furthermore, T3, just like the other trams in Paris, runs on the outskirts of the network, not through the middle of the Paris urban core like Expo through L.A. T4, which opened in '06, is so far outside Paris proper it's not even on the Paris Metro map. And the third of the four tramways, T2, which opened in '97, operates on an almost entirely grade separated right-of-way, with dozens of underpasses and overpasses including at every major street on the route. It's nothing like the light rail-subway issue here, where street-level rail is proposed as the replacement to true rapid transit needs in the city largely part because MTA's been successful at spreading several myths (with the help of "grassroots groups that give them the cover to do what they want" of course), primarily: a) At-grade rail not only doesn't worsen traffic, it improves traffic b) At-grade rail is just as fast c) At-grade rail is safe Indeed, many of the light rail line's we're building or planning on building were originally planned as heavy rail lines: SFV Busway (aka Orange Line), Gold Line Eastside extension and Crenshaw Line. bluelineshawn, Your suggestion that some tramways might as well just be a bus is worth debating. SAUNDERS did his research and found out this line is really no faster than a bus at 12 MPH. So what's the benefit? "Comfort," "urban renewal?" I ignore the superficial "comfort" type arguments, but even the "urban renewal" argument advocated by at-grade proponents have holes, when you consider that the tramway requires a 25 foot wide right-of-way. Simply, which better fulfills a pedestrian oriented and smart-growth goals: a grassy median with a Grove-like trolley, or widened sidewalks, bike lanes with lush shade trees? Clearly, it's the latter. The difference is with at-grade light rail comes development subsidies and variances, ironically because...wait for it...of the false claim of improving traffic. You gotta love it!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 8, 2009 12:38:18 GMT -8
Over 13 heavy rail lines, plus the RER which act as express lines crisscross Paris proper. The number of tramways in Paris proper: 1 (the T3). Here we're building the exact reverse: a network of light rail lines with one heavy rail. Furthermore, T3, just like the other trams in Paris, runs on the outskirts of the network, not through the middle of the Paris urban core like Expo through L.A. LOL! Here are two tram/light rail stations, the first in the "outskirts" of Paris, the second in the "urban core" of L.A. (Expo at Crenshaw). As someone just wrote, "You gotta love it!" ![](http://images.nycsubway.org/i62000/img_62701.jpg) ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/expo-victoria-3449-800.jpg) If you compare these " subway systems of the world, presented on the same scale" maps of L.A.'s rail network with Paris', it's immediately obvious why L.A. can't afford to build everything in subway. Paris is much denser and much smaller. As I wrote, "the good fortune of the passage of Measure R Los Angeles will get relatively short subway extensions along Wilshire Blvd. and the Regional (Downtown) Connector." And that's it for the next 30 years. ![](http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/img/subway/paris3a.gif) ![](http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/img/subway/langeles3a.gif) Saunders also noted that it "has a stop every 1,300 feet" - one-fourth L.A.'s typical one-mile spacing. Light rail on private right-of-way with gated crossings and subway have the same speed in L.A. with stations one mile apart - 2 minutes per mile.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 8, 2009 13:43:02 GMT -8
Wow, when you see those maps it makes you realize what a way to go we have. Our region is just huge.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 8, 2009 16:00:28 GMT -8
I've never been to France, but I understand that the more affluent Parisians live in the center city, and the poor immigrants live in the suburbs--just the opposite of the typical US city.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jun 8, 2009 19:37:33 GMT -8
You know, I was going to say a 'tram' or trolley around a CBD would be a great system to feed into a faster longer range LRT line but as I thought about it I came to aggree with Darrel's point in regards to the versatility of LRT.
A loop around DT Santa Monica for example would be a good thing in terms of giving patrons multiple points to board and opportunities for urban beautification.
I don't believe tram operations are the best mode in between point A and point B however, in this case Downtown Santa Monica and Downtown Los Angeles. The middle portion should run unimpeded and efficiently as practical.
Examples of what I consider inefficiencies due to street running in our system:
- Highland Park Gold Line - Washington Blvd Blue Line - Blue Line toward long beach before the CBD
Oh, and Dr. Alpern: "stupid" is in the mind of the beholder. :*)
With respect,
J
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 8, 2009 20:34:16 GMT -8
These maps are an excellent representation of why trams like the T3 will NOT work in LA. Commuters in LA have to travel much farther than in Paris. Plus you can see in the other pics how dense the area around the T3 is. They have a dense, transit dependent population that travels relatively short distances. They can make operating trams economical where for LA buses would likely be more economical. There is a place in the transit world for buses as everyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 8, 2009 20:48:29 GMT -8
I've never been to France, but I understand that the more affluent Parisians live in the center city, and the poor immigrants live in the suburbs--just the opposite of the typical US city. I've been there once and while I never went to the suburbs I'm sure that you are correct. Although Paris is a large diverse city with lots of immigrants living in the central city as well. The T1, T2, and T3 lines do run on the outskirts. Obviously "outskirts" in Paris are different than LA.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 8, 2009 21:13:10 GMT -8
I don't believe tram operations are the best mode in between point A and point B however, in this case Downtown Santa Monica and Downtown Los Angeles. The middle portion should run unimpeded and efficiently as practical. Exactly, the Expo Line's ten miles from 17th & Colorado to Gramercy & Expo. The first two are pretty insigificant compared with the cost of grade separation, each at most one minute slower than 55 mph with gated crossings or full grade separation. Long Beach is another matter, it's a major problem that the City of Long Beach won't provide signal priority for trains. Commuters in LA have to travel much farther than in Paris. Plus you can see in the other pics how dense the area around the T3 is. They have a dense, transit dependent population that travels relatively short distances. They can make operating trams economical where for LA buses would likely be more economical. There is a place in the transit world for buses as everyone knows. Yes, that's why L.A.'s light rail is predominantly at higher speed on private right-of-way, and so much has been done with the Metro Rapid network.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Jun 9, 2009 17:19:00 GMT -8
I have been waiting for a map comparing the size of the Parisian Metro and LA metro. I always knew that Paris' was much smaller and much more dense but that map was like WHOA!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jun 10, 2009 4:16:50 GMT -8
They can make operating trams economical where for LA buses would likely be more economical. There is a place in the transit world for buses as everyone knows. The squiggles do not make the best point. For one thing, L.A. has buses already. More than 2,500 of them to be exact ... and that's just Metro. You have another 500 or so when you add in the munis. What those maps also don't show is how those buses perform. In the 2007 NTD form, Metro logged about an average of 58 passengers per bus. Imagine an Orange Line artic, fully seated, for every trip throughout the day. Granted, the average accounts for some very low productivity buses as well as our busier services that are packed throughout the day. Based on these figures, you can make a case that trams may have a place in L.A. -- again. There would be a definite capacity advantage, as trams can be coupled together during high-demand hours. This would also save on operating costs. It needs to be weighed against capital costs, which would be high, and how cheap we can get electricity. There are some cases when conditions that may seem optimal for trams would still be more suited than buses. So look at it from the lines on the ground, not lines on a map.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 10, 2009 9:52:56 GMT -8
I remember Metro (or its predecessor) had plans during the 90's for electric buses on the busiest corridors of L.A.. For example, there were plans for electrifying the streets parallel to Wilshire (e.g., 6th and 8th Streets).
I believe these plans were dropped due to high capital costs. Maybe someone with a better memory of this can add something to my vague recollection.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jun 10, 2009 11:25:13 GMT -8
The ETB (Electric Trolley Bus) project! It's been a while--I remember attending meetings regarding the possibility of ETB service on Garvey Ave. and/or Valley Blvd. between downtown and El Monte back in the late 80's or early 90's; I may even have some of the "handouts" from these sessions. The concept seemed to go from active discussion, to "back burner" to "deep freeze". I think capital cost was one drawback, concerns about aesthetic issues (what we electric fans sometimes call "celestial knitting" would be an "overhead eyesore" to many), and as the years went by, possible power shortages. Then there's the problem of eliminating "blue sky routes" for moving oversize objects on city streets. Up until 1952, floats in the Pasadena Rose Parade were limited by the Pacific Electric trolley wire along Colorado Blvd. As a side note, over the years there have been several terms for trolley-powered buses: trolley bus, trolley coach, trackless trolley, and electric bus. Our British friends call them just "trolleys" (what we call a "trolley car" is a "tram"), and a "trolley" can also be a shopping cart or luggage cart. And nowadays there are electric buses that run on battery power (Santa Barbara has had them for many years, and there used to be one in San Pedro).To add to the confusion we have these fake "trolleys" which are streetcar-inspired bodies mounted on a truck chassis. My wife was looking at a travel brochure for a package-deal train excursion that included "trolley rides" in one of the cities on the itinerary. She mentioned this to me and I had to advise her that the city in question did not have an electric railway, and the "trolley" was one of those bogus imitation streetcar looking bus contraptions.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 11, 2009 7:21:43 GMT -8
In the 2007 NTD form, Metro logged about an average of 58 passengers per bus. Imagine an Orange Line artic, fully seated, for every trip throughout the day. Granted, the average accounts for some very low productivity buses as well as our busier services that are packed throughout the day. Based on these figures, you can make a case that trams may have a place in L.A. -- again. There would be a definite capacity advantage, as trams can be coupled together during high-demand hours. This would also save on operating costs. It needs to be weighed against capital costs, which would be high, and how cheap we can get electricity. There are some cases when conditions that may seem optimal for trams would still be more suited than buses. So look at it from the lines on the ground, not lines on a map. The major question is: where is the tram-like capacity needed? Is it for the local bus lines, which have short station spacing like trams, or is it for the express lines, which have longer distance station spacing like heavy rail? Indeed, lets take a look at the conditions on the ground: Wilshire Corridor: the express line, 720, with 1 mile stop spacing are packed with rush hour headways at 4 mins, while the local line, 20, with 1/5 to 1/4 mile stop spacing only has 8-9 min headways (much less frequently compared to what you'd expect for the corridor with the highest transit ridership in the region). The reason, because as bluelineshawn said: Commuters in LA have to travel much farther than in Paris. Plus you can see in the other pics how dense the area around the T3 is. They have a dense, transit dependent population that travels relatively short distances. They can make operating trams economical where for LA buses would likely be more economical. It's the 720 that needs capacity relief not the 20. So a slow tram with spacing every 1/4 mile ain't gonna solve the problem there or on any other corridor in LA experiencing bus capacity issues. After the heavy rail extension is built, the 720 can and likely will be discontinued (Wilshire bus capacity issue: RESOLVED). At that point, of course the 20 will see an increase in ridership, but not enough to require anything more high capacity than (at best) our artics. Furthermore, especially in L.A. it is better for the spokes in the hub-and-spoke system to have flexibility. Laying tracks on the ground takes away the ability to adjust the routing of local bus service. And say there is a corridor in L.A. where more tram-like capacity is needed for local trips, would a tram necessarily be superior from a cost perspective? Simply: what level must a tram perform in order to become more cost efficient than a local bus? Indeed, and I'm just guessing here, but it would seem that a bus line for 10,000 riders per day going 1 mile, is more cost effective than 10,000 riders going 3 miles. But the bigger issue is that trams seem like a capacity solution in search of a problem. What L.A. corridor are people referencing when they talk about the need for tram-like capacity? And if a corridor does exist, what would tram service look like on it?If, for example, Western needs tram-like capacity, absent a totally unacceptable lane drop, the tram will have to operate in mixed-flow (in the same lane as vehicular traffic). That means unless right-turn lanes are constructed (requiring a massive amount of property takes and building demolition - making it even less likely than a lane drop and incredibly expensive) the tram will have to wait for a whole lot of right-turn vehicles, because unlike the bus it won't have the ability to swerve in and out of traffic. And those right-turn vehicles will be waiting for pedestrians, who supposedly will be getting on and off the trams! (It's those kind of ironies that I just love in these debates). And this of course also takes away one of the major talking points for rail: on time performance/reliability. Some at-grade advocates favor lane drops on busy corridors. But they're in the minority. The general public does not think dropping lanes to improve the travel time of a train carrying IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES 7,000 people per hour during rush hour is smart when the adverse impact is to over 30,000 cars (and buses) conservatively carrying 50,000 people in the same span of time. Is it downtown where additional tram-like capacity is needed? But consider among other pieces of information, that Downtown has a severe shortage of subway stations. So maybe the solution is not necessarily trams, but more subway stations/areas/corridors served. Regarding the downtown street car, unless someone else is hearing differently, the advocacy for it is NOT because our buses are at capacity there. It's the same force driving light rail expansion in this city: REAL ESTATE! Ignore for a second whether that is good or bad and just question how much of the economic development/revitalization touted by at-grade advocates as a product of the light rail, is actually NOT attributable to the rail. Stated simply, if sufficient variances, subsides, political attention and government resources were focused on a specific/defined corridor isn't it bound to be economically successful, regardless of whether the rail is being built or not? We have great examples of that throughout Los Angeles, including: Santa Monica (more irony), Downtown Culver City, Venice, West Hollywood and Downtown Glendale, none of which have been served by a train, let alone a tram-like train in 50 years. Soon we'll be able to add the Downtown Entertainment district to the list (Staples Center/LA Live). But that's decades of attention going back to Riordan ensuring that Staples Center be built, and over $180 million (and counting) in subsidies JUST for L.A. Live. Give any corridor that type of attention and resources and yes you can turn a desert commercial island, as Pico/Fig was, into a thriving economic center. And even where some kind of rail exists within reasonable proximity, like Downtown Pasadena or Downtown Long Beach, no one could dare credibly claim that it's the product of people getting off the station. As I've pointed out many times in other forums, and perhaps here, in Downtown Long Beach the development turns it's BACK on the Blue Line. The smart growth/pedestrian-oriented principles are shown on the street away from the train: on Pine. So at the end of the day what are we really getting? In the case of at-grade light rail like Expo, since we're in this thread: -A line that will worsen traffic -A line too slow to yield the true mode shift necessary to maintain (let alone improve) commute times -A line that will hit people, in the process causing service interruptions and endless costly litigation, training programs, public service announcements, etc. -A line that lacks the capacity to operate spurs to other destinations, significantly diminishing the value of the end product -A line that will cost taxpayers more to operate annually in the long-run than grade separation in the short-run; and -A line that will need to be completely rebuilt in 30-40 years, which is just about the same time we'll be done paying off the bonds we took out to build the thing (again I just love the irony) to address capacity issues, unless even the former bus riders don't take it and it's a flop...a 2.4 billion dollar deadly, traffic-worsening, flop. (To say nothing of the environmental impacts directly along the corridor.) Any honest look reveals that the grade separated alternative is clearly superior. And I just don't see how someone who is serious about addressing our transportation problems could advocate anything but more grade separation, and more resources for grade separation in our rail system whenever possible, especially in our inner core. I think, just like the real driving forces behind the rail expansion policy in our city is something other than what is regularly stated, individual at-grade advocates and particular organizations have other motives that they consider equal or greater than the primary STATED PURPOSE of building rail. It's not all or even primarily about improving traffic, despite what the high paid public relations firms tell you. (Just in this forum, Darrell Clarke has admitted as much.) Their motives may or may not be noble/good, but regardless, it doesn't absolve them from being transparent.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 11, 2009 9:31:22 GMT -8
By that logic we don't have the money to afford build anything in light rail either!If one: a) wants to keep short-term capital costs low b) doesn't care about traffic impacts; and c) believes we have too much geographic area to cover Then said person should be advocating for an ambitions BRT system. No subways. No elevated. No light rail. Just buses, buses every where. "It's all we can afford." As I said before: s it not reasonable to suggest that for the cost of Expo alone we could have BRT down Venice, Pico, Jefferson and King? Nonetheless, Darrell, you and Friends 4 Expo have no credibility on the cost argument. You considered Expo just as "affordable" at $2.4 billion as you considered it at $550 million. The fact that in the past you advocated against adding grade separations that would have added $20-50 million here and there at the time the project cost half of what is currently projected under the logic of them being unaffordable makes your argument even less credible. You occupy this very convenient little corner on the street called "Not Credible" where you redefine the terms "affordable" and "cost-efficient" at will. That's not the way the world works. We all see that in reality "affordable" is defined by whatever amount is necessary to complete the project, and "unaffordable" is whatever you/F4E/Santa Monica/politicians fear "will kill the project." And of the things you think will kill the project, money and cost efficiency ratios are at the bottom of the list. "Can't change Farmdale, delay will kill the project." "Can't add grade separations, environment review will kill the project." The reasons why your organizations, Zev and others feel that way are explained all throughout this board. Me - I am truly concerned about costs - the long-term cost often not cited in the course of these discussions. It's clear that at-grade rail is much more expensive than grade separated. Indeed, as I said above, and it sort of just clicked for me, I can't help but note the irony in advocating for an at-grade system that if "successful" will be maxed to capacity and require massive reconstruction (at multiple times the cost) around the same year we're done paying back the bonds we took out to construct the line. When considering that, the terms that come to mind are not "cheaper," "reasonable," "cost-efficient" and affordable." They're "wasteful," "illogical," "expensive," and " repeating the same mistakes that got us in this mess." The rest of the world figured this out 50-100 years ago, when they ripped up their street car systems and replaced them with grade separated systems. And no Darrell, we're not Portland; we're not Salt Lake City; we're not Dallas; and we're not Phoenix. And furthermore, the presence of at-grade rail in those does not make them "successful." It's just means other cities are either doing stupid things too or have different challenges and needs. We are L.A. And given the geographic area we have to cover, our travel patterns, and how far behind we already are in rapid transit we can't afford to waste money building at-grade across major intersections like Vermont, Western, Crenshaw, Sepulveda, Overland and Westwood, among others.Personally, I think a transit advocate's energy is best spent focusing on how MTA can get the capital costs down on our needed grade separated systems, educating the public on the true benefits/costs of such a system, and advocating collectively for the necessary resources to build the system. But you can continue with the smoke and mirrors, community dividing tactics if you like.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jun 11, 2009 10:36:57 GMT -8
It's interesting that this doesn't take into account that when any transit corridor be it BRT, LRT, HRT goes over capacity one of the next things agencies around the world have done is:
BUILD MORE PARALLEL LINES TO THE OVER CAPACITY ONE TO RELIEVE THE LOADS AND EXPAND THE TRANSIT NETWORK
* Paris Meteor Line was built because the M1 and RER A were overloaded between two main points.
* NYC Second Avenue Subway to relieve over crowding on the Lexington Avenue Subway on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. (Been in planning for more than 60 years)
* DC Metro HRT will need to build a parallel corridor within 5-10 years to the over burdened Orange/Blue and Red Line corridors between Rosslyn and Union Station.
* London Jubliee Line finally extended after the Docklands automated elevated LRT proved successful in the Bank/Canary Wharf areas.
* Toronto's Transit City expansion is converting busy Bus lines to LRT and building parallel LRT to the over capacity Subway lines (which themselves based on highly successful streetcar alignments)
Do these things mean that LRT/HRT are failures. No, it shows successful systems in whatever mode used require more funding in the planning, construction and continued expansion of the transit network and build more lines.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 11, 2009 17:31:41 GMT -8
The general public does not think dropping lanes to improve the travel time of a train carrying IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES 7,000 people per hour during rush hour is smart when the adverse impact is to over 30,000 cars (and buses) conservatively carrying 50,000 people in the same span of time. The Expo Line with 3-car trains on 6-minute headways will have a comfortable capacity of over 3,000 passengers per hour per track. (At 100 per car, including a modest 25 or so standees. Add 50% for a car full of standees.) One freeway lane during rush hour carries around 1,500 people per hour (at typical 1.2 per vehicle). One boulevard lane is more like 750, one fourth the light rail track. By that logic we don't have the money to afford build anything in light rail either! ... Then said person should be advocating for an ambitions BRT system. No subways. No elevated. No light rail. Just buses, buses every where. "It's all we can afford." Which we already have, if you believe that Metro Rapid is BRT. Pretty slow, though. And even the Orange Line is certainly not competitive with light rail in speed or capacity. Your use of $2.4 billion: "no credibility". Jerard's answer about expanding the network is exactly right. You tell them! Where are your examples of how to get capital costs down? You know, Damien, you could have been part of Denny Zane's coalition that passed Measure R to expand L.A. County's rail network over the next 30 years. Instead you chose "community dividing".
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jun 11, 2009 19:48:20 GMT -8
Here are two new photos. First is from the drilling underway for the CIDH piles for the new Flower Street bridge over the Harbor Freeway (6/9). ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/flowerbr-3523-800.jpg) Second is (the west half of) the newly-cast concrete cap over the Foshay Learning Center pedestrian tunnel, today. Note the lower level with a rough rocky surface, and the exposed duct-bank ends in the center of the higher edge. ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/foshay-3528-800.jpg) Also on that subject, from StreetsblogLA, Councilman Bernard Parks's new motion requested the City of L.A. fund $5,571,569 of Measure R Local Return money for "Exposition Light Rail Project land acquisition and safety mitigation" at Foshay Middle School.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jun 12, 2009 6:11:34 GMT -8
It's interesting that this doesn't take into account that when any transit corridor be it BRT, LRT, HRT goes over capacity one of the next things agencies around the world have done is: BUILD MORE PARALLEL LINES TO THE OVER CAPACITY ONE TO RELIEVE THE LOADS AND EXPAND THE TRANSIT NETWORK You've made that argument before, and it's just as weak today as it was then. The only consistency I see in your post above and your criticism of the Orange Line, where so many at-grade advocates here have stated that capacity problems and maintenance costs prove it was a mistake to build it BRT and not LRT, is your support for at-grade crossings! ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) (Again, I sooooo love the ironies). My favorite of your comparisons is the 2nd Ave subway, which is being built to relieve the Lexington Line - a line that is 2 blocks from 2nd Ave. 2 blocks. You're really here telling us with a straight face that's similar to Wilshire-Expo, which are 3 miles apart from one another for most of it's route? Give me a break. Furthermore, the 2nd Ave subway is not 60 years in the making it is 75 years in the making and will take another 10-15 more years to complete. In the interim the Lexington Line is bursting at the seams, but at least, unlike Expo, that disruption and inconvenience is solely limited to transit passengers AND NOT THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION GRID!What you're advocating for, especially at several specific intersections, if not cumulatively along the corridor is GRIDLOCK...and what, telling us to look to the 2nd Ave subway so we can endure it for the next 90 years?! Could you please put that in your next newsletter Jerard? Maybe gridlock is what at-grade advocates want. There is this anti-automobile thing going on and it allows at-grade advocates to falsely profess that we need more at-grade rail to relieve the gridlock! (Gotta love the ironies). I realize in the at-grade advocate world, the only thing some see and care about is the train, and believe people and motorists traffic and safety are this inconvenient impediment standing in the way of expanding the rail map, but did you ever think when responding, that one of many of the reasons the tracks will need to be ripped up will be vehicular traffic? You know the same reason other cities around the world, including L.A. ripped the old street car tracks up? ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) I believe in learning from past mistakes, not repeating them. And when people look at these intersections, they realize running trains across them today is illogical. When they compare today's traffic to traffic in 1989, the only people left standing in the gridlock advocate's corner are the most fervent rail admires. Best for you to adopt the Darrell Clarke talking point that "at-grade doesn't harm traffic" or give us "The Marie Antoinette": "traffic is gonna get worse anyway, so lets just add fuel to the fire!"
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 12, 2009 7:40:30 GMT -8
You would think by some of the comments on this board that the Expo line is line with spikes and razors and shoots flames at people as it passes by. It's really a bit crazy. Trains are dangerous, cars are dangerous - even bicycles can be dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 12, 2009 7:53:10 GMT -8
Maybe gridlock is what at-grade advocates want. Gridlock is coming anyway. LRT will provide an alternate route for those who choose it. There is this anti-automobile thing going on and it allows at-grade advocates to falsely profess that we need more at-grade rail to relieve the gridlock! It is not anti-automobile, it is pro-reality. We cannot continue to allow non-stop expansion of auto flow. Why do you insist on continually defending preferential treatment of the automobile? Let me expand on this point. Crenshaw, Vermont, etc. cross many many boulevards. At each boulevard, drivers have to stop for somewhere between 45 seconds and 2 minutes for cross-traffic. And, this happens far more frequently than train crossings. Where is the outrage there? There are thousands of streets, avenues and boulevards causing gridlock on the transportation grid. How many at-grade rail lines are there? Two. With two more under construction. No Damien, this is not about us being anti-automobile. It's clearly about you being anti-rail. (Gotta love the ironies). Gotta love the irony (singular) of someone who continually uses that word incorrectly. A misunderstanding on your part does not constitute irony.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jun 12, 2009 11:51:31 GMT -8
"You would think by some of the comments on this board that the Expo line is line with spikes and razors and shoots flames at people as it passes by. It's really a bit crazy." Now that WOULD make for an interesting ride! ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) )
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Jun 12, 2009 16:35:24 GMT -8
Maybe gridlock is what at-grade advocates want. Gridlock is coming anyway. LRT will provide an alternate route for those who choose it. The Problem I have with this argument is LRT will have to navigate and will sometimes exacerbate the very problems its meant to be an alternative to.
|
|