|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2009 18:16:40 GMT -8
why not Olympic? Don't get it... Short answer: City of Santa Monica doesn't want the Olympic over their dead body. In contrast they desire the Colorado strongly. Long(er) answer: Impact of aerial structures in the Olympic alternative (main reason behind the City of SM's opposition). Colorado creating pedestrian-oriented settings, what SM wants to have. Colorado is also $50 million cheaper. The two alignments are less than 300-yards-apart anyway (three-minute walk between the alignments), so why really bother so much? Also, support for the Colorado alignment has been overwhelming by the public comments (both verbal and written).
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 3, 2009 6:12:45 GMT -8
I'm relieved in so many ways that the routing decision was finally made by the political powers that be, and with a unanimous vote. We can now finally address the task of figuring out how to adopt Metro guidelines with respect to the ROW, and I suspect that the City of Los Angeles will have to come through in order to make sure the Authority receives the support it needs to implement this light rail line in West Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by stuckintraffic on Apr 3, 2009 10:01:08 GMT -8
Colorado is also $50 million cheaper.
^ Are they using the money saved for grade separations in other places?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2009 10:21:13 GMT -8
Colorado is also $50 million cheaper. ^ Are they using the money saved for grade separations in other places? Grade separation is not determined according to the availability of the money. It's determined by the 2003 Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail. Money saved goes to other transit projects, such as the Foothill extension etc. Conversely, if they exceed the budget, the authority needs to go back to the Metro board to get the extra money.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 3, 2009 12:39:04 GMT -8
Another note from the Expo board meeting today: Fix Expo stated that they will launch a nuclear war on April 24. They said that this is environmental racism and since Phase 1 is federally funded (which is hardly true in reality), they will stop both Phase 1 and Phase 2 and annihilate the federally funded Westside subway extension, as well as all other future rail-transit projects. Earlier there was a lot of mention of Dr. King's name by them, which I thought was irrelevant and disrespectful. Hopefully, this dies a quick death. Not building a subway along expo is like arguing for not building a 10 lane freeway in Barrow, Alaska. It just doesn't make economic sense. Just because they do build 10 lane freeways in LA doesn't mean there is racism against Eskimos because they don't in Barrow. Looks like Damien and his group have turned into an angry-mob with a BRU like mentality. He used to care about getting grade separated rail through Los Angeles. Now he is all about destroying the rail system in Los Angeles even grade separated at the expense of getting his name out there at all costs. Talk about a complete lack of principles and character. MLK wouldn't want anything to do with this guy.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 3, 2009 12:54:21 GMT -8
"Nuclear war"? Bring it.
How dare the racists at Metro build a rail transit line in my backyard! Why do they hate us so much?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Apr 3, 2009 13:11:22 GMT -8
how nice. we get measure r and now fix the expo wants to dismember any project
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 3, 2009 18:06:01 GMT -8
Examples of REAL environmental racism in action: Chavez Ravine, the Century Freeway, the East L.A. interchange. Whole neighborhoods were destroyed, because of some people's belief that the racial minorities living in those neighborhoods could be disregarded with impunity.
Using an existing train ROW for public transit? That is not environmental racism. That's just common sense.
The EIR for Expo addressed the safety concerns at Dorsey and Foshay. And now the CPUC has gone even further and required Metro to add further mitigation.
Yet there are some who will continue to use threats and intimidation until they get the line underground. Those that continue with this scorched-earth rhetoric at this point are acting like children. There's no nice way to put it.
The FixExpo group is wrong to talk "nuclear" after having their ideas rejected yet again. This is egocentric behavior at its worst, fueled by a willful ignorance of the facts, a willingness to abandon civil public discourse in favor of threats and name-calling, and an obsession with "the cause" which, the way they interpret it, makes a mockery of the true history of racial injustice.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2009 20:00:03 GMT -8
My opening line for my report for the historic milestone for the Expo Line was the adoption of the Pacific Electric Santa Monica Air Line right-of-way through Palms/Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park after a 20-year-long fight. This fight had started in late 80s when Southern Pacific announced abandonment of these tracks and auctioned them for sale. This LA Times article from 1991 is great reading about the starting days of the Expo fight. Some things haven't changed at all. On the other hand, some things have changed a lot, for example Zev.
Los Angeles Times
September 5, 1991
Section: WE-Westside
A Green Light for Rail Line
Mass transit: The county gives preliminary OK to funding for a light-rail service along the Exposition Boulevard right of way.
CY HILL-HOLTZMAN TIMES STAFF WRITER
Plans for a light-rail line serving the Westside have cleared a significant hurdle by receiving preliminary approval for funding from the Los Angeles County TransportÂation Commission.
Although a functioning transit line is still years away, the commission, in issuing its 30-year transit plan for the region late last month, indicated that it intended to provide money to build a light-rail line--or an alternative mode of public transit--to run along the Exposition Boulevard railroad right of way between Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles.
"We have put a place mark in our plan to provide the financial capacity to build this line," said Transportation Commission spokesman Michael Bustamante this week.
The right of way runs from Santa Monica to Exposition Park near the Los Angeles Coliseum and continues east to a linkup south of downtown Los Angeles with another light rail line. The Exposition Boulevard line was included in 175 miles of right of way that the Transportation Commission bought from Southern Pacific last year for $450 million.
The funding plan would require the cities served to raise 20% of the cost.
Though inclusion of the Exposition right of way in the Transportation Commission's 30-year plan does not mean a light-rail system is a sure thing, it is encouraging Santa Monica officials, who have fought for a light-rail link with downtown Los Angeles via the Exposition line.
"It's a step in the right direction,' said Santa Monica Mayor Judy Abdo.
For opponents, many of them from Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park, the possibility of a light-rail system in their neighborhoods is a setback.
Several Los Angeles homeowner groups, backed by Los Angeles Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, fought the purchase of the right of way for more than two years. They continue to argue that a light-rail plan will ruin their neighborhoods with traffic and noise, and will not draw anywhere near the high ridership claimed by a Santa Monica-funded study.
Yaroslavsky said it was a "preposterous notion" to envision commuters flocking through already-congested single-family residential areas to leave their cars in giÂant park-and-ride lots near the proposed rail line.
The councilman said he favors moving the line entirely to Santa Monica Boulevard, a right of way that will become available if the Los Angeles City Council approves a proposed lawsuit settlement with Southern Pacific. Yaroslavsky and Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman announced the proposed settlement this week.
If the LACTC insists on developing the Exposition line, Yaroslavsky said, he favors rerouting the line via Venice and Sepulveda boulevards to avoid the Rancho Park-Cheviot Hills area.
City Councilman Nate Holden, whose district lies to southeast of Yaroslavsky's and who lives just a block from the right of way, said this week that he favors the light-rail plan, provided it is rerouted around Cheviot Hills and Rancho Park.
"Something is better than nothing," said Holden, who chairs the City Council's transportation committee and is a former county transportation commissioner.
Although the long-range plan was drawn up at the behest of the members of the TransÂportation Commission, the full commission must approve the plan in September or OcÂtober, according to commission spokesman Michael Bustamante.
Abdo cautioned that Santa Monica is not treating the inclusion of the rail line in the 30-year plan as a guarantee that it will be built. She said Santa Monica will redouble its efforts not only to keep the project on the list but to gain a higher priority for it.
"It's not like it's written in stone," Abdo said.
Three hearings are planned on the Westside next week to solicit public comment on the plan. Bustamante emphasized that a light-rail line is only one option under study. Alternatives include deployment of a fleet of electric buses or the creation of a van-and bus-pool lane.
Sara Berman, an active opponent of the light-rail line and president of the West of Westwood Homeowners Assn., said she was concerned that none of the three hearings is being held in the Rancho Park-Cheviot Hills area. The closest one is at Hamilton High School.
Berman said the inclusion of the Exposition right of way in the long-range plan was premature because of insufficient study.
"It makes us question the good faith of the study in process," she said.
Despite the opposition, Bustamante said the Transportation Commission is moving forÂward aggressively on the region's transportation problems because of a mandate from voters. Several transit funding propositions have passed decisively in recent elecÂtions, in stark contrast to myriad other proposed bond issues that failed.
"The public has told us, 'We want something and we want something now,' " Bustamante said.
Transit Hearings Scheduled
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has scheduled three community meetÂings next week for a preliminary discussion of transit options--including light rail--for the Exposition Boulevard right of way. The meetings, all of which begin at 7 p.m., are planned for three separate locations. For more information call Carol Inge, (213) 244-6898, or Christine Robert, (213) 244-6891, at the Transportation Commission.
* Tuesday, Sept. 10: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power auditorium, 4030 Crenshaw Blvd., Los Angeles.
* Wednesday, Sept. 11: Hamilton High School, multipurpose room, 2955 South Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles.
* Thursday, Sept. 12: Santa Monica Library auditorium, 1343 6th St., Santa Monica.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 3, 2009 20:15:45 GMT -8
Hmmm what an interesting debate The way i see it grade separation makes a lot of sense but this whole "nuclear war" thing seems highly exaggerated. no need to stop all rail projects in the county. You live in a city, a metropolis for that matter; a rail system is common sense stuff!
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 4, 2009 11:02:01 GMT -8
I think that most local and regional residents agree with your sentiments, calmly and without acrimony.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2009 1:46:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 5, 2009 7:55:56 GMT -8
Colorado is also $50 million cheaper. ^ Are they using the money saved for grade separations in other places? Grade separation is not determined according to the availability of the money. It's determined by the 2003 Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail. .... I respectfully disagree. The Metro grade-crossing policy has a high eligibility bar in part to save money. If money was more widely available the bar would be set much lower.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2009 10:17:51 GMT -8
I respectfully disagree. The Metro grade-crossing policy has a high eligibility bar in part to save money. If money was more widely available the bar would be set much lower. So, you are talking about modifying the 2003 Metro grade-crossing policy for light-rail, which is based on the United States national standards for light-rail. But this: - Is major change in Metro policy in general
- Could bring light-rail close to heavy rail -- a major change in policy
- Could increase the cost of rail transit substantially
- Would take money away from other projects
- It would create inequality between Phase 1 and Phase 2
- It could create inequality between previous, current, and future projects
- Among other things of course
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 5, 2009 17:47:14 GMT -8
Yes, I would advocate changing the Metro Grade Separation Policy to grade separate a greater amount of intersections.
BTW: Where did you find the FTA standards for grade separation. I looked but didn't find them on Google, APTA or FTA sites.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2009 18:43:46 GMT -8
Yes, I would advocate changing the Metro Grade Separation Policy to grade separate a greater amount of intersections. BTW: Where did you find the FTA standards for grade separation. I looked but didn't find them on Google, APTA or FTA sites. The problem with changing the policy for more grade separation is that it makes the projects more expensive and more difficult to built, possibly resulting in a smaller number of projects. This is especially true now with building rail getting exponentially more expensive. The 2003 Metro policy is mainly based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' report: ITE Technical Committee 6A-42. Light Rail Transit Grade Separation Guidelines. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., March 1992.The policy also takes into account advances in traffic-signal control technology between 1992 and 2003 and raises the bar on traffic volume for giving signal preemption and priority. The Metro policy also gives the following references: G. Rex Nichelson, Jr. & George L. Reed. Grade Separations – When Do We Separate. 1999 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Conference. Texas Transportation Institute. College Station, TX, October, 1999.
PDF link (also link to 17-b - e) Korve, H., Farran, J., Mansel, D. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail transit Into City Streets. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1996.
PDF link Korve, H., Ogden, B., Siques, J. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2001.I couldn't find the original ITE paper online on which the Metro policy is mainly based but there is this one available, which seems to be the latest update on grade separation: PDF link Preemption of traffic signals near railroad crossings, ITE Committee TENC-99-06, July 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 5, 2009 22:08:00 GMT -8
I agree Gokhan, that grade separation is more expensive and may result in less overall projects. I agree that many intersections should be at grade. I agree that the best solution is to find a balance between at grade and grade separation that gives the best possible bang for the buck.
Where you and I disagree is in what constitutes 'Best Bang for Buck' I think Vermont, Western and Crenshaw are worthy of separation as I do Overland, Sepulveda, Barrington and Lincoln. In a nutshell the criteria bar is a little to high and we need to spend a little more money to get a better transportation system.
I also think that grade separations are faster, safer, and garner greater amounts of passengers. I believe the Pasadena Gold Line has suffered greatly in terms of ridership because of the numerous at grade crossing that resulted in lower speeds. I believe the Long Beach Blue Line has had several hundred deaths to many that could have been prevented by grade separation.
I do not believe in the "Nuclear Bomb" strategy and I think it's to late for phase one crossings but not to late for phase two. If Fix Expo had gotten the ball rolling earlier and Measure R been passed earlier, Fix Expo may have been able to influence the grade separation of one maybe two additional intersections instead of the closure of just one street.
I think phase two will get some additional grade separations that similar streets in South L.A. did not get due in part to affluence (education and class) but also Measure R funding. Even though, unfortunately there is a correlation between race and class I do not think the lack of grade separation is directly racist. The lack of education is.
And lastly, as imperfect as Expo is, I think it's a pretty cool thing. I am proud of it and I continue to advocate and educate everyone I know about the project.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 6, 2009 7:19:18 GMT -8
^ I happen to agree with you, Saunders, that the bar is currently set too high for grade-separation. IMO, most or all of those intersections you listed in your post should be grade-separated.
However, it would not be fair to change the policy between Phases I and II of Expo. This would provide advantages to Phase II over Phase I which likely would be seen as discriminatory.
I also see it as too late in the game to be changing policy for Phase I. The project has been defined and is in progress, and a lot of time, effort and money would be wasted if we stopped construction of Phase I at this point for a redesign.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 6, 2009 10:12:33 GMT -8
Virtually word for word, I agree with Saunders! I am proud of Expo, and look forward to seeing if there actually WILL be traffic problems as a result of the at-grade crossings approved for Phase 1. I just am not sure whether they will actually occur, but if they do perhaps we can consider grade-separating the STREETS or do other types of mitigation.
I again am proud of Expo, and any inequities or shortcomings are NOT due to racism but to lack of education and experience. We're still seeing American light rail in its infancy, and our learning curve is still going up.
What I think is our BIGGEST problem is the double standard we have for roads and rail: were the budget for roads and rail to be similar, and were we to have a habit of not being so pushed into corner-cutting with rail projects, then this discussion wouldn't even be going on.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 6, 2009 11:11:05 GMT -8
What about the lack of connecting bus services connecting to other destinations and stations that don't serve those destinations(within Downtown and Pasadena City College are the ones that come up). That is the key issue with the Gold Line that even if this line was super fast would never be able to overcome.
Or even quad-gating those older crossings would do a great job of reducing deaths and accidents.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2009 12:14:39 GMT -8
I believe the Pasadena Gold Line has suffered greatly in terms of ridership because of the numerous at grade crossing that resulted in lower speeds. I believe the Long Beach Blue Line has had several hundred deaths to many that could have been prevented by grade separation. Actually the statement that the Gold Line is slow because it's at-grade is 98% incorrect. Almost all at-grade crossings along Gold Line has preemption for the trains; so, they cross at 55 MPH, with no slowdown. The overall speed of the Gold Line is comparable to Red Line, covering 13 miles with many stations in less than half hour. The only slowdown is along Marmion Way but it only adds a minute to the travel time and I think it's much prettier that way and it was also much much cheaper that way as well. Most Blue Line grade-crossing accidents happened not because of inherent danger of grade crossings or median-running light-rail but because of design mistakes and deficiencies. These deficiencies mostly were at pedestrian crossings, where no pedestrian gates and proper warnings were used and as a result of pedestrians underestimating the dangers and speed of the trains and lack of active safety devices, many pedestrian deaths occurred. The vehicular accidents at gated crossings were the result of motorists going around the gates and they were eliminated by the installation of quad gates. With the lessons learned from the Blue Line, Gold Line was built to a nearly perfect standard, and as a result, there have been almost no accidents, except for a couple of idiots deliberately running through closed gates. The Expo Line is being built to the same or better standards as the Gold Line, not the Blue Line, which lacked proper active safety devices and warnings at the grade crossings.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 6, 2009 15:06:18 GMT -8
Actually the statement that the Gold Line is slow because it's at-grade is 98% incorrect. Almost all at-grade crossings along Gold Line has preemption for the trains; so, they cross at 55 MPH, with no slowdown. The overall speed of the Gold Line is comparable to Red Line, covering 13 miles with many stations in less than half hour. The only slowdown is along Marmion Way but it only adds a minute to the travel time and I think it's much prettier that way and it was also much much cheaper that way as well. Gokhan, You are very dedicated to the numbers. Since a Gold Line Train goes 55 mph most of the time it should be "fast". Yep. This weekend, there was a Transit race. 5 Teams positioned all around the city were given the challenge to get to Heritage Square Park which by chance is very near a stop on the Gold Line. Teams were in Glendale, Downtown, USC, Hancock Park and Pasadena. All the Pasadena crew had to do was hop on the "Fast" Gold line and get off at Heritage Square/Arroyo Station and walk three blocks to the finish line. That's it they would win. They didn't win, not even close. They came in 4th. Beaten by a Team from USC which Hopped on the #81 Bus and took it up Fig. The USC team even beat a team in DTLA who could have caught the same bus but was under the illusion that Rail in LA is the quickest way to get around. They were third. Glendale came in Second, they also took buses. And last team was the gang starting @ Hancock Park Details on the race can be found Here la.streetsblog.org/2009/04/06/review-of-the-citys-first-transit-race-from-last-place-finnisher/And Here www.transitpeople.org/news.shtmlNumbers in Abstraction can be a great starting point but they can be misleading, especially when they don't take into account the myriad of other factors which can add to equation. More tests like this can give us a better sense of how effective a service is than Train A leaves a station @ 10am and goes 55 mph for x miles. Just something to think about......... Take Care - P.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 6, 2009 15:30:48 GMT -8
Thanks for the link,
I can see the problem right off the bat with folks taking the Gold Line, they got off on the wrong station which would actually get them a short walk to the actual Heritage Square. Had they got off at Southwest Museum Station it would be a much shorter and direct walk to the destination and they may have come in as the first team.
It reminds me of a stop in Chicago's L which is a popular station to access Northwestern University at Davis or Foster however that is a longer walking trip to reach the campus compared to the Noyes station which gets you directly to the campus center but it's farther away.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2009 16:22:33 GMT -8
You are very dedicated to the numbers. Since a Gold Line Train goes 55 mph most of the time it should be "fast". Yep. It takes 6 minutes to Heritage Square and 8 minutes to Southwest Museum from Union Station on the Gold Line. How fast do you want?
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 6, 2009 17:14:23 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, I can see the problem right off the bat with folks taking the Gold Line, they got off on the wrong station which would actually get them a short walk to the actual Heritage Square. Had they got off at Southwest Museum Station it would be a much shorter and direct walk to the destination and they may have come in as the first team. Not Quite. The actual finish line was 3800 Homer Street, Los Angeles, 90031 which is Closer to Heritage Square than the SW Museum stop even having to go around to Cross the 110.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 6, 2009 17:16:30 GMT -8
With the lessons learned from the Blue Line Now, shouldn't those lessons learned be applied to the Blue Line going forward? When does a Blue Line upgrade fit into everybody's timeline? I personally think it should happen as soon as possible, at the very least after Gold Line Eastside is done. If wishes were fishes, of course. You'd have to find the money for it. But I think making the Blue Line safer, faster and maybe even introducing express service, would be an incredible achievement. Has there been discussion about it? Proposals? Any links to those?
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 6, 2009 17:27:27 GMT -8
You are very dedicated to the numbers. Since a Gold Line Train goes 55 mph most of the time it should be "fast". Yep. It takes 6 minutes to Heritage Square and 8 minutes to Southwest Museum from Union Station on the Gold Line. How fast do you want? Lets Try Coming the other Direction as the Pasedena team was and Say they started out as Far as Sierra Madre Which According to the Schedule it should Only take them 22 Minutes 15 if they were coming from Memorial park and there is 12 minutes between trains at the start time for a max of 34 minutes and both the USC Team and the Pasadena Team had similar walks to the finish line How did the Pasadena crew Come in so far behind from Folks Catching a bus from USC? Maybe the schedules do not reflect the reality of the service. BTW the Downtown team and the Hancock Park team both cited the transfer at union station for slowing them down too far to win.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2009 17:43:02 GMT -8
^^ Remember that the Downtown Connector is being planned and it will eliminate the need for transfers at Union Station.
I would believe the timetables a major transit agency published for their rail service.
When the rail system grows, ridership will increase and service will become more frequent.
Also, nowadays buses are needed to make local connections. It's no longer the days of Pacific Electric Railway and Los Angeles Railway, where there were more rail lines than the bus lines today. So, if a train doesn't drop you off at your doorstep, it's not an argument against building more rail lines, in fact the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 6, 2009 18:04:20 GMT -8
I would believe the timetables a major transit agency published for their rail service. This Is where you and I Agree to disagree. When I lived in SF, Muni would never actually Publish a Schedule because they could not make service match the Schedule. So instead they printed "Frequency Guides" to tell riders how Frequent service should be. That didn't quite work either, But it lowered expectations appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 6, 2009 18:41:20 GMT -8
|
|