|
Post by Gokhan on May 4, 2011 10:34:29 GMT -8
I have to agree with the concern regarding Dorsey's tunnel. ...Seems narrow and confining and an ideal place for drug deals and the like to go down, or muggings to take place, out of sight of security personnel, and likely out of earshot as well. Guys, how many times do I have to repeat this? The tunnel is only open for half hour before school and for half hour after school and only under a volunteer-parent supervision. It's locked at both ends at all other times.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 4, 2011 13:32:01 GMT -8
I don't understand what you have against tunnels? It's about who gets priority. Cars get zero delay and get to move straight. Pedestrians? Have fun walking down steps, then have fun navigating an ugly, dark, humid tunnel, and then enjoy your flight of steps at the end. Cant handle steps? Get a car! The pedestrian bridges in vegas are even worse. Every one of them is an attack against the pedestrian.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 4, 2011 14:55:53 GMT -8
^ Pedestrian grade separations are much less expensive than road and rail tunnels and bridges.
So if not a pedestrian tunnel/bridge, really, what is the alternative? A pedestrian crossing at-grade? The community will fight this, because of perceived danger to pedestrians. Which brings us back to square one.
Anyway, these short tunnels really aren't so bad. The cityscape is full of far worse "attacks" on pedestrians.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 4, 2011 18:01:41 GMT -8
I have to say, I don't agree with the "us vs. them" mentality that some transit fans have. People drive. Americans drive, even Tokyo residents with their amazing subways drive, and certainly Angelenos drive.
Pedestrian tunnels and pedestrian bridges aren't perfect for every situation, but I do think that they are necessary in some situations.
I wish I had taken better photos of the pedestrian tunnels I saw in Tokyo because I don't think it's impossible to make a better tunnel. More lights, make it wider. (Not necessarily the Harvard tunnel, but other tunnels L.A. may be considering).
I would love to see more tunnels in downtown Los Angeles, especially pedestrian tunnels which connect with Red Line or Regional Connector stations. People would be able to use them for the subway trains and to get through crowded intersections.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 5, 2011 7:29:21 GMT -8
^ Not just "us vs. them" but "good vs. bad". As in "subway is good" and "cars are bad". Reality is rarely this black-and-white.
A good example is the Paris Metro. Fantastic, in that it will take you to every part of the city you might want to go. But it's not perfect. The tunnels and passages are often *very* long and inconvenient. The smell of urine permeates the tunnels. And the stations do attract a certain amount of crime. This is not to say I hate the Paris Metro: I'm just being realistic about its positives and negatives, rather than dogmatic about "loving" or "hating" it.
I am not a huge fan of pedestrian tunnels and bridges, because they are often used as a shortcut to avoid addressing real problems at the street level. A good example is in the Financial District, where bridges connect Citicorp Plaza to the Bonaventure to City National Plaza.
But they do serve a purpose in some cases. Like near a middle school in a neighborhood of "concerned parents" where a grade-crossing is politically unfeasible.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jun 6, 2011 7:34:36 GMT -8
I've just checked with Expo Authority. Unfortunately the text of the settlement is referring to both cabs (head and tail) and the train won't go faster than 15 MPH until the entire train clears the crossing. Gokhan, Check this out from the 6-2-11 board meeting where they approved a change order for the train control system installation. Here is a link to the work description, and the relevant quote: buildexpo.org/pdf_uploads/boar_ws5lfylcd3.pdfThe Settlement Agreement also called for the installation of a train control system that would require the trains to stop prior to proceeding through the Farmdale crossing, and then proceed at a speed no greater than 15 mph until the front of the train cleared the pedestrian crossings.If they really mean that "the entire train" needs to be clear of the pedestrian crossing before exceeding 15MPH, then the above description is pretty confusing. Why wouldn't they just say "the entire train" instead of "the front of the train"? RT
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jun 6, 2011 8:58:31 GMT -8
That actually makes sense. If the front of the train crosses Farmdale while accelerating to 15 MPH and then accelerates further after the FRONT of the train crosses the intersection, the impact of this restriction will be little felt.
In a previous discussion here we thought it was the entire train, but I think this is a much more logical way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 6, 2011 9:44:20 GMT -8
I've just checked with Expo Authority. Unfortunately the text of the settlement is referring to both cabs (head and tail) and the train won't go faster than 15 MPH until the entire train clears the crossing. Gokhan, Check this out from the 6-2-11 board meeting where they approved a change order for the train control system installation. Here is a link to the work description, and the relevant quote: buildexpo.org/pdf_uploads/boar_ws5lfylcd3.pdfThe Settlement Agreement also called for the installation of a train control system that would require the trains to stop prior to proceeding through the Farmdale crossing, and then proceed at a speed no greater than 15 mph until the front of the train cleared the pedestrian crossings.If they really mean that "the entire train" needs to be clear of the pedestrian crossing before exceeding 15MPH, then the above description is pretty confusing. Why wouldn't they just say "the entire train" instead of "the front of the train"? RT I actually saw that agenda item last week and I was happy about it. The original settlement said "cab" of the train, which would imply front. Rick somehow said the rear of the train at a board meeting recently, when he was describing a Farmdale item. He might simply be mistaken. Certainly front of the train is what makes sense and there is no reason to slow the train once the front clears the crossing.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Jun 9, 2011 14:23:17 GMT -8
.... Certainly front of the train is what makes sense and there is no reason to slow the train once the front clears the crossing.[/quote] This is important. A 90-meter long, 3-car train takes 15 seconds to pass a 10-meter wide intersection at 6.5 m/s (14 mph). If just the front of the train has to clear the intersection, you only have to go slow for a second, since it takes about 7 seconds to get up to 15 mph anyway, in which time the train has traveled 50 feet and cleared the intersecton. (assuming 1 m/s or 2 mph/s acceleration of our LRVs)
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 12, 2011 19:58:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 12, 2011 20:21:01 GMT -8
^ Good god i hope so.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 13, 2011 6:00:10 GMT -8
No, it means they're done ;D
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 13, 2011 7:28:23 GMT -8
FixExpo doesn't need a website: going forward, it's going to rely on mimeographed leaflets.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 13, 2011 7:34:59 GMT -8
They've already started a new legal cause: www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/fixexpo Future lawsuit on the Crenshaw Corridor!!! (may need to create a Crenshaw subway coalition subfolder)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 13, 2011 8:45:22 GMT -8
They've already started a new legal cause: www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/fixexpo Future lawsuit on the Crenshaw Corridor!!! (may need to create a Crenshaw subway coalition subfolder) As I had earlier stated, I expected him to bring a lawsuit even if others here didn't. It is just too easy to sue on things like this. Lets see if they can raise the money for one, but I would expect they will. That means the Gold Line, Expo Phase II, Crenshaw, and the Purple Line extension if they chose Constellation will all face lawsuits. Lets hope the MTA has some good lawyers.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 13, 2011 11:28:53 GMT -8
That means the Gold Line, Expo Phase II, Crenshaw, and the Purple Line extension if they chose Constellation will all face lawsuits. Lets hope the MTA has some good lawyers. Who cares. Sad end of all NIMBYs:
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 13, 2011 13:52:28 GMT -8
On what possible basis could FixExpo bring a lawsuit? This decision was made by the Metro Board: isn't building rail projects within budget one of the key duties of the Metro Board? How can they be sued for this?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: they'll probably use the now-routine legal strategy of "NEPA violation/insufficient EIR".
Somebody should go to FixExpo's planning meeting on Monday: if evidence surfaces that the group planned an "insufficient EIR" claim before the EIR was even finished and released, that would severely hurt the group's credibility in court.
I suppose the alternative would be a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. That would be an interesting claim, given the objectivity of Metro's policies like the Grade Crossing Policy.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 13, 2011 14:13:35 GMT -8
On what possible basis could FixExpo bring a lawsuit? This decision was made by the Metro Board: isn't building rail projects within budget one of the key duties of the Metro Board? How can they be sued for this? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: they'll probably use the now-routine legal strategy of "NEPA violation/insufficient EIR". Somebody should go to FixExpo's planning meeting on Monday: if evidence surfaces that the group planned an "insufficient EIR" claim before the EIR was even finished and released, that would severely hurt the group's credibility in court. I suppose the alternative would be a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. That would be an interesting claim, given the objectivity of Metro's policies like the Grade Crossing Policy. This is America and more specifically California. There are a number of ways they could possibly bring up a lawsuit, not that it would necessarily make sense or be right.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 13, 2011 15:34:47 GMT -8
Metro always has a huge legal tab to pay.
FixExpo should be recognized as an organization that's only goal is to sue and stall Metro projects.
Beverly Hills is political at this point, the lawsuit serves no purpose since the FEIR is not finished.
As for Monrovia I can't figure out what is going on.
I think it is business as usual in the US, expect to be sued and be pleasantly surprised if it does not happen.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 13, 2011 19:35:46 GMT -8
On what possible basis could FixExpo bring a lawsuit? This decision was made by the Metro Board: isn't building rail projects within budget one of the key duties of the Metro Board? How can they be sued for this? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: they'll probably use the now-routine legal strategy of "NEPA violation/insufficient EIR". Somebody should go to FixExpo's planning meeting on Monday: if evidence surfaces that the group planned an "insufficient EIR" claim before the EIR was even finished and released, that would severely hurt the group's credibility in court. I suppose the alternative would be a claim of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. That would be an interesting claim, given the objectivity of Metro's policies like the Grade Crossing Policy. Wouldn't their very meeting of that in an agendized item be enough evidence that is needed to hurt the credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 25, 2012 13:37:15 GMT -8
Damion is at it again. This time he claims the legal dollars spent by Metro fighting his garbage would have "covered" putting it underground.
Something tells me that's a bit of disparity. Comment?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 25, 2012 14:13:40 GMT -8
Aimed at the Crenshaw Line battle no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 25, 2012 14:16:29 GMT -8
Of course, he's going to make that claim and the actual truth is that it will cost a lot more than that. Most of it is focused on Crenshaw Corridor much like MRT's attempt to alter the Grade Crossing policy during the Expo Phase 2 FEIR Certification was more aimed at Crenshaw then Expo and vice versa.
There's no facts from DG just rhetoric. Given Expo is about to open and he's just taking advantage of the timing.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Apr 25, 2012 16:38:01 GMT -8
politicians...
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 25, 2012 23:58:05 GMT -8
It terrifies me to see all those kids standing inches away from speeding SUVs commandeered by untrained and possibly distracted individuals...some as young as 16!Pure madness.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Aug 2, 2012 8:03:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 2, 2012 15:53:51 GMT -8
I see some vandalism (tagging) at the Farmdale Station.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 30, 2012 13:14:17 GMT -8
Driver plows into school and mows down 11 kids. Where is Damien and his lynch mob to ban cars driving next to schools? youtu.be/juCaFeNUnkQSince Expo line opened, number of school kids hit: Expo: 0 Cars: 11
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 30, 2012 18:05:36 GMT -8
I looked up the report of the collision on the LA Times website. There were 23 reader comments, many urging that anyone over [insert suggested cutoff age] be forbidden to drive. But another opined that taking away someone's driver's license was like sentencing them to "house arrest".
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 11, 2012 9:39:14 GMT -8
In this video I recorded yesterday during the school dismissal, the Dorsey High School Students safely wait in the pedestrian plaza at Farmdale Avenue. Unlike claimed in the past by Fix Expo, there is no danger of any sort to the students presented by the trains.
The 10 MPH speed limit within the vicinity of Farmdale Avenue is completely unnecessary. Since the trains already must come to a full stop at the crossing, they should get rid of this speed limit or at least make it 25 MPH.
Boarding at the Farmdale Station is very low, even during school dismissal.
|
|