|
Post by darrell on Apr 9, 2009 21:10:05 GMT -8
Here's a new photo of train testing along the at-grade middle 4.5 miles of Seattle's 13.9-mile Sound Transit light rail. The last 1.3 miles in downtown Seattle are in a a tunnel originally built for buses.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 9, 2009 21:51:36 GMT -8
Here's a new photo of train testing along the at-grade middle 4.5 miles of Seattle's 13.9-mile Sound Transit light rail. The last 1.3 miles in downtown Seattle are in a a tunnel originally built for buses. Darrell, this transit line may be more grade separated then you think. Having visited Seattle two years ago I recall being impressed by the absolutely gorgeous aerial viaduct as you approach SeaTac. Think gold line aerial structure with alpine surroundings. Also, the description on wikipedia (didn't see a description on soundtransit's site in regards to grade seperation) leads the impression that much of this line travels through tunnels or above grade. Since, I haven't actually ridden it or seen an official map that shows grade seperations I can't say what percentage is but it appears this LRT line is a mixture of at, below and above grade. With respect, J ______________ From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Link The southern terminus of Central Link at Sea-Tac Airport will be an elevated station lying north of the parking garage. The garage's return-to-terminal ramps have been demolished to make way for the light rail station. The route travels north on a grade separated viaduct/bridge along the North Airport Expressway, crosses over State Route 518, traveling on the north side of the highway. It then runs alongside Interstate 5, SR 599, Interurban Blvd., and Boeing Access Rd.. South portal of the Beacon Hill tunnel Entering Seattle proper, the line becomes an at-grade surface route on Martin Luther King Jr. Way S through the Rainier Valley. When it nears Franklin High School the route again becomes grade separated, rising on an elevated bridge before entering a tunnel through Beacon Hill, leading to another elevated section through the SoDo district. The route then joins the SoDo Busway (formerly 5th Avenue S) as a traffic-separated surface route, where it has priority for all intersections. Central Link trains will then enter the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, sharing the right-of-way with diesel-electric hybrid buses. The route ends at Westlake Station near the intersection of Pine Street and 5th Avenue. <img src= "http://lh6.ggpht.com/_BNdYpgG0gqE/RkP-YLLyJhI/AAAAAAAAAB4/-GREPNLbNUw/DSCF0741.JPG">
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 9, 2009 23:30:00 GMT -8
Darrell, this transit line may be more grade separated then you think. Having visited Seattle two years ago I recall being impressed by the absolutely gorgeous aerial viaduct as you approach SeaTac. Think gold line aerial structure with alpine surroundings. Agreed, it's definitely a mix of configurations. The point of the photo was to document that there are significant at-grade sections where it wasn't precluded by topography. Above is Sound Transit's map. From studying aerial maps here's how the original line breaks down: Westlake to - - International District -- tunnel - SoDo -- at-grade - Mount Baker -- tunnel under Beacon Hill with aerial transitions - Ranier Beach -- at-grade in boulevard median (photo) - Tukwila -- aerial along freeways (with no intermediate stations!)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 10, 2009 10:16:29 GMT -8
This is a recycle of a previous post I made in relation to Light Rail Lines that have Grade Separations in other cities. The link on the Beacon Hill Tunnel has a wonderful graphic section showing why some portions of Seattle's Link LRT needed to be underground 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 interesting piece of this new starter line are located in the medians of the at-grade pedestrian crossings, they are protected islands (as the previous posts above showed) 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.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 10, 2009 11:20:45 GMT -8
Think 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. A close physical analogy is the Purple Line subway from Beverly Hills (Beverly & Wilshire) to Century City to Westwood. About a mile to the first station, then a bit over two to the second. It even has the similarity of tunneling under residential areas with no station to serve them. That's a lot of passengers from 3 miles and 2 stations, definitely heavy rail subway density.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 13, 2009 14:07:02 GMT -8
That is a more precise local example of this condition. Seattle's University Extension had to bypass a large job center between Capitol Hill and Westlake Stations due to cost factors.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 17, 2009 15:23:17 GMT -8
Some people have imaginary friends, others imaginary projects. Great psychoanalysis from Dr. Ken Alpern, MD, disputing the imaginary South LA grade-separation project. My favorite quote of him is "Just pretend it’s a very long bus, and you’ll get the idea…relax, it’s gonna be OK!" This came right on time before the Napoleonic hopes of conquer by a nuclear attack on April 24 of Fix Expo.Seeking the Light in the Expo Rail Line Moving LA By Kenneth S. Alpern Despite the hype, hopes and hoopla about what will happen with the Obama stimulus package and the recently-approved Proposition R, the many projects to come out of these endeavors will not include projects that are unapproved and unexplored by local transportation officials. The newly-promoted and so-called "Expo Line South LA Grade Separation Project" is one such endeavor we should not expect any time soon--if ever. Only “shovel-ready” (ready-to-go, vetted and needing only funding) projects can occur with the stimulus package—but the only thing “shovel-ready” about this non-existent project is the Bandini being shoveled to South L.A. residents who have been fed a tragic distortion of the truth and who deserve a lot better. I need to emphasize that I personally favor (and have fought for) grade separation and other ways to avoid train/automobile traffic problems whenever possible. On numerous occasions, I have and will come into opposition with other supporters of the Expo Line and mass transit initiatives because I favor the expenditures of safety/operational improvements that others deem unnecessary or cost-ineffective. However, the claim that only the white/wealthy portions of the county will have their portions of the Expo Line grade-separated is a canard that needs to be quashed. Whether it’s Pasadena, South L.A., Culver City or Santa Monica, we’re going to see regions that are or are not grade-separated based only on traffic studies, and the same LADOT that insisted on elevating the Expo Line at La Brea and La Cienega signed off on at-grade (street level) crossings in other regions of South L.A. Furthermore, the irrational, divisive and distorting practice of comparing each mile of the Expo Line for grade separation, to say nothing of trying to divide the different geographic and ethnic communities that the line traverses, not only flies in the face of this rail line’s ability to bring these communities together but also ignores the cold, hard facts, numbers and logic that has a singular Metro policy applied to all past and future grade crossings. This policy was put in place after the Pasadena Gold Line experience, and we’ll see it utilized for years to come. The future Downtown Light Rail Connector that will connect the Expo, Blue, Eastside Gold and Pasadena Gold Lines is likely to be underground, and that’s not exactly a tony and white portion of the City. It’s just so megadense that having it at ground level is an engineering impossibility—especially with so many trains likely to utilize it to get from one part of the county to the other parts. Furthermore, the Eastside Gold Line that will commence service this year goes underground through some lower- and mixed socioeconomic Latino neighborhoods simply because it’s unsafe and imprudent to do otherwise. It’s important to recognize that light rail (unlike, say, a subway) is meant to blend into the community, without a lot of visual and noise impact beyond that already existing with local automobile traffic; elevated or underground portions are a necessary expenditure when safety and operations indicate such alterations. The Mid-City portion of the Expo Line from Crenshaw to Downtown will largely be a street-running portion of the line similar to what we have on the Blue Line, where cars and light rail trains share the streets. That portion of the line doesn’t need all the gates and whistles at traffic lights any more than we need them at normal traffic intersections, since the trains will share the traffic with other cars when the light turns green…so any knucklehead who has a problem knowing they should stop when the light turns red, please turn in your driver’s license immediately! We don’t grade-separate traffic lights for north-south and east-west automobile flow, and we don’t need that practice to change just because a 2-car or 3-car train will be part of the mix (just pretend it’s a very long bus, and you’ll get the idea…relax, it’s gonna be OK!) Should it be impossible to maintain normal light signal sequences, or accommodate long traffic backups, or prevent safety problems, then elevation or underground diversions have and will be utilized for light rail trains such as the Expo Line. While I don’t deny that there will have to be some accommodations by automobile commuters for a light rail line that—I predict—will enjoy ridership of 70,000-90,000 riders a day like we see on the Blue Line, the LADOT and Metro has and will fight to improve safety and operations and traffic flow when problems exist (such as on north-south West L.A. surface streets that, like the adjacent 405 freeway, has some of the worst traffic in the nation…literally!). Finally, it needs to be pointed out that safety and speed and operations on the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines have allowed those to be two of the safest, fastest and busiest light rail lines in the nation. Virtually all of the car vs. train accidents have and will continue to be sustained proof that Darwin was right in selecting out the unfit morons who forget they’ll have a big “ouchie” to their cars, themselves and their passengers if they try to blow by or around a gate and take on a train. Similarly, there’s not a lot of sympathy that should be dredged up for those who blow through a red light or who drive drunk. I think there’s a lot of us who will have our collective learning curve go up a few notches over the next 2-3 years when light rail reaches the Eastside, the Mid-City and the Westside…but we shouldn’t be afraid of taking on new challenges when we seek for understanding, not hysteria, as to what the benefits and challenges of light rail are to the citizens of Los Angeles. (Ken Alpern is Co-Chair of the Council District 11 Transportation Advisory Committee and an occasional contributor to CityWatch.)
CityWatch Vol 7 Issue 31 Pub: Apr 17, 2009
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 17, 2009 19:25:40 GMT -8
Nice essay Gokhan but the Blue Line, safe? isn't it the most dangerous in the nation (not that doesn't mean it could've gotten better lately)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 17, 2009 19:46:26 GMT -8
Nice essay Gokhan but the Blue Line, safe? isn't it the most dangerous in the nation (not that doesn't mean it could've gotten better lately) I wouldn't call the Blue Line in the past safe but now it's got safer and it's getting ever safer. The problem with the Blue Line was that it was our very first light-rail line ever built and it was built lacking some crucial safety features found in modern light-rail lines. The first one of these was the lack of quad gates. Once they were installed, that already solved many of the vehicle collisions at the gated crossings. The main problem was the pedestrian crossings, where there was lack of pedestrian gates, proper signaling, and proper channelization of pedestrian traffic. I believe this is still being improved. The Expo Line is being built to the standards of the Gold Line, which is very safe, not the Blue Line. In fact, it is being built by the same two guys -- Rick Thorpe and Joel Sandberg -- who built the Gold Line. It will include all advanced safety feastures as in the Gold Line. It won't be a Blue Line. Some people, most notably Fix Expo, argue that Expo Line will be another Blue Line because it's median-running at-grade light-rail. What they are ignoring is that most modern light-rail lines fall under that category and they are safe. You can have a safe at-grade line if you properly include all safety features and unlike those people claim, at-grade or median-running doesn't automatically mean an unsafe line. As Ken Alpern noted, a median-running light-rail train is no less safe than a bus, since they both travel at 35 MPH and following the same traffic signals. Last but not least, we should put things in perspective and understand that nothing is 100% safe and people need to take responsibility and be aware in their actions. Overall the Blue Line probably saved more lives than it took by taking many cars off the streets. Trying to make things 100% safe is a futile attitude. The right attitude is to work on improving safety in constructive ways, not claiming that at-grade light-rail equals killing fields, as the opposition recently wrote in some newspaper article.
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Apr 17, 2009 22:42:16 GMT -8
nice makes alotta sense that cleared things up thanx
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 17, 2009 22:46:09 GMT -8
Nice essay Gokhan but the Blue Line, safe? isn't it the most dangerous in the nation (not that doesn't mean it could've gotten better lately) Folk around here don't let the facts get in the way of their arguments. Explanation of how the South LA Grade Separation Project qualifies for stimulus funds, has environmental approvals to begin design and construction of additional grade separations in some portions of the project area within 60 days and can obtain it relatively quickly in other areas is on the blog: Our Campaign for Stimulus/Measure R Funding to Grade Separate the South LA Portion of ExpoRegarding your specific point about the Blue Line being the deadliest in the country - yes you're completely right. And with over 31 deaths in the past 6 1/2 years, it's just as deadly now as it was in it's beginning (92 deaths since July 1990). I think Damien Newton of streetsblog a year ago reported that the national light rail accident death statistics showed that the Blue Line accounted for half of all light rail deaths last year, but I need to confirm. And there's no way Alpern doesn't know the Blue Line is the deadliest light rail line in the country and has been for over a decade. I'm relieved he so proudly proclaims that Expo will be built similarly. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to get them to just admit that. I literally stopped reading some people like Gohkan, because after a while it became clear that he would quite explicitly concoct a new distortion out of nowhere for the expressed purpose of "defeating NIMBYs!" Take your high school gym locker room and replace the gym with this forum and the cheerleaders with trains. If you want to understand how things work around here. We've established permanent links to combat the most prevalent spin/lies/distortions: MTA: Guilty of Environmental RacismEnvironmental Racism: The LawResponding to MTA Spin & DeceptionMTA/Expo Spin: The line will include the same safety features as the Pasadena Gold Line, which is one of the safest light rail lines in the country.
THE FACTS: 1) MTA/Expo is not building a Pasadena Gold Line; they’re building a Blue Line, which with more than 821 accidents and 91 deaths is the deadliest most accident-prone light rail line in the country. MTA/Expo knows it and they refuse to admit it.
As has been proven by international experts in transportation system safety, the Expo Line and the Pasadena Gold Line have more differences than commonalities, and it is the differences on the Expo Line that pose the hazardous risks and community impacts to South LA. MTA/Expo's claim that the lines are similar is inaccurate and deceptive. Essentially, MTA/Expo is claiming that if a little Ford Pinto has seat belts and a Hummer has seat belts, the Pinto is just as safe as the Hummer.
2) MTA/Expo's definition of “safe” is tragically different from the rational definition of safe, as evident by their operation of the deadliest light rail system in America, and Metrolink’s operation of one of the deadliest commuter rail networks in America.
Only MTA/Expo consider this "safe":
Gold Line accidents <picture> (from waltarrrrr's flickr) <picture> (from waltarrrrr flickr)
Most reasonable people consider this "safe":
Underground train crossing: <picture>
Elevated train crossing: <picture>
MTA/Expo Spin: When the light rail is “street running” the line travels parallel to the street and the train operates with the traffic signals. [….] No gates are necessary in these street running sections since the train will be moving with parallel traffic. The street running section is roughly from the Pico Station downtown to Gramercy.
THE FACTS: According to MTA's June 2008 Summary of Blue Line accidents, 92% of the 647 recorded vehicular accidents on the Blue Line, the deadliest most accident-prone light rail line in the country, have occurred in the street-running section, and 76% of the 821 total accidents recorded on the Blue Line have occurred in the street-running sections. Again, 76% of the total accidents and 92% of all vehicular accidents occur in the street-running section, despite the fact the section only accounts for 25% of the line’s length.
The bigger point of course, is a 225-ton train traveling 35 mph will kill you just as dead as a 225-ton traveling 55 mph:
<video of accidents>
In fact, a Gold Line train traveling just 10 mph struck and crushed an SUV like a potato chip bag, derailed the train, and sent 7 people, including the train operator, to the hospital. All of the Pasadena Gold Line accidents pictured/YouTubed are of accidents where the train was operating between 10-20 mph.
And the Blue Line killed an elderly couple when the train was traveling just 10 miles per hour:
"Two people were killed Thursday night when their car collided with a Blue Line commuter train in Long Beach, authorities said. [....] Authorities said the train had slowed to 10 m.p.h. in preparation for a stop at the Transit Mall Station, near the southern terminus of the commuter line. The impact crushed the car against the station platform, RTD officials said."
MTA/Expo Spin: The Blue Line was built almost 20 years ago and technology has advanced substantially since then.
THE FACTS: The age of the Blue Line is a red herring, intended to distract the public from the actual reasons the Blue Line is the deadliest light rail line in the country, which were identified in MTA's own 1998 document, in the section titled, "What Makes the Metro Blue Different from Other Light Rail Systems?"
There is absolutely no mention of system age among the factors listed in the 1998 MTA report. The causes determined are all behavioral or environmental and have to do with the operation of the line. The conditions on the Blue Line are replicated or worse on the Expo Line.
If age and lack of "technology" are the primary reasons a rail line is more deadly, then one would expect other systems, which are much older and have FEWER safety mitigation measures to have more deaths and accidents, correct? But the stats show that this is NOT the case. In 2002, USA Today surveyed the American Public Transportation Association statistics on light rail deaths from the Blue Line’s inception date in 1990 to 2002 and found that in all categories the Blue Line was by far the deadliest light rail system in America. Almost all of the systems are OLDER than the Blue Line and have fewer or similar safety mitigation measures as the Blue Line, yet they all have a fraction the number of deaths as the Blue Line: Prof. Meshkati Explains Why Expo is like the Blue Line NOT the Pasadena Gold LineThe MTA/Expo Authority and our elected officials claim they’re building an Expo Line that will have a safety record more like the Pasadena Gold Line, which is far from what most reasonable people consider “safe,” but less deadly than the Blue Line (the deadliest light rail line in the country). Their statements would be laughable if the consequences – failing to address serious safety hazards - were not so severe. In fact, in July of 2007, Fix Expo sent a letter to MTA/Expo Authority executive Rick Thorpe, essentially requesting he admit the differences, and he remarkably refused to answer our questions.
In his prepared testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission, Professor Najmedin Meshkati, an internationally renowned expert in human factors in complex technological system failures and the creator of the USC’s Transportation System Safety Program, identified the following six differences between MTA’s proposed Expo Line, and existing Pasadena Gold Line and Blue Line in explaining why the Blue Line is a far more appropriate comparison to the risks and hazards that will be present on the Expo Line. The following are extrapolations of his six bullet points. Comparing the Accident Rates of Light Rail to Freeways: As the stats show, trains pose a significantly greater safety hazard than any other vehicle on the road.
The reasons why are not difficult to understand:
* MTA's light rail trains are much heavier than anything else on the road (no 225-ton motor vehicle would be allowed on the streets. The Army's Abrams Tank is comparatively 70 tons) * MTA's light rail trains can't stop on a dime * MTA's light rail trains don't have steering wheels, so they can't turn to avert or lessen impacts * MTA's light rail trains have couplings at the front of the train (see below)
MTA tries to spin this fact primarily one of two ways: deceptively comparing raw data between cars and trains, and by using stats that tell nothing about the hazards street-level light rail vehicles pose to fellow motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Click on the links for graphs, stats, federal reports, and the testimony of international experts in transportation safety - you know all those pesky little facts and expert criticism that get in the way of those lovely pro-at-grade arguments and illustrations. Typically around here folk don't acknowledge these experts, reports, or stats, and instead attempt to attack the credibility of the individuals and agencies, despite the fact these people continue to win international awards and acclamation, and in the case of Russ Quimby were once the head of rail accident investigations throughout the country and hired as expert witnesses for MTA in light rail accident liability cases. As Alpern himself said in this very forum, the objective of the organization is to give MTA "the grassroots political cover to do what they want."
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 17, 2009 23:38:27 GMT -8
Just noticed the CIDH piles are in place for the cap over the pedestrian tunnel at Foshay Learning Center. You can also see the duct bank gray plastic conduits turning up on both sides. The inconvenient problem with endlessly spinning the Blue Line is that street running at 35 mph under signal control is a standard used in most new U.S. light rail lines, including Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, L.A.'s Eastside Gold Line, San Diego, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, and Charlotte. Not to mention that the Expo Line uses gated crossings like the Pasadena Gold Line west of Gramercy (except the signal at Crenshaw). Here's a good detail of the quad and pedestrian gates where the Gold Line crosses Mission in South Pasadena.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Apr 18, 2009 8:29:42 GMT -8
[damiengoodmon] It would appear that your the spin master... If Fix-expo don't get his way call everybody a racist! Call the oppostion FRN! because they don't agree with you! Don't let those in favor of at grade speak at the public meetings! And your the educated one? Ha ha ha ! Sincerely the Roadtrainer!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 18, 2009 11:49:55 GMT -8
Can we just get some quad gates for Vermont, Normandie, Western, and Crenshaw; and then call it a day?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 18, 2009 14:04:51 GMT -8
Can we just get some quad gates for Vermont, Normandie, Western, and Crenshaw; and then call it a day? This is a perfect example of just not understanding "street running" light rail. Metro under suggestions from Sup. Gloria Molina is about to waste Multiple Millions of Dollars to look at putting up gates on the East Los Angeles Gold Line. Here is the concept once again. You are in a bus going with the flow of traffic. It gets to a red light. The bus stops, just like the cars and trucks next to the bus. When the light turns green everyone goes. Now, at the intersections mentioned above: Normandie, Crenshaw, Vermont and Western, the exact same thing happens. The train is moving right along with the trucks, buses and cars. The light turns red, they ALL stop. OK? This is called "Street Running". If the trains had "Priority", then the parallel and cross traffic would have to stop and the gates would come down, and the train would go through, as with "Priority" the train never has to stop, as you can see on examples along the Blue Line. I would suggest you take some trips to other cities such as Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City and Houston, where you can find examples of both "Street Running" and "Priority". Now, why are you attempting to out engineer what is successfully being done in cities across the planet? Could you explain why we should just waste Millions of Dollars? It is sad that when the Orange Line opening, that lots of stupid people kept running Red Lights and t-boning the Metroliner Buses. This also happens when gates are down along other rail lines. Sadly, we can't idiot proof motorists.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 18, 2009 18:19:18 GMT -8
As Bart just explained above, median- or street-running LRT is common in all kinds of urban environments all around the world, where the LRT basically follows the traffic signals. As both Bart and Ken said, this is no less safe than a bus. I would prefer to drive by an LRT instead of a local bus, which squeeze cars on many occations with no respect over traffic lanes. Metro has some really bad bus drivers indeed.
You don't need gates to make marginal improvements on safety. Although, gates are necessary for faster (more than 35 MPH) operations, as required by CPUC. Gates also have preemption over the traffic signals; so, the trains never have to wait. It was decided not to run the train at 55 MPH between Vermont and Gramercy Place because of the nature of the right-of-way there, where there are many crossings. It's just the way the city developed in the early 20th Century. These areas were closer to LA (they used to be called West LA, not South LA, back then) and they got a higher density than what were fields then and Culver City and West LA now. As a result, the street grid looks much different east of Crenshaw than west of Crenshaw. So much for the history.
As for Gloria she didn't ask the gates for speed (55 MPH) but she asked them for safety. So, she doesn't really know what she is talking about.
Another note: most fatalities have happened in the gated section of the Blue Line. This is not because the gates make it less safe but because of the 55 MPH speed. In fact there are less accidents in that section thanks to gates, but when there is an accident, it's more likely to result in a fatality because of high speed. Nevertheless, we need high speed and therefore we need gates for most sections of our light-rail lines. But we will live with 35 MPH (no gates) in shorter segments as in between Vermont and Gramercy Place. If the design is of good quality, as in the Gold Line, almost no accidents happen.
It's unfortunate that Fix Expo people just keep copying and pasting long sections and same long sections of material from their Web site to this discussion board instead of engaging in an honest, productive, and smart discussion.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 18, 2009 18:31:40 GMT -8
Now, why are you attempting to out engineer what is successfully being done in cities across the planet? Could you explain why we should just waste Millions of Dollars? "Successful" is subjective. I don't have a problem with street running light rail, but we shouldn't have to pretend that it doesn't have an inordinate number of accidents compared to cars and buses. It is what it is. We can spend millions on engineering to prevent accidents, millions on education to prevent accidents, or millions in repairing property damage (insurance will cover I assume). To me if we can engineer a way to have fewer accidents by spending a few million on a project that costs hundreds of millions, then that's a no-brainer. DublinPhoenixHouston
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 18, 2009 18:53:03 GMT -8
Here is the concept once again. You are in a bus going with the flow of traffic. It gets to a red light. The bus stops, just like the cars and trucks next to the bus. When the light turns green everyone goes. Now, at the intersections mentioned above: Normandie, Crenshaw, Vermont and Western, the exact same thing happens. The train is moving right along with the trucks, buses and cars. The light turns red, they ALL stop. OK? This is called "Street Running". In other words what we have is a bus a on rails forced to wait at lights while opposing traffic clears. I would suggest you take some trips to other cities such as Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland, Salt Lake City and Houston, where you can find examples of both "Street Running" and "Priority". All these cities, with the exception of San Francisco NOT having the same population density or traffic congestion as Los Angeles. None of them even come close to the population of Los Angeles. But as long as your traveling to smaller U.S. cities to look at at-grade rail crossings you might also go take a look at a few larger cities such as Newark, Seattle, Chicago, Vancouver, Sri Lanka, Manila, Macau, and Bangkok that have mixed grade separation or completely aerial rail systems. Now, why are you attempting to out engineer what is successfully being done in cities across the planet? Could you explain why we should just waste Millions of Dollars? Because, Bart, it's not a one system fits all for every situation. Also, government engineers and planners are not always right. Some want BRT, some want to build schools on top of toxic waste dumps, some want to put super high density adjacent is single family homes. I have personally worked with government engineers in a profesional capacity who wanted to build the quickest simplest easiest project to the disregard of function and aesthetics. Besides, these are "Discussion Boards" aren't they? It's OK to talk about street running, priority crossing and grade separation and while were at it learning a thing or two? It is sad that when the Orange Line opening, that lots of stupid people kept running Red Lights and t-boning the Metroliner Buses. This also happens when gates are down along other rail lines. Sadly, we can't idiot proof motorists. True, short of grade separating which is not always practicle we can't idiot proof our rail network but there are things that we can do to minimize or reduce idiot damage.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 18, 2009 19:00:39 GMT -8
Where is Gloria Molina looking at installing gates? I can't think of anywhere that might need them. Indiana is the only place that comes to mind, although I don't see that as necessary. Atlantic might need them when it is extended.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 18, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -8
OK, I see the point that LRT is not 100% safe. On the other hand, MTA buses average around two fatalities a year. Does that mean that we should get rid of the MTA bus service in Los Angeles as well?
The point we have been trying to make is that nothing is 100% safe. Even with HRT (subway), people occasionaly fall onto tracks or get caught at doors and die.
Therefore, different modes of transportation serve different purposes. It doesn't make sense to replace all bus and LRT lines with HRT lines.
In fact, it's even possible that an LRT Blue Line compared to an HRT Blue Line saved more lives by regulating the automobile traffic through the crossings and therefore reducing automobile fatalities. Even more likely chances are that some of the reckless drivers who got killed by Blue Line would have killed some innocent people at one point by means of their reckless driving. Take for example the 18-year-old girl and her friend from USC who got ran over a few weeks ago by a woman who ran a red light. The couple who ran them over were ruthless enough to stop and pull the guy from their windshield and toss him on the side of the street and drive. So, you need to look at the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 18, 2009 22:02:22 GMT -8
OK, I see the point that LRT is not 100% safe. On the other hand, MTA buses average around two fatalities a year. Does that mean that we should get rid of the MTA bus service in Los Angeles as well? No, but it doesn't mean we should build a bus on rails either. In fact, it's even possible that an LRT Blue Line compared to an HRT Blue Line saved more lives by regulating the automobile traffic through the crossings and therefore reducing automobile fatalities. Even more likely chances are that some of the reckless drivers who got killed by Blue Line would have killed some innocent people at one point by means of their reckless driving. Take for example the 18-year-old girl and her friend from USC who got ran over a few weeks ago by a woman who ran a red light. The couple who ran them over were ruthless enough to stop and pull the guy from their windshield and toss him on the side of the street and drive. So, you need to look at the bigger picture. It's a poor transportation system whose function is to slow down traffic and an even poorer one whose function is to facilitate accidents so that "idiot drivers" will not hurt someone else latter.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 18, 2009 22:33:22 GMT -8
Is the problem the trains that very predictably follow the tracks, or the drivers who run into them? These two tragic high-profile deaths due to drivers in the last month create perspective. Most traffic fatalities never make the paper. In 2007 2,005 people were killed in traffic accidents in Los Angeles County, including 228 pedestrians and 24 bicyclists, per FARS. "Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart was among the three people killed in a crash in Fullerton when a driver ran a red light, an associate of the rookie player said this morning. The crash occurred hours after the 22-year-old appeared in Wednesday night's Angels game." ( LA Times story and photos) "Adrianna Bachan, 18, a freshman at USC, was killed Sunday when a driver ran a red light and struck her and a friend about 3 a.m. as they crossed Jefferson Boulevard near Hoover Street, authorities said." ( LA Times story and photo)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 2:32:37 GMT -8
OK, I see the point that LRT is not 100% safe. On the other hand, MTA buses average around two fatalities a year. Does that mean that we should get rid of the MTA bus service in Los Angeles as well? No, but it doesn't mean we should build a bus on rails either. Simply wrong. Even street-running LRT is substantially faster than a rapid bus and a fully loaded three-car train with more than 600 passengers has more than five times the capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus with 120 passengers. Also, running buses with very short headways results in severe gridlock. The reason even 35 MPH LRT is faster than a rapid bus is the signal priority that the train gets. I'm repeating a story by the Expo Chief Architect Roland Genick, who is from Germany. He told me that they built a median-running LRT on a major arterial going Downtown in Köln. Because of the signal priority the trains got, the cars also took the advantage of it by running in sync with the LRT. As a result Downtown Köln was flooded with cars and it became a huge annoyance. Guess what they did? They deliberately put red lights for cars even though the LRT had green; so, the people would ride the LRT instead. And it worked; LRT became very succesful; car overpopulation problem was solved. Southern California has a lot to learn. New York is already implementing carfree zones in Downtown. Hmm, a poor system that is also the most successful LRT system in US, with ridership approaching 100k. Several of my coworkers ride the line. I guess if we had built these poor systems everywhere, nobody would drive in LA.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 19, 2009 9:27:34 GMT -8
Is it simple? I think the issues are sufficiently complex that there can be varying opinions by intelligent people. Even street-running LRT is substantially faster than a rapid bus and a fully loaded three-car train with more than 600 passengers has more than five times the capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus with 120 passengers. Also, running buses with very short headways results in severe gridlock. The reason even 35 MPH LRT is faster than a rapid bus is the signal priority that the train gets. I agree that street running LRT is more efficient then a bus due to the dedicated lane and the larger capacity of the rail cars. However, a LRT vehicle subject to vehicular traffic signals is less efficient due to required reduced speeds and the frequent stops. I agree that there are things that can be done with signal priority to increase efficiency but the fact of the matter is the train is still subject to the conditions of automobile traffic. I know it's only a minute here and a minute there but those minutes add up across across a fifteen mile trip across heavily populated Los Angeles streets. I'm repeating a story by the Expo Chief Architect Roland Genick, who is from Germany. He told me that they built a median-running LRT on a major arterial going Downtown in Köln. Because of the signal priority the trains got, the cars also took the advantage of it by running in sync with the LRT. As a result Downtown Köln was flooded with cars and it became a huge annoyance. Guess what they did? They deliberately put red lights for cars even though the LRT had green; so, the people would ride the LRT instead. And it worked; LRT became very succesful; car overpopulation problem was solved. Southern California has a lot to learn. New York is already implementing carfree zones in Downtown. People on this board have a habit of pointing out what small cities do cheaply. Wikipedia says the population of the Metropolitan area of Koln is 2 million people. The Los Angeles, Metropolitan area has 12.9 million people and we are much more decentralized then European cities. I wonder what intentionally putting red lights across decentralized Los Angeles with at this time an inadequate rail network would do? I think it would increase rail ridership but it would anger a lot of people and is unneeded as Expo will be successful with or without additional red lights. Hmm, a poor system that is also the most successful LRT system in US, with ridership approaching 100k. Several of my coworkers ride the line. I guess if we had built these poor systems everywhere, nobody would drive in LA. Agreed, The blue Line has great ridership. However, The function of the Blue Line is not to slow down traffic nor induce traffic accidents as per your suggestions. Additionally the Blue Line could/can be a much better urban transportation line. I think we all agree it's a money thing. BTW, Expo, I think will have an even greater passenger per mile figure then the Blue Line
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 19, 2009 9:39:37 GMT -8
Most traffic fatalities never make the paper. In 2007 2,005 people were killed in traffic accidents in Los Angeles County, including 228 pedestrians and 24 bicyclists, per FARS. With over 2,000 deaths in Los Angeles county due to traffic accidents isn't that an even greater reason to grade separate a train with 600 passengers? I know it's very expensive which is why we can't grade separate every intersection but my position is that the bar needs to be lowered just a little to allow a greater number of grade separations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 12:48:52 GMT -8
Is it simple? I think the issues are sufficiently complex that there can be varying opinions by intelligent people. I was referring to your statement that median-running LRT is same as bus on rail, which is simply wrong as I explained. I wasn't referring to your general discussion. I agree that most sections should be 55 MPH for major LRT lines like the Expo and Blue Lines. This solves your speed problem without resorting to HRT (total grade-separation). A city of 1 - 2 million is hardly small. Moreover, the population density of Cologne (Köln) is comparable to LA. Here is the information on the LRT system in Cologne: Cologne Stadtbahn. The ridership is 500,000 a day. It's pretty good for a city of a population of 1,000,000. Note that the average speeds, which are well below 20 MPH. Expo is expected to reach to about 26 MPH and the Blue and Gold Lines are around that as well. So, the resistance to LRT has a lot to do with the car culture in US. I just ran into this yesterday: (Michael Dear is a professor of geography at USC.)These terms describe well the wide spectrum of opposition to LRT in LA: Expo Phase 1 opposition: NIMBY (people who have homes near the line) City of Santa Monica: LULU (no to storage and maintenance facility) Yvonne Burke: NIMTOO (I won't let Expo Phase 2 be built on the Cheviot Hills right-of-way during my term) USC: NOOS (no to Expo on Exposition Boulevard) Cheviot Hills: CAVE (self-explanatory) Perhaps what is left is a term for recently emerged groups like BRU and Fix Expo, who use their opposition to rail with the race card as a leverage for their own political agenda. I am giving a shot to inventing a new term for these groups: MAVE: Minorities Against Virtually Everything
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 19, 2009 14:25:30 GMT -8
I was referring to your statement that median-running LRT is same as bus on rail, which is simply wrong as I explained. I wasn't referring to your general discussion. No, not median running LRT: Street Running LRT, where the trains are subject to traffic signals like a bus. My analogy is apt. A city of 1 - 2 million is hardly small. Moreover, the population density of Cologne (Köln) is comparable to LA. Here is the information on the LRT system in Cologne: Cologne Stadtbahn. The fact remains that the Los Angeles metropolitan area is hundreds of square miles larger and the population is six times greater. The density may be the same but installing Red Lights across the Southland may not work like it supposedly did in Koln. It's apples and oranges. They may have some similarity but they are different fruit. The ridership is 500,000 a day. It's pretty good for a city of a population of 1,000,000. That is impressive but what is even more impressive is that L.A. Metro's ridership is 1,619,529; one and half times the population of the whole city of Koln.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 19, 2009 14:47:16 GMT -8
No, not median running LRT: Street Running LRT, where the trains are subject to traffic signals like a bus. My analogy is apt. Median-running LRT is the same as street-running LRT. Perhaps you meant mixed running, where LRT and cars share lanes. MTA doesn't allow mixed running, which is like a bus and highly undesirable as a result. Here is the official CPUC classification of LRT if you have doubts: 9.04 ALIGNMENT CLASSIFICATION. a. Exclusive: A right-of-way without at-grade crossings, which is grade-separated or protected by a fence or substantial barrier, as appropriate to the location. (Includes subways and aerial structures.) b. Semi-Exclusive: (1) Fully exclusive right-of-way with at-grade crossings, protected between crossings by a fence or substantial barrier, if appropriate to the location. (2) Within street right-of-way, but protected by six-inch high curbs and safety fences between crossings. The safety fences should be located outside the tracks. (3) Within street right-of-way, but protected by six-inch high curbs between crossings. A safety fence may be located between tracks. (4) Within street right-of-way, but protected by mountable curbs, striping, or lane designation. c. Non-Exclusive: (1) Mixed traffic operation-surface streets. (2) LRT/Pedestrian Mall. The following table describes the operation modes and speeds for these alignments.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 19, 2009 16:29:02 GMT -8
Thanks for the clarification, Gokhan.
I guess the sections question in Expo would be considered semi-exclusive which according to lightrail.net makes the train speed restricted to that of the adjacent traffic and of course the train still stops at the traffic light LIKE A BUS. :*)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 19, 2009 16:35:50 GMT -8
Gokhan, Thank you for this chart, I was looking for it a month or so ago because I remember the specific detail of CPUC speed and LRT operation. That will squash more claims that gated LRT maximum speed is only 55mph, it can go much higher with ATS or ATP (Automatic Train Signaling, I believe, someone correct me if I'm wrong)
|
|