|
Post by Jason Saunders on Apr 25, 2009 18:53:07 GMT -8
<snip> ..... Just like not every crossing on Highway 1 (Sepulveda/Lincoln/PCH), Highway 2 (Santa Monica Blvd), Highway 187 (Venice Blvd), Highway 42 (Manchester Blvd), Highway 170 (Highland Ave), Highway 107 (Hawthorne Blvd), etc. .... In summary: Heavy rail <--> Freeway Light-rail <--> Highway Streetcar <--> Street I would agree with those comparisons and assert that the population and traffic congestion in Los Angeles calls for a better solution then an urban thoroughfare/highway that turns into congested streets periodically. ... but we try to educate people on rail transit on this board; so, I hope this helps! I'm glad I can educate you too. :*)
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 25, 2009 19:14:37 GMT -8
Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense? But it makes sense to remove the light rail from the equation by grade-separating crossings as much as possible in order to make for a more efficient, comfortable ride for the passengers on the train. Accidents are going to happen anyway. Even Metro buses can't help themselves from running into light rail vehicles in case you don't remember. It's almost always going to be the driver's fault. That doesn't really matter to those delayed on the train. They're thinking, a car hit us, we're stopped, I'm late for work, goddamnitt.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 25, 2009 19:15:57 GMT -8
I would agree with those comparisons and assert that the population and traffic congestion in Los Angeles calls for a better solution then an urban thoroughfare/highway that turns into congested streets periodically. OK, you are still not understanding that if you argue that every light-rail line should be converted into heavy rail, then, to be fair, you should also argue that every highway (Venice, Santa Monica, Sepulveda/PCH, Highland, Manchester, Hawthorne, etc.) should be converted into a freeway. Would that even be reasonable to convert them into freeways? I can't imagine the opposition if you advocated them to be converted into freeways. For example they tried to convert the Santa Monica Blvd into "Beverly Hills Freeway" but it never went through because of the opposition. It could have horrible impacts on the Westside if it had gone through and it would probably make traffic even worse. So, freeway is not always better than highway and heavy rail is not always better than light-rail. In fact, it's true that both heavy rail and light-rail is needed. That's why the Wilshire Subway is being extended to the sea. If the Expo Line had to be heavy rail, it would simply never happen. We need tens of billions of dollars and twenty-plus years to expand the Wilshire heavy rail. There are simply not enough resources and time to build the Expo Line as heavy rail as well. One heavy-rail and one light-rail line in these nearby corridors is enough given the scarcity of the resources, as opposed to two heavy-rail lines. After all the Westside (west of Downtown LA) is not the only place that needs rail transit; money is also needed for other rail-transit projects. I hope this time it helps.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 25, 2009 19:26:04 GMT -8
Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense? But it makes sense to remove the light rail from the equation by grade-separating crossings as much as possible in order to make for a more efficient, comfortable ride for the passengers on the train. I think we all agree that grade separation improves travel times, reliability, and capacity. It's the argument that at-grade light-rail causes a decline in safety in neighborhoods that doesn't hold, however.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 25, 2009 19:35:00 GMT -8
I guess it comes to whether or not you want to get to work quickly, or have pretty little sidewalks and themed trees for every station. Personally, I don't care much about at-grade crossings. Here's one in Japan in an area with tall office buildings. You know traffic has to be bad there: www.flickr.com/photos/heavylift/66001595/sizes/l/It's the street running that really gets me. It just pisses me off whenever a train has to stop at a stoplight. If there's street running and the lights for cars are able to turn red before the train crosses and the train doesn't have to slow down, that's fine. But when the train stops or slows down for no reason, I really hate it. I remember when I brought a friend to ride the Gold Line for the first time. He was really digging it until we got to Highland Park, and he remarked that the train was too slow. It has a real psychological effect that causes people to think light rail is just a bus on rails.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 25, 2009 19:43:06 GMT -8
isn't that an argument for "better designed safer LRT" in the inner-city? Further, isn't Expo also in an inner-city area? I am interested in what can be done to make at-grade light rail safer, short of the costs and impacts of grade separation. That's where a detailed understanding of categories of accidents could help, as I previously posted. If the Expo Line had to be heavy rail, it would simply never happen. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 25, 2009 19:43:35 GMT -8
I guess it comes to whether or not you want to get to work quickly, or have pretty little sidewalks and themed trees for every station. Well, it's more than that. I don't think anyone would argue against saving time. It would be best if we could beam people around in a few seconds. But one of the big problems is the money and scarcity of the resources. There is simply not nearly enough money to build heavy rail everywhere. But this is still not the whole argument either. Heavy rail brings more people, which results in more congestion and less livability in the cities, just like the freeways do. So, from a planning perspective, we don't want to build heavy rail everywhere, just as we don't want to build freeways everywhere. Therefore, the choice between light-rail and heavy rail depends not only on money but also on smart urban planning. Ultradense and megaspread cities are not nearly the most desirable living environments, regardless of how good transportation is. PS: Before someone responds to this post, please read my previous several posts, which attempt to explain heavy rail vs. light-rail in more detail.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 25, 2009 19:52:12 GMT -8
But he wasn't suggesting that we build heavy rail everywhere. I think I remember him suggesting they raise the bar for the Metro rail crossing policy.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 25, 2009 20:48:11 GMT -8
Heavy rail brings more people, which results in more congestion and less livability in the cities, just like the freeways do. Then you could have just made the Expo Line BRT and just left it at that. Why spend way more on rail if we're not going to accommodate more people? The road is already there at a lower cost to build and maintain than any light rail boondoggle. If history is any indication, Expo is just going to kill a lot of people. How about we just stick with buses and cars? We spend less money and the same amount of people are killed. After all, our resources are so scarce. It's just hilarious how the 1 mile of track in Culver City in predominantly white neighborhoods cost $185 million but the 4.5 miles in South LA in predominantly black neighborhoods cost $140 million. I thought our resources were scarce.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 8:18:10 GMT -8
Heavy rail doesn't necessarily mean grade-separated, or third rail, and subway doesn't necessarily mean underground. The problem I see is that the vehicles don't have enough capacity for this corridor. We've established that South LA is gridlocked during rush hour. I think a few of those people will try out the Expo Line, find it to be overcrowded, and go back to driving. Expo reaches an equilibrium point and becomes known as overcrowded so its ability to absorb gridlock goes down. So the solution I guess, is to run longer trains. Maybe not. Longer trains means more congestion at crossings, which kind of defeats the whole point. So why not run "heavy rail" cars that run on an overhead wire. That's what Japan's narrow gauge network goes: www.flickr.com/photos/kimnovax/527762835/Here's what is basically a heavy rail subway car at a pedestrian crossing. You wouldn't have to run such long trains like on the Blue Line which during rush hour must create some gridlock of its own. The Blue Line has demonstrated how light rail fails to reduce congestion in South LA, and light rail will do little in the long-term for the Expo corridor. Two Red Line-style vehicles that can hold 169 souls is much better in this corridor in my opinion than two light rail vehicles that only hold 76. Keep light rail in the suburbs. This is the second largest metropolitan area in the world. Downtown LA to Santa Monica. Downtown LA to Long Beach. There might be some sprawl in the middle, but this ain't the Gold Line. We're gonna need a bigger boat.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2009 8:26:49 GMT -8
Here's what is basically a heavy rail subway car at a pedestrian crossing. You wouldn't have to run such long trains like on the Blue Line which during rush hour must create some gridlock of its own. The Blue Line has demonstrated how light rail fails to reduce congestion in South LA, and light rail will do little in the long-term for the Expo corridor. Two Red Line-style vehicles that can hold 169 souls is much better in this corridor in my opinion than two light rail vehicles that only hold 76. Capacity: 221 passengers per 90' long LRV (76 seated and 145 standing) 180 passengers per 75' long HRV (57 seated and 123 standing) 3-LRV train: 663 passengers 4-HRV train: 720 passengers 4-LRV train: 884 passengers 6-HRV train: 1080 passengers 5-LRV train: 1105 passengers Agreed. That's why we need to build more of a transit network.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 8:46:33 GMT -8
If you expect a lot of people to stand for an hour to get to work, they are going to go back to their car if they are able. That isn't a "quality ride" or "quality time" that advocates tout so often.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2009 9:02:40 GMT -8
"Stand for an hour"
Have you been on the Red Line or any other world class subway in any other city during rush hour?
People stand on the trains during rush hour. It's understood in many cities. The difference between a bus and rail is the ride quality is better on rail so that you can stand comfortably instead of contorting all over the place like some buses because of how the wheels on the bus react to the road surface.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 9:08:16 GMT -8
People stand because in those cities because traffic and parking are ridiculous. They literally have no choice. Compared to New York, Los Angeles is a driver's paradise.
What I'm saying is, the deck is stacked against transit. People are going to stay in their cars as long the price of gas, parking, and all the other true costs of owning and driving a vehicle are hidden. They're just going to look at transit and say, "F' that, I'm not standing, back in my government subsidized car where the true costs of roads and fuel are safely out of my mind!"
So until those things are changed, transit in LA has to be a little more people friendly than the New York Subway if you're going to get a lot of people to switch.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2009 9:27:21 GMT -8
People stand because in those cities because traffic and parking are ridiculous. They literally have no choice. Compared to New York, Los Angeles is a driver's paradise. The Blue Line has demonstrated how light rail fails to reduce congestion in South LA, and light rail will do little in the long-term for the Expo corridor. So NYC, despite the rail network, traffic is still a mess, I guess that would mean NYC transit system is a colossal failure in reducing congestion? That those riders on the Red and Blue Lines can go back to driving on the 110, 710 and 101 freeways and create more congestion to already clogged roads because there are no other reasonable and reliable alternatives? ;D
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 9:36:38 GMT -8
So NYC, despite the rail network, traffic is still a mess, I guess that would mean NYC transit system is a colossal failure in reducing congestion? I never said that. But now that you mention it, the New York Subway is a heavy rail grade separated transit network with a wide range of local and express services. The Blue Line is a doubled tracked light rail line with only local service that runs in the street during parts of the journey, which slow the rail line down, decreasing potential ridership and increasing street congestion. I guess it all comes down to whether or not the Blue Line eliminates more congestion than it creates. That those riders on the Red and Blue Lines can go back to driving on the 110, 710 and 101 freeways and create more congestion to already clogged roads because there are no other reasonable and reliable alternatives? ;D Few drivers on the 110, 710, and 101 freeways switched to the Red and Blue Lines in the first place because the true costs of driving are hidden from view of most drivers.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Apr 26, 2009 9:38:55 GMT -8
I have to find a news link I had back from the 2003 Transit Strike to show the importance of this correlation of the transit alternative and the increased congestion on those 3 corridors during that strike.
However the true cost of maintenace, registration and insurance aren't kept hidden from drivers.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 9:42:04 GMT -8
I'm not saying that transit won't reduce traffic, but the true costs of driving have to be revealed first. That's $8/gallon gas plus unsubsidized parking and roads.
And then we can force mass transit users to pay the full cost of their mode of transport, as Bart Reed advocates, and see which mode wins.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 9:44:45 GMT -8
However the true cost of maintenace, registration and insurance aren't kept hidden from drivers. Insurance and registration do not, or if the driver is smart, should not, come into play when deciding to ride use mass transit if they already own a car. Registration and insurance are for the most part sunk costs. There is a chance you'll get into an accident and your premiums go up, but some of that is controllable by your driving habits. The cost of the car is also a sunk cost and so is some amount of depreciation. The car loses value whether you drive it or not. You only consider the fixed costs of driving an automobile when you are choosing between using mass transit or purchasing a new car. But there are other hidden costs of driving, including the true cost of gasoline for which the United States Military is tasked with guarding reserves of in the Middle East. Some estimates put the true cost of gasoline at 8-15 dollars a gallon. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 10:02:07 GMT -8
By the way, is this the article you're talking about? www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt_2006-11a.htmI think this proves that it's wrong to compare transit ridership to auto use as a whole. You have to compare corridors to corridors. Sure, a small percentage of people in Southern California use transit, but on corridors where transit is available, such as Long Beach to Downtown LA, transit use is high apparently.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Apr 26, 2009 11:33:24 GMT -8
I don't think it's that people are as dumb as animals it's that we are human and even the best of us make mistakes. They're called "accidents" for a reason. And the point is, as defined not JUST by Damien Goodmon, but the world, those accidents with 225-ton trains are considerably more severe and likely to occur. I think damien is very wrong in using vehicle-miles as the benchmark to compare accident rates for cars and light rail. They're just not substitutes for each other. Despite Darrell's attempt to dismiss this by bringing in "boogeyman Cox," calculating accident rates by travel miles is the scientific standard. Indeed, the primary statistic (other than the raw data) on the quarterly Blue Line accident reports is the accidents per vehicle miles. (I've got $20 that says that won't stop Darrell from attempting to dismiss this stat by pointing to "boogeyman Cox" in the future. Who wants to take me up on this?). The ONLY time and the ONLY agencies/organizations who ONLY use passenger miles are those who try to spin the well documented fact that light rail vehicles are dangerous. Furthermore, comparatively which is more accurate: passenger travel length or train travel length? And how many assumptions is Metro making with their passenger mile statistics given that they don't as of yet track the arrival and departure location of every rail rider? And to provide an appropriate comparison, how do you possibly accurately tabulate passenger miles of automobiles in a Metropolitian area of over 14 million people? If everyone on a Blue Line train decided to drive instead, each Blue Line vehicle-mile would be replaced by some 200 automobile-miles, and if the per-vehicle-mile accident rates were the same, there total number of accidents would increase. You've made a lot of assumptions. Mainly, you're assuming that each rail passenger would be replaced with a personal auto trip. You know as well as I do that is definitely not the case. And you're assuming that capacity = ridership. Again, we both know that is not the case. Finally, as the stats show, even if every train were running 200 people that otherwise were personal automobile drivers trains the fatality rate STILL would be worse than cars. The consistency, regardless as to whether the train is carrying 1 person or 100 is the risk it poses to it's users around it's at-grade tracks. That is much more finite and well defined. The challenge here is finding the actual substitution rates between light rail vehicle-miles and automobile vehicle-miles, which is a pretty tricky and business. Perhaps that would be worth it for people attempting to compare the safety of rail passengers vs. car passengers. But I and the rest of the rail safety industry is focused on the safety of the 100% of people who walk, bike, and drive across these at-grade tracks and interact with the rail vehicles. And ultimately, you also have to weigh the benefits of safety against those of mobility, which is even trickier and more subjective. They're two completely different arguments. And such a ratio insinuates that safety is more important on a train with greater utility, without regard to the environment that it is placed. I'm sure you see the weakness in that. I think his concept of comparing the statistics is completely flawed. We have laws and codes governing the motion of vehicles on our streets. These laws are applied uniformly for all vehicles (including cars, buses, bicyclists, and light-rail trains) in all places in California. Pedestrians obviously have different rules, but the guidelines are the same. Vehicles may not move when they have a red light or a red arrow. Pedestrians may not move when they have a red "do not walk" signal. Simple. People follow these rules. Yet, when a motorist or pedestrian choose NOT to follow these signals we have provided for them (which are no different from ones they encounter everywhere else in their lives), somehow it becomes the light-rail line's fault? Excuse me? What? Does that make any sense? So your solution is to what, ignore the accident rate statistics? Why is it that such flawed logic, which would not be credibly accepted anywhere else, is supposed to apply to trains? If we don't compare the accidents rates of a design - regardless of whether it's a train, swimming pool, or chemicals - how are we to ever determine whether something needs to be improved or prohibited? And despite the insinuation otherwise, safety of a product is defined not in it's design, but rather it's performance. In other words after all is said and done, it has to safely work with PEOPLE (you know those impediments to trains). Professor Meshkati, who other than when referenced by me is only mentioned around here by those attempting to demonize/slander him, is an international expert in this issue has written and spoken about this repeatedly. The study human factors/human error is a pillar of evaluating safety. And within that evaluation there is such a point/determination that a product/system posed to operate in an environment where human error is rampant and the consequences are catastrophic is unsafe, especially where safer alternatives are feasible. These violations would have resulted in just as much of a collision had the light-rail line not been there. People ignoring traffic control devices = collisions. It's as simple as that. I honestly ask, is it really a stretch to suggest that the comparative accident rate data does not support Justin's conclusion that the collisions would have occurred just the same without the LRV? What about well established law and policy regarding trains? And honestly, have you ever driven Justin? If so, do you really not understand that there are powers you had/have as a motorist to avoid an accident that a train operator does not? You know like a steering wheel or shorter breaking distance, better line of sight, etc.? This is not an intellectual stretch, and it all has been stated previously here and on FixExpo.org. Better to attempt to rebut it, than lodge statements that are unfounded and illogical. Well to be fair Damian's graph doesn't assign fault to either the LRT or the cars/pedestrians but I don't think that's his point. He's merely demonstrated the relative number of collisions. Indeed, and counter to the gospel around here both liability cases and media reports suggest that not all accidents are the fault of motorists and pedestrians. Unsaid around here is that even where motorists or pedestrians bare some blame for accidents, if they have sufficient time to avoid collision, the operator bares responsibility as well. For example, just because a person doesn't clear the crosswalk by the time you get a green you aren't allowed to run them over. Where the agency comes in is in evaluating whether the system was design as such to provide the operator an opportunity to avoid the collision. Sticking with the car example, the breaking system malfunctioned due to a design flaw, so thee motorist couldn't break in time to avoid hitting the pedestrian in the crosswalk. In that case the liability is taken from the conductor and assigned to the system designer/agency. As long as I am making a comparison to freeways, we grade separate them for efficiency don't we? It must be very expensive to build a road overpass over a freeway but for some reason it's too expensive if we want to do it for a train. If someone suggested we build two lane at-grade highways to save construction cost they would be laughed out the place. Yet around here those who question building at-grade crossings in the traffic capital of the country are labeled crazy. Go figure. It's the argument that at-grade light-rail causes a decline in safety in neighborhoods that doesn't hold, however. Actually the FACT is that a 225-ton train is a severe safety hazard. It is not a theory up to debate it is a fact, just like the world being round. People on the other side of the argument may feel that their only recourse is to debate this fact, (and argue that the world is flat), and to distract discussions by challenging this fact, but it is a FACT just the same. The debate is whether this established safety hazard is acceptable and if so where and why.But on those terms this whole at-grade argument falls apart, which is why folk get back to challenging the world being round. The Blue Line has demonstrated how light rail fails to reduce congestion in South LA, and light rail will do little in the long-term for the Expo corridor. Despite what they say in public relations literature when trying to get people to support insufficient projects and increase their taxes for them, MTA and at-grade advocates NEVER claim it will reduce congestion. And when they do they are,to put it bluntly, lying. The Expo Phase 1 EIR clearly shows that each intersection with an at-grade crossing sees it's performance worsen. And this is MTA's own document. They cooked the traffic books as best as they possibly could and yet they couldn't mask what has been proven in every single study of light rail traffic impacts conducted: at-grade crossings WORSEN traffic. And at-grade crossings with frequently running trains in a large Metro area that is the traffic capital of the country drastically WORSENS traffic. JUST READ the traffic section of the Phase 1 EIR and you see that it shows that traffic 30 years out is WORSE with the project than without it. How the heck does that type of stat pass without "transit advocates in pursuit of transportation solutions" raising a red flag and demanding of the powers that be make some changes, especially when the same document shows traffic performance at intersections with grade separations improving?If you want to understand the difference between Me, and my transit advocacy that predated Fix Expo and what I've come to learn from Friends 4 Expo leadership is that my study and advocacy was in pursuit for transportation solutions. It wasn't about a pretty map, or providing the ability to boast that "We have more rail miles than City X, Y and Z," or taking us back to the time where street-cars roamed. It was about finding a solution that provides the actual benefits that so many other people falsely claim at-grade light rail does. Friends 4 Expo is about getting a train to Santa Monica, consequences (including loss of life and limb, demonizing communities and individuals, worsened traffic, and environmental injustice) be damned for many some not so good and rarely publicly stated intentions. Read closer into the MTA/F4E statements and you'll see that they don't call these solutions. To be considered a "solution" you have to provide empirical data - it needs to be capable of being objectively proven. Instead, they call it a a much more subjective, "alternative," which itself they and MTA so conveniently want to define as an alternative to nothing. That's false. That's not the way this very political process works and people shouldn't be so easily fooled into thinking they can't or shouldn't advocate for better and sufficient projects. I have to find a news link I had back from the 2003 Transit Strike to show the importance of this correlation of the transit alternative and the increased congestion on those 3 corridors during that strike. Those stats don't tell the whole story for a lot of reasons, among them: 1) The strike eliminated not just train service but bus service as well. To be comparable you have to eliminate train service SOLELY, which sort of leads to my second point. 2) You yourself have pointed out how many times how parallel bus service is cut when train service is provided on the corridor. By the way, is this the article you're talking about? www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt_2006-11a.htmI think this proves that it's wrong to compare transit ridership to auto use as a whole. You have to compare corridors to corridors. Sure, a small percentage of people in Southern California use transit, but on corridors where transit is available, such as Long Beach to Downtown LA, transit use is high apparently. Transit service is important. The suggestion that this specific type of transit (at-grade light rail through dense areas) relieves traffic congestion, when compared to alternatives most prominently grade separated rail, or no rail with existing bus service is what is inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 11:53:10 GMT -8
Yeah, if this is a 30, 50, 100 year project, it makes sense to build it right. I don't believe in letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but man, I'm not sure it's preferable to build dinky light rail lines across the county. That might work for Pasadena or Portland or Phoenix, but this is South LA where you've got USC, the Coliseum and a crapload of poor people who want a faster way to get to work. I don't know if they "deserve" better. That's subjective, I guess. But I don't think they deserve good transportation options any less than drivers.
I really wish this administration would invest in more transit, and not just 110 MPH "high speed" rail, but transit in our cities. That stimulus should have been 300 billion for mass transit all over the country, and less for banks and auto makers.
As for Goodmon using this issue as a stepping stool for his higher aspirations, if he really believes in his cause, then why not? I go to school not only to learn, but to use it as a stepping stool to bigger and better things. If someone is working hard representing the people they want to represent, like Goodmon is, why shouldn't he seek higher office or status or whatever you want to call it in order to represent his constituents better?
He's not just a guy who puts fantasy rail lines on a map in his spare time. If he wants to become a politician, more power to him.
I personally don't give a damn about the number of kids that'll get run over by some train. I also don't mind crossings at small streets. What I want to see is a train that doesn't slow down for street lights or other cars. I want to see 65 MPH runs between Downtown LA and Santa Monica with no 35 MPH slow sections because some jerkoff kid doesn't know how to cross the tracks. I'm imagining the junction where the Expo Line will split from the Blue Line and man, that looks like a giant clusterf*ck. That's the sort of thing that needs to be underground.
I think the money is out there for it, but I don't go for the "there's no money, this is all we get" attitude. I think we should fight for the same kind of funding that highways and roads get on the local, state and federal level. I'll march on Sacramento right now (okay, next week). Just give the word.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 26, 2009 12:08:07 GMT -8
Then you could have just made the Expo Line BRT and just left it at that. Why spend way more on rail if we're not going to accommodate more people? The Orange Line experience documents that at-grade light rail can carry many more people - and faster - than at-grade BRT. One 3-car light rail train carries over four times the passengers of an articulated bus: How about we just stick with buses and cars? We spend less money and the same amount of people are killed. It's safer to ride light rail than drive or ride in a car. It's just hilarious how the 1 mile of track in Culver City in predominantly white neighborhoods cost $185 million but the 4.5 miles in South LA in predominantly black neighborhoods cost $140 million. I thought our resources were scarce. That misrepresentation is called "spin" by its author. Here's the truth: First, there are over twice the length of grade separations in the minority areas in Los Angeles (east of Ballona Creek, the overpasses and aerial stations at La Cienega and La Brea) than in Culver City (the 0.7 mile west of Ballona Creek, the bridge over Washington-National and aerial station). Second, Culver City by the Expo Line is also majority-minority, not predominantly white. Not to mention that Santa Monica, which is predominantly white, requested and received at-grade for phase 2.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 12:08:47 GMT -8
I just thought of something. You talk about the Downtown Connector being so important that it must be underground and/or grade separated. I think there are few people who would disagree. That's because if there was an accident, it would impact TWO lines.
Well, what if there's an accident between Pico and where the Blue and Expo Lines split? It will impact riders heading from Pasadena to Long Beach and riders heading from East LA to Santa Monica, and everyone who is trying to transfer. It, in effect, shuts down two lines, so why not put it underground or grade separate that small portion of track?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 12:13:14 GMT -8
I see a trench for USC, where mostly white and Asian students go to school. It's safer to ride light rail than drive or ride in a car. I'm not talking about people inside the LRV. It was said earlier that people who get into accidents with light rail would just get into accidents elsewhere. Therefore, light rail doesn't make communities any more dangerous, but it also doesn't make them safer.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 12:15:49 GMT -8
Correction: over four times --> over five times The capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus is 120 passengers, wheras for a fully loaded three-LRV train, more than 600 passengers.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 12:17:29 GMT -8
Correction: over four times --> over five times The capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus is 120 passengers, wheras for a fully loaded three-LRV train, more than 600 passengers. So run five buses at a time. We have scarce resources and other places need transit too. When the rail line gets more crowded, they simply add more vehicles. So why not add more buses? Why can't you do that?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 26, 2009 12:22:11 GMT -8
Correction: over four times --> over five times The capacity of a fully loaded articulated bus is 120 passengers, wheras for a fully loaded three-LRV train, more than 600 passengers. So run five buses at a time. We have scarce resources and other places need transit too. When the rail line gets more crowded, they simply add more vehicles. So why not add more buses? Why can't you do that? You can't because (a) if these are BRT buses, such short headways wouldn't be feasible for fast and efficient operations and (b) if they are rapid or local buses, they would result in gridlock. Also, unlike trains, buses cannot be linked together.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 12:40:46 GMT -8
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but the longer you make a train, doesn't the time for it to clear an at-grade crossing get longer?
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 26, 2009 12:43:14 GMT -8
Those stats don't tell the whole story for a lot of reasons, among them: 1) The strike eliminated not just train service but bus service as well. To be comparable you have to eliminate train service SOLELY, which sort of leads to my second point. Yeah, but look at the study. They said that corridors with rail service saw freeway speeds go down a lot more during the strike. Also, they may replace bus service with rail service, but that results in decreased operating costs and higher capacity overall. I would assume those buses are deployed elsewhere where they are needed more...?
|
|