|
Post by Justin Walker on May 2, 2009 23:02:37 GMT -8
Second, I really like how there is grass between the tracks in one of the photos. I know having grass complicates things (plumbing + maintenance) and thus is unlikely to happen here but it would be real nice thing if it were to happen here. Even gravel ballast that allows water to percolate and replenish the aquifer in my mind is a good thing. Grass is usually used to denote open/public space. While it can definitely look nice, I would think it could send the wrong message about the use of the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 4, 2009 17:12:42 GMT -8
Second, I really like how there is grass between the tracks in one of the photos. I know having grass complicates things (plumbing + maintenance) and thus is unlikely to happen here but it would be real nice thing if it were to happen here. Even gravel ballast that allows water to percolate and replenish the aquifer in my mind is a good thing. Grass is usually used to denote open/public space. While it can definitely look nice, I would think it could send the wrong message about the use of the tracks. I wanted to tell you that I think you are wrong but I confess I can see your point. I wonder what the safety record is on other cities that have grass growing between the tracks and under what circumstances do they use grass. It would be real nice.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 4, 2009 21:48:00 GMT -8
In New Orleans, the St. Charles streetcar line has several miles of track running in a grassy median. (locals call it the "neutral ground") People walk on it, and as I recall, mounted police ride their horses along it. The big difference is that the streetcars don't go very fast, and they stop about every other block, unlike light rail, which may have a mile or more between stops, and can run several times faster than a Perley Thomas two-motor streetcar.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 7, 2009 12:05:53 GMT -8
Here is a good example of effective safety improvements for at-grade light rail crossings. They sound similar to what Santa Monica has installed to stop cars at pedestrian crosswalks. More here. 5/7/2009 Safety
Houston METRO to install additional flashing pavement lights at light-rail intersections
The Federal Highway Administration recently gave the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (METRO) permission to add flashing pavement lights at more intersections along the 7.5-mile Main Street light-rail line.
Launched in 2006, METRO's experimental lighted pavement marking system is designed to raise drivers' awareness of train-crossing intersections and reduce accidents caused by motorists who run red lights. The flashing markers light up when the traffic signal turns red.
METRO maintains and operates 70 traffic signals along the rail line. To date, illuminated pavement markers have been installed at 20 intersections. Four more are slated to be outfitted later this year.
The pavement markets have reduced the number of accidents caused by drivers running red lights by as much as 50 percent at some intersections, according to METRO.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 26, 2009 18:07:47 GMT -8
I noticed no work is being done at the Dorsey High crossing. I take it this is because they are waiting for the ped bridge to be designed. Has funding been allocated for the bridge already? Is the blasé design previously depicted in the this thread the actual design for the bridge that will be built? Is there a chance they can build the ped bridge within a reasonable time post line opening so as not to delay the opening further?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 26, 2009 23:00:50 GMT -8
I noticed no work is being done at the Dorsey High crossing. I take it this is because they are waiting for the ped bridge to be designed. Has funding been allocated for the bridge already? Is the blasé design previously depicted in the this thread the actual design for the bridge that will be built? Is there a chance they can build the ped bridge within a reasonable time post line opening so as not to delay the opening further? Wow, a lot of questions. They need to finish the EIR/S and have it approved before they can build at Farmdale. This will happen hopefully in a few months. They are also preparing the CPUC application for the pedestrian overpass. So, no one knows whether chicken will come first or the egg but perhaps by the end of the year they can start closing Farmdale. Then Farmdale will become a dead-end street for good. Not much known about the design yet. I don't think they have started on that. Certainly Farmdale overpass could end up being the last thing to be finished in Phase 1. If it wasn't for Farmdale, talks of opening to Crenshaw would have been talks of opening to La Brea, which is a major gateway.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 28, 2009 11:00:24 GMT -8
In light of this accident, I am calling for a federal investigation and demanding that grade separations of roads near pre-schools be studied.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 2, 2009 21:05:56 GMT -8
From the June 15 Expo Board Minutes, following the Closed Session: Chair Perry asked Mr. Thorpe if there were any reportable actions from Closed Session.
Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options:
1. Stop and Proceed 2. Add a station at Farmdale 3. Pedestrian Overcrossing 4. Combination station with stop and proceed until such time the station is complete.
Chair Perry stated no vote was taken; this is for informational purposes only.
The Board also directed staff to come back at the next board meeting with costs associated with proceeding with the environmental document for adding a station.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jul 2, 2009 22:14:30 GMT -8
From the June 15 Expo Board Minutes, following the Closed Session: Chair Perry asked Mr. Thorpe if there were any reportable actions from Closed Session.
Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options:
1. Stop and Proceed 2. Add a station at Farmdale 3. Pedestrian Overcrossing 4. Combination station with stop and proceed until such time the station is complete.
Chair Perry stated no vote was taken; this is for informational purposes only.
The Board also directed staff to come back at the next board meeting with costs associated with proceeding with the environmental document for adding a station. Farmdale is like 6 blocks from La Brea. It does not warrant a station. There are already stations at Crenshaw and La Brea. This just shows that Metro is giving in to the people so that they can finish this project. This project is going to end up costing a billion dollars. The best bet is to go with the pedestrian bridge with the street closed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 2, 2009 23:58:59 GMT -8
Unbelievable. Fix Expo and other NIMBY's most pleasant dream is happening with Phase 1 being delayed to "unforeseeable future."
Farmdale is 0.53 miles from La Brea and 0.63 miles from Crenshaw. Each extra station within a given distance adds between 53 seconds to 62 seconds to the total trip time, that is just about 1.0 minute of additional time is spent in decelerating, stopping, and accelerating.
Then, the question is who is going to use this station. Remember that they skipped a station for the critical bus route and residential gateway Arlington Ave. How would it look to skip a station at Arlington and build one at Farmdale?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 3, 2009 0:39:26 GMT -8
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. And take your elementary-school locker room and replace the coeds with trains and boys who plot to harass and play pranks on them with the Fix Expo and other NIMBYs if you want to understand how things work around on the NIMBY side of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 3, 2009 7:12:14 GMT -8
From the June 15 Expo Board Minutes, following the Closed Session: Chair Perry asked Mr. Thorpe if there were any reportable actions from Closed Session.
Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options:
1. Stop and Proceed 2. Add a station at Farmdale 3. Pedestrian Overcrossing 4. Combination station with stop and proceed until such time the station is complete.
Chair Perry stated no vote was taken; this is for informational purposes only.
The Board also directed staff to come back at the next board meeting with costs associated with proceeding with the environmental document for adding a station. Closure and Ped Bridge was recommended on Dec. 6th, 07 to the board after a cost benefit analysis of grade separation options was presented to them by staff. The CPUC decision in Feb encouraged a ped overpass and for the Metro to amend their application. I bet they are studying the other options only for informational purposes to be included in the amendment to the CPUC application. It seems illogical that they would go with the other options at this time.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 3, 2009 10:20:52 GMT -8
I've heard that LAUSD's attorneys are objecting to closing Farmdale. That would explain the new CPUC options.
Although if Farmdale cannot be closed that should overturn the CPUC determination of "practicability" of grade separation there. Which may be justficiation of adding the train-stop option for an at-grade crossing. Would it be just during school arrival and departure hours?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 3, 2009 10:54:23 GMT -8
I've heard that LAUSD's attorneys are objecting to closing Farmdale. That would explain the new CPUC options. Although if Farmdale cannot be closed that should overturn the CPUC determination of "practicability" of grade separation there. Which may be justficiation of adding the train-stop option for an at-grade crossing. Would it be just during school arrival and departure hours? I can see the logic in, if the train has to stop it might as well let passengers embark and disembark but seriously La Brea is so rediciously close is it worth the expense of buildign a whole nother station. Did LAUSD object to 'closure and ped bridge' in the fall of last year or are they just bringing up another eleventh hour objection? 'Closure and ped bridge' has been an option for a long time. I speculate LAUSD wants a rail bridge and theyr'e trying to wear Metro down to get it it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 3, 2009 11:03:33 GMT -8
I've heard that LAUSD's attorneys are objecting to closing Farmdale. That would explain the new CPUC options. Although if Farmdale cannot be closed that should overturn the CPUC determination of "practicability" of grade separation there. Which may be justficiation of adding the train-stop option for an at-grade crossing. Would it be just during school arrival and departure hours? Unlike how SAUNDERS interpreted it, it seems quite clear from the board-meeting minutes that these options are not for informational purposes and the Expo board has directed its staff to file an application for each option. This has got quite complicated indeed, as I said in my previous post. The CPUC has already (a) declared that closure of Farmdale is practicable and (b) stop and go only during school hours is more dangerous than a regular crossing. The application for the stop-and-go crossing would have to be for a 24-hour stop and go. So, it's quite true indeed that Expo is applying for the further options only because there is strong objection by the NIMBY groups. At the least, if only the Farmdale closure is approved for example, this will give a legal cover. This will also have a lot of impact for Overland. Can they claim there that because there is a nearby station and if they build a station at Farmdale, it will be environmentally equitable to have an at-grade crossing at Overland? Or will they have a stop-and-go crossing there as well? Or will they close the east side of Overland and build a pedestrian bridge? Indeed, this is getting ever more and more complicated both for Phase 1 and Phase 2. These are the options with disadvantages and advantages of each: (1) Stop and proceed: Since this will be a 24-hour stop and proceed, it would add about a half minute to the total trip time: an appreciable slowdown for the line, which already has slowdown problems, and objections from the NIMBYS. (2) Station at Farmdale: A minute of slowdown for the line, which already has slowdown problems, with questionable station usage and need, an added cost of close to $10 million, an extensive environmental study, trying to figure out how the turns from and to the little Exposition Blvd (Exposition Blvd south) and Dorsey driveway will happen, objections from the NIMBYS, and a long delay in the Phase 1 opening, likely pushing Phase 1 to open concurrently with Phase 2 in 2014. (3) Pedestrian overpass: No slowdown at all for the line, which already has slowdown problems, about $8 million in costs, quickest environmental study and design, Phase 1 opening possible in 2011, strong objection from the NIMBYs. (4) Combination station with stop and proceed until such time the station is complete: similar to (2) but with more NIMBY objections. As Friends 4 Expo, we warned months ago this would happen if the original at-grade application wasn't approved. Now we are seeing hundreds of millions dollars lost in travel-time-saving benefits thanks to a delayed opening of Phase 1 -- all because of NIMBY groups and a weak administrative-law judge and a weak commissioner at CPUC. What is going to happen: CPUC will likely approve all options and we will see a station at Farmdale, since it will be the biggest favor to the neighborhood. What I wanted: the original at-grade crossing, which won't happen anymore. What I want: Farmdale closure, despite having some negative impacts on the community, because I don't want to see a minute of slowdown, especially for an unnecessary station, while such a station is missing at Arlington for example.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 3, 2009 12:31:45 GMT -8
Just because they ask for a cost analysis doesn't mean they're going to build a new station. I think they just want to keep their options open and know what the cost would be.
If the closure and ped bridge gets nicked or runs up against considerable pressure they will already have the approval from CPUC for the other less desirable options
I think the mitigation of choice remains closure and ped bridge.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 3, 2009 13:31:53 GMT -8
Just because they ask for a cost analysis doesn't mean they're going to build a new station. It's not "just a cost analysis." The minutes read: "Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options: ..." This means there will be a full environmental-impact study for the station, which is needed for the CPUC application for a crossing that will also be filed subsequently. So, this is quite unlike before where the staff had done cost-analysis studies for various crossing options. It's certainly true that this doesn't necessarily mean they are going to build a station. The choice between the four options will depend on CPUC approval, litigation pressure, and other factors. But my guess is that the station option is the most probable one, as I explained in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 3, 2009 17:08:04 GMT -8
Just because they ask for a cost analysis doesn't mean they're going to build a new station. It's not "just a cost analysis." The minutes read: "Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options: ..." This means there will be a full environmental-impact study for the station, which is needed for the CPUC application for a crossing that will also be filed subsequently. So, this is quite unlike before where the staff had done cost-analysis studies for various crossing options. It's certainly true that this doesn't necessarily mean they are going to build a station. The choice between the four options will depend on CPUC approval, litigation pressure, and other factors. But my guess is that the station option is the most probable one, as I explained in my previous post. Sure, but this is also true for the other options and as you said that's ten million dollars more for the station. Also, who is to say NIMBY's would not be opposed to a station at this location? Until we have more information it's all just speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 3, 2009 18:22:56 GMT -8
It's not "just a cost analysis." The minutes read: "Mr. Thorpe stated that the Board directed staff to file a Farmdale Crossing application with the following options: ..." This means there will be a full environmental-impact study for the station, which is needed for the CPUC application for a crossing that will also be filed subsequently. So, this is quite unlike before where the staff had done cost-analysis studies for various crossing options. It's certainly true that this doesn't necessarily mean they are going to build a station. The choice between the four options will depend on CPUC approval, litigation pressure, and other factors. But my guess is that the station option is the most probable one, as I explained in my previous post. Sure, but this is also true for the other options and as you said that's ten million dollars more for the station. Also, who is to say NIMBY's would not be opposed to a station at this location? Until we have more information it's all just speculation. Yes, of course, the NIMBYs will oppose the station, as I already told in my analysis of the four options above. As I also told in my analysis above, the station is the most likely outcome, not the definite outcome, which will only be known after various other developments take place, probably not until about a year from now, that is when the EIR is completed, CPUC applications are filed, then approved, lawsuits are threatened, and Expo board tries to make a decision. This will likely push Phase 1 completion date to 2012 at the least, but let's be optimistic and hope that it could still open in the summer of 2011 as it is intended for now. A partial opening to Crenshaw in the spring or summer of 2011 is becoming ever more likely now. And, as I already said in my analysis, I don't favor a station, which will needlessly add a minute to the travel time and it's the most expensive and delinquent among the four options. I wish they would only file an application for the street closure but Expo just can't help get themselves into more trouble. The NIMBYs always try to get the most sacrifice: For Fix Expo this would be a full trench between Vermont and Farmdale, for others killing the entire project. Given these options they will oppose all four but least the station. Why even bother give them options? But that's how Expo are doing business.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 3, 2009 19:27:59 GMT -8
The three stupid options are on the table *only* to make clear to the CPUC that the ped overcrossing is the only logical choice.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 4, 2009 12:46:40 GMT -8
The three stupid options are on the table *only* to make clear to the CPUC that the ped overcrossing is the only logical choice. Yes, but unfortunately CPUC doesn't approve crossings based on if they are stupid or not but safety. Therefore, it's likely that it will approve all four options and it will be up to Expo to decide to choose which one.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 4, 2009 21:56:39 GMT -8
After the CPUC ruling, is there any logical need for this exercise, or wouldn't it have been smarter to just expedite the doggone pedestrian bridge/Farmdale closure? ??
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 5, 2009 17:15:02 GMT -8
After the CPUC ruling, is there any logical need for this exercise, or wouldn't it have been smarter to just expedite the doggone pedestrian bridge/Farmdale closure? ?? Well, I can think of several things: (1) A station would cost a few million dollars less, perhaps about $3 million cheaper, than a pedestrian overpass with elevators and/or ramps and wouldn't have maintenance and security ssues (elevators being used as public toilets, homeless sleeping on the bridge, increased crime in the enclosed bridge structure, etc). (2) It could be faster to open the line with the full-train-stop crossing option since the station doesn't have to be completed before the line is opened. (3) NIMBYs might be objecting the street closure. But the added extra minute because of the Farmdale station would cost tens of thousands of passengers in ridership. So, I think it's a very bad idea. Goodness, what a mess Farmdale has become, thanks to a weak administrative-law judge and a weak commissioner not approving this at the beginning and opening a can of worms! We will eventually end up with no rail across Farmdale but a transfer point, with the riders walking from one train to another across the crossing!
|
|
|
Post by losangeles2319 on Jul 6, 2009 17:30:20 GMT -8
3 million dollars cheaper!!! seriously how much would it cost to just put in grade separation on the one part (not that im advocating it)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2009 8:29:42 GMT -8
3 million dollars cheaper!!! seriously how much would it cost to just put in grade separation on the one part (not that im advocating it) You're right that Expo is already saving a lot of money over a short rail bridge with earth-filled retained ramps, which would cost at least $20 million and possibly up to $30 million. The Farmdale-closure option is the only one out of the four that will make the riders not hate the Expo Line. (Why are we stopping in the middle of nowhere? Have we broken down?) So, it's driving me crazy that whoever staff member(s) and/or board member(s) came up with this idea of a station or stop have put the line in a very bad situation -- again.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jul 15, 2009 11:08:57 GMT -8
From the L.A. NOW blog today: Woman dies after crashing into garbage truck in Wilmington
A woman died this morning when the car she was driving crashed into a trash truck near a Harbor Freeway overpass in Wilmington.
The 6 a.m. crash near Pacific Coast Highway and Figueroa Street forced the closure of the highway from Figueroa to Wilmington Boulevard, said Sgt. Jeff Hamilton of the Los Angeles Police Department.
The cause of the accident was under investigation. Hamilton did not know whether the trash truck driver was hurt.
-- Ruben Vives
Photo: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times
8:37 AM, July 15, 2009 Trash trucks obviously must be grade separated to prevent this! A loaded trash truck weighs many tons and cannot stop quickly, not to mention their every-day slowing of traffic.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 15, 2009 12:11:11 GMT -8
It's not a very good analogy Darrell. Garbage trucks do not carry hundreds of passengers. Neither are we concerned about the speed and reliability of garbage trucks in the same way we are concerned about a modern efficient transportation system. Further, we don't have garbage trucks traveling every two and half to five minutes all day long in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 15, 2009 12:48:45 GMT -8
Good analogy or not, Darrell was pointing out to the common dangers in the real world and saying that LRT is not the only hazard on the road; yet, it receives such a disproportional reaction from the public.
Farmdale and Exposition is a very sleepy neighborhood, except for a brief flux of students just before and after school. At-grade LRT would have worked there, as it works everywhere else.
But it came to that the rogue kingdom of Farmdale, also known as Fix Expo, is sending out threats with its nuclear arsenal and holding the project hostage. LOL Hopefully this will be all over soon and we will lay tracks across that little Farmdale Ave in no time.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Jul 15, 2009 15:41:33 GMT -8
I agree there is a lot of danger out there in the world and we hear a lot more about the big accidents, like planes and trains, then we do about the little ones like garbage trucks.
You're right Farmale/Expo is not a major thoroughfare and all other things being equal crossing gates would be just fine. But the school being immediately adjacent to the ROW makes it a little more complicated. If the community was happy with the intersection then crossing arms would have been par for the course but the community was not happy. The school was not happy.
So, what do you with these people? Do you completely disregard them? In a situation likes this it is not like opinions are going to be changed easily specially with conflicting opinions.
Wither you thought the intersection was safe or not a good compromise solution was made through an appointed body that seemed to address concerns from both sides of the equation.
I don't understand why LAUSD would continue to oppose that crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 16, 2009 7:38:46 GMT -8
The community was happy until Fix Expo came out.
LAUSD was brought into picture by Fix Expo and they have made this an issue of pride. Their lawyers, unlike the pro bono lawyers of Fix Expo, are very vicious and apparently well-paid by them and/or trying to get paid more by pushing a rail bridge.
Yes, the street closure is the best for the line. It's the fastest. Train underpasses and overpasses slow the line because the trains need to climb down and up the ramps. So, yes, gated crossings are faster than grade-separated crossings. Also, when the trains climb up the ramps at the grade-separated crossings, a lot of electricity is wasted as well.
What we don't want to see is a 24/7 full stop for the trains, which would even be slower. This would likely happen if street closure is found impracticable by CPUC and an at-grade crossing is approved.
|
|