|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 9, 2011 11:08:00 GMT -8
I wonder if Rick Thorpe mis-spoke? This is what he said in your recording (3:37): "They'll stop, but when they proceed we have agreed that the tail end of the train wouldn't exceed 15 mph as it goes across..."
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Apr 9, 2011 12:41:21 GMT -8
The tail end makes sense in regards to this sort of settlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Apr 9, 2011 14:06:17 GMT -8
Once the front of the train has cleared the intersection, the train should then take off. Are we expecting high school students to throw themselves in front of a train that has already cleared the intersection? This is absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 9, 2011 15:06:30 GMT -8
Once the front of the train has cleared the intersection, the train should then take off. Are we expecting high school students to throw themselves in front of a train that has already cleared the intersection? This is absurd. 1+ |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 9, 2011 18:54:54 GMT -8
Once the front of the train has cleared the intersection, the train should then take off. Are we expecting high school students to throw themselves in front of a train that has already cleared the intersection? This is absurd. You forget, the train moving at 15mph in a straight line is murderous. The cars going by at 50mph with no guides? Harmless. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 10, 2011 8:35:06 GMT -8
I don't think 15 mph to cross the intersection will be a big deal at all. It's essentially 15mph along the platform and then for another 100 feet or so. We have similar intersections already like the blue line crossing Washington. And those might even be 10 mph.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Apr 10, 2011 20:39:26 GMT -8
Am I remembering wrong? I thought they were going to tear down the Expo Inn as part of this development.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 10, 2011 23:09:55 GMT -8
Am I remembering wrong? I thought they were going to tear down the Expo Inn as part of this development. You're correct, Expo Authority buying the Expo Inn and replacing it with a parking lot for Dorsey High is part of the agreement. Guess that hasn't started yet. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 11, 2011 6:21:10 GMT -8
As others have said, if any part of the train needs to go slow, it is the front of the train. The crossing was supposedly "unsafe" because trains might hit kids crossing in front of a train. Once the train cab has crossed the intersection, the risk of hitting pedestrians is practically zero. Unless they hurl themselves at the side of the train.
Anyway, the settlement (text above) only requires the front of the train to cross the intersection slowly. So either Mr. Thorpe misspoke, or Expo staff has decided to go above and beyond what is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 11, 2011 12:11:26 GMT -8
I've just checked with Expo Authority. Unfortunately the text of the settlement is referring to both cabs (head and tail) and the train won't go faster than 15 MPH until the entire train clears the crossing.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Apr 11, 2011 12:50:19 GMT -8
Once the front of the train has cleared the intersection, the train should then take off. Are we expecting high school students to throw themselves in front of a train that has already cleared the intersection? This is absurd. You forget, the train moving at 15mph in a straight line is murderous. The cars going by at 50mph with no guides? Harmless. Completely agree. Obviously the parents and mentors of these young adults don't have much regard for the intelligence levels of their students. They are officially and on the record are having an organization structurally alter how a train crosses an intersection so they could in theory "protect" their professed less than average intelligence students. I think this is ridiculous when combined with the amount of school staff and crossing guards (not to mention school assigned police officers!) that will already hover around the intersection. The amount of attention to "protecting" the students from this intersection and train crossing is astonishing. I have a little story to tell: I went to large university in Memphis that has frequent service freight traffic on tracks bound to the center of the universe for American freight just east of Memphis, I'm talking dozens of miles long trains all day and night and university students were never hit by that train trying to get to the huge secondary parking lot. Although cars in traffic congestion did get plowed into occasionally. On the flip side, there is a street on the other side of the university that had yet another huge parking lot that had intelligent university students getting hit by cars routinely rain or shine, many of which were fatalities, when I left talk began of grade separating a medium traffic street so college students won't get plowed into by cars. Go figure.... |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 15, 2011 11:35:10 GMT -8
Consider how it is in other countries. People just deal with it and they don't get killed either. See following for a great example: wimp.com/vegetablemarket |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 15, 2011 15:07:56 GMT -8
I love the video. I wonder if there's a discount for fruits that got run over.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 15, 2011 15:29:54 GMT -8
Consider how it is in other countries. People just deal with it and they don't get killed either. See following for a great example: wimp.com/vegetablemarketI really hope they completed the EIR for that train line properly. If not, there's gonna be a lawsuit. Possible issues: improperly dividing the project into "Vegetable Market Line Phases I and II"; not investigating all alternatives (ex. through the cheese market); flawed grade-crossing policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 15, 2011 17:00:14 GMT -8
Actually metrocenter you hit the nail on the head. The reason everything is so expensive to build in the States is a legal concept illegal most everywhere else: punitive damages.
In Europe and elsewhere the whole notion of getting more than actual damages - as a punishment to the losing party - is ludicrous. As a result you don't see this "safety" insanity in projects.
Even at an amusement park in Germany, for example, you could easily walk into a spinning ride and get your head lopped off. No fences, you just have to watch out.
If you get killed, well - you should have been more careful.
Which is better?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 15, 2011 22:27:25 GMT -8
Consider how it is in other countries. People just deal with it and they don't get killed either. See following for a great example: wimp.com/vegetablemarketThat's Bangkok, Thailand; there seems to be a couple viral videos of markets clearing the way for the train. That train is part of the national metre gauge (1 meter/1000mm) train system with infrequent trains. A more modern standard gauge fully grade separated urban rail system, either all-elevated (BTS) or all-underground (MRT, like our Red Line) exists in Bangkok and no markets encroaches on its ROW. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Apr 15, 2011 23:15:06 GMT -8
Well, that is true. I was on the BTS a few months ago (a modern aerial train system) and from it you can see an entire yard of these older trains rusting away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 1, 2011 21:28:56 GMT -8
This might be somewhat off-topic yet it is school-related, I wonder if Foshay Learning Academy will make use of its perfectly ok Exposition Blvd under-crossing? maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Foshay+Learning+Center,+South+Harvard+Boulevard,+Los+Angeles,+CA&aq=0&sll=34.052234,-118.243685&sspn=1.285686,1.790771&g=los+angeles&ie=UTF8&hq=Foshay+Learning+Center,&hnear=S+Harvard+Blvd,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.018372,-118.306411&spn=0.0006,0.000874&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=34.018415,-118.306561&panoid=2qD1iZKRnunZW6Ie9vGMXw&cbp=12,342.35,,0,0.41 Whether or not they will make use of the tunnel cannot be known at this time. But per the final decision, Expo was granted permission for train tracks to be built atop an existing pedestrian tunnel under Exposition Boulevard next to Foshay Learning Center, as long as it made improvements to the tunnel, including better lighting. Harvard Blvd pedestrian tunnel is already being used before and after school:   |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 1, 2011 22:27:59 GMT -8
Thats the improved tunnel?
Was the older tunnel literally a sewer line?
LA really hates pedestrians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 2, 2011 9:04:05 GMT -8
Thats the improved tunnel? Was the older tunnel literally a sewer line? LA really hates pedestrians. These pictures are several-year-old. The tunnel is kept open only before and after school, with supervision by a parent. You really don't need expensive, large tunnels for such small streets. This one already serves its purpose well. |
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 2, 2011 9:50:01 GMT -8
Thats the improved tunnel? Was the older tunnel literally a sewer line? LA really hates pedestrians. Expo Line hasn't officially opened, so how you now the improvements have been completed by Metro? Let's wait until opening day to judge...maybe there will be some movement in summer. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 2, 2011 14:15:06 GMT -8
Thats the improved tunnel? Was the older tunnel literally a sewer line? LA really hates pedestrians. Expo Line hasn't officially opened, so how you now the improvements have been completed by Metro? Note the question marks. I am asking if this is the improved tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 2, 2011 14:27:17 GMT -8
[ EDIT: Question marks can imply sarcasm unless you're careful. ] I'm sure that the Harvard pedestrian tunnel works, even prior to the improvements. And no, not every pedestrian tunnel needs to be big, fancy, expensive or even flashy. But Los Angeles street tunnels do have a reputation for being dirty, dark and dingy, which is unfortunate because it works against the idea (a very good idea IMHO) of pedestrian tunnels in general. Even the Hollywood Bowl tunnel, which links a highly-regarded tourist attraction with a popular park-and-ride bus service, could use an upgrade.Better lighting, at least. How much would a new paint job cost? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 2, 2011 19:22:42 GMT -8
[ EDIT: Question marks can imply sarcasm unless you're careful. ] Better lighting, at least. How much would a new paint job cost? Ah right, it could have been sarcasm. In my post, it was a sincere question. As you note, the pictures show an abysmal paint job and terrible lighting, so that being the "upgraded" tunnel would have been insulting. Would a mall, for example, ever create a tunnel that looks like that? Absolutely not. Then why should the city? Theres no need for a fancy tunnel. Just a decent paint job, maybe a wavy pattern to break up the monotony, and good lighting. It too late now, but when building a tunnel from scratch, walls that go in and out also help. |
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 3, 2011 22:28:31 GMT -8
Pedestrians should never, ever be forced to go thru a tunnel. Keep the pedestrians at grade, and make cars stop for them. Or if you want freeway speeds, build an elevated or trenched freeway.
Trains only come every couple of minutes at the most, so grade crossings for pedestrians are fine; most of the time you can walk right thru. But if a street has so much traffic that you feel it needs a tunnel to be crossed safely, that street has become a traffic sewer rather than a useful part of the city.
Unfortunately, LADOT still thinks that moving as many cars as fast as possible at rush hour is their goal, pedestrian safety and livability be damned.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 4, 2011 3:51:46 GMT -8
I don't understand what you have against tunnels?
Certainly a subway station is a tunnel, and the better subway stations, IMHO are the ones with side tunnels so that subway riders have more than one option for exiting or entering. Even Union Station has its tunnel underneath the Metrolink/ Gold Line/ Amtrak tracks.
If funding wasn't a problem, I'd prefer subways over at-grade transit because of both speed and safety issues. I don't think Los Angeles' Metro system will be stuck at "a train every 5-10-15 minutes or so" forever.
A well-designed tunnel can be a positive addition to a city's streetscape, and add to the mobility of all. I've seen pedestrian tunnels in other cities that were well-lit, artistic even, safe and very much necessary for traffic flow in all senses of the word.
Certainly the L.A. stereotype is NOT universally held.
Also, I think we as transit fans have to work together with Southern California's auto drivers and not be confrontational in order to achieve our goals.
Let's not box ourselves in to "at grade now and forever" thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 4, 2011 5:35:25 GMT -8
I don't know that the Harvard tunnel was originally conceived by the LADOT, it may have been the school district that asked for it all those decades ago.
While I agree that at-grade crossings are ideal for pedestrians, tunnels aren't necessarily evil. And if you recall, this crossing, in front of Foshay School, was being contested due to fears for student safety. Had Expo put in an at-grade crossing, all hell would've broken loose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 4, 2011 7:58:53 GMT -8
These tunnels were built by the City of Los Angeles and they are everywhere where there are schools. Unfortunately one couldn't be built at Farmdale because of the storm drain. Also, ADA makes it more difficult nowadays because of ramps, elevators etc.
This tunnel is much better than a big tunnel. It's shallow and as a result access requires only half a dozen steps and the cost is very small. you don't need a big tunnel for neighborhood pedestrian underpasses like these.
The only problem with these tunnels is that you can't keep them open throughout the day because they are crime magnets.
By the way, such small tunnels exist throughout the world but they tend to be crime magnets as in US and end up being closed. That's why they usually build pedestrian overpasses instead (in US and around the world), as it was proposed with Farmdale street closure at one point.
|
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 4, 2011 8:18:06 GMT -8
Pedestrians should never, ever be forced to go thru a tunnel. Keep the pedestrians at grade, and make cars stop for them. Or if you want freeway speeds, build an elevated or trenched freeway. Trains only come every couple of minutes at the most, so grade crossings for pedestrians are fine; most of the time you can walk right thru. But if a street has so much traffic that you feel it needs a tunnel to be crossed safely, that street has become a traffic sewer rather than a useful part of the city. Unfortunately, LADOT still thinks that moving as many cars as fast as possible at rush hour is their goal, pedestrian safety and livability be damned. Have you ever been to London? One of the most pedestrian friendly cities in the world has TONS of pedestrian only tunnels. It's not a problem bro, chill out. Tunnels are not bad at all. It's a safe way for people to move across the street. It's everywhere..this is not an LA thing.....it's a WORLD thing. |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on May 4, 2011 10:29:12 GMT -8
I have to agree with the concern regarding Dorsey's tunnel. ...Seems narrow and confining and an ideal place for drug deals and the like to go down, or muggings to take place, out of sight of security personnel, and likely out of earshot as well.
|
|
