“Metro does take safety seriously. Just look at how well deputies guarding the Red Line subdued this photographer -- I mean Al Qaeda operative -- earlier this month:”
– Will Campbell In response to ""Cartoon Thursday:" Eastside Blog Punks Metro on Gold Line Safety"
Email la-tips@streetsblog.org or send them anonymously. Tag your photos, links, and videos with "streetsblog".
Overall, we had a favorable impression of the future Gold Line and see how it will be a boon for the communities through which it passes. However, there were some safety concerns we had, especially at the Little Tokyo and Indiana Stations.
Continue reading »
Streetsblog is a daily news source, online community and political mobilizer for the Livable Streets movement.
Learn More…Streetfilms produces videos that show how cities around the world are reclaiming their streets for pedestrians, cyclists and transit riders.
Learn More…Streetswiki is a community-created, online encyclopedia where you can read, write and learn about sustainable transportation policies, practices and ideas from around the world.
Learn More…The Livable Streets Community is a place to organize projects in your own town and connect and share with others who are doing the same.
Learn More…Livable Streets Education helps classroom teachers and schools weave pertinent ideas about urban livability and advocacy into their curriculum.
Learn More…
Darrell
Fred Dennstedt wrote it more eloquently than I could on The Source 10/28/09:
"I have to confess, as a transit rider, my preference is at-grade light rail. I’m sure some will say I’m crazy or stupid for feeling that way, but I have my reasons. First and foremost, I think at-grade light rail creates the most seamless transportation experience possible. It’s visible from the street level, easily accessible from the street, and creates a place on the street. Inside the rail cars you get to bask in L.A.’s ample sunlight, view the passing neighborhoods and scenery through the large windows, and because of this you get a better sense of where you are. Two of my favorite transit cities, San Francisco and Bordeaux, France, integrate at-grade light rail seamlessly into the fabric of the city. I get that same vibe on the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line."
Yes, I read that Crenshaw comment by a (departing, I understand) CRA person. Perhaps if they got out of Los Angeles more they'd have known how light rail works in many other cities. Here are some examples.
The fact that Long Beach's narrow Pine Avenue has become a semi-pedestrian mall doesn't mean that at-grade light rail has harmed wider Pacific Avenue and Long Beach Blvd. Without light rail wouldn't those just have more, louder automobile traffic?
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Eric Maundry
See? It's the issue nobody cares to address. If you pack more people into cities, energy use goes up. Energy production is the leading cause of greenhouse gas production. Read the article. The next leap of faith. People who move into the SB 375 rats' warren of the future will somehow magically abandon their cars. Outside of a few reports generated by the usual interested parties, nobody has proven that one, either. I rode my bike (yes, I do that) past block after city block of newly constructed condo piles in Pasadena yesterday, and all I saw were traffic jams up and down the various avenues I peddled down. The Pasadena condo boom has produced ridiculous new levels of traffic in that town. And for some reason riding the 210 Trolly just doesn't work for those folks.
And then there is this rather pernicious lie. People who live in single family houses use more energy than a condo would sitting on that same lot. Which is, of course, nonsense. Turning low density cities into high density cities does nothing more than increase greenhouse gas emissions. Greenwashing for the BIA is beneath you, Calwatch.
The real solution is developing technologies that produce less greenhouse gas emissions. Honda is now making great strides in its efforts to create a hydrogen powered car. And that, should it happen, will do far more to help control global warming than anything the planner elite and their bosses in the redevelopment game are peddling these days.
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?
DJB
It's true that East LA has lots of residential population density, due mainly to high household sizes. It doesn't have so much density in terms of housing units though (meaning if people with smaller household sizes moved into those housing units the density would fall). Just like there are different ways of measuring the danger of transportation modes, there are different ways of measuring density. We could use housing units per acre, people per acre, or square feet of commercial space per acre.
My point was really about employment density (I admit I could have phrased it better). I don't have the figures, but it seems very likely that the Wilshire corridor, with Downtown LA, Westlake, K-town, the Miracle Mile, Beverly Hills, Century City, and Westwood, has an astronomical amount of employment density. This employment density needs to be better complemented with housing unit density, and the subway will help with that.
I haven't seen a street with that many high-rise office buildings since the last time I was in Manhattan.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Goodmon
Clarke said:
Many planning experts support the pedestrian qualities of at-grade light rail. It makes the train visible and accessable to pedestrians, and the neighborhood visible to riders, as built in many cities.
I'd bet most of that group of "many" you reference, support the additional resources that any rail project brings to a corridor; bricks and mortar things like additional street furniture, landscaping, more lighting, crosswalk treatments, bike lanes and bike storage boxes, and planning policy like density bonuses, reductions in parking requirements, and shared use parking facilities. All of these things make it easier to attract developers.
These things can feasibly be done with or without a train, and as I will discuss more below, they are more easily done when the train is underground. You know this very well, because a train hasn't run through Santa Monica in decades, yet you've implemented many of these pedestrian-oriented designs along your streets, as has Venice, West Hollywood and Culver City. The difference is when a train is involved it's typically the transportation agency as opposed to the city, or redevelopment agency. What local politician or bureaucrat wouldn't love that?
Again, as you and many other at-grade advocates frequently do, you're giving more credit than is due to the street-level tracks, when in reality, the same and better benefits occur with subways.
But you know what, lets stop with your spin and talk reality.
Let's talk about why you and others have completely ignored any attempt to discuss the Blue Line, which has had 20 years to bring about all the great pedestrian oriented development you profess come from street-level rail. And no - I'm not talking about in the portion where it shares track with freight, but where it's in median street-running on Washington and in Downtown Long Beach.
In Long Beach most of the new development turns its back to the Blue Line, because of the disruptive environmental nature, and the streets it turns to (most of it is a block or two away) are far more pedestrian friendly than the street the trains rumble down.
One need only compare Pine Ave to Long Beach Blvd. Here's a link to the overhead of the two:
Pine Ave
Long Beach Blvd
What do you see?
On Pine: bulb outs, mid-block crossings, street furniture, an active pedestrian environment. Further down you see the mixed use with the apartments above.
Comparatively on Long Beach: are there bulb outs? mid-block crossings? see anywhere near the level of interest in mixed use properties? No, and it's because one street has a frickin' 270 foot long, 225-ton train going 35 bloody miles down the middle of the street!
It's going 35 mph, because it's a 22 mile long regional line, intended to quickly transport people between two distant points. It's 270 feet long, because it has to carry a lot of people seeking long distance commutes, which in our poly-centric region of 22 million people, is a lot. It is not a trolley like the Grove.
And now let's talk downtown. And since as Clarke said,
DG disagrees and thinks everyone should ride in a dark hole in the ground. Who are you going to believe?
You know this is rather amusing, especially in the context of public relations spin vs. reality. Let's ask the agency in charge of attempting to facilitate development around a Blue Line for the past 20 years what they think about your statements Clarke. Here are the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles' comments into the Crenshaw Light Rail Line DEIR:
[W]e believe that at-grade and aerial alignments with the Crenshaw Blvd right-of-way will forever limit and diminish the ultimate economic development and redevelopment potentials on Crenshaw Blvd. The visual and physical impact of the at-grade and aerial alignments on the commercial and residential uses fronting on Crenshaw Blvd could largely negate the blight eradication efforts of CRA/LA in this critical portion of South Los Angeles. For these reasons, CRA/LA believes the entirety of the line in Crenshaw Blvd should be built [i]n a below-grade configuration.
[....]
CRA/LA's experience to date, for instance with the Blue Line operation on Washington Blvd, has yet to demonstrate that the added mobility resulting from the construction of the transit way significantly outweigh the detriments to traffic and community development potential. It is also not clear that in-street running on major, congested urban arterials is viable as an operating environment for regional high-speed rail links over the long term.
[....]
Slower local circulator systems...should not be confused with the fast, higher-capacity services into, out of and through the Crenshaw community.
Sounds like a pretty convincing smack down Clarke. But wait, there is more. In arguing for the section currently only being studied at-grade (48th to 60th), to be underground they say:
Land Use and Development Potentials
The development potentials and commercial attractiveness of business property along segments of the LRT alignment between stations will, in almost all cases, suffer net decreases as a result of the effects of at-grade LRT operation. [...] While station locations should provide some stimulus for economic activity, the level and range of development potentials will be much more limited around stations placed at-grade, such as Exposition and Slauson, than if these stations were in a below grade configuration.
This is common sense as I pointed out with the Little Tokyo subway station example in a previous comment.
Again, reality vs. public relations spin.
Clarke said:
It makes the train visible and accessable to pedestrians, and the neighborhood visible to riders, as built in many cities.
Visibility to riders and pedestrians? Is that seriously your argument? You can see a community real well elevated, yet I don't see much happening around the Green Line elevated rail. Incidentally our Green Line was a project that was built without all the typical bricks and mortar goodies I mentioned above, in part because it was the result of a consent decree and not the typically at-grade/political lobbying. You can see Compton and Watts real well while passing through on the Blue Line, the Slauson and Manchester Stations are even elevated, don't see too many suits who get on a bit further south hopping off to check it out.
By the way, being confined by right-of-way limitations (whether a track or ability for lane drop) often makes transit less accessible to pedestrians.
The Eastside Extension is a perfect example. The comparative traffic and activity in the second half of the project is over a mile south on Whittier Blvd, which every eastsider will tell you is undoubtedbly the heart of East LA's commercial district. It was where the eastside extension was originally supposed to serve. But because this project runs at grade and lane drops aren't possible on Whittier Blvd it's on 3rd St instead.
Same thing can be said of the Gold Line in Pasadena: it doesn't serve parts of Old Town Pasadena, CalTech or Pasadena City College because it's in the median of the freeway instead of under Colorado Blvd.
Same can be said for Expo: Doesn't serve Downtown Culver City, Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Mall, Baldwin Village, Century City, Santa Monica City College and even the Westside Pavillion is 1/4 mile in distance from the proposed station.
A good look at any subway system, shows that most lines meanders for precise purpose of hitting specific existing active locations to make the system more accessible. There are serious limitations with that with at-grade rail.
I'll get to the rest of your post later.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Goodmon
That statement is clearly not correct. But lets take away all rail lines from Los Angles and replace them with cars and buses. I guarantee you will have more dead people from the cars and buses than LRT or Metrolink.
When you guys throw around statistics it means nothing. The bottom line is more people are killed by cars than trains. I don't care if the volume of cars is greater or not the issue of safety is saving lives.
Suggesting that the rate doesn't matter, is like suggesting it's safer to live in a Compton project than in Oregon, because the number of deaths in the Compton project is less than Oregon. It's a ridiculous argument.
I mean, that is some really twisted logic.
If G.M. put out a car that is 100 times more likely to kill people in an accident and used as their justification that "well we'll only sell 1 for every 100" Hondas and Toyotas, they'd be laughed out of the joint.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Goodmon
Jass:
But LRT crashing into a car will NOT cause deaths. The train is moving at 13mph.
Our light rail trains in LA travel at 35 mph in the median of the street and 55 mph when they have gates (Eastside Extension has no gates).
No way if the Green Line trains traveled as fast as ours would it have been able to make this stop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odk7WZ3UjSY
You may be confusing the travel time speed, which is around 14-16 mph, with the operating speed. The Eastside Extension takes an hour to go 14-16 miles, not travels 14-16 mph along the way.
Additionally, I think you made my point with your Boston comparison above with your links. Even one of the places you linked to is just 500 feet away from the next stop. That's a trolley. What we're building here is more like the Red Line at-grade.
A light rail vehicle can stop almost as quickly as a bus.
I have reports of light rail accidents at 25 mph that drug the car 200 feet. Can you name me one bus that takes 200 feet to come to a full stop from traveling 25 mph after hitting a car?
And here we have our nations most popular light rail line.
Actually the Green Line is 4 branches. It would be like us claiming the Expo Line and Blue Line were one line, because they share tracks in the Downtown LA segment.
Additionally, the majority of Green Line ridership is in the subway section in downtown where it is frequently used for transfers and that "final mile." There are documents online that show the per station boarding for the Green Line, which confirm this.
Our Blue Line at about 80-85K riders per day is the nations most heavily ridden line.
Bikes, pedestrians, cars and trains coexist peacefully.
Everything operates peacefully until there's an accident, which with at-grade rail is guaranteed to happen, especially in median running with trains going 35 mph. I mean it's sort of like saying, "Other than when he beats me, sleeps with other women or gets drunk and yells at the kids, my husband is a great companion."
There have been no calls for improvements in safety.
This is totally inaccurate. I know that there are several calls for safety improvements along the entire Green Line system, related to signaling system and pedestrian safety, although there more are concerned about irresponsible behavior on the part of the train operators than the public. Again, just because you can't cite them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, compare the picture in this article with all the signs, gates and flashing lights, with this
It seems that instead of citing any type of data or study, you're insinuating that it is safe because it does exist elsewhere, therefore it is safe if it is done here.
Tell me jess, do you consider this safe:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=flower+%26+venice,+los+angeles,+ca&sll=34.026916,-118.382008&sspn=0.009479,0.018325&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Venice+Blvd+%26+S+Flower+St,+Los+Angeles,+California+90015&ll=34.037042,-118.268918&spn=0.000592,0.001145&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=34.037005,-118.26883&panoid=k_AQAxHaIvo-095CnbJUlA&cbp=12,120.09,,0,8.27
Or what about this one:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vernon+%26+long+beach,+los+angeles,+ca&sll=34.037005,-118.26883&sspn=0.000569,0.001145&g=flower+%26+venice,+los+angeles,+ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=E+Vernon+Ave+%26+Long+Beach+Ave,+Los+Angeles,+California+90058&ll=34.003918,-118.24331&spn=0.001185,0.002291&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=34.003918,-118.243432&panoid=QCpEsC0dGuPdwoVajd-Jjw&cbp=12,113.33,,0,2.58
Based on your logic, despite the fact that the two crossings above are the in the case of the first crossing the most accident prone intersection of light rail in the country, and in the case of the second crossing, the deadliest intersection of light rail line in the country they are safe, and should be replicated.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Darrell
Sigh, guess some more DG fact-checking is necessary.
Zev's 1998 Prop. A didn't kill the Eastside Red Line, although one could say it buried the body. The MTA board had already suspended it earlier that year as it was about to begin construction because they didn't have the local money to build it. Conversely the North Hollywood subway was well under construction then and only reasonable to finish.
The Pasadena Gold Line does have six significant gated at-grade boulevard crossings at Figueroa, Monterey, Mission, Glenarm, California, and Del Mar.
Many planning experts support the pedestrian qualities of at-grade light rail. It makes the train visible and accessable to pedestrians, and the neighborhood visible to riders, as built in many cities. DG disagrees and thinks everyone should ride in a dark hole in the ground. Who are you going to believe?
Particularly absurd is claiming eliminating left turns for CARS conflicts with pedestrian principles!
Yes, there is a station on Colorado at 16th Street (not to mention the terminus at 5th), and the city is seeking to retain street parking on both sides of Colorado.
Except for transit-oriented villages within walking distance of the stations there's no plan to change land uses along Colorado. Just the opposite, the new General Plan (LUCE = Land Use and Circulation Element) explicitly recognizes the importance of retaining current industrial uses.
Most light rail supporters only advocate for subway where there's no place for tracks on the surface and ridership justifies the much greater cost of subway, like Wilshire in Los Angeles.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Foldie
"Bottom line, at 225-ton these trains weigh as much as three Abrahms tanks. They're by far the most individually lethal objects on the road, so even if we tossed all of the stats out of the window, of course our safety standards should be higher, especially given our capacity to totally eliminate the risk."
Suggestion then. Stay out of their way and you will be fine.
That statement is clearly not correct. But lets take away all rail lines from Los Angles and replace them with cars and buses. I guarantee you will have more dead people from the cars and buses than LRT or Metrolink.
When you guys throw around statistics it means nothing. The bottom line is more people are killed by cars than trains. I don't care if the volume of cars is greater or not the issue of safety is saving lives.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Goodmon
Jess:
I invite you to visit Boston, or Philly or other cities with old light rail. Youll be shocked to find riders disembarking in the middle of the street (no platform!) and cars and trains relying on standard stoplights! I can't even imagine the carnage. (there is none, theres maybe 2 deaths a year, thanks to alcohol)
I don't know if you live in Los Angeles, but I do and I have lived in Boston. Any person who has lived in both will tell you without hesitation that the light rail we have here is NOTHING like the Green Line in Boston. For Angelinos who haven't been to Boston, comparing their light rail to ours is almost as bad as comparing the trolley at the Grove to the Blue Line.
The Green Line is more of a local circulation line, which takes forever to travel in it's at-grade section. It stops every few blocks, and rarely if ever travels above 20-25 mph at street level (there are some sections in Downtown Boston with subway and one of the Green Line branches is all grade separated). Comparatively, the Blue Line is a regional system, 22 miles in length (55 min travel time from end to end) with stations roughly every mile, operating at speeds of 35 mph when in street running (like the Eastside extension), and 55 mph in the cab signal section (where there are gates).
It's really apples and oranges.
If you to begin to understand what makes our system a bit different than Boston and several others in '98 MTA commissioned a study, where the lead question asked was, "What Makes the Metro Blue Different from Other Light Rail Systems?" The link to the points can be found here: Booz Allen Hamilton Study or here: Meshkati Explains Why Expo = Blue NOT Pasadena Gold Line
Many of the points apply to the Expo Phase 1 line and Eastside Extension. In particular, I think the point about diverse population making it difficult to disseminate safety information will be a significant cause of accidents on the Eastside Extension given that the area has a large new immigrant and Spanish-speaking population.
The other thing anyone objectively reading the above should note about the identified reasons is that they are all behavior-related not design-related.
There's nothing about the number of signs or type of signs, but more about how they're interpreted and obeyed and the leading sociological/psychological reasons they're not.
This is a significant point, that many people gloss over. So let me say it again: the safety of a system is not defined by the level of or newness of the design treatments, but rather how effective they are with the population at hand.
Let me give you a real good example. Part of $4.5 million in safety measures proposed to be added later to the line is fencing in the median of the tracks. The intent is to discourage jaywalking. How tall must the fence be to obtain the desired goal of discouraging jaywalking? The only way you can answer that question is by evaluating the population in question. Surely you'd agree that while a 4 foot fence may discourage adults and elderly from jaywalking, it very likely will not discourage middle school aged children from jaywalking?
That's just one really simple example. This entire field of engineering has a name, ergonomics and human factors engineering. One of the world's most highly-regarded experts in this field (and the founder of the USC Transportation Systems Safety program) is Metro, Metrolink and the CPUC's biggest critic as far as safety is considered. (See his lengthy testimony here).
You see a "human factors evaluation" (which doesn't involve this P.R. stuff about personal responsibility, but rather an evaluation of system's effectiveness) is a core component of any National Transportation Safety Board investigation, yet it has absolutely no place in the CPUC (California's rail safety regulatory agency) or Metro's processes, and has limited role in Metrolink. There's a reason for that, and it pertains to your point about excessive signage.
You are absolutely correct that sometimes too much signage can be a bad thing. How many of us have been driving and been confused by the number of lights. Those signs, and the red light cameras (which cause more car-car accidents) are put in to reduce Metro's liability. You see those signs are more for the purposes of defending Metro against lawsuits than they are for actually protecting the public. Review any case in which Metro defended itself against an accident and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
And yes there is "carnage" in Boston and Philadelphia. There are accidents on the Boston Green Line and some times they're as bad as the accidents we have on Blue Line. In the age of google, no person can claim ignorance when making these statements, simply laziness. Indeed, it's rather...interesting for people to profess that if they don't know about an accident then they must not be occurring.
Most people around here were claiming the Blue Line was safe, until we started digging up the information and found that it had an accident rate nearly 3 times the national average is approaching 100 deaths and has been involved in over 840 reported accidents to date.
Jess said:
Yes, a person in a car can make a mistake and hit the blue line.....but what of the hundreds of buses driving around in mixed traffic? They can hold 80 people at a time. Again, no gates, no flashing lights, no automatic signaling system, nothing. Just a large vehicle moving among thousands of untrained drivers with a human driver. Why do we demand so much money be spent to make light rail safe....and we shrug off buses?
It seems that your statement is two pronged:
-We don't care about bus safety
-Buses are worse than rail so we shouldn't care about rail safety
Would you like to attempt to substantiate either of these points?
Incidentally, Browne and Randall at the Bus Bench have done more to highlight the reckless behavior of bus drivers than all of the transit advocacy organizations have in the 4 years I've been involved in this issue combined.
Again, just because you don't know about these efforts don't mean they're not going on.
Second, to what degree must me completely alter our landscape to make buses (or cars for that matter) as safe as grade separated light rail?
It's not analogous. And the argument that our level of acceptance for the hazard of light rail should be greater because something which is comparatively completely infeasible (grade separating every bus line in the corridor/city) is simply ridiculous. We've got 22,000 miles of surface road in LA County alone! That sure as heck ain't the same as a 100 mile rail system.
And I don't see anyone suggesting we built at-grade freeways. Incidentally, the reason we spent lots of money building 527 miles of these ~150-300 foot wide freeways (again that 527 miles is in LA County alone) were the same reasons we're SUPPOSED to be building light rail: long distance commuter trips and speed!
No cost only becomes a factor when we're talking about grade separation. If cost truly were a factor we wouldn't be building rail at all - we'd be building busways. But busways in LA have many of the same impediments as light rail (although unlike light rail they can lessen some impacts). I'm one of those rarely consistent people Jess. I don't start saying it's worth it to build a rail line, but start changing my tune when it comes to actually funding it adequately to fulfilling it's publicly stated purpose. (To say nothing of the people who support the rail projects when they're $500 million and stand by them when they balloon to $2.4-2.9 billion.)
Second, FTA stats show that buses are half as accident prone as light rail. This is really not hard to understand. Buses (and cars by the way) have shorter breaking distances and steering wheels. They can avert accidents more easily. If a person trips on the street 50 feet in front of a bus and the bus driver can swirve to avoid her or brake more quickly. A train operator is helpless.
We have within our group past MTA light rail operators, and current freight operators. You know what MTA's solution to light rail operators experiencing the trauma of accidents is (and yes it's only the truly callous crazies who sometimes populate these board who would dare suggest that an operator wouldn't undergo some trauma by being so helpless in preventing the loss of another person's life, which often involves being the last person the operator sees and hearing their bones crush under you)? Hit the red mushroom (emergency brake) and close your eyes.
I wish I could make these things up.
The horror stories that the people can tell.
Bottom line, at 225-ton these trains weigh as much as three Abrahms tanks. They're by far the most individually lethal objects on the road, so even if we tossed all of the stats out of the window, of course our safety standards should be higher, especially given our capacity to totally eliminate the risk.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
jass
And here we have our nations most popular light rail line. This line gets almost as many riders as the entire light and heavy rail system in Los Angeles.
Bikes, pedestrians, cars and trains coexist peacefully. The only safety feature is a painted crosswalk. There have been no calls for improvements in safety. Money can, and is better spent elsewhere.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=02215&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.41771,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts+02215&ll=42.351708,-71.121465&spn=0.001055,0.003433&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.351689,-71.121314&panoid=KQi6jlSgNH9_ev14j2EZ2A&cbp=12,307.09,,0,15.48
Heres another station
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=02215&sll=42.35169,-71.121315&sspn=0.001055,0.003433&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts+02215&ll=42.348895,-71.134388&spn=0.001096,0.003433&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=42.348845,-71.134489&panoid=SDG5tE-TnmbdVsFZ2fSsZw&cbp=12,95.23,,0,12.52
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
jass
Browne, you bring up metrolink, which is a good point, but we're talking about light rail.
Commuter rail can carry up to 1,000 people at a time, moves at high speeds, and cannot stop quickly.
The gold line is light rail. It moves at an average of 13mph and holds the same as two buses. A light rail vehicle can stop almost as quickly as a bus.
Yes, we should put money into making the nations commuter and intercity rail safe, because as you said, an accident there WILL result in deaths, and many.
But LRT crashing into a car will NOT cause deaths. The train is moving at 13mph.
A bus accident is much more likely to cause deaths. A big train (LRT or commuter) will ALWAYS win. A bus however, may not. If a truck crashes into a bus.....
So once again, my argument is this: the safety features of this line are ridiculous and a waste of money. The fact that people are calling for MORE safety improvements just blows my mind. Light rail can be safe with the same technology that we use to keep buses safe: stoplights.
No fences are needed. No flashing lights are needed.
Again, compare the picture in this article with all the signs, gates and flashing lights, with this:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.356878,-72.094949&spn=0,359.996567&t=k&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.356944,-72.09505&panoid=sr5Q31J3x6AgSfVtA4wA9g&cbp=12,91.19,,0,9.43
This is a grade crossing for the northeast region and acela trains. (you can even see the amtrak train!) One flashing light. One little gate. Our nations premiere high speed train is ok with that, but a light rail line needs more!?
It will take a very long time for the concept of shared streets to reach los angeles as long as people insist in such ridiculous levels of separation.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Goodmon
Okay read the posts, couple of things...
First, as a person leading a group on the Eastside mentioned to me quite some time ago, if one did this trek before the line began construction to see how it has changed things there perspective might be a bit different. I doubt many would say that several things weren't done that have made things worse. Is the bad better than the good - that's questionable. But unless you know about how the parking was removed and not replaced (and how that's hurt several of the small businesses), the sidewalks were narrowed, streets were closed, your perspective is quite different.
In general people need to understand a major rule about all rail development, in particular light rail development: the benefit is around the stations, the burden can often be in between.
If you're a small business owner on the alignment over 1/4 mile from a station and all you get is a 225-ton train rumbling down the middle of your street, with it's 85-97 dB horns/gong every 2.5-3.5 mins, you've had your street-facing parking removed (which regardless of what people here think IS HUGELY IMPORTANT) and your sidewalk cut (no al fresco dining for you), where is the benefit? The harm when you're a resident on the corridor is even worse.
LAofAnaheim said:
The subway will hit more destinations than any other line (Grove, Century City, UCLA, Santa Monica pier, Beverly Hills Rodeo Drive, and the significant amount of commercial bldg's in LA), that warrants a subway. The two projects are mutually exclusive.
The original Eastside extension was not supposed to be "mutually exclusive" at all. It was supposed to be the eastern extension of the Red Line subway - 100% underground. And this wasn't just conceptual, like the Silver Line is conceptual. MTA had inked a full funding grant agreement with the FTA (the final stage in New Starts application process) to build it!
What killed the subway extension and led to this currently slow, unsafe line: Zev's law banning local sales tax going to subways. It prevented MTA and the State from providing the required local match to the federal dollars.
Want to know the most abhorrent part about Zev's law: the sales tax ban did not apply to the final built leg of the Red Line extension from Hollywood into North Hollywood, which is in Zev's district. He specifically put language in the measure so he could get his, but to prevent the Eastside from getting there's.
No environmental racism in that sir, nothing to see here, keep it moving...
Re: Density along Eastside
Let me just be frank and say anyone who claims that the original subway route couldn't/wouldn't have had the ridership to support an HRT subway line has no idea what the heck they're talking about. The densest population census tracks in LA (with the exception of the area around Koreatown) are found in MacArthur Park and along the Eastside-Whittier corridor. The transit dependency and ridership in the area is off the charts and many of the riders are heading to locations along the Wilshire corridor to the west.
Re: Subways leading to gentrification
I really think the people who claim the Red Line gentrified Hollywood, haven't gotten off any of the stops between Hollywood/Vine and Wilshire/Vermont, or MacArthur Park station. If you did you'd see how hallow the argument is.
Sometimes people, in particular rail fans, really exaggerate the degree to which the transportation enhancement leads to change. It's never as simple as laying tracks, and then the mixed use with the Starbucks and Sushi grows out of the ground.
To the point, the demographics around Westlake/MacArthur Park, East Hollywood, Vermont/Santa Monica, Vermont/Beverly have remained unchanged. Hollywood, being the international symbol of our city it wasn't going to remain a haven for prostitutes and drug dealers for long. The subway helped what was already desired and started years before construction started. (Just like the Pasadena Gold Line helped what already was started in Pasadena.)
The CRA Hollywood project area was founded in 1986 and amended in '94. The Hollywood Business Improvement District was founded in '96.
Again, don't get me wrong, the subway has drastically helped. But it was one component of a myriad of resources (both capital and human) that focused on a desired goal of gentrification and a drastic increase in density. Communities that don't want that can modify the focus and use the resources and rail to lead to other more moderate goals that don't drastically compromise a community's integrity or cultural make-up.
RE: Pasadena Gold Line safety record
We've posted numerous posts from internationally renowned experts in rail safety about how they're two completely different systems. This is the most prominent one, filled with visual aides: Meshkati Explains why Expo = Blue Line not the Pasadena Gold Line
The bottom line is PGL has just 3/4 mile of street running, is on an abandoned right of way with loads of grade separation, crossing streets with less traffic, and serving areas at-grade with less people, while comparatively Expo Phase 1 and the Eastside Extension have significant portions of street-running in the middle of congested corridors. And even the PGL's street running section in Highland Park, which Browne references, isn't really traditional street running. Trains speeds in that section are reduced to 20 mph and parallel traffic stops completely when it crosses, and the street is totally residential (nothing like 1st/3rd on Eastside or Expo/Flower on Expo). The most interesting and telling stat is that despite the slower speeds and all stop, comparatively non-existent traffic, Highland Park, it is that small 3/4 mile section where a near majority of the PGL accidents occur.
It'll be interesting now to see the spike in accidents that will occur on the "Gold Line" (since Pasadena and Eastside will now be tabulated as one), once the "Ambassadors" are taken off. It will take away the talking point from Clarke/MTA.
They both know the systems are different, Clarke has admitted as much public, but they both use it as a "look over there" rhetroical tactic. Then again 2 years ago Clarke was telling me and others that there were gates at all crossings - a major fabrication, so no one should be surprised.
RE: Expo at USC
First, the original Expo Line alignment did have an at-grade crossing at Figueroa (an at-grade crossings in Culver City too). The new alignment, which is being built, could have still crossed at-grade there, it just would have resulted in significant delays to the train and worsened vehicular congestion (something that MTA doesn't apparently have a problem with at other crossings along the Expo - like Crenshaw, Vermont, Western and Adams - which speaks to their double standard).
Second, the major Expo Line crossing for USC is Figueroa - anyone can go there and see that. With the major dorms and parking structure Figueroa throughout the day has as many USC students crossing it as Western has Foshay students. You will rarely if ever see (save game day) a USC student crossing between Trousdale and Vermont. In fact, the only reason you'd see them cross Trousdale regularly in the past (parking) has now been eliminated.
Having said all that, I do think there are safety issues with the street level section between Trousdale and Vermont. But those points needed to be made.
RE: Expo-Santa Monica and the false statement that "at-grade creates a better pedestrian environment"
The general statement that "at-grade creates a better pedestrian environment" is fiction, especially in the case of the Expo Colorado plan and the Eastside extension.
As evidence one only need to visit the Washington Blvd corridor of the Blue Line in Los Angeles and in Long Beach compare the Long Beach Blvd portion to the Pine Street portion. Or heck, just reference this report and compare Mariachi to the other stations.
Are people really saying that with an underground Little Tokyo station and a large pedestrian plaza/park above it wouldn't have been a better pedestrian enhancement?!
It's hogwash, plain and simple. Darrell likes to quote that portion of the study, but he neglects to ever mention that the driving stated factor in the Colorado plan was that the alternative was an elevated structure parallel to the I-10 freeway (a ridiculous statement by the way for anyone who knows the area in question), and the driving unstated factor was a desire to kick out the businesses and change the land use on Colorado.
As occurred on the Eastside Extension, and pretty much anywhere it's built, at-grade construction in the middle of a narrow street without a right-of-way will harm if not kill many the businesses along Colorado. This is what the Council and Planning Department desires. As a former City of Santa Monica Planning Commissioner, Darrell Clarke is well aware of these discussions and the LUCE.
But in case anyone is on the fence about whether the "more pedestrian friendly" stated reason holds any water you need only look at the Expo Colorado plan and ask just what about it makes it more pedestrian friendly?
Here's the plain:
-The elimination of several vehicular and pedestrian crossings and nearly all left turns (how many pedestrian oriented design principles does that violate)
-The elimination of substantial number of parking spaces (a pedestrian safety buffer and important to retail commerce)
-No additional stations in the section in question (no increased transit access)
-A reduction in sidewalk width (again the exact opposite of pedestrian oriented design principles)
I'll have more on this claptrap about "at-grade being better for pedestrian environments" later. Just as with the Pasadena Gold Line vs. Eastside Extension/Expo Phase 1 comparisons, Clarke is totally using points that are more applicable to street cars (like the Broadway plan) than the regional rapid transit light rail lines that we're building.
Overall perceptions
Additionally, as a general rule, I find it amusing how strong people can passionately advocate for a subway in some locations, but do more back-flips, twists and turns than a Russian gymnastics squad to justify at-grade along eastside extension or other places in the system. It really stands out, and its not just because I'm very observant when it comes to word selection and method of argument (have to be if you're going to work in politics) and a person of color. I'm just sayin...
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Darrell
Browne,
Thanks for the $20 ;-).
Seriously, first, Shawn is correct, my point was the year of opening: Pasadena Gold Line 2003, Long Beach Blue Line 1990. Highland Park is on the Pasadena Gold Line and is part of its excellent safety record.
Second, the images on the Friends 4 Expo website listed their sources. If you don't believe me and would prefer direct links, here they are:
Expo Authority's simulation image of the Trousdale at-grade crossing in front of USC. Or follow LAofAnaheim's suggestion to look at the construction there. There's an underpass below Flower and Figueroa that comes up to grade at Trousdale. USC asked for it to continue below ground past Vermont, but declined to offer the extra $100 million to build it that way, so it wasn't.
The Expo Authority's simulation image of the Phase 2 Colorado median in Santa Monica is Figure 3.3-23, page 47 of the Draft EIR Chapter 3-Section 3. And here's Expo Authority's decision choosing the Colorado route. I already gave the direct link for the Santa Monica City Council staff report citation.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
calwatch
And if you think that SCAG isn't doing a good job (or even if you are), you can always tattle to the Feds... the once every-four-year opportunity is coming up on December 2.
http://www.scag.ca.gov/cgi/Calendar/eventInfo.cfm?ID=3362&CurntDate=12/14/2009
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem
Damien Goodmon
Good post, sorry I couldn't make the ride. Perhaps some of the comments have done it so far, and I don't intend for this to be my last comment on this thread, but let me start with the pedestrian timing issue:
When you reduce lanes and close vehicular (and pedestrian) crossings on a street and provide more priority for through traffic to accommodate the train signal prioritization (which can hold a green and bring up a green up to 10% longer/sooner) - that time has to be taken from somewhere.
There is no "robbing Peter to pay Paul," so to speak. So what you very likely saw (and I really do need to go to the Eastside more frequently to be more definitive) is the cuts have been made to the cross street and pedestrian signal time. Incidentally, standard cross walk time is 4 feet per second.
So you will see the classic LADOT-MTA battle, where LADOT (should they care, and it's not clear they do, especially since we're talking about impact to pedestrians and not both pedestrians and vehicles as I understand your point) will require reduced signal priority for the trains and more for pedestrian movements.
Incidentally this issue, prioritization, taking away time from cross traffic is the reason why Long Beach's transportation department either fought Blue Line signal priority from being implemented or had it removed after it had been implemented. (I need to check, but I believe it was removed.)
Good you caught the blind corner at Temple. The Venice/Flower intersection has the same problem, and at nearly 50 incidents (mostly train-vehicular) it is the most accident prone intersection on the entire Blue Line.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
LAofAnaheim
Browne: "And I have heard much differently in regards to USC it's not going at grade by USC. If it goes at-grade at USC I will mail you twenty dollars. I read that it was going underground at USC, which is outrageous considering how Metro doesn't want to spend any money a few blocks south. It's not outrageous that it's going underground outrageous that Metro thinks it can get away with spending all of that money on one group of rich people's kids and no money on people who are middle class and working class kids."
How have you heard differently about the Expo Line being underground at USC? It's going at-grade on Exposition blvd between Trousdale and Vermont. The proof is literally at the construction site on Exposition blvd. And, if you are talking about the tunnel from Flower to Exposition (under Figueroa), that got grade seperated due to the significant number of vehicles accessing the 110 freeway and the football games. You can't have at-grade trains running there.
Your continued stance against the Blue Line is getting tiresome. The Blue Line was built in 1985 albeit without the Grade Seperation Policy adopted much later. I agree with you that something has to done about the Blue Line, especially the Washington blvd and Long Beach city segments. It's what we got today, and still the amount of accidents probably averages 3 or 4 a year. Compared to probably 3 or 4 A DAY via car in southern California.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Jessica
also - once the study is finished in December it will be posted online - I'll post the link on the bikepedSCAG twitter once it is
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem
Jessica
DJB - thanks for coming too!
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem
Jessica
Everyone raises some interesting and completely valid points.
I was the SCAG lead on this study that was done for $125K. I think it was a great step in talking about getting people out of their cars. Something our transportation decisionmakers definitely need more presentations and venues that this is the key topic for the meeting.
I was excited in the morning when the study - that's looking at first and last mile barriers to transit - was presented to the first joint meeting of the City of LA planning and transportation commissions. It was incredibly valuable to have these two commission discussing ideas such as walking bicycling, parking and pricing and more.
Josef - you're completely right on about the safety element - it's actually 30% of all traffic fatalities in the state of CA are bicyclists and pedestrians - unacceptable.
I'd be happy to talk more about this or discuss ways it could be done better. I am working on bicycle and pedestrian regional planning at SCAG and would welcome any and all advice/input/criticism. you can reach me at meaney(at)scag.ca.gov
I've been living car free in LA since 1997 and am committed to pursuing ways to rethinking the overpowering role we give to the car in our neighborhoods/streets/communities in So Cal - there is much to discuss and critique. All the more reason to for increasing citizen involvement in public decisionmaking.
btw - metro is doing a foldable bike study to see potential ways bike might be subized for those interested in purchasing. Various vendors have lent Metro bikes to ride for a limited time to see how they work. NYC MTA sells a foldable bike for $299 right off their website. At this point - so early in the study - who knows what policy reccomendations will happen but I think it's important to be looking at all the various ways and strategies to make provide ways for people to get out of their cars. It's def valuable to hear people ideas on it - let me know if you want to discuss with me more.
Perhaps we all need to rally around making a ciclavia happening? quit studying and get to walking and bicycling? I do think it is contagious - once you are able to see the alternatives to driving and how it impacts your community and life - it's pretty infectious (with the right land use and transportation elements to help support it). No doubt something we need to be dicussing a lot more of - whenever we can.
Glad to see all the comments and the post.
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem
DJB
Browne,
I think how we measure deaths matters a lot. Numbers can lie. E.g. if we're talking about total number of deaths since opening day, that can be misleading because some light rail lines have been open longer than others. So, if we don't understand how to measure safety, we can't design good public policies. For reasons I have discussed in previous posts (on previous days) I think deaths per passenger mile makes the most sense.
One thing to think about is that people move between neighborhoods. Lots of people in east LA commute to jobs in west LA. I also think it's important to try and get white middle class people out of their cars. Part of the reason I think this is because I'm an environmentalist, but another part of the reason is because I don't think we'll be able to build a movement for much better transit, until transit becomes much more mainstream.
What we have now is people who voted for Measure R probably in large part because they think it'll help them drive faster. I think you'll start to see serious investment in transit when the middle class starts seeing it as a viable option. The fates of the transit interdependent carless and the "choice riders" are intertwined.
BTW, I'm not trying to snipe at you, and I appreciate the fact that you care about this stuff probably 10 times as much as the average person in LA.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
browne
DJB I'll say this in regards to the Blue Line, when it gets out of the top five deadly spots I'll think about only bringing it up every three comments. Currently it's still number one in killing people. Once it gets out of the number one spot then lets talk about other ways of measuring safety, right now when you are number one that pretty much says it all that something is wrong. This is LA not Jackson, Mississippi, it makes no sense at all that LA would be number one in regards of a deadly light rail.
And again if we want to spend less money, then lets spend the less money equally. Ok maybe the Westside has more jobs, but the Eastside has more people on the streets and taking the bus, so it all depends on what perspective you want to use in regards to where the money should be spent. It just seems unfortunate that the same perspective is viewed as the right perspective over and over again. And since online and in the media its more of you than there are of everyone else, well you know who comes off looking unreasonable and who comes off looking reasonable even if the vast majority of the demographic who take public transit aren't even represented online or in the print media. The person who wrote about transit for the LA Times couldn't even bother to take the Gold Line into work, so what perspective do you think gets presented in regards to transit?
This future of walking around drinking soy lattes and riding your bike living in overpriced apartments instead of the reality of the person who lives in a modest place a little farther away from the jobs and the museums and the vegan pastry shop. We always seem to build on what we want the people from the suburbs to do rather than what people who are taking public transit right now need to have. And I'm not saying that future perspective shouldn't be taken into account, but there are times like with the Eastside Extension that the current situation should have been looked at and considered as just as valuable as the potential of what might be on the West of La Cienaga.
Think about what the Eastside could have been had it been viewed as a model rather than as a place to plow through on the way to a "better" neighborhood. Think would could have been done.
If any community deserved a nice public transit design that section of LA deserved it more than any other section. The Latino demographic of LA on the Eastside (and parts of the Westside known as the Metro section of LA) has been at the forefront of livable streets movement: cycling, growing their own food, walking on the streets, using the parks, diy, using public transit, recycling, and car sharing. In my opinion of all of the demographics in LA that deserved to have a subway, a nice design, a safe design the Eastside deserved that. Metro should be ashamed. Anyone who was part of this should be ashamed. We talk about sustainability but it only seems to count if it monolingual English speaking, white, heterosexual and upper middle class.
Yes sometimes you need to take cost into account by why choose to skimp in that neighborhood, why not skimp in a place where you know people are just going to drive anyway. People walk the streets in that neighborhood, people drive around, that neighborhood is alive with little businesses all over the place. Build cheap in the neighorhoods where everyone parks inside big parking complexes and won't just occassionally stop to buy something from a vendor who is wakling up the street, that doesn't happen on the Westside, but it happens all of the time on the Eastside. When I walk around the Eastside people who know me in their cars wills top and honk, I never see that happening on the Westside. I don't see people stopping their cars in the middle of the street to have a conversation and to me it just points to a connection that the people have to their community to their streets, yes there are alot of cars, but there are alot of pedestrians and cyclists too. Everyone works together the MGLEE did not seem to make an effort to organically flow with the neighborhood.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Shawn
Darrel I'm obviously talking about the Goldline, I just typed South Pasadena Goldline, but you caught me, whatever you win then, all of the points I made are false because I typed South Pasadena instead of the Goldline.
Please. It's not the name that he took issue with, it's that you claimed that the gold line has been open for 20 years, when it's only been open for 6.
Also, as much as I prefer grade separation some places do prefer street running. Santa Monica insisted that trains run at grade. If the eastside is being shortchanged it's by having a light rail line run a mile away from the destinations on Whittier ("#1 The route was well chosen"- lol) to save money from having the entire line underground.
As for Metro contractors working at the stations...that's intentional. They wanted to complete the station finishes close to the opening so that it looks new.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
DJB
@SoapBox
LOL. Yeah, well luckily it's not literally true that there are no good places to ride a bike in LA, just not nearly as many as there should be.
I just looked up Metro's bike map (http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/bikes/images/la_bike_map.pdf) and it looks like you're in luck if you live in Silver Lake, along the Orange Line or near Venice Blvd.
Good luck in most other parts of the city.
in response to SCAG and City of Los Angeles Thinking About Solutions to the Last Mile Problem
DJB
Just another thought:
Which framing is likely to get the kind of political support for more transit funding which could do things like grade separations?
Framing A: Transit is a baby-killing pestilence inflicted on low-income communities of color out of institutional racism. So, raise your taxes to make transit better.
Framing B: Transit is a community asset which can reduce pollution and traffic, save people money, and create social spaces in an increasingly isolated society. So, raise your taxes to make transit better.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
DJB
I'd be very happy if every future disparaging reference to the Blue Line's safety record had a citation and a thoughtful analysis of how rail safety should be properly measured (i.e. deaths per passenger mile of travel). I still don't have a good answer to the question about which mode of transportation is safer, driving or light rail. If light rail is safer, then the proper framing is East LA is getting less of a safety upgrade than _ instead of East LA is getting more of a safety threat than _.
The analysis of specific intersections is a good approach because it allows for cutting through the generalizations about safety.
I'm sympathetic to the Wilshire subway extension. Wilshire has density, particularly job density, that East LA doesn't have. I also think it's interesting that the best parts of LA's transit system, i.e. the current subway, go through poorer than average neighborhoods like Westlake, K-town, Hollywood, parts of downtown that are walking distance from Skid Row, etc. The poverty data are in American Fact Finder for you to confirm for yourself.
I'd like to see subways everywhere, IF the neighborhoods are willing to take on the density they should to support a subway. It just comes down to scarce resources. There's only so much money taxpayers are willing to fork over, and you can't do everything. Environmental racism is real, but that doesn't mean everything is an example of it.
At any rate, the real opportunity to substantially affect the design of the Gold Line passed years ago. The current potential for dramatic change is in stuff like Expo Phase II and Crenshaw. But even those are subject to the basic fact that money doesn't grow on trees.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Browne
"Why do we demand so much money be spent to make light rail safe....and we shrug off buses? A bus moving at 50mph is separated from other traffic by a skinny painted line. Yet there are very few accidents." Jass
The same reason we demand safety from planes. There are certain modes of transit that are more deadly than others if an accident occurs. The reason why people are so adamant in regards to rail safety is because when a train hits a car people die. If a plane crashes people die. A bus hits a car people have back problems and call an ambulance chaser, yes sometimes it's more extreme, but in general fender benders among autos or even busses and autos don't kill people and permanently maim people.
Remember the horrible tragedy of the Metrolink, two actually. Rail safety is important because it has the potential of killing and maiming more people than a bus or a car, yes chances of you having an accident are less in a rail or a plane, but if you do have an accident it can easily be hundreds of times worse.
When it rains I have actually gotten on the bus in LA when I've had to take the Blue Line owing to just law of averages. I also try to sit near the middle or back of the train, and I shouldn't have to be even be thinking on that level in the US.
If enough people die with your train you start to lose money which is why the people who run the trains got this act passed:Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, which caps damages at $200 million. You don't get the gov't to pass an act like that if you only cause a few back problems.
That act was passed so they could keep the cost down in regards to safety mechanisms, without that law it would be cheaper to make train safer than to let people die and have "personal responsibility."
I guess personal responsibility only comes into account for people who ride the trains and busses not that companies who build and design them.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Browne
Darrel I'm obviously talking about the Goldline, I just typed South Pasadena Goldline, but you caught me, whatever you win then, all of the points I made are false because I typed South Pasadena instead of the Goldline.
But lets talk about South Pasadena and how safe it is: Why isn't Highland Park or the Blue Line through South LA and Compton safe? And I don't want to hear any comments about the stereotypes of the neighborhoods, because I walk through those neighborhoods all of the time with a digital camera and a lap top and I ask people questions and it's perfectly fine. And people don't drive more crazy, because all of those locations are crawling with cops who are waiting to bust people who are going to work.
How does that work that an agency such as Metro can create the South Pasadena/Pasadena at-grade with proper safety mechanisms yet fail to be able to recreate that anywhere else? How can Metro that creates the death trap of the Blue Line manage to figure out how to not do that in South Pasadena and Pasadena? How does that happen and how can some people not even be able to entertain the idea that maybe possibly more money is spent on neighborhoods that have more money or are the homes to Metro's CEO (Snoble lived in South Pasadena.)
And Darrel when I say a source, I mean a source that isn't your website. You are with Friends for Expo (your name is linked to that website.) If I write something and say it's true I can't prove it linking back to me. And I have heard much differently in regards to USC it's not going at grade by USC. If it goes at-grade at USC I will mail you twenty dollars. I read that it was going underground at USC, which is outrageous considering how Metro doesn't want to spend any money a few blocks south. It's not outrageous that it's going underground outrageous that Metro thinks it can get away with spending all of that money on one group of rich people's kids and no money on people who are middle class and working class kids.
And Ubrayj that rail for the visually impaired, it's just wow, I mean the physical markers that need to be there just aren't there. At the Little Tokyo Station just crossing the street I would feel very uncomfortable if I was visually impaired at that station.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
ubrayj02
It is not "babying" to make a street safer! The Indiana station may be a cinch for able-bodied adults, but if you're disabled, blind, old, young, or not at the top of your game - do you deserve to die because a bunch of paper pushers and rail fans couldn't swallow their pride and do the right thing?
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Darrell
Guess not. See Friends 4 Expo for more Expo Line and other light rail images.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Darrell
Will this thing embed images?
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Darrell
Browne,
The Pasadena Gold Line opened in 2003, not 1990, and has had an excellent safety record.
Phoenix and Seattle opened light rail lines within the last year that have median tracks and similar safety features to the Eastside Gold Line. Others like this opened in the last few years include Portland, San Francisco, Houston, and Minneapolis.
You asked for links, here they are for the Expo Line passing USC at grade and planned in the median of Colorado in Santa Monica.
The City of Santa Monica requested the latter, noting "On-grade light rail corridors provide greater opportunities over time for retail businesses, enhanced pedestrian environments and walkable connections to the neighborhoods."
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Wad
Calwatch wrote:
(Incidentally, one of the biggest problems with most condo development is the fact that the walls are too thin.)
This is going to be one of the more lingering "radioactive" side effects of the housing bubble.
Because so much capital was tied up in real estate speculation, so many projects of inferior workmanship came online. Generally, anything built within the last 15 years will have this problem.
The other big problem is the condos themselves. We made this same mistake in the first condo mania of the 1980s and didn't learn from it.
Condos make the most sense in areas where land is extremely scarce and demand is extremely high. Condos make a lot of sense in Honolulu and Miami Beach, for obvious reasons. Few areas in this country have this problem. In Southern California, you have an abundance of both single-family and rental housing to compete with the stock.
The premiums were, and still are, egregious.
The condos may pay off in the future, but they are going to be a drag on the economy at least for one generation.
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?
calwatch
And? While Metro is trying (Molina doesn't think they are trying hard enough, although some of the measures that she wants, like four-quadrant gates at street crossings in the unincorporated area, would result in a jumble of signals and actually make streets less safe), they can never meet the needs of everyone. What you are asking for is socialism, and that will never fly in the United States. Nor should it... we should look for equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Based on specified metrics and models, some areas get some kinds of rail more than others. Your view of equality would ensure that wasteful, sprawl inducing projects like the Gold Line to Ontario Airport would get built. After all, there are millions of San Gabriel Valley residents who pay sales taxes too, and likely much more than the working class residents of Boyle Heights and East LA pay.
If the Red Line extension were to be built, it would have run out of money at Chavez and Soto. Even IF the federal government would pay for the extension of the Red Line to the ultimate terminus of Whittier and Atlantic, the route of the Red Line down Whittier Boulevard would have likely put many of the small businesses along the street out of business, and fundamentally gentrified the street, like Hollywood Boulevard. (I have no problem with gentrification myself - it is a consequence of the free market - but some people do, which is why I bring it up.)
I can assure you that the citizen education for this project was many times more effective than that for the Blue Line or the 2003 Pasadena Gold Line opening. Is it perfect? No, but it is better than the alternative, painting away parking for bus lanes. Without the Gold Line, East LA would not get ANY rail, and small business owners would likely object to bus lanes, claiming that it will take away their auto-oriented business. So I'll be happy to ride the Gold Line, and look forward to it being extended further.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
browne
We can play this game that Eastside is treated the same, was treated the same, but all we have to do is look right now at how the rail is built in this city and we can see what has happened and what is going to happen.
Look at South Pasadena built in 1990 and look at the Eastside, you would think that within almost twenty years that there would have been some improvements in regards to safety.
If you look at cars from 1990 and cars now you see upgrades. On this line there is virtually no upgrades from the Goldline or the Blueline. What organization goes well we have a track record of being the most deadly LRT in the country, we built a train that was number one in killing people (still is.) Who looks at that and decides to replicate that? Who thinks:
"Lets do that and make it even more unsafe on the Eastside."
If anyone thinks that anything like this will be on the Westside or even being proposed as a possibility on the Westside I would like to see some links, to anything west of Labrea looking like this and if you do I will bet you that people will stop it by any means necessary and they should and they should be supported in that.
We can go round and round on this blog, but the proof is look at what the plans are for the Westside and look at that piece of shit that built on the Eastside. I'm not as generous as Newton. I like the route. I like the art. I hate the safety mechanisms that are in place, I mean old men telling you to be safe? What the is that? It was thrown together by people who don't walk around the city.
The Gold Line is pretty and they are having alot of parties and that's great, but when your significant other just randomly brings you flowers and candies after forgetting your anniversary for the past twenty years I want to know what's the flowers are really for.
Hell lets look at the freeways, look how the freeways are cut across the Eastside and look at the Westside, you think the kind of mindset that created that is gone? I don't think so, all you have to do is read the comments on the blogosphere. No one says crap about Santa Monica or the Westside demanding for safety, no one says crap (on this blog) about cyclist and their rights in regards to having a safe place to ride and store their bikes, but let someone from the Eastside or South LA say something and then we have all of this personal responsibility line being thrown all of over the place and how everyone is treated the same.
People are not treated the same. Are cyclist treated the same as car drivers? No they are not and the Eastside is not treated the same as the Westside for very similar reasons. I don't get how people can see how the streets can be unfair for cyclists, unsafe for cyclist, that cyclists need a bill of rights yet be completely oblivious to the plight of anyone else, that to me is just an amazing skill. I can totally see the cyclists point of view I don't get how that person in general can't see the point of view of the pedestrian or the bus rider or anyone else on the planet.
It's real obvious that in LA everyone is not treated the same.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
LAofAnaheim
Browne...the westside is being treated the same as the eastside...look at the Exposition line Phase II. There's at-grade crossings at Overland, Westwood, Lincoln, etc... And, your comparison as to there will be nothing accepted near USC like the Gold Line eastside extension....are you totally forgetting about Expo at-grade in front of USC and crossing Vermont at-grade?
As far as the "subway to the sea"'s preferrential treatment...the expected ridership expolosion is significant enough to warrant a subway down Wilshire. The Eastside extension may get 20,000 a day...but the Westside subway will get 100,000 plus riders (look at the existing Red Line to validate). The subway will hit more destinations than any other line (Grove, Century City, UCLA, Santa Monica pier, Beverly Hills Rodeo Drive, and the significant amount of commercial bldg's in LA), that warrants a subway. The two projects are mutually exclusive.
Heck..go to Boston, they have the Green Line light rail and Red Line subway. A city can have both for different purposes. Don't make this another East v. West arguement. The general notion of Angelenos is to go to destinations in points west of downtown LA, and not east.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
jass
browne, I dont own a car. Yes, a person in a car can make a mistake and hit the blue line.....but what of the hundreds of buses driving around in mixed traffic? They can hold 80 people at a time. Again, no gates, no flashing lights, no automatic signaling system, nothing. Just a large vehicle moving among thousands of untrained drivers with a human driver. Why do we demand so much money be spent to make light rail safe....and we shrug off buses? A bus moving at 50mph is separated from other traffic by a skinny painted line. Yet there are very few accidents.
There WILL be an accident of some kind on this rail line within the next 6 months. Its unavoidable. There will be calls for more signs, more lights more money spent.
But it's not worth it. I want to see a cost-benefit analysis of these safety measures. If a $50 sign reduces collision by 10%, then absolutely, install the sign. But each addition sign and light, which do not decrease in cost, will increase safety by an even smaller amount each time. Diminishing returns are obvious, and the question is, where should the line be drawn?
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Damien Newton
jass - We didn't really have any issues with the cycling. The road was good, the drivers treated us well, and the stations were easy to roll up to. That being said, I was going to link to The Source article on the bike amenities from Wednesday but I couldn't get the page to load. Dave Sotero who is Metro staff and an avid, avid cyclist does a great write-up that you can read here.
http://thesource.metro.net/2009/11/11/welcome-aboard-but-park-your-bike-first/
Wad and Cal - Point taken. I'll make sure to get in touch with Molina's office as well as LADOT next week.
On the general "nanny state" complaints - Look, I'm a huge supporter of Light Rail, but there is the reality that L.A. Metro area doesn't have the best record. I know the line has gotten CPUC approval, but obviously someone agrees with us that there's still some work to do to the tune of $4.5 million. The specifics at Little Tokyo actually weren't noticed by me but one of the members. Indiana, well that one just needs some work. Although I think the issue is the streets need to be better, not just station improvements.
Also, when you have a group of people going out to look at the safety of something I think its natural that there's some nitpicking.
All in all, I think the line is going to be a great, great thing for East L.A. If I had to grade it, it would get a B plus or A minus. That being said, there is some small room for improvement. Fix Little Tokyo (and they're going to) and Indiana and I'm willing to score them up a little.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
calwatch
The point is, however, that they are using less energy THAN IF THEY WERE LIVING IN TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT. In other words, if a family chose to live in the center city, versus living in Moreno Valley and commuting work in Orange County, they would save a ton of energy, from less driving. This is despite the fact that city dwelling eats up some of the energy savings because of trucking of goods into the city - it's more efficient for large goods to be carried by truck or train than for individuals to drive 2 miles for a gallon of milk. Even crappy "smart growth" suburban subdivisions like the Chino "Preserve" fail to save much energy because while you can walk around (the neighborhoods are extremely nice), you either have to drive to the nearest grocery store, or walk past the Women's Prison to get food.
If Southern California is going to generate 6 million more people in the next 25 years, they have to live somewhere. They can either live in the Antelope Valley or Riverside County; double and triple up into single family homes and apartments like in Pico-Union and Santa Ana; or live in modern yet dense housing.
(Incidentally, one of the biggest problems with most condo development is the fact that the walls are too thin.)
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?
calwatch
Please make sure, however, that when you are complaining about anything east of Indiana Avenue, that you complain to the right person - Supervisor Gloria Molina. Everything east of the centerline of Indiana Avenue (save Ramona Opportunity High School) is within the unincorporated County area.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
browne
I think about the Blue Line on rainy days. One person can make a mistake and humans do make mistakes and that one mistake because of the way that line is designed can kill hundreds of people. Not because people aren't paying attention, but because the design is faulty. LA has some of the highest fatalities rates in regards to public transit and it's not because people walk out in front of the train.
The Gold Line Eastside Extension is way too much about no one ever making a mistake that's the problem with it.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
jass
Im looking at the pedestrian crossing picture again, and it really is overkill, even for the Acela. It really does seem like a nanny state satire image.
Thats right, the acela has pedestrian crossing with less "features" than that crosswalk.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
browne
And I walk alot and I take public transit. In LA only 2.6% of people walk, but we're 26.7 percent of the people who die (they call us pedestrians, but that's just PC for public transit riders,) so I know while many of you who have access to cars at night and are car light instead of carFREE don't really view this as a big deal the safety mechanisms on this rail are a big deal to me, because I feel that cars are more likely to hit this thing. It's not about pedestrians walking into it, it's about me not being able to get out of the way if a car comes crashing through the unprotected track because there aren't enough safety mechanisms to minimize it and lets not even talk about being on that train if someone isn't paying attention.
Do people really think this is about people accidentally just walking on to the tracks? If you think that you must not use alt transit to actually live your life if you're thinking in that way because that's kind of insane.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
browne
There are bike lockers (they can be rented for 24 dollars for six months) across the street in some cases, bike racks didn't notice any, not saying that they weren't there, saying I didn't notice any. I was looking for them didn't see them.
I think the issue I have with this line is that it looks very different from the South Pasadena and Pasadena Line. I understand personal responsibility, but this to me seems like just an organization being cheap so they could spend the money in more important places in their mind. Metro should give every neighborhood the same consideration.
The Westside is not even being discussed in terms of something like this. They are getting a subway. If at grade is fine and ok and it's safe then why is the Westside getting a subway? There are always all of these reasons, but to me the reason seems pretty clear. They skimped on this line so they could spend on the Westside or somewhere else. People can bring up Portland, survival of the fittest, all the bs that they want, it won't take away the fact that METRO did not spend the money in this community that they should have. That's the bottom line.
If the rail all over LA looked the same, if it looked like this in South Pasadena, if the Westside Extension was going to look like this, if around USC is was going to look like this then I would be fine. I would say: Ok this is as safe as it can be. The rail of Boston that began in the 1897 and the rail that began in NY 1869 is the model we should use we don't have the brain power to advance any more beyond that.
But we have the technology that we don't have to use those models and that technology is being used in the sections of town that have more money and that's not right.
And to the "there are old cities that have trains roaring down the street" argument, ok fine, but then why do we have seat belts, prenatal care, prozac, airbags, bike lanes, I mean if we're going to start going down the road of personal responsilibility when does that road stop, it seems to stop at LaBrea on the West and at the San Gabriel Valley on the East.
Why is half ass enough for public transit riders? If it is wrong to point the safety issues out then cyclists should have no problem with the condition of the roads as they are right now, correct? If it's about personal responsility why does it seem to only apply to certain people and certain communities.
Browne
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Wad
2) Our general concerns with the intersection timing should be addressed across the line by LADOT
Just up to Indiana.
East Los Angeles is unincorporated. You have to contact the County Department of Public Works as well.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Spokker
The biggest complain I'm seeing right now is that the line is slow. But then again, slower = safer. Who knows what people want anymore.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Foldie
First I would like to thank Damien for hosting this ride. I enjoyed rolling along the line and taking time to see how it will impact pedestrian safety. I think some of the points made were valid seeing it myself, but I have experienced light rail in Portland and Amsterdam where there are fewer safety measures in place. I understand the community wants safe transportation especially since this line passes no less than 3 schools, but at the end of the day the public needs to take some personal responsibility in their own safety. LRT is a good thing for this city addicted to cars and the fewer barriers (costs) in place the better.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
nathan
The safety measures that MTA as put forth on the Gold Line East Extension are above federal standards and meet the needs of the community. Trains do not come from all directions like cars do, a train can come from one or two directions. Its very simple to not get hit by a train, don't cross the tracks when one is en route. The general public and transit advocates alike complain about the cost of projects and why it is so expensive to get public projects completed. I have walked along and toured the route of the new extension for just about 3 years almost, and most recently last week. The stations and platforms are perfectly acceptable and offer enough "room" for the daily commuter. MTA cannot be held acountable for every possible miss-hap across its rail lines.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Spokker
"Honest question, if all the safety improvements aren't going to be done for a couple of months, why are we opening the station in two days?"
I don't know, but it will provide a little natural experiment in which to gauge the effectiveness of additional safety measures, at least within a two month period.
Have there been any accidents since testing started? I mean, if the line is as dangerous as people say it is, you'd think a car or a pedestrian would have succumbed to the murder train already.
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
jass
I don't know what to say about this review. I agree that if the signals are too short, they should be extended for pedestrians... but for everything else I was shaking my head.
Yes, people are idiots. But come on, we don't need to baby them across the damn street. Flashing lights and gates, and you want more? What makes light rail, a giant, slow moving vehicle, more dangerous to pedestrians than every other 6 lane street in the city? Where are the flashing lights, fences and gates there? Why do buses have carte blanche when it comes to not having any safety features, but a train must be fail safe in every single way? The moving gates image is shocking. Again, its a train moving at 15mph every 10 minutes. Where are the gates at every other intersection in the city with cars going at 50mph at 5 second headways?
I find it amusing that this blog, which champions for shared streets in one post then turns around and argues that there isnt enough separation between pedestrians, trains and cars!
"the northbound rail cars travel feet from you at all times. You can literally reach out and touch the cars as they go past". If this is an issue, I suggest you never visit a city with an old, but crowded subway system. You may find it impossible to walk down the platform.
I invite you to visit Boston, or Philly or other cities with old light rail. Youll be shocked to find riders disembarking in the middle of the street (no platform!) and cars and trains relying on standard stoplights! I can't even imagine the carnage. (there is none, theres maybe 2 deaths a year, thanks to alcohol)
Finally, for an article supposedly about cyclists...I see nothing about the rail treatment at intersections. How wide is the spacing between rail and asphalt? Could a tire get stuck? How many bike racks are there?
in response to A Streets-Level Review of the Gold Line Eastside Extension
Eric Maundry
More families being brought into an area will not result in the use of more electricity? Because they have a wall in common? Do tell.
in response to Which is the Fastest-Rising U.S. Emissions Source: Transport or Electricity?