daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 29th, 2015, 10:36 PM   #1581
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
So the car was at fault and yet the headline hints that the light rail is at fault. The most ironic thing is what is written on the side of the train...
Yes, the car was at fault. The driver got confused and turned left into the train tracks.



This is in front of USC, and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and Museums.

__________________

dimlys1994 liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 29th, 2015, 10:42 PM   #1582
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAronymous View Post
Well you can't say car derails train, as the train was heavier than the car.
A plane is even heavier, and a simple bump sends it awack. It's not about the weight, it's how they are designed to operate.

A train, heavy or not, can be derailed very easily.
__________________

CNB30 liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2015, 11:04 PM   #1583
MrAronymous
Registered User
 
MrAronymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,998
Likes (Received): 6092

That was not what I meant. I meant that it was the car bumping into the train, but you can't say a car pushed a train off the rails.
MrAronymous no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2015, 12:20 AM   #1584
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAronymous View Post
That was not what I meant. I meant that it was the car bumping into the train, but you can't say a car pushed a train off the rails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAronymous View Post
Well you can't say car derails train, as the train was heavier than the car.

OK. But you can say car derails train.
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2015, 02:10 AM   #1585
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

There is no doubt that the car was at fault for the accident, but that misses a major point. Trains operate on city streets for several segments of the Los Angeles rail transit system. Such a system not only is slower than a grade-separated system, it is also disrupted more frequently by accidents. This might have been the best system that Los Angeles could afford, but it's really not a great system by world standards.
__________________

lkstrknb liked this post
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2015, 05:05 AM   #1586
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,313

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
There is no doubt that the car was at fault for the accident, but that misses a major point. Trains operate on city streets for several segments of the Los Angeles rail transit system. Such a system not only is slower than a grade-separated system, it is also disrupted more frequently by accidents. This might have been the best system that Los Angeles could afford, but it's really not a great system by world standards.
Yes, everything can be better, but I don't see too many issues with the parts of the system that operate on city streets.

One major factor is that all this is new to the City of Los Angeles, relatively speaking. We're not like other similar Alpha cities that are reaching close to 100 years of having rail...we did have it, largest in the world, but it was dismantled in the 60's.

On major, major intersections the LTR is elevated. Ironically this car (it was said today it was a USC alumni) made a turn in a very passive area of the line.

INAUGURATION OF METRO LINES
  • Expo (2012) *The one in question
  • Blue (1990)
  • Red (1993)
  • Green (1995)
  • Gold (2002)
  • Purple (2006)
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2015, 06:49 PM   #1587
mrsmartman
Registered User
 
mrsmartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,378
Likes (Received): 1453

Considering the 6 car train set and the relatively high de/acceleration when leaving/entering station, it feels like running subway trains on the light rail line. It's probably one of the largest light rail train in the world.
mrsmartman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2015, 09:10 PM   #1588
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,968
Likes (Received): 860

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svartmetall View Post
So the car was at fault and yet the headline hints that the light rail is at fault. The most ironic thing is what is written on the side of the train...
the LA Times got ripped in the comments section for this. I also sent a direct email to them regarding this issue
__________________

Kenni, Swede liked this post
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 08:28 AM   #1589
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,644
Likes (Received): 5762

Six-car trains on a surface LRT? That's absurd. Even Calgary doesn't get this ridiculous.

And perhaps this happened on a passive section of the line, but that certainly doesn't make it ironic.
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 11:57 AM   #1590
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Los Angeles operates three-car trains on the light rail lines. Each car has two articulated segments. Perhaps that is the reason for the confusion.

__________________

Last edited by greg_christine; March 31st, 2015 at 12:03 PM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 07:35 PM   #1591
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2177

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woonsocket54 View Post
Six-car trains on a surface LRT? That's absurd. Even Calgary doesn't get this ridiculous.

And perhaps this happened on a passive section of the line, but that certainly doesn't make it ironic.
An about 80 m (265 ft) long tram/LRT train is surely impressive, but lengths from 50 m up to 70 m (165÷230 ft) aren't so uncommon in this day and age; anyway it's a Metro's free choice to run a tree-car six-section train every 12' instead of a two car four-section one every 8' - I think they prefer affecting private cars circulation as less as possible, which explain also why priority at traffic lights seems impossible (=they don't have the guts to do it).

If I correctly understand, Kenni pointed out that the project avoided at grade crossings at the busiest intersections and yet this accident happened due to a very infrequent maneuver; but what actually makes the whole thing a little ironic is the warning written in very large letters on the vehicle hit side: “Watch for trains” - obviously who was injured doesn't find anything to laugh about, and I wish they get well soon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
There is no doubt that the car was at fault for the accident, but that misses a major point. Trains operate on city streets for several segments of the Los Angeles rail transit system. Such a system not only is slower than a grade-separated system, it is also disrupted more frequently by accidents. This might have been the best system that Los Angeles could afford, but it's really not a great system by world standards.
This isn't simply a matter of what a city can/can't afford, but it involves the “resources allocation” notion: even if you did have enough money for grade separation, there could be more effective and/or efficient way to spend it (higher line mileage, other public investments or even leaving $$ in taxpayers pockets); it all depends on the amount of achievable benefits. Furthermore, average vehicle speed is an important parameter for suburban/regional railway and outer section of urban rail line (into disperse suburbs), whilst in densely populated areas it can have a little impact on the whole travel time, which could be highly affected by other aspects, such as infrastructure access, services headway, transfers, etc:
  • in the first case, where most of the users are long-distance commuters, you must look for a straight ROW with few stops and no interference, even when this means increasing the distance between stations and users actual destinations;
  • in the second one, where average journey distance is shorter and movements are relatively slow, regardless which transport mode you use (even private cars), a modern, on street tram/LRT network - with thicker stops, better territorial coverage, more routes, platforms reachable without (almost) any walking path and a still decent commercial speed (thanks to dedicated lanes and maybe priority) - could be the best choice and the significant reasons behind the grade separation are only capacity issues.
You'd better say "by my own personal standards", since almost everywhere in the rest of the world grade separated metros and at grade trams/LRTs coexist in harmony and the latter aren't seen as a cheaper option for poor cities, but a different solution fitting different circumstances. Even in China tram projects are now spreading: oh yes, in recent years an enormous amount of metro has been built, but there ridership figures are far bigger than in USA (except New York), so more capacious system are needed.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 08:19 PM   #1592
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

The LA Metro has gone for being light rail, rather than streetcar. It is conceptually small-train-that-sometimes-runs-on-street, rather than large-bus-that-runs-on-rails.

The former is usually a far more attractive thing, and has far better business case (capacity increase, journey time savings, less interfering with traffic, etc) than the latter.

I think LA has (partially out of luck) managed to get the best of both worlds with it's light rail system - decent speed, high capacity, accessible stops and minimal blockage of roads.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 08:47 PM   #1593
lechevallierpatrick
Registered User
 
lechevallierpatrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Québec city
Posts: 196
Likes (Received): 94

Tramways in Casablanca and Rabat (Morocco)are very long too...I think 65 meters....
lechevallierpatrick no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 09:04 PM   #1594
phoenixboi08
Registered User
 
phoenixboi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,550
Likes (Received): 798

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
... priority at traffic lights seems impossible (=they don't have the guts to do it).
That's the purview of traffic engineers, not Metro. The only thing they can do is convince the engineers that it can/will work; they do not have the authority to go in and make the changes necessary.

It's a similar story as bike lanes or anything else perceived as reducing traffic capacity or creating obstacles for cars; they don't like it.

The irony, of course, is that signal priority would be significantly safer for motorists and the transit system...
__________________
MCRP '16

MarshallKnight, Yak79 liked this post
phoenixboi08 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2015, 10:29 PM   #1595
Slartibartfas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vedunia
Posts: 11,605
Likes (Received): 5968

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The LA Metro has gone for being light rail, rather than streetcar. It is conceptually small-train-that-sometimes-runs-on-street, rather than large-bus-that-runs-on-rails.

The former is usually a far more attractive thing, and has far better business case (capacity increase, journey time savings, less interfering with traffic, etc) than the latter.

I think LA has (partially out of luck) managed to get the best of both worlds with it's light rail system - decent speed, high capacity, accessible stops and minimal blockage of roads.
This depends a lot on the actual urban fabric. For L.A. I would expect, your arguments hold, but in a finely knit, compact urban area of mid size, trams might be the better option because they have higher capacity than busses, but allow for a much finer and also denser net than light rail. If a lot of the journeys that people want to take are only a handful of km long, the way from and to the station and transfer times become the major part of the overall travel time and then the slower speed of trams is compensated by more direct connections and shorter access ways. As such trams are perfect for uses in between busses and light rail. Of course, tram-loops are contradicting the key advantages of trams and thats why I think they lead to inefficient and badly designed tram systems, which is why I don't see trams in LA downtown critical but the the way they are planning to implement a tram there.
__________________
"Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a Titanic success of it.”
Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, UK
Slartibartfas está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2015, 12:06 AM   #1596
Yak79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,275
Likes (Received): 2177

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The LA Metro has gone for being light rail, rather than streetcar. It is conceptually small-train-that-sometimes-runs-on-street, rather than large-bus-that-runs-on-rails.

The former is usually a far more attractive thing, and has far better business case (capacity increase, journey time savings, less interfering with traffic, etc) than the latter.

I think LA has (partially out of luck) managed to get the best of both worlds with it's light rail system - decent speed, high capacity, accessible stops and minimal blockage of roads.
In most European countries (and beyond) there isn't a clear separation between these two concepts, both denominated with the same word and both present together in a lot of networks - where LRTish sections (usually the newer and outer ones) and “streetcar” section (usually the older and central ones) often belongs even to the same route.
Even in the USA the distinction is somewhat more formal and less concrete than we commonly think:

- some images from Buffalo's NFTA Metro Rail, a light rail system, remind closely Philly's SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley, a streetcar system
NFTA Metro 121 LVR on Seymour H Knox III Plaza, near the depot (Sept. 8, 2013),
SEPTA 9037 on Chester Ave - route 13 (Feb. 4, 2013);

- seeing these other four photos, taken in Boston, the classification of MBTA Green Line became a very hard task
MBTA Green Line train at Science Park station (Oct. 31, 2012)
MBTA Green Line train at Newton Highlands - route D (Apr. 18, 2012)
MBTA Green Line Boeing LVR at Reservoir - route C (Aug. 21, 2001)
MBTA Green Line train makes its way throught traffic - route E (Jan. 21, 2010)


But what I objected is the statement “good and world class = grade separate”: an underground/elevated stretch and some grade separated intersections could be a good solution for for critical points along the line, but a complete segregation and grade separation make sense only when expected peak ridership is enough to justify a metro system (more than 12˙000 pax/h). I'm well aware that are some LRT without any at grade section and even some (namely) metro line that have not only a patronage, but also a capacity below this threshold: I hope that at least it will be possible and necessary some growth sooner or later, because until then, IMHO, they are simply a waste of money.
__________________
-
"primo ufficio dell'uomo è perseguire i propri scopi con mezzi idonei, e chi sbaglia paga"

-
- Primo Levi, Se questo è un uomo -

mrsmartman liked this post

Last edited by Yak79; April 1st, 2015 at 12:21 AM.
Yak79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2015, 02:10 AM   #1597
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1507

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
In most European countries (and beyond) there isn't a clear separation between these two concepts, both denominated with the same word and both present together in a lot of networks - where LRTish sections (usually the newer and outer ones) and “streetcar” section (usually the older and central ones) often belongs even to the same route.
Even in the USA the distinction is somewhat more formal and less concrete than we commonly think:

- some images from Buffalo's NFTA Metro Rail, a light rail system, remind closely Philly's SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley, a streetcar system
NFTA Metro 121 LVR on Seymour H Knox III Plaza, near the depot (Sept. 8, 2013),
SEPTA 9037 on Chester Ave - route 13 (Feb. 4, 2013);

- seeing these other four photos, taken in Boston, the classification of MBTA Green Line became a very hard task
MBTA Green Line train at Science Park station (Oct. 31, 2012)
MBTA Green Line train at Newton Highlands - route D (Apr. 18, 2012)
MBTA Green Line Boeing LVR at Reservoir - route C (Aug. 21, 2001)
MBTA Green Line train makes its way throught traffic - route E (Jan. 21, 2010)
Just because Buffalo and Philly both have similar-looking rolling stock (both bought from Kawasaki in the early 1980s), doesn't mean that they have operating characteristics that are at all similar. Buffalo is almost entirely separated from traffic, while Philadelphia is largely mixed-traffic.

As for the Green Line, well, its the Green Line. It's just sort of been there for as long as anyone can remember.

But to actually address these photos, I'll go from top to bottom.

Science Park was built on a bridge over the Charles River that was dedicated especially for streetcars at a time when there weren't good crossing options in the area. This is not unknown, even among systems that are generally street-running.

Newton Highlands is part of what is now the D-branch. This was a former railroad right of way converted in 1959. Today, the Riverside Line is regarded as one of the first applications of Light Rail techniques in modern times. When it opened, the Boston system was still largely a streetcar operation, and it ran with PCCs until the 1970s.

Reservoir is a carhouse/yard facility. It has been in continuous use for over 100 years. Yes, there is some paved trackage in the yard. This is commonplace at yard facilities all over the world.

The E-line is one of the old-time traditional branches of the Green Line that has fed into the Park Street Subway since the 19th Century. It runs in the street in its outer reaches. E-line cars used to run all the way to Arborway, with much more street running, but that section is currently suspended.

Quote:
But what I objected is the statement “good and world class = grade separate”: an underground/elevated stretch and some grade separated intersections could be a good solution for for critical points along the line, but a complete segregation and grade separation make sense only when expected peak ridership is enough to justify a metro system (more than 12˙000 pax/h). I'm well aware that are some LRT without any at grade section and even some (namely) metro line that have not only a patronage, but also a capacity below this threshold: I hope that at least it will be possible and necessary some growth sooner or later, because until then, IMHO, they are simply a waste of money.
I can agree with this. Of course, there are always exceptions, such as terrain or something, but this is generally true.
__________________

Yak79 liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2015, 02:26 AM   #1598
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfas View Post
This depends a lot on the actual urban fabric. For L.A. I would expect, your arguments hold, but in a finely knit, compact urban area of mid size, trams might be the better option because they have higher capacity than busses
Manchester, England is an urban area of about 2 million and has a similar style network to LA's, and is one of the most successful in Europe (esp when you consider route length). Though the city remains heavily reliant on buses (it's not either-or!) and one corridor (the busiest in Europe) the capacity is quite a bit more than a tram line can sensibly provide without significant segregation (I worked out that you'd need a double tram every two minutes to meet the capacity the buses provide, when the highest on-street frequencies will be 25tph with 5tph as doubles, so basically double the capacity).

Most of Europe didn't dig up their tracks in the 50s (unlike the UK) as they couldn't afford the then-better bus technology (though the UK, if richer, could have afforded new trams). As such, there isn't the infrastructure outlay and so buses-on-rails style trams make sense, with some lines becoming more and more like light rail. But if starting from a blank slate, using a mix of disused rail alignments and on-street ones to make a light rail network that isn't an expensive full metro network or simply spending a lot of money and creating a lot of disruption to replace buses with similar vehicles that (flipping just hang up some wires and have trolley buses if you can't have electric buses and merely want to reduce diesel pollution) are neither quicker (unless you reduce the number of stops and increase everyone's walk) or more capacious (unless you reduce frequency and/or capacity for other road users and kill convenience in another way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yak79 View Post
In most European countries (and beyond) there isn't a clear separation between these two concepts, both denominated with the same word and both present together in a lot of networks
And in British English too, even though the second generation systems start from an entirely different perspective than the first gen ones that were killed by buses and age. But as I said above, most of Europe kept its first gen stuff, and thus they got to light-rail-esque systems by upgrading existing tram routes, rather than starting from scratch.

England's second gen tram systems are almost all reworked disused rail alignments coupled with some on-street running and the systems that are one or the other (Midland Metro for the mostly ex-railway extreme, Sheffield Supertram for the other) are the least successful (admittedly from a small sample).

France's second gen trams tend to keep parallel traffic away from the route, especially in Paris, and favouring long vehicles stopping relatively infrequently and moving fast. Though unlike England, they tend to convert mostly roads rather than use disused/poorly-used rail lines, and get public support for such (perhaps as the bus network in Paris is much more threadbare than London).

Conceptually there's seen as nothing different, but in reality it makes the world of difference for the success of a new build line depending on whether it is conceptually seen seen as super-buses or metro-on-the-cheap.
Quote:
But what I objected is the statement “good and world class = grade separate
Where did this statement come from?Certainly not me, even if you allow it to be paraphase!

What part of 'best of both worlds' do you not get? LA's metro light rail has enough segregation to allow speed, capacity and less disruption of other modes, but also enough street running to provide convenience and cheapness.
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2015, 02:28 AM   #1599
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

A major point that is being missed in this discussion is that light rail doesn't meet the need. The Blue Line (Downtown to Long Beach) is at capacity. The Expo Line (Downtown to Santa Monica) will likely be at capacity the day the full route to Santa Monica is opened. Trains can't be made longer because the lengths of station platforms is restricted by the distance between cross streets. Train frequencies are already at about the limit for turn around times at Metro Center. Traffic signal priority is out of the question where the lines converge because just about every light cycle would be disrupted by a train. The relatively low speed and the disruptions from traffic accidents are just more reasons why Los Angeles should have built these lines as metros.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 1st, 2015, 04:40 AM   #1600
Tower Dude
Registered User
 
Tower Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 76th Street Station
Posts: 1,044
Likes (Received): 593

Ya but who in eighties Los Angeles wanted to spend billions on subway lines
__________________

"Make no small plans they lack the magic to stir men's blood!" - Daniel Burnham

"The scale is Roman and will have to be sustained."
- Charles Follen McKim (In a letter to a friend concerning the design of Penn Station)
Tower Dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium