Orange Line Busway - Another SNAFU in the Making

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:31:44 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>> Two accidents in one day involving the new San Fernando Valley
>> pseudo-light-rail bus-trains has the authorities freaking out and
>> assigning meter maids to act as crossing guards.
>
>" Both accidents Wednesday apparently involved motorists running red lights. "
>
>Why do some dickhead motorists apparently think it's optional to stop at red
>lights? I hope they lose their driving licenses.

In a follow-up story on the KTLA Morning News today, they reported
that the accident yesterday was caused by a 78-year-old woman who ran
a red light while talking on her cell phone, according to videotape of
the incident and corroborated by eyewitness testimony.

A spokesman asked how someone could miss seeing a 60 foot bus. As I
have reported many times, I see these "invisible" buses every single
day. Every time a bus stops, a long line of inattentive drivers forms
up directly behind it, blocking the intersection. It's as if each bus
is equipped with a cloaking device like the Romulans had in Star Trek,
rendering them invisible until they de-cloak at the bus stop to load
and unload passengers.

Clearly these new MTA buses are equipped with the same cloaking
technology as OCTA buses.

Another follow-up story reveals that the model for the Valley busway
was also accident prone - until officials took away all the advantages
of having an exclusive right-of-way (e.g. high speeds and signal
priority at intersections). What's the point of paying all this extra
money to make an exclusive ROW for buses when they have to crawl along
just like traffic on regular streets?

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me...la-newslocal-1

Orange Line Model Beset by Crashes

Miami busway cited by the MTA as an example for the Valley transit
route had 67 accidents in its first 45 months, including two deaths.

By Caitlin Liu and Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writers

November 4, 2005

When San Fernando Valley residents and others expressed worries about
the potential for accidents on the Orange Line, transit officials
repeatedly assured them the busway would be safe — and pointed to a
similar transit system in Miami as evidence.

But the Miami busway had in fact been plagued with accidents when it
first opened — some similar to those the Orange Line has experienced
since opening last week, according to records and interviews.

It was only after the Miami system reduced its bus speeds and made
other safety improvements that accidents declined. Now, the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has adopted one
similar measu slowing down Orange Line buses as they go through
intersections.

On Thursday, Orange Line buses crawled through the route's 36
crossings at 10 mph — a new MTA policy instituted after two accidents
Wednesday resulted in 15 injuries. Before, the buses were allowed to
travel 25 to 30 mph through crossings.

The Miami busway is an eight-mile route built on a former railway that
parallels a highway and intersects streets. Between its February 1997
opening and November 2000, 67 crashes occurred on busway
intersections, resulting in dozens of injuries and two deaths,
according to a National Bus Rapid Transit Institute report.

The crashes so concerned Florida officials that they required the
buses to slow down, first from a top speed of 45 mph through crossings
to 15 mph, and finally to stopping outright at major intersections.

They also turned off the corridor's signal priority system, which
meant the buses had to wait for red lights just like regular
cross-traffic.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>Two accidents in one day involving the new San Fernando Valley
>pseudo-light-rail bus-trains has the authorities freaking out and
>assigning meter maids to act as crossing guards. Just like the olden
>days when railroads crossed streets at grade and automated signals had
>not yet been invented, they have real live people standing at the
>intersections today to make drivers slow down. And, just to show what
>MTA officials think of the average LA driver, they have ordered the
>Orange Line bus drivers to go through a green light at only TEN MPH.
>Bet that will do wonders for the cross-valley travel times...
>
>
Yeah, so what is new? Nothing new with people's not paying attention to
what is going on around them, that's for sure. :-((((

>http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-orang...ll=ktla-news-1
>
>Crashes Heighten Busway Concerns
>
>By Amanda Covarrubias and Caitlin Liu
>Times Staff Writers
>
>November 3, 2005
>
>Seventeen people were injured -- one seriously -- in two collisions
>between cars and Orange Line buses Wednesday, heightening concerns
>about the safety of the new transitway designed to speed trips across
>the San Fernando Valley.
>
>[....]
>
>"It's very unnerving," Freedman said of the intersection. "It's so
>confusing for your eyes to see lights all over the place. It's really
>poorly designed."
>
>
"... poorly designed ..."? Let's get real here -- NOW!! The busway?
No. It is not the system that is poorly designed. Rather, it is the
degree of attention certain drivers are paying to what is around them
that is poorly designed. Nothing more, nothing less. The busway was
designed with technology that has been in use for decades all over
southern California, in fact, in every large city (and even many smaller
cities) in the country.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:24:48 GMT, Pierre A Plauzoles
> wrote:

>Yeah, so what is new? Nothing new with people's not paying attention to
>what is going on around them, that's for sure. :-((((

Perhaps, but this new busway has all sorts of "confusing" new features
that SoCal drivers aren't used to, like "double" intersections with
traffic signals a half-block apart.

>>"It's very unnerving," Freedman said of the intersection. "It's so
>>confusing for your eyes to see lights all over the place. It's really
>>poorly designed."
>>
>>
>"... poorly designed ..."? Let's get real here -- NOW!! The busway?
>No. It is not the system that is poorly designed. Rather, it is the
>degree of attention certain drivers are paying to what is around them
>that is poorly designed. Nothing more, nothing less.

No argument there. Having recently driven in Chicago again after a
couple of years' hiatus, it became quite obvious to me how EASY SoCal
drivers have it. The roads here are all wide, straight, and REGULAR.
Just about EVERY intersection has 3 or 4 through lanes (per
direction), two dedicated left turn lanes, and at least 1 dedicated
right turn lane. Everything is so standardized, the average SoCal
driver just shifts his brain into neutral while behind the wheel.
Thus, anything out of the ordinary throws these morons for a loop.

In article >,
Pierre A Plauzoles > wrote:

> [responding to;]
> >"It's very unnerving," Freedman said of the intersection. "It's so
> >confusing for your eyes to see lights all over the place. It's really
> >poorly designed."
> >
> >
> "... poorly designed ..."? Let's get real here -- NOW!! The busway?
> No. It is not the system that is poorly designed. Rather, it is the
> degree of attention certain drivers are paying to what is around them
> that is poorly designed. Nothing more, nothing less. The busway was
> designed with technology that has been in use for decades all over
> southern California, in fact, in every large city (and even many smaller
> cities) in the country.

Speed differentials, asymetrical preferences, at grade and cross traffic
are all well documented negative outcome safety issues. The Orange
Crusher is indeed poorly designed FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. The MTA
knew it, made a tough decision and got caught making the wrong decision.
I can't prove it but I'm confident that part of the reasoning included
the rationalization that accidents would advance an agenda for
overpasses and eventual rail. The clue will be when the first "safety"
grade separation is done and the approaches are limited to 2%.

>From what I have read, this Orange Line was just a quick and dirty
'solution', and they really went rock-bottom with some of their
decisions (including inadequate station connections:

>>Some critics say a few of the line's connections are awkward.
>>At the North Hollywood Red Line station, riders must take two escalators to exit and then cross a busy boulevard to transfer to the busway. As recently as two months ago, there was no direct crosswalk between the two stations, requiring a roundabout walk to make the transfer. But officials have since decided to add a direct crosswalk.
>>The Sepulveda station, next to a massive Orange Line parking lot, is about two blocks from the nearest southbound bus stop. The northbound Sepulveda bus is even farther away, and getting there requires crossing two streets.
>>MTA managers say the station locations and designs helped save money.

I still feel grade separtion is the best solution for transit (which is
why I'm glad to hear talk of Red Line subway expansion again). Yeh, to
get maximum benefit from this busway...elevate the entire route and
convert it to LRT (or hmmm, a heavy rail Red Line Branch?)

In article >, newsgroup says:

>No argument there. Having recently driven in Chicago again after a
>couple of years' hiatus, it became quite obvious to me how EASY SoCal
>drivers have it. The roads here are all wide, straight, and REGULAR.
>Just about EVERY intersection has 3 or 4 through lanes (per
>direction), two dedicated left turn lanes, and at least 1 dedicated
>right turn lane. Everything is so standardized, the average SoCal
>driver just shifts his brain into neutral while behind the wheel.
>Thus, anything out of the ordinary throws these morons for a loop.

Testify!

Yesterday, it rained here ... <shudder> ... it was like a circus of
morons. I used to drive in snowfall measured in feet- this is child's
play.

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898

Kenneth Crudup wrote:

> Yesterday, it rained here ... <shudder> ... it was like a circus of
> morons. I used to drive in snowfall measured in feet- this is child's
> play.

We've ridden the gold line in to Chinatown fewer than a dozen times. Twice we
have observed a car trapped between the train and the barrier in South
Pasadena. Perhaps if we killed a few of them as an example the others would
learn something.

Hell, they're incapable of learning. Just kill them for fun.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------
Q: How many lawyers does it take to grease a combine?
A: One, if you feed him in real slow.

Robert Cote wrote:

> Speed differentials, asymetrical preferences, at grade and cross traffic
> are all well documented negative outcome safety issues. The Orange
> Crusher is indeed poorly designed FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. The MTA
> knew it, made a tough decision and got caught making the wrong decision.
> I can't prove it but I'm confident that part of the reasoning included
> the rationalization that accidents would advance an agenda for
> overpasses and eventual rail. The clue will be when the first "safety"
> grade separation is done and the approaches are limited to 2%.

My assumption is that they just wanted it opened to keep some promises
or meet some deadlines, and were willing to "overlook" safety in the
name of saving money.

If they added even simple crossing gates like trains have, as I've
heard suggested many times, it would reduce the risk to the average Joe
Dumbass.

I do agree grade separation or grade separated rail is a better choice,
but I think they just wanted to openfor the sake of being open more
than anything else.

Dave

In article >,
Robert Cote > wrote:

> In article >,
> Pierre A Plauzoles > wrote:
>
> > [responding to;]
> > >"It's very unnerving," Freedman said of the intersection. "It's so
> > >confusing for your eyes to see lights all over the place. It's really
> > >poorly designed."
> > >
> > >
> > "... poorly designed ..."? Let's get real here -- NOW!! The busway?
> > No. It is not the system that is poorly designed. Rather, it is the
> > degree of attention certain drivers are paying to what is around them
> > that is poorly designed. Nothing more, nothing less. The busway was
> > designed with technology that has been in use for decades all over
> > southern California, in fact, in every large city (and even many smaller
> > cities) in the country.
>
> Speed differentials, asymetrical preferences, at grade and cross traffic
> are all well documented negative outcome safety issues. The Orange
> Crusher is indeed poorly designed FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. The MTA
> knew it, made a tough decision and got caught making the wrong decision.
> I can't prove it but I'm confident that part of the reasoning included
> the rationalization that accidents would advance an agenda for
> overpasses and eventual rail. The clue will be when the first "safety"
> grade separation is done and the approaches are limited to 2%.

What is sad is that one of the systems the MTA held up as a good example
of BRT is the system in Miami, and the Orange Line to some degree was
designed to be like the Miami system. The sad part is that Miami has the
same safety problems that are becoming apparent on the Orange Line, and
these were (or certainly should have been) known to the MTA.

The selling of BRT as a cheap alternative to LRT has always been a fraud.
It you apply the same safety rules to a dedicated ROW BRT that you do to
LRT and ask for the same capacity and speed, you will find out that BRT is
MORE expensive than LRT, perhaps not so much in construction, but in
operation.

Think about it. 1. A single LRT train with a single operator, can carry
twice the number of passengers as a BRT vehicle. 2. To have the same
capacity, you must have twice as many BRT vehicles (and drivers on duty)
crossing an at-grade intersection as LRT trains. 3. To have the same
transit speed, intersections must be crossed at en route speed with signal
preemption. Even if you could avoid accidents, that means the crossing
would be closed to automobile cross traffic most of the time, effectively
blocking the cross streets. 4. An electric LRT vehicle, while initially
costing more, is cheaper to maintain and has a much longer service life
than an internal combustion bus.

And the biggest lie of all is that BRT is "flexible" whereas LRT is "fixed
rail" and therefore inflexible. I would like to see someone move the
Orange Line ROW to a better location if that should be deemed desirable.

Believe me, I am not against BRT, per se, but only against equating it
with LRT. BRT is not a substitute for LRT, where LRT is justified, just
as LRT is not a substitute for a heavy subway/elevated line, where heavy
rail is justified (for example, LRT down Wilshire--which could support a
subway--would cause more transportation problems than it would solve).

Merritt

In article >,
Robert Cote > wrote:

> I can't prove it but I'm confident that part of the reasoning included
> the rationalization that accidents would advance an agenda for
> overpasses and eventual rail.

I doubt that the MTA was that devious, or even that clever. Although I
don't think the MTA was secretive about the possibility of the busway
being converted to a light railway. The whole thing came about by trying
to satisfy the various concerns of the valley folk, who couldn't seem to
agree on what they wanted.

> The clue will be when the first "safety"
> grade separation is done and the approaches are limited to 2%.

The separations would be better if the roadway were depressed and the
busway (later to be railway, of course) remained level. That may not be
always practical, of course.

Merritt