Little Tokyo Connected!

8 comments

1. Rich Alossi Said,

   I support smart safety precautions along all new transit routes.
   
   At some point, however, the burden falls on the pedestrian to cross the street at an appropriate time and to ensure it is safe to do so.
   
   Is a pedestrian being killed by a train any more gruesome, horrific or tragic than a pedestrian being hit by a bus? By a car that ran a red light?
   
   Remember, Los Angeles used to have streetcar lines crossing the city, on the street, in mixed traffic. San Francisco to this day has at-grade trains.
   
   The Gold Line train will most likely be slow as it enters the Little Tokyo Station anyway, since it's on a curve and a short distance from the crossing.
   
   Treat the train as you would any other multi-ton moving machine, and you'll prevent accidents. Common sense goes a long way.

   Posted on June 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM

    
2. Mark Said,

   but who reads signs when we're in a rush to catch a train or make the light?
   
   I dunno, people with IQ's over 80?

   Posted on June 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM

    
3. Anonymous Said,

   When you are interacting with nearly all forms of transportation in Los Angeles as a pedestrian or bicyclist, you need to be extremely alert. I have not owned a car for nearly a year and have walked, biked or taken public transportation as my main form of transportation for over 4 years.
   
   Los Angeles has one of the highest pedestrian fatality rates in the United States -- and that is just taking into consideration cars. Honestly, yes you do need to be aware when walking across train tracks, but that has and will always be the case. The train tracks cannot be fenced in along the entire stretch and I don't think that would be desirable due to the resulting access issues. Vehicles like buses are required to stop when approaching train tracks, even if the crossing gates are not down.
   
   With that said, cars are by far a much greater threat to a pedestrian or bicyclist than any trains. The news stories you hear may cause you to think differently, as many of the pedestrian/car accidents never appear in the news. Train or bus accidents are more likely reported. Cars move at very unpredictable speeds, come at much more frequent intervals than a train and have the freedom to move along many different paths around the city.
   
   Trains on the other hand run along very predictable paths (the train tracks). At most, you might encounter a total of 4 Gold Line trains during a 10 minute period at rush hour within a given segment of track.
   
   The safety of Pedestrians and Bicyclists, some of the must vulnerable people in our transportation system must become a higher priority in this city. Individuals choosing these forms of transportation are reducing their contribution to LA traffic, improving their own health with exercise, making the city more safe for other pedestrians and bicyclists, reducing their contribution to air pollution and enjoying perfectly natural activities in our beautiful weather. Some of the responsibility to make sure these individuals are safe come from the designers of the cars, trains and buses zooming around the city and those that plan the city. Some of the responsibility comes from the drivers of the vehicles. A large part of that responsibility also comes from those that are walking and biking around.

   Posted on June 11, 2009 at 7:09 AM

    
4. Damien Goodmon Said,

   We've been dealing with these sort of inaccurate statements for years now, and compiled a bucket load of documents from internationally renowned rail safety experts, and testimony from former MTA light rail operators who all totally debunk the most prominent statements: "All accidents are the users fault," "cars are more dangerous than trains," etc. Much of it can be viewed at www.fixexpo.org
   
   "A person is 30 times more likely to die in an accident with a train than in an accident with a car." That's from the U.S. government's Federal Railroad Administration.
   
   The bottom line is no human is perfect. Therefore any system predicated on perfect human behavior is by definition unsafe. We provide many protections for everything from food to cars, an rail should be no exception. The reason many of us are here today is because much of our interaction on the street has been with vehicles and in conditions where there was time for us and the opposing user to safely recognize and recover from errors (whether ours, the opposing users or a third party's).
   
   Many of the rail crossings/system MTA builds do not provide this basic level of protection. And the trains they operate are 225 tons (the weight of 3 Abrams tanks) do not stop on a dime, do not have steering wheels, and have these metal couplings on the end that cause a lot of damage.
   
   Yes, cars numerically kill more people than trains. But for every one train crossing an intersection every day there are thousands of cars crossing the same intersection. There are over a million cars on the road every day in LA and just 225 Blue Line trains. So of course the number is higher, but the accident and fatality rates are much much worse for at-grade rail.
   
   Comparing raw car and train data to come to a conclusion that trains are safer than cars is like comparing raw homicide data between Canada and Compton, and concluding that Compton is safer because the number of murders is lower. Such logic completely ignores the vast population discrepancy.
   
   The language issue should be a MAJOR CONCERN. Much of the Blue Line accidents have been to vary degrees attributed to the language-barrier, and lack of cultural familiarity with light rail (something that extends throughout the region really).
   
   And by the way, while many at-grade advocates in L.A. love to point to San Francisco and say "Look it works over there," it actually doesn't work very well over there. Within the Bay area criticism of the MUNI at-grade rail safety operations is strong and widespread. It's the only system that competes with the Blue Line in annual accidents. There are several recorded incidents of train operators being irresponsible and causing accidents. The same has occurred here, despite what MTA will tell you. The difference though, is that in S.F. a whole lot more people have been exposed to the system, seen the irresponsibility first hand, so there claims like "It's all the pedestrian/motorist's fault" don't go very far.
   
   The bigger point however, is presence in itself is not evidence of a safe system. It's simply evidence of a system.

   Posted on June 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    
5. interurbans Said,

   It angers me when an “activist” comes up with all of theses scare tactics with no foundation which only creates false fears of a needed and very safe type of transit. Sure a train is more dangerous than a car as stated, but so is a bus, fire truck or a semi truck that are bigger and weigh more and take longer to stop. When one steps off the curb or on to a train track they are in a dangerous space and need to be aware. Street Cars, Trams and LRV’s run safely in the street world wide. Inherently they are different from what we in LA are now use too, but we are learning to live with them as we get used to them. As stated San Francisco as well as Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, Houston, Phoenix, Tucson, New Orleans, Boston, Pittsburg, Memphis, Chicago all have streetcars or LRT’s operating safely in the city streets as they do in Los Angeles and Long Beach contrary to what is stated. What is the big danger that LRT’s cause that other vehicles of similar size don’t cause? Why are the so called dangers of LRT’s continuously being brought up when there is no more danger from them than most anything else in the streets? All this does is make it harder and more expensive to build new LRT lines here in Los Angeles which we had and so desperately need.

   Posted on June 15, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    
6. Anonymous Said,

   re: "A person is 30 times more likely to die in an accident with a train than in an accident with a car." That's from the U.S. government's Federal Railroad Administration.
   
   What does this mean? That when there is a comparison between a person being hit by a car, or a person being hit by a train, they are more likely to be killed by a train?
   
   Well of course, trains are so much larger, are of such greater weight and carry much more momentum than cars that in the comparison of collisions between the two, the train will do more damage to whatever it hits.
   
   For a person to be hit by car, that is part of driving or being a pedestrian. And being a pedestrian means crossing streets.
   
   For a person to be hit by a train, that means they are walking or driving where they shouldn't be.
   
   Not to belittle any accident, car or train, but what does this have to do when someone does something they shouldn't be doing, like walking on train tracks or crossing when it's not safe?
   
   I'm also at a loss to understand cultural differences in which a person cannot conceive that crossing train tracks when it is not safe is not understood as risky behavior. If this were true, then every person of that culture would not be able to understand the dangers of crossing train tracks when it is unsafe. And I don't believe that.

   Posted on June 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM

    
7. Anonymous Said,

   Leave it to Damien I mean FixExpo to use another person's site as his soapbox.
   
   With no insight just more Gov. Bush/President Cheney scare tactics to get nothing without the same tactics for autos who need to kept more accountable.
   
   What about those drivers who plow their cars at school crosswalks?
   
   What about those drunk drivers?
   
   What about those drivers who still insist on talking on their cell phones (with or without headset devices) or putting on make-up or have any other distraction in front of them to keep them from actually driving.

   Posted on June 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM

    
8. Scott Said,

   As somebody who has been hit by a car and only minorly injured, I'd have to say that Damien's statement that trains cause more damage than cars in accidents to be so obvious as to be infantile.
   
   Okay, let's not use San Francisco as an example. Let's use Europe. Plenty of trams and light rail, and we don't see nearly the death rates.
   Why? Because people look out for themselves.
   
   Is this a case of "blaming the victim", as Damien implies? Hell no. It's a case of warning the victim. It's a big bad world out there. Don't go through life with an oblivious attitude. Don't let yourself get hit by a train.
   
   I'll agree there needs to be some more signage though.

   Posted on June 16, 2009 at 10:46 PM