Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5500 on Jun 21, 2012, 9:44pm »
I rode yesterday from Culver City to Exposition Park, and will say the inbound trip seemed almost as fast as I could have driven it. Keep in mind that the freeway is almost never an option, because that's almost always jammed; so if I do drive I'm using surface streets.
Coming back we did get held up by some signal issues, which wasn't the greatest experience. Nevertheless it all seems borderline miraculous to me, and being able to head to downtown L.A. at the drop of a pin and not have to think about parking, and the money it costs, is huge.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,005 Location: Palms, LA, CA
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5501 on Jun 22, 2012, 2:46pm »
Today, the ride was pretty bad again because of ATP issues. The Nippon Sharyo train just kept braking and stopping at random places. It could be that the operator wasn't well-trained. The time from Culver City to Vermont was five minutes more than the scheduled time, despite not running into many red lights.
Farmdale being only on its third day and many people still not knowing it, this is really good. It is proving to be a useful station.
The Rancho Cienega Rec Center is a pretty awesome park if you're into any kind of sports. It's right there by the Farmdale station (also accessible somewhat from La Brea). If you live anywhere along the corridor and want to play some tennis or soccer or go for a swim, it's just a train ride away. People need to know the place exists.
Also adjacent to Rancho Cienega is the western end of King Blvd. There's so many empty spaces here and it sits right in the middle of the Expo and Crenshaw line corridors. SO much development potential here, and this is the kind of area where the neighbors woud love to see it happen.
This is actually a good thing. Most transit systems suffer because theyre peak hour trains only. Some times it takes decades to build off-peak ridership.
This doesn't sound right to me; what you seem to be referring to here is a suburban commuter railroad, like Metrolink. An urban transit system should offer reasonably frequent trains in all directions throughout its operating hours . By contrast, a commuter railroad may well offer no off- or reverse-peak service at all.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,005 Location: Palms, LA, CA
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5505 on Jun 22, 2012, 7:56pm »
Operational problems almost have become a joke on the Expo Line. I don't recall a single ride recently without problems.
It looks like everytime I ride it, something different is happening. This evening we came to the Culver City Station but the doors wouldn't open. After trying to open the doors of the Siemens P2000 for 5 minutes through various resets from the cab and the relay panel in the middle of the car, the operator opened the front door partially using the red manual emergency lever. I am guessing then he had to somehow open the doors of the other cars from the outside.
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5507 on Jun 23, 2012, 8:44am »
I can't speak to the operational issues as I've ridden the line between 6-8 times and it's been blissfully uneventful. What I can say is that Farmdale is proving to be useful even when school is out. Remember Dorsey has thousands of kids and staff, including teachers, custodians, and cafeteria workers.
Operational problems almost have become a joke on the Expo Line. I don't recall a single ride recently without problems.
At this point, we might as well shut down the line and have the Phase II guys re-do all the Phase I mistakes and get a workable system in 4-5 years.
I say this because Expo's only been open two months, and it's short enough that people haven't become attached to it.
No need to go that far but I think the problem is with the maintenance and training, as well as general operations. Metro needs to step up in these areas.
Why do these trains break down so often? Lately Siemens P2000s seem to be a bigger problem.
Why are some operators struggling with the ATP, stalling the train constantly? Could this be fixed by training them better?
Is the operations center not good at controlling this line? Why are we having issues with switches and so on? Do they need to work on turning the trains around in Culver City?
Do they still need a software update? Could they fix the ATP problems along the line?
Do we need to wait until the Kinki Sharyo's (new cars) for the problems to go away?
These jerky rides (due to ATP not behaving well) and frequent mishaps are not making the Expo Line good. I can't believe rail lines are like this in general. I expected nothing like this before I started to ride this line. From what I knew, when you get on train, it's smooth accelerations and declarations from there on and hardly ever any mishaps. Why is the Expo Line so unusual right now?
At this point, we might as well shut down the line and have the Phase II guys re-do all the Phase I mistakes and get a workable system in 4-5 years.
I say this because Expo's only been open two months, and it's short enough that people haven't become attached to it.
No need to go that far but I think the problem is with the maintenance and training, as well as general operations. Metro needs to step up in these areas.
Why do these trains break down so often? Lately Siemens P2000s seem to be a bigger problem.
According to folks I know in rail operations, the P2000s have always been a problem mechanically, even on the Gold and Green lines. Which is kind of odd, since places like San Diego run an all-Siemens railcar fleet (they use three distinct models too) and have rarely had any problems.
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5510 on Jun 23, 2012, 4:46pm »
I can't say what has been causing the delays with the P2000's but all deferred maintenance on the Blue Line, specifically its power systems and P865 rail cars maintenance, that has been causing delays on its service is affecting the Expo Line as well.
Here is a Metro Report on Blue Operations that was issued in April of this year documenting what has been causing delays and the Blue Line and what is being done to address them.
No need to go that far but I think the problem is with the maintenance and training, as well as general operations. Metro needs to step up in these areas.
The operative question is, "Whose stupidity is it anyway?"
Were these failures introduced in Expo's design? Construction -- and we should be really worried about the junction likely causing a derailment? Operations?
If it is operations ... sigh ... Twenty-Two Years.
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5512 on Jun 24, 2012, 9:20am »
As a near daily rider of the Expo Line like Gokhan, there are only a few critical issues I see. All others were like one-off's (i.e. I haven't seen a car door stuck, open on wrong side or stopped for 10 min with no explanation).
1) Why does the Expo Line always stop-proceed before arriving into 23rd street station on the Nortbound? Very odd.
2) Flower street segment of Expo Line needs significant improvement. I was on Blue Line over the weekend and again it just glided on Washington St with only 1 light stop...even Long Beach seemed better north of 8th street before Willow station. Expo Line/Flower Street is the worst signal synchronization in the Metro rail station.
3) Speed up trains at Farmdale. The 10 mph is beyond ridiculous. If they just have to cross the intersection at 10 mph, why do they start so early, even gliding into the station at 10 mph? Was that part of the agreement or a problem with ATP?
These are Metro issues and not a contractor problem, I belive. So shutting down the line for 4 - 5 years will do nothing. Metro will have to resolve over time; just like they miracoulously sped up the Gold Line Pasadena segment by 5 minutes a few years after opening. The same can be done for Expo Line.
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5513 on Jun 24, 2012, 10:42am »
Here's an interior shot taken June 20 at 4:35PM while riding westbound, IIRC somewhere between La Brea and La Cienega. Considering that they were using four-car trains that day, the car seems far from empty.
The Hayden signal issue must have started around that time, however, because we had to sit and wait about ten minutes, between La Cienega and CC. (Why there would be a signal issue I don't understand, when there is no cross-traffic between here and the terminus.)
(This was originally posted as an addendum to an earlier reply, but I moved it to its own post.)
3) Speed up trains at Farmdale. The 10 mph is beyond ridiculous. If they just have to cross the intersection at 10 mph, why do they start so early, even gliding into the station at 10 mph? Was that part of the agreement or a problem with ATP?
Regarding speed--I noticed yesterday that in the sections between CC and Western, where traffic signals and ungated crossings become more prevalent, the train I was on really seemed to be hauling tail. Maybe it was just a matter of how I perceived it, but it seemed to be faster than I've ever traveled in a light rail train. I wondered if the agency is trying to speed up the overall schedule. This is with the exception of the stretch around Farmdale, which remains slow.
In general I'd say the ridership looks good, merely estimating based on the occupancy level I've seen so far. I don't think we'll know the full potential for some years yet, when the rest of the line opens up and the Regional Connector is completed. When all that happens I think ridership will increase tremendously.I think we'll see a lot of "reverse-peak" commuters from the Inland Empire who take MetroLink to LAUS, then will take LRT to the Westside. If this segment of the ridership becomes large enough, Metro may want to consider starting up the rail lines an hour or two earlier. IME a lot of folks living in the IE have small children and like to work extremely early schedules, even as early as 6am to 2pm. (Yeah, it's kind of a drag scheduling meetings!)
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,005 Location: Palms, LA, CA
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5515 on Jun 25, 2012, 7:26am »
Agreed that the Farmdale speed limit is grossly unnecessary. There is no need for speed limit here while the trains come to a full stop before they enter the crossing -- full stop means 0 MPH. Even in a pedestrian mall, CPUC speed limit is 20 MPH. 10 MPH speed limit even before the train hits the platform and until it clears the next platform is ridiculously paranoid.
Agreed that the Farmdale speed limit is grossly unnecessary. There is no need for speed limit here while the trains come to a full stop before they enter the crossing -- full stop means 0 MPH. Even in a pedestrian mall, CPUC speed limit is 20 MPH. 10 MPH speed limit even before the train hits the platform and until it clears the next platform is ridiculously paranoid.
Agreed that the Farmdale speed limit is grossly unnecessary. There is no need for speed limit here while the trains come to a full stop before they enter the crossing -- full stop means 0 MPH. Even in a pedestrian mall, CPUC speed limit is 20 MPH. 10 MPH speed limit even before the train hits the platform and until it clears the next platform is ridiculously paranoid.
Can this be overturned?
Yes, but only if there is a resettlement between LAUSD and Metro.
Ironically, the way currently the speed limit is implemented is not even in the current settlement. The current settlement says that there is a 15 MPH speed limit only after the train leaves the platform and before the nose of the train finishes passing the crossing. Expo implemented it as a 10 MPH speed limit throughout the Farmdale area. The reason for 10 MPH instead of 15 MPH is technical -- trains have only 10, 25, 35, 45, and 55 MPH speed limits on their ATP. But the reason why there is a speed limit in the entire area is Expo's ignorance -- they don't care how well the line runs as long as it runs.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,005 Location: Palms, LA, CA
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5518 on Jun 25, 2012, 10:31am »
Expo's ignorance is almost everywhere.
Currently there are no signs at Venice/Robertson saying that the station is now open and arrows pointing to the station. There is only a fence covered with a green tarp and a construction zone blocking the station. For those who don't follow the line, the line is still not operational as far as they can see.
The ridership is still very low. Most of La Cienega ridership, including the park-and-ride, has shifted to Culver City but the overall ridership has increased little.
Currently there are no signs at Venice/Robertson saying that the station is now open and arrows pointing to the station. There is only a fence covered with a green tarp and a construction zone blocking the station. For those who don't follow the line, the line is still not operational as far as they can see.
It looks like this will sadly be the case until the Venice Blvd. bridge is constructed. The whole area will be a war zone for anywhere from several months to maybe a year or two. It's doubtful that anyone, aside from those with full knowledge of the line, will see it as a fully-functioning, operational station. Then again, once people get used to seeing trains pulling in and out, it shouldn't be difficult to put two and two together and realize that it's working.
I did see some signs yesterday for "Robertson Transit Hub" that were pointing in the general direction of the station, but is that actually referring to the Culver City station? If anything, I think that will confuse people even more.
Currently there are no signs at Venice/Robertson saying that the station is now open and arrows pointing to the station. There is only a fence covered with a green tarp and a construction zone blocking the station. For those who don't follow the line, the line is still not operational as far as they can see.
It looks like this will sadly be the case until the Venice Blvd. bridge is constructed. The whole area will be a war zone for anywhere from several months to maybe a year or two. It's doubtful that anyone, aside from those with full knowledge of the line, will see it as a fully-functioning, operational station. Then again, once people get used to seeing trains pulling in and out, it shouldn't be difficult to put two and two together and realize that it's working.
I did see some signs yesterday for "Robertson Transit Hub" that were pointing in the general direction of the station, but is that actually referring to the Culver City station? If anything, I think that will confuse people even more.
Robertson Transit Hub is the Blue Bus transfer point a couple of yards south on Robertson.
A big sign saying that Expo Line is now open and arrows pointing to the station are really necessary. Such jokers are these guys that they don't even bother to think about it. When it comes to an opening ceremony, all is luxuriously in place though, with banners, pyrotechnics, and confetti.
The ridership is still very low. Most of La Cienega ridership, including the park-and-ride, has shifted to Culver City but the overall ridership has increased little.
I don't understand how this is possible. The first couple of times I rode the line, first back in early may and then another time in the middle of the month, the passenger load was quite light, at that. But when I rode on the 20th and 23rd of this month, there were a lot of people on those trains. For the most part, it's been on weekday afternoons, though, so I don't know what it looks like during typical commuting hours.
The ridership is still very low. Most of La Cienega ridership, including the park-and-ride, has shifted to Culver City but the overall ridership has increased little.
I don't understand how this is possible. The first couple of times I rode the line, first back in early may and then another time in the middle of the month, the passenger load was quite light, at that. But when I rode on the 20th and 23rd of this month, there were a lot of people on those trains. For the most part, it's been on weekday afternoons, though, so I don't know what it looks like during typical commuting hours.
20th was special -- opening day and free rides.
I think it's a little too early to say about the effect of Culver City. But so far it hasn't added much from my observations. This evening at rush hour, I rode a train with some empty seats and other seats with only one person -- typical of the Expo Line right now.
La Cienega parking occupancy has definitely dropped significantly after the Culver City opening. B1, B2, 4, and 5 are empty, and 3 is less than half full now.
I am repeating: Culver City Station needs a big banner over the tarp on the construction fence at Venice/Robertson. It doesn't look like an operational line right now. It would help boost the ridership.
Joined: Mar 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 657 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Exposition Light Rail Line Project Development « Reply #5523 on Jun 26, 2012, 3:27am »
Know what will also help? Buses.
Not acquiring the Culver City Station parcel was a huge mistake. (The current land is unfit for a bus transit center because each bus would need to make at least one sharp turn.) Replacing the "West L.A. Transit Center" (read: surplus land beneath a freeway) would have helped greatly.
However, Culver City can still be a transfer point. Just have all the buses make a loop to Culver City and deadhead to the freeway lot. Metro has done this for decades in downtown L.A., where most buses running north-south lay over under the 10 Freeway between Grand and Broadway.
Not acquiring the Culver City Station parcel was a huge mistake. (The current land is unfit for a bus transit center because each bus would need to make at least one sharp turn.) Replacing the "West L.A. Transit Center" (read: surplus land beneath a freeway) would have helped greatly.
However, Culver City can still be a transfer point. Just have all the buses make a loop to Culver City and deadhead to the freeway lot. Metro has done this for decades in downtown L.A., where most buses running north-south lay over under the 10 Freeway between Grand and Broadway.
Yes, the famous Terminal 28. One difference there--most of those MTA routes that use T28 terminate at Grand/Venice or Hill/Venice or Broadway/Venice (Main/Venice?), from those points it's only a drive of a block or so to the terminal. At Culver City, it's at least a mile drive from the station to West L. A. Transit Center (I forget the offcial MTA terminal number for this location). Not sure MTA would want that much non-revenue driving in the course of a revenue run (all that has to be factored into the run times).
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
Author
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://physics.usc.edu/Undergraduate/temporary/PE_logo.png "[avatar]"){kind=logo}
![[avatar]](http://www.elsongs.com/images/pics/go_expo.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7109/7423746570_20d248d4e5_c.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/bdowns/avatars/phillies_logo_p.gif "[avatar]"){kind=logo}