|
Post by joemagruder on Nov 6, 2018 21:22:43 GMT -8
I think I see overhead power lines.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 7, 2018 16:25:29 GMT -8
The overhead power lines are definitely there
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 9, 2018 14:13:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 9, 2018 15:16:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 14, 2018 14:04:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 15, 2018 14:47:45 GMT -8
Metro board directors Hahn, Butts, Solis, Najarian, Fasana and Garcia reject Metro staff recommendation for Crenshaw/Green Line operating plan, and are moving to adopt Alternative C-3, which is a Crenshaw Line from Expo to Norwalk and a Green Line from Redondo Beach to Willowbrooks/Rosa Parks To add some background: - Alternative C1 would run one line from Norwalk to Expo, and another line from Redondo to Century/Aviation.
- Alternative C3 would run one line from Norwalk to Expo, and another line from Redondo to Norwalk.
Metro staff recommends C1. The 6 Metro board members behind this agenda item want C3. The board meeting agenda item proposes adopting Alternative C3 as part of a one-year pilot program. The board members argue that it is better to keep serving the existing Green Line stations than to serve Century/Aviation directly, because the cost savings is not worth it if it hurts existing riders. One last thing: the board members included the following in the agenda item: I think the board members were a little salty about being cut out of the loop on this issue!
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Nov 16, 2018 17:33:06 GMT -8
Honestly so little exiting passengers ride from any of the I-105 stations to South Bay and vice versa, I think these board members are on hallucinogen if they think this is really worth the money and knee-capping Crenshaw service from the get go.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 20, 2018 15:00:55 GMT -8
Honestly so little exiting passengers ride from any of the I-105 stations to South Bay and vice versa, I think these board members are on hallucinogen if they think this is really worth the money and knee-capping Crenshaw service from the get go. I ride the green line daily and that’s not true. A good portion of green line riders ride to the South Bay stations. It’s a growing employment center as El Segundo is booming. But lots get off at Aviation and the thinking is that once the line goes to LAX that ridership for that area will go way up. The South Bay stations should stay the same unless they introduce a new transfer one station in the wrong direction. Then ridership will be hurt as many of the South Bay riders are choice riders and this will add 10 min or so each way for them.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 28, 2018 10:07:28 GMT -8
Back in February, the Metro Board approved a motion for staff to reevaluate the grade crossing at Florence/Centinela. The project calls for an at-grade crossing. The study would determine whether or not a grade separation is needed or warranted. Needless to say, at this late stage in the Crenshaw/LAX project, this would have delayed the line's opening by a lot. Well, last month, Metro staff completed its report. They found that, while there will be traffic impacts in the future, they are not enough to justify grade separation. The next step is to look at cost and schedule impacts. But hopefully it will not go anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 28, 2018 15:15:17 GMT -8
Back in February, the Metro Board approved a motion for staff to reevaluate the grade crossing at Florence/Centinela. The project calls for an at-grade crossing. The study would determine whether or not a grade separation is needed or warranted. Needless to say, at this late stage in the Crenshaw/LAX project, this would have delayed the line's opening by a lot. Well, last month, Metro staff completed its report. They found that, while there will be traffic impacts in the future, they are not enough to justify grade separation. The next step is to look at cost and schedule impacts. But hopefully it will not go anywhere. Actually, they found for sporting events that it results in traffic where grade separation is required (see page 66). That is why they are moving forward with getting it built, with Inglewood kicking in some funding. Here is the Planning and Programming Committee report: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3726760&GUID=950A788C-FA9E-4F20-9839-3A542AACBF16&Options=ID%7CText%7CAttachments%7COther%7C&FullText=1The grade separation would likely be added after the Crenshaw Line opens, I believe. So maybe they will do a shoofly track. That is likely how they will add a grade separation to the Gold Line at California Blvd.: www.pasadenastarnews.com/2018/11/26/after-15-years-of-traffic-snarls-pasadena-may-build-california-boulevard-overpass-at-gold-line-train-tracks/
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 29, 2018 8:18:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Dec 4, 2018 12:00:30 GMT -8
Metro claims that Crenshaw/Green Line Alternative C-3 would preclude them from running 3-car trains on the Crenshaw line. Does that mean they were planning on running 3-car trains for the entire Expo-Norwalk route under Alternative C-1? How were they planning on dealing with the fact that Aviation Station only has 2-car platforms?
Aviation Station's platform length is so completely perplexing. It's the only station east of the wye that can't accommodate a 3 car train. The shorter platforms on some stations on the south bay segment make sense if the original plan was to run longer trains on 105 segment, but why kneecap your capacity on the mainline side of the wye right from the getgo?
|
|
|
Post by joquitter on Dec 5, 2018 11:49:13 GMT -8
Metro claims that Crenshaw/Green Line Alternative C-3 would preclude them from running 3-car trains on the Crenshaw line. Does that mean they were planning on running 3-car trains for the entire Expo-Norwalk route under Alternative C-1? How were they planning on dealing with the fact that Aviation Station only has 2-car platforms? Aviation Station's platform length is so completely perplexing. It's the only station east of the wye that can't accommodate a 3 car train. The shorter platforms on some stations on the south bay segment make sense if the original plan was to run longer trains on 105 segment, but why kneecap your capacity on the mainline side of the wye right from the getgo? Yeah, I have wondered about that as well, considering Aviation/LAX would hinder any hope of 3-car trains between Norwalk and Expo/Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Dec 6, 2018 5:45:59 GMT -8
Very strange, as, looking at Google Maps, there appears to be enough room for a one car length extension to the east, just before the tracks converge to dip under the eastbound lanes of the 105. Who knows what LACTC (and later MTA) was thinking.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 6, 2018 9:55:49 GMT -8
Very strange, as, looking at Google Maps, there appears to be enough room for a one car length extension to the east, just before the tracks converge to dip under the eastbound lanes of the 105. Who knows what LACTC (and later MTA) was thinking. They were thinking only about complying with court order. The I-105 ravaged South LA, and the Green Line was simply a concession. They were not thinking much about the future. (I'm glad at least they had the foresight to build the wye.)
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 6, 2018 11:21:23 GMT -8
Very strange, as, looking at Google Maps, there appears to be enough room for a one car length extension to the east, just before the tracks converge to dip under the eastbound lanes of the 105. Who knows what LACTC (and later MTA) was thinking. This seems pretty easy to just extend the platforms. Remember the Blue Line only had 2 car trains for quite a while until they extended the platforms on that line. The Green Line hasn't had that kind of ridership.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Dec 6, 2018 12:50:54 GMT -8
Very strange, as, looking at Google Maps, there appears to be enough room for a one car length extension to the east, just before the tracks converge to dip under the eastbound lanes of the 105. Who knows what LACTC (and later MTA) was thinking. They were thinking only about complying with court order. The I-105 ravaged South LA, and the Green Line was simply a concession. They were not thinking much about the future. (I'm glad at least they had the foresight to build the wye.) If they are planning on extending the Aviation platforms, I haven't seen any mention of it in the Crenshaw FEIR. I've also searched through tons of documents from the consent decree trying to figure out why Aviation, Mariposa, Douglas and Redondo Beach (but not El Segundo??) were built as two-car platforms. If they were only following the letter of the law, why not just make the whole line two-car and save some money?
The only explanation I can fathom is they built the stations east to west and had to start cutting corners halfway through, but for some reason El Segundo station was too far along to trim back.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Dec 12, 2018 8:05:06 GMT -8
So the other day, I did a full (unofficial) photo tour of the line, taking 100+ photos. Link: Exploring the Crenshaw/LAX LineWhile they're making progress, there's still quite a bit of work to be done. It's amazing that they initially thought substantial completion would've been around this time. While the latest report says the line is 88.6% complete, based on what I saw, I'd say it's more around 70-75% complete.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 13, 2018 13:29:51 GMT -8
So the other day, I did a full (unofficial) photo tour of the line, taking 100+ photos. Link: Exploring the Crenshaw/LAX LineWhile they're making progress, there's still quite a bit of work to be done. It's amazing that they initially thought substantial completion would've been around this time. While the latest report says the line is 88.6% complete, based on what I saw, I'd say it's more around 70-75% complete. Very impressive! Thanks for the photo update!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 15, 2018 11:28:40 GMT -8
Great update! Thanks for posting the photos.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 24, 2018 15:51:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 9, 2019 10:48:32 GMT -8
My email to Supervisor Hahn (which would've been more effective had I sent it before last month's vote):
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 10, 2019 18:19:33 GMT -8
My email to Supervisor Hahn (which would've been more effective had I sent it before last month's vote): I don’t know. Trains from Norwalk will run 2-car trains under either operating plan because Aviation can only platform two cars and Metro hasn’t said anything about extending that platform. Trains for Norwalk will also run every 6 minutes under both plans so there won’t be longer waits except for unplanned delays. Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 16, 2019 16:36:51 GMT -8
My email to Supervisor Hahn (which would've been more effective had I sent it before last month's vote): I don’t know. Trains from Norwalk will run 2-car trains under either operating plan because Aviation can only platform two cars and Metro hasn’t said anything about extending that platform. Trains for Norwalk will also run every 6 minutes under both plans so there won’t be longer waits except for unplanned delays. Or am I missing something? Here is what I meant: - The 'longer wait times' really only applies to the Crenshaw branch, which under C-3 will only be able to run half the possible trains. (Yeah I probably should've given that one more thought.)
- Metro staff claims they can run 3-car trains on the Norwalk-Expo route. I'm not sure what they are thinking re: Aviation station.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Jan 17, 2019 12:07:20 GMT -8
- Metro staff claims they can run 3-car trains on the Norwalk-Expo route. I'm not sure what they are thinking re: Aviation station.
Taking a closer look at the language in the November 15th operating plan report: C1: "Allows for 3-car trains along Crenshaw when ridership grows or for special events" C3: "Cannot expand to 3-car trains on Crenshaw due increased power consumption on I-105 segment"
Based on the careful wording, it's likely that they never intended on running 3-car trains on the initial C1 Norwalk-Expo route, only leaving it open as a potential "expansion" later if ridership growth warranted. This expansion would then require the extension of the platforms at Aviation/LAX, presumably a much more involved task than the at-grade blue line platform extensions.
It's laughable though that they'd frame an aerial platform extension project as an "expansion" easily warranted by future ridership, but constructing another substations to correct the power deficiency in the 105 segment is a dealbreaker that would forever prevent 3-car service. I'm no traction power engineer, but this smells like Metro staff grasping for any technical justification to get their way (C1)
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 17, 2019 12:43:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Jan 17, 2019 13:04:47 GMT -8
"We echoed that something must be done to achieve at least minimal grade separation at the Y intersection" ?!??!?
They're not even finished building it yet!!! Where were all these concerns during the decade+ of Crenshaw planning??
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 17, 2019 13:47:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 18, 2019 10:45:16 GMT -8
It’s true what they say about design by committee.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Jan 18, 2019 10:50:37 GMT -8
"We echoed that something must be done to achieve at least minimal grade separation at the Y intersection" ?!??!? They're not even finished building it yet!!! Where were all these concerns during the decade+ of Crenshaw planning?? By “Y intersection,” do they mean the wye, which is already elevated? What am I missing here? And what does “minimal grade separation” even look like?
|
|