|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 13, 2008 18:04:52 GMT -8
One of the most overlooked aspects of the Expo Line is the storage and inspection facility. While it's crucial for the operations of the line, it's still in environmental and early-design stages. It needs to be completed before the line could be operated. Originally the authority proposed using the nonrevenue connector between the Expo and Blue Lines on the old Santa Monica Air Line right-of-way, continuing east of Exposition Blvd. This was defeated by Councilwoman Jan Perry, who controls that district. There were several new proposals, including one on the nonrevenue connector but connecting from the Blue Line, not the Expo Line, side. They ended up picking up the most weird looking one. The authority has a comprehensive presentation on the subject. So, I would like to hear people's thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 13, 2008 19:24:21 GMT -8
They can build all that without impacting the Washington Blue Line Station?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 13, 2008 20:40:54 GMT -8
Obviously not ideal, but if that's all there is that's all there is. It's only going to hold 15 cars according to earlier reports so it's really only delaying the problem until a larger yard is located. I don't know that they'll be able to wait until Expo is open all the way to Santa Monica before finding the next yard. Expo will be limited to 12 minute peak headways using 3 cars until they find one.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 13, 2008 23:09:30 GMT -8
That's certainly going to be a tight fit and I think it'll really be interesting to see the progress of construction of this site. Would they have to do anything extra where the blue line and expo line merge at Flower?
Do they have any idea where they might put a future facility for phase II?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 13, 2008 23:38:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by soundguise on Nov 14, 2008 6:06:51 GMT -8
I would imagine that once it was decided to go underground at USC to Trousdale more tunneling would be required for the non-revenue tracks under the Freeway. That seems like it could have been cost prohibitive for a storage and inspection facility.
And if we go back to the OP - it seems that this was opposed from the beginning by local leadership.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 14, 2008 9:55:20 GMT -8
That non revenue portion was ruled out early in the process because of community opposition. I thought I would offer that this parcel adjacent to Ballona Creek is owned by the Metro. It was part of a land swap for the bus yard in Venice Beach and is to be developed as a bus yard. A lot of people really want to see the creek beautified. If anything was to be constructed that would interfere with that I imagine there would some opposition. maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=34.024565,-118.375293&spn=0.004099,0.006909&z=17
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 14, 2008 10:17:15 GMT -8
Do they have any idea where they might put a future facility for phase II? The Verizon property south of the right-of-way between Stewart and Centinela was the leading candidate last spring.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 14, 2008 10:37:45 GMT -8
If the Verizon property was successfully acquired would there be need for the Washington/Long Beach "mini yard"?
I know it's not on anyone's radar except my own head but I have often thought the land adjacent to the Blue Line in this area would make an excellent green way in a very bleak and park starved part of town.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 14, 2008 11:45:55 GMT -8
Somebody, please clarify: would this facility be integrated with the Washington Blue Line Station? Or adjacent to it? Or would it replace it? I'm having trouble picturing how this would work.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 14, 2008 11:50:52 GMT -8
Of the options floated by MTA staff, the old Santa Monica Subdivision ROW (just south of 25th) makes the most sense to me. I find it interesting that they would nix that, due to potential environmental affects on nearby residences and school. I've been in that area: it is an environmental disaster. IMO, the train facility could not possibly make it any worse. I also wonder if they considered non-MTA properties east of LB Avenue (see map). For instance the junk yard between LB Avenue and Alameda.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 14, 2008 13:36:02 GMT -8
Somebody, please clarify: would this facility be integrated with the Washington Blue Line Station? Or adjacent to it? Or would it replace it? I'm having trouble picturing how this would work. From their map they are apparently proposing to build an inspection facility next to the Washington Station platform, on the currently unused east side of the right-of-way. They only have about 30 ft of space there; so, there will be only 10 ft of working space on each side of the train being inspected. People on the platform will only be 10 ft away from the inspection area and they will learn everything about how to repair a train. LOL
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 14, 2008 15:08:25 GMT -8
That non revenue portion was ruled out early in the process because of community opposition. I thought I would offer that this parcel adjacent to Ballona Creek is owned by the Metro. It was part of a land swap for the bus yard in Venice Beach and is to be developed as a bus yard. A lot of people really want to see the creek beautified. If anything was to be constructed that would interfere with that I imagine there would some opposition. maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=34.024565,-118.375293&spn=0.004099,0.006909&z=17 judging by the sort of tenants in the hayden track area. i highly doubt metro would be able to get a cheap enough deal on that land. unless you mean somehow integrating it into the los angeles county flood control land
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 14, 2008 23:17:40 GMT -8
Do they have any idea where they might put a future facility for phase II? They've narrowed it down to 8 choices. They're listed in this document.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Nov 15, 2008 3:06:12 GMT -8
Hey thanks for the link! It's a really good read, and it certainly seems like the UP site is quite ideal for the blue, gold, and expo lines with it being close to Union Station and next to the LA river, so running tracks to the blue/expo line shouldn't be too tough.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 15, 2008 15:12:04 GMT -8
judging by the sort of tenants in the hayden track area. i highly doubt metro would be able to get a cheap enough deal on that land. unless you mean somehow integrating it into the los angeles county flood control land The Hayden Track I believe is in Culver City. The parcel I am referring to is in near by Los Angeles. I read in one the local rags that Metro landswapped this parcel for a parcel in Venice Beach; the current site of a Metro Bus yard. Ergo, Metro already owns the land. Granted I read this a few years ago and I still haven't seen any development on the property so the deal could have not materialized. Lastly, if by "county flood control land" you mean Ballona Creek; I can't imagine any sane person ever giving this a serious thought. People want to see Ballona greened not paved over. Ballona Creek Renaissance has been working toward this goal for many years.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 28, 2008 21:44:18 GMT -8
Does MTA own all this trackage between industrial buildings? It's near where they are currently considering building a yard. maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=los+angeles,+ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.323858,56.601563&ie=UTF8&ll=33.996604,-118.217096&spn=0.030954,0.055275&z=14 (note: be sure to select map and you will see what I am talking about.)
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Nov 29, 2008 7:49:26 GMT -8
ha ha, yikes! i think those would be privately build out rail feeder lines for each of the warehouses in that area.
id like to see the dispatcher for that!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 29, 2008 21:00:12 GMT -8
Many of the tracks in Vernon belong to the LA Junction Ry., which used to be a subsidiary of the Santa Fe. The line going west from "Clement Junction" is part of the former PE Santa Monica Air Line, which (west of the Harbor Fwy) is the route of the Expo Line. From what I've gathered, Metro was considering using the right of way between Clement and Expo for non-revenue light rail track (no track there now) but someone in LA City government thought it was a bad idea, which apparently ended that possibility. There's been some talk about having a storage yard north of Washington Blvd. where the Blue Line curves to go south. Not sure what's now in the property at the northwest corner of Washington and Long Beach, but it used to be the headquarters for PE's overhead line dept which had a small yard for the tower car fleet.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 29, 2008 21:57:11 GMT -8
If it is true on what you said then the P.E. used to go up Alameda ave to connect with other lines for repairs, and if that is so do you have a map of the route available in your collection ?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2008 16:47:20 GMT -8
RESPONSES TO CHAIR PERRY’S QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSED STORAGE AND INSPECTION FACILITY (S&I) BY EXPO STAFF
Q1. Is there a dedicated right turn pocket on northbound Long Beach Boulevard at Washington Boulevard? A1. Yes, this is included as part of the environmental document.
Q2. Is there a larger curb return radius to better facilitate turning movements at the northwest corner of Long Beach and Washington Boulevards? A2. Yes, this is also referenced in the environmental document.
Q3. Is the traffic signal system modified at Washington and Long Beach Boulevards to accommodate the new train moves and have signs been provided? A3. The traffic signal system will be modified to accommodate the new train movements and train approaching signs will be added to the intersection.
Q4. Will 4-quadrant gates and pedestrian gates at 20th and 24th street crossings be installed? A4. 4-quadrant, pedestrian and swing gates will be installed at the 20th and 24th street crossings.
Q5. Will there be 12-cars, that is four 3-car trains, managed at this facility? A5. The storage tracks north of Washington Boulevard have the capacity to store four 3-car trains or 12 cars. The service facility planned south of Washington Boulevard has the capacity to store an additional 9 cars. Any vehicles entered into service that are stored in the service facility should return to service via the Long Beach Blue Line through a series of crossovers south of Washington Boulevard.
Q6. Will the LRT vehicles be stored during off-peak hours, including mid-day, be brought out for peak use times? A6. Generally, the LRT vehicles should enter into service each morning before 7 am. The vehicles that are not needed during the LRT non-peak service hours should enter the service facility between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and will cross Washington Boulevard for storage between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon. The vehicles should cross westbound Washington Boulevard to enter into peak service between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. After the evening peak, the vehicles should enter the service facility after 7:00 p.m. and cross Washington Boulevard to enter the storage area between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. The remaining vehicles will enter the facility after the close of revenue operations after 1:00 a.m.
Q7. What is the status of a facility of this type for the Westside at this time? A7. The facility currently contemplated for Phase II is planned to be in Santa Monica and is subject to certification of the Phase II environmental document and securing the property. The planned facility will have the capacity to serve the additional vehicles required for Phase II or about 35 cars. The Phase I facility will still be needed to service the Phase I fleet after Phase II goes into revenue operation.
Q8. Are you planning on closing 20th Street to cross traffic? A8. The current project does not include the closure of 20th Street and this is reflected in the environmental documents.
Q9. What is MTA’s opinion on that? A9. MTA sees some operational benefits associated with the closure of 20th Street.
Q10. How many jobs will be created for this facility? A10. There are 25 positions currently projected for this facility.
Q11. What strategy will be put in place to work with the Job Corps and Trade Tech on employment opportunities for people living in the community? A11. The staffing of the facility will be handled by Metro. Expo staff will work with Metro to develop an outreach program with the Job Corps and Trade Tech to advertise these positions.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 5, 2008 18:37:51 GMT -8
Regarding the track on Alameda St.: It used to run all the way to the "Cornfield" northeast of the Gold Line Chinatown station. Its ancestry goes back to the very first railroad in Southern California, which ran from San Pedro to LA. It was turned over to Southern Pacific as part of a deal to get SP to route its line from Bakersfield to Yuma via Los Angeles, rather than bypassing LA and going through Cajon Pass. The Alameda St. line was never electrified and was not part of PE. PE interchanged with SP (which actually owned PE) at Butte St. Yard, with PE trains entering on the west and SP trains coming off Alameda on the east. Up until 1951, PE electric-powered freights would come up the Long Beach Line (today's Blue Line) and keep going north through the area considered for a Metro yard to 9th St., where they would go west to San Pedro St. and north to Aliso St. and east to State St. Yard. From there they'd go onto the Monrovia or San Bernardino lines. Around the time passenger service to Pasadena and Monrovia was abandoned in 1951 and most freight service was dieselized, trains would cross the LA river to UP's east bank line and connect to the remnant of the San Bernardino line at what had been the west end of Macy St. Yard. This relocation was considered a blessing by the City of Los Angeles, since it meant no more freight trains rumbling and squealing along San Pedro St. This story is told in detail in Interurbans Specials 60 and 61 (Lines of the PE), which are rather hard to find, unless you go to railfan-oriented swap meets. Available currently at many hobby shops is "Steam Powered Video's RR Atlas of North America: California and Nevada", which shows active and historic rail lines, including most of the PE.
|
|