|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 15, 2009 21:42:55 GMT -8
^^ Thanks for the info, Justin. Do you know how the slabs are joined with the invert slab -- that is how they are securely attached to it?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 15, 2009 21:57:43 GMT -8
Friends 4 Expo General Meeting tonight with Expo and AECOM staff was informative. A few highlights:
FEIR has been completed and finalized. Expo is now having internal reviews of the eleven-volume document. Note that FEIR complete means that grade crossings etc. have been finalized.
In February/March 2010, two companies will be awarded the preliminary-engineering contract.
In circa September 2010, one of the two will be selected as the winner for the design - build contract. That's the earliest the final design and utility relocation can start. So, the heavy construction won't start until around mid 2011. Expected opening is 2015 or earlier.
The bike path has been designed by AECOM, and its environmental studies have almost been finished by the city. It will be fully integrated into the Expo design - build package, and it will be built by Expo along with the tracks during regular construction. Funding will be through the city though.
The only thing about the bike path that is not immediately happening is the restricted-use easement on the north side of the freeway. The initial design - build is going to be along Motor and then Northvale, with the bike path joining the trench at the Palms Park pedestrian bridge (which will be preserved as it is). Then, they will stay inside the trench but at a higher elevation than the tracks. City is doing a separate environmental study for the restricted-use easement option -- that is on the easement along the northern edge of the freeway, with the bike path joining the trench as soon as the northwestern tunnel portal for the tracks. But due to added cost and complexity, this will be added separately and built likely by the city, perhaps a few years later or hopefully sooner.
There will likely be two options in the FEIR for the maintenance facility -- the original Verizon and the Verizon plus the SMC parking lot with some buffer.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 16, 2009 4:54:21 GMT -8
Thanks for that great summary, Gokhan.
The Authority/contractor situation reminds me of what happened/is happening with the 405 widening project, where Balfour Beatty had such a lowball bid and with little forethought by Caltrans that the project is still years behind schedule.
Still, utilities relocations and surprises always make for delays--some of which are acceptable by normal folks and some of which are unacceptable.
Clearly, this contractor has proven to either be incompetant, greedy or both. Steel and labor costs have plummetted, and we can and should expect more. The elevated Venice/Robertson station has been known for years, and I think it's a very tough sell to suggest that there was no time to prepare for a 2010/11 opening date.
My own hope is that both the current and future contractors are forced in their bids to have required face time at all public outreach efforts by the Authority. I really can't just dismiss the Authority (and even Mr. Thorpe) for having the first phase of this project behind schedule, but I certainly do recognize times when they've been burned by the contractors as much as I condemn their failure for not foreseeing this potential problem from their past experiences with contractors and with utility relocations.
Furthermore, the whole design/build process was just not run efficiently like we all thought it would for the past few years--it's that whole "the buck stops here" philosophy that the Authority must assume in order to continue enjoying the confidence of the taxpayers.
In short, I think that the cost overruns are relatively low compared to, say the Big Dig in Boston, and so long as the Expo Line is expedited to 2011 it won't be the costs that bother folks as much as will seem bizarre that such a project takes so long to build.
...and I again want the contractor dragged in front of all public outreach efforts by the Authority. They're doing that with the Overland Bridge widening over the 10 freeway as a result of the delayed 405 widening, and I think it would be a very helpful exercise for the Expo Line and future major infrastructure projects.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 16, 2009 8:51:17 GMT -8
I have modified this post. It looks like the original price tag was $640 M for Washington/National and $670 M for Venice/Robertson. So, it went up by $200 million because of claims of inflation in steel and concrete, which I find hard to believe, given that steel and concrete is usually a small part of the cost, about a few million dollars for a bridge. For some perspective the original budget for the East LA Gold Line was $760 Million dollars then as the project started they updated the cost to be the current $898 Million dollars or an increase of $138 Million dollars. Expo fell under that same boat. The original budget was $640 then it increased when bids for the materials (USC trench anyone) went up and they then adjusted to $808 Million an increase of $168 Million which is inline with the increase of the East LA Gold Line. Also considering that the elevated station was more a Phase 2 item advancement which added $54 million to the budget. Another thing I remember from the planning documents which I knew they'd get into trouble with is that the contingency (money cushion for unexpected events) was way too low it was only $5-10 million dollars on a $640 Million dollar design-build project and one of the first exposures on that was needing to purchase additional property around Jefferson/La Cienega for the needed Jefferson Blvd widening and preparation for the bridge structure. That is a possibility, however it is unlikely there are too many variables such as the Local hire jobs program that narrowed the scope/field of workers so small in a trade that is very skilled and requires experience that pool was wittled to begin with. It seems more likely that the contractor under-estimated the delay factor and over-estimated the amount of workers he'd have with the jobs program to the point where one delay DWP utilities (which was likely a critical timepoint or 'milestone')exposed this and have them playing catch-up the rest of the way through. Also consdiering that most of the major grade separations are West of Farmdale that will make schedule adjusting rather difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 10:51:17 GMT -8
We now take a break from individual opinions and armchair speculations and go to the real world. Here is a shot of the future station location in Palms. The existing single-track bridge will either be rebuilt into a double-track bridge or a second single-track bridge will be built. Note the existing spur. This area will be used for mid-day train storage: A drive-by close-up of the bridge: Note the historical bridge. This is not the same as the present-day bridge because when the freeway was built, National Blvd was realigned 50 ft west to join with Palms Blvd: They decided the put the construction workers in a giant cage. You can tell from the heights of people inside that the cage is around 12 ft in diameter, which is the size of the shafts at Washington and National. The shafts for the aerial station will be 15 ft in diameter. All these rebars are being done on site, and it's a lot of hard work. This is at Helms Ave: Drill rig and crane at Washington and National: They've started drilling the shaft east of Jefferson at Ballona Creek. Currently they are preparing for drilling so that nothing collapses during drilling. There will also be a shaft or two on the other side of Ballona when the sewer reinforcement there finishes. There is a lot of work taking place in this area. There are many large and long steel pipes stored between La Cienega and Ballona. I don't know what they are for but they could be for the retaining-wall section: They are bringing the concrete ties now. It's an indication that track installation is finally about to start. This is at Farmdale. It will be strategically the first place to lay tracks:
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 18, 2009 12:45:39 GMT -8
Dueling photos from today! The rebar cage. Note the big coils of rebar by the street. The drilling rig. Compare with below to see how deep its shaft has gone. Also note it's deeper in my photo (taken around 11:00 a.m.) than Gokhan's. The ties west of Farmdale. I also saw smaller stacks of ties near Crenshaw, Degnan (next crossing east of Crenshaw), and Arlington. Grade crossing plates east of Buckingham. These and the ties make me think we'll see grade crossings completed in the near future at Buckingham, Crenshaw, Degnan, Arlington, and Gramercy. The K-rails and chain-link fencing are gone along the soundwalls here, showing the general sense of the landscaped strip-to-be.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 13:12:42 GMT -8
These and the ties make me think we'll see grade crossings completed in the near future at Buckingham, Crenshaw, Degnan, Arlington, and Gramercy. ... and Farmdale.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 13:20:44 GMT -8
Opening of Light Rail Station off Track Delays in South Los Angeles Cited By Gary Walker The long-waited arrival of the Mid-Cities Light Rail Exposition Line in Culver City, slated for next year, will not open on time, according to high-ranking officials at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Samantha Bricker, the chief operating officer of the Exposition Construction Authority, the entity charged with building the light rail line, confirmed that the opening of light rail station at Venice and Robertson boulevards will be later than originally expected. "We have always felt that the [Culver City station] would open later than the rest of the line," Bricker told the News. "There have been some issues regarding the station at Farmdale that have set us back." Bricker was referring to a ruling by Judge Kenneth Koss earlier this year declaring that the Expo authority should build pedestrian bridges over the crossing of Farmdale Avenue near Dorsey High and the Foshay Learning Center in South Los Angeles instead of an at grade, or ground level alignment. Damien Goodman, a rail activist who has argued that Metro’s original plan to construct at grade near the schools was inadequate and that the residents of South Los Angeles deserved the same consideration that other cities. like Culver City and Santa Monica. The Expo Line will begin in downtown Los Angeles and end in Culver City in its first stage of construction. The second phase of the light rail line will extend to Santa Monica, and transit authorities predict that it will be one of the highest capacity light rail lines in the nation. The slowdown has the potential to be very expensive. According to Richard Thorpe, the chief executive officer of the construction authority, the cost to build an overpass could be as high as $18 million. The time that it would take to build an overpass also plays a determining factor in when the Culver City station might open, said Bricker. The Public Utilities Commission will decide which alignment the Farmdale station will have, and Metro is in the position of playing wait and see with respect to when the last portion of the first phase of the line will open. "At as it stands now, we don’t know (which alignment) will get approved," the COO acknowledged. Former Culver City Councilman Alan Corlin does not think that opening the station at a later date will have a significant impact on the city as a whole. "I don’t see how it would," said Corlin, who was the council’s representative on the construction authority during his last year in office. "I’m in favor of mass transit, but my biggest fear is that Culver City will be the last stop on the Expo Line." Metro officials have stated publicly that that rail line, which will cost of over $1 billion for Phase Two, is fully funded. Marta Zaragoza, an east Culver City resident who has questioned how the light rail line has been managed, has a different opinion. "There was an expectation of Culver City residents who had planned to ride the train from the Westside to downtown Los Angeles," Zaragoza said. "Now they won’t have that opportunity, due to the mismanagement by the construction authority and Metro executives." Ken Alpern, the co-chair of the light rail advocacy group the Transit Coalition, said a lot of the blame for the delay is due to factors other than the controversy at the Farmdale station. "While the Dorsey High School/ Farmdale issue is certainly a contributing factor, contractors and utility replacement has played as much a role in the slowdown as the issues related to Dorsey High," Alpern, a Mar Vista resident, asserted. Bricker says that Metro could opt to open other stations ahead of the Culver City station, such as Crenshaw, or open the line as far west as the station a La Cienega Boulevard first. "We’re on a very aggressive schedule," she said. A transit-oriented, mixed-use development project that would ostensibly tie in with the aerial station at Venice/Robertson could also be thrown off schedule. There are three projects planned for within three blocks of the light rail station, two private developments and a Redevelopment Agency project, the transit-oriented, mixed-use complex. Culver City Chief Financial Officer Jeff Muir says that while the redevelopment project is stalled, the agency is hopeful that it will be on track when the recession begins to dissipate. "The agency continues to seek developers to assume financial responsibility for completing the projects," Muir told the News. "They are all held up because the developers are unable to secure construction financing to go forward with their projects. "As the credit markets begin to loosen and businesses begin to lease space in new buildings, the projects will resume," Muir added. "That would be the worst case scenario," said Corlin, who owns a dental equipment firm. "No one is going to want to be the first to build there." Councilman Christopher Armenta acknowledged that the construction of the planned development will not coincide with the arrival of the train. "It’s not that big of a surprise to me that the train is going to be delayed," the councilman said. "With a project of this magnitude, you have to expect some delays." Zaragoza feels that the Redevelopment Agency has not provided the leadership that she had hoped it would regarding development at the light rail corridor and in other areas of the city. "They still owe the city $9 million," she noted. "While there are many support staff positions that are very necessary to having a redevelopment agency, I would like to know what the supervisors and the director are doing." Armenta, who also resides in east Culver City, says that the council must learn and adjust to navigating through the existing turbulent financial waters until the economy improves and developers can build projects again. "That will be our biggest challenge," he said. "All developers, private and public, are in the same boat right now." Corlin said that he had an idea that he thought would benefit the light rail line and the city involving two of the Culver City’s best-known developers that never came to fruition. "My idea was to get Wally Marx and Frederick Smith together, along with (architect) Eric Owen Moss and have them built a spectacular project," the ex-councilman recalled. "But it was shot down before I had a chance to talk to them and propose it publicly." In addition to the delay in the station’s opening, Culver City has still not paid its allotment to the construction authority. "Culver City agreed to pay $4-5 million for the structure and the support of the light rail alignment," Bricker said. "As of yet, they have not made any payments." The two other cities where the Expo Line will be built, Santa Monica and Los Angeles have already contributed their prescribed allotments. "(Culver City) came up with a dollar figure that we would pay, but we never specified a date when we were going to pay it," Corlin countered. City Manager Mark Scott and Community Development Director Sol Blumendfeld did not return calls seeking comment as the News went to press.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 18, 2009 13:45:57 GMT -8
The news story above comes from the [url=http://www.socal.com/CulverCityNews.aspx?articleid=5876&zoneid=99[/url]Culver City News[/url].
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 14:25:12 GMT -8
Well, judging from driving along the line, construction has now picked up speed and the line should open to Venice/Robertson circa August 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 14:30:08 GMT -8
Three more grade crossings to be installed. 21 (including Farmdale, or 20 otherwise) will be remaining. Chances are that ballasted-track installation is also nearing.
What: Temporary Street Closures for Track Crossing Installation
When:
Crenshaw Blvd Friday, September 25, 2009 through Monday, September 28, 2009 Weekend work hours: Friday at 9:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:00 a.m.
11th Ave/Degnan Blvd Friday, October 2, 2009 through Monday, October 5, 2009 Weekend work hours: Friday at 9:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:00 a.m.
7th Ave Friday, October 9, 2009 through Monday, October 12, 2009 Weekend work hours: Friday at 9:00 p.m. through Monday at 6:00 a.m.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 18, 2009 14:51:02 GMT -8
Well, judging from driving along the line, construction has now picked up speed and the line should open to Venice/Robertson circa August 2011. No offense, but you keep making these proclamations about the line opening from what's taken place during the last week or two's construction work. A few weeks ago, you stated that it was looking like 2010 for the whole Phase 1. Of course, it was only a few days later that the authority stated the project would not open in 2010 to Culver City and it could be 2012. For those that don't know to take these statements as a grain of salt, I'd suggest you refrain unless you have real information.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 14:52:58 GMT -8
Here are all 26 Expo Phase 1 grade crossings. Enjoy! Washington 20th 21st 23rd Adams 28th I-10 on ramp 30th Jefferson Trousdale Watt Menlo Vermont Raymond Normandie Halldale Denker Western Gramercy Arlington 7th 11th Crenshaw Buckingham Farmdale (?) Hauser
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 18, 2009 16:55:47 GMT -8
Cool list! But I do want to add that the 28th St. crossing the Harbor Transitway on-ramp crossing will be one and the same (i.e. all in the same signalized intersection).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 18:11:50 GMT -8
^^ Thanks Justin. I was wondering how that would work.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 18:18:29 GMT -8
A few more pics coming back home. Details of ties at Farmdale. Note the fasteners. These are by Farmdale. Are they going to build a 24-hr full-stop grade crossing at Farmdale so that the line can be built faster and without seeking additional funds? Two not-so-good drive-by pics. This is between la Cienega and Ballona. Do you know what this large crane and large pipes are for? Another note is that they've reduced the number of lanes on Jefferson to one at La Brea, which is creating a traffic nigthmare. This is necessary for falsework installation, which should start at any time now. By Monday we might see falsework over La Brea.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 18, 2009 21:03:33 GMT -8
Well, judging from driving along the line, construction has now picked up speed and the line should open to Venice/Robertson circa August 2011. No offense, but you keep making these proclamations about the line opening from what's taken place during the last week or two's construction work. A few weeks ago, you stated that it was looking like 2010 for the whole Phase 1. Of course, it was only a few days later that the authority stated the project would not open in 2010 to Culver City and it could be 2012. For those that don't know to take these statements as a grain of salt, I'd suggest you refrain unless you have real information. My prediction for opening to Venice/Robertson has been circa August 2011 for a long time. We recently got carried away by the progress in Culver City and hoped for a December 2010 opening but that wasn't reasonable. There are so many things that can go wrong and no one can really predict when the line is going to open; so, I won't bet my money on this, and neither should Expo Authority.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 19, 2009 15:16:29 GMT -8
This is what is taking place adjacent to Ballona Creek right now in order to reinforce the ground next to a very old and weak sewer: Construction crews will be working to stabilize the existing sewer line at Ballona Creek by performing a pressure grouting process that will include drilling a series of columns to strengthen the area surrounding the sewer line. This work is necessary for the construction of the Ballona aerial overcrossing for the Expo Light Rail Line. The work is being managed and performed by the design-build contractor FCI/Fluor/ Parsons (FFP, a joint venture) and its subcontractors.
What: Mini-Jet grout columns to stabilize sewer line at Ballona Creek When: Monday, September 14, 2009 through Friday, October 23, 2009 Daytime Hours: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nighttime Hours: 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Crews will work in two shifts for the duration of this construction activity. Where: Exposition Right-of-Way at Ballona Creek between Jefferson Boulevard and National BoulevardJet Grouting and Jet Mixing Techniques Jet grouting, also sometimes referred to as jet mixing, is a method of grouting that uses very high pressure streams (6,000 psi or 40 MPa) of grout to erode, replace, mix, and cement soils. Jet grout construction uses a rotating and rising drill rod with small nozzles that direct the grout horizontally to form columns of soilcrete or soil-cement. Typical column diameters are 2 to 6 ft. Jet grouting is the only type of grouting that is capable of treating all types of soils from clays to gravel. Jet grouting is also useful in grouting isolated zones of soil and for grouting around and below buried utilities. Creating Soil-Concrete Columns Using Jet Grouting Technology There are at least three of types of jet grouting, some of which use air and / or water with the high pressure grout stream to improve soil penetration and column diameters. The procedure that is common to all jet grouting types (including double fluid jet grouting and triple fluid jet grouting) involves first drilling to the plan depth using small diameter drill rods. Next, a large and powerful pump is connected to the drill rod, which pumps the high pressure jet grout through the drill rods and horizontally into the soil. The drill rods are slowly rotated and raised creating columns of soil-cement. The shape of the grouted zone can be changed by directing the grout in ways that create panels, floors, or other shapes.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Sept 19, 2009 19:48:47 GMT -8
Here are all 26 Expo Phase 1 grade crossings. Enjoy! Can you do one with the grade seps?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2009 13:03:40 GMT -8
Here are all 26 Expo Phase 1 grade crossings. Enjoy! Can you do one with the grade seps? Well, in the area shown where there are at-grade crossings, the only grade-separation structures are the La Brea overpass and the USC trench, of which I still think that it was unnecessary. At-grade would have worked by USC but the LADOT didn't let them put a grade crossing at their off ramp. (LADOT was OK with the Hill St option that crossed the same intersections except for the freeway off ramp.) I think it would work there beautifully and perfectly at-grade though, with the slow trains at the turn there, and it would look much better without the obtrusive six-foot-high retaining walls we will soon see with the trench. But this is what happens when there are too many voices coming out of the mouths at the same time, which, for example, we are seeing with some Phase 2 people asking for an overpass and some others a trench at Overland.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 20, 2009 13:32:08 GMT -8
Well, in the area shown where there are at-grade crossings, the only grade-separation structures are the La Brea overpass and the USC trench, of which I still think that it was unnecessary. At-grade would have worked by USC but the LADOT didn't let them put a grade crossing at their off ramp. (LADOT was OK with the Hill St option that crossed the same intersections except for the freeway off ramp.) I think it would work there beautifully and perfectly at-grade though, with the slow trains at the turn there, and it would look much better without the obtrusive six-foot-high retaining walls we will soon see with the trench. But this is what happens when there are too many voices coming out of the mouths at the same time, which, for example, we are seeing with some Phase 2 people asking for an overpass and some others a trench at Overland. I'm pretty sure when the Expo Line opens, you are going to appreciate the speed of having a trench compared to at-grade crossings around USC. Just like how we appreciate the speed for the cut-and-cover from 7th to 11th for the Blue Line compared to Washington Blvd. I think Overland is a different issue all together.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2009 18:32:41 GMT -8
Well, in the area shown where there are at-grade crossings, the only grade-separation structures are the La Brea overpass and the USC trench, of which I still think that it was unnecessary. At-grade would have worked by USC but the LADOT didn't let them put a grade crossing at their off ramp. (LADOT was OK with the Hill St option that crossed the same intersections except for the freeway off ramp.) I think it would work there beautifully and perfectly at-grade though, with the slow trains at the turn there, and it would look much better without the obtrusive six-foot-high retaining walls we will soon see with the trench. But this is what happens when there are too many voices coming out of the mouths at the same time, which, for example, we are seeing with some Phase 2 people asking for an overpass and some others a trench at Overland. I'm pretty sure when the Expo Line opens, you are going to appreciate the speed of having a trench compared to at-grade crossings around USC. Just like how we appreciate the speed for the cut-and-cover from 7th to 11th for the Blue Line compared to Washington Blvd. I think Overland is a different issue all together. I agree that we all like speed. In the trench the trains would be going slow anyway, given the turn and stations/stops. The light there is already synchronized with Figueroa St. The only thing necessary would be to make the off ramp light red when the trains coming. From the aerial pictures, there is unused area on the ramp, which could have been converted into an actual lane, which would in turn solve the backup problem. I think with signal priority for the trains and the unused area converted into a lane on the off ramp, both the speed problem and backup problem would have been solved. As a bonus you would save $75 million, have a very beautiful light-rail line next to the campus, and wouldn't prohibit the spur along the right-of-way to the Blue Line. But the politics by LADOT and some city council persons resulted in the trench. The city council person (Jan Perry) was very happy at the end that she satisfied her NIMBYs by not letting the connector to the Blue Line happen.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 20, 2009 20:50:58 GMT -8
Here are four new photos on Flower Street this afternoon (why watch the Emmys when there's light rail construction!). Lots more rebar is on the Flower bridge over the Harbor Freeway. From this angle you can see the curve of the bridge and how the trackway will continue on the exposed end of the Adams bridge (far right). Falsework is going up on the cantilever above the freeway south of Adams. "Danger 100% Fall Protection"? And here are some rails on the underpass ramp, overall (above) and detail (below). It looks like it's all being assembled before the concrete is poured (the white in the distance appears to be finished concrete). You can also see the emergency catwalk on the sides and a bit of the fire pipe beneath it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2009 21:53:49 GMT -8
Very nice pics, Darrell, thanks.
I'm confused now. Where are the tracks Justin pictured with longitudinal concrete slabs? In your picture they are all embedded tracks.
By the way, how do you guys take these pictures of the trench?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 20, 2009 22:08:20 GMT -8
I'm confused now. Where are the tracks Justin pictured with longitudinal concrete slabs? In your picture they are all embedded tracks. By the way, how do you guys take these pictures of the trench? I suspect Justin stuck his camera through the chain-link fence above the K-rails on Flower, near the top of the ramp, so his view is looking across the track (photo above). If you look closely you can see a second, closer rail. I stepped over the K-rail just south of the portal, where there's no more fence, and looked through the fence up the track from above the portal. Two views of the same thing, the rebar in my detail filled with concrete in Justin's to form the support block.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 20, 2009 23:28:15 GMT -8
I suspect Justin stuck his camera through the chain-link fence above the K-rails on Flower, near the top of the ramp, so his view is looking across the track (photo above). If you look closely you can see a second, closer rail. Exactly right. I stepped over the K-rail just south of the portal, where there's no more fence, and looked through the fence up the track from above the portal. Two views of the same thing, the rebar in my detail filled with concrete in Justin's to form the support block. My picture was of the completed pads up near the top of the grade (visible as light gray in Darrell's picture). Some additional info: They appear to be using the same pad/rail procedure as described in this Red Line report: "HCC employed a forming system developed by the Iron Horse Engineering Company named the “PIP-Fast” (Pour-In-Place Fastener) System for the placement of the trackwork. With this system, the actual running rails are set to final line, grade, gauge and cant on the forms; the fasteners clipped to the rail (with the inserts bolted to the fastener); and the concrete for the plinths placed in one single operation. This method proved to be much more expedient than traditional “bottom up” methods, whereby a template is used to position the fastener inserts prior to the placement of concrete, and the final running rail subsequently installed. Since the actual rails are placed on the forms in their final position, this method also minimized the need for shims during the final surfacing of the track."
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 20, 2009 23:29:18 GMT -8
To augment Darrell's pics, here's some of the same area from today. A pic of what exactly you need "100% fall protection" from: Stacks of rail fasteners at Flower/Jefferson:
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 21, 2009 8:00:27 GMT -8
As a bonus you would save $75 million, have a very beautiful light-rail line next to the campus, and wouldn't prohibit the spur along the right-of-way to the Blue Line. But the politics by LADOT and some city council persons resulted in the trench. The city council person (Jan Perry) was very happy at the end that she satisfied her NIMBYs by not letting the connector to the Blue Line happen. Gokhan, you've lost me on this issue. I might be able to buy the argument that the trench wasn't worth the cost ($37.9 million). But cost aside, grade-separation is unquestionably the better alternative at Expo/Figueroa because it will isolate the Expo Line from the complicated tangle of boulevards and offramps at that intersection. L.A.s light rail lines are not little trolleys crossing small-town roads. Metro Rail is rapid transit with very frequent service running through very congested areas. So while I don't think all grade-crossings are bad, Metro certainly should avoid grade-crossings that will cause major traffic tie-ups or excessively slow trains. L.A. is not the same as it was 50 years ago. And even then, trolleys were increasingly stuck in auto traffic. What's more, L.A. will be a lot more congested 50 years from now. Just looking at 2030 is short-sighted because at this point that is only 20 years from now. What happens in 2040? Will we have to rip up all our at-grade lines and start over?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 10:08:53 GMT -8
As a bonus you would save $75 million, have a very beautiful light-rail line next to the campus, and wouldn't prohibit the spur along the right-of-way to the Blue Line. But the politics by LADOT and some city council persons resulted in the trench. The city council person (Jan Perry) was very happy at the end that she satisfied her NIMBYs by not letting the connector to the Blue Line happen. Gokhan, you've lost me on this issue. I might be able to buy the argument that the trench wasn't worth the cost ($37.9 million). But cost aside, grade-separation is unquestionably the better alternative at Expo/Figueroa because it will isolate the Expo Line from the complicated tangle of boulevards and offramps at that intersection. L.A.s light rail lines are not little trolleys crossing small-town roads. Metro Rail is rapid transit with very frequent service running through very congested areas. So while I don't think all grade-crossings are bad, Metro certainly should avoid grade-crossings that will cause major traffic tie-ups or excessively slow trains. L.A. is not the same as it was 50 years ago. And even then, trolleys were increasingly stuck in auto traffic. What's more, L.A. will be a lot more congested 50 years from now. Just looking at 2030 is short-sighted because at this point that is only 20 years from now. What happens in 2040? Will we have to rip up all our at-grade lines and start over? It's certainly somewhat a matter of philosophy: Should all rail be grade-separated as Fix Expo argues? Or should we build as much rail as possible using grade separations only when necessary (such as La Brea, La Cienega, Venice). I was making specific arguments but your comments are general in nature. An insider from LADOT told me that Expo originally wanted to go at-grade on Flower but they forced them to build grade separation. So, I think this was political. The nearby Vermont crossing is far more congested; yet, it will be at-grade.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 10:10:27 GMT -8
I'm confused now. Where are the tracks Justin pictured with longitudinal concrete slabs? In your picture they are all embedded tracks. To answer my question, apparently they become like in Justin's pics after the concrete is poured. It's interesting that the concrete forms a good bond with the invert concrete.
|
|