|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 5, 2010 12:44:08 GMT -8
Some pics of the completed junction trackwork from today: The Blue Line tracks are again intact and trains have been running since this morning. Here, you can see how the Expo Line tracks terminate at the northern crosswalk of Washington Blvd.: Looking north along the northbound track:
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Apr 5, 2010 14:12:24 GMT -8
One assumes that the diamond crossing was a custom job for this location. Expect track wear to be an issue in years to come.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 5, 2010 15:39:39 GMT -8
That's why street railway junction track hardware is called "specialwork"; it often has to be specifically designed and cast for the job. Can't tell for sure, but the "frogs" where rails cross appear to have inserts at the critical wear points. The inserts are made from a special steel alloy that's long-wearing but quite expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2010 15:52:10 GMT -8
I think all the crossovers or more or less custom work, as bobdavis said. That's why we have excellent rail companies like Balfour Beatty Rail for!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2010 15:52:42 GMT -8
I think all the crossovers, wyes, etc. are more or less custom work, as bobdavis said. That's what we have excellent rail companies like Balfour Beatty Rail for!
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 6, 2010 4:39:29 GMT -8
Neither Adams nor Jefferson go through the Culver Junction. No, but the Adams and Jefferson buses would if the West L.A. Transit Center is shifted over to the Culver City Expo Line station. I was asking a question, not giving an answer. I'm not sure what the exact need for the West LA Transit Center and Rimpau Terminal is either. The West L.A. Transit Center is there because it happens to be the place where the boundary line begins between Metro and Culver CityBus service. It may seem stupid, but there's a definite service disparity with La Cienega as the dividing line. Metro's Jefferson Boulevard has 15-30 minute service daily. Culver City's Jefferson Boulevard has hourly service weekdays only, and only manages a few hundred riders a day. Crackton is the result of bureaucratic inertia. It's sole purpose is to transfer from a Pico bus to a Pico bus, both of which have equivalent service levels. Ideally, Santa Monica would take over Line 30 and run Line 7 from downtown L.A. to the sea. Metro can then run the Rapid, which would probably be renamed 707. At least when Metro runs Rapids, it doesn't have that midday siesta Rapid 7 has. Crackton is, without a doubt. Also, the area around it has died ever since the riots. West L.A. Transit Center is an annoyance, but it's somewhat necessary. Metro's Washington Boulevard service is busier than Culver City's, so while it sucks to transfer, the alternative is Line 33 and the Culver City part of Washington would suffer if it was every second run while Metro 35/335 is the trunk line. The operations issue is what to do with a bus when it is not moving. Caltrans left space for the buses under the 10 freeway to park. They just pick up and drop off passengers on the street. Gokhan, could you clarify what you mean by bus "garage"? Do you mean a place to park for a layover? Or do you mean a facility that Metro calls a division -- the place where buses are corralled, cleaned and repaired?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2010 7:47:27 GMT -8
Gokhan, could you clarify what you mean by bus "garage"? Do you mean a place to park for a layover? Or do you mean a facility that Metro calls a division -- the place where buses are corralled, cleaned and repaired? Yes, I had found the WLA Transit Center inconvenient but maybe it's OK. It just takes too long to get to, for example, Culver City through it. Expo Line will change the picture dramatically. And I agree that the Culver City connections would be much better of through Venice/Robertson once the line opens. I meant a layover facility. There wouldn't be available land (at least for a reasonable price) at Venice/Robertson for a maintenance facility and I doubt if there is a need for that. But I also don't know if the land is available for a layover facility and if there is a will to build something like that. Culver City is certainly seeing the Culver Junction as a transit-oriented facility rather than a transit facility alone. I'm not sure if they would be willing to move the WLA Transit Center there.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 6, 2010 8:43:09 GMT -8
Neither Adams nor Jefferson go through the Culver Junction. No, but the Adams and Jefferson buses would if the West L.A. Transit Center is shifted over to the Culver City Expo Line station. Probably so. Wonder what they would do with the 105 & 705. Diverting from La Cienega between Venice and Fairfax is one thing, no big deal, but going down Venice all the way to Robertson, then back via Washington? I could see a couple of buses having to be added with no headway increase. And also the 534, starting at WLATC gives it easy access to the Santa Monica Freeway to head out to Santa Monica, not so much at Washington. And it would be ridiculous to back track down Venice to get on the w/b freeway at La Cienega. Should be interesting to see the final bus interface plan!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 6, 2010 11:03:27 GMT -8
The Pico-Rimpau transfer goes back decades--Rimpau is where the LA Railway/LATL/LAMTA (version 1.0) "P" streetcar line terminated, and it was probably the "boonies" when the trolley line was built. Many years ago the LA Times published an obituary for a descendant of the Rimpau family, which apparently owned that neigborhood in the ancient times. No, it doesn't make sense for a relic of the streetcar days to be perpetuated into the 21st Century. One of the touted advantages of buses is the ease with which routes can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2010 11:47:14 GMT -8
As a matter of fact, the MTA bus maintenance facility in Venice is the famous former Pacific Electric Ocean Park Car House, and it goes back to early 1900s. Apparently they tried to sell the land to a private developer. I'm not sure about the current status of it: News articleLikewise, the large MTA bus maintenance facility in West Hollywood is also a former Pacific Electric rail yard. The only thing missing in the picture today is the rail service.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2010 15:12:03 GMT -8
Metro still hasn't fixed the links to their library about the bus divisions, but I'm guessing that a significant number of the MTA bus divisions are former Pacific Electric rail yards... MTA bus divisions on Wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2010 15:27:50 GMT -8
I also posted two sample South Pasadena Gold Line images as a demonstration of my 15-85mm lens here. Have you ever considered getting a fish-eye lens? Then you can do amazing paranomas as well as 3D animations for the Expo Line. Canon fish-eye lensHere is how you can produce 360° paranomas instantly using a fish-eye lens. It's pretty amazing. Click on the image to open the demo:
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Apr 6, 2010 16:23:26 GMT -8
LAMTA Divisions with railway origins: Div. 3 was LARy/LATL, became all-bus around 1955 6th & Central was the site of PE's shops until they opened Torrance Shops back around 1920. There was also a power plant from the days before the local utilities had the resources to support "traction loading". The division near the San Bernardino Freeway and County Hospital is the former PE Macy St. Yard. In 1963 it became the temporary home of the LATL/LAMTA trolley bus fleet before it was sold off.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 7, 2010 4:28:14 GMT -8
I meant a layover facility. There wouldn't be available land (at least for a reasonable price) at Venice/Robertson for a maintenance facility and I doubt if there is a need for that. I figured that. A bus division would be a terrible thing to stick at a major hub. Take El Monte for instance. Division 9 is at the bus station, and its presence has been a major problem in getting the area redeveloped. El Monte there is dead. The only adjacent business was a car dealership, and now it's closed. Besides, Metro had been in plans with a developer to swap Division 6 (the yard between Santa Monica and Venice) for a full-service yard somewhere in Culver City. Interestingly, one of the sites shown was near Jefferson Blvd. and Duquesne Ave., where Culver City keeps its buses. Culver City wouldn't be moving the transit center there. It would be moving the buses there. A bus transit center doesn't preclude development of the station, and the added bus connections would make the project even more valuable. The issue really is about providing overflow bus parking capacity, especially for Metro. I had proposed that Santa Monica also relocated the Crackton buses to Culver Junction (Pico Boulevard would get a single crosstown service), which would really create a space problem. Culver Junction, though, with its odd street configuration, allows for a lot of turnarounds that could redistribute bus service through interlining. Metro could interline 35 (Washington) with 37 (Adams) the way Adams turns into 14 (Beverly) in downtown L.A. without a layover. Jefferson (38) could be interlined with Robertson (220), and riders would have to catch the buses on the street, but it solves the overflow problem.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 7, 2010 4:29:52 GMT -8
Probably so. Wonder what they would do with the 105 & 705. Line 105/705 connects with Expo at the La Cienega Station, along with lines 217/780.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 7, 2010 6:18:37 GMT -8
LAMTA Divisions with railway origins: Div. 3 was LARy/LATL, became all-bus around 1955 6th & Central was the site of PE's shops until they opened Torrance Shops back around 1920. There was also a power plant from the days before the local utilities had the resources to support "traction loading". The division near the San Bernardino Freeway and County Hospital is the former PE Macy St. Yard. In 1963 it became the temporary home of the LATL/LAMTA trolley bus fleet before it was sold off. I thought Division 1 (@ 6th/Central) was an LARy/LATL yard. IIRC, the small fleet of trolley buses was based there until they were discontinued in 1963 (same time as the remaining streetcar lines). Also, the now-closed (to revenue operations) Division 12 in Long Beach is roughly on the site of the former PE Fairbanks Yard. Oh, forgot, Division 5 (Arthur Winston/Mid-Cities) at Van Ness & 54 St was an LARY/LATL car house until sometime in the 50s.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 7, 2010 6:31:29 GMT -8
I meant a layover facility. There wouldn't be available land (at least for a reasonable price) at Venice/Robertson for a maintenance facility and I doubt if there is a need for that. I figured that. A bus division would be a terrible thing to stick at a major hub. Take El Monte for instance. Division 9 is at the bus station, and its presence has been a major problem in getting the area redeveloped. El Monte there is dead. The only adjacent business was a car dealership, and now it's closed. Was that Longo Toyota (and Lexus)? That's surprising, when I lived out there, they were one of the larger dealers (of course, a lot can happen in 12 years) Hmm, did the plans for a new Div. 6 near LAX fall through? The 220 lives on! Since the 220 is once an hour and the 38 runs more frequently than that, there would probably still be some 38s ending at Culver Junction.
|
|
|
Post by redwings105th on Apr 7, 2010 18:33:00 GMT -8
There isn't at "terminus" planned at La Cienega Station is there? It can be a good place for the 38, 217, 780, and maybe the Culver CityBus Line 4 to end there. But maybe not if there isnt enough room to have a layover zone for the busses.
The 220 is known for being a target for cancellation but it still here and, despite being a short line, it can help promote service to and from Venice/Robertson Station. Maybe serve as a shuttle for Hamilton High School and to the *cough* Cheviot NYMBIS (if they ever decide to use the Expo Line of course).
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 19:29:07 GMT -8
I've read that Metro plans to paint trains grey or white, with black roofs, for now. Not sure where i saw that. I know they want the ability to shift vehicles around between different light rail lines. But couldn't they add a little more color to the trains? The bright red and orange metro buses are nice, and everyone seems to like the "Big Blue Bus". Even Long Beach Transit went with a bright red paint scheme for their order of new hybrid (diesel/electric?) buses.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Apr 7, 2010 19:40:34 GMT -8
Oops, missed a page. Wad, thanks for the information about bus operations. It's amazing how much of the operational structure is a relic from the streetcar and interurban days. I know many of the current numbered bus lines in central San Diego still follow the cable car and streetcar lines of the 1910's and 1920's, and San Francisco is just getting around to canceling some redundant bus routes which started as rail and coach lines for competing companies and have not made sense for decades. Meanwhile, the New York subway system is quite popular, despite being a conglomeration of competing routes and not being able to "change routes with the times" like buses supposedly can.
For things to improve, Metro needs to get down their cost per hour for bus operations. I think they are paying over $100 per hour to operate a bus, mainly due to the benefits and salary of the driver. Do you know the exact number, Wad? The munis tend to be cheaper, so we can't just consolidate all the service under Metro even if it were politically possible, without cutting service or fitting the bus drivers union.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Apr 8, 2010 0:03:50 GMT -8
Here are some more pictures I took of the line today. Enjoy! Another perspective of the Expo Line - Blue Line junction: Platform canopies were installed at the 23rd St. station today. Note the crane lifting canopy sections from a flatbed truck: Further north at the new Venice crossover, I noticed that OCS wires have been strung for the new crossover movements. No trains have used the crossovers themselves yet, though (the asphalt driveway has flange grooves made by trains on the through-tracks but none for the crossover tracks).
|
|
|
Post by wad on Apr 8, 2010 3:40:38 GMT -8
Was that Longo Toyota (and Lexus)? That's surprising, when I lived out there, they were one of the larger dealers (of course, a lot can happen in 12 years) No, it was the Chevrolet and Hyundai dealer on Santa Anita. It used to be Gunderson, but the name appearing on the signs is Scott. Longo is about a mile east on Peck. I think it may still be the highest-selling Toyota dealership in the U.S. We might be talking about the same plan. One thing was for sure: Metro was going to swap the Venice yard for something bigger that can be run as a full-time division. One plan showed land in Culver City. One plan called for something near LAX, but I don't know of the site. I think Expo may give 220 a bump. One of the things I have pitched to the agencies in my Transit Service Interface Proposal is to restore 30 minute service to Robertson and reconfigure service. Santa Monica would end Line 12 at Culver Junction. It would give up its share of Robertson Boulevard service, where it can get as frequent as every 15 minutes. That's only as far as Pico, though. That level of service would be maintained by Metro Lines 220 and 221. Line 220 is the Robertson line you know and love. Line 221 would take the Beverly Drive tail of Line 14 and restore service provided by the former Line 3. Line 220 and 221 would be interlined in West Hollywood. Each would run every 30 minutes, but the two would duplicate service between Culver Junction and Pico for a combined 15-minute service weekdays. Along Pico, Line 221 would follow the route Santa Monica 5 operates, then continue via Beverly Drive. On weekends, only Line 221 would operate.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Apr 8, 2010 8:43:47 GMT -8
We might be talking about the same plan. One thing was for sure: Metro was going to swap the Venice yard for something bigger that can be run as a full-time division. One plan showed land in Culver City. One plan called for something near LAX, but I don't know of the site. OK. The plan I read about (I forget exactly where) was for the new D6 to built off La Cienega Blvd, between Century and Imperial. Only parcel of land (via Google Earth) I see that is currently vacant is west of La Cienega at Lennox Blvd (appears to be just north of the LAX 111th St lot) Here's a Google Street View: maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=La+Cienega+Blvd+%26+Lennox+Blvd,+Los+Angeles+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=19.788727,36.650391&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=S+La+Cienega+Blvd+%26+Lennox+Blvd,+Los+Angeles,+California+90045&ll=33.939444,-118.370132&spn=0,0.004474&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.938157,-118.370127&panoid=YfL3Ta7e2CZe5Mdowbrwmg&cbp=12,270,,0,5 Not sure if that is the location, or if MTA is still entertaining that area. I do recall a Culver City proposal, that one was going to be close to the Expo Line ROW, west of La Cienega. I remember doing some fantasy proposals on which lines D6 would pick up (and maybe give up) for both locations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 10, 2010 10:07:47 GMT -8
I drove along Expo yesterday. There was not a whole a lot of change. Falsework at La Cienega, including a vertical support in the median and I beams that go from one side of La Cienega to the other side in the centerline of the bridge, is still not removed but it turns out that it's supporting the station platform, which is apparently not finished yet.
Still four columns are missing for the Culver City aerial but their cages have been in for a long time. The abutment is having its vertical rebars done. There is still no sign of Balfour Beatty working on the superstructure.
Let's hope Phase 2 gets built much faster than Phase 1, which has had a somewhat glacier construction pace, so that we could see the line open to Santa Monica by 2014.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 10, 2010 10:43:15 GMT -8
Let's hope Phase 2 gets built much faster than Phase 1, which has had a somewhat glacier construction pace, so that we could see the line open to Santa Monica by 2014. Nice sentiment, but it won't be finished 2014 or even 2015. There will be no construction and practically no utility relocation in fiscal year 2011 so my guess is that we won't see major construction until late 2011 or early 2012. Metro is already listing the estimated completion date as 2016 instead of 2015 like they used to. Anyway it seems to be moving faster than the eastside line when that was under construction. Actually "faster" may not be the right word. I'd say that the construction is more intense with many more people working on it.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Apr 10, 2010 17:34:07 GMT -8
We can look at some Phase 1 milestones (from dated photos on friends4expo.org/phase1.htm ) for comparison to the Phase 2 construction timeline. Also note that Phase 2 lacks the long-lead-time projects of the Flower-Figueroa underpass, National Blvd. bridge over Ballona Creek, I-110 bridge, and Blue Line tie-in; one hopes won't have the LADWP utility or CPUC delays; and the CEQA lawsuit will be complete before construction is to begin. Right-of-way clearing - 1Q2008 K-rails and fences up - 2Q2008 First La Brea bridge footings - 4Q2008 First ballast curbs and OCS pole footings - 1Q2009 La Brea, La Cienega bridge falsework (delayed by LADWP) - 4Q2009 Track construction began - 4Q2009 Even with its delays the relevant part of Phase 1 construction will have basically taken about two years (fall 2008 to fall 2010). So if Phase 2 right-of-way clearing begins in early 2011 and construction begins later in 2011 it could be pretty complete by the end of 2013. (I presume that Metro's Fiscal Year 2016 could mean opening in the second half of 2015?)
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 17:50:52 GMT -8
Nice sentiment, but it won't be finished 2014 or even 2015. There will be no construction and practically no utility relocation in fiscal year 2011 so my guess is that we won't see major construction until late 2011 or early 2012. Metro is already listing the estimated completion date as 2016 instead of 2015 like they used to. Would this change if the 30/10 initiative was approved?
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Apr 10, 2010 18:34:53 GMT -8
Nice sentiment, but it won't be finished 2014 or even 2015. There will be no construction and practically no utility relocation in fiscal year 2011 so my guess is that we won't see major construction until late 2011 or early 2012. Metro is already listing the estimated completion date as 2016 instead of 2015 like they used to. Would this change if the 30/10 initiative was approved? No. The 30/10 proposal has several pieces such as the ability to get a loan from the National Infrastructure Bank. Since Expo Phase II is funded, it won't get it built any faster. What 30/10 does is allow some of the projects from Measure R that will be funded in the later years to be funded and built in the first 10 years, rather than from year 11 to year 30.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Apr 10, 2010 19:15:41 GMT -8
What 30/10 does is allow some of the projects from Measure R that will be funded in the later years to be funded and built in the first 10 years, rather than from year 11 to year 30. Yeah I know that. But what projects are those? The Bonus Answer!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 10, 2010 19:55:18 GMT -8
Let's hope Phase 2 gets built much faster than Phase 1, which has had a somewhat glacier construction pace, so that we could see the line open to Santa Monica by 2014. Nice sentiment, but it won't be finished 2014 or even 2015. There will be no construction and practically no utility relocation in fiscal year 2011 so my guess is that we won't see major construction until late 2011 or early 2012. Metro is already listing the estimated completion date as 2016 instead of 2015 like they used to. Anyway it seems to be moving faster than the eastside line when that was under construction. Actually "faster" may not be the right word. I'd say that the construction is more intense with many more people working on it. I just saw the movie 2012. In the segment where LA was destroyed, this seemed to be the Expo Line but when I took a closer look, it appears to be a subway train: In any case it looks like we are going to get to ride the line for a few months after it's built and before it all ends. By the way the movie was pretty good.
|
|