|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 11:00:43 GMT -8
^^ Yeah, unfortunately this was not adopted. You posted the picture below about a month ago. Quite a difference. I'm sure the addition of trees will help though.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Nov 10, 2010 11:10:26 GMT -8
A quick question for anyone willing to take a shot:
The blue and gold station is already to starting to rankle students and alumnus.
If, at some future date, the the school wanted to change the color(s) and or station - how would they go about it? Do you think Metro would allow it or would they stonewall?
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but the blue paint is already starting to peel off the gates on the street side of the USC station. Looks like a poor paint mixture, poor metallurgical composition or both - but it looks pretty shoddy.
Will this be fixed? A
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 11:16:05 GMT -8
On the bright side, the advantage of the Flower St alternative over the original Hill St alternative will be that it will be perhaps about five minutes faster.
But there were numerous disadvantages such as cost ($50+ million) and the future preclusion of the use of the Expo right-of-way east of USC for storage and access to the Blue Line yards. Also, the transfer time from the Long Beach side of the Blue Line to the Expo Line will be longer under the Flower St alternative in comparison to the Hill St alternative. Another disadvantage was that we would have a new rail line on Hill St. Yet, one more disadvantage was that we ended up with obtrusive trench walls on Exposition by USC.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 11:20:01 GMT -8
A quick question for anyone willing to take a shot: The blue and gold station is already to starting to rankle students and alumnus. If, at some future date, the the school wanted to change the color(s) and or station - how would they go about it? Do you think Metro would allow it or would they stonewall? Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but the blue paint is already starting to peel off the gates on the street side of the USC station. Looks like a poor paint mixture, poor metallurgical composition or both - but it looks pretty shoddy. Will this be fixed? A The answer to the first question is a simple no. USC has already been refused by Metro for different station design, on the basis that it would be discriminative against the other neighborhoods, as all Phase 1 stations were planned to be the same. (In fact they are thinking of making the Phase 2 stations the same as well.) The stations were originally planned to be made of stainless steel but because of budget overruns and value engineering, they were converted to painted carbon steel. I haven't seen the peeling paint.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2010 11:21:37 GMT -8
On the bright side, the advantage of the Flower St alternative over the original Hill St alternative will be that it will be perhaps about five minutes faster. But there were numerous disadvantages such as cost ($50+ million) and the future preclusion of the use of the Expo right-of-way east of USC for storage and access to the Blue Line yards. Also, the transfer time from the Long Beach side of the Blue Line to the Expo Line will be longer under the Flower St alternative in comparison to the Hill St alternative. Another disadvantage was that we would have a new rail line on Hill St. Yet, one more disadvantage was that we ended up with obtrusive trench walls on Exposition by USC. 5 minutes faster makes it more than worth it to me. The trench part of the Expo Line will be my favorite part of Phase I Expo. We won't have to wait for lights at Figueroa/Expo and Flower/Expo and the whole I-110 traffic. We will zip by all that waiting time between Jefferson and USC/Expo Park stations. I just wish the trench was longer. Would have saved more time.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 11:29:13 GMT -8
On the bright side, the advantage of the Flower St alternative over the original Hill St alternative will be that it will be perhaps about five minutes faster. But there were numerous disadvantages such as cost ($50+ million) and the future preclusion of the use of the Expo right-of-way east of USC for storage and access to the Blue Line yards. Also, the transfer time from the Long Beach side of the Blue Line to the Expo Line will be longer under the Flower St alternative in comparison to the Hill St alternative. Another disadvantage was that we would have a new rail line on Hill St. Yet, one more disadvantage was that we ended up with obtrusive trench walls on Exposition by USC. 5 minutes faster makes it more than worth it to me. The trench part of the Expo Line will be my favorite part of Phase I Expo. We won't have to wait for lights at Figueroa/Expo and Flower/Expo and the whole I-110 traffic. We will zip by all that waiting time between Jefferson and USC/Expo Park stations. I just wish the trench was longer. Would have saved more time. But you don't get to see the outside when you're in a trench.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 10, 2010 11:41:50 GMT -8
5 minutes faster makes it more than worth it to me. The trench part of the Expo Line will be my favorite part of Phase I Expo. We won't have to wait for lights at Figueroa/Expo and Flower/Expo and the whole I-110 traffic. We will zip by all that waiting time between Jefferson and USC/Expo Park stations. I just wish the trench was longer. Would have saved more time. But you don't get to see the outside when you're in a trench. Ride the Blue Line in Long Beach....and tell me if you enjoy sitting at a red light while you see cross-traffic going. Or the painfully slow Gold Line eastside extension..........Point being: people value speed above all else. Then why are more people fascinated about faster trains in general worldwide than about their viewing pleasure? I don't see people sitting on the I-10 freeway going "ah, what a lovely view"; or even on the Green, Blue, or Gold Lines either. More people are concerned about how fast they'll get to their destination. Ah, but I digress; we've been beaten this at-grade v. subway conversation to death. Gokhan - I think you are the biggest at-grade fan in all of Los Angeles. I know Darrel is as well, but he doesn't add snarky comments about "well it's still 3.5 times cheaper than the westside subway" like yesterday's LA Times report about the Expo Line.......when we are not even comparing the subway to Expo Line. Expo Line is 1 project and the subway is another project.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 12:30:11 GMT -8
But you don't get to see the outside when you're in a trench. Gokhan - I think you are the biggest at-grade fan in all of Los Angeles. Thanks for the compliment. I'm actually also a big fan of speed as well and I'm frustrated with the slowness of the Eastside extension. I would rather spend five more minutes and have a more pleasant ride with a nice view and easier station access. But I wouldn't like the Expo Line to take one hour or more to Santa Monica, with a 35 MPH speed limit and stopping at every other traffic light. I'm also a supporter of the Westside subway. Despite being very expensive, the ridership will be very high and there are not good alternatives for above-ground rail in that corridor. I would also support replacing the local buses with traditional streetcars where possible. But, no, I wouldn't support very slow at-grade rail for main lines. I know there are folks out there who support that but I'm not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 13:58:10 GMT -8
A quick question for anyone willing to take a shot: The blue and gold station is already to starting to rankle students and alumnus. If, at some future date, the the school wanted to change the color(s) and or station - how would they go about it? Do you think Metro would allow it or would they stonewall? Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but the blue paint is already starting to peel off the gates on the street side of the USC station. Looks like a poor paint mixture, poor metallurgical composition or both - but it looks pretty shoddy. Will this be fixed? A The answer to the first question is a simple no. USC has already been refused by Metro for different station design, on the basis that it would be discriminative against the other neighborhoods, as all Phase 1 stations were planned to be the same. Metro's "Urban Design Policy" says that any exceptions to the standardized design must be requested and paid for by local stakeholders. They must also be approved by the Metro Board. It looks to me like the proposed alternative designs for USC died in some committee, but I can't seem to find the documentation.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 14:26:34 GMT -8
It looks to me like the proposed alternative designs for USC died in some committee, but I can't seem to find the documentation. USC had asked for special design but never paid for it. That's because financially contributing to the Expo Line would mean endorsing the project, which was adamantly opposed to by the Steven Sample administration and the alumnus Mark Ridley-Thomas -- "Don't turn Exposition Park into a rail yard."I don't think this even got a formal review at the end. At one point the talks between Expo and USC about it was over and I was told by Expo that they wouldn't do this because it would be discriminatory, as all other stations would be identical to each other but different than the USC Station.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 10, 2010 15:45:04 GMT -8
So that doesn't necessarily mean that USC couldn't pay some money at some point in the future to change the design of the station. It's one thing to have Metro pay for it, but I don't think it's discriminatory to allow communities to upgrade/renovate a station to suit their own aesthetics if it doesn't negatively affect the functioning of the station.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 16:04:30 GMT -8
So that doesn't necessarily mean that USC couldn't pay some money at some point in the future to change the design of the station. It's one thing to have Metro pay for it, but I don't think it's discriminatory to allow communities to upgrade/renovate a station to suit their own aesthetics if it doesn't negatively affect the functioning of the station. I can't imagine Metro would entertain the idea at all until a few years after the project is done. They won't want to disrupt the new rail service to redesign stations. In time, however, Metro may be flexible and allow some customization, so long as it's done within the urban design policy, which requires the neighbors requesting the change to pay for it. One reason cited for wanting a common look on the stations was to avoid unequal or preferential treatment between different stations. The second reason was to create a common identity along the line. The third reason was to allow Metro to build a "kit of parts", i.e., parts that Metro could buy parts in quantity to use at any of the stations for repairs/replacement. It must kinda suck for USC to be stuck with Bruin Blue on its doorstep, for now anyway. But nobody is to blame but Steven Sample and his fellow rail opponents at USC.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 10, 2010 16:34:11 GMT -8
South Pasadena Gold Line station was upgraded with MTA and local funds. From the 2-22-03 Star News...
Using a $665,000 MTA grant and $166,000 in county transportation bond funds, city officials wanted to create a Gold Line station that would complement the historic commercial neighborhood.
A committee headed by City Council members Dorothy Cohen and David Saeta spent two years picking out architectural and aesthetic design features. The money paid for enhancements like brick paving stones in the station's plaza, retro-style street lamps, decorative metal benches and brass railings leading up the station platform.
The city also kicked in $35,000 for an old-fashioned clock tower that was installed near the Meridian Watering Trough.
And then there's the 10-foot-tall bronze statue of a man, bolted atop two granite blocks, who appears to be walking from the station toward the Mission-Meridian intersection. The Construction Authority's public art program covered the sculpture's $100,000 cost.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 16:41:20 GMT -8
Here is this month's Expo monthly status presentation. The substantial-completion (to Wesley St) date is still May 28, 2011. (The actual opening requires at least about three months of testing and prerevenue service after the substantial completion.) The Phase 2 preliminary engineering is finished or almost finished, with the comments by Expo, Metro, and both cities being incorporated. The bids are due on December 15. The selection will happen on February 3 and that's when Phase 2 will commence.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 10, 2010 16:53:22 GMT -8
South Pasadena Gold Line station was upgraded with MTA and local funds. From the 2-22-03 Star News... Yes it was. But that was nearly four years before the "Urban Design Policy" was approved. Nowadays, policy favors a unified design.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 10, 2010 17:18:30 GMT -8
Here is this month's Expo monthly status presentation. The substantial-completion (to Wesley St) date is still May 28, 2011. (The actual opening requires at least about three months of testing and prerevenue service after the substantial completion.) The Phase 2 preliminary engineering is finished or almost finished, with the comments by Expo, Metro, and both cities being incorporated. The bids are due on December 15. The selection will happen on February 3 and that's when Phase 2 will commence. 3 months beyond May 28th is late late August.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 10, 2010 21:49:54 GMT -8
Here is this month's Expo monthly status presentation. The substantial-completion (to Wesley St) date is still May 28, 2011. (The actual opening requires at least about three months of testing and prerevenue service after the substantial completion.) The Phase 2 preliminary engineering is finished or almost finished, with the comments by Expo, Metro, and both cities being incorporated. The bids are due on December 15. The selection will happen on February 3 and that's when Phase 2 will commence. 3 months beyond May 28th is late late August. That's a likely possibility but so far everything is up in the air because FTA hasn't issued the finding of no significant impact for the Farmdale Station yet and the Expo Authority is waiting for that to discuss which segment to open and when.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 10, 2010 22:59:17 GMT -8
Thanks -- Expo always takes so long to post the link. On the subject of street running speeds, I was driving west around 7 p.m. and experienced about a 60 second red-light delay at Vermont, but then got all green lights for the remaining intersections through Grammercy. We could easily live with only 60 seconds of signal delay beyond Jefferson.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 8:00:01 GMT -8
Thanks -- Expo always takes so long to post the link. On the subject of street running speeds, I was driving west around 7 p.m. and experienced about a 60 second red-light delay at Vermont, but then got all green lights for the remaining intersections through Grammercy. We could easily live with only 60 seconds of signal delay beyond Jefferson. No. One 60 second delay ag Jefferson, then another 60 second delay at Crenshaw, then another 60 second delay at Overland, yadda yadda yadda....It adds up. Why are we so okay with street-running segments? As metrocenter and I have pointed out, people value speed as the prime benefit of going Metro. Nobody is saying "I can't wait to see what South LA look like". No. Everybody is asking "how fast will I get to Culver City?" how fast to Santa Monica? This is what the general consensus want. We need to push Metro to give priority somehow. Otherwise, we keep building a 2nd rate transit system.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 8:28:27 GMT -8
On the subject of street running speeds, I was driving west around 7 p.m. and experienced about a 60 second red-light delay at Vermont, but then got all green lights for the remaining intersections through Grammercy. We could easily live with only 60 seconds of signal delay beyond Jefferson. As I've said before, the perception of slowness is at least as important as the actual speed. Many people will decide about taking the train by how it feels to them. If it has frequent starts and stops, then people will feel like they are on a slow bus ride, and they will decide that it is a poky train not worth taking. BTW, I don't think this is going to happen on the Expo Line. Expo will operate more like a private ROW line rather than a street-running line, because it is mostly made up of segments with crossing gates, allowing the train to run at a good speed. But the potential for delays at Vermont and Crenshaw do concern me.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 11, 2010 10:34:43 GMT -8
I was riding the Blue Line a few days ago, all the way to the Pico Station. It didn't stop at a single red light on Washington or Flower. It slowed before approaching Pico but then the signal changed to proceed. It was also a little slow on Flower (probably because of safety concerns due to the lack of fences) but it never stopped. Overall it was a very good experience, better than taking the bus or driving.
The important thing on Flower and Exposition east of Gramercy (and at the Crenshaw Station) will be signal priority, like on Washington and Flower for the Bue Line. Expo is is currently working on this with LADOT. If it's implemented successfully, riding the Expo Line will be a very fast and pleasant experience.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 11, 2010 10:48:22 GMT -8
I was riding the Blue Line a few days ago, all the way to the Pico Station. It didn't stop at a single red light on Washington or Flower. It slowed before approaching Pico but then the signal changed to proceed. It was also a little slow on Flower (probably because of safety concerns due to the lack of fences) but it never stopped. Overall it was a very good experience, better than taking the bus or driving. The important thing on Flower and Exposition east of Gramercy (and at the Crenshaw Station) will be signal priority, like on Washington and Flower for the Bue Line. Expo is is currently working on this with LADOT. If it's implemented successfully, riding the Expo Line will be a very fast and pleasant experience. I don't think we have a problem with the Washington or Flower street segments. The issue with the Blue Line and speed is about the Long Beach section. That's where the problem is. Metrocenter can attest to that. Previously, a while back, I do remember the Blue Line on Washington and Flower were stop-start for traffic street lights, but that changed a year ago and now there is full signal priority or at least a perfectly timed transition between Pico and Washington stations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 11, 2010 11:20:16 GMT -8
And let's not forget that Darrell was driving a Prius and not riding a light-rail train; so, he wouldn't have signal priority even if Expo already had LADOT program the signals.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 11, 2010 12:03:10 GMT -8
I have taken the Blue Line to Downtown recently, and have had no problems with the speed, real or perceived. This was a huge improvement over a few years back.
The system's three problem areas (in terms of frustrating slowing/stopping) are (1) Blue Line in Long Beach, (2) Gold Line between 1st/Indiana and 3rd/Rowan, and (3) Gold Line between Lincoln/Cypress and Highland Park.
Expo doesn't really have any segments comparable to these "problem areas". Even if it has to stop for up to a minute at Crenshaw and Vermont, it won't feel like a constant stop/slow/wait/slow pattern, as in the other cases above.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 11, 2010 12:20:24 GMT -8
And let's not forget that Darrell was driving a Prius and not riding a light-rail train; so, he wouldn't have signal priority even if Expo already had LADOT program the signals. LOL! But if I drive next to the train I should be good for green lights until the next station stop....
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 12, 2010 13:56:15 GMT -8
Here is this month's Expo monthly status presentation. The substantial-completion (to Wesley St) date is still May 28, 2011. (The actual opening requires at least about three months of testing and prerevenue service after the substantial completion.) The Phase 2 preliminary engineering is finished or almost finished, with the comments by Expo, Metro, and both cities being incorporated. The bids are due on December 15. The selection will happen on February 3 and that's when Phase 2 will commence. I wonder when the actual groundbreaking ceremony would be. I would think soon after Feb. 3 (I believe they need a notice to proceed). It would be nice to say that the entire Expo Line is under construction, although I realize Phase II will really just have some basic ROW clearance and utility relocation in 2011 and not any real construction work to note.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 12, 2010 14:10:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Nov 13, 2010 18:25:46 GMT -8
Was driving by the line today and saw kids in the Phase I ROW playing hide and seek between the poles. To be fair, the portals into the right of way are still open, however it still made me cringe.
|
|
jass
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jass on Nov 13, 2010 23:36:39 GMT -8
I dont see the harm. If you live close enough to the line to consider it a play place, you're well aware that no trains run on it.
|
|
|
Post by trackman on Nov 14, 2010 9:57:25 GMT -8
Are those sprinkler heads in the dirt area between the curb and the ROW fence? How wide is the dirt area... I know it could be deceiving from this angle and dirt height, but it only looks like it is 6-18 inches wide?
|
|