|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 11, 2013 9:28:04 GMT -8
Notice To Proceed: Crenshaw/LAX Line Officially Under ConstructionYesterday (September 10), Metro released it's "Notice To Proceed", which officially informs the project's contractor, Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors (WSCC) to begin building the line. The contractor has exactly five years in which to complete work. The deadline for completion is September 2018. <link>
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 11, 2013 11:17:23 GMT -8
Notice To Proceed: Crenshaw/LAX Line Officially Under ConstructionYesterday (September 10), Metro released it's "Notice To Proceed", which officially informs the project's contractor, Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors (WSCC) to begin building the line. The contractor has exactly five years in which to complete work. The deadline for completion is September 2018. <link> So, we're probably looking into a 2019 opening. 2019 is also the year the Downtown Connector will open, probably a few months after the Crenshaw Line. It's six years from now and four years from Expo-to-Santa-Monica opening. It will be a good year for LA public transit -- almost a full-blown rail-transit system. The only caveat is that it should have happened earlier. Six years is sooooo distant in the future...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 12, 2013 6:52:35 GMT -8
^ Yep. Expo II and Gold IIa are the current generation. Crenshaw and RC are the next generation.
They're saying the Regional Connector will open in 2020. But it seems to me, the Crenshaw project will take longer, even with the 6-month head start. Crenshaw is longer, has more stations and has additional structures to build (bridges, trench). Not only that, Crenshaw's underground segment is longer than the RC's (2.2 miles vs 1.9 miles).
I predict the dates will be reversed. 2020 (delayed opening) for Crenshaw and 2019 for the Regional Connector.
Lawsuits are the wildcard. A legal delay could throw either timetable out the window.
|
|
|
Post by simonla on Sept 12, 2013 7:36:41 GMT -8
^ Yep. Expo II and Gold IIa are the current generation. Crenshaw and RC are the next generation. They're saying the Regional Connector will open in 2020. But it seems to me, the Crenshaw project will take longer, even with the 6-month head start. Crenshaw is longer, has more stations and has additional structures to build (bridges, trench). Not only that, Crenshaw's underground segment is longer than the RC's (2.2 miles vs 1.9 miles). I predict the dates will be reversed. 2020 (delayed opening) for Crenshaw and 2019 for the Regional Connector. Lawsuits are the wildcard. A legal delay could throw either timetable out the window. I don't think we need to worry about lawsuits--as Expo has shown us--and suits against Crenshaw and RC are specious, at best. But I have to agree with MetroCenter--I never understand how they thought they could build such a complicated line as Crenshaw in five years and take such a long time with a very short line like RC. I guess the RC discussion is for another forum, but do we really believe Crenshaw can open in 2019? (One interesting thing is that since Metro Rail began in 1990, new lines and extensions have opened about every three or four years and these two projects keep us on that schedule, and Purple Line will continue that time table).
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Sept 12, 2013 8:45:10 GMT -8
how many grade separated crossings does Crenshaw has? That will probably determine the schedule more than anything. Also, how complete is the utility relocation that they began last year? Will they still be relocating utilities five years from now or is it already finished?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2013 7:07:48 GMT -8
how many grade separated crossings does Crenshaw has? That will probably determine the schedule more than anything. The Crenshaw Line will have the following grade separations (from north to south): - Tunnel under Crenshaw from Expo to 48th Street.
- Tunnel under Crenshaw from 59th Place (south of Slauson) to just past the turn off of Crenshaw (just north of Florence).
- Bridge over La Brea (at Florence).
- Bridge over La Cienega and 405 Freeway (at Florence).
- Bridge over Manchester (at Florence).
- Bridge over Century (at Aviation).
- Trench along Aviation east of the Airport.
- Bridge over Imperial/Aviation (with double connection to Green Line).
Five stations will be grade-separated: - Three underground stations: at Expo, MLK and Leimert Park.
- Two aerial stations: at La Brea and Aviation/Century (new LAX transfer point).
Three other stations will be at-grade: at Slauson, West and Hindry.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 13, 2013 7:40:16 GMT -8
Also, the Southwestern Yard needs to be built. This subproject will build a new maintenance yard on Aviation north of Century Boulevard.
I'm not sure if this yard must be completed before the line opens, but if so, it is another potential risk factor for the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 13, 2013 10:08:26 GMT -8
^ Yep. Expo II and Gold IIa are the current generation. Crenshaw and RC are the next generation. They're saying the Regional Connector will open in 2020. But it seems to me, the Crenshaw project will take longer, even with the 6-month head start. Crenshaw is longer, has more stations and has additional structures to build (bridges, trench). Not only that, Crenshaw's underground segment is longer than the RC's (2.2 miles vs 1.9 miles). I predict the dates will be reversed. 2020 (delayed opening) for Crenshaw and 2019 for the Regional Connector. Lawsuits are the wildcard. A legal delay could throw either timetable out the window. Right now they show Crenshaw as being ready Oct. 2019. It may well be tough to get that, but I sincerely doubt the connector will be built before 2020. They still need to start moving utilities and then evaluate the RFP responses and select a contractor and then issue a NTP. Crenshaw is way ahead of that schedule as they have already issued their NTP. Also, I imagine Downtown construction is much more difficult. Just think of the utilities there to start.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Sept 13, 2013 10:41:31 GMT -8
^ Yep. Expo II and Gold IIa are the current generation. Crenshaw and RC are the next generation. They're saying the Regional Connector will open in 2020. But it seems to me, the Crenshaw project will take longer, even with the 6-month head start. Crenshaw is longer, has more stations and has additional structures to build (bridges, trench). Not only that, Crenshaw's underground segment is longer than the RC's (2.2 miles vs 1.9 miles). I predict the dates will be reversed. 2020 (delayed opening) for Crenshaw and 2019 for the Regional Connector. Lawsuits are the wildcard. A legal delay could throw either timetable out the window. Right now they show Crenshaw as being ready Oct. 2019. It may well be tough to get that, but I sincerely doubt the connector will be built before 2020. They still need to start moving utilities and then evaluate the RFP responses and select a contractor and then issue a NTP. Crenshaw is way ahead of that schedule as they have already issued their NTP. Also, I imagine Downtown construction is much more difficult. Just think of the utilities there to start. Utility relocation for regional connector started a few months ago actually. I've seen them out on Flower street.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Sept 16, 2013 5:27:40 GMT -8
Also, the Southwestern Yard needs to be built. This subproject will build a new maintenance yard on Aviation north of Century Boulevard. I'm not sure if this yard must be completed before the line opens, but if so, it is another potential risk factor for the deadline. Would this new yard replace the current Hawthorne Yard and Shops (Division 22), or supplement it? Since the Crenshaw Line will be connected to the Green Line, seems one yard (whether Hawthorne or Southwestern) could host both lines, but maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 16, 2013 9:50:55 GMT -8
Would this new yard replace the current Hawthorne Yard and Shops (Division 22), or supplement it? Since the Crenshaw Line will be connected to the Green Line, seems one yard (whether Hawthorne or Southwestern) could host both lines, but maybe not. It would supplement the existing yard and shops. We currently have three light-rail facilities: - Division 11 - Blue Line facility in Long Beach.
- Division 21 - Gold Line facility in Chinatown.
- Division 22 - Green Line facility in Lawndale.
We also have two under construction: - Expo Line facility in Santa Monica.
- Gold Line facility in Monrovia.
This facility will be the sixth: - Crenshaw facility near LAX.
The new facility will also support the Green Line southern extension. All of these yards are needed to store and maintain Metro's ever-expanding fleet of LRVs.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 16, 2013 10:19:57 GMT -8
Also, the Southwestern Yard needs to be built. This subproject will build a new maintenance yard on Aviation north of Century Boulevard. I'm not sure if this yard must be completed before the line opens, but if so, it is another potential risk factor for the deadline. Would this new yard replace the current Hawthorne Yard and Shops (Division 22), or supplement it? Since the Crenshaw Line will be connected to the Green Line, seems one yard (whether Hawthorne or Southwestern) could host both lines, but maybe not.I think Metro can begin service on Crenshaw without the new yard but there will be no physical room to store more train cars. As a result, Metro will be limited on service frequency because of the longer service pattern with same number of cars. The new yard will also serve the Southbay extension.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Sept 17, 2013 6:56:30 GMT -8
Would this new yard replace the current Hawthorne Yard and Shops (Division 22), or supplement it? Since the Crenshaw Line will be connected to the Green Line, seems one yard (whether Hawthorne or Southwestern) could host both lines, but maybe not. It would supplement the existing yard and shops. We currently have three light-rail facilities: - Division 11 - Blue Line facility in Long Beach.
- Division 21 - Gold Line facility in Chinatown.
- Division 22 - Green Line facility in Lawndale.
We also have two under construction: - Expo Line facility in Santa Monica.
- Gold Line facility in Monrovia.
This facility will be the sixth: - Crenshaw facility near LAX.
The new facility will also support the Green Line southern extension. All of these yards are needed to store and maintain Metro's ever-expanding fleet of LRVs. Thanks for that list
I think I read (possibly here?) that once the Regional Connector opens, and the service pattern changes to Blue Line Foothill-Long Beach and Gold Line East L. A.-Santa Monica, that Div. 21 may be downgraded to simple storage, while the Gold Line trains would be based at Santa Monica, and the Blue trains at Long Beach and Monrovia (that line would be so long, it would need 2 divisions, similar to some of the longer bus lines that operate out of 2 (or more) bus divisions. I could see them using the then-Location 21 as midday storage for trains short-turning at Union Station from Foothill (or even Long Beach) or even overnight storage for trains to start service at Union Station in either direction.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 19, 2013 9:27:43 GMT -8
^ There will be a lot more flexibility once the Regional Connector opens. It will allow a lot more sharing of resources.
While six facilities does seem like a lot, there are two reasons to keep them all running. First reason: the number of LRVs in service is going to be enormous, once all the projects get built. And second reason: most communities want less maintenance activity in their backyard, so keeping activity evenly distributed has a political component as well.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 18, 2013 13:36:42 GMT -8
I was just driving on La Brea in "downtown" Inglewood where La Brea crosses the train tracks that will become the Crenshaw Line. Inglewood has incredible potential for TOD and multifunctional development. Kaiser Permanente has a complex a block south. There are some terrific restaurants in walking distance--including a Zagat-rated vegetarian restaurant. This location is only a stop away from the LAX connector and it's a straight-shot to the Expo Line.
I imagined a station at Florence and La Brea and new businesses and multi-functional housing, Ã la what's planned for National and Washington in Culver City. This location could become really exciting.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 18, 2013 20:42:40 GMT -8
So metro has given the notice to proceed to Walsh/Shea? when will the TBMs arrive, next year? Is this going to be more directly desgned/constructed by metro, instead of an authority like foothill or expo?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 21, 2013 11:02:58 GMT -8
Metro will be supervising the contractor(s) rather than an authority.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 21, 2013 13:48:09 GMT -8
Metro will be supervising the contractor(s) rather than an authority. so it will be more like how the red line was built by the RTD and then metro supervising the contractor,so I'm assuming that the regional connector and purple line extension will also be built in this manner. The gold line the first to have an authority? did eastside extension and orange line have authorities?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2013 9:39:56 GMT -8
Orange line was also build by Metro directly. Gold (both Eastside and Foothill) and Expo are the only ones that are built/currently building by 3rd party.
Regional connector, Crenshaw line, and the purple line extension will all be constructed by Metro.
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Oct 22, 2013 9:54:19 GMT -8
Orange line was also build by Metro directly. Gold (both Eastside and Foothill) and Expo are the only ones that are built/currently building by 3rd party. Regional connector, Crenshaw line, and the purple line extension will all be constructed by Metro. Eastside was built by metro.
|
|
|
Post by skater on Oct 22, 2013 13:12:13 GMT -8
the decision to use an authority was part of the backlash caused by metro having problems with the red line, that would also lead to zev's anti subway law, right? but does using an authority potentially cost more and take longer than directly supervising the contractors?
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2013 20:29:03 GMT -8
Yes and no... Taking construction away from Metro was partly due to the view back then that the combined RTD/Metro should focus on operations (especially buses). Another reason was purely political. The County Supervisors, particularly Gloria Molina favored the construction authority so they can exercise more influence over the project. The creation of another entity besides Metro that is responsible for construction resulted in more advocacy for extending the Gold line deep into SGV. If the line is not extended, the construction authority has no reason for existence. It created a strong conflict of interest that persists today, with Gold line authority already planning to extend the line to Upland and Ontario airport despite lack of funds and the fact it is in San Bernardino County. All this potential endless extension is motivated by construction contracts, not necessarily operational efficiency or even transit needs. Those are Metro's problem once the line is built.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 29, 2013 16:15:34 GMT -8
Although it is true that almost any corporate body--in this case a construction authority--will seek to perpetuate its existence, even unjustifiably, it's also true that given this state of Los Angeles area rail transit ...that only recently is beginning to reach masses of LA area residents, it makes sense to establish a group that naturally will advocate for transit.
At some future juncture, perhaps this won't be necessary, but for now, I'm excited to have a group that fights for more rail projects--even if the advocacy is naturally self-serving! ...Let our officeholders and committees sort through the chaff of proposals and present us with the most cost-effective for consideration and the best of them, eventual funding.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 30, 2013 11:35:23 GMT -8
We are veering off topic but Gold Line Foothill 2B extension to Monteclair will parallel Metrolink tracks in its entirety. They are proposing laying down Gold line tracks right next to Metrolink tracks and sharing all the stations. We are not serving a new area with 2B. In fact, Metrolink will have more stations than Gold line 2B in this section so the "commuter rail" will be providing more local service than 2B. It is in my opinion a pretty useless extension.
Any sane person advocating for transit will see that upgrading Metrolink in this corridor is much better investment than extending the Gold line past Azusa.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Oct 31, 2013 15:31:35 GMT -8
Not to take sides here on whether or not the Gold line should terminate at ONT, but:
Honestly, the attempt to create broad advocacy on the Westside for mass transit and keep it's NIMBYs out of the headlines has been an utter embarrassment compared to the efforts out here in the SGV.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 31, 2013 17:38:00 GMT -8
Yes and no... Taking construction away from Metro was partly due to the view back then that the combined RTD/Metro should focus on operations (especially buses). Another reason was purely political. The County Supervisors, particularly Gloria Molina favored the construction authority so they can exercise more influence over the project. The creation of another entity besides Metro that is responsible for construction resulted in more advocacy for extending the Gold line deep into SGV. If the line is not extended, the construction authority has no reason for existence. It created a strong conflict of interest that persists today, with Gold line authority already planning to extend the line to Upland and Ontario airport despite lack of funds and the fact it is in San Bernardino County. All this potential endless extension is motivated by construction contracts, not necessarily operational efficiency or even transit needs. Those are Metro's problem once the line is built. Thank goodness I'm not the only one that thought this. There are so many more important projects that should be built before extending the Gold Line. The Gold is already the least busiest line in the system. Until recently it was even beat by the Green Line - and that's almost all in the middle of freeway AND with it's last 4 western-most stations being ghost stations.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Oct 31, 2013 17:46:53 GMT -8
Not to take sides here on whether or not the Gold line should terminate at ONT, but: Honestly, the attempt to create broad advocacy on the Westside for mass transit and keep it's NIMBYs out of the headlines has been an utter embarrassment compared to the efforts out here in the SGV. I don't necessarily think that's a great or fair comparison. The Westside is filled to the brim with wealthy/semi-wealthy residents. Also, other than highland park, which isn't a rich area, the foothill Gold Line is COMPLETELY in Private ROW(Which is what gives the Gold Line it's speed on the pasadena segment) which makes it much easier to make a case for the project. On Westside, at-grade rail has to cross some of the busiest streets in LA, which means far more grade separations and increased cost. Heavy Rail Subway is even harder. Other than the bridge projects, the foothill Gold Line is basically just as simple as putting down OCS, track, and ballast.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 1, 2013 16:54:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 1, 2013 20:07:04 GMT -8
Redoing the EIR is impossible, I think, at this point. I don't see the huge advantage of this change, other than it is closer to the airport. Maybe I'm blind to the obvious. I read somewhere that the LAX people mover could break cost records for people movers.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 1, 2013 21:23:32 GMT -8
Redoing the EIR is impossible, I think, at this point. I don't see the huge advantage of this change, other than it is closer to the airport. Maybe I'm blind to the obvious. I read somewhere that the LAX people mover could break cost records for people movers. Of course the people mover is going to cost a fortune. You have to build the thing in and around the existing infrastructure, without ripping out half the terminal. I would imagine that older big airports like LAX had their people mover built in a long time ago, and new airports have their people movers built-in during the actual construction of the airport.
|
|