|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 6, 2011 6:00:43 GMT -8
I agree with Gokhan that a February 2012 full opening to Culver City is much better than a half-a**ed opening to La Cienega/Jefferson, which is really not a destination at all. Venice/Robertson, though at the edge of Culver City, is a more important terminus. Now, if the opening gets pushed back further than February 2012.............
Question: when was the substantial completion date of the Eastside Gold Line? It opened for service on November 15, 2009.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 6, 2011 8:38:16 GMT -8
Is it really better to open to Culver City several months later? I'd be using it from La Cienega if it were to open before Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 6, 2011 8:51:23 GMT -8
Is it really better to open to Culver City several months later? I'd be using it from La Cienega if it were to open before Culver City. I would use it too........but Venice/Robertson is a better terminus anyways and shows that Metro is about connecting communities (it'll be cool to see CULVER CITY on those Metro rail maps at stations). But, alas, the train will get there...........eventually. And I said it before, I'll say it again, Expo to Santa Monica will not open until 2016. We still need those businesses along the Expo ROW in West LA to clear out (between Westwood and Centinela). Nothing moving there.......
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 6, 2011 10:05:59 GMT -8
I agree with Gokhan that a February 2012 full opening to Culver City is much better than a half-a**ed opening to La Cienega/Jefferson, which is really not a destination at all. Venice/Robertson, though at the edge of Culver City, is a more important terminus. Now, if the opening gets pushed back further than February 2012............. Question: when was the substantial completion date of the Eastside Gold Line? It opened for service on November 15, 2009. At this rate, maybe we just wait to open Phase I until we can open to Santa Monica - all at once This is bad news though for USC people as others have pointed out. They will really have to wait until the 2012-2013 school year to give up their parking passes and rely on the train.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on May 6, 2011 11:25:54 GMT -8
*sigh* And people wonder why the masses think transit in L.A. is a joke. Though in this case, it would be the construction of said transit being a joke.
I don't mean to sound negative; I can't wait to ride the Expo Line, but the delays are beyond ridiculous now. Surely someone can be held accountable for it? If not the contractor, then someone else perhaps?
I'm also thinking Expo II will be 2016 at this point, and with the Foothill Gold Line delayed until 2015, it looks like we may be in a longer wait than we thought for more rail transit in Los Angeles...
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 11:36:39 GMT -8
Well, let's accept the Expo Line Phase 1 delays simply as a fact and not complain about them.
Yesterday Expo Chief Project Officer Eric Olson, when he gave his monthly project-status presentation, was seemingly in shock and incoherent as a result of the sudden two-month setback. But why? Doesn't he ever drive along the line as I frequently do? The project is far from complete and with the usual pace of FFP, there was no way they could have finished the job in June. I personally wouldn't be surprised if we see another two months of delay to October. Now they are getting to the critical parts such as traffic signals and train-control signals, and given the lack of cooperation we have been getting from the City, I doubt the job could be done before early fall.
So, let's just sit back and relax. The line will open perhaps three months late but if it's a full opening to Culver City, people will be even happier at the end. Let's just hope that the Culver City Station isn't delayed as well.
Phase 2 has so far been going very well and they have learned a lot of lessons from Phase 1. It's being done in a different day (no "negotiated," small-package-by-small-package design - build). I don't expect as much problems in Phase 2 and I believe that Santa Monica will open in early 2015.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 6, 2011 12:05:48 GMT -8
This is bad news though for USC people as others have pointed out. They will really have to wait until the 2012-2013 school year to give up their parking passes and rely on the train. It seems a lot of people here keep ignoring the huge impact USC has on this line. It will be most of the ridership. It's not just about the suburban football fan, it's the tens of thousands of students, faculty and staff. And you're right, a September opening means a student can rely on metro for the entire year. November? Useless. Car required*. And you dont buy a car for 3 months, once you have a car, that's it, no going back. *Yes, there are buses. Now go ahead and convince suburban students that the buses are acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 6, 2011 12:43:37 GMT -8
*sigh* And people wonder why the masses think transit in L.A. is a joke. Though in this case, it would be the construction of said transit being a joke. I don't mean to sound negative; I can't wait to ride the Expo Line, but the delays are beyond ridiculous now. Surely someone can be held accountable for it? If not the contractor, then someone else perhaps? I'm also thinking Expo II will be 2016 at this point, and with the Foothill Gold Line delayed until 2015, it looks like we may be in a longer wait than we thought for more rail transit in Los Angeles... Didn't it take 30 years to start construction on the 2nd Avenue subway in New York? What about the delays in the Phoenix light rail line that was suppose to open in 2007 (opened in 2009)? What about SF continuously saying BART was going to be expanded south of Fremont. Look, s*** happens, but it's not an LA thing..........it happens everywhere, world-wide, nationwide. It is what it is. But don't think "oh mass transit in LA is a joke because of this". No. It happens elsewhere...we all have different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 12:58:04 GMT -8
Correction on the substantial completion: The new projected date for substantial completion is August 23, 2011, not August 15. So, the current delay is more than two months, a week longer than I reported yesterday. Here is the PDF for the status presentation.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 6, 2011 13:09:35 GMT -8
So what's Left to do? Is there an Official List? I guess that the list of potential delays in the last update is as good as any. Blue Line Tie-in (including Automatic Train Protection) Intersection Construction Landscaping LADOT approval of Traffic Signal Designs and Controller Programming Integrated Systems Testing
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 6, 2011 13:41:50 GMT -8
So what's Left to do? Is there an Official List? I guess that the list of potential delays in the last update is as good as any. Blue Line Tie-in (including Automatic Train Protection) Intersection Construction Landscaping LADOT approval of Traffic Signal Designs and Controller Programming Integrated Systems TestingI'd like to think that landscaping is not a critical-path item. It certainly should not delay revenue service. Well, let's accept the Expo Line Phase 1 delays simply as a fact and not complain about them. Complaining may not do any good for the Phase 1 project, but I think it's not only normal but important to communicate our displeasure with those people organizing these projects. We can blame FFP all we want, and clearly they have exploited the process to squeeze as much money from the project as they could. But it was the Expo Authority who decided to make this a negotiated design project, and it was Expo who introduced or signed off on change after change, raising the total cost for this now very expensive project which is still up to a year from completion.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 6, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -8
The fact that the line might open together with the Culver City station is no real consolation. Expo seems to only generate bad press about how over budget it is and how delayed the project is. Every few months we get a notice about how it is a few more months delayed. LA Metro was finally getting over the bad press about the building of the Red Line through Hollywood and its over budget price tag. East LA Gold Line and last leg of the Red Line were completed under budget, but under budget items never get the press that the over budget projects do.
This is a step back big time, especially when hopefully soon we'll be building multiple projects at the same time. Many people worry whether this can be done effectively. Right now, Expo Phase I is the only project Metro has under construction and it is a mess, so there isn't a lot of confidence amongst the public for the MTA to get the job done. This undermined rail in this city for years and lets hope it doesn't happen again. Nothing grates the public like mismanaged projects that are over budget and heavily delayed.
I remember thinking at last year's Laker celebration parade how nice it would have been if Expo were open as it should have been at the time and thinking to myself that if the Lakers were lucky to win again that at least it would be for next year's version (even then I was probably thinking too optimistically). Now it won't likely even be ready for the USC or UCLA basketball season much less football season and USC students and workers won't be able to really effectively use the line next school year unless they are willing and able to switch their transportation choice in the middle of the 2nd semester.
Hopefully, with Phase II, things will be kept on track. They are really going to have to make significant progress on this line in 2012 to get it ready by early 2015 though. Lets hope things start ramping up quickly with route clearing, utility relocation and other pre-construction work. The Expo Authority should be placing their full attention on Phase II construction at this point, but instead is preoccupied with Phase I for the rest of the year. Hard to believe that this won't negatively affect Phase II even with a different contractor.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 14:29:34 GMT -8
raising the total cost for this now very expensive project which is still up to a year from completion. I disagree that Expo Phase 1 is a very expensive project. It will still be well under a billion dollars when it's finished. Expo Phase 2, a smaller project, is expected to cost $1.5 billion. And God knows how much the Crenshaw Line will end up costing in reality. Don't be surprised if it ends up costing $3 billion. And, of course, the price tag on the Westside subway is horrifying in comparison to all other LA rail projects. Yes, FFP was at fault but they are not the only one at fault. City has always dragged their feet in working with Expo. I really worry that the traffic-signal programming, still to be done, will take forever. And there has been quite a bit poor management on Expo's side as well. When was it that you last rode a rail line to the Westside again? Considering that it's taking more than 50 years to build the Expo Line, a year and a half of delay is really nothing. I will personally be more pleased with a full opening to Culver City in February than a half- ed opening to La Cienega in November, which will create possibly really bad PR for the line, greatly hurting its future ridership and the future ridership of LA rail lines in general.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 6, 2011 14:57:41 GMT -8
Not sure I understand what bad PR would be to partially open to La Cienaga in Nov. vs. Culver City in Feb. Don't you think this is bad PR in that they are announcing another delay. Also, you are insane if you think opening to La Cienaga in Nov. would hurt its ridership in the long run rather than if it opens to Culver City in Feb. Remember the Blue Line only opened to Pico originally and didn't go to 7th street for around another year or so. Do you think they should have waited another year?
I was only joking earlier when I said they should wait to open Phase I until Phase II was finished, but using this logic that is what they should do. Nevertheless, everything is so delayed this is a moot point now so no point arguing on it.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 6, 2011 15:07:19 GMT -8
if it is possible, open the line to LaCienega. I don't know if it is possible or not, but if it became possible, I would do it.
USC is a huge catch for Metro Rail.
people would care more if the line is delayed than they will care if Phase 1.0 doesn't get to Culver City. People who aren't transit geeks won't mind. Phase 1.5 won't get to Santa Monica, either and Santa Monica is a bigger catch than Culver City.
open in phases. Get the train to USC first and watch people ride from downtown to Expo Park/ USC. Watch people ride to Crenshaw.
Watch people not care about the extra mile between LaCienega and Robertson.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 15:32:57 GMT -8
The fact remains that the line is delayed by at least two and half months, which is already pushing the opening day to February. So, why bother trying to have two partial openings in a month or two instead of trying to speed up the Culver City opening? It just doesn't make sense. Partial openings and partial testings are far from being trivial -- they may cost a million dollar or so more than a single opening.
At the end people won't even remember that the Expo opening was delayed and we will benefit from a single clean opening instead of a rather logistically complicated phased opening. Press criticizing the cost overruns and delays does not matter. Initial rider's experience will matter -- a lot.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on May 6, 2011 16:24:22 GMT -8
August 23, 2011, is the first day of the fall semester at USC.
USC is the largest private employer in LA, and I think the vast majority of USC staff who take the train are coming from points north, so simply opening up the Expo Line between 7th Street/Metro to Vermont would probably generate a fair amount of ridership until all of Phase I is ready.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 6, 2011 17:04:00 GMT -8
Press criticizing the cost overruns and delays does not matter. Initial rider's experience will matter -- a lot. Press criticism doesn't matter? Then why do we bother to respond when the L.A. Times, L.A. Weekly, Daily News, etc. etc. publishes criticism of Metro Rail? EDIT: Also, if delays don't matter, why do we punish contractors who run late?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 18:04:42 GMT -8
August 23, 2011, is the first day of the fall semester at USC. USC is the largest private employer in LA, and I think the vast majority of USC staff who take the train are coming from points north, so simply opening up the Expo Line between 7th Street/Metro to Vermont would probably generate a fair amount of ridership until all of Phase I is ready. Rest assured that the Expo Line will not open until at least toward the end of the Fall semester at USC. Current substantial-completion date is August 23. Train testing normally takes 4 - 5 months after substantial completion. Some of the most problematic areas are on Flower St; so, an earlier opening to USC is not an option. In some good news, they are resuming train testing this week Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm. Apparently they will be able to test some traffic and train-control signals between Vermont and Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 6, 2011 18:39:45 GMT -8
What blows my mind is the metro hasnt been offering expo bus service during this entire time.
Original opening date was Summer 2010 right? From August 2010 and beyond, there should have been articulated expo branded buses running the route every 10 minutes, 4:30am to midnight, 7 days a week. And the contractor should have been paying for it.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on May 6, 2011 18:59:08 GMT -8
What blows my mind is the metro hasnt been offering expo bus service during this entire time. Original opening date was Summer 2010 right? From August 2010 and beyond, there should have been articulated expo branded buses running the route every 10 minutes, 4:30am to midnight, 7 days a week. And the contractor should have been paying for it. By the time we enjoy Expo phase I, we'll forget about the delays. Both the Metro Orange and Gold Line Eastside Extension were to open in the summers of 2005 and 2009, respectively; but delayed opening in the fall of their respective years. With regard to bus emulation of a rail line, that was done with the Gold Line Eastside Extension during the delayed period, only because the bus service changes took effect as scheduled when the GLEE was suppose to open, so Metro had to run a 600-series bus line to fill the gap; so if the bus service changes surrounding the anticipated opening of Expo were to happen anyways, then there most likely would be a 600-series bus emulator.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 6, 2011 19:51:34 GMT -8
Also, Exposition Boulevard is not a continuous street to be able to run a bus along the Expo right-of-way. Moreover, the same route would take much longer with a bus than with a train and given the bus service on nearby parallel streets, there would be no benefit to it.
If they could speed up the Culver City Station, we could see a full opening as early as January 2012.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 6, 2011 23:00:03 GMT -8
By the time we enjoy Expo phase I, we'll forget about the delays. Enjoy? Im not talking about railfans putting a checkmark in their book, Im talking on people who depend on transit and have tried to make plans around Metro. "Oh, the expo line will open summer 2010, I can start looking for apartment along the line" "Expo will service that corridor, so I can look for jobs there, knowing that I will be able to commute there with no issue" Enjoy being left out in the cold. Also, Exposition Boulevard is not a continuous street to be able to run a bus along the Expo right-of-way. Moreover, the same route would take much longer with a bus than with a train and given the bus service on nearby parallel streets, there would be no benefit to it.. If theres no benefit to running on exposition, then why are we spending $1bn to make a rail line there? I mean, if there are parallel routes and all...
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 7, 2011 1:16:45 GMT -8
Also, Exposition Boulevard is not a continuous street to be able to run a bus along the Expo right-of-way. Moreover, the same route would take much longer with a bus than with a train and given the bus service on nearby parallel streets, there would be no benefit to it.. If theres no benefit to running on exposition, then why are we spending $1bn to make a rail line there? I mean, if there are parallel routes and all... I'm not exactly sure what you are asking but there are no parallel rail rights-of-way to the Exposition rail right-of-way but there are, of course, parallel streets such as Jefferson, Adams, etc. You can't put rail on those streets because they are too narrow. You can in principle run buses on the rail right-of-way, which would be BRT. Expo almost ended up being BRT like the Orange Line, where the NIMBYs, very similar to the Cheviot Hills NIMBYs, had opposed to light-rail, but thanks to the efforts of Friends 4 Expo, it became LRT. LRT is superior to BRT in speed, capacity, and comfort. BRT is also noisier (heavy-duty internal-combustion engines) and costlier (more buses, hence more operators) to operate than LRT, although being cheaper to build.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 7, 2011 2:32:47 GMT -8
I guess that the list of potential delays in the last update is as good as any. Blue Line Tie-in (including Automatic Train Protection) Intersection Construction Landscaping LADOT approval of Traffic Signal Designs and Controller Programming Integrated Systems TestingI'd like to think that landscaping is not a critical-path item. It certainly should not delay revenue service. You're correct. I finally got a chance to listen to Gokhan's recording (thanks!) and they mention that the landscaping is substantially completed and it's no longer listed as an area of potential delay in the May presentation. Neither is intersection construction. The only remaining items listed are: Blue Line Tie-in (including Automatic Train Protection) LADOT approval of Traffic Signal Designs and Controller Programming Integrated Systems Testing
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 7, 2011 2:51:59 GMT -8
The fact remains that the line is delayed by at least two and half months, which is already pushing the opening day to February. So, why bother trying to have two partial openings in a month or two instead of trying to speed up the Culver City opening? It just doesn't make sense. Partial openings and partial testings are far from being trivial -- they may cost a million dollar or so more than a single opening. Actually that's not a fact just yet, although it's looking likely. They will be meeting next week to discuss potential work-arounds that would still allow a November opening. From listening to the recording a November opening is obviously what both Buildexpo and Metro prefer. What is stated in the meeting is that the contractor will have delays that will cause them to finish their testing (which is evidently included in substantial completion) 2 months late. It sounds like when they are done with their testing they hand the keys over to Metro. What they will discuss next week is whether Metro can start their testing prior to substantial completion, but it's not yet determined whether that will be possible. Based on the areas of concern listed, I'm guessing that Metro wouldn't be able to start concurrent testing until near the end, if at all. Regarding the talk of opening all the way to Culver Junction, I don't think that it's terrible, but public perception will best be served by meeting targeted dates. What taxpayers care about is the same thing that anyone paying for construction would care about. "Was it within budget?" and "was it on time?". But is Culver Junction on schedule? Last I heard, it was.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 7, 2011 13:02:51 GMT -8
Well..for the good news, the bike lanes between Expo/Rodeo and Expo/Vineyard ( 2 blocks east of La Brea) have been freshly painted! We got some brand new bike lanes in Los Angeles! Looking good too! On the south side of Expo, it's a painted 3 foot bike lane and on the north side of Expo, there is parking and a bike lane out of the parking lane....a la Santa Monica boulevard in West Hollywood. Plus, you can see the markings of a soon to be painted bike lane between Expo/Rodeo to Expo/Vermont, looks like it can be days until we see the extension. But, glad to see some more and safe bike lanes in LA. Even though some people will inevitably complain (sounds like that's the primary purpose of the Internet), I'd rather see a bike lane than no bike lane. Riding on the sidewalk is unsafe for pedestrians (I hate it as both a pedestrian and a biker) and riding on a street with no marked lane, means I have to keep looking back. I don't care too much of the "door zone" as long as I only have to keep looking forward. Good job LA! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 7, 2011 13:32:32 GMT -8
Wait. I thought the bike lane was going ON the ROW?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 7, 2011 15:03:47 GMT -8
Wait. I thought the bike lane was going ON the ROW? Unfortunately the rail right-of-way east of Ballona Creek is too narrow to fit Class 1 bike lanes.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 7, 2011 15:31:24 GMT -8
Wait. I thought the bike lane was going ON the ROW? There will be a bike path (not on the street) where the ROY is wide enough and bike lanes painted on the street where there is not enough room. Most of the places where there is enough room are in Phase 2.
|
|