|
Post by Gokhan on May 7, 2011 17:22:23 GMT -8
It's Class 1 for most of the right-of-way between Ballona Creek and 17th/Colorado, except between National/Palms/Exposition Blvds and Motor Ave.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 7, 2011 20:19:50 GMT -8
I hate to be a debby downer, but....
There is a bump in the middle of the bike lane, where the concrete and asphalt meet. AKA, the exact location you want your tire to be. Unlike a car, that slight bump can cause a bike tire to "slide" and the rider to fall.
Thats not safe, it's not comfortable, and it's not good design.
I see a whole lot of room to the right, why isnt that space being used to make a safe lane?
Is it really three feet? Thats impossible tot ell from the picture. 3 feet is ludicrous. It's like making a 8 foot car lane.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 7, 2011 22:57:37 GMT -8
I hate to be a debby downer, but.... There is a bump in the middle of the bike lane, where the concrete and asphalt meet. AKA, the exact location you want your tire to be. Unlike a car, that slight bump can cause a bike tire to "slide" and the rider to fall. Thats not safe, it's not comfortable, and it's not good design. I see a whole lot of room to the right, why isnt that space being used to make a safe lane? Is it really three feet? Thats impossible tot ell from the picture. 3 feet is ludicrous. It's like making a 8 foot car lane. That's not a bump buddy. I rode the entire bike lane on Friday night, there was no "bump". I did not fall off my bike for a bump, nor felt a bump. First ride the bike lane and then judge it. By the way, 3 feet is the standard law for bike lanes. Remember, the mayor's "Give me 3" campaign last year? We're trying to make it a law here (currently it's not). Cars have a 9 feet minimum mandate, but LADOT prefers 11 feet. The Bicycle coalition is trying to reduce that to 10 feet so that more road space is allowed for bike lane construction.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 8, 2011 0:08:02 GMT -8
That's a very bad idea... Buses are 8.5ft wide, not including mirrors. I don't think you'd want buses straddling a bike lane, it's already very difficult to see bikes when operating a vehicle of that size...
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 8, 2011 8:26:34 GMT -8
That's a very bad idea... Buses are 8.5ft wide, not including mirrors. I don't think you'd want buses straddling a bike lane, it's already very difficult to see bikes when operating a vehicle of that size... Right, buses are 8.5 feet wide, so why need 11 feet of space dedicated to a car lane? You know that SF gets by with about 9 feet and with bike lanes? Same with NY. LA is trying to "grow up" for urban needs and one of them is bike lanes. We've seen an explosion of bike lanes in recent years, which gives people more alternative transit options, not just in Los Angeles, but New York (dedicated lanes), Long Beach, Santa Monica, London (bicycle superhighway), etc... People are finally "getting it" that bikes are transportation too and not just recreation. Besides advocating for more buses and rail, bike lanes is great as well! More alternative options than solely relying on the personal automobile is what you need when you live in a large metropolitan city.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on May 8, 2011 12:38:38 GMT -8
The bus itself is 8.5ft wide.. with mirrors it is about 9ft. Have you ever driven in a narrow lane? It's extremely uncomfortable and adds stress, bus operators have a lot to deal with, the last thing they need is to barely fit in a lane.
I have been to SF and NYC recently, in SF I think those lanes are bigger than 9ft. In NYC, the buses in Brooklyn almost never fit in the lane...
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 8, 2011 17:03:55 GMT -8
That's not a bump buddy. I rode the entire bike lane on Friday night, there was no "bump". I did not fall off my bike for a bump, nor felt a bump. First ride the bike lane and then judge it. By the way, 3 feet is the standard law for bike lanes. Remember, the mayor's "Give me 3" campaign last year? We're trying to make it a law here (currently it's not). Cars have a 9 feet minimum mandate, but LADOT prefers 11 feet. The Bicycle coalition is trying to reduce that to 10 feet so that more road space is allowed for bike lane construction. Give it a few weeks. Concrete and asphalt settle differently. There will be an uncomfortable bump. I see it all the time. The bike lane should have been ALL concrete or NO concrete...not half and half. 3 feet is not the standard at all. In most of the country, the standard is 5, 6 for lanes next to parallel parking. In fact, it's illegal (as in, against the code) to paint a bike lane less than 4 feet wide in California "As indicated, if no gutter exists, the minimum bike lane width shall be 4 feet. With a normal 2-foot gutter, the minimum bike lane width shall be 5 feet." So five feet is the minimum, of which two feet are gutter. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp1000.pdf1003.2 Class II Bikeways 1b As I said, I havent seen it in person, but it looks tight. Is it five feet, or do codes not matter? (they clearly dont when it comes to ADA and pedestrian handrails!) If the gutter (concrete) is 2 feet, then theres no way the asphalt "bike lane" is 3 feet, for a total of 5. Makes me wonder if they have someone on staff that understands bike and pedestrian needs (and the law). Look at the 3 feet passing law... The means there are 3 feet to the left of the bike. The bike takes up room too. 3 feet space - 1 foot bike - 2 feet space from curb = 6 feet ideal.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on May 10, 2011 4:06:35 GMT -8
I was just asking because it seems like a wasted opportunity to not use that brown space for a bike path rather than placing a bike lane on the street. Are trees going there?
LAofAnaheim, of course bike lanes aren't BAD. I'm not saying that. But, where it's possible, build bike paths on the ROW.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 10, 2011 10:02:52 GMT -8
I disagree... bike paths generally means recreational use. Bike lanes is generally more practical for commuters. I think all things being equal, I prefer to ride on the road with moderately paced traffic than on an off-road path with wondering pedestrians, crazy joggers (you know the ones that swings out their arms when they run...), and toddlers with inattentive parents.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 10, 2011 12:40:17 GMT -8
I disagree... bike paths generally means recreational use. Bike lanes is generally more practical for commuters. I think all things being equal, I prefer to ride on the road with moderately paced traffic than on an off-road path with wondering pedestrians, crazy joggers (you know the ones that swings out their arms when they run...), and toddlers with inattentive parents. Theres no reason you cant have both.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on May 11, 2011 14:05:34 GMT -8
I saw a test train at the westbound Crenshaw station today at noon, with front headlight on and displaying the destination header "Not in Service" (duh!). Sorry, no pix. Small fill in plants were being installed along the line in this area, looking very lush and green....
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 11, 2011 22:13:01 GMT -8
I found out that there are no delays in the construction. The two-month-and-one-week delay is due to the contractor not being able to plan and coordinate the testing. There is a chance that they can still start testing on time for a November opening.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2011 14:29:55 GMT -8
A couple of pics to bring life to a dead thread. Today was commencement at USC and there was no train testing. Incidentally one of our graduate's dad turned out to be the construction director for URS for the CA high-speed rail San Francisco terminal. He was telling me a little about the $4 billion project, about the NIMBYs trying to stop it in the bay area, and so on. Interesting they aren't using TBMs because they need to vary the width of the tunnel to go from two to three tracks and he said it would be much faster this way for a short tunnel. He was also very familiar with the history of Pacific Electric, even though he was from SF. Back to Expo. They had flooded the streets in Culver City today with the water lines for some reason. La Cienega Station looking south, with the red and green lights:
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 13, 2011 15:56:42 GMT -8
I disagree... bike paths generally means recreational use. Bike lanes is generally more practical for commuters. I think all things being equal, I prefer to ride on the road with moderately paced traffic than on an off-road path with wondering pedestrians, crazy joggers (you know the ones that swings out their arms when they run...), and toddlers with inattentive parents. This goes for bikers and joggers, but there's going to be a whole slew of folks listing to iPods who won't year you coming up behind them, bike bell a blazing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2011 16:44:56 GMT -8
As metrocenter and others have pointed out, it looks like not putting gates at Exposition/Rodeo was a very bad idea. Almost everyone is violating the WAIT HERE and KEEP CLEAR signs and standing too close to the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 13, 2011 16:49:13 GMT -8
As metrocenter and others have pointed out, it looks like not putting gates at Exposition/Rodeo was a very bad idea. Almost everyone is violating the WAIT HERE and KEEP CLEAR signs and standing too close to the tracks. Out of all the at-grade crossings for the Expo Line........this is where crossing gates are sorely needed. It is a confusing intersection, for those not use to the area. Maybe we can get the Construction Authority to be proactive on this area and put in the gates before the Expo Line opens for Exposition/Rodeo?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 13, 2011 18:25:17 GMT -8
As metrocenter and others have pointed out, it looks like not putting gates at Exposition/Rodeo was a very bad idea. Almost everyone is violating the WAIT HERE and KEEP CLEAR signs and standing too close to the tracks. Out of all the at-grade crossings for the Expo Line........this is where crossing gates are sorely needed. It is a confusing intersection, for those not use to the area. Maybe we can get the Construction Authority to be proactive on this area and put in the gates before the Expo Line opens for Exposition/Rodeo? Unfortunately it takes so much time and effort to put gates because of all the necessary studies (EIR/S) and approvals (CPUC). On top of that, they are already way over budget and they are struggling to lower the costs so that they can finish the project without going back to Metro for money again.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on May 16, 2011 8:35:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 16, 2011 8:41:09 GMT -8
You think the Wilshire bus lane article was bad (from the Beverly Hiills Patch), check out this very critical review by Christopher Hawthorne at the LA Times. Source: www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-exposition-park-20110516,0,5738569.story Big changes are coming to Exposition Park. The Endeavour space shuttle, NASA announced last month, will be moving to the California Science Center campus — though not to Frank Gehry's cramped 1984 Air and Space Gallery, whose future is, well, up in the air. The UCLA basketball team will take up temporary residence this fall at Welton Becket's 1959 Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena, another candidate for future demolition. And a new Metro light-rail line along Exposition Boulevard, nearly complete, will knit the park into the regional transit grid even as its impact at ground level promises to be something of a disaster. Then again, big changes are always coming to Exposition Park, aren't they? The 160-acre park has long been a microcosm of Los Angeles — the fragmented, quickly growing city in miniature. It has continually absorbed not just new buildings but new visions of L.A.'s civic character. In that sense, the latest developments — and the promise and anxiety they bring — look awfully familiar. How to protect or carve out open space, how to fit new transit lines atop a built-out city, how to gauge the historical value of idiosyncratic postwar landmarks: These are pressing questions not just for Exposition Park and the neighborhood around it but for Los Angeles and most of Southern California. In a paradoxical sense, the park's incoherence has been its only constant over the years. A place that began its civic life, in 1913, as a symmetrical Beaux-Arts garden went on to welcome two Olympic Games, in 1932 and 1984, and to reflect the complicated relationship that USC and South Los Angeles maintain with the larger city and with each other. In the postwar decades, new surface parking lots began to crowd out what was left of the park's open space. In part to grapple with those inconsistencies, and to plot its post-Olympic identity, the architecture firm Zimmer Gunsul Frasca was hired two decades ago to produce a new master plan for the park. That document, unveiled in 1992, guided a burst of construction, notably the expansion of the Science Center campus, where a new building by ZGF opened in 1998. It also anticipated yet another wing at the Science Center at some future date, though the announcement last month from NASA that it will be bringing Endeavour to Los Angeles has complicated and perhaps accelerated those plans. Jeffrey N. Rudolph, the Science Center's president and chief executive, told me that he hopes to select an architect for a new wing this summer. The retiring space shuttle could be displayed vertically, sitting on a replica of its launching pad. That would give the Science Center a chance to build a new tower — a new landmark for the park visible from the surrounding streets and the freeway. In the short term, Rudolph is considering commissioning a temporary structure to display the shuttle while the new wing is planned and built. What all of that means for the future of Gehry's Air and Space Gallery is less certain. The public has always been lukewarm about the building. It was not a lavish design to begin with; it relied on Gehry's now-famous informality and fondness for workaday materials. On top of that, construction was rushed to make sure it would open before the 1984 Olympics, and its upkeep since then has been uneven. Rumors began swirling a few weeks ago that it might have a target on its back. When I asked Rudolph about the fate of the Gehry building, he told me, "I honestly don't know." He added that working with its interior layout "has always been a challenge," and, in terms of its possible demolition, "I never rule anything out." That hardly adds up to a vote of confidence for the building. In the last few years, despite Gehry's status as the most famous and among the most influential architects in the world, the Air and Space Gallery has fallen into something of a historical blind spot. Very few buildings from the early 1980s — even those by very talented architects — look particularly appealing to 2011 eyes. That, in the end, is among the strongest arguments for saving the building. It will never look as unfashionable, or less valuable, as it does at the moment. A decade from now, its importance as a piece of architecture will be far clearer for the public to see. And as an example of Gehry's transition from small-scale, mostly residential work to larger civic projects — and of the moment when his jumbled, sometimes intentionally crude aesthetic began to win official respect — its value and historical importance are self-evident. Still, even Gehry acknowledges the building needs work. The clear solution is for Rudolph to ask Gehry and his firm to re-imagine it for new programmatic uses, as the Science Center's aerospace displays will naturally move to join the shuttle in a new wing. A separate fundraising effort could be planned to bring the building back to life, a project that would make a fascinating late-career opportunity for Gehry, who is 82. How often are architects given the chance to revisit and reinvent a project whose shortcomings always nagged at them? The Sports Arena, alas, is a different case. UCLA's decision to play its home basketball games there while Pauley Pavilion — another Welton Becket design — is being renovated will bring a new generation of fans into its circular interior. Some of them may cast an appreciative eye at the streamlined postwar profile of the building, which in functional as well as architectural terms is a better design than Pauley. And although it doesn't have the same legacy of championship basketball that Pauley does, the Sports Arena's historical résumé is long. It was the site of the 1960 Democratic Convention, where its forward-looking architecture was a perfect match for the fresh-faced candidacy of John F. Kennedy. The UCLA basketball team, under John Wooden, played at the Sports Arena from 1959 to 1965. But the opening of HNTB Architecture's Galen Center on the edge of the USC campus in 2006 made the arena, which had been home to that school's basketball teams since 1959, largely redundant. And even a groundswell of support is unlikely to save it. An Environmental Impact Report prepared recently by the Coliseum Commission, which controls the Sports Arena, envisions a range of possible replacements for the building, including a 22,000-seat soccer stadium. Times reporter Lance Pugmire wrote last month that, despite the arrival of UCLA basketball, the Sports Arena is moving "inexorably toward demolition." The Bruins, of all teams, will be in essence giving it a season-long send-off. No element of Exposition Park, meanwhile, reflects the potential of the area — or the difficulties of unifying it — more than the Metro light-rail line that is being built along Exposition Boulevard, with stops set to open later this year (or in early 2012) at the park's northwest and northeast corners. The arrival of the line will mean wonders for the park's connection — literal and psychological — with the rest of downtown and for the future of the Figueroa Street corridor, parts of which are now being redesigned to be more friendly to cyclists and pedestrians. But as a piece of urban design, this stretch of the Expo Line is shaping up as a huge disappointment. The line emerges from underground along Exposition Boulevard just west of Figueroa, and for most of its route along Exposition it is contained within two lines of black fencing. Even before it has opened, the train line has managed to produce an imposing new barrier between the park and the USC campus. The barrier, sadly enough, is the perfect symbolic gateway for this unsettled patch of Los Angeles real estate — and for a city, for all its global ambition, that is still divided in so many ways against itself. christopher.hawthorne@latimes.com
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on May 16, 2011 12:19:16 GMT -8
My brother helped design the landing gear hydraulics for the Space Shuttle, and I've already let him know that when it finally goes on display, he can come to my house (in San Gabriel) and we will ride the electric railways to the display site. Thought about the Shuttle: Later this year we'll have the last flight of the spacecraft. We've already seen the last flight of the Concorde SST. But in many places around the world, we can still ride trains pulled by steam locomotives, and electric streetcars from over 60 years ago are still in service.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 16, 2011 13:39:56 GMT -8
The wonderful thing about space enthusiasts, as opposed to rail preservation enthusiasts, is that they are always thinking about the future, rather than dwelling on the past. The next big thing may be built by NASA or it may be built by Richard Branson, but the end of the space shuttle will NOT be the end of manned space flight. = As for Christopher Hawthorne's review, the thing will need a fence. A light rail line is no place for jaywalkers.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on May 16, 2011 15:32:41 GMT -8
As for Christopher Hawthorne's review, the thing will need a fence. A light rail line is no place for jaywalkers. After reading Christopher Hawthorne for many years, I think just about every one of pieces is full of criticism. I suppose that is why they call him a critic. I mean visually now Expo Park is separated by the rail line a little more from SC, but as others have pointed out the crossings are exactly the same. I think he just looks for anything to criticize.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on May 16, 2011 15:47:59 GMT -8
Yeah, because apparently the 4 lane street of Exposition boulevard or the 8 lane Figueroa street on the eastside of Expo Park are not physical barriers themselves...........
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on May 16, 2011 16:11:19 GMT -8
Former USC President Steven Sample was opposed to the Expo Line--at least at-grade--because he thought it would create a barrier between the USC campus and Exposition Park, but I've worked at USC for a looooong time and the reality is there is very little pedestrian traffic across the boulevard except on football Saturdays. And, as noted above, it's probably safer now because people can't jaywalk.
In fact, the Expo Line may increase flow from one side of Exposition Boulevard to the other because more USC people will be taking the train and getting off at USC/Expo or Vermont, and it will increase their awareness of Expo Park and the museums. And people taking the train to Expo Park instead of driving may also be more inclined to check out USC.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 16, 2011 16:42:59 GMT -8
Regarding this article it's very similar to the June 28, 2001, " Don't Turn Exposition Park Into a Rail Yard" article by Steven Sample and Mark Ridley-Thomas. Looking back somehow USC seems to be dedicated to produce antirail activists -- Ridley-Thomas being an example here and also including James Moore etc. As it's obvious Exposition Boulevard already divides the neighborhood and neither the USC campus nor the Exposition Park have more than a very few access gates; so, trying to have people randomly jaywalk on Exposition wouldn't help anything anyway. Moreover, light-rail, unlike a large street, brings character, almost like a creek.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 16, 2011 16:47:25 GMT -8
As metrocenter and others have pointed out, it looks like not putting gates at Exposition/Rodeo was a very bad idea. Almost everyone is violating the WAIT HERE and KEEP CLEAR signs and standing too close to the tracks. Out of all the at-grade crossings for the Expo Line........this is where crossing gates are sorely needed. It is a confusing intersection, for those not use to the area. Maybe we can get the Construction Authority to be proactive on this area and put in the gates before the Expo Line opens for Exposition/Rodeo? Originally they intended the section between Vermont and Exposition/Rodeo to be street-running like the section east of Vermont and on Flower, but they changed it to private right-of-way after the Dorsey and Foshay issues. They put fences and train controls as a result. So, it boils down to money. They omitted gates here to save money on fencing. It should have been part of the $30 million safety package after the Dorsey settlement.
|
|
|
Post by carter on May 16, 2011 21:24:39 GMT -8
Ya know, I don't think he's wrong about the aesthetics of how Expo interfaces with the park and the street there. After all, he's an architect. But those black fences let Expo run faster and therefore cheaper, so it's a tradeoff. That said, he didn't bother to mention that other half.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 16, 2011 23:20:42 GMT -8
I actually like the architectural reviews that the L.A. Times publishes, because in general I think their reviewers and critics know their stuff. It's good to have their viewpoints (I don't think Hawthorne or the other reviewers are necessarily anti-rail, they just aren't cheerleaders the way we transit fans are).
However, far too often, when practical matters clash with aesthetics, they can sometimes put subjective taste above the reality on the ground.
It's my hope that the Expo Line will help regulate the flow between USC and Expo Park a bit better. The light rail station will provide a clear, obvious and legal path between USC and the park — just follow the people getting off the train. And the fences will take care of the rest.
It's unfortunate that the entrances to Exposition Park don't quite match up with the entrances to USC, but that problem pre-dates the Expo Line.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on May 17, 2011 8:17:59 GMT -8
I actually like the architectural reviews that the L.A. Times publishes, because in general I think their reviewers and critics know their stuff. It's good to have their viewpoints (I don't think Hawthorne or the other reviewers are necessarily anti-rail, they just aren't cheerleaders the way we transit fans are). However, far too often, when practical matters clash with aesthetics, they can sometimes put subjective taste above the reality on the ground. It's my hope that the Expo Line will help regulate the flow between USC and Expo Park a bit better. The light rail station will provide a clear, obvious and legal path between USC and the park — just follow the people getting off the train. And the fences will take care of the rest. It's unfortunate that the entrances to Exposition Park don't quite match up with the entrances to USC, but that problem pre-dates the Expo Line. I agree. Hawthorne provides a different perspective on things aesthetic and architectural that I often find intriguing. But where he looks at Expo and finds division between USC and the park, I perceive "connection"--with other parts of the city. I see "hub" and "destination," enhancing the accessibility of both. It is true that the Park needs to be made to work better than it does, but now that it is a "destination," and with Endeavour on the way, I have every reason to believe that it will make a stunning comeback.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on May 17, 2011 10:07:57 GMT -8
I think Hawthorne is mis-attributing the disconnect of USC to Expo park to the rail construction rather than the fact that streets were widened. The Fig/Expo intersection was completely renovated as part of the Expo trench construction and 2 lanes were added on Fig and the sidewalk on Expo was shaved to make way for left turn lanes (onto Fig). Whereas before, the street crossing here was fairly simple and fast for pedestrians; it is now a 5 minute ordeal and involves a wait at an intermediate island surrounded by traffic on all 3 sides (Fig and Expo plus express right turn lane from Expo to Fig).
|
|