|
Post by simonla on Dec 23, 2011 12:27:05 GMT -8
Anyone know if they're working today?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 23, 2011 19:42:09 GMT -8
Trains were running all day long, but no construction at Farmdale or Culver City. Trains were between 1 to 3 cars with what appeared to be 6 minute headways between 23rd street and La Cienega stations.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Dec 25, 2011 2:14:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 25, 2011 3:45:07 GMT -8
The heated discussion that took place on this board several weeks ago is now taking place between the CEOs:
"I think it's a subway, it's not a trench. There's special ventilation requirements on a subway," said Art Leahy, head of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Rick Thorpe, head of the Exposition Construction Authority, insisted the feature was a trench.
"You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to," Leahy said. "When I look up and I see a roof and I'm on a train, I'm in a subway."
"But you can also look up and see the sky," Thorpe said.
"In certain places, that ... would be a trench," Leahy said.
The long story short: USC-trench ventilation issue hasn't been solved. The junction isn't working. There will be a three-month prerevenue operation which has not started yet. This means that the opening to La Cienega won't be before late March or early April. Don't expect the Culver City Station to open before late summer.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 25, 2011 11:27:35 GMT -8
UNBELIEVABLE... the whole Phase I might not open for almost another year...
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 25, 2011 11:39:39 GMT -8
I've been expecting this story for a while. Now all of Southern California knows what we have been complaining about for at least a month.
Also, interesting that they picked up on what had been just a transit nerd argument over trench/ duck season/ wabbit season.
It's Awt Leahy and Wick Thowpe Season, Eh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.
|
|
outthere15
New Member
Take back the rails
Posts: 33
|
Post by outthere15 on Dec 25, 2011 12:39:15 GMT -8
This is very interesting and it is a world that I know about. I work on large projects and I find it completely unacceptable that they are only now deciding on the classification of the below grade section of this line.
Where was the plan-checking authority at the time that this was submitted and why are allowing this to become an issue now. It is unconscionable for both Metro and Expo to have such little disregard for the public funds that they are supposed to be protecting; to have this fight now, at the time when the fruits of our treasure should be a working asset for all the transit riders of the region.
There are always technical issues when new technology is implemented in the field so I do sympathize with them on the commissioning of the junction where the Expo Line shares tracks with the Blue Line.
I am disappointed in the lack of urgency that appears to have set in on this project and I suggest that both entities owe the public an apology for their actions or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by simonla on Dec 25, 2011 14:18:46 GMT -8
It's about time this story came out, but I don't believe it was strong enough. The Times didn't even mention that the line was initially scheduled to open in 2010 (!). There also was no explanation why work has virtually stopped at the Culver City station.
And I wholeheartedly agree with outthere15--how was the issue of the subway trench ventilation not dealt with until now. Neither Thorpe nor Leahy seem the least bit apologetic nor aware that their bungling threatens public support for all the other projects in the hopper.
If they were managing the 405 project, they'd both be out on their butts.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 25, 2011 18:31:01 GMT -8
Not sure I would get too worked up about the trench. Until the junction is addressed none of this matters. The junction seems like much more of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Dec 25, 2011 20:55:08 GMT -8
I assume that somebody (PUC?) has markedly increased safety standards for junctions between light rail lines to require what amounts to automatic interlocking. The Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway were full of juctions between two (or more) lines where the operator threw the turnout switch from the cab. The SF Muni works the same way today. Why does the Expo/Blue Line Junction have to be so much more complex?
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 25, 2011 23:52:44 GMT -8
On what page did this article run btw?
Also, is Art Leahy trying to kill the future of rail transit in the LA area? Because thats the impression I got from the article. At some point, gross incompetence becomes willful sabotage.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Dec 26, 2011 11:40:44 GMT -8
I see your going into Phase Two on the argument "Is it a trench or a Subway"? Remember the PUC has deemed it a subway and added Mandatory Ventilation as a part of the approval package, So we should get used to calling it the "USC Subway!" 8-)Sincerely The Roadtrainer! p.s. Let the arguments begin!!
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 26, 2011 11:45:15 GMT -8
As someone who follows the Gold Line Foothill Extension, I'd like to see construction on the actual railway starting as soon as possible (the 210 freeway bridge in Arcadia is well under way). It's rather frustrating to be told that we probably won't be seeing major work until the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2012, but on the other hand, if possible problems can be worked out in the planning stages, we may avoid delays of the sort that have plagued the Expo project. (paper and pixels are cheaper than concrete and steel, and a lot easier to correct.)
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 26, 2011 12:54:16 GMT -8
Remember the PUC has deemed it a subway and added Mandatory Ventilation as a part of the approval package, So we should get used to culling it the "USC Subway!" 8-)Sincerely The Roadtrainer! If, indeed, the PUC has designated the trench a "subway," then so be it; arguments are moot. ...Rick Thorpe can refer to the "subway trench" and Art Leahy can refer to it as a "subway." ...But for sure, the whole line is not a subway; that would be absurd, any more than the whole line is a "trench." Let's stick with light rail. The bottom line for me is learning what their project plan has for completion dates on the implementation and testing of ventilation, completion of the Culver Station, and then, of course, the holy grail of beginning Stage III Pre-revenue operation and completing Phase I ...to La Cienega. Sure seems to me that the Gold Line Foothill Extension's communications are the example that Expo could and should follow rather leaving the Westside community continually guessing on dates, problems and progress. The Gold Line team's communication is so good it almost leaves little room for discussion and prognostication. Nice 2011 summary: www.foothillextension.org/images/uploads/files/2011-12-20_Const_Authority_Year_End_Press_Release_FINAL.pdf ...And how about Expo publishing some kind of Phase II skeletal project plan with at least some detail??? Here's my wish for improved communication, information and projection regarding Expo Line progress in the New Year ...and my hope that I can take the Expo Line from Robertson and Venice to the Blue Line, to Long Beach, New Years 2013 for a spectacular New Year's Eve bash!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 26, 2011 16:20:55 GMT -8
Well, there's no rule which says that we have to follow the CPUC's definition of a subway.
What we, as transit fans/ transit nerds need, is the rail transit equivalent of an Associated Press style guide, or at the very least a Merriam Webster's dictionary for rail transit terms.
(I think somebody may have already built one, actually. We need a link somewhere....)
Because, quite frankly, the CPUC definition is too vague to be useful for the discussion of the Crenshaw Line or any future extensions of Metro Rail.
If somebody says that Little Tokyo is going to get a subway station, that brings with it certain expectations of what a subway station looks like, what you can do with the space on top of it, and so forth.
The CPUC definition would potentially include the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel at LAX, because that requires ventilation as well. Adequate for the purposes of determining safety, but useless for the sort of questions people will be asking about future rail lines.
Oh, and to answer the previous question, the article was above the fold, on the cover of the inside "California" section of the Sunday paper. High readership potential. Not as high as front page, but still a high visibility position.
EDIT: In short, I want us to be clear and not vague in all matters when we discuss rail, and I want Metro to be clear when discussing things as well.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 26, 2011 23:52:28 GMT -8
I can't believe this is even a subject for debate.
In common usage, "subway line" and "subway system" refer to rapid-transit lines/systems which are mostly underground. We layfolk clumsily shorten these phrases to "subway", despite the ambiguity in meaning this creates.
The CPUC, on the other hand, is required to use strict legal/regulatory definitions, in order to ensure clarity in its judgments and communications. In the CPUC definition, any below-grade, covered thoroughfare is a 'subway'. This definition is broad enough to include the Sepulveda tunnel under LAX. A 'trench' is something different: it is open at the top. The subway/trench distinction has implications for whether or not ventilation systems are required.
In other words, the CPUC does not use the term to denote the mode of transportaion, vehicle capacities, etc. It is only concerned with vehicles traveling underground without access to fresh air.
The CPUC's definition may not agree with common usage, and it may even make some people here mad. But it does clearly define a thing within the CPUC's regulatory jurisdiction. So if you want to discuss regulation of subways in the State of California, you should accept that this is the definition that has legal meaning in this state.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 27, 2011 1:19:38 GMT -8
The trouble with the CPUC definition is that it is legally and technically correct but useless for discussion purposes. Of course, this trench/ tunnel argument is only relevant in terms of: 1) how well do we, as transit advocates, get our message across... and; to a lesser degree: 2) how well does the MTA get its message across, as seen in the Times article and in Metro's latest news (or lack thereof) regarding the Expo Line testing. if we go with technically correct, if personally-satisfying, descriptions, we will only end up misleading and confusing people.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 27, 2011 9:22:21 GMT -8
Let's just get this done.
1 - how long would it take to build a ventilation for the Expo Line "subway" section?
2 - how much would it cost?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 27, 2011 9:23:29 GMT -8
^ I disagree that CPUC's definition is "useless for discussion purposes." It really depends on the discussion. We have on these forums frequently discussed the merits of lawsuits and the CPUC. In these discussions the CPUC definition is very relevant.
But for transit advocacy purposes, we all agree that the Expo Line is a light rail line, not a subway.
I do think the LA Times story exaggerated the verbal sparring between Leahy and Thorpe over the definitions. To me it reads like a casual conversation, but the Times is making it sound like a major policy disagreement between incompetent authorities.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 27, 2011 9:37:27 GMT -8
The real story (in my opinion) is the delays to the project. In particular I'm focused on the supposedly complicated Blue-Expo junction.
From a systems perspective, the junction can be divided four ways: sensors, actuators (switch motors), communication links, and a logic controller. Sensors include components on the LRVs that determine position and speed, as well as any block sensors built into the trackwork.
So the first question is: do the sensors and actuators all work? If not, then parts are going to need to be replaced. Do the communication links function to spec? If not, then they will need to be replaced.
If all of these pieces work, this leaves the logic controller. In this day and age, the logic controller should be completely software based, and thus easily configurable.
Of course there's another possibility: that the design itself is flawed. In other words, it could be that the junction could never work properly under expected operating conditions, due to some overlooked constraint. If this is the case, the problem is going to be huge, and heads should roll.
The problems at the Blue-Expo junction are real technical problems, not disagreements about semantics. Unfortunately, the Expo Authority is keeping tight lips about the true nature of these problems, and this leads to general public mistrust of transit construction.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 27, 2011 11:32:46 GMT -8
There is already a ventilation system in the trench. Apparently the fire department is not satisfied with its performance. The problem is not the regular ventilation of course, only the smoke ventilation in case of a fire.
The problem with the junction is that the original subcontractor quit. It may take them a while to figure things out and get it running.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 27, 2011 12:13:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 27, 2011 12:15:55 GMT -8
USC trench consists of three closed segments and two open segments. Two of the closed segments are very short. The only long closed segment is the one between the Flower St trench portal and just east of Figueroa St, which is also a sharply curved segment. As seen in this screenshot below, the current ventilation system for the USC trench consists of fans at the end of the curved section at Flower and Exposition. This is going west, just before you come to Figueroa. It looks like there are also fans at the Flower St trench portal, but the video is too dark there to be sure. I don't think fans would be needed in the two open segments or the two very short closed segments. Perhaps the fire department or CPUC are asking for additional fans in the curved, long closed segment, not only at the ends but also in the middle. It's not easy to install these fans because they interfere with the 750 V DC overhead power wires. It's also not sure whether they would have to cut holes over the trench in the middle if they have to install fans in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 27, 2011 12:32:29 GMT -8
Note that they have been testing these fans for a long time now. I have never seen it but they use colored smoke and we get notices at USC for not to be alarmed about these tests. Apparently the fire department or CPUC still aren't satisfied with the test results.
It took them a very long time to design these fans. If they have to put additional fans, it will take them months to design them and then months to relocate the 750 V DC overhead power wires so that they don't interfere with the fans. It could delay the opening to as late as 2013.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 27, 2011 13:45:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 27, 2011 14:01:14 GMT -8
Hopefully they will OK the existing fans and the line can open by April. If they have to put new fans, it won't open any time before late summer. Occupy Expo was also called for in the past by at least one person on the official Expo Facebook page. This project has been plagued with last-minute problems. DWP power lines, last-minute budget increases, Farmdale, trench fans are all similar in that they were all ignored until it was very late. The management of Expo has been such that they concentrate on politics instead of technicalities and spend months arguing over politics, and then when they lose, they go back to the technicalities and the project is delayed for many months.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 27, 2011 14:57:44 GMT -8
Why is the fire department allowed to interfere with something they aren't experts on?
If the transit-tunnel building people say it's fine, it's fine.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 27, 2011 15:58:35 GMT -8
The real story (in my opinion) is the delays to the project. In particular I'm focused on the supposedly complicated Blue-Expo junction. From a systems perspective, the junction can be divided four ways: sensors, actuators (switch motors), communication links, and a logic controller. Sensors include components on the LRVs that determine position and speed, as well as any block sensors built into the trackwork. ... The problems at the Blue-Expo junction are real technical problems, not disagreements about semantics. Unfortunately, the Expo Authority is keeping tight lips about the true nature of these problems, and this leads to general public mistrust of transit construction. Metrocenter, You hit the nail on the head with this post. I was going to post a nearly identical one, so you saved me the trouble You are absolutely right about the 4 items listed that constitute what is required to operate the switch automatically. I work on debugging systems similar to this. I can tell you that without a doubt, unless the people doing the work are extraordinarily incompetent, and I don't have reason to believe they are, they should have known within a couple days of testing what the "exact" source of the problem(s) were/are. The fact that testing has been going on for so long tells me that they are not releasing all the information that they have. I don't know why that is the case, maybe there are legal ramifications, who knows. It doesn't take 60 days to figure out why an automatic switch doesn't work. Trust me. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 27, 2011 16:03:05 GMT -8
Why is the fire department allowed to interfere with something they aren't experts on? If the transit-tunnel building people say it's fine, it's fine. I'm not an expert on fire regulations or bureaucracy, but it's not the guys on the big red fire engine going out to the USC trench and saying "yup, this thing goes up like a candlestick." The LAFD includes its own Bureau of Fire Prevention and Public Safety which does apparently have authority to approve building safety permits and so forth. There's probably some regulation in there for rail trench/tunnels which they are following.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 27, 2011 19:54:47 GMT -8
Regarding the Culver Station, crews from Balfour Beatty Rail were working all day long. There was bulldozing along the bike track, a truck doing cable location on the bridge over Ballona Creek (a diff. contractor), a workman apparently inspecting the track from the MSE to the station structdure, bulldozing in front of the center of the station, new forms were being laid at the station structure terminus (NW end), and workmen were all over the platform.
|
|