|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 31, 2012 11:24:37 GMT -8
OCS work in Culver City yesterday, looking south: And the new, red horns on the trains. This one was at the Crenshaw Station yesterday:
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Mar 31, 2012 11:40:38 GMT -8
I too was wondering where the pre-rev Expo trains were. This morning I happened to be riding most of Metro's lines from the north SFV to Redondo Beach and I observed something at the Expo/Blue Flower/Washington junction - there are inductive loop detectors before the split (or at the merge) that is placed in the tracks on wooden plyboard. I wish I had a pic, but I thought the way the loop is placed looked non-permanent.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 31, 2012 12:07:50 GMT -8
I too was wondering where the pre-rev Expo trains were. This morning I happened to be riding most of Metro's lines from the north SFV to Redondo Beach and I observed something at the Expo/Blue Flower/Washington junction - there are inductive loop detectors before the split (or at the merge) that is placed in the tracks on wooden plyboard. I wish I had a pic, but I thought the way the loop is placed looked non-permanent. That's not a good sign at all. It means the junction is still not working properly. It looks like Antonio managed to pressure both Metro and CPUC on a premature opening. We'll see if and how the line will open with the junction not working as it should.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Mar 31, 2012 21:31:57 GMT -8
That's not a good sign at all. It means the junction is still not working properly. It looks like Antonio managed to pressure both Metro and CPUC on a premature opening. We'll see if and how the line will open with the junction not working as it should. When the video of the Transit Coalition Meeting comes out, you'll see someone ask Frank Alejandro about the junction. He said the loops are a part of the final solution for the problems with the ATP. Whether the loops on the boards are the final way they will be installed, i guess we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 1, 2012 15:20:18 GMT -8
That's not a good sign at all. It means the junction is still not working properly. It looks like Antonio managed to pressure both Metro and CPUC on a premature opening. We'll see if and how the line will open with the junction not working as it should. When the video of the Transit Coalition Meeting comes out, you'll see someone ask Frank Alejandro about the junction. He said the loops are a part of the final solution for the problems with the ATP. Whether the loops on the boards are the final way they will be installed, i guess we'll see. They already have such inductive loops of wire on the tracks at the junction. I wonder if the new ones will be additional or replacement. It's interesting that CPUC approved the line without the junction fully working.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Apr 2, 2012 8:57:49 GMT -8
That's not a good sign at all. It means the junction is still not working properly. It looks like Antonio managed to pressure both Metro and CPUC on a premature opening. We'll see if and how the line will open with the junction not working as it should. When the video of the Transit Coalition Meeting comes out, you'll see someone ask Frank Alejandro about the junction. He said the loops are a part of the final solution for the problems with the ATP. Whether the loops on the boards are the final way they will be installed, i guess we'll see. www.youtube.com/watch?v=luFEdGz8lxc#t=54m30s
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2012 16:07:23 GMT -8
When the video of the Transit Coalition Meeting comes out, you'll see someone ask Frank Alejandro about the junction. He said the loops are a part of the final solution for the problems with the ATP. Whether the loops on the boards are the final way they will be installed, i guess we'll see. www.youtube.com/watch?v=luFEdGz8lxc#t=54m30sThanks!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 2, 2012 16:10:05 GMT -8
It looks like they are now almost ready for train testing in Culver City. There are no vehicles on the tracks any more and they are no longer working on the OCS. Only a few minor fixes here and there seem to be taking place. In a few days or a week, I expect to see test trains there.
They are also almost ready to pave the Culver City Station parking lot. The area is now nicely cleared and graded.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2012 11:10:49 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS: Train testing in Culver City has startedTrain testing in Culver City started today on April 3, 2012. The parking lot, sidewalks, and roads will be finished in mid-May 2012 and that's when the station will be completely ready for opening -- only a couple of weeks after the premature opening to La Cienega. High-resolution photos of the train test in Culver City are at this link.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Apr 3, 2012 12:37:05 GMT -8
Yay! It's evident Metro was lagging so they could start running trains all the way to Culver City and the junction is the scapegoat. The CPUC wouldn't have approved the junction if it wasn't working properly. On the other hand, if they're still working on it, it bring up suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Apr 3, 2012 14:53:17 GMT -8
Everybody from the Los Angeles Times to Streetsblog has announced the official April 28 grand opening start date to LaCienega. It won't be pretty if they don't have at least that much up and running.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2012 15:04:38 GMT -8
The line will open to La Cienega on April 28, 2012.
In principle they could open all the way to Culver City on that date but it wouldn't be pretty with all the roads, sidewalks, and parking lot not finished.
They were 18 days behind schedule in starting the train testing. If you assume a similar delay for finishing the remaining elements, it puts the opening to Culver City on May 2 + 18 = May 20, 2012. Of course, it could be before or after this date, depending on how the work progresses.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 3, 2012 15:20:18 GMT -8
I wonder if Culver City Bus and Big Blue Bus will start service to the La Cienega station and switch to Venice/Robertson when that opens. It will suck big time if the train starts running to La Cienega on April 28 with no bus connection to Downtown Culver City or Century City.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 3, 2012 15:30:05 GMT -8
I wonder if Culver City Bus and Big Blue Bus will start service to the La Cienega station and switch to Venice/Robertson when that opens. It will suck big time if the train starts running to La Cienega on April 28 with no bus connection to Downtown Culver City or Century City. I think they will change the routes only when the Culver City Station opens. Yes, the premature opening sux.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Apr 3, 2012 17:37:06 GMT -8
I wonder if Culver City Bus and Big Blue Bus will start service to the La Cienega station and switch to Venice/Robertson when that opens. It will suck big time if the train starts running to La Cienega on April 28 with no bus connection to Downtown Culver City or Century City. Well Culver City did outreach in September on increasing the frequency on the Number 4 Bus which services the La Cienega station and connects with the #1 Washington, #3 Crosstown and the #6 UCLA buses. Both the outreach and the response we underwhelming. The response even more so since only 3 people showed up to the meeting they held and from what I remember the number of emails they received on the topic were very low. Since the opening date was not yet know and Culver CityBus lacks finds for increasing service when the issue was brought before the city council it was turned down and may be studied at a later date. Now the opening is known, maybe they'll have some news. I got the feeling that they wanted to see if Expo boosted the ridership on the hourly service and then would discuss increased frequency.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 3, 2012 23:36:03 GMT -8
I too was wondering where the pre-rev Expo trains were. This morning I happened to be riding most of Metro's lines from the north SFV to Redondo Beach and I observed something at the Expo/Blue Flower/Washington junction - there are inductive loop detectors before the split (or at the merge) that is placed in the tracks on wooden plyboard. I wish I had a pic, but I thought the way the loop is placed looked non-permanent. That's not a good sign at all. It means the junction is still not working properly. It looks like Antonio managed to pressure both Metro and CPUC on a premature opening. We'll see if and how the line will open with the junction not working as it should. Its a fantastic sign. It shows that someone gives a crap about the people who actually ride the system, and not those who simply want it to be a model showcase. Can the train makes it up and down the line on time and without crashing? Then its ready to go. Doesnt matter if it requires an employee, some tape and a flag at the junction to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 4, 2012 8:27:22 GMT -8
The line will open to La Cienega on April 28, 2012. In principle they could open all the way to Culver City on that date but it wouldn't be pretty with all the roads, sidewalks, and parking lot not finished. They were 18 days behind schedule in starting the train testing. If you assume a similar delay for finishing the remaining elements, it puts the opening to Culver City on May 2 + 18 = May 20, 2012. Of course, it could be before or after this date, depending on how the work progresses. This is just basic clearance testing. Still seems like they are a ways from actually running trains here and doing full testing. I seriously doubt Culver City will open before July 4, which is consistent with Metro's timeline.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 4, 2012 9:26:55 GMT -8
I wonder if Culver City Bus and Big Blue Bus will start service to the La Cienega station and switch to Venice/Robertson when that opens. It will suck big time if the train starts running to La Cienega on April 28 with no bus connection to Downtown Culver City or Century City. Well Culver City did outreach in September on increasing the frequency on the Number 4 Bus which services the La Cienega station and connects with the #1 Washington, #3 Crosstown and the #6 UCLA buses. Both the outreach and the response we underwhelming. The response even more so since only 3 people showed up to the meeting they held and from what I remember the number of emails they received on the topic were very low. Since the opening date was not yet know and Culver CityBus lacks finds for increasing service when the issue was brought before the city council it was turned down and may be studied at a later date. Now the opening is known, maybe they'll have some news. I got the feeling that they wanted to see if Expo boosted the ridership on the hourly service and then would discuss increased frequency. That was exactly my point... they haven't got a clue what to do. What they really should do is detour CC1 (Washington Blvd) to the La Cienega station between Downtown and West LA Transit center in the interim but I doubt they will bother. BBB has a more developed service plan but that was based on Expo starting service to Culver City station, not La Cienega station. They can easily extend Super 12 to La Cienega via National Blvd but that will be complicated by turf dispute with Culver City bus and Metro. Edit: I guess we should continue any bus service discussion in the Expo bus plan thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 4, 2012 11:48:07 GMT -8
The line will open to La Cienega on April 28, 2012. In principle they could open all the way to Culver City on that date but it wouldn't be pretty with all the roads, sidewalks, and parking lot not finished. They were 18 days behind schedule in starting the train testing. If you assume a similar delay for finishing the remaining elements, it puts the opening to Culver City on May 2 + 18 = May 20, 2012. Of course, it could be before or after this date, depending on how the work progresses. This is just basic clearance testing. Still seems like they are a ways from actually running trains here and doing full testing. I seriously doubt Culver City will open before July 4, which is consistent with Metro's timeline. Actually, for the section between Washington/Flower and La Cienega, the clearance test took only one day and they started self-powered tests on the next day. This said, they discovered problems yesterday with the tracks or signaling system and they are digging the ballast to repair the tracks. As a result, no train testing is taking place in Culver City at the moment. When the problems are resolved, a few weeks of system tests and a four-week prerevenue operation is all that is needed. This section is only 1.0-miles-long and fairly simple, other than a double crossover at Hayden Avenue. Of course, all private-right-of-way sections have ATP, which needs to be working as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 4, 2012 17:52:56 GMT -8
By the way, the parking lot in Culver City should be paved in the next few days. The station area is looking much different now, with the fences and barriers removed.
|
|
|
Post by jamprit on Apr 5, 2012 10:56:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 5, 2012 11:00:52 GMT -8
This is just basic clearance testing. Still seems like they are a ways from actually running trains here and doing full testing. I seriously doubt Culver City will open before July 4, which is consistent with Metro's timeline. Actually, for the section between Washington/Flower and La Cienega, the clearance test took only one day and they started self-powered tests on the next day. This said, they discovered problems yesterday with the tracks or signaling system and they are digging the ballast to repair the tracks. As a result, no train testing is taking place in Culver City at the moment. When the problems are resolved, a few weeks of system tests and a four-week prerevenue operation is all that is needed. This section is only 1.0-miles-long and fairly simple, other than a double crossover at Hayden Avenue. Of course, all private-right-of-way sections have ATP, which needs to be working as well. They are still repairing the tracks on the ramp of the Ballona Creek bridge. They are digging the ballast. I don't know what the problem is. There is currently no train testing in Culver City because of the ongoing track repair.
|
|
|
Post by davebowman on Apr 5, 2012 14:52:38 GMT -8
If my experience taking the San Diego Trolley to a Charger game last fall is any indication, even if AEG expands the Pico station Metro is going to need some serious crowd control after games at Farmers Field. The waiting line to board the trolley after the Chargers game was massive, snaking thorugh the Qualcomm parking lot to the point that it was difficulum for cars to get out. I was towards the end of the line and and had to wait about an hour to board a train. At Pico station they'll probably have to line people down Pico and then Figueroa. The smart people will probably walk down Figueroa to 7th St./Metro station. It will be interesting to see what happens at the Expo Park/USC and Expo/Vermont stations for USC football games this fall. The last time I went to a Trojan game a few years ago (Peter Carroll era) parking was horrendous, and I can see a lot of people from areas served by the Gold Line and Red Line and Blue Line taking the train if they're not tailgating.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 5, 2012 17:01:24 GMT -8
If my experience taking the San Diego Trolley to a Charger game last fall is any indication, even if AEG expands the Pico station Metro is going to need some serious crowd control after games at Farmers Field. The waiting line to board the trolley after the Chargers game was massive, snaking thorugh the Qualcomm parking lot to the point that it was difficulum for cars to get out. I was towards the end of the line and and had to wait about an hour to board a train. At Pico station they'll probably have to line people down Pico and then Figueroa. The smart people will probably walk down Figueroa to 7th St./Metro station. It will be interesting to see what happens at the Expo Park/USC and Expo/Vermont stations for USC football games this fall. The last time I went to a Trojan game a few years ago (Peter Carroll era) parking was horrendous, and I can see a lot of people from areas served by the Gold Line and Red Line and Blue Line taking the train if they're not tailgating. LA will have significant advantages over San Diego. Trains will be much more frequent and there is another station (7th/metro) within walking distance. Pico will move lots of people, but there would likely be many more people taking the train to the game because parking will be more limited than at Qualcomm. But this is a very bad plan. The station should be on that same side of the tracks, but on the other side of Pico to spread the crowd out more. They should still be able to synchronize the trains with the traffic light at Pico so that SB trains don't have to stop twice. At least not always. Hopefully they would only need to remove the existing parking spaces and the bit of the right lane that ends at the parking spaces. But even if not, that's still the place that makes the most sense. There will be to many pedestrian crossing problems if they go through with this
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Apr 6, 2012 0:46:21 GMT -8
If a pedestrian bridge over the LA river costs $400k, how much should it cost to build one to the Pico station? It seems like a relatively small cost compared with the $10 million AEG is proposing for the extra platform, or the entire stadium project.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Apr 6, 2012 9:22:06 GMT -8
If a pedestrian bridge over the LA river costs $400k, how much should it cost to build one to the Pico station? It seems like a relatively small cost compared with the $10 million AEG is proposing for the extra platform, or the entire stadium project. Pedestrian bridges are pretty universally loathed from an urban design standpoint -- people don't like to be corralled in confined spaces. And AEG concluded that it would adversely impact the flow of pedestrians on sidewalks. Given that, I think a better remedy is to have AEG fund some extra crowd-control personnel and install some TVMs on the LA Live/Farmer's Field campus, so no one has to buy tickets at the platform.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Apr 6, 2012 11:16:33 GMT -8
There really won't be an easy way to control crowds because you'll have ten thousand people trying to cross flower at the same two crosswalks. They have to cross the street, cross the tracks (many of them), and then find somewhere safe to stand on the sidewalk. When the platform is full what side of flower will they be forced to wait on? Has to be the stadium side since many will need to access the SB platform from the street. So then how do people needing the other platform or to get to their cars or homes cross? They'll need somebody stopping cars ons flower I guess. Or maybe just close flower for an hour after games.
Regarding the pedestrian bridge, they more likely decided that wouldn't work than any aesthetic, urban consideration. Or if not, they got lucky because it wouldn't work. The only way to fit a bridge would be to block most of the sidewalk. And then it doesn't really solve the problem since one entrance is in the intersection. It's really not a simple problem and the current solution is probably the second best of the inexpensive options.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2012 12:26:02 GMT -8
If a pedestrian bridge over the LA river costs $400k, how much should it cost to build one to the Pico station? It seems like a relatively small cost compared with the $10 million AEG is proposing for the extra platform, or the entire stadium project. Since the LA River is grade-separated, all that is needed there is a simple at-grade bridge, which is very cheap to build. It's as simple as throwing a log across the river: Since the Pico Station is at-grade, they need to grade-separate the bridge, which would require columns, elevators, and ramps. The typical cost would be around $4 million, ten times the cost of an at-grade bridge.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 6, 2012 12:28:41 GMT -8
Actually, for the section between Washington/Flower and La Cienega, the clearance test took only one day and they started self-powered tests on the next day. This said, they discovered problems yesterday with the tracks or signaling system and they are digging the ballast to repair the tracks. As a result, no train testing is taking place in Culver City at the moment. When the problems are resolved, a few weeks of system tests and a four-week prerevenue operation is all that is needed. This section is only 1.0-miles-long and fairly simple, other than a double crossover at Hayden Avenue. Of course, all private-right-of-way sections have ATP, which needs to be working as well. They are still repairing the tracks on the ramp of the Ballona Creek bridge. They are digging the ballast. I don't know what the problem is. There is currently no train testing in Culver City because of the ongoing track repair. It looks like the problem is with the OCS feed cables under the ballast and they are pulling cables. The work still continues and as a result there is no train testing. It could take a while to repair the OCS feed there. This should delay the Culver City opening well into June 2012.
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Apr 6, 2012 17:38:08 GMT -8
If a pedestrian bridge over the LA river costs $400k, how much should it cost to build one to the Pico station? It seems like a relatively small cost compared with the $10 million AEG is proposing for the extra platform, or the entire stadium project. Pedestrian bridges are pretty universally loathed from an urban design standpoint -- people don't like to be corralled in confined spaces. And AEG concluded that it would adversely impact the flow of pedestrians on sidewalks. Given that, I think a better remedy is to have AEG fund some extra crowd-control personnel and install some TVMs on the LA Live/Farmer's Field campus, so no one has to buy tickets at the platform. They may be loathed by certain segments of society, but they seem to work just fine in Santa Monica across PCH, with 4 bridges between Montana and Broadway. Perhaps fare control and personnel at bridge entrance during events would be a solution to the crowding. g.co/maps/tpz4w
|
|