|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2013 16:15:37 GMT -8
Well, I'm sure they will figure out something. However, I don't understand why they are making things more complicated and less efficient by choice. It never hurts to have ample train-storage space. Why make it so that you need to juggle things?
This is also going to become a huge problem when the new cars arrive. Where are they going to store them or the old ones as they are not going to get rid of the old ones immediately?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 26, 2013 16:18:39 GMT -8
Once the connector opens, I think it actually gets easier, because the Foothill Extension is building an enormous facility in Monrovia. The current Gold Line Maintenance Facility just north of Downtown will have extra capacity and is pretty close to the Little Tokyo Station for the Expo/Eastside Gold Line. This should work quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2013 19:40:54 GMT -8
Yes, that's an 84-car-space rail yard and plus you have the current Gold Line yard. However, Downtown Connector will come a lot later than Expo Phase 2 and they will have to figure out some solution in between. As I said earlier, newly arriving cars will require additional space as well. Perhaps they will run the Nippon Sharyo's on the Gold Line and Kinkisharyo's on the Expo and Blue Lines as a solution, as the Monrovia yard has a lot of space to store the old cars.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 26, 2013 20:15:33 GMT -8
Gokham said "4 trains can be stored in the USC trench" How? there is no third track in the trench, so how did you come up with this idea?. sincerely the Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2013 20:36:26 GMT -8
Gokham said "4 trains can be stored in the USC trench" How? there is no third track in the trench, so how did you come up with this idea?. sincerely the Roadtrainer Four trains, two on each track, are already stored in or near the USC trench by the Expo Park / USC Station every night when the line is not running.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Nov 26, 2013 22:22:22 GMT -8
You also might be able to fit two trains under the 10 freeway during off hours.
BTW, Gökhan, did anyone take a picture of the finished Overland crossing?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Nov 26, 2013 22:33:58 GMT -8
While we've all been excitedly following the Overland and Westwood crossings, the falsework has continued to come off of the Venice bridge and revealed a structure that is architecturally inconsistent with the work done on the Culver City station. I wish I had some pictures to share. That will have to come later.
My initial thought is that the structure suggests that money had to be saved SOMEWHERE! While the earlier elevated structure has soft rounded edges on the horizontal concrete work and rounded angular rectangular supports, the Venice bridge has hard edges on the horizontal work and apparently cheaper round columns for support.
Earlier in the thread, Gokhan noted that round columns were required to reduce the Venice footprint ...and that may be true. But I don't think that anyone standing east of Robertson glancing at the junction of the earlier work and this recently unveiled bridge cannot help but notice the difference in architectural style. I would like to have seen the architecture of Phase I continued into Phase II.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Nov 26, 2013 23:25:40 GMT -8
I believe the edges are softened later and recall seeing something similar on the La Cienega bridge: At first it looks weird and boxy, but after they get up under there with some tools it gets smoothed out. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2013 23:34:55 GMT -8
You also might be able to fit two trains under the 10 freeway during off hours. BTW, Gökhan, did anyone take a picture of the finished Overland crossing? Park a train in the graffiti world? It'll wake up with a radically different livery. www.facebook.com/ExpoLine
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 26, 2013 23:44:19 GMT -8
I posted a ton of pictures of the Venice Blvd Bridge after the falsework was removed three weeks ago here. Yes, the edges will be smoothed slightly. However, this is only a minor cosmetic touch and it won't change the shape of the bridge, as you can't remove more than a fraction of an inch of concrete before you start exposing the rebars. The old bridge (as well as the La Brea and La Cienega Bridges) has prominent arches and is curvy with curvy columns and the new bridge doesn't look like it. The old bridge used special forms to give its curvy edges. So, yes, the old and new bridge are architecturally quite different and there is a discontinuity. The two bridges were designed by the same company ("P"arsons of FF"P") and built by the same company (Balfour Beatty Infrastructure). What was the difference? Caltrans was involved in the design of the new bridge and Parsons presented them several alternatives and they had to go back and forth until Caltrans finally OKed one, which took forever. I am guessing the reason why they picked this different architecture was vertical and horizontal clearances. Interestingly, this all happened with strict confidentiality throughout the process and it was hidden from the public in all stages and public didn't get to see or comment on the design at any stage. I don't know why this was so for this particular bridge.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Nov 26, 2013 23:59:18 GMT -8
yeah I noticed today how awful the Venice Bridge looks, now that all the falsework is off and you can see a continuous line on the bridge. The discontinuous jolt of the change is pretty staggeringly ugly, an absolute and utter failure of design of the line's largest elevated structure. I suspected this might be so due to the different columns, but I thought it might work out, like the weird atypical columns at Ballona creek. sad to say it didn't work out. Just as every architecture student in Los Angeles pilgrimage non-stop to the Hayden Tract to observe, photograph and study, I'm sure they'll also make sure to note the massive architectural failure of the adjacent Expo Bridge at Venice. a veritable feast of Do and Do Not.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2013 10:12:07 GMT -8
You can see the discontinuous transition from curved edge to sharp edge in this picture from two days ago:
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 27, 2013 12:32:51 GMT -8
It won't be efficient to operate the Expo Line from the Blue Line yard once Phase 2 opens. They are short about 8 train-storage spaces. 4 trains can be stored in the USC trench. I wonder what the status of the satellite storage yard at Washington and Long Beach is. Perhaps they can store another 4 trains there. Palms pocket track is good for only 1 train and it's for daytime only. They will run 5-minute headways on Expo Phase 2 right from the opening, which is in Spring 2016. They can't wait for the other yards that can be used after the Downtown Connector. In fact, after the opening of the Downtown connector, it will be more problematic considering that the Expo Line and Eastside Gold Line will run as a single line and the Eastside Gold Line doesn't have its own yard at the moment. It will be difficult to run the line from multiple yards belonging to other, unrelated lines. For Expo Phase 2 opening I think that they will need to operate the Washington/Long Beach or find an approach to expand the Carson yard or find a property in the nearby Carson area to build an satellite yard to hold additional trains. After the Downtown Connector it might make operations easier if we think of the Expo Line connecting with the SGV/Foothill Gold Line & the Blue Line and Eastside Gold Line linked together. It marries the operational and train facilities of both lines. Eastside and Blue Line can get by with the Carson Yard & Chinatown yard. Expo and SGV GOld Line can use Monrovia and West LA yards and shops which will hold more trains because they will need the most trains. From a ridership perspective this makes the most sense because Expo Line will open up SGV region/Metrolink riders access to the Westside jobs on Expo. Blue Line and Eastside passengers do not need a connection to Union Station as much as the Expo Line will the Regional Connector will attract many of those Downtown Bound connections such as Bunker Hill and closer access to Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2013 14:30:41 GMT -8
It won't be efficient to operate the Expo Line from the Blue Line yard once Phase 2 opens. They are short about 8 train-storage spaces. 4 trains can be stored in the USC trench. I wonder what the status of the satellite storage yard at Washington and Long Beach is. Perhaps they can store another 4 trains there. Palms pocket track is good for only 1 train and it's for daytime only. They will run 5-minute headways on Expo Phase 2 right from the opening, which is in Spring 2016. They can't wait for the other yards that can be used after the Downtown Connector. In fact, after the opening of the Downtown connector, it will be more problematic considering that the Expo Line and Eastside Gold Line will run as a single line and the Eastside Gold Line doesn't have its own yard at the moment. It will be difficult to run the line from multiple yards belonging to other, unrelated lines. For Expo Phase 2 opening I think that they will need to operate the Washington/Long Beach or find an approach to expand the Carson yard or find a property in the nearby Carson area to build an satellite yard to hold additional trains. After the Downtown Connector it might make operations easier if we think of the Expo Line connecting with the SGV/Foothill Gold Line & the Blue Line and Eastside Gold Line linked together. It marries the operational and train facilities of both lines. Eastside and Blue Line can get by with the Carson Yard & Chinatown yard. Expo and SGV GOld Line can use Monrovia and West LA yards and shops which will hold more trains because they will need the most trains. From a ridership perspective this makes the most sense because Expo Line will open up SGV region/Metrolink riders access to the Westside jobs on Expo. Blue Line and Eastside passengers do not need a connection to Union Station as much as the Expo Line will the Regional Connector will attract many of those Downtown Bound connections such as Bunker Hill and closer access to Broadway. Well, without presenting my personal opinion on this subject, I know that for a long time, Metro's plans have been to connect the Blue Line with the Foothill Gold Line and the Expo Line with the Eastside Gold Line. My personal choice would be an Expo - Foothill connection rather than an Expo - Eastside connection. It's a good point that people coming from the Union Station are unlikely to have business along the Blue Line but they have a lot of business on the Expo Line job destinations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2013 15:17:00 GMT -8
Rebars are rising in the Palms Station plaza:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 27, 2013 15:27:48 GMT -8
Due to heavy request, here are the details of the bridge-architecture transition at Venice Blvd. Note that the new bridge lacks round edges and curvy columns. However, it adds arches, which the straight old bridge doesn't have (excluding between the two columns under the station platform): Note the sharp (new) vs. round (old) edges and arch (new) vs. straight (old) span: Here is the full detail of the discontinuity. The old bridge used special, gutter-shaped plastic concrete forms at the edges to give them the round shape. The new bridge did not and the edges are sharp. Note that the edges on the new bridge have already been cosmetically retouched with a grinder and the sharp edges are actually slightly beveled now. I think this is the final, finished form of the new bridge in this section and I don't expect further retouches. Also note the acrh in the new bridge near the new column (partially in view on lower right), which the old bridge doesn't have, as it's straight at the old, curved column:
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Nov 27, 2013 16:21:23 GMT -8
Perhaps the goal is to separate the architecture of the station from that of the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Nov 27, 2013 22:22:46 GMT -8
Perhaps the goal is to separate the architecture of the station from that of the bridge. ...That's a nice thought. Unfortunately there's little in the new architecture that suggests either continuity or artistry and to me the design doesn't seem compatible with the earlier architecture. Indeed, "separation" from the old, this architecture is! That the design was unpublicized--never aired to the public, that the work was undertaken knowingly, not accidentally, without public comment, suggests that the powers that be knew they were foisting an architecture that later would be challenged. (And look at how long it's taken since the design was first put to paper!) They must have reasoned, "Better when it's a fait accompli that the public responds; it'll be too late then!" ...And indeed it is. I can only imagine that this design and engineering action, taken more or less in secret, must have been dictated due to cost constraints--and leaders did not want challenges to the cost-cutting design to put Phase II in jeopardy. However, the reduced-cost bridge-work will be with us for the rest of our lives and longer and I think that's unfortunate ...though it's better than having no Phase II completion at all.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 27, 2013 23:04:26 GMT -8
Perhaps the goal is to separate the architecture of the station from that of the bridge. ...That's a nice thought. Unfortunately there's little in the new architecture that suggests either continuity or artistry and to me the design doesn't seem compatible with the earlier architecture. Indeed, "separation" from the old, this architecture is! That the design was unpublicized--never aired to the public, that the work was undertaken knowingly, not accidentally, without public comment, suggests that the powers that be knew they were foisting an architecture that later would be challenged. (And look at how long it's taken since the design was first put to paper!) They must have reasoned, "Better when it's a fait accompli that the public responds; it'll be too late then!" ...And indeed it is. I can only imagine that this design and engineering action, taken more or less in secret, must have been dictated due to cost constraints--and leaders did not want challenges to the cost-cutting design to put Phase II in jeopardy. However, the reduced-cost bridge-work will be with us for the rest of our lives and longer and I think that's unfortunate ...though it's better than having no Phase II completion at all. This amount of drama over some architecture is just getting hilarious now. Really, 99% of people aren't going to notice and frankly don't really care. IMO, this is the price of having the phased opening approach. Frankly, the whole bridge should have just been part of Phase I and we wouldn't have this problem.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Nov 27, 2013 23:19:41 GMT -8
...Probably true. Same could be said for the station artwork and efforts expended on platform design. It could be argued there's much wasted effort and cost. But for many the transportation infrastructure is more than a utility because it represents who we are a community ...what we care about, what we see everyday when we take that train. Does it make a difference? Well, to some it may not; to others, it does...
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 28, 2013 4:45:49 GMT -8
...Probably true. Same could be said for the station artwork and efforts expended on platform design. It could be argued there's much wasted effort and cost. But for many the transportation infrastructure is more than a utility because it represents who we are a community ...what we care about, what we see everyday when we take that train. Does it make a difference? Well, to some it may not; to others, it does... What is important is the interaction between the infrastructure and riders. Most riders won't see the underside of the bridge, and the vast majority of those that do won't care. How often have you gazed at the underside of a freeway overpass and lamented a slight inconsistency in architectural styling? Station artwork and platform design are very important, as they signal a primary interface between riders and the system. A concrete elevated line is always going to be a bit ugly, no matter how rounded or not it is. The system will more than make up for any seams in the concrete by promoting higher quality, pedestrian oriented development near the stations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 28, 2013 11:12:38 GMT -8
Thinking about it, Chief Archictect Roland Genick, who had designed Phase 1, had quit "P"arsons of FF"P" by the time Parsons was awarded the contract to design the Venice Blvd Bridge for Phase 1½ as a design - bid - build project. Perhaps this is the reason for the discrepancy. Venice Blvd Bridge couldn't be part of Phase 1 but it had to be Phase 1½ because they hadn't decided whether to go on the right-of-way or on Venice Blvd in Phase 1. I had taken this picture of Roland in Phase 1 when he was inspecting the newly arrived sound walls. He was very meticulous and he sent them back because they were slightly off-color. I don't think they are anywhere near that meticulous with Phase 2:
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 28, 2013 11:33:08 GMT -8
Gokham said "4 trains can be stored in the USC trench" How? there is no third track in the trench, so how did you come up with this idea?. sincerely the Roadtrainer Four trains, two on each track, are already stored in or near the USC trench by the Expo Park / USC Station every night when the line is not running. :)okay I see your point.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 28, 2013 11:35:21 GMT -8
:)Hey you guys are worried about storage...well what about the space above the Blueline at Washington.. it is Metro property.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 1, 2013 12:00:10 GMT -8
BTW, Gökhan, did anyone take a picture of the finished Overland crossing? Here it is, yesterday afternoon (11/30): Overall view looking north, seemingly missing only crossing gates and signals. The patched pavement is wider here beyond the tracks than on Westwood. Looking west over the construction fence. Hard to see in this photo, but the distant tracks haven't been leveled in the ballast yet. Looking east. The bank of the tracks on the curve creates a bit of a zig-zag of the pavement surface for cars. Wondering how it looked farther along I went to the pedestrian bridge for this view back north. And at Military I saw no further track extension west but found these pieces of special trackwork for the crossovers west of Westwood.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Dec 1, 2013 22:03:37 GMT -8
Looks like Expo has some real railroad tracks installed--I'll have to ask the Foothill Extension folks when we're going to start laying track (right now we just have some new track for the BNSF line to Irwindale, and several grade crossings). Time to "connect the dots."
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 2, 2013 12:53:50 GMT -8
For Expo Phase 2 opening I think that they will need to operate the Washington/Long Beach or find an approach to expand the Carson yard or find a property in the nearby Carson area to build an satellite yard to hold additional trains. After the Downtown Connector it might make operations easier if we think of the Expo Line connecting with the SGV/Foothill Gold Line & the Blue Line and Eastside Gold Line linked together. It marries the operational and train facilities of both lines. Eastside and Blue Line can get by with the Carson Yard & Chinatown yard. Expo and SGV GOld Line can use Monrovia and West LA yards and shops which will hold more trains because they will need the most trains. From a ridership perspective this makes the most sense because Expo Line will open up SGV region/Metrolink riders access to the Westside jobs on Expo. Blue Line and Eastside passengers do not need a connection to Union Station as much as the Expo Line will the Regional Connector will attract many of those Downtown Bound connections such as Bunker Hill and closer access to Broadway. Well, without presenting my personal opinion on this subject, I know that for a long time, Metro's plans have been to connect the Blue Line with the Foothill Gold Line and the Expo Line with the Eastside Gold Line. My personal choice would be an Expo - Foothill connection rather than an Expo - Eastside connection. It's a good point that people coming from the Union Station are unlikely to have business along the Blue Line but they have a lot of business on the Expo Line job destinations. Good point from the both of you on likely destinations of the Metrolink passengers. It eliminates the double transfer for those passengers if Expo is aligned to Foothill. It has not occurred to me until now that Regional Connector would still leave a double transfer in place if Expo is aligned to Eastside. Also, from an operational standpoint, this creates 2 nearly equal length services, as opposed to the other way where the Foothill-Long Beach alignment is significantly longer than Expo-Eastside. Probably will make operations simpler and on-time performance easier to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 2, 2013 16:23:52 GMT -8
rajacobs, f ron, and whoever else wants to attend this -- you can hear what they will say about the Expo Line:
Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association Holiday General Meeting Thursday, December 5, 2013, 6:30 pm Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services 3200 Motor Avenue (@ Motor Ave & I-10 freeway / Expo Line right-of-way)
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Dec 2, 2013 17:03:25 GMT -8
rajacobs, f ron, and whoever else wants to attend this -- you can hear what they will say about the Expo Line: Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association Holiday General Meeting Thursday, December 5, 2013, 6:30 pm Vista Del Mar Child and Family Services 3200 Motor Avenue (@ Motor Ave & I-10 freeway / Expo Line right-of-way)Just in it for the schadenfreude?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 3, 2013 14:36:06 GMT -8
|
|