|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 5, 2010 16:35:07 GMT -8
Let's see what's holding up the project... Hold-up | Estimated completion | Storage facility | April 2011 | Washington/Flower ATP | December 2010 | I-110 bridge | March 2011 | Farmdale Station | Mid 2012 (?) | La Brea Station | April 2011 | La Cienega Station | May 2011 | Venice/Robertson Station | December 2011 | Testing | +2 months | Prerevenue operation | +1 month |
(Note: These dates are based on the current contractor schedule showing an April - May 2011 substantial completion as well as my personal following of the project. Therefore, the dates are far from set-in-stone.)So, various scenarios: - To Crenshaw (Farmdale run-through): Not applicable (no Crenshaw-only-segment opening in this case)
- To Crenshaw (no Farmdale run-through): July 2011
- To La Cienega (Farmdale run-through): August 2011
- To Venice/Robertson (Farmdale run-through): March 2012
- To La Cienega (no Farmdale run-through): Not applicable (opening to Venice/Robertson instead)
- To Venice/Robertson (no Farmdale run-through): August 2012
- To Santa Monica: Christmas 2014! (a few months ahead of the planned early-2015 completion)
In this poll here, provide your answer for the Expo minimal operating segment you wish or expect to happen.
|
|
|
Post by ieko on Oct 5, 2010 17:18:01 GMT -8
The line would be really useless for me if I can't get to at least Venice/Robertson.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 5, 2010 17:57:34 GMT -8
I don't really have a "dog in this fight", but it would be nice to ride the train to Exposition Park and visit the Pacific Electric car in the basement of the history museum. Also, Santa Monica in 2014 is very optimistic; I would guess the Vegas morning line is somewhere around 100 to 1. It's going to be hard enough getting the Gold Line Foothill Extension running by 2014 and we don't have the NIMBY groups getting underfoot.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 18:09:35 GMT -8
There are a lot of optimistic assumptions in the dates given here.
Before choosing to open an MOS to La Cienega (which on the surface looks like the best choice), Metro would need to ask themselves a few questions. First of all, with the La Cienega option, what risks are there that could push the date (August 2011) back into the fall or winter? What additional complexity is there in finishing the La Brea and La Cienega stations, that could make construction of that segment take longer than expected? Also, would construction on Farmdale impair revenue service? IOW, would Metro feel the need to run trains at lower frequency due to construction?
I am not convinced that the difference between Crenshaw and La Cienega is only one month. If there is any significant chance of delays to La Cienega, or slower service due to Farmdale, then I vote for the MOS to Crenshaw. With service to Crenshaw, at least some people could start using the line next summer.
On a related topic, I've been keeping my ears open about the storage facility, and I've heard nothing. Is April 2011 a solid date for that piece?
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 5, 2010 18:54:17 GMT -8
I'd estimate the Culver City aerial structure is now around the point that the La Brea and La Cienega bridges were in February 2010 - concrete in place, side forms coming off soon.
This suggests the Culver City station could open no more than eight months after La Cienega, less if their faster pace continues.
How about Crenshaw in June 2011 and Venice/Robertson in December 2011 (including completion of the Farmdale station during the extra six months)?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 5, 2010 19:02:08 GMT -8
How about Crenshaw in June 2011 and Venice/Robertson in December 2011 (including completion of the Farmdale station during the extra six months)? Well, I'm all for it, with or without the interim Crenshaw terminus!
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 5, 2010 19:19:09 GMT -8
At this point I think that it's very unlikely that they will open only to Crenshaw. Also unlikely would be waiting for Venice Robertson so I picked the middle (La Cienega 8/11).
Didn't we discuss earlier that they plan to start testing in advance of the substantial completion date? I've seen that on more than one timeline. If that happens August is realistic, otherwise maybe October.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 19:28:17 GMT -8
Start revenue service as soon as possible as far as it is practical.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Oct 5, 2010 20:04:27 GMT -8
Washington/Flower ATP is the real bottleneck. Add 3 months for the testing, and run to Western or Crenshaw by March 2011. This means service for the book fair. The storage facility is not needed to have 2 trains running back and forth, they can be stored in the same exact place they're being kept at this very moment.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 5, 2010 22:07:34 GMT -8
Looking back at Eastside Gold Line photos, the catenary was being finished on Alameda and 1st in December 2008 (12/12/08 below). Powered train testing began in mid-March, 2009. Stations still had lots of finish work being done; they didn't wait for that to test trains. (Metro Flickr photo via Justin Walker's 3/19/09 post) Catenary for Expo could be done mid to late next month (November). So on that schedule test runs could begin in February, 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 5, 2010 22:36:32 GMT -8
In principle the tracks, OCS, and TPSSs are all you need for the test trains...
But then you need the communication and train-control equipment, crossing gates, and traffic signals as well.
I wonder if the crossing gates and traffic signals will be installed when they reconstruct the intersections.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Oct 5, 2010 23:49:21 GMT -8
I suppose part of me is interested in the public perception of Metro, and the rail network in general.
FTW, my anecdotal familiarity with Los Angeles west of La Brea and north of Jefferson tells me that most people on that side of town have little knowledge or use for Metro. The Big Blue Bus has more recognition than Metro. Even talking to rail-sympathetic people, you'll find that "the problem with the LA subway is that it doesn't go anywhere" is a common refrain.
Opening to Crenshaw would be a nice short line to open, but La Cienega would capture the publics attention (especially because La Cienega=access to LAX for so many on that side of town). It would also seem like a fair accomplishment, whereas Crenshaw would appear as "just another setback for Metro".
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 6, 2010 9:46:17 GMT -8
Yeh, Adam that phrase, "the subway doesn't go anywhere," rings true. Haven't heard it in years, but I remember it being applied to the inaccessibility of the Red Line's Vermont or Purple Line's Western station for westsiders.
Opening to La Cienega will grab curiosity--especially with airport shuttles to LAX and a shuttle to Kaiser Peramente's WLA hospital. But the public's recognition, that I think will put a broad smile on all of our faces, comes in with completion to Venice Robertson and the "destination" offered by Culver Downtown with restaurants, theatre, and the studios.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 6, 2010 10:04:25 GMT -8
I suppose part of me is interested in the public perception of Metro, and the rail network in general. FTW, my anecdotal familiarity with Los Angeles west of La Brea and north of Jefferson tells me that most people on that side of town have little knowledge or use for Metro. The Big Blue Bus has more recognition than Metro. Even talking to rail-sympathetic people, you'll find that "the problem with the LA subway is that it doesn't go anywhere" is a common refrain. Opening to Crenshaw would be a nice short line to open, but La Cienega would capture the publics attention (especially because La Cienega=access to LAX for so many on that side of town). It would also seem like a fair accomplishment, whereas Crenshaw would appear as "just another setback for Metro". At this point, Expo is already seen as a setback for the MTA. The line was supposed to be open months ago and it is over budget. Opening it as soon as possible even in segments is a worthy goal. It will pick up a major destination in USC and two of our busiest bus lines in Vermont and Western even if Expo only goes to Crenshaw. Most people are probably going to be coming from points east or from the rest of the rail system anyway so it is logical to open up as much as possible from this direction. It really won't benefit the Westside much until Phase II is built. Unless it will only delay the opening by 6-7 weeks or less, I for one don't think we should wait to open to La Cienaga. Lets get it open and work out some kinks and let the construction crews properly build Farmdale and the two aerial stations in Culver City.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2010 10:08:28 GMT -8
As an aside, here is Metro Rail's growing "annoying gap" Hall Of Fame: - Green Line to LAX
- Blue Line to Gold Line (Downtown Connector)
- Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
- Red Line to Burbank Airport
Gold Line: Memorial Park to Old Town Pasadena
- Gold Line: Atlantic to East L.A. College
- Expo Line: Venice/Robertson to Downtown Culver City
The local media are going to say "train to nowhere" whether this goes to Crenshaw or La Cienega. And they are going to say the project is a failure unless it opens to Venice/Robertson within the next few months. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 6, 2010 10:24:45 GMT -8
As an aside, here is Metro Rail's growing "annoying gap" Hall Of Fame: - Gold Line: Memorial Park to Old Town Pasadena
The local media are going to say "train to nowhere" whether this goes to Crenshaw or La Cienega. And they are going to say the project is a failure unless it opens to Venice/Robertson within the next few months. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I haven't heard the Memorial Park to Old Town Pasadena as a gap. I've heard the Gold Line to the Rose Bowl as a true gap...but definitely not the former. It's only a 2 block (urban blocks too!) walk between the station and Old Town. That's akin to saying there is a gap between the Pico station and LA Live!. A reasonable walking distance has to be expected at stations. If we built the Gold and Blue lines as subways and not LRT, then we could go right to the destination. But due to station specs, it has to be a block or two away. But, that is not a gap. Going back to the Expo Line, there will be a noticeable gap between Venice/Robertson and Culver City downtown, unless an alley/pedestrian way could be opened up and few kiosks/shops start opening and connecting the station with downtown. That's .8 mile distance! Much bigger than the LA Live! to Pico or Old Town to Memorial Park.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2010 10:35:00 GMT -8
I haven't heard the Memorial Park to Old Town Pasadena as a gap. I've heard the Gold Line to the Rose Bowl as a true gap...but definitely not the former. It's only a 2 block (urban blocks too!) walk between the station and Old Town. Yeah you're right. I haven't taken the train to Old Town since it opened, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. It has been removed from the list.
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Oct 6, 2010 11:32:37 GMT -8
At this point, Expo is already seen as a setback for the MTA. The line was supposed to be open months ago and it is over budget. Opening it as soon as possible even in segments is a worthy goal. It will pick up a major destination in USC and two of our busiest bus lines in Vermont and Western even if Expo only goes to Crenshaw. Most people are probably going to be coming from points east or from the rest of the rail system anyway so it is logical to open up as much as possible from this direction. It really won't benefit the Westside much until Phase II is built. Unless it will only delay the opening by 6-7 weeks or less, I for one don't think we should wait to open to La Cienaga. Lets get it open and work out some kinks and let the construction crews properly build Farmdale and the two aerial stations in Culver City. It's not that I disagree with you, but I feel like there is a broader public perception that can be influenced here. Most people BARELY register that the Expo line is being built. To them, there is the Hollywood Blvd sink hole, and that's about it. They don't take Metro, they don't know where the lines go, and they couldn't care less when something has been terribly delayed or overbudget. For so many people - La Brea is a major demarcation line for the LA Basin (lets say, Sunset to Jefferson or thereabouts). It's not a matter of Crenshaw being a useful or valid stopping point - it's that a lot of Westsiders barely register where it is. La Cienega, though - even if they don't use it right away, the idea that "Oh, damn, I can take that to a USC game?" or "Oh wow, hey, we can park and take that all the way to the Rose Parade?" is a pretty big deal for Westsiders. It will draw a lot more attention and public excitement for the future. Whereas Crenshaw (while a valid, well used transit point) isn't really on the radar of those west of La Brea. I guess my point is "Oh, there's a rail line from La Cienega to downtown?" is a lot better than "Oh man, they opened another downtown segment? when are they building that subway to the sea that I voted?"
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Oct 6, 2010 11:33:32 GMT -8
As an aside, here is Metro Rail's growing "annoying gap" Hall Of Fame: - Green Line to LAX
- Blue Line to Gold Line (Downtown Connector)
- Green Line to Norwalk Metrolink
- Red Line to Burbank Airport
Gold Line: Memorial Park to Old Town Pasadena
- Gold Line: Atlantic to East L.A. College
- Expo Line: Venice/Robertson to Downtown Culver City
The local media are going to say "train to nowhere" whether this goes to Crenshaw or La Cienega. And they are going to say the project is a failure unless it opens to Venice/Robertson within the next few months. I wouldn't worry about it too much. La Cienega is not nowhere for Westsiders, especially if there is a parking garage.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Oct 6, 2010 12:47:28 GMT -8
I guess my point is "Oh, there's a rail line from La Cienega to downtown?" is a lot better than "Oh man, they opened another downtown segment? when are they building that subway to the sea that I voted? So screw over the students, staff and faculty of USC (especially the staff) so some ill-informed rich people don't get upset? Terrible move. It needs to opened ASAP because the line is connected to an existing network. Each and every station is a huge upgrade to the system. If we were talking expo line and ONLY expo line, then yeah, having a 5 station line is useless. But expo isnt in a vacuum. Even running to just USC will serve enough people to make it important to open ASAP. Again, especially if they can get it done before the giant book fair event. Start testing in January once the rail, ATP and wire is done. Open the shortened line in March 2011. Have the rest follow in September.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 6, 2010 15:21:08 GMT -8
I can envision an LRV at the end of usable track, as close as possible to a construction crew, and the operator saying, "Come on lads, get your backs into it!"
|
|
adamv
Junior Member
Posts: 51
|
Post by adamv on Oct 6, 2010 17:31:33 GMT -8
So screw over the students, staff and faculty of USC (especially the staff) so some ill-informed rich people don't get upset? Terrible move. It needs to opened ASAP because the line is connected to an existing network. Each and every station is a huge upgrade to the system. I get what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree with the characterization of "ill-informed rich people". If I was feeling especially snarky, I'd point out that you were speaking in support of USC students, those poor poor down-trodden souls with no options to speak of ;D You're speaking about everyone west of Crenshaw, which is a lot of freakin' people of many ethnicities, incomes and backgrounds. You're speaking about the people that Metro needs to reach out to, whose attention Metro needs to capture - The people whose support for things like Metro Phase II we want so we can overwhelm recalcitrant NIMBY's and have a lawsuit free construction window. Yes, I agree, every station is an upgrade, but we should look at the bigger picture. I for one wouldn't want to hear Westsiders say "well, Metro couldn't even get half-way to Culver City, maybe I shouldn't trust their projections" etc.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Oct 7, 2010 0:01:12 GMT -8
You're speaking about everyone west of Crenshaw, which is a lot of freakin' people of many ethnicities, incomes and backgrounds. You're speaking about the people that Metro needs to reach out to, whose attention Metro needs to capture - I for one wouldn't want to hear Westsiders say "well, Metro couldn't even get half-way to Culver City, maybe I shouldn't trust their projections" etc. True that there's all kinds of people included in the westside, I shouldnt generalize. But I think those willing to complain would complain anyway. Too slow to santa monica, should be a subway, should never be built, should be a maglev etc etc. It's easy to complain. I think the benefits to folks from the east getting to the USC area (and usc folks heading downtown) are worth dealing with a baseless complaint or two. And 90% of people are rational enough to see that a half opening benefiting some is better than a delay for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 7, 2010 12:01:03 GMT -8
While I do appreciate the benefits of opening the line to USC, to which I belong myself as well, as as soon as possible, if it's only going to take two or three months more to La Cienega, it's a very bad idea to open the line to USC/Crenshaw first. That's because people who ride the line for the first time will say, "That's it?!" Imagine the disappointment of those who will ride the line to find out that it hardly gets outside the Downtown area. As a result, the new transit ridership will significantly suffer and we will begin with a really bad PR. Not only that but testing and arranging a phased opening, as pointed out recently by Expo officials, is very expensive and Metro would have to spent hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for phased testing instead of single testing to La Cienega.
It really doesn't matter if the line doesn't make it to the Festival of the Books or doesn't open for another two months. We have been waiting for years and let's wait another couple of months or so and do it right.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 7, 2010 12:05:03 GMT -8
I just got this information from the Expo Authority:
"Gokhan, It is my understanding that a decision on an early opening and to which interim terminus will be addressed by the Board at the November Board Meeting if the Finding of No Significant Impact for the addition of the Farmdale Station is issued by FTA in October as forecast."
This is apparently implying that Expo/Metro is expecting to open the line to La Cienega (or beyond), not to Crenshaw.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 7, 2010 13:24:54 GMT -8
Opening in time for the Festival of Books is not feasible and isn't that important anyway. More significant is the beginning of the school year next Fall.
MOS to La Cienega is no more difficult to coordinate than MOS to Crenshaw. And if Metro chooses La Cienega, they open the project to some additional risk. I just don't want to see either (a) significant delays to the opening of the initial segment, or (b) significant impacts on revenue operations due to Farmdale construction.
Gokhan I think you're exaggerating the negative publicity if it opens "only" to Crenshaw. Personally I think it would be much worse PR if Metro tries for La Cienega and then cannot open the line until 2012, for whatever reason. The line's opening is already delayed, so opening in 2011 is very important.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 7, 2010 13:50:16 GMT -8
Opening in time for the Festival of Books is not feasible and isn't that important anyway. More significant is the beginning of the school year next Fall. MOS to La Cienega is no more difficult to coordinate than MOS to Crenshaw. And if Metro chooses La Cienega, they open the project to some additional risk. I just don't want to see either (a) significant delays to the opening of the initial segment, or (b) significant impacts on revenue operations due to Farmdale construction. Gokhan I think you're exaggerating the negative publicity if it opens "only" to Crenshaw. Personally I think it would be much worse PR if Metro tries for La Cienega and then cannot open the line until 2012, for whatever reason. The line's opening is already delayed, so opening in 2011 is very important. I agree. If they open to La Cienega and then have to delay trains all the time through Farmdale in order to build the station what good is that? People will say the line is too slow and unpredictable and it will be a massive disappointment. Hopefully, that won't be the case if they open to La Cienega, but who knows. Remember the Blue Line did not even open to 7th/Metro when it first opened. Seattle's first and only line did not make it to the airport when it first opened last year either. Somehow people figured out later when those stations opened that it did go to those places. People in LA will do the same. Put up signs all over the place that the line will open to Culver City in 2012 if that is what it takes. Again, I hope they can open to La Cienega, but really I just hope they open as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 7, 2010 14:52:32 GMT -8
Gokhan I think you're exaggerating the negative publicity if it opens "only" to Crenshaw. Personally I think it would be much worse PR if Metro tries for La Cienega and then cannot open the line until 2012, for whatever reason. The line's opening is already delayed, so opening in 2011 is very important. It's unlikely that the opening will be delayed to 2012 because of Farmdale. If that's the case, yes, of course, they should open to Crenshaw. The point is that otherwise it doesn't make sense to have two openings in two months (say to Crenshaw in June and to La Cienega in August) -- it's not only bad PR (The initial reaction from the riders and press: Wow, this line doesn't go anywhere...) but hundreds of thousands dollars extra for a second train testing. There is a lot between Crenshaw and La Cienega: 2.1 miles of new tracks, two bridges, and a lot of scenery! They will contribute a lot to the initial positive public reaction.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 7, 2010 19:55:15 GMT -8
Regarding the Blue Line: As I recall the Long Beach downtown loop wasn't ready for service when the line opened, either. San Jose also had a split opening; I was part of the volunteer crew that passed out information when their downtown loop opened. Sacramento opened their North line in March 1987 and their East line in Sept. 1987.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Oct 8, 2010 6:45:28 GMT -8
Regarding the Blue Line: As I recall the Long Beach downtown loop wasn't ready for service when the line opened, either. San Jose also had a split opening; I was part of the volunteer crew that passed out information when their downtown loop opened. Sacramento opened their North line in March 1987 and their East line in Sept. 1987. Yep. Blue Line started 7/14/90 (Pico to Anaheim), Long Beach loop opened 9/1/90 (I think) and 7th/Metro opened 2/14/91. Shuttle buses operated in the interim on both ends. RTD handled the Pico to 7th service, buses were signed as "Line 600". They (usually) used Methanol-powered TMC RTS-06s out of Division 1 (1970-1999), though occasionally they subsituted a diesel RTS-06 (or once in a great while a 1981 RTS-04). Long Beach Transit handled the loop shuttle, painting 10 1979 GMC RTS-03s (3516-3525) to look like the Blue Line cars. IIRC, those buses kept those paint schemes even after the shuttle ended until they were retired a few years later.
|
|