|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 19, 2013 13:26:48 GMT -8
Thanks for the answers, we've only used the Expo line for Evening trips downtown for dinner (beats traffic on the 10) and special events at USC and downtown. So never as a regular commuter, I see how it could be useful for a highschool and the community, but it still seems like a damn silly station. I wonder if Metro will have a big expo promotion for the Festival of Books in a few weeks, that will probably be the next time we ride it, and if I recall correctly, expo opened one week after last year's Festival of Books.
Regarding the venice bridge columns, there's not a venice median, just two left turn lanes, it's where all the cars are in the pictures Gokhan posted in the expo thread. I'm guessing one or both of those turning lanes will be eliminated by the column, I also don't see how the column could be built in the green area by the fast food restaurant, would it be an L, or a wierd offset U column like the columns around the old useless wooden bridge at National/Jefferson? if so, the other piece of the U will be in the middle of the street and require some street realignment. I figured there'd be another column about where the southeastern corner sidewalk is, but if it's as far out as the green space, that will be really weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 19, 2013 13:46:46 GMT -8
Farmdale was by no means a part of the original design. Farmdale was the unhappy result of what happens when an attention-starved, aspiring politician, gets involved. He meant well, but he came along a day late and a dollar short. He stirred the ire of the community by fear-mongering and later making absurd claims of environmental racism. LA Unified got involved, a law suit was filed. He was demanding a tunnel, which even if it were built, the expense of it would have bankrupted the project and left it with a terminus at Crenshaw instead of Culver City. He kept claiming the money was there, yet, he wasn't instrumental at all in bringing it to the project. Anyway, Expo and LA Unified reached a deal which included the late addition of Farmdale Station, with an exaggeratedly slow street crossing so students wouldn't get run over.
|
|
|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 21, 2013 13:08:32 GMT -8
Walked by the Venice/Robertson intersection at lunch.
There's what appears to be spray painted guides for restriping of lane lines on the south/eastern side of robertson, including spray painted guides for a new pedestrian cross walk. It looks like there will be some street realignment going on and the column will probably cover some of the area where the sidewalk/green space on the south/western corner. I wonder if the right turn from Venice East Bound to Robertson South bound will be its separate turning lane, creating a 'triangle' around the column. If they can get a column in that space, the rest of the bridge ought to span Venice without a middle column. If there is a mid Venice Bent, it will probably remove one of the right turn lanes to north bound robertson, judging by Column 4/Bent 5 of the National/Washington Bridge, the phase one columns are one traffic lane in width.
The shape of the Western abutment at Venice seems to suggest that the track will still be split as it crosses Venice, as the track bridges are split spanning Washington, will they be merging the tracks before crossing Venice, or will the track merger happen after they return to grade?
The western abutment also seems low, but maybe that's just an optical illusion, or is their more work to be done that will raise the abutment height?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 21, 2013 14:26:20 GMT -8
Why are we discussion Expo in the Santa Ana Branch thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 21, 2013 15:33:55 GMT -8
Because I registered months ago and it still says pending administrator/staff approval, and for whatever reason, this thread allows guests replies, while other threads do not.
So since new memberships aren't approved anymore, this thread gets off topic discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Mar 22, 2013 10:25:23 GMT -8
Hi newbies... maybe the authorization email got routed to your spam folder? I have no idea if that is the case but seem like it is worth a try.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 22, 2013 10:42:48 GMT -8
The administrator Bart Reed will not allow anyone to join the discussion board unless they fill out the following form completely: The Transit Coalition sign-up formOnce you fill out this form with all the information requested, you will be given access to the discussion board. If any registration information is found to be not truthful, the ban on coming to this board is permanent. |
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Mar 23, 2013 8:22:06 GMT -8
aha, so there is a secret form, you don't just register you also have to fill out something unrelated to registration.  No James Bond stuff, it's easy fill out the form and we can all enjoy your post  |
|
|
|
Post by guestguest on Mar 27, 2013 14:10:53 GMT -8
I walked by Venice/Robertson today, there's a large orange circle inscribed on the sidewalk of the southwest corner there (by the wendys), and spray paint labels indicating it is bent 17L (there's 15 existing bents on the elevated National/washington/Venice section). There's also blue spray paint indicating a water main, looked like it's very close to the bent.
|
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Apr 2, 2013 22:30:15 GMT -8
240 million isn't enough to build anything at Los Angeles Metro prices. But in Germany, they build light rail on old right of ways for 1.5 million per mile (with 30 minute service), and Ottawa built a DMU-operated rail line for 3 million per mile. (Both projects involved replacing ties and rails, so it was about the same as installing a totally new single-track rail line). Marin County is planning to build SMART (a mainly single-track, DMU line) at 8 million per mile in year of expenditure dollars, in about 10 years. If we are willing to limit service to every 30 minutes, 90% of the route could be single-track, as in the above systems. The part in Los Angeles County to the Green Line is less than 9 miles, which gives us over 24 million per mile. The route necessary to connect to Metrolink is another 8 miles. So if we can build something for 14 million per mile, we could do Union Station to Cerritos with just Measure R funds. (Orange County would have to pay for their side of the project, but at that cost they might do it). The O-train in Ottawa cost $20 million in 2002 for 5 miles and 5 stations: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-TrainSMART is projected to cost under 500 million for 70 miles (which is actually 7 million per mile), but bids are not yet it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoma-Marin_Area_Rail_Transit#2010_-_Overall_cost.2C_funding_shortfall.2C_responsesThirty-minute intervals would mean much longer trains which bring their own complications, e.g. longer platforms and longer delays for road traffic at crossings. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 16, 2014 16:36:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jul 16, 2014 16:58:19 GMT -8
I thought that the options for LRT specifically had it avoiding the PEROW once it hit harbor, possibly for this very reason. I remember one alternative had it going down harbor then along first.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 16, 2014 19:06:56 GMT -8
Thank you bzcat. That scenario has already been "built" into the AA. So you are correct andert. Metro's project came as Santa Ana was finalizing plans for their streetcar using the ROW east of Harbor Bl. Metro would ideally like to use the ROW; and they have been holding out, hoping Santa Ana reconsiders and allows Metro to use the ROW. Anyway, I guess it seems Santa Ana has made a decision and Metro will use one of the two (2) routes in the AA.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 17, 2014 0:26:14 GMT -8
Is there no way of designing the track / vehicles so that both systems can use it? e.g. Metro provides limited stop service every 15 minutes, while OCTA has more frequent service with cars similar to Muni Metro in SF (but not designed by Breda, hopefully) that can stop at stations with or without a platform. Could save a ton of money and disruption during construction later.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 17, 2014 9:16:26 GMT -8
In the ROW? Conceivably they can share track but probably not station - the streetcar will probably be low floor while the Metro light rails are all high floor.
But the bigger problem is on 4th Street between the PE ROW and Metrolink station - there won't be enough room to do have both on the surface, and putting one of them underground is probably out of the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyg2014 on Jul 17, 2014 10:36:10 GMT -8
Honestly, looking at the area on Google maps, that end of the ROW might be better suited to a streetcar anyway. Past Harbor, the ROW sort of boxes a potential LRT in and forces it to tunneling, either south into the median of 1st St or North into the Civic Center median. SCAG seems to want the LRT alignment to go south down Harbor, then down 1st St. Strangely, this is just 600 feet from the Santa Ana Streetcar alignment and sort of makes the streetcar seem a little redundant... thetransitcoalition.us/LargePDFfiles/PacificElectricWSantaAnaBranch.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Jul 17, 2014 13:22:44 GMT -8
Mixed use by streetcar and LRT is absolute;y an option. In Amsterdam the Netherlands where I'm originally from they have this mixed use of the line from Central Station to Amstelveen ( a close by city) and it works perfectly. Line 51 starts as a subway (with a 3rd rail for power) from Central Station; when it halfway enters the Zuid Station above ground it switches from 3rd rail to OCS and continues as LTR to its final destination. At the Central Station streetcar 5 traverses the old city on surface streets and joins line 51 on the same track. The stations have a low section for the streetcar and a high section for the LTR. It works perfectly this way for a long time now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 24, 2014 10:50:29 GMT -8
Dual Streetcar and LRT running in the same ROW is possible, if funds were allocated to such a configuration. I don't think that's the case. Santa Ana just doesn't seem concerned with coordinating efforts with Metro. Now, if we assume they're both on the same page, the next issue is whether Santa Ana's Street car is going to run on standard gauge or narrow gauge. That matters because if their streetcar runs on narrow gauge, they'll have to interlay a narrow gauge track system in the middle of the standard gauge so they can both use that portion of the ROW. That will for sure require more funding, versus a Streetcar that runs on standard gauge.
|
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Jul 24, 2014 11:12:06 GMT -8
Dual Streetcar and LRT running in the same ROW is possible, if funds were allocated to such a configuration. I don't think that's the case. Santa Ana just doesn't seem concerned with coordinating efforts with Metro. Now, if we assume they're both on the same page, the next issue is whether Santa Ana's Street car is going to run on standard gauge or narrow gauge. That matters because if their streetcar runs on narrow gauge, they'll have to interlay a narrow gauge track system in the middle of the standard gauge so they can both use that portion of the ROW. That will for sure require more funding, versus a Streetcar that runs on standard gauge. Well, PE and LARy managed to do it back in the day, of course these are different times. |
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Jul 24, 2014 13:10:35 GMT -8
There's no reason to do a narrow gauge unless it is already an existing system. The majority of the new streetcar lines that are build these days especially in Europe are standard gauge.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 25, 2014 15:10:30 GMT -8
In Cleveland, the Red Line Rapid Transit trains share track with the Shaker Heights light rail trains for a few miles. When I visited there in 1977, Shaker Heights used PCC cars with trolley poles, while the Rapid Transit used high-platform cars with pantographs. So it is possible, just that some transit planners and opponents will use any excuse to say "can't be done!" I remember hearing about one city that wanted to build an electric railway but ran into opposition from the local transit agency, where some of the managers were quite comfortable running a bus operation, and didn't want to add a railway to their responsibilities. Regarding the ancient times of PE and LARy cars sharing the same streets in downtown LA--this kind of operation still exists at Orange Empire Railway Museum, where a dual-gauge loop track allows Red Cars and Yellow Cars to follow one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by StudioTK_guest on Aug 27, 2014 1:20:25 GMT -8
Hello folks, new here, So I'm wondering how on earth WB3 is going to interface with the regional connector/gold line at 1st/alameda on the way to union - are they going to have a underground grand union-type interchange w/o a station for NB/SB trains heading to Santa Ana.. at a 5% grade?  |
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Aug 27, 2014 10:17:11 GMT -8
I think the smart move would be to keep the Little Tokyo at-grade station and use it for the Santa Ana line.
How it will get to Union Station and interline with the Blue and Gold Lines...who the heck knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 27, 2014 10:34:58 GMT -8
Too early to say for sure but WB3 approach for Santa Ana Branch line probably will not tie to Expo-East side line because it will be too complicated operationally - plus there is really no room below ground to do this.
We discussed way back at the beginning of this thread that Metro should preserve the current surface level track and the Little Tokyo Station for the Santa Ana line. That's probably the easiest way for the line to get to Union Station.
So operationally, trains leaving Union Station to Santa Ana will stay above ground and use the surface level station while trains leaving for Long Beach will go below ground and use the under ground station.
|
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 27, 2014 16:34:35 GMT -8
Too early to say for sure but WB3 approach for Santa Ana Branch line probably will not tie to Expo-East side line because it will be too complicated operationally - plus there is really no room below ground to do this. We discussed way back at the beginning of this thread that Metro should preserve the current surface level track and the Little Tokyo Station for the Santa Ana line. That's probably the easiest way for the line to get to Union Station. So operationally, trains leaving Union Station to Santa Ana will stay above ground and use the surface level station while trains leaving for Long Beach will go below ground and use the under ground station. Another option is to connect West Santa Ana Line with tracks 1 and 2 at Union Station and have it run south possibly interlining with the Blue Line or run on Expo Line to USC or even end this line between 7th Street Metro Center and Bunker Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Aug 27, 2014 19:58:19 GMT -8
I wish I could say this project were further along than what it seems, but it's not. As far as I know, they're still trying to determine which technology to go with: Low Speed MagLev or LRT. To complicate things, The Los Angeles County (LAC) portion is divided into MOS 1: LAUS to Green Line & MOS 2: Green Line to OC border. West Bank Alternative #3 has been selected for further study. Huntington Park and Vernon have both chimed in and prefer that it not use Pacific Bl. but rather Santa Fe Av. to east onto the Whittier/Randolph St. ROW. As to how it's going to interface: it's not. The rendering in the AA seems to indicate that it will bypass Lil Tokyo altogether (a bone head move). However, it will have a station on 7th/Alameda and LAUS will be the terminus.
I wouldn't get too worked up though. The projections for this line are so far in the future that anything is still possible. Personally, I wish it would interface with the Blue Line tracks at Slauson Station and then at Washington Station, divert below grade onto its own tracks and resurface on Alameda north to 7th.
|
|
|
|
Post by StudioTK_guest on Aug 28, 2014 1:33:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by StudioTK_guest on Aug 28, 2014 1:39:07 GMT -8
Forgot to add in the last post, but another possibility is to have the Santa Ana line tunnel up from Alameda, left on 2nd and loop back on central to hit the 1st/central station (Red line in the map I linked above)
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Sept 19, 2014 17:33:37 GMT -8
macros287 bad link please repost
|
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Dec 8, 2014 14:08:48 GMT -8
12.1 APPROVE Motion by Directors DuBois and Knabe that staff investigates coordination or potential connectivity that does not preclude integration of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension and the West Santa Ana Branch (Eco-Rapid Transit) Project. metro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=361 |
|
No James Bond stuff, it's easy fill out the form and we can all enjoy your post 
