|
Post by numble on Oct 19, 2019 12:53:34 GMT -8
I saw some photos posted last week and was shocked how little had changed on the middle portion around Inglewood and Hyde Park from 6 months ago. Our new drinking game for the project group presentation to the board should be “good progress”. They use that a lot and we’d be pretty toasted just for Crenshaw and the connector. Unfortunately they are essentially lying at this point. I watched the video. The construction leads described progress as "satisfactory", but mainly in reference to the list of rework requested by the City. They mentioned that they are on schedule for a summer/fall opening, but no mention that this is actually later than last month. No questions from the board regarding schedules, although they did get compliments for getting Crenshaw Blvd reopened. One member of the public did comment that the project is years behind the original schedule. Not sure how accurate that is, but the board didn't bother to respond. The Metro staff would be responsive, but only if they are pushed by a board director. They focus a lot on the rework items, the construction signs and Crenshaw Blvd. because those are issues Metro director Jackie Dupont-Walker has brought up in the past. She complained about the construction signs looking shoddy so they addressed it. They seem to just accept that the project will be done when the contractor is done, for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Oct 21, 2019 11:50:32 GMT -8
"for some reason." There's obviously, to use the popular phrase, a quid pro quo going on between contractors and officials.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 23, 2019 20:58:16 GMT -8
September 2019 status report for the Crenshaw Line. Good progress. Contractor says completion will be delayed another 32 days. 102 days of delay have been added in the last 4 monthly updates.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 24, 2019 18:02:43 GMT -8
September 2019 status report for the Crenshaw Line. Good progress. Contractor says completion will be delayed another 32 days. 102 days of delay have been added in the last 4 monthly updates. I see what you did there. 😂
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2019 9:59:49 GMT -8
Logically, 32 days of delay in one month means that they did no work all month. (Actually, if they put down their tools and went home for one month, they still would've only added 31 days of delay.)
More likely, the schedule change is because they are anticipating slower progress over the next several months.
Either way, it's frustrating. The project only has 6% left to complete. But the slowing progress makes it hard to know when it will ever get 100% done.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2019 10:05:01 GMT -8
The 'new' 32 days of delay are from July. (Yes, even reports of the delays are delayed!) Metro thinks the delays continued through August/September but simply have not yet been reported.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Nov 23, 2019 9:48:52 GMT -8
Looks like platform extension at all current 2-car length green line stations is now on the menu. See project #3 in this board report: boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2019-0758/I'm genuinely interested to see a timeline. These are all elevated stations so heavy construction will need to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 23, 2019 14:16:45 GMT -8
Looks like platform extension at all current 2-car length green line stations is now on the menu. See project #3 in this board report: boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2019-0758/I'm genuinely interested to see a timeline. These are all elevated stations so heavy construction will need to be involved. Thanks for the link! El Segundo not listed as needing to be extended. I was pretty sure that could already platform 3 cars. The most important is Aviation. They can't run 3-car trains from Norwalk to LAX until that is extended. And that's likely the hardest. They would have to extend on either end because there's no room on just one side due to the way that the tracks converge. And I'm not positive that they can even do that without having to move and rebuild the approach. It's very tight.
|
|
|
Post by fissure on Nov 24, 2019 10:13:17 GMT -8
The most important is Aviation. They can't run 3-car trains from Norwalk to LAX until that is extended. And that's likely the hardest. They would have to extend on either end because there's no room on just one side due to the way that the tracks converge. And I'm not positive that they can even do that without having to move and rebuild the approach. It's very tight. Huh? There's an obvious provision to extend the platform to the east: the tracks don't start converging until about 100 feet past the current end of the platform. And even without that, tapering platforms towards the end works fine all over the world. You could probably fit 4 cars if you needed to before it gets too narrow.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Nov 25, 2019 10:01:08 GMT -8
The most important is Aviation. They can't run 3-car trains from Norwalk to LAX until that is extended. And that's likely the hardest. They would have to extend on either end because there's no room on just one side due to the way that the tracks converge. And I'm not positive that they can even do that without having to move and rebuild the approach. It's very tight. Huh? There's an obvious provision to extend the platform to the east: the tracks don't start converging until about 100 feet past the current end of the platform. And even without that, tapering platforms towards the end works fine all over the world. You could probably fit 4 cars if you needed to before it gets too narrow. That's right, Aviation/LAX has room on the east end to extend the platform to the required 270 feet without track curvature coming into play:
Even though tapering a platform is no big deal in other metros, I'd bet it's too out-of-the-box for Metro to consider if it was necessary here.
And I believe El Segundo is already 3 cars long, so it doesn't need to be widened. I'm forever curious as to why El Segundo was built long and the rest of the western end stations (including Aviation east of the wye?!?) were built short.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 25, 2019 14:19:40 GMT -8
I'm forever curious as to why El Segundo was built long and the rest of the western end stations (including Aviation east of the wye?!?) were built short. When they first opened, the Blue and Green Lines both included stations with shorter, two-car platforms. On the Blue Line, all stations south of Willow were two cars long. They weren't extended until the late 1990s. When Metro first designed these lines, they just didn't foresee the need for longer platforms, especially on the ends with less ridership.
|
|
|
Post by phillipwashington on Nov 25, 2019 19:05:16 GMT -8
I'm forever curious as to why El Segundo was built long and the rest of the western end stations (including Aviation east of the wye?!?) were built short. When they first opened, the Blue and Green Lines both included stations with shorter, two-car platforms. On the Blue Line, all stations south of Willow were two cars long. They weren't extended until the late 1990s. When Metro first designed these lines, they just didn't foresee the need for longer platforms, especially on the ends with less ridership. So was the original blue line operations plan something like this: - 2-car trains run the whole line at all times
- 3-car trains short-run between 7th/Metro and Willow to cover the projected "high ridership" portion of the line
Or was the original plan to always run 2-car trains and they just built the northern stations as 3-car length platforms as insurance against future ridership growth?
If it's the former, was there some wacky unrealized plan to run green line 3-car express service between Hawthorne/Lennox and El Segundo?
If it's the latter, how much money could they have possibly saved at the time by building only a few platforms shorter? You'd think if they had the foresight to include wye provisions west of Aviation/LAX, they would have at least made that station 3-car.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 26, 2019 11:01:17 GMT -8
^ Your guess is as good as mine. (What follows is a historical digression, sorry if I veer too off-topic.)
I suspect this was 'value engineering' (cost-cutting) because they did not want to overspend on these first rail lines. Remember, when the Blue and Green Lines were initially being designed in the late-1980s, the LACTC (one of Metro's predecessors) didn't know if people would actually ride these new rail lines. Ridership projections were extremely conservative. So they were concerned about overspending on what might turn out to be a 'boondoggle'.
(As part of the environmental clearance, the LACTC considered going even cheaper on its southern end, by building the line next to the LA River within Long Beach. Thankfully that option was not chosen: it would've completely missed the dense population and destinations along Long Beach Boulevard.)
Similarly, the Green Line was done somewhat on-the-cheap. Part of that was due to the Green Line's history. LACTC was required to build the Green Line as part of a deal to build the Century Freeway, which generated fierce opposition and ultimately destroyed many neighborhoods. Without that consent decree, LACTC probably wouldn't have built it at all if it hadn't been required to. When they did build it, they built it relatively cheap, using shorter platforms wherever they could. (They also truncated the line a mile short on its eastern end, preventing it from reaching what is now a major Metrolink stop, due to lack of funding as well as opposition from Norwalk residents.)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 26, 2019 17:19:30 GMT -8
Thanks fissure and phillipwashington. After fissure's post I saw that there was indeed enough room to the east and I don't think that the platform will need to be narrowed. But if it is, that's probably not an issue as long as there aren't any clearance/ADA issues.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 26, 2019 17:39:18 GMT -8
I'm forever curious as to why El Segundo was built long and the rest of the western end stations (including Aviation east of the wye?!?) were built short. When they first opened, the Blue and Green Lines both included stations with shorter, two-car platforms. On the Blue Line, all stations south of Willow were two cars long. They weren't extended until the late 1990s. When Metro first designed these lines, they just didn't foresee the need for longer platforms, especially on the ends with less ridership. I think that all of the blue line platforms were 2 cars except the elevated and underground. I'm pretty sure that I've seen photos of them being extended and the article that you linked is stating that metro was considering extending only the platforms north of willow, which means those were also only 2 car. Obviously they ended up extending all of them.
|
|
|
Post by transitfan on Nov 26, 2019 19:29:42 GMT -8
When they first opened, the Blue and Green Lines both included stations with shorter, two-car platforms. On the Blue Line, all stations south of Willow were two cars long. They weren't extended until the late 1990s. When Metro first designed these lines, they just didn't foresee the need for longer platforms, especially on the ends with less ridership. I think that all of the blue line platforms were 2 cars except the elevated and underground. I'm pretty sure that I've seen photos of them being extended and the article that you linked is stating that metro was considering extending only the platforms north of willow, which means those were also only 2 car. Obviously they ended up extending all of them. That's what I recall as well when I was out there (which was before the extensions).
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 26, 2019 19:45:07 GMT -8
October 2019 status report:
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 27, 2019 9:35:55 GMT -8
When they first opened, the Blue and Green Lines both included stations with shorter, two-car platforms. On the Blue Line, all stations south of Willow were two cars long. They weren't extended until the late 1990s. When Metro first designed these lines, they just didn't foresee the need for longer platforms, especially on the ends with less ridership. I think that all of the blue line platforms were 2 cars except the elevated and underground. I'm pretty sure that I've seen photos of them being extended and the article that you linked is stating that metro was considering extending only the platforms north of willow, which means those were also only 2 car. Obviously they ended up extending all of them. Actually, 3-car service on the Blue Line did not begin until 2001. According to the article, 19 stations had their platforms extended in the 16 months prior to the start of 3-car service. Also from that article: Until 2001, the Green Line had been running 1-car trains! 3-car trains were not on the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 27, 2019 10:02:21 GMT -8
October 2019 status report: Contractor is forecasting completion on 12 May of next year. I'd be happy to take bets on that date, their track record does not inspire confidence.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 27, 2019 17:11:38 GMT -8
October 2019 status report: The construction committee board actually asked questions during the meeting last week. There were several questions from one board member regarding the budget. I thought that was promising that they appeared to be engaged for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 27, 2019 19:59:32 GMT -8
October 2019 status report: The construction committee board actually asked questions during the meeting last week. There were several questions from one board member regarding the budget. I thought that was promising that they appeared to be engaged for the first time. Promising, but we have really lowered the bar here.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 29, 2019 14:53:28 GMT -8
Actually, 3-car service on the Blue Line did not begin until 2001. According to the article, 19 stations had their platforms extended in the 16 months prior to the start of 3-car service. Last thing to add: Metro Library just posted an article a coupla days ago on this very topic. Good read!
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 11, 2019 10:28:07 GMT -8
There seems to be some acknowledgement of the issues with the Crenshaw Line and Regional Connector construction in this presentation regarding Metro's P3 program. When preparing P3s for the WSAB, ESFV and Sepulveda corridor, they say they discovered many projects are struggling with "claims & changes, delays and litigation" and that a review of Metro DB projects revealed similar trends. They are delaying the procurement process by over 1 year for WSAB and Sepulveda, apparently so that the projects will be in a more certain state, with less risky unknowns that could cause contractors to not bid or raise prices to account for risk. However, the overall trend is the contractors will want more money.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Dec 12, 2019 7:57:24 GMT -8
This whole P3 effort is a red herring. If the contract price is going up regardless of what the project actually is, then the affordability issue is the private sector skimming off the top too much and Metro's solution is to let them in the door even more. The appropriately-worded "what do we DO about it?" only articulated that metro is woefully unprepared for the scourge of organized scammers the private sector has in store. I'm also suspicious of the whole "OEI" given the loaded terms and Phil's private-friendly track record.
|
|
|
Post by andert on Dec 12, 2019 9:42:28 GMT -8
Is there any good precedent of creating a state-owned construction company to tackle major infrastructure projects without a profit motive? Obviously this would present its own series of challenges, and the hurdle of actually legislating one into being would be huge, much less building it from the ground up... but it seems like there is not enough competition in the private sector to avoid getting fleeced.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Dec 13, 2019 10:05:37 GMT -8
Is there any good precedent of creating a state-owned construction company to tackle major infrastructure projects without a profit motive? Obviously this would present its own series of challenges, and the hurdle of actually legislating one into being would be huge, much less building it from the ground up... but it seems like there is not enough competition in the private sector to avoid getting fleeced. Not sure if it’s the same thing but the army corps of engineers were a huge part of the new deal federally owned infrastructure buildup. If we built up the corps and required them to bid on all projects greater than 500 million you would inject the competition we need into the mega project marketplace.
|
|
|
Post by jahanes on Dec 14, 2019 18:44:35 GMT -8
Is there any good precedent of creating a state-owned construction company to tackle major infrastructure projects without a profit motive? Obviously this would present its own series of challenges, and the hurdle of actually legislating one into being would be huge, much less building it from the ground up... but it seems like there is not enough competition in the private sector to avoid getting fleeced. Not sure if it’s the same thing but the army corps of engineers were a huge part of the new deal federally owned infrastructure buildup. If we built up the corps and required them to bid on all projects greater than 500 million you would inject the competition we need into the mega project marketplace. I'm just saying, if Metro is serious about keeping up the rate of expansion and keeping existing lines in good repair, then the overhead costs of heavy equipment would not be such an issue. The way contracts are set up assumes the project is a one-off deal, but Metro would keep on using the equipment more or less continuously. If anything cost savings could be had from better coordination rather than simultaneous projects being completely independent.
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 26, 2019 19:12:33 GMT -8
November 2019 status report: 94.5% complete (+0.3%), though the main construction contract is 91.2% (+0.1%), and the contractor estimates another 74 days of delay based on August and September schedule updates.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Dec 30, 2019 10:26:12 GMT -8
Does this estimate include the station at 96th street? Or just the original scope?
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 30, 2019 10:39:13 GMT -8
Does this estimate include the station at 96th street? Or just the original scope? No, the new station will be under a new construction contract that I has not yet been awarded yet.
|
|