|
|
Post by numble on Oct 23, 2021 10:57:06 GMT -8
October 2021 overview of projects in planning phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 23, 2021 10:58:17 GMT -8
October 2021 overview of construction projects:
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Oct 23, 2021 11:55:48 GMT -8
Thanks for the updates numble.
I guess that Walsh Shea is going to slow roll Crenshaw for the next year and by that time Centinela and LAX station construction will make any talk of opening moot.
Interesting that for all the talk about a Crenshaw northern extension that the timeline (construction starting in 20 years) may not have budged as it's not included in rest of the projects expected this decade.
They show the projected opening date of Sepulveda as 2033-2035. So much for accelerating that one for the 2028 Olympics.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Oct 23, 2021 18:37:15 GMT -8
Thanks for the updates numble. I guess that Walsh Shea is going to slow roll Crenshaw for the next year and by that time Centinela and LAX station construction will make any talk of opening moot. Interesting that for all the talk about a Crenshaw northern extension that the timeline (construction starting in 20 years) may not have budged as it's not included in rest of the projects expected this decade. They show the projected opening date of Sepulveda as 2033-2035. So much for accelerating that one for the 2028 Olympics. Crenshaw North probably depends on if West Hollywood really is going to contribute as much money as they claim they can give. There was an update at West Hollywood City Council that I just tweeted about. They say most people support the Fairfax-San Vicente hybrid and are concerned about a “vocal minority” that are supporting La Brea and a second spur line on Santa Monica. They say the city can choose not to provide funding if La Brea is chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 9, 2021 10:16:54 GMT -8
Something that hasn't been posted here. The Division 20 project is facing a lot of cost overruns. The project is supposed to expand the heavy rail maintenance/storage facility to allow more frequent headways on the Purple Line. The project was not a design-build project (where the construction team both designs and constructs the project), it was a design-bid-build project, so one design contractor designed the project to 100% and then a different contractor constructs the project. The designer apparently designed the project to light rail standards, instead of heavy rail standards. This has led to cost overruns on the construction project, as they need a change order to redesign the project.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 29, 2021 17:25:03 GMT -8
I recently said I think Metro has always been missing their schedule estimates for everything, and decided to do a rough catalog of that, just based on things that they had previously expected to be done by the end of 2021, but haven’t been done yet:
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 29, 2021 17:54:41 GMT -8
Thanks numble! Glad to see that you're back tweeting and hope that you had a happy holiday!
The screen grabs show that the original date for Crenshaw was indeed 2019. Just months ago when metro asked the construction team to go all the way back and put the original delivery dates so that they could see the schedule slip I can remember Samy saying that 2019 was never a promised date from the project construction team. That could be true and that was the date used by planners, but all of that is still schedule skip by metro imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Nov 30, 2021 0:09:33 GMT -8
Even worse *2018* was actually the original forecasted opening date from the planning stages (albeit december, as shown there). Makes the 2033-2035 recent forecast for the earliest possible WSAB delivery feel like Metro has given in to realism... though I think we'd all wish they'd spend more time addressing the root causes of this schedule drift in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Nov 30, 2021 1:00:23 GMT -8
Even worse *2018* was actually the original forecasted opening date from the planning stages (albeit december, as shown there). Makes the 2033-2035 recent forecast for the earliest possible WSAB delivery feel like Metro has given in to realism... though I think we'd all wish they'd spend more time addressing the root causes of this schedule drift in the first place. Here are my random thoughts on schedule drift. It seems there isn't that much accountability for missing estimated schedules in the planning stages. Not that there is that much accountability for missing estimated schedules in the construction stage, but the contractor does lose money and can get blacklisted when they miss their contractually agreed-upon schedule. Planning is mostly run by permanently employed staff rather than contractors, and they don't really have the same financial incentives to meet schedules. Even with contractors involved in planning, the costs are very small to extend those planning contracts another 6 months, I think there are a lot of those contract extensions approved each month without discussion. Another reason may be that they have overcorrected in trying to address the rash of construction cost overruns and delays in the industry (a lot of the "lessons learned" and post-mortem analyses said that insufficient planning and design led to the cost overruns/delays, but now they may be spending too much time in the planning stages). Also, during the early part of the pandemic, Metro thought they were doomed economically and put in a hiring freeze and offered early retirement to a lot of employees (Metro estimated they'll save about $90 million with the early retirement packages and 179 employees took it), this has led to staff shortages--I think I remember meetings where Metro's procurement department said the staff shortages are one of the reasons why they keep missing their schedules for getting projects ready for bidding. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 1, 2021 17:44:00 GMT -8
It looks like some kind of construction expert was added to the Measure M Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee. I'm listening to the meeting recording and he is asking a lot of critical questions about all the Measure M construction projects. metro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2038Unfortunately this is only the Measure M committee, so they only cover Measure M funded projects. Crenshaw, Regional Connector and Purple Lines 1-2 are Measure R projects. The only Measure M projects under construction are Foothill Gold Line, Purple Line 3 and the Airport Metro Connector. But going forward all projects will be Measure M projects. |
|
|
|
Post by tramfan on Dec 4, 2021 18:24:02 GMT -8
How is it that the Expo line construction from Culver City to Santa Monica was so much better at holding the projected finishing times? Is it the competence of the construction company? Skanska in this case? Why Metro chose to go with another set of companies to do the Crenshaw line is beyond me: blindsided by lower bids that proved to be unrealistic in the end?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 5, 2021 18:33:32 GMT -8
Seemingly multiple tweets per day about bus and rail line curtailments due to "staff issues".
Anyone know what this is about? Union labor actions? Covid vaccinations?
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 6, 2021 9:42:59 GMT -8
Seemingly multiple tweets per day about bus and rail line curtailments due to "staff issues". Anyone know what this is about? Union labor actions? Covid vaccinations? I think Metro has a vaccine requirement and that might be a reason (maybe the deadline for vaccination occurred, and the unvaccinated were put on leave or something). When it was announced, the transit unions protested. They haven't talked about it much, but at the recent meetings, Janice Hahn was insisting that the Sheriff's department meet Metro vaccine requirements as a condition for extending the contract, so that indicates to me that they went forward with the vaccine requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Dec 6, 2021 12:30:50 GMT -8
How is it that the Expo line construction from Culver City to Santa Monica was so much better at holding the projected finishing times? Is it the competence of the construction company? Skanska in this case? Why Metro chose to go with another set of companies to do the Crenshaw line is beyond me: blindsided by lower bids that proved to be unrealistic in the end? Skanska did bid on the Crenshaw project and they had a $120m higher price, but for what its worth, Metro also scored their proposal as having a lower score for Project Management and Technical Approach than the winning bidder. media.metro.net/board/Items/2013/06_june/20130627rbmitem52.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 6, 2021 15:21:48 GMT -8
Seemingly multiple tweets per day about bus and rail line curtailments due to "staff issues". Anyone know what this is about? Union labor actions? Covid vaccinations? I think Metro has a vaccine requirement and that might be a reason (maybe the deadline for vaccination occurred, and the unvaccinated were put on leave or something). When it was announced, the transit unions protested. They haven't talked about it much, but at the recent meetings, Janice Hahn was insisting that the Sheriff's department meet Metro vaccine requirements as a condition for extending the contract, so that indicates to me that they went forward with the vaccine requirements. There is an article in the LA Times about this. 28% of Metro employees haven't got the vaccine yet and even more among operators. They were required to get vaxxed by Dec. 1. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 6, 2021 18:07:38 GMT -8
Thanks numble and masonite. I was talking to someone in the know today and they confirmed that's what is happening. I was told that anyone that isn't vaccinated was put on leave and have been threatened with termination. The number that I was told was that over 40% of union members haven't been vaccinated and that matches the LAT article.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 3, 2022 16:22:15 GMT -8
Metro is lobbying for California to allocate $16.5 billion to public transportation in the upcoming budget. There is an estimated $31 billion surplus for the upcoming year, and there should still be unspent money from the current year’s $70 billion surplus.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 3, 2022 17:44:13 GMT -8
Yes it would be great to get some of this surplus money for local transit. This money is part of the money that the California state legislature has stolen from trust funds for transit over the last forty years and have never paid back. That money went to solve fiscal crises.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 3, 2022 21:36:09 GMT -8
A report on Metro’s Unsolicited Proposal policy indicates Metro has been evaluating a private proposal for a Santa Monica E Line to D Line gondola for the past year.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 3, 2022 23:21:24 GMT -8
A report on Metro’s Unsolicited Proposal policy indicates Metro has been evaluating a private proposal for a Santa Monica E Line to D Line gondola for the past year. I didn’t see that coming or even really see how that would work. I see a gondola going up a hill or mountain like Dodger Stadium, not just going down Wilshire Blvd. However, I always though the VA is a terrible terminus area and the D Line should go to at least Bundy past the mile long wall of traffic from the 405/VA. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 4, 2022 14:57:29 GMT -8
A report on Metro’s Unsolicited Proposal policy indicates Metro has been evaluating a private proposal for a Santa Monica E Line to D Line gondola for the past year. According to the document you linked to, the project did not advance... probably for the best. Corridor better served by heavy rail than gondola. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 4, 2022 15:21:14 GMT -8
A report on Metro’s Unsolicited Proposal policy indicates Metro has been evaluating a private proposal for a Santa Monica E Line to D Line gondola for the past year. According to the document you linked to, the project did not advance... probably for the best. Corridor better served by heavy rail than gondola. The document is not very well-organized, but on page 10, the Santa Monica gondola is listed as a “Proposal in Active Review.” And page 5 describes the project as follows: “ In December 2020, Metro advanced the proposal to Phase II, following up with a request for additional detailed information in February 2021. In June 2021, Metro received a Phase II proposal which is currently being evaluated.”. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 5, 2022 8:38:24 GMT -8
Yes it would be great to get some of this surplus money for local transit. This money is part of the money that the California state legislature has stolen from trust funds for transit over the last forty years and have never paid back. That money went to solve fiscal crises. It would be a game changer. Not just because these projects are accelerated, which is great, but also because the projects after them would presumably move up as well. If a project that was scheduled for 2030 can be funded to start in 2022, that should mean that a project scheduled for 2036 can move up to 2028. Is that right? Maybe not as direct as that because some projects that weren’t even considered like the Inglewood People mover are leapfrogging others, but Measure M projects should benefit. Edit to add: Palmdale to Burbank Metrolink tunnel?!? Is this new? $1 billion seems a little light for this effort. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 10, 2022 10:50:27 GMT -8
Metro is lobbying for California to allocate $16.5 billion to public transportation in the upcoming budget. There is an estimated $31 billion surplus for the upcoming year, and there should still be unspent money from the current year’s $70 billion surplus. Newsom’s proposed 2022-2023 budget calls for $9.1 billion in transportation infrastructure spending. The final budget spending amounts comes about months later after negotiation with the legislature. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 10, 2022 19:29:30 GMT -8
Metro is lobbying for California to allocate $16.5 billion to public transportation in the upcoming budget. There is an estimated $31 billion surplus for the upcoming year, and there should still be unspent money from the current year’s $70 billion surplus. Newsom’s proposed 2022-2023 budget calls for $9.1 billion in transportation infrastructure spending. The final budget spending amounts comes about months later after negotiation with the legislature. LA Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins response to the governor’s proposal is that LA Metro will keep pushing for $16.5 billion in surplus funding to go to transportation. Newsom’s $9.1 billion proposal only has $4.9 billion in surplus funds as the $4.2b for high-speed rail is money that has already been set aside from Prop 1A, and does not come out of the surplus. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 14, 2022 22:42:57 GMT -8
Here is the January 2022 overview of LA Metro's planning and construction projects. The construction project report often seems to have information that is one month old or more--it reports the tunneling progress as of December 7 for Purple Line 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 15, 2022 0:06:15 GMT -8
Metro is working on a plan for projects that can be ready for the Olympics. The draft list has 209 projects, and it will be narrowed done in the following months.
|
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jan 16, 2022 12:07:54 GMT -8
Metro is working on a plan for projects that can be ready for the Olympics. The draft list has 209 projects, and it will be narrowed done in the following months. I found these projects interesting as they are either new or dormant ideas. I think the purpose for this project is to identify projects that they really can do by 2028. I guess they assume that if they ask for or get grants for Olympics projects, they don’t want to be disingenuous and use it for projects that won’t open in time for the Olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 17, 2022 22:36:01 GMT -8
Some of these items are long overdue, like extending the Expo line trench and accept credit cards and congestion pricing at LAX.
Also interesting solution combining USC and Vermont station into a single multi-platform underground (trenched) station. Makes plenty of sense given that Coliseum is the main venue so Metro will want to stage empty trains at the USC/Vermont station for peak capacity demand.
Plus trenching the station now and building it bigger will enable it to handle future transfers from Vermont subway all via underground access. The current Expo station at Vermont and the street crossing will get easily overwhelmed if the subway train dumps 100 people at the intersection every 2 minutes.
However, extending D line to Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica... surely that cannot be done before 2028? The EIR is done but will probably need to be updated so that takes conservatively a year with no lawsuits (yea right..). And let say the tunnel machine from phase 2 goes over and start phase 4 tunnel in 2025, and we do 3 underground stations construction concurrently in Santa Monica/Brentwood 24/7 with 150 truck loads per day with no NIMBY complaints (ha!). I still don't see how that could get done in 30 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by andert on Jan 17, 2022 23:57:59 GMT -8
The D line extension is listed as 'no' in the 'can it be done by 2028?' column. So is WSAB surprisingly, and all new rail lines/extensions not currently under construction except C line torrance, ESFV, claremont/montclair, and the arts district station. Which makes sense, but I'm surprised they're being realistic about Sepulveda, and that their WSAB construction timeline is SO bleak.
|
|
