|
Post by transitfan on Jun 26, 2011 17:26:50 GMT -8
That's the first time I saw a mighty Nippon - Sharyo on the Expo Line. Is ExpoLineFan also on this board? Good job. Nice to see Looked like car 104? Or maybe 134 or 154. Too bad it didn't have "Test Train" on the destination signs (code #04 on the console).
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jun 26, 2011 18:43:53 GMT -8
Cool video! Thanks for the update.
Yeah, I've seen them with "Test Train" before. Not sure why they didn't use it. It was 154. You can see it clearly at 6:10.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 27, 2011 7:50:34 GMT -8
Venice/Robertson Station also seems to have started lagging now. There is still no track and OCS installation there. I wonder if Balfour Beatty is still mobilizing its project team for that work? Supposedly they were chosen to take over that part of the project (nearly two months ago now) because they could begin work immediately.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Jun 27, 2011 8:04:05 GMT -8
I wonder if Balfour Beatty is still mobilizing its project team for that work? Supposedly they were chosen to take over that part of the project (nearly two months ago now) because they could begin work immediately. Transit projects happen on a geological time scale. 2 months is practically the blink of an eye!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 27, 2011 12:18:27 GMT -8
Geological timescale indeed.
Balfour Beatty is not only supposed to install the track at Venice/Robertson but build above the platforms of the Farmdale Station as well but neither work has started yet.
We should learn about the latest status this Thursday from the board meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 27, 2011 15:11:28 GMT -8
Agenda is posted now. They are just about to order the manufacturing of the Farmdale canopies. It will then take a few months to make them. We've known that this station would be built for so long and I can't understand why this is so late. They are also going to award a contract (to Balfour Beatty) for the Culver City Station plaza. Expected revenue date for Culver City is March 2012.
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 27, 2011 21:56:51 GMT -8
So who January 2013 in the pot? Because at this rate....
I wonder how many people made major plans around this rail line (location of business for foot traffic, apartment for commute) and have been so screwed over that they will never rely on public transit planning again?
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jun 28, 2011 1:53:37 GMT -8
So who January 2013 in the pot? Because at this rate.... I wonder how many people made major plans around this rail line (location of business for foot traffic, apartment for commute) and have been so screwed over that they will never rely on public transit planning again? I guess the lesson is that people shouldn't rely on public transit planning. I realize that's a loss of a lot of potential value of new lines, but unfortunately it's not possible to predict these things with any accuracy (although it should ideally be better organized). The good news is that the line's continued operation provides much more value in the long term, and hopefully will enable rezoning around the stations so that future residents and businesses will benefit for a long time to come.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jun 28, 2011 18:35:25 GMT -8
;D As I passed by Jefferson and National (about 3PM) i saw a backhoe digging up the very last of the Pacific Electric/ Southern Pacific rail. So all the PE rail is gone in Phase One. Ps I think the start up will be in 2011!
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jun 28, 2011 22:48:52 GMT -8
;D As I passed by Jefferson and National (about 3PM) i saw a backhoe digging up the very last of the Pacific Electric/ Southern Pacific rail. So all the PE rail is gone in Phase One. Ps I think the start up will be in 2011! Did they remove the rail on National as you head north towards washington as you go under the new bridge? I drove on that road sunday and it is a pain to go over that rail.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 30, 2011 15:50:19 GMT -8
Anybody attend the meeting today?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 30, 2011 17:47:18 GMT -8
Major war between Expo Authority and Culver City is now taking place. There was a huge fight between the two at the board meeting today. Basically what happened was that Culver City still hasn't paid the $4 + $3 = $7 million they promised to Expo. The promises were made long time ago. Expo is now refusing to build anything in Culver City other than a bare-bones minimal light-rail station -- no bike path, no National Boulevard improvements, no facilities around the station, etc. Culver City wrote a very nasty letter to Expo last night, saying that they won't pay to Expo unless they pass a motion to build what they want. And Expo says they won't build anything in Culver City unless Culver City pays what they promised. Therefore, there's a major stand-off taking place. Culver City says they will pay the money but Expo doesn't take their word (why should they?) and is asking for an escrow. Culver City won't do an escrow unless Expo builds what they want. You got the idea. You can listen to the part of the arguments from both sides in the second part of the recording. I didn't record the entire quarrel but about the second half of it. It looks like there may be a lawsuit. Other than that Santa Monica's Pam O'Connor was elected vice chair. There were no public comments. Train testing will intensify. There is some hope that they can make it to the proposed November opening date. This is only possible because now Metro has agreed to start their tests and prerevenue service before contractor finishes their work and tests. So, thanks to Metro's commitment and cooperation, November 2011 opening (to La Cienega) may be possible. No agreement yet on the construction of the Farmdale Station with the contractor. But the authority has just ordered the canopies from Paragon Steel, the Expo-canopy manufacturer, with a sole-source purchase order. Track installation on the Culver City aerial is taking place with good pace ahead of schedule. Metro has now taken over the storage facility from Expo. They will build and finance it, which will help Expo to close about half of their $14 million budget deficit. Substantial-completion date (not opening date) to La Cienega is still around August 20, 2011. Enjoy the board-meeting audio: Meeting audio Part 1 (including project-status presentation)Meeting audio Part 2 (fight with Culver City after the closed session)
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Jun 30, 2011 20:20:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 1, 2011 8:20:27 GMT -8
Major war between Expo Authority and Culver City is now taking place. There was a huge fight between the two at the board meeting today. That's just wonderful. Culver City now joins Monrovia as a city which can't be trusted to fulfill its end of a deal. These authorities (Expo, Gold Line, etc.) need to do a better job of getting these funding promises legally locked down. An escrow account should be standard practice, and funding agreements should be written with no legal wiggle room. In particular, Expo needs to do this with Santa Monica, which is promising to fund "betterments" at its stations.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Jul 4, 2011 14:49:19 GMT -8
When I see these reports about the delays and distractions for Los Angeles area rail projects, it seems like construction progresses at an average of about four to five miles a year. If the transcontinental railway of the 1860's had been built at this rate, the descendants of the Irish and Chinese laborers would still be working on it. (I know, it's not a fair comparison--no NIMBYs out in the wilderness, and there were financial incentives to build as far and as fast as the crews could do it.)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 5, 2011 10:37:33 GMT -8
It just occurred to me that a big reason why the contractor keeps putting off the schedule might be the local-jobs goal. They are very close to meeting the goal but not quite there yet. If they had completed the project on June 15, they would be fined heavily. They will likely meet the goal by August or September and decide to finish the work by then.
At the end, they will fine Expo Authority by putting the blame for delays on them. So, it's a win - win situation for the contractor.
The way these projects are run is so stupid in many ways. The local-job programs was the biggest reason why Expo was delayed so much, as the contractor was never able to employ enough manpower under the pressure of the local-job quotas.
Local jobs is a good idea but strict quotas do nothing other than to waste hundreds of millions dollars of taxpayers' money and cause extensive delays. When there is too much politics and bureaucracy -- typical with most government-run businesses -- it always results in poor implementation of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jul 5, 2011 13:48:42 GMT -8
When I see these reports about the delays and distractions for Los Angeles area rail projects, it seems like construction progresses at an average of about four to five miles a year. If the transcontinental railway of the 1860's had been built at this rate, the descendants of the Irish and Chinese laborers would still be working on it. (I know, it's not a fair comparison--no NIMBYs out in the wilderness, and there were financial incentives to build as far and as fast as the crews could do it.) How many Chinese and Irish laborers died during railroad construction? It's more than 1 death per mile. NIMBY is a problem but one thing I always tell people whenever casual conversation amongst friends turn on this topic: the speed at which we are building subway and light rail in LA is typical. The problem is we took a break from subway building in the 2000s (thanks Henry Waxman... ) and that put us behind the 8-ball. LA started digging the Red line in 1988, the same year when Taipei started their subway construction. The Taipei MRT now has similar number of "lines" as LA (although Taipei MRT is mostly heavy rail while LA Metro is mostly light rail). The big difference is our most important backbone line (Purple line) was abandoned. Whereas in Taipei, the backbone line (MRT Red line) was a priority. Imagine LA's mobility today had we not gave up on the Wilshire line. The arrival of Expo line would have been a nice bonus, not a game changer had Henry Waxman not totally f**ked us over.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 5, 2011 14:22:17 GMT -8
Imagine LA's mobility today had we not gave up on the Wilshire line. The arrival of Expo line would have been a nice bonus, not a game changer had Henry Waxman not totally f**ked us over. I would add the Beverly Hills is at it once again, in their ever changing reasoning for opposing the Purple Line. Now it's "The Children". What will they think of next?
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Jul 5, 2011 14:52:18 GMT -8
I would add the Beverly Hills is at it once again, in their ever changing reasoning for opposing the Purple Line. Now it's "The Children". What will they think of next? I don't know about you, but I don't wanna find out. Approve this thing before it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 6, 2011 14:33:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 7, 2011 8:48:50 GMT -8
The issue seems very straight-forward and begs for compromise.
Most likely, <note, this is conjecture> Expo, made substantive station design fulfillment changes for cost-reduction purposes (was this similar to how the MSE was substituted for a piered-rail between La Cienega and Ballona Creek?), without keeping Culver City in the loop.
When Culver City learned of those changes (late), they digested them and blew a gasket. Then Culver City points fingers at Expo ("Shame on you!"). Expo, defensively points back to the "agreement." Sounds like Expo may have blown it in 2 areas: project communication and change management.
If this is the case, (1) at the least, Culver City would be due an apology and some (but not all, due to cost issues) retrenchment by Expo, to show good faith and reaffirm the partnership with Culver City. ...And (2), Expo needs to see some "good faith" coming from Culver, in terms of willingness to work with the Expo team to reach a "middle ground," rather than sending it to the legal team and working up a law suit.
Legal recourse is the least desirable outcome for both sides and if that's the card being played, it's most unfortunate and shows little wisdom on the part of both Expo and Culver City.
I'm hoping that this "spat" will run it's course quickly and the parties will resolve their suspected, honest differences in the interest of all the people who live anywhere near Robertson and Venice.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2011 9:01:20 GMT -8
The issue seems very straight-forward and begs for compromise. Are you kidding me? The issue is never straightforward when the money is involved, and with these projects, it's always about the money. LOL
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 7, 2011 9:12:06 GMT -8
Last night when I told my wife about the "issue," she said, "$7 million? That's about the price of a nice Beverly Hills mansion." Implication, for the Westside, it's not really that much, especially considering the size of the project; ...not that much for the moneyed interests who will benefit from trackside development, etc... Better to get this over and done with, just like the federal budget!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2011 9:28:44 GMT -8
Last night when I told my wife about the "issue," she said, "$7 million? That's about the price of a nice Beverly Hills mansion." Implication, for the Westside, it's not really that much, especially considering the size of the project; ...not that much for the moneyed interests who will benefit from trackside development, etc... Better to get this over and done with, just like the federal budget! Unfortunately $7 million + 7 + 7 + ... adds to billions of dollars in the blink of an eye. So, it doesn't work in the way you described. Also, once you're overbduget, especially so many times as happened with Expo, it's very hard to go to Metro and ask for additional funding. Culver City is apparently thinking like the conversation between you and your wife -- what's in $7 million for a multibillion-dollar project -- but, again, that's not how it works. The reason why these projects cost billions of dollars is not because individual components cost a billion dollar each but there are so many components. Once you stop squeezing the best value out of each component, you lose track and you will end up with a $10 billion project instead of $2 billion. That's exactly how Expo ended up being $400 million overbudget. Not only all that but also Culver City needs to keep their obligations instead of being deadbeats. This behavior by them is not acceptable at all.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 7, 2011 12:18:28 GMT -8
Gokhan, what you say rings true, that "small" variances in cost add up and become excessive overages. Similarly do the added cost of legal fees add into those overages. And even when legal service is provided by staff attorneys, the time spent is wasted when other matters press, too. The point is that both sides are going to have to reach agreement otherwise a lot more is going to be wasted than $7M.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 7, 2011 12:25:01 GMT -8
I am thinking I've been cutting the Expo Authority PM team way too much slack here. It's easy to blame the contractor, community groups or other cities individually, but after a certain point you have to begin to suspect the common element in all of these "disagreements", that being the Authority itself.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 7, 2011 13:56:09 GMT -8
No, Expo being a government agency, many entities are seeing it as an unlimited treasure and trying to rip it off. Same with the contractor, same with Culver City -- it's all about money. Same thing with the City of Monrovia -- money is the only real issue there too.
Once Expo yields to Culver City defaulting on their debt, it would have to financially yield to so money agencies that Phase 2 will end up costing $2 billion. Culver City is only one of the many agencies or companies they have to deal with.
$4 million was to build the aerial station. There was never mention of extras as a condition to pay it.
Likewise, $3 million was to make the foundations larger and deeper so that they could build the underground parking lot.
Both the aerial station was built and the foundations were deepened a long time but no money has come from Culver City. If they don't agree with Expo deferring certain things, not paying their debt is not the way to go. Expo is currently $14 million overbudget and Culver City not paying their debt will only result in Expo building less to save more money. So, it doesn't make sense for them not to pay, as Expo doesn't care whether there is no parking lot or bike path and the station area looks like a vast countryside of weeds -- they will end up suffering, not Expo.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 7, 2011 14:16:13 GMT -8
ah, Culver City can go pound sand.
Getting Expo phase I finished is more important than "Sequoia trees and terra cotta tiles," to quote from the L.A. Curbed article.
Let Culver get the ugly, barebones station. No terra cotta tiles, no Sequoias. If it were possible, I'd say pull back to LaCienega, but at least the ugly station would fulfill Expo's obligations to Culver.
Improvements can always be made later; they've made changes and improvements to the Blue Line since it opened.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Jul 7, 2011 16:01:40 GMT -8
It seems probable that the brouhaha resulted from ineffective Expo Authority stakeholder (Culver City) management. This is logically the reason Culver City decided to (inappropriately) withhold funds. Effective and timely communication by Expo to Culver City could have avoided the problem we are now discussing.
Now that the mess exists ...I agree with James, withhold the Sequoias and terra cotta; let them see weeds! But, really, we shouldn't be seeing this argument in the first place and the only actor on the stage prior to Culver City's display was Expo Authority's project management team, who apparently miscommunicated or failed to communicate with CC.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 8, 2011 13:02:38 GMT -8
New Expo Safety Video
|
|