|
Post by crzwdjk on May 17, 2009 20:22:07 GMT -8
And here we were thinking that having an independent Joint Powers Authority would lead to quick and efficient construction while the MTA would bungle any project they're given. Turns out that the MTA has finally learned how to get things done, and that there are a whole lot of other confounding variables which have nothing to do with how the project is managed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 18, 2009 9:57:48 GMT -8
I drove along the Phase 1 right-of-way just a while ago. Most construction activity is centered around the Crenshaw, Western, and USC stations. They are also trying to finish the Ballona Creek road bridge.
The delay in the construction seems to be a result of poor construction management and underestimation of utility work, both below and above ground. I see no improvement in the attitude toward this; so, expect the delay to get longer and longer.
They said they will finish the USC trench in February 2010. Translate this into May 2010. Add six months for track and overhead installation and remaining work. This brings it to November 2010. Add another six months for train testing. You are in May 2011. This is the earliest any segment of this line can open. But I am less optimistic than this.
At this point I will be happy if the line could open in one segment to Venice/Robertson in mid August 2011, before the 2011 - 2012 school year. But they need to change their attitude for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 18, 2009 12:34:02 GMT -8
I find it somewhat ironic that the East LA Gold Line with its underground section and stations has gone much smoother than the supposedly easy to build at grade Expo Line. The argument for at grade light rail everywhere is really losing its luster. If it isn't cheap and easy to build, what is the benefit? It certainly doesn't have long term ridership capability or is able to serve our most needed corridors. I was beginning to think no one here noticed. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Without smoke and mirrors, outright lies, and contractions there would be no advocacy/public relations strategy for this line. You have to dismiss the thoroughly documented safety issue as pitter-patter. The cost-effectiveness argument originally used in attempt to justify not adding grade separations, must be removed from the talking points when the total project cost creeps to $2.3 Billion...and still counting. The same zeal shown when the projected ridership was 44K must be shown when it drops by over 1/3rd to 28K. At-grade crossings of major intersections in the traffic capital of the country must not be questioned. Staff determinations that one of the widest streets in all of Los Angeles, with parking on both sides, parkways measuring a minimum 10 feet on both sides and a grassy median lacks the width to fit two at-grade tracks, but Colorado Blvd in Santa Monica has the width must be supported. The line shall attempt to be portrayed as a trolley and thus all renderings shall be of just 1-car 90 feet long, NOT the actual 3-car 270 foot 225-ton vehicles. And you have to smear the people/organizations advocating for additional taxpayer resources for grade separation as insane anti-transit NIMBYs. ...and people really wonder why most who take a good look at this line think there's a pitcher full of Kool-Aid being handed out somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 18, 2009 13:25:42 GMT -8
The cost-effectiveness argument originally used in attempt to justify not adding grade separations, must be removed from the talking points when the total project cost creeps to $2.3 Billion...and still counting. ... with the small detail you omitted that the cost of the project would be $10 billion and counting if it had to be a full subway. Therefore, it would have never happened. It's like someone saying "The dealer convinced my wife to buy a Prius after offering us a glass of Kool-Aid. We would have been much better of if I had taken a loan that I couldn't afford and we had bought that Cadillac Escalade that I wanted. We have been ripped off. Damn it!"
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2009 13:33:05 GMT -8
... 225-ton locomotives ... Locomotives on the Expo Line? Like old times (here crossing Venice-Robertson, 1980s)? LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 18, 2009 13:41:56 GMT -8
^^ Carrying Kool-Aid of course. LOL
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2009 23:35:08 GMT -8
Here's more construction progress, also showing how much is involved with this project. First is the Flower Street bridge over the Harbor Freeway where the old center pier is now gone. ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/flower-3457-600.jpg) The next two show how much work goes into even shallow trenches. Steel I-beams and plates provide temporary shoring for reinforced concrete retaining walls at the ends ... ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/flower-3460-600.jpg) ... and the Cast In Drilled Hole piles await finished reinforced concrete walls where it gets deeper. This only-1/4-mile underpass will have taken two years to build. ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/flower-3461-600.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 18, 2009 23:58:03 GMT -8
Back to the beginning of the underpass construction, these two photos of the CIDH hole locations marked but not yet drilled were taken July 24, 2007. ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/cidh-8175-600.jpg) ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/cidh-8178-600.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 19, 2009 9:17:21 GMT -8
Without smoke and mirrors, outright lies, and contractions there would be no advocacy/public relations strategy for this line. Here's a point-by-point response for the record. Mostly-at-grade light rail light rail is a safe standard in many large cities, documented here multiple times. Total cost = $862,000,000 (revised phase 1 budget) + $932,423,000 (estimated phase 2 budget, 2008$). The cost of at-grade doesn't change the much greater cost of 4-miles of trench / tunnel from Trousdale to Farmdale that would likely double phase 1's cost. Projected weekday boardings in 2030 for phases 1 and 2 together is 63,998 for the preferred right-of-way + Colorado route (DEIR Table 1). Los Angeles shares both bad traffic and at-grade light rail with other big U.S. cities. DEIR Appendix G, pages 13-14 documents property takes along Venice Blvd. where the parkways are not 10 feet wide, in order to keep all three traffic lanes in each direction. Conversely, Broadway in Santa Monica does not have such heavy traffic, plus the City of Santa Monica has a more pro-transit approach toward traffic than LADOT. More entertaining before being corrected, this slip was indicative of the thinking of some Expo opponents. For example, Opel Young stated in UCA’s Prepared Testimony, page 4, "Noise from the train can be expected to carry up to Baldwin Hills and ruin one of the few remaining successful black middle-class communities in America." And on page 7, "The elevated structure at La Brea is … going to cause visual blight on our community, will have privacy impacts, and will generate a substantial amount of noise." Just documented facts here, including that federal stimulus funding is being spent on already-approved projects (as bolded below), in useful but not huge amounts because it is being spread around the country. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY RAY LAHOOD ANNOUNCES $742.5 MILLION IN FEDERAL RECOVERY ACT FUNDS TO PAY FOR TRANSIT PROJECTS IN NINE STATES: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that transit projects around the country will receive $742.5 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds. “This money will not only put people back to work and spur the economy, it will also provide an alternative form of transportation for people around the country to get to their homes, work and school,” Secretary LaHood said. The grants will go toward projects for which the Federal Transit Administration has already entered into multi-year federal commitments known as “full funding grant agreements,” in Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington State. The ARRA grants announced today do not increase the federal commitment to the projects, but expedite funds committed under the agreement between the federal government and the transit agencies. The arrival of federal funds will allow the transit agencies to save on financing costs while putting additional dollars into the local economy; will supplement local resources, which have declined during the economic downturn, and allow for a quicker investment in the project. Projects receiving funding are listed below.
- Arizona ... Phoenix-Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail ... $36 Million
- California ... Los Angeles – Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension ... $66.7 Million
- Colorado ... Denver – West Corridor Light Rail Transit ... $40 Million
- New York ... New York – Long Island Rail Road East Side Access ... $195.4 Million and New York – Second Avenue Subway Phase I ... $78.9 Million
- Oregon ... Portland – South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT... $32 Million ... Springfield – Pioneer Parkway EmX BRT ... $2.9 Million
- Texas ... Dallas – Northwest/Southeast Light Rail Transit ... $78.4 Million
- Utah ... Salt Lake City – Mid Jordan Light Rail Transit ... $90.9 Million
- Virginia ... Northern Virginia – Dulles Corridor Metrorail Extension ... To Wiehle Aveune ... $77.3 Million
- Washington ... Seattle – University Link Light Rail Transit Extension ... $44 Million .
(USDOT - posted 5/07)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 19, 2009 10:25:49 GMT -8
And you have to smear the people/organizations advocating for additional taxpayer resources for grade separation as insane anti-transit NIMBYs. So smears are only allowed in one direction, against the TTC? BTW, has your group actually been working on Capitol Hill or in Sacramento to secure additional funding for these project changes you have proposed? ...and people really wonder why most who take a good look at this line think there's a pitcher full of Kool-Aid being handed out somewhere? For the record, members of the Transit Coalition are not susceptible to "the Kool-Aid" or whatever you're offering.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 19, 2009 12:34:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 19, 2009 13:26:02 GMT -8
Thank you Darrell for displaying the smoke and mirrors, outright lies, and contractions. Only by your standard is the vehicle on the road that is a hundred times more deadly than any other vehicle on the road considered "safe." Thank goodness your advocacy is limited to rail transportation issues, and not something more widespread like...food. Replace rails with beef and see what you get from the Friends 4 the Exportation of Beef: "Oh c'mon now USDA, mad cow is ONLY going to kill a hundred times more people than non-infected beef." "It's going to be the fault of the people who die for not cooking the meat all the way. IT'S ON THE LABEL! You got to be stupid not to see it." "Hey shouldn't you be focusing on something like swine flu anyway?" "It's Darwanism at work." What is it about the actual projected construction cost ($1.4 billion) that makes you so afraid of mentioning it? Phase 1: 862M + Phase 2: 1.4 billion = 2.3 billion and counting... Are you afraid someone might look up and say: We're spending $2.3 billion and all we're getting is this crap?! ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) You know kinda sorta like masonite said. Darrell if I were in your shoes, I'd be afraid of such an argument too. It's got legs my friend. Incidentally, I can't remember who, but someone pointed out over a year ago that you mysteriously eliminated Phase 1 cost-effectiveness rankings off the Friends 4 Expo website. How about you provide the Phase 1 cost-effectiveness ratings for us predicated on the current $862 million dollar budget and the forecast year ridership of 28K? And don't forget to give us the cost per new rider figures! Oh I'm sorry, talking about why Expo Phase 1 FAILED the New Starts application process and the FTA's criticism of MTA's methodologies (ridership, traffic impacts, noise impacts, etc.) are things that are completely off limits, right? Look around and you'll again see a consistency in at-grade light rail advocacy: sell lines that hit people, worsen traffic and go too slow to yield true mode shifts as cost-effective by presenting the low/unmitigated cost to get the project approved. Only after construction starts and often after legal challenges have settled requiring what were known to be mandatory mitigation measures (<clearing throat> i.e., Phase 2 grade separations) will the actual cost be known to the public, at which point the cost-effectiveness argument is removed from the talking points.Let's just review history: F4E ignored "cost-effectiveness" when arguing FOR Expo LRT over Expo BRT. F4E argued "cost-effectiveness" when arguing AGAINST Culver City grade separations. F4E argued "cost-effectiveness" when arguing AGAINST adding any grade separations to the then $640 million Phase 1 project. Yet now F4E won't even admit to the real current projected cost of Expo Phase 2, you've refused to update the Phase 1 ratings on your website, and you have yet to utter a negative word about the Expo budget going a billion dollars over it's projected cost. Darrell, it's all very...amusing. Where's your source? Oh yea you have none. Another at-grade light rail tactic: Always underestimate the at-grade cost and overestimate the grade separated cost. Boy that number keeps on fallin'. Wasn't it 75K just a couple of years ago? Dare we speculate on what it will be after: -Street-running is required at many of the currently proposed gated crossings in Phase 2 (increasing travel time by 10-15% alone) -CalTrans intervenes on 4th/Colorado and Lincoln/Colorado impacts -The actual runs start on Phase 1, where the most congested intersection on the entire light rail grid will start being impacted (Washington/Flower, Adams/Flower, Jefferson/Flower, Vermont/Expo, Western/Expo, Crenshaw/Expo) and LRT delays are shown to be much greater than stated in the EIR. ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png) At that point, I'll bet you a 3.5 mile trench that ridership projections will dip under 55K. Oh wait, no FTA ridership critics to push back on MTA's book-cooking since Phase 2 isn't an EIS, so maybe after all of those things will happen and the ridership numbers will magically stay the same. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) You know I gotta tell you since I first heard one of Light Rail for Cheviot folks say that at a DEIR meeting I have to admit that's a pretty darn amusing talking point. Here's a tip, shorten it and make it catch. How about: "Traffic, smaffic"...or "Aww, who cares"...or what about, "Let them eat cake." That's it! Call it "The Marie Antoinette" ;D Damien: "Going at-grade across these intersections is going to make these gridlocked streets even worse."
Darrell (in an british aristocrats voice): "Let them eat cake" LOL! . Boy am I looking forward to seeing that one play out in a court of law. Let's not do the typical Darrell Clarke bob-and-weave, and lets not allow you to hide behind the EIR or avoid the issue any other kind of way. How about we just ask the question: As a person who has seen followed and studied at-grade light operations and construction over the past 20 years, do you, Darrell Clarke, think it is possible to fit two at-grade tracks down Venice from Robertson to Sepulveda without dropping any of the travel lanes?If so, how, and why didn't you speak up and criticize the staff's statement that it wasn't possible.[/b] It's okay we're not expecting you to answer either question. Is THAT what you guys call it? There are certain things that help folk distinguish between those who are serious about finding solutions to our problems and those who just want to see more tracks laid. Because from most people's point of view a person serious about finding solutions to community concerns about the light rail would not ignore the many Gold Line, Green Line and Blue Line articles and court case about adverse light rail noise impacts (impacts that were underestimated in the EIR). They would admit to them, discuss them and research how to reduce the impacts. No, instead, you and F4E simply claim there is no such impact, and as long as people out there don't KNOW the actual impacts of these rail systems that serves your purpose, it's much better promoting this as a "quiet train," than something that is going to yield hundreds of inverse condemnation lawsuits and keep people up past midnight. My favorite Darrell is your picture of the Gold Line train right next to a home on the F4E website and your insinuation that the close presence means it's okay/good for that homeowner. Took my dB meter out there one day and measured over 90 dBs right next to that home. Like I said all smoke and mirrors. I love how concerns about elevated impacts in Santa Monica are justified, but concerns about elevated impacts in South LA is "opposition." And on that note can someone please show me the posts of the folk here claiming the Crossroads parents concerned about child safety are admitting their private white kids are too stupid to cross tracks safely. Somehow again, concerns in Santa Monica are justified, but in South LA the concerns are an admission of black and brown intellectual inferiority. And of course, there's no hint of racism in such a statement. But you know my personal favorite is this sudden concern for environmental justice on the Expo Line now that the Phase 2 maintenance facility might possibly be located near some F4E members homes! I'm going to have to create an award for that one. And just like MTA, you point to the source of the Stimulus package that the Expo Grade Separation Project doesn't qualify for, instead of focusing on the clearly and specifically identified source of stimulus funds the Expo Grade Separation Project DOES qualify for and could compete for. Like I said Darrell...amusing.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on May 19, 2009 13:49:41 GMT -8
BTW, has your group actually been working on Capitol Hill or in Sacramento to secure additional funding for these project changes you have proposed? Please don't pretend like you would in any way alter the level of animosity you display for me or Fix Expo if you knew that we did. Your issues have nothing to do with whether or not we're working to secure additional funding.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 19, 2009 13:58:59 GMT -8
Trivia question: How is the Expo Line in the median of Exposition Blvd. between Trousdale and Gramercy like San Jose on N. 1st Street and Portland on E. Burnside Street (first two photos), but unlike the Long Beach Blue Line, Eastside Gold Line, and Phoenix (last three photos)? I'm going to go with: The amount of landscaping.
|
|
|
Post by erict on May 19, 2009 14:46:37 GMT -8
Sounds very interesting to me, I want to see what it is going to look like.... Here's a view of the east-bound Crenshaw station foundation forms on 5/12/09. The apartment building is on the south-west corner of Exposition and Victoria, one block west of Crenshaw. The concrete in the foreground is the curb to contain the ballast. (Wish I'd pointed my camera more toward Crenshaw; oh well, next time.) ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/expo-victoria-3449-800.jpg) Compare with this Expo Authority simulation of this platform: Why that looks like a huge station indeed, although it is hard to see in a photo. I gotta see it myself when it's further along. This is the station that the Crenshaw line will somehow connect to or through.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 19, 2009 15:43:32 GMT -8
smoke and mirrors, outright lies, and contractions. Such statements do you no benefit, they only reflect back upon you. I've previously documented multiple times the standards of at-grade light rail in many cities and that industry statistics are per passenger mile. Digressions about beef don't change anything. See below about what could improve safety. What is it about the actual projected construction cost of $932,423,000 in 2008 dollars (per Draft EIR) that you have a problem with? Especially considering that phase 2 is shorter and quite a bit simpler to build, without phase 1's underpass and bridges over the Harbor Freeway and Ballona Creek. Except the truth is that phase 1 was "not rated" because of ridership model delays, but the FTA certified its Final EIS, showing it clearly meets federal environmental standards. The preferred phase 2 option has a cost-effective $20.01 per hour of user benefit (DEIR Table 7). Conversely as shown by other cities like St. Paul, the grade separation you advocate for would flunk federal standards. Hardly. We emphasized the cost-effectiveness of higher speed and capacity and lower operating costs per passenger mile of light rail over a busway from the beginning. It of course was more cost-effective to move the ultimate Culver City aerial station into phase 1 than to build and then demolish an interim terminus at Wesley. We support the project as designed and approved in 2005. A statement that applies well to your cost for four miles of subway / trench.... Speaking of no source.... Not without adjacent property takes or removal of left turn and/or parking lanes in constricted areas. Not to mention difficult intersections including at least Robertson, Culver, and Sepulveda that require grade separation. Written by the person not expecting to answer questions.... Still waiting for your answer to my April 24 reply on that very subject: Where are the details from your Freedom of Information Act requests to Metro for data on Blue Line accidents? You've only posted photos of crumpled cars, no substance about how they were caused. Notwithstanding the primary issue of driver irresponsibility that kills 2,000 people a year in Los Angeles County, categorization could help find ways to reduce them. Santa Monica's dislike of elevated is relevant to South LA, but Santa Monica's preference for at-grade is not? Every city has its NIMBYs. But there was general agreement for at-grade on Colorado for multiple reasons. The City of Santa Monica knows there must be a maintenance facility and is investigating options. Every potential location has pros and cons, and it may well end up at Verizon. We'll weigh in if and when it is useful. The answers are simple: there are no sources of that magnitude of money for phase 1 grade separation. California is broke. Federal New Starts money requires a lengthy process, that there is no way that four miles of subway at some $800 million additional would qualify for. Measure R provides $925 million only to build Expo phase 2.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 19, 2009 17:21:49 GMT -8
As Bernard Parks told you at an Expo board meeting, just because you don't like the line doesn't make it crap -- it's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on May 19, 2009 18:54:50 GMT -8
[damiengoodmon] It has been awful quiet around here lately, i thought you dropped out of the human race! ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 19, 2009 21:56:14 GMT -8
So much with the negative energy of Fix Expo. Back to construction pictures. Now this is a first! Here is the picture of the first train on the Expo Line near Dorsey High.![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0699.jpg) This is Crenshaw Station looking east. ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0689.jpg) ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0690.jpg) ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0694.jpg) Crenshaw Station looking west. ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0692.jpg) Crenshaw Station construction of west split platform. ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0698.jpg) These are the long sections of arc-welded tracks near Dorsey High. ![](http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo325/esirgen/Expo%202009-05-19/IMG_0700.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on May 19, 2009 23:41:15 GMT -8
Now this is a first! Here is the picture of the first train on the Expo Line near Dorsey High. [/b][/quote] Hahaha, I suppose that is a step. Great pics as always. Back to the Flower Street bridge, here's the latest mash-up animation of progress, with the pillar now removed: ![](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3548391370_e21b42acd8_o.gif)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 20, 2009 6:46:04 GMT -8
BTW, has your group actually been working on Capitol Hill or in Sacramento to secure additional funding for these project changes you have proposed? Please don't pretend like you would in any way alter the level of animosity you display for me or Fix Expo if you knew that we did. Your issues have nothing to do with whether or not we're working to secure additional funding. You're the one that implied that your group was working to get funding for your improvements. And I quote: And you have to smear the people/organizations advocating for additional taxpayer resources for grade separation as insane anti-transit NIMBYs. So when you say 'advocating for additional taxpayer resources', does this mean you're actually doing anything to get the money? Or is it a faith-based system, where you scream loudly about injustice and hope money falls from the sky?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 20, 2009 11:37:05 GMT -8
^^ You can't convince me that having a wall in front of my house and a heavy concrete structure on my street is a good thing. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) It makes the neighborhood unpleasant and decreases the home values. But I agree that it's not the end of the world if it has to be done, and mitigations will help. After all we need the line with or without these roller-coaster ramps. I lived next to a freeway most of my life. It's really not so bad having a wall there.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on May 20, 2009 11:45:03 GMT -8
Thank you so much for posting these pics of the construction in progress. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 20, 2009 16:28:47 GMT -8
Thank you so much for posting these pics of the construction in progress. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) +1
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 20, 2009 22:13:24 GMT -8
Trivia question: How is the Expo Line in the median of Exposition Blvd. between Trousdale and Gramercy like San Jose on N. 1st Street and Portland on E. Burnside Street (first two photos), but unlike the Long Beach Blue Line, Eastside Gold Line, and Phoenix (last three photos)? I'm going to go with: The amount of landscaping. Close. I was thinking of ballasted track (ties and gravel) vs. embedded track. Below is the trackway east from Normandie getting close ready for ballast. (Interesting backdrop from this perspective, with the mosque's tower next to the USC tower.) ![](http://friends4expo.org/images/normandie-3462-800.jpg) And love your latest photos, Gokhan and Justin!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 21, 2009 7:27:08 GMT -8
^^ Interesting backdrop from this perspective, with the mosque's tower minaret next to the USC tower. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) Yes, ballasted track, here it comes. Certainly, it will give much more sense of a real train than embedded track, which gives more sense of a trolley.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 21, 2009 9:44:40 GMT -8
mosque's tower minaret next to the USC tower. Thanks, I now know a lot more about minarets!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on May 21, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -8
I was thinking of ballasted track (ties and gravel) vs. embedded track. I like ballasted track because it allows rainwater (the little that we get) to permeate the surface and replenish the groundwater. It's also more aesthetically pleasing then asphalt over time. I took this a week ago: Washington/Flower ![](http://www.saunders.bz/images/may_13%20108.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on May 21, 2009 16:53:40 GMT -8
The new update presentation is now available under the community meeting section on buildexpo.org
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 22, 2009 7:08:28 GMT -8
They used to have these meetings every month but now they have them less often. This is the shortest Expo presentation I have ever seen. So, they are not putting much effort them into anymore. Greg prepares all status-update presentations. The ones shown at the board meetings are usually the most comprehensive.
|
|