|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Mar 8, 2011 12:23:56 GMT -8
I'm not sure if you saw this, but a demonstration video was made of the very section you mentioned above. You can see how it would look and while the walls are jarring, that whole area is now lined with trees and shrubs.
I don't think they will even be noticed except for the train riders. Drivers won't notice and residents will continue to see the trees and shrubs unless they are completely removed - and if so, in a few years they will all grow again.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Mar 8, 2011 12:55:58 GMT -8
Thanks for recalling the simulation, Alex. --I remember seeing it long ago. yes, trees and foliage will improve the area, though high walls remain "jarring." ...I'd still rather seem earthen berms!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 8, 2011 15:07:19 GMT -8
Clarification about earthen berms:
Earthen berms take a lot of space because they need to have a slope of 2:1 to be stable. So, to build 6-ft-high earthen berms on both sides of the tracks, you would need 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 = 48 ft of right-of-way!
As you might have already realized, earthen berms are actually not desirable because they waste so much width of the right-of-way. In sharp contrast sound walls don't take any width of the right-of-way at all. Since there will be a lot of landscaping adjacent to the sound walls (vines, flowers, trees, etc.), they will not even be visible. In addition the sound walls have a great wavy pattern on them, and they look as good as a wall can.
In fact earthen berms were not even possible in Phase 1 because the right-of-way east of La Cienega is very narrow (30 - 50 ft).
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 8, 2011 23:11:39 GMT -8
I am reminded of how some of the different professions deal with failures: Doctors bury them. Lawyers visit them at the prison to outline appeal strategies. Architects call the garden center and order a truckload of their quickest growing type of ivy.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Mar 9, 2011 7:09:05 GMT -8
Is there any news on the lawsuit to halt the bike path construction on Phase 2 , or is it phase 1?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 9, 2011 13:47:45 GMT -8
Is there any news on the lawsuit to halt the bike path construction on Phase 2 , or is it phase 1? Thanks Well, the lawsuit was successful before it went to trial. The City and Caltrans, who are building the bike path, had not done an EIR/S, and after the lawsuit was filed, they started doing an EIR/S. So, what is next is that the EIR/S will have to be completed first. It's not known if there will be a new lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 15, 2011 10:49:12 GMT -8
I really should bring this topic to this thread: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears Phase II has more work involved than Phase I. For example, there are still businesses along the ROW between Pico/Gateway and Olympic/Centinela (Phase I didn't have this). When are they going to move out? Also, there are more bridges to be built with Phase II than Phase I like Sepulveda (probably will happen just like how the design options eventually were built in Phase I), Bundy, Pico/Gateway, Centinela and 26th/Cloverfield. I just cannot see this line opening in 2015. 2016 sounds way more reasonable. I remember when Expo/Metro did the ceremonial groundbreaking in 2006 and the whole talk was a 2009 opening and looking at the site 1 year later in '07 and they were barely getting into the USC trench. I still highly feel that 2015 is too optimistic and will not happen...unless we see some significant dirt movement THIS YEAR and not 2012. Actually, no, on the contrary, Phase 2 is substantially less involved. Also, the originally planned date for Phase 1 was July 1, 2010, not 2009. Here is the breakdown of the two phases: The bridges in Phase 1: I-110, La Brea, La Cienega, Ballona Creek road bridge, Ballona Creek LRT bridge, and Washington/National bridge. Total: 6. Bridges in Phase 2: Venice (already underway), National/Palms, Motor, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy/Centinela, and Olympic. Total: 5.5 (Venice already underway). Tunnels in Phase 1: USC. Tunnels in Phase 2: none, therefore significant reduction in construction package. Aerial stations in Phase 1: La Brea, La Cienega, and Venice/Robertson. Total: 3 Aerial stations in Phase 2: Bundy. Total: 1 Mileage Phase 1: 8.7 Mileage Phase 2: 6.6 Tie-in in Phase 1: Blue Line Tie-in in Phase 2: None Existing-track rehabilitation in Phase 1: extensive, all the way to Washington Station. Existing-track rehabilitation in Phase 2: none Street-running segments in Phase 1: extensive, requiring extensive utility relocation and street reconstruction. Street-running segments in Phase 2: only 1 mile in Santa Monica. Legal troubles in Phase 1: Farmdale Legal troubles in Phase 2: none Utility-relocation problems in Phase 1: extensive Utility-relocation problems in Phase 1: none anticipated Phase 1 contractor: substandard and problematic. Phase 2 contractor: high-quality and proactive. Phase 1 storage facility: small but there were difficulties. Phase 2 maintenance facility: large. This is the only thing more involved in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Businesses along Phase 2 are no problem. They are on a month-to-month lease in the Metro-owned right-of-way and they will start to go away as soon as the contract is awarded (this Friday). Actually, no, on the contrary, Phase 2 is substantially less involved. Also, the originally planned date for Phase 1 was July 1, 2010, not 2009. Here is the breakdown of the two phases: The bridges in Phase 1: I-110, La Brea, La Cienega, Ballona Creek road bridge, Ballona Creek LRT bridge, and Washington/National bridge. Total: 6. Bridges in Phase 2: Venice (already underway), National/Palms, Motor, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy/Centinela, and Olympic. Total: 5.5 (Venice already underway). The bridges in Phase 2 are also much smaller and easy to design/construct. The National, Motor, Sawtelle structures are tiny compare to the mammoth bridges at La Brea, La Cienega, Ballona Creek, and Venice/Robertson. The only "big" bridge planned in Phase 2 is the Olympic crossing/Bundy station. We can add Sepulveda to the list of "big" bridge if the option is picked up. But otherwise I totally agree... Phase 2 should be much simpler in terms of construction. I agree that Phase 2 should be easier than Phase 1 -- and you omitted the Flower bridge rebuild over the Harbor Freeway, Gokhan -- but there will be some substantial work. The aerial structures Sepulveda*-Sawtelle-Pico (with aerial station over Sepulveda*), Bundy-Centinela (station over Bundy, and MSE walls from Bundy to Centinela like La Cienega to Jefferson), and Cloverfield-Olympic will be pretty big. (*Presuming the City of L.A. funds it, which appears the political consensus) And Colorado Street will be a rebuild of a lot of utilities for its one mile length, including major electrical vaults under Lincoln (a fire there blacked out downtown Santa Monica a few years ago). In terms of timing, foundation boring for the Culver City aerial begain in August, 2009 (photo below). That will be less than three years to opening of the line to Culver City about April, 2012. Even faster was that the final footings at La Cienega were installed about July, 2009 -- after DWP finally got the power lines down -- and that station will be ready for opening a little over two years later. It seems quite likely that bridge construction will begin on Phase 2 by early 2012, which should be in time for a 2015 opening.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 12:27:27 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS -- Expo Line Phase 2 final design and initial construction beginsThis Friday the Exposition Line Construction Authority Board of Directors will award the $547 million design - build contract, which includes the Sepulveda aerial station ($5.3 million more than at-grade station) and Westwood Station no-parking ($0.1 million less than parking) options, to the Skanska - Rados joint venture. The final design and initial construction will start virtually immediately. Expo Phase 2 design - build contract was negotiated at a price about $200 million cheaper than the Expo Phase 1 design - build contract, which cost around $750 million. Moreover, the Phase 2 contract has been negotiated at a fix price and there won't be frequent change orders bringing the price tag higher as in the Phase 1 contract, which had been separated into many small pieces that were negotiated over the life of the project, increasing the end cost substantially. Note that the Venice Boulevard light-rail bridge, Exposition/Stewart maintenance facility, and the Phase 2 bicycle and pedestrian multiuse path will be under different contracts, to be awarded in the future. The final design for the Venice Boulevard light-rail bridge has already been going on and an environmental study for the multiuse path is currently taking place. A notice to proceed for $127 million will be issued for the work anticipated during the first year of the project, some of which includes: - Mobilization of the design offices
- Design
- Rail, tie, overhead pole and wire purchase
- Utility work
- Right-of-way clearing and grading
After all these years, some will say since 1989, others will say since 1960s, the dream of bringing light-rail back to Santa Monica has finally become a reality! It's a really, really huge day to celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 15, 2011 13:04:44 GMT -8
Actually, no, on the contrary, Phase 2 is substantially less involved. Phase 1 -- even with the bridges, the trench, longer distance, extra stations, Blue Line tie-in -- will ultimately cost less than $1 billion. Phase 2 is budgeted for $1.3 billion. So why will Phase 2 cost so much more than Phase 1 if it is so much simpler? Now granted, land acquisition costs are going to be much higher for Phase 2. So let's just focus on construction. Phase 1 had a construction budget of $313k (YOE $), but Phase 2 has a construction budget of $515k (2008$). How is this possible if Phase 2 is so much simpler that Phase 1?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 13:15:11 GMT -8
Actually, no, on the contrary, Phase 2 is substantially less involved. Phase 1 -- even with the bridges, the trench, longer distance, extra stations, Blue Line tie-in -- will ultimately cost less than $1 billion. Phase 2 is budgeted for $1.3 billion. So why will Phase 2 cost so much more than Phase 1 if it is so much simpler? Now granted, land acquisition costs are going to be much higher for Phase 2. So let's just focus on construction. Phase 1 had a construction budget of $313k (YOE $), but Phase 2 has a construction budget of $515k (2008$). How is this possible if Phase 2 is so much simpler that Phase 1? Phase 2 has indeed less construction than Phase 1, as it can be seen in the contract prices. Phase 2 contract is about $200 million less than the Phase 1 contract, despite being about five years later (despite the cost of inflation). Note that the prices you are quoting are from EIRs and at different years, not the actual contract prices and therefore not meaningful numbers. The actual contract prices for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are about $750 million and $547 million, respectively. The project budget is $1.5 billion, not $1.3 billion. It includes about $200 million for LRVs as well. But the project budget is only inflated for PR purposes. After what happened in Phase 1, they want to have a budget surplus at the end instead of a budget deficit as in Phase 1. For example the actual cost of real estate is only around $75 million. I expect the actual overall cost of Phase 2 to be around $1 billion, only slightly more than Phase 1, even though it includes $200 million worth of LRVs (Phase 1 had no LRVs) and a maintenance facility, as well as significant real-estate purchases. Anyway, enough about the costs, it's time to celebrate!
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 15, 2011 13:15:28 GMT -8
Phenomenal news!!!! Yes, I knew Sepulveda was going to end up with a bridge..another grade seperation that will help speed up the train and prevent waiting at a light! Also, glad to hear the "no parking" option won for Westwood station. Let's encourage people to take the bus, walk or ride a bike!!! There's enough parking/asphalt in Los Angeles already!!!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 15, 2011 13:17:02 GMT -8
All great news! ;D ;D ;D I was especially surprised (but very happy) to read the news about Sepulveda/Expo - that the City of Los Angeles is considering paying the extra $5.3 million to grade-separate the crossing. For that relatively small cost, Metro will be able to enter the station at full speed, and the City will be able to avoid impacting one of its congested boulevards. Let's hope that goes through without a hitch.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 13:25:49 GMT -8
One thing you should remember, guys, is that gated crossings are in no way slower than grade-separated crossings. In fact, gated crossings are faster because there are no ramps. Trains don't slow down or wait at all at gated crossings. The reason people asked for grade separation at Sepulveda was traffic concerns, not train speeds. Time to celebrate!
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 15, 2011 13:55:36 GMT -8
One thing you should remember, guys, is that gated crossings are in no way slower than grade-separated crossings. In fact, gated crossings are faster because there are no ramps. Trains don't slow down or wait at all at gated crossings. The reason people asked for grade separation at Sepulveda was traffic concerns, not train speeds. Anyway, Gokhan maybe you know what happened with the " Colorado/4th Parallel Platform and South Side Parking" design option. This related to the angle at which Expo will cross Colorado and enter the terminal station in Santa Monica. According to the "project approval" agenda item from last February, this was supposed to be studied during PE. Did this get resolved?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 14:05:23 GMT -8
Anyway, Gokhan maybe you know what happened with the " Colorado/4th Parallel Platform and South Side Parking" design option. This related to the angle at which Expo will cross Colorado and enter the terminal station in Santa Monica. According to the "project approval" agenda item from last February, this was supposed to be studied during PE. Did this get resolved? I think the Colorado Avenue perpendicular-track option (for the station entrance) has long been discarded because it caused a lot of operational problems and Metro didn't want it. I also asked the authority about the Colorado Avenue track-narrowing (hence, parking-retention) option. This would require additional funds and is not in the base contract. The funds would have to come from Santa Monica. The same is true for the additional pedestrian crossings and station modifications Santa Monica is asking for. CPUC is also never happy about new pedestrian crossings.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Mar 15, 2011 15:03:25 GMT -8
With the aerial station at Sepulveda, will Expo cross over the 405?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 15:08:02 GMT -8
With the aerial station at Sepulveda, will Expo cross over the 405? Oh, no, that would have been a no - no and it would never be built in a residential area like this. There will be a station similar to La Brea Station centered at Sepulveda Blvd. The line would immediately dip under the rather high freeway bridge and then immediately rise and go over Sawtelle Blvd, which will be depressed so that there will be enough clearance. This depression will require some retaining walls at the Pico and Sawtelle intersection. The line will have a little bit of a roller-coaster ride there unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 15, 2011 17:30:56 GMT -8
This profile drawing from 2000 shows about how the track can go over three streets and under the high freeway bridge (shaded yellow). Note that the vertical scale is exaggerated, and its station would have been between Sawtelle and Sepulveda. I heard that an engineer used lengths of plastic pipe to measure how high the freeway bridge is, to see how this could fit.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 19:58:52 GMT -8
This profile drawing from 2000 shows about ... 2000? Did you even realize that it's eleven-year-old? LOL It just shows how long this project is overdue. But I am glad that the plan you posted above -- the Venice/Sepulveda Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park NIMBY diversion -- went into the trash to never see the daylight again (well, until you posted it back today . It's hard for many to realize how big a day this Friday is. It marks the successful end of 58 years of planning for the Expo Line! ;D
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 15, 2011 20:36:28 GMT -8
But I am glad that the plan you posted above -- the Venice/Sepulveda Cheviot Hills/Rancho Park NIMBY diversion -- went into the trash to never see the daylight again (well, until you posted it back today . Actually that 2000 Re-Evaluation / Major Investment Study Report route was on the right-of-way, before the Venice-Sepulveda detour was mandated by the MTA board for the 2001 Draft EIS/EIR.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 15, 2011 20:38:23 GMT -8
Can we really say Phase II construction is starting on Friday? Doesn't the notice to proceed have to be issued before anything can be started, although I suppose that could be issued Friday? Also, I assume they will have some sort of groundbreaking ceremony.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 15, 2011 20:50:00 GMT -8
Can we really say Phase II construction is starting on Friday? Doesn't the notice to proceed have to be issued before anything can be started, although I suppose that could be issued Friday? Also, I assume they will have some sort of groundbreaking ceremony. "The Authority will issue a Notice of Award (NOA) to the Skanska/Rados Expo 2 JV. Within 30 days of receipt of NOA, the Contractor will submit Payment and Performance Bonds and required Certificates of Insurance and Special Oversight Provisions. Once the Contractor has submitted the necessary documents, the CEO will issue the LNTP with conditions as defined in the Contract."This means that there is a 30-day deadline for the limited notice to proceed (LNTP) to be issued after Friday. I don't think it will take more than a week or two. We should see the official groundbreaking ceremony sometime in April. I am sure it will be held in Palms / Cheviot Hills.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 16, 2011 8:36:45 GMT -8
The Koretz-Rosendahl motion to grade-separate Expo at Sepulveda is scheduled to go before the L.A. City Council on Friday morning. The L.A. City Council meeting is on Friday at 10 AM, and the Expo Board meeting is on Friday at 2:30 PM. So in all likelihood, the grade-separation at Sepulveda will be a done deal by Friday afternoon. Relevant links: The following passage from the motion describes the purpose of the grade-separation ( emphasis added by me): The City prefers a grade separation at this location because Sepulveda Boulevard serves as an alternate route for the 1-405 Freeway and experiences periodic increases in traffic when freeway accidents occur. Dramatic increases in traffic volumes on Sepulveda Boulevard could cause extremely long traffic queues that would delay train operations on the LRT tracks. Additionally, LRT trains run more quickly and efficiently when they are separated from traffic operations on surface streets. Lastly, a grade separation would avoid the loss of 49 high demand on-street parking spaces that currently serve businesses and residences along Sepulveda Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 16, 2011 9:53:11 GMT -8
Very good motion and totally worth the $5 million extra dollars! Wish all grade seperations were that cost effective!!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Mar 16, 2011 11:19:16 GMT -8
Very good motion and totally worth the $5 million extra dollars! Wish all grade seperations were that cost effective!! Note that $5.3 million is not the cost of grade separation. It's the cost difference between grade separation and street widening, which would require significant land acquisition and street reconstruction. The actual cost is probably around $30 million.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 18, 2011 9:13:23 GMT -8
The Los Angeles City Council meeting today just began. Item #33 is key to whether the Sepulveda bridge is funded or not: 09-1295-S2
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF MOTION (KORETZ - ROSENDAHL - HAHN) relative to providing funding for the construction of a grade separation of the Exposition Light Rail Line at Sepulveda Boulevard.
Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:
1. AUTHORIZE the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) to transfer up to $5.3 million from the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program, Fund No. 681, into a new account within Fund No. 681, to fund the cost differential of the construction of a grade separation of the Exposition Light Rail Line at Sepulveda Boulevard, as shown in the project's Final Environmental Impact Report and the preliminary engineering documents, in order to provide the safest, most efficient grade crossing treatment at this location.
2. DIRECT the LADOT to:
a. Work with the Exposition Construction Authority to develop the necessary funding agreement that identifies the terms of this commitment and a payment schedule.
b. In consultation with the City Administrative Officer, continue to pursue all other available funding sources for this project, subject to Council approval.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 18, 2011 10:48:35 GMT -8
Wow, it's nearly noon and they haven't yet gotten to the agenda items yet. They just finished "Presentations and Proclamations", and now are in non-agenda public comment.
Sorry for the OT rant, but jeez these people know how to waste time.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 18, 2011 11:06:17 GMT -8
Item #33 just passed with "11 ayes". On the vote roll I saw Parks, Smith, Wesson, and Zine shaded darker - meaning absent?
It was preceded by two public comments (Dr. Clyde Williams and Arnold Sachs). I didn't notice any council discussion on it before that.
So the $5.3 million will be there.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Mar 18, 2011 12:20:16 GMT -8
On the vote roll I saw Parks, Smith, Wesson, and Zine shaded darker - meaning absent? I think Smith and Wesson were busy at the firing range. LOL For whatever reason, those four councilmembers did not vote on the item. The vote was 11-0-4. Next up: the Expo Board vote. This will not be streaming on the Internet, so anybody who goes, we thank you in advance for the report.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Mar 18, 2011 14:58:57 GMT -8
The Sepulveda bridge and Westwood no-parking both passed the Expo board this afternoon unanimously on separate motions.
|
|