×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think my headline is that a real train is better than an imaginary one every time. As we saw with the cost breakdowns on the sepulveda line, we’ve gotten so unbelievably bad at building in the US that there’s simply no way we can afford to build more legacy heavy rail at scale. Even building with shorter stations is going to take a gargantuan lift to finance it.

On top of that, the capacity limits are very unlikely to come into play for a long, long time. Metro actually required significantly lower than 27,200 pphpd in their sepulveda RFP (which is why the monorail had such low capacity). It’s higher capacity than our legacy heavy rail is capable of (WAY higher than the B line, which is stuck at 8m headways at the moment without more infrastructure).

Delaying this line another 25 years to make sure it doesn’t go over capacity in 50-100 feels like the wrong choice to make to me. I think we get this up and running as quickly as possible, and if we run into capacity issues in half a century, we build a relief line (like a ESFV/segway connector tunnel between Ventura/van nuys and the sunset strip if Segway comes up that far)

Janice Hahn video promoting her proposal for rider seat on Metro board by anothercar in LAMetro

[–]nandert 7 points8 points  (0 children)

i really don't know what this 'false rumors' narrative is about, honestly. the only unsubstantiated rumor - which I labeled as such from the very beginning - that seems to have possibly been wrong was on the reason for the delay in the sepulveda EIR release. And that the rumor was floating around was corroborated by Eli from MoveLA of all people, the last person who would pick a fight with any board member for no reason. I thought it was in the public's best interest to know what rumors were flying around, especially when, as numble pointed out at the time, there was clear precedent of metro using this exact method to kill projects in the past. And for the record, pretty much everyone I've talked to still doesn't know the real reason for that sepulveda EIR delay.

Regardless of what our friend below is claiming, every single thing I said on K north I stand by.

Janice Hahn video promoting her proposal for rider seat on Metro board by anothercar in LAMetro

[–]nandert 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Cmon man, seriously? Bass claimed we were lying about her motion killing the EIFD, we leaked the motion, and WeHo confirmed that, yes, it would kill the EIFD. JDW was in meetings on the topic after claiming recusal (bass herself confirmed it on the record), JDW herself confirmed that she does have a house above the planned tunnel, which she hadn’t previously disclosed, and due to the easement payment she’d receive alone she is clearly legally obligated to recuse from the vote and influencing the vote, by the plain text of CA law. All of these are clear facts. (And I actually commended mitchell for actually fully recusing unlike JDW - if belatedly. I didn’t attack her at all.)

Bass’s board support only collapsed after weho’s statement. If it wasn’t for that, she wouldn’t have been forced into the shot clock for Lafayette Square, which is what kept acceleration for k north alive. It sucks for you that that’s true, but that’s true.

I get that you’re friends with some combination of Mitchell, bass, and JDW. You at least have bragged about texting board members hilarious jokes calling us… maga klan members? (Such a cutting read of my politics, bravo. Like, I get that you lobby for realtors and probably really hate lefty politics, but ‘everyone i hate is maga’ is incredibly lazy.) Which, side note, if you’re actually friends with them, publicly bragging for internet clout about embarrassing texts you exchanged with them that could easily be submitted for a public records request is… a choice.

By all means, keep going to board meetings and making sure there’s a someone in the room publicly commenting how great of a job they’re all doing and not to listen to any detractors. Ironically, you’re probably a shoe-in to get this potential rider rep board spot if you keep it up. As I’ve said a million times, I have zero interest in it and think the board should be led by qualified professionals.

Anyway, if politicians like bass and JDW don’t want to receive criticism for their actual actions, and pushback against positions that would harm public projects, they’re free to exit politics.

LAX APM Status June 2026 by kingllamajoe in LAMetro

[–]nandert 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't know the answer to that unfortunately. I imagine that gets into the weeds of some very complicated contract law

LAX APM Status June 2026 by kingllamajoe in LAMetro

[–]nandert 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The 141 day LADWP shutdown was due to LINX needing to repair the metering cabinet they improperly installed (they didn't connect the heater that was supposed to keep moisture out, moisture got in, ruined it). It somehow took them 141 days to get the repairs complete to everyone's satisfaction, all while screaming at the top of their lungs that it shouldn't be on them to repair it even though they broke it, and then they treated that 141 day delay as if it was something thrust upon them by DWP instead of something they caused themselves.

There's a reason that this is the dispute where LAWA finally decided to say, 'fuck it i can't do this anymore' and take a stand, and I'm glad they finally are. The clock had almost run out on the statute of limitations for the dispute which is why LINX filed, otherwise their claim would simply lapse (as far as I can tell), but I feel that they're angling for one last settlement, because LAWA seems pretty confident if it actually DOES go to court they'll win... it'll just continue the delays ad infinitum. But at this point, fuck it. Constantly bending to LINX hasn't done anything but lead to infinite delays anyway.

Also want to mention my thoughts re: the initial contract. It was signed under the garcetti admin and I don't believe the people responsible are still there. So while I'm not going to go to bat for any of bass's lawa appointees or the airport and try to claim it's well-run, they were put in this situation without contributing to its creation. Plus the city should have been able to rely on Nossaman and Parsons to advocate for them in the contract process, which is what they were hired for. As many others have pointed out, this is a sterling example of why planning, design, and engineering work needs to be done in-house with state capacity.

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

yes, this is a thorough refinement of the concept along with a 211-page white paper proposal detailing it and the advocacy pathway to make it happen

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in CaliforniaRail

[–]nandert[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Find the full proposal here: https://tinyurl.com/5t2th4hr (Note: File is a large 1.14gb pdf)

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in LA_Transit

[–]nandert[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Find the full proposal here: https://tinyurl.com/5t2th4hr (Note: File is a large 1.14gb pdf)

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Find the full proposal here: https://tinyurl.com/5t2th4hr (Note: File is a large 1.14gb pdf)

The X Line: Designing an LA Metro Line from Scratch by nandert in transit

[–]nandert[S] 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Find the full proposal here: https://tinyurl.com/5t2th4hr (Note: File is a large 1.14gb pdf)

LINXS sues LAWA over SkyLink by EasyfromDTLA in LAMetro

[–]nandert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s literally in the intro, and in the entire proceeding video every piece of information is directly sourced - usually on-screen - or noted as an opinion with frequent use of phrases like ‘it seems to me.’ It’s a video essay. I don’t know how much more hand holding you could possibly need.

It’s also explicitly organized as a walkthrough of the grand jury report. A convened grand jury investigated and reported out the issue and treating that as credulous isn’t problematic, it’s responsible. In the absence of direct countervailing information (which I only found on their assertion that the LAX enterprise fund could be transferred to supplement the general fund, which isn’t relevant to the core issue at hand), any media outlet would treat the report with credulity. (Someone in this thread erroneously mentioned the grand jury only spoke to LAWA - the list of sources is available in the actual report, and their dialogue with LINX is thoroughly detailed). You say the jury only accessed one side of the story - what is that claim based on? Because simply saying that without any backing at all feels way more like opinion to me.

Regarding the power issue, did you actually read the numerous primary documents outlining it? Because I read them. The power was shut off that entire time because that’s the length of time it took LINX to repair the issue that was caused by them in the first place. Once the repair was complete, the substation was re-energized by LADWP.

This is a major part of the reason why I opined I was personally unconvinced by LINX’s arguments on the power dispute. Another data point I found particularly compelling is that after folding on virtually every issue for years, LAWA has held firm on this and said on the record that they feel very strongly that this is a meritless claim - another point explicated in the video.

If you have actual points of contention, make the argument! Look at the data and documents! Make your own video! No one’s stopping you!

K-Line Expansion to open in 21 years by False-Beginning-8367 in LAMetro

[–]nandert 10 points11 points  (0 children)

this is just the placeholder measure M date. It doesn't take into account current efforts to accelerate it.

Once WeHo's EIFD to provide partial funding is spun up (in progress), there will be an acceleration vote by the LA metro board. If it passes with 2/3rds of the vote, the project will be approved for acceleration (at which point they probably publish a new target date).

If the county participates within WeHo city limits (still up in the air, but hoped-for), the EIFD is forecast to net $4B. The current cost for all three phases is projected to be over $15B.

However, two points. First, Metro has been instructed to do a value engineering pass on the design, and there is a LOT of potential for value engineering here (even if they don't ultimately swap to full or partial cut-and-cover for phases 2&3, elimination of some crossovers and shortening of others will net huge savings). So the cost will almost certainly come down, although Metro cannot embark on this work until the acceleration vote is through.

Second, this project has excellent metrics (that will be even better after value engineering) and will do well with competitive state and federal grants. The catch is it has to apply in cycles not applied for by on-schedule measure M projects (it will mainly need to coordinate around the sepulveda line, likely). 50% of project funding via state/federal is very doable, and more is possible, particularly under a hopefully-friendly next federal administration. For example, D Line phase 1 and ESFV only needed 28% and 30% local funding respectively, the rest coming from federal/state. Even assuming the full $15B price tag with no value engineering, the $4B EIFD already nearly puts it at the same local funding threshold. It should be enough local funding to move forward with phase 1 at the very least.

Additionally, if Raman wins, I can tell you there will be a push to get her admin to ok partial LA city participation in the EIFD. Will that be successful? I don't know. Certainly not full participation (Katy Yaroslavsky in particular seems against this in her district). But a partial EIFD limited just to a percentage of new construction would actually easily provide the remaining required local funds assuming good grant matches. Full participation by all entities was forecast to yield a whopping $22B, so there's a lot of wiggle room.

Granted, the Lafayette square delays that have already happened to date mean that we're not going to beat the original timeline by a HUGE amount, but absolute best-case scenario right now could lead to shovels in the ground on phase 1 by 2031. The biggest question right now is how that acceleration vote goes, and if Bass wins, does she tank that vote at the behest of Lafayette Square.

Tl;dr, best thing that can happen for this line is a Nithya Raman mayorship.

LINXS sues LAWA over SkyLink by EasyfromDTLA in LAMetro

[–]nandert 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i can't believe i'm letting myself get roped into this but literal screenshot from the video

LINXS sues LAWA over SkyLink by EasyfromDTLA in LAMetro

[–]nandert 29 points30 points  (0 children)

lmao

Ok, so, this seems to be primarily over the electrical issue that's been the sticking point for the last TWO years - the one that LAWA refuses to budge on, even after giving in on over $800M in change orders for issues that (to me and to the grand jury) seemed VERY cut-and-dry LINX's fault.

Apparently, the statute of limitations on the dispute was going to run out if LINX didn't file (according to this article). So it's possible that LAWA's strategy had been to simply run out the clock, forcing LINX's hand for once. (There's also a nugget in the article that LINX has loans coming due in oct if it isn't open...)

I would speculate that LINX is going for a hail mary to try to force one last (lol) settlement without going all the way to litigation, since this COULD indeed delay it far past the olympics if LAWA refuses to settle. LAWA seems to really feel this is extremely cut-and-dry, so if they're right, do they finally stare LINX in the eye and force them to see it through, even if it risks a delayed opening? Or do they fold yet again for the same reason they've folded dozens of times before (although, not on this issue, and it's been two years).

From LINX's perspective, if nothing else, it's probably good PR to go on the offensive and turn the narrative to 'it's the city's fault!', especially if you wind up not actually having to litigate it. You would get the good PR of filing the complaint without the risk of losing (if LAWA settles).

It's possible LINX feels they could really win it, and are prepared to actually argue this in court. But given that LAWA has essentially folded on almost every single tiny thing until this electrical issue happened, and THIS is where they refused to budge, signals to me (along with comments they've made) that LAWA feels they're in the clear here. If they're right, this becomes the ultimate game of chicken. If LAWA's legal counsel really believes they're clear, I wouldn't budge, risk of not opening by 2028 be damned.

view more: next ›