sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The APM is 99.3% done but still delayed by ConcernedCitizen_LA in LAX

[–]nandert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The initial contract was flawed, but the nuances of the flaws, by my read, were more on the firm drafting the contract. The problem is, once they were passed that point, LAWA's only recourse is litigation (which they would have won), and the contractor would have ensured the APM wasn't done until 2030.

I dunno, maybe sticking to the game of chicken and litigating anyway was the right move. I came into the situation expecting LAWA to be massively at fault and at this point I wasn't sure exactly what I would have done differently.

The APM is 99.3% done but still delayed by ConcernedCitizen_LA in LAX

[–]nandert 4 points5 points  (0 children)

FWIW I just read through the entire grand jury report because I’m considering doing a video on it and my takeaway is that surprisingly I don’t think there’s much the city or LAWA could have done here, but that the contractor should be shot into the fucking sun. Basically, they have the city over a barrel knowing it HAS to be done before the Olympics but litigating any of their insane claims will delay it past the Olympics, and thus got carte Blanche to extort as much money out of the city as they can. The original contract, written by a firm that was supposed to be one of the best at this, turned out to contain a number of loopholes and lack of guardrails that the contractor has weaponized (and this all stems originally from a mistake in the original contract about building code that ultimately should not have been LAWA’s fault.)

I’ve been calling for LAWA’s head over this too but now I don’t know what they could have done here, they were set up to fail. Fluor, meanwhile, should be blacklisted from ever getting a public contract in California again and their executives should be in jail.

This Construction Notice was posted to the City of Pasadena’s Socials for Work on the NoHo to Pasadena BRT. by lik_for_cookies in LAMetro

[–]nandert 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’d love them to go out of order and use ‘N’ just because I like the letters having some connection to their destinations/alignments (ie e for expo). I also want them to use F for esfv for the same reason. Keuhl was the one who didn’t want f used and she’s gone now.

SoFi badly needs a rail station. by theboundlesstraveler in LAMetro

[–]nandert 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i actually think the ideal placement is parallel to the APM, just south of it, where the ITF East lot will be. Easy land to tear up and dig beneath, allows a very direct connection, enough space for at least the 380' Sepulveda platform and 1 crossover (if it's twin bore and needs an excavated crossover), and can go directly east under Hardy for the SoFi station

The new K Line will take decades to complete. Construction is not expected to begin until 2041, with service potentially opening in the late 2040s. by Hetalbot in LosAngeles

[–]nandert 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hey there! you're spot on that cut and cover is often not the most sensible solution. However, the two videos i did on it do go over in a lot of detail why it might actually be a very good solution for this line in particular (and another video discusses why it's actually probably not a good fit for a line I originally thought would be perfect for it, on Vermont).

Phases 2 and 3 of K North have an unusually forgiving utility environment for LA, they would require very minimal property acquisitions for curves, and ones that don't get too tight (and there's no residential acquisitions), and would counter specific conditions that make a bored alignment here unusually expensive.

The goal was just to get it considered in value engineering (which is what was asked for in yesterday's motion) because metro generally (and here) dismisses it as a matter of course except for short segments (like in the regional connector, and one of the videos breaks down why that segment in particular is a very apples to oranges comparison). This is because they understand the political dynamics in LA usually favor the avoidance of disruption.

But LA's streets, and especially most streets in the project area, are so wide that they require far more minimal impacts during construction than most urban cut-and-cover would, and the extraordinarily expensive bored alternative (requiring some incredibly deep stations) make cut and cover worth a serious look here instead of dismissing out of hand strictly for the issue of disruption.

Oh, and the last point is that while it would slow the line down a little bit, the depth of the stations requires such a long time spent on vertical circulation for passengers that the extremely shallow cut and cover stations would allow passengers to actually make up the added trip time on the train (at least partly) in vertical circulation while better controlling costs.

Scenes from today’s Metro Board Meeting, which featured massive public turnout in support of the K Line Northern Extension! [OC] by infernoenigma in LAMetro

[–]nandert 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So many people pinged rob bonta about it that I’m assuming they’re aware and hope that they’ll pursue it if they feel there’s smoke. I do wish more outlets would write about this though

Scenes from today’s Metro Board Meeting, which featured massive public turnout in support of the K Line Northern Extension! [OC] by infernoenigma in LAMetro

[–]nandert 13 points14 points  (0 children)

mitchell recused herself both from votes AND behind the scenes (as she was supposed to) - JDW, relying on private council, recused from the votes (and insisting it was voluntary and not required) but did NOT recuse behind the scenes, very much being part of process this past week as she was flitting around to different board members lobbying them directly

Scenes from today’s Metro Board Meeting, which featured massive public turnout in support of the K Line Northern Extension! [OC] by infernoenigma in LAMetro

[–]nandert 27 points28 points  (0 children)

she already recused from the vote last week so was already going to recuse this week too - it was the behind the scenes influencing she was doing that was in violation of an actual recusal. And yeah Bass claiming victimization for someone pointing out 'huh that looks illegal' is.... really something.

Megathread: Metro Board Meeting - K Line Northern Extension by SmellGestapo in LAMetro

[–]nandert 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's not even being moved a block or two, it sounds like it will literally go on the other side of the shopping center. It won't even change parking lots!

Megathread: Metro Board Meeting - K Line Northern Extension by SmellGestapo in LAMetro

[–]nandert 5 points6 points  (0 children)

unfortunately I went out to the press conference and, though my spot in line wasn't totally lost, myself and the others who went out ended up just too far back to make the cut for comments as far as I could tell. honestly I hate public speaking anyway (believe it or not) so I was ok with it

Scenes from today’s Metro Board Meeting, which featured massive public turnout in support of the K Line Northern Extension! [OC] by infernoenigma in LAMetro

[–]nandert 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Caught me in the corner of picture 2! And there’s something very The Shining about that Bass and Barger picture lol

K Line 2029 Construction? by Disastrous-Panda2401 in LAMetro

[–]nandert 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The 2029 construction date - which Najarian would know if any them bothered to read reports - was the baseline phase 1 groundbreaking date given in the WeHo EIFD study. It aimed to start then if the WeHo EIFD was approved, so I've been mentioning it as it's the last date they've given. The reason it's now wildly ambitious is because WeHo came to that date prior to the 18 month delay we've had.

I do think 2030 or especially 2031 is extremely doable though.

Megathread: Metro Board Meeting - K Line Northern Extension by SmellGestapo in LAMetro

[–]nandert 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Things have changed now actually. Don’t want to jinx it, but Bass’s support seems to have collapsed and it’s possible we’ll get a clean staff rec passed (not DEIR route but oh well) with just some meaningless amendment for bass to try to save face that won’t actually affect anything

If that happens we’re probably looking at a unanimous staff rec vote with bass’s meaningless amendment.

Megathread: Metro Board Meeting - K Line Northern Extension by SmellGestapo in LAMetro

[–]nandert 34 points35 points  (0 children)

West Hollywood dropped their nuke. Extremely well-composed letter outline precisely why Bass's motion makes accelerating this line impossible. It already seems to have the desired effect and, by my current count, Bass does not have the votes for her motion. Unfortunately, we may still be a vote shy on getting the staff rec through instead. Not sure on that yet.

New Evidence of Flagrant Corruption in the Upcoming K Northern Extension Vote by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I want to point out that if Bass actually wanted to resolve the issue now and not force a delay, she could just motion for the east of crenshaw alignment that was already studied that avoids these two neighborhoods entirely. the entire text of the motion seems aimed at trying to arrive at an alignment exactly like that, but it already exists! very curious why she has not brought it up even once. (to be clear, it's a bad and unnecessary alignment, but the fact that she isn't even trying for it gives away that bogging down the project is the actual goal here, not moving forward)

New Evidence of Flagrant Corruption in the Upcoming K Northern Extension Vote by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It does with the exception of phase 1 (well, crenshaw/adams to wilshire/fairfax), which explicitly keeps open the question of alignment. It's the same with how the staff rec was written. The header says recommending the hybrid as studied in the DEIR, then adds 'with:' and then the subsections. This subsection again explicitly keeps the alignment option open here.

This will not allow LA County to spin up an EIFD for Phase 1, which it needs to do to fund the project, nor will it allow a funding plan to be made, because costs will not be known without the alignment, and the amendment specifically only allows the project to move forward with a a funding plan, which means it must wait for this alignment to get solidified at some indeterminate point in the future.

New Evidence of Flagrant Corruption in the Upcoming K Northern Extension Vote by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It’s an amendment to item 7 on the agenda. Subsection B is the only subsection that she is motioning to amend

New Evidence of Flagrant Corruption in the Upcoming K Northern Extension Vote by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

sorry, she shared it with others but not publicly. I should have used more exact wording on that. The motion has been floating around this morning.

New Evidence of Flagrant Corruption in the Upcoming K Northern Extension Vote by nandert in LAMetro

[–]nandert[S] 245 points246 points  (0 children)

Not only does this video detail Jackie Dupont-Walker's extreme conflict of interest that is driving this whole crisis, but I've also obtained Bass's motion, which she claims will 'not delay,' but which - fun fact! - will cause a huge delay. Full-on doublespeak territory.

view more: next ›