Has Metro Lost Its Train of Thought? (Source: CityWatch)

Link: CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall - Has Metro Lost Its Train of Thought?

Moving LA
By Ken Alpern
Has Metro Lost Its Train of Thought?

In the aftermath of Proposition R and a more transit-friendly federal governmental shift, Metro is now wrestling with several challenges that will determine how successful this new burst of transportation spending will be for LA County. Now, more than ever, Metro is enabled by funding and opportunity and must do the right thing by its taxpaying constituents.

Challenge #1:

The first big news item that many readers are probably aware of is the decision of Metro to proceed forward with a huge train-building contract with Ansaldobreda…a train-building firm from Italy that ought to rename itself as Bait-and-Switch-a because of its horrific track record of making promises and building trains, and then not coming through either with the promises or trains built to proper specifications.

Currently, there are a slew of trains built for Metro that are thousands of pounds overweight (maybe Ansaldobreda thought they’d be a better fit for us overweight Americans?) and which must be reconstructed to avoid wearing down our light rail systems.

However, Ansaldobreda also has promised a hefty line of credit and money to make up for its past boo-boos and to correctly build the 100 new trains needed by Metro. Although it’s not supposed to influence the Metro Board vote also promised to build a large train-building plant in L.A. that could be a source of jobs and economic benefit to the county.

Still, this vote went against repeated and public opposition by past CEO Roger Snoble and current CEO Art Leahy, and the final 8-3 vote had as opponents Santa Monica Councilmember Pam O’Connor, County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and Lakewood City Councilmember Diane DuBois. No political or ideological or geographic bloc there, and methinks their vote was based on good economics and policies.

I recognize that Mayor Villaraigosa is ambitious and sincere about establishing LA as a source of “green jobs”, and I do hope he’s going to follow through on the very strict set of financial requirements that Ansaldobreda has been held to. This could either be a great opportunity or a horrible boondoggle for LA.

To the Mayor and the others who voted for Ansaldobreda, I hope you’re tough on them and demand peer review and outright transparency with the firm with whom CEO Leahy expressed so many concerns. To Ansaldobreda, I wish you the best of luck as you attempt to turn over a new leaf...but we’re WATCHING you!


Challenge #2:

The second big news item that many readers might be aware of is the decision of Metro to proceed forward with two projects for potential federal funding: the Downtown Light Rail Connector and the Wilshire Subway.

The Connector links all four current and future light rail projects that access downtown to each other: the Blue, Expo, Pasadena Gold and Eastside Gold Lines, as well as establishing a link to Bunker Hill and Downtown L.A. in locations that the Red Line Subway doesn’t access very well. The Wilshire Subway will proceed west to the Fairfax District, Century City, Westwood and the 405 (maybe even Santa Monica someday).

Contrary to popular thinking, the federal government is frightfully strict about cost-effectiveness for rail lines (particularly during the last presidential administration), and will demand they be cheap and with high ridership. The Wilshire Subway and Downtown Light Rail Connector are projected to have a whole lotta riders per dollar and mile of rail, so they’re our best bet for the competitive federal process.

Other sorely-needed Metro priorities include the Expo, Crenshaw and Foothill Gold Lines, but these either have too-low projected ridership or they’re too expensive for federal funding (one of the reasons why Metro is always trying to cut corners and build them on the cheap with insufficient parking and fewer grade-separations than otherwise desired by the general public).

Still, Metro has been trying to figure out its Long Range Transportation Plan, which is an ambitious one that includes Expo, Crenshaw, Foothill Gold, the Downtown Connector and the Wilshire Subway in the next 5-10 years—and its decision to fund the first three with local/state dollars and the last two with local/federal dollars might actually get the job done.

It was Metro staff that recommended pursuing federal dollars for the Subway and Connector, and I’m glad that the Metro Board followed their advice. Now if only the state could do its part…


Challenge #3:

After many years of awaiting the first Mid-City phase of the Expo Line to Culver City in 2010, we now learn that the best we can hope for is to have the line reach Crenshaw in 2010 and Culver City in 2011. It’s indeed possible that it won’t reach Culver City until 2012.

While it’s not the end of the world to have construction projects be late (as those of us next to the 405 widening project can truly attest), but it’s the reasons why the Expo Line is late that get us on edge—particularly when we set up an Expo Line Authority to expedite its construction.

Utility replacement and technical problems (not helped by DWP delays) are understandable slow-downs that everyone should recognize. The Jefferson undercrossing near USC and the bridgework at La Brea and La Cienega reveal how tough (and expensive!) it can be to grade-separate light rail.

Yet incompetence, greediness, and delays by the contractors are ones that should have been foreseen by otherwise-respected veteran Rick Thorpe (Expo Authority CEO) and the assigned Boardmembers who oversee this process. Labor and materials are now amazingly cheap in today’s economic slowdown, and any “come to Jesus” talks with, or replacement of, the contractors should have occurred much sooner than it did.

While the Farmdale/Dorsey legal challenges took up a great deal of time and energy for the Authority staff, it shouldn’t have prevented them from leaning on the contractors at the same time. The Authority Board hired CEO Thorpe to multitask, and the burden is on him to “bust a move” to get that project to Culver City in 2011.

The Authority staff members (including Steve Polechronis and Gabriella Collins, the duo I’ve most worked with) really have deserved props for making themselves available for presentations and outreach to the general public—all one ever need do is ask. I really do think they will succeed in building a first-rate Expo Line.

So here’s a final suggestion for the Authority Board and staff, as well as for all tasked with a major infrastructure construction project: demand that all contractors have the same face time with the general public as any staff members, and that they be well-acquainted with those who are ultimately paying their salary and fees.

We all deserve to know that our rail projects will be financially, technically and politically on track!

(Ken Alpern is a Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC) and is both co-chair of the MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee and past co-chair of the MVCC Planning Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and also chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at Alpern@MarVista.org.This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.) ◘




CityWatch
Vol 7 Issue 81
Pub: Oct 2, 2009