Metro may seek the help of private companies in planning one of Los Angeles’s most anticipated public transportation projects: a rail route through the notoriously congested Sepulveda Pass.
This month, the agency’s Board of Directors will consider whether to allow staff to negotiate pre-development agreements allowing private contractors to participate in the project’s early design process, and eventually to submit bids for its construction.
The agency received three proposals from private companies in 2016 suggesting ways to speed up the project’s construction. The details of those proposals are confidential, but a staff report indicates that two of them would require the agency to team up with an outside contractor to plan, construct, and possibly even operate the rail line.
Metro already contracts with outside companies to construct major projects, but a public-private partnership like this would give a single contractor far more control over the design and buildout of all aspects of a new rail line.
The report notes that Metro will likely enter into pre-development agreements with two contractors, as the agency is considering two distinct modes of travel for the project.
In January, Metro announced it would pursue one of four potential project proposals: three heavy rail routes and one monorail system. The agency has two heavy rail lines already in service—the Red and Purple lines—but a monorail would be unprecedented in Los Angeles County.
All options would cost a great deal and would require a significant amount of time to construct. Under the Measure M project schedule, approved by LA voters in 2016, the new transit connection between Van Nuys and Westwood would open in 2033. But the agency’s directors aim to complete the rail line sooner, and included it on a list of 28 projects that could be completed in time for the 2028 Olympics.
The staff report suggests that partnering with an outside contractor could allow Metro to capitalize on “private sector efficiencies” and to manage risks stemming from an “accelerated schedule.”
If the board allows staff to pursue a pre-development agreement, the agency aims to select contractors by next year. A final project design isn’t expected to be locked in place until 2023.
Comments
"private sector efficiencies" Basically Metro is too incompetent and inefficient to get it done on time and under budget.
By LADude on 07.16.19 3:18pm
Except that’s not what happened with any of Metro’s other projects. Sounds to me more like the problem is the NIMBYs.
By MarvinG on 07.16.19 4:05pm
"Except that’s not what happened with any of Metro’s other projects." Except that your statement is completely false. Most of their major projects have been over budget and not completed on time.
Expo Line = over budget and not completed on time
Purple line extension = budget increased for a third time
Crenshaw line = cost overruns and budget increase forthcoming and will not be completed on time
405 corridor expansion = over budget and completed more than one year after scheduled
By LADude on 07.17.19 9:44am
Meh… road projects are no different.
By corner soul on 07.17.19 10:12am
And there’s no more room for roads, and little that another lane will do anyway. Some gap closing might help (La Brea or La Cienega between LAX and the 10) and the LB Fwy through NIMBYville.
Other than fixes, the long-term answer has to be rail, and LA should be building subways like Pat Brown built freeways. The real slowdown is an EIR system that ignores the environmental impact of doing nothing.
By caseym54 on 07.17.19 3:35pm
Big infrastructure projects usually go over budget and take longer to build, but that is expected. However, the Gold Line to East L.A. was under budget and built sooner than expected.
By mrxman on 07.17.19 2:23pm
How many crossing separations did they eliminate to get there?
By caseym54 on 07.17.19 3:36pm
Don’t disagree, but the main problem is that private companies in general are able to deliver major infrastructure projects much easier than public agencies, due to the network of regulations and incentives in this state that benefit the capitalist class. The process for transit agencies delivering projects must be streamlined, democratized and deprivatized as much as possible. LA can’t accept the whims of the private sector dictating the city’s transit needs, or afford them getting their healthy cut off the backs of taxpayers.
By mittim80 on 07.17.19 10:39am
Uh, – what happened with that private toll road down in OC?
By landscape_vision on 07.17.19 12:25pm
[citation needed]
By TheMarketSoftener on 07.17.19 12:30pm
Do your own research, "market softener." That’s how it works in this country, and you know it quite well.
By mittim80 on 07.17.19 1:20pm
He’s calling you out on your B.S.
By mrxman on 07.17.19 2:25pm
.
By Julian Hanes on 07.17.19 10:50pm
Why this city doesn’t already have monorails going everywhere is beyond me. Cheaper to build than heavy rail and a tourist draw too!
By MartyinLA on 07.16.19 4:16pm
You have to put the posts in the ground for monorail. You need land for that and that certainly doesn’t exist on Wilshire.
The Crenshaw Line could go north on La Brea and be above ground, but my guess is that it will get a lot of opposition.
By LA Denizen on 07.16.19 4:21pm
That would indeed be great. Not sure what the earthquake vulnerability is for that vs. building underground.
By Partymuscles on 07.16.19 4:30pm
How would you have liked to have been riding a monorail thru downtown Ridgecrest when the 7.2 broke loose two weeks ago? If the elevated guiderail had managed to remain standing, how long would you have had to sit and wait until you and fellow passengers could be rescued? How long could you have sat there without shitting/pissing you pants? How long would it have taken to rebuild/repair the elevated infrastructure?
Mexico City’s subway system was up and operating the very next day following the great October ’85 earthquake.
By landscape_vision on 07.16.19 9:58pm
Why is it that the same people outcrying about how building subways in an earthquake-prone city is "dangerous" are also crying out for this to be a monorail? It’s almost as if the public stopped thinking.
By Infinite3Ent on 07.17.19 9:11am
The American public didn’t stop thinking; they never thought in the first place.
By Greyvagabond on 07.17.19 11:11am
JabbaSaurus Rex sitting in the Oval Office is proof positive.
By landscape_vision on 07.17.19 12:26pm
Seems like the Disneyland monorail has done just fine with many earthquakes close by. BTW, they do have emergency access in cases where people have to get off of monorails just like they do with subways.
By mrxman on 07.17.19 2:29pm
Monorails’ low capacity makes them unsuitable for widespread use in a built-up city. If you tried to fit everyone that rides the red line on dinky little monorail trains… well, you wouldn’t
By mittim80 on 07.17.19 10:41am
The monorail trains are about the same size as our light rail trains. I’ve been to the one in Vegas and it’s comparable to the Gold Line and Expo line trains I’ve ridden.
By mrxman on 07.17.19 2:31pm
The monorail system idea was actually very popular in the 60’s and 70’s. The 90’s brought the idea back in full force when plans for LA’s new rail system were brought back up but Mayor Bradley opposed the ideas of any lifted track system saying it would be prone to terrorist attacks and could potentially crumble during earthquakes. (He also opposed the idea of a Disneyland style "People Mover" in the 70’s. Personally, if you look at many of the monorail systems throughout the world in theme parks and in urban metropolitan areas, you’ll see that modern monorail systems are actually very efficient.
By subaruwrx on 07.17.19 12:38pm
Monorail hasn’t been implemented as an sustainable, standalone network in any context, except at theme parks and in the small German city of Wuppertal (which hasn’t been extended since opening in 1903). They’re usefulness is as circulators in small, insular communities. Show me an example of a whole city or busy commuter corridor relying on monorail- and I don’t want LA to be that ill-fated example.
By mittim80 on 07.17.19 1:49pm