I just realized something insane - the Southeast Gateway line is expected to cost nearly $9 billion dollars. That's for a 19.3 mile line mostly within it's own right of way (other than in Downtown). $466 million per mile for a light rail line in its own right of way!!! For comparison, the 15.2 mile Expo line cost $2.5 billion, or $164 million per mile. that is a 280% cost inflation over roughly a decade.
Our politicians HAVE to do something to get these costs under control or we will never build out a real transit system. Back when the expo line was being built, $9 billion would have been considered a massive infusion of money that could fund the buildout of 3 core trunks of our system. Now it is just going to build one light rail line in its own right of way. This should be a 5 alarm fire and the only thing Metro is talking about. Instead, our politicians are just acting like this is normal and looking for more sources of money. VOTE THEM ALL OUT!
We had SB 445 that initially was supposed to impose shotclocks on local agencies and utility companies to approve their construction projects, and ban betterments (legalized shakedowns that required transit agencies to do street improvements for these local agencies in exchange for construction permits). Utility companies and other local agencies inflate the cost of these transit projects
However SB 445 got limited to just CAHSR, then the shotclock provision got defanged to just resolution processes
Then it died in Appropriations altogether
We are kinda cooked if we dont fix this shit soon
Yep. It is easier for the politicians to just ask for another tax increase instead of doing these reforms.
I mean it is an easier call for politicians to say "if you don't raise taxes, we can't run Metro anymore and we need to cut back service" and most people are going to say looks like we just have to pay more. But realistically we can't keep doing this because sooner or later people are going to say we pay so much taxes and look how sorry Metro is with all these crime happening, drug users smoking meth on board, the nasty urine smell, where's our taxes going to. I believe that's what's happening and the Metro Board politicians are realizing this changing wind, that's why they're now finally getting serious about better security, investing in faregates, TAP to Exit, doing things like Markets at Metro, etc.
I commented on another comment, but I think delay is only one piece of the cost issue. There needs to be a top down reckoning including the approvals process (and all its delays), the design process, the procurement process, union overtime practice, hiring/labor requirements, all the overlapping code/safety requirements, and the "everything bagel" approach so common in California where every issue gets crammed onto every project (e.g. a transit project has to address inequity, climate, jobs, etc. rather than just optimizing for its actual purpose of providing transit).
All those however have a direct relationship with delays though. There's a big difference in costs that happened due to a 20+ year delay when it could've been just a 5 year one.
I also wish that we were able to do more stuff in-house in terms of these projects (a pipe dream, I know). Fighting w/ the contractors at every turn for more money (hello APM) also drives up the cost a ton, and if were actually able to make them stick to deadlines/force them to payout on delays we would be able to make come of the money back. The threat of 'oh you want more $$? that's ok we have guys who can do it in-house for cheap' would either drive away predatory agreements or get us contractors who actually care about the end-result, not just the money that comes in between.
*Unions enters the chat* Oh you want us to do what now and expect us to do them for cheap? Well, well well, looks like someone is asking for a huge labor strike unless our demands aren't met.
That's one of the reasons why contractors are used. Then at the end it becomes a hostage situation so there's no real good answers here. Maybe something like if you pull this stunt, the state or feds steps in with a full blown investigation and your contractor's license gets revoked might be a good preventive measure?
There's a reason why Metro buys those robotic VenHubs than running their own Metro stores at Union Station and LAX/MTC, they know their union workers are too demanding so they don't want to use their own labor. If Metro thought they can do retail vending for cheap using their own labor, they would've used that instead, but instead they let a robot do it.
People pointing to the worker saying its their fault and ignoring all the other nonsense, like tarrifs, unscrupulous construction companies, politicians, over building, codes, outsourcing planning and so on. Yeah, for sure labor is more expensive but these guys wages have not skyrocketed the way the cost of these projects have.
If you read any report on the reason for high cost in the US vs Europe, they all say that union overtime practices (where a huge percentage gets billed at overtime rates) is a big piece of the problem.
How did Europe solve that issue then?
It never became an issue in the first place there.
I would need to read more into European construction union & generally into their transparency policies, but most municipal institutions and their associated unions here in the US (at least in my experience) have to be very clear and open about where the overtime is coming from/going to for payroll purposes (thank you Public Record Requests!), which I would rather see than the shady business dealings that LA's CC and the contractors might be doing.
Unions, while demanding, are not going to shy away from saying what is happening or what is wrong, which is a big step into figuring out where the costs are rising most from, and taking steps into mitigating inflation wherever we can, or at least holding their governing bodies accountable for being inept.
I don't think there is an accusation of any laws being violated, simply that the unions in the US are able to and do push as much of their work to overtime as possible. It is well documented that there is far more overtime pay on US projects than typical ones in Europe.
I'm not saying union labor is not more expensive. I'm saying it's not *the* cause of these project budgets exploding beyond non-sense. There are a variety of factors.
If you can site one of these reports that say it is *the* cause please share it.
It's become popular to hate on unions, but I think unions are awesome. They're the one thing that gives labor some leverage against capital in a world where the rich keep getting richer, and the working class keep getting poorer.
No one is ignoring all other issues, but labor costs are also one factor that Metro basically themselves admit they don't want to deal with. Just look at how they are hesitant to put in full time Metro staff at the stations like all other transit systems like BART does and instead opts for a more autonomous approach. Would I like them to? Definitely. But they're really not that interested.
If anything Metro could use their own labor force right now to upgrade the interior of the old train cars to alter the seat alignment to be side facing or upgrade the interior lights to brighter LEDs, but they don't do that either. If they can't even do that, do you think their own labor can built the train stations? It's like how do you expect them to build a building from scratch if you can't even upgrade the interior of your own car.
First things first, Show us they can do something basic like upgrading an old train car's seating arrangement and interior lighting or that they can get the TAP card readers at all the bus doors installed correctly and working. If they can't do that basic level of stuff and Metro has no interest in doing those, then they probably can't build an entire train station using their own people either.
It's going to end up costing more because it never is on time and on budget. And that's all part of the game everyone plays from the NIMBYs who want to delay, delay, delay as much as possible and then blame see look much it has gone up, to the construction cartels saying oops we found out something wrong with at the 99.99999% mark and it needs another billion to fix that 0.00001% to get it running, to the politicians that say hey you want it right, we need more taxes (and line up our pockets too).
There is a solution to this though which would help a bit, but it's likely going to be an very controversial one, even more than SB79: pass a statewide referendum to remove all local control from anything related to transit and housing development. Let the state and county be the final word one what gets built, and no local input will be allowed. Basically no more endless bureaucratic BS reviews, studies and meetings held at the city and neighborhood level. City also gets no vote on whether they approve the idea or not. It's all up to the state and county and if they say it's a go, it's a go and there's nothing the city could do about it. That would greatly reduce the powers of NIMBYs which makes up a large portion of why things keep getting delayed, delayed and delayed. But you can bet the NIMBYs and the city politicians are going to raise hell over this proposition, but it has come to a point where they've abused too much of this "local control" to get nothing done.
It's hypocritical as it is that these "local control" NIMBY activists are the same people who say they want bigger government when it suits them, but then when it goes down to their level they're all like "but we like smaller government and this is how democracy works" all of a sudden.
I agree that delay is an issue (both on its own and as it relates to cost), but I think it's only one part of the larger cost issue.
I think NIMBYism delays are one of the bigger parts of the issue because it gets dragged on so long these days that by the time it gets approved 20+ years later, there's even more factors that get added on to it like rising labor and material costs, new laws and regulations, that makes the costs go much higher.
If you remove the NIMBYism aspect of delays, at least you can shift down the delay from 20+ years of inflation down to maybe about only 5 years worth.
Like, if there wasn't NIMBYism in the D Line extension where we could've just done this in the 1990s, it wouldn't have ballooned to what it costs today. Because it was stuck on pause for 20-30 years, you have to add that much decades worth of inflation and labor costs to it.
Totally agreed. But the delays don't cause the cost of light rail within a ROW to grow by 280% in a decade. You're correct that if we built a decade earlier, that inflation wouldn't come into play, but a NEW project 10 years later shouldn't be facing those insane costs.
I think we must first admit that new laws, regulations, inflation will always be a thing. It changes whomever is in charge at the state or federal level. Like minimum wage laws keep going up and more environmental reviews get piled on at the state level so that directly relates to labor and bureaucracy costs, or new tariffs and economic policies at the federal level will also affect material costs.
If that is a given that that's always going to be there then the only way to curtail that is reduce delays to mitigate that.
It is not normal for new regulations to push costs up by 280% in a decade. Overall inflation in the last decade has been 37%. Construction costs should follow a similar pattern. Non Anglophile countries in Europe are not seeing the insane transit cost inflation we are.
If we just accept this as normal, then we won't be able to build anything in 10 years. And our infrastructure will be stuck in 2035 forever. That's obviously not acceptable.
Yeah but we're talking over two decades here which is the time span for most of these projects being delayed, delayed, and delayed.
Back when I was little in the late 1990s/early 2000s, you could get a cheeseburger at McDonald's for 39 cents. It's definitely way more than 280% today.
"remove all local control". And how will you feel when state control gets removed and the federal government steps in? Local governments know best how to run their cities. If you think the state is some magical perfect level of government you are kidding yourself.
If we followed that logic then, should cities have the right to say nope we don't want to follow Brown v. Board of Education and still write their own local laws that says segregation is ok in our city?
Eventually there comes a point in time where if enough people get tired of having too much "local control" hindering progress on a certain issue, they're going to move it up to the state and federal level. I think we're at that point when it comes to transit and housing.
I believe there was data saying 60% of CA are renters so the voter count already suggests we have the voting power over homeowners in that regard, that was one of the reasons why SB79 got passed and Gov. Newsom didn't veto it because he saw that data. A statewide referendum that removes local control for housing and transit could be something that can be a major statewide issue in the next election.
Comparing transportation plans to racism is quite the leap. A city not having a train stop is not an injustice. Lots of the transportation money comes from federal resources. I'm quite sure the current administration isn't about alternative transportation in the great blue state of California. Your counterpoint of brown vs board of education is taking it up to the federal level. I thought you just wanted it at the state level?
I used the Brown v. Board as an example because you cited what happens if it goes up another level to the federal level.
But the "if enough people raise a concern about it that local control hinders progress, you move it up" argument would still be valid because CA took away local control when it came to segregation when a bill was signed in 1947 that outlawed segregation in CA; the segregation issue was raised up to the state level first, then it gained traction that it eventually made its way to the federal level a decade later with Brown v. Board.
And yes I agree with that the current federal administration isn't pro-transit, but that doesn't mean we can apply it at the state or county level first when it comes to housing and transit. Like what are the NIMBYs in LA going to do? Start going MAGA now because they don't like the state and county taking away their local control? I'd like to see how they're going to wrap their heads around that.
You fail to see the inconsistency in your own logic. Going up one level to state is good. Going up two levels to federal is bad. Unless it's brown vs board of education.
Why wouldn't it be? CA isn't the only one facing housing and transit issues hindered with NIMBYs, much like CA wasn't the only one that first fought segregation either. CA and blue states can get together and just pass state laws and referendums at their own state level and still remain free from a federal level. Like marijuana is a good example, it's legal in CA and many other states that takes away from "local control" of enforcement, but at the federal level it's still a Schedule I narcotic (though last week an EO was signed to order it to reschedule to Schedule III). But as it stands right now it's still legal statewide and the feds aren't really enforcing it. And the local cities can't pass laws saying well marijuana is illegal in our city overriding the state either.
Or it could be like guns where we do acknowledge the right of gun ownership as written at the federal level by the Constitution, but that doesn't mean our state can restrict it at our state level like having stronger state level background checks. That's still a difference between state and federal levels and that's still a legal too. And the likelihood of this happening is probably not going to happen because while you may get blue state support on this, the rural red states probably will reject this, so it's more likely to be similar to the marijuana issue; it stays at the state level, and the federal level takes a long time to get through.
There's a big gap between let the state or county level handle it to oh but what if the feds take over one step above it. There's plenty of leeway.
Now your comparing drug laws to not having a train station?
Yes. If people get tired of a certain issue that is hindered at the local level, whether it be guns, marijuana, segregation, etc. etc. etc. it goes up another level for discussion. While you may disagree that housing and transit isn't at that point, I think we are and the recent passage of SB79 shows a good sign that it's time to move this discussion one or two steps above the local level to the county or state level.
They should move it to federal and stop it.
imagine if we built out the transit master plan back in 1968 that narrowly lost in the ballots... we could've built out an entire metro heavily funded by federal dollars for a few pennies compared to today.
https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/10/29/change-for-la-if-voters-agree/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LAMetro/comments/1lgnmn3/the_1968_proposal/
[removed]
Sorry, your comment has been removed. You must have at least 10 comment karma to participate in r/LAMetro.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Cost-per-mile isn't the best metric for value, in my opinion. It could've been much cheaper if Metro had planned to have only at-grade crossings for the SEG Line. According to their website, 15 will be elevated. It's better for safety, but comes at a price. The Expo Line had something like only 8 elevated structures built (if I counted right), and the number of pedestrian or vehicle collisions on at-grade segments over the years hasn't been zero.
Also, it was effectively more like 14 miles of construction, since it shared tracks and two stations in DTLA with the Blue Line. It also used some existing infrastructure, including an overpass on the 110, and an undercrossing at the 10 from the previous rail line.
Well I would argue a design process that let to 15 elevated intersections on a fully separated ROW where quad gates and signal preemption would have been used in an at-grade scenario is very much part of the cost problem.