Jump to content

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

I've lost track. Are there still venues out in UCLA-land that would make use of the purple line extension?

 

Yeah, Pauley Pavilion will, per the latest incarnation, will host the judo and wrestling events.  That venue's been shifted around a lot from indoor volleyball, to handball, to judo/wrestling now. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

I've lost track. Are there still venues out in UCLA-land that would make use of the purple line extension?

PS - Nice gig. If I totally **** up, you can fire me in seven years. 

A 2024 completion date was not part of the plan until Boston bowed out and LA jumped in. 

Since About October of 2015, Metro has routinely brought up a potential winning 2024 bid as a reason to accelerate the project.

I do think a 2024 completion date is well within reach if they move to a 24 hour construction schedule. Currently, if I am not mistaken, construction only takes place during certain hours.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

A 2024 completion date was not part of the plan until Boston bowed out and LA jumped in. 

Since About October of 2015, Metro has routinely brought up a potential winning 2024 bid as a reason to accelerate the project.

I do think a 2024 completion date is well within reach if they move to a 24 hour construction schedule. Currently, if I am not mistaken, construction only takes place during certain hours.
 

 

Then the construction of this Purple Line makes all the more reason to slot LA in for 2028.  

Also, since UCLA is now (unless they change it again) the Athletes' Village, then holding Ceremonies at Inglewood is not as big a logistical problem as if USC were the Oly Village. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

I do think a 2024 completion date is well within reach if they move to a 24 hour construction schedule. Currently, if I am not mistaken, construction only takes place during certain hours.

Ahh, that's is the pitfall of an infrastructure project when it becomes tied to an Olympic bid.  This is obviously something that would be done regardless of whether LA lands the Olympics.  But would it otherwise be completed in 7 years?  Is there going to be pressure to complete it in 7 years when 10 would be more reasonable?  Because if LA is hosting 2024, now they almost have no choice but to deliver something like this on the IOC's timetable.  And that's when costs tend to creep up because you're no longer allowed to go at your own pace.  Good for Phil Washington that he's willing to put his career on the line to get it done.  If he has to choose between under budget and on time, which of those 2 do you think will win out?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Ahh, that's is the pitfall of an infrastructure project when it becomes tied to an Olympic bid.  This is obviously something that would be done regardless of whether LA lands the Olympics.  But would it otherwise be completed in 7 years?  Is there going to be pressure to complete it in 7 years when 10 would be more reasonable?  Because if LA is hosting 2024, now they almost have no choice but to deliver something like this on the IOC's timetable.  And that's when costs tend to creep up because you're no longer allowed to go at your own pace.  Good for Phil Washington that he's willing to put his career on the line to get it done.  If he has to choose between under budget and on time, which of those 2 do you think will win out?

I think the residents of LA would rather pay up now and get it done sooner.

Money can be made up, time cannot, and Measure M passing by a landslide 71% is a clear indicator of that.

If push comes to shove I am pretty certain the project will be accelerated to meet the 2024 deadline even if it comes in over budget.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even without an Olympics, often these infrastructure projects have early-completion incentives, like a monetary bonus for the contractor or whatever.  And now with Measure M funds, maybe it would be possible to work on this round-the-clock.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, this is a public works project that was already under construction.

It is 100% independent of the Olympic bid.

The only reason it has come up is because it has the potential to be accelerated to be completed in 2024 if LA wins the bid. 

This is not adding to the IOC budget, nor is the Purple line contigent on wheter or not LA wins.

Like Ejay mentioned, these projects are often given future days to allow for wigggle room moving the completion date from 2026 to 2024 seems fairly easy to execute with, again, an adjustment to the construction schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

I think the residents of LA would rather pay up now and get it done sooner.

Money can be made up, time cannot, and Measure M passing by a landslide 71% is a clear indicator of that.

If push comes to shove I am pretty certain the project will be accelerated to meet the 2024 deadline even if it comes in over budget.

11 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Additionally, this is a public works project that was already under construction.

It is 100% independent of the Olympic bid.

The only reason it has come up is because it has the potential to be accelerated to be completed in 2024 if LA wins the bid. 

This is not adding to the IOC budget, nor is the Purple line contigent on wheter or not LA wins.

Like Ejay mentioned, these projects are often given future days to allow for wigggle room moving the completion date from 2026 to 2024 seems fairly easy to execute with, again, an adjustment to the construction schedule.

But again, here's what you're dealing with.. you have the LA committee that is making promises about sticking to their budget.  Easy for you to say it's acceptable to throw more money at this project (which I know is not in the official Olympic budget) in order to get it done on time.  Now they don't really have a choice.  Again, that's where Olympic budgets tend to get inflated because you have to deliver what you promised and because there's a hard deadline, sometimes you have to throw more money than you anticipated to get the job done.  And yes, I saw where 2026 was the anticipated completion date, but they'd need to shoot for 2024 if LA gets the Olympics. 

Maybe I'm jaded because I live in New York and we just saw the opening of the first 3 stations of the new 2nd Avenue Subway (which was supposed to have been completed years, if not decades ago when the project got stalled due to a lack of funding).  Good for LA if they think they can get this done.  But to not only promise to have it done on time and on budget when they don't necessarily control the timetable seems like a very tall order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But again, here's what you're dealing with.. you have the LA committee that is making promises about sticking to their budget.  Easy for you to say it's acceptable to throw more money at this project (which I know is not in the official Olympic budget) in order to get it done on time.  Now they don't really have a choice.  Again, that's where Olympic budgets tend to get inflated because you have to deliver what you promised and because there's a hard deadline, sometimes you have to throw more money than you anticipated to get the job done.  And yes, I saw where 2026 was the anticipated completion date, but they'd need to shoot for 2024 if LA gets the Olympics. 

Maybe I'm jaded because I live in New York and we just saw the opening of the first 3 stations of the new 2nd Avenue Subway (which was supposed to have been completed years, if not decades ago when the project got stalled due to a lack of funding).  Good for LA if they think they can get this done.  But to not only promise to have it done on time and on budget when they don't necessarily control the timetable seems like a very tall order.

Purple Line budget does not affect the Olympic budget since they are two completely seperate projects.

The purple line was a stand alone project that is so direly needed that suddenly finds itself possibly getting an extra push by the prospect of the games possibly coming to LA.

LA 2024's budget would remain unchanged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Purple Line budget does not affect the Olympic budget since they are two completely seperate projects.

The purple line was a stand alone project that is so direly needed that suddenly finds itself possibly getting an extra push by the prospect of the games possibly coming to LA.

LA 2024's budget would remain unchanged.

 

43 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

But again, here's what you're dealing with.. you have the LA committee that is making promises about sticking to their budget.  Easy for you to say it's acceptable to throw more money at this project (which I know is not in the official Olympic budget) in order to get it done on time.

I don't know whether to be impressed by your eagerness to throw more money at this project to get it done in time for the Olympics or to think that's foolish.  You're right that it likely got spurred on by the prospect of getting the 2024 Olympics.  Again though - and this is more a generalization than anything - this is what happens when you're under the gun to deliver what you promise.  And if they do need more money to fast-track this project, then maybe they do need Olympic funds to make that happen.  And if you're willing to pay for that privilege

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not dependent, but they will be rushing it in time for 2024, if LA is selected?  Perception is everything.  The public will certainly lump that project and any cost overruns to the cost of the Olympics.  

If I were the IOC, I would precisely NOT give 2024 to LA because, again, right there, is one project that will seem to make the cost of staging any Olympics cost more by what?  Another $750 - 800 million dollars...through not fault of the IOC alone.  And if course, this is PRECISELY what the IOC is shying away from.  

LA, it's 2028 for you or bust!!!

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

I don't know whether to be impressed by your eagerness to throw more money at this project to get it done in time for the Olympics or to think that's foolish.  You're right that it likely got spurred on by the prospect of getting the 2024 Olympics.  Again though - and this is more a generalization than anything - this is what happens when you're under the gun to deliver what you promise.  And if they do need more money to fast-track this project, then maybe they do need Olympic funds to make that happen.  And if you're willing to pay for that privilege

Hurrying up a Subway line in traffic jammed Los Angeles = Foolish???

Consider the billions lost in the area from all the people idling away in traffic. All that lost productivity.

A lot of leaders in LA are seeing the 2024 bid as a catalyst to get this project done sooner. It is seen as an opportunity to deliver sooner rather than later, hence Metro CEO even betting his own job on it. It's not like once the games are done (assuming LA wins) the city will somehow wake up and have some sort of hangover post Olympics. I do not see that being even remotely the case.

This line is needed yesterday and if the Games is what it takes for Metro to speed it up and get it done already,  I feel there will be very little opposition to it (Except for maybe Beverly Hills Unified School District)

Purple_Line_Extension_2017.jpg 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Not dependent, but they will be rushing it in time for 2024, if LA is selected?  Perception is everything.  The public will certainly lump that project and any cost overruns to the cost of the Olympics.  

If I were the IOC, I would precisely NOT give 2024 to LA because, again, right there, is one project that will seem to make the cost of staging any Olympics cost more by what?  Another $750 - 800 million dollars...through not fault of the IOC alone.  And if course, this is PRECISELY what the IOC is shying away from.  

LA, it's 2028 for you or bust!!!

I know you get off on the notion of Paris 24, and LA 28, but LA is not Rio, is not Tokyo, is not Sochi.

LA is seeing unprecedented growth in its infrastructure sans Olympics. New airport, new transit lines, new stadiums, hotels and housing.... all finished well before 2024 with the exception of an extension of a line. Not even the entire route. Literally 3 station stops on the Purple Line is what they are highlighting here.

LA County Voters already committed $88 Billion to the transit lines when it passed Measure M. $750 Million looks like pocket change next to that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JesseSaenz said:

Hurrying up a Subway line in traffic jammed Los Angeles = Foolish???

Consider the billions lost in the area from all the people idling away in traffic. All that lost productivity.

A lot of leaders in LA are seeing the 2024 bid as a catalyst to get this project done sooner. It is seen as an opportunity to deliver sooner rather than later, hence Metro CEO even betting his own job on it. It's not like once the games are done (assuming LA wins) the city will somehow wake up and have some sort of hangover post Olympics. I do not see that being even remotely the case.

This line is needed yesterday and if the Games is what it takes for Metro to speed it up and get it done already,  I feel there will be very little opposition to it (Except for maybe Beverly Hills Unified School District)

Kinda sounds like NYC 2012.  There were a couple of infrastructure projects that were spurred by the Olympic bid and there's a line of thinking that the best thing that could have happened for some of those initiatives was for NYC to bid and to lose.  If LA needs this line so desperately, then build the damn line already.  What does hosting the Olympics have to do with that other than to give a reason to get it done earlier?  If Los Angelinos want to throw their taxpayer dollars at this and or as for more federal money, good for them.  But billions lost in the area from people idling in traffic?  All the lost productivity?  That has nothing to do with the Olympics.  And what happens if LA doesn't get the 2024 Olympics.. do they still rush to build the line then?  Or do they do it at their own pace without having to meet someone else's deadline?  Again, good for them if they think they can do it sooner.  That's going to cost more money though.  And someone is going to have to pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Kinda sounds like NYC 2012.  There were a couple of infrastructure projects that were spurred by the Olympic bid and there's a line of thinking that the best thing that could have happened for some of those initiatives was for NYC to bid and to lose.  If LA needs this line so desperately, then build the damn line already.  What does hosting the Olympics have to do with that other than to give a reason to get it done earlier?  If Los Angelinos want to throw their taxpayer dollars at this and or as for more federal money, good for them.  But billions lost in the area from people idling in traffic?  All the lost productivity?  That has nothing to do with the Olympics.  And what happens if LA doesn't get the 2024 Olympics.. do they still rush to build the line then?  Or do they do it at their own pace without having to meet someone else's deadline?  Again, good for them if they think they can do it sooner.  That's going to cost more money though.  And someone is going to have to pay for it.

I see where you are trying to draw similarities between LA2024 and NY2012, but they are not the same no matter how much you think they are.

Yes it sounds like you have heard of this before before, but no, it is  not some pipe dream years out. There are machines already on wilshire digging and ready to drop the boring machine to go west into La Cienega and beyond.

Anytime someone is sitting in traffic it is lost money. This is no secret. You are wasting time that you could have been spending working, shopping, studying, etc. All of this is very costly to any city.

Here's more of a breakdown. ---> http://abcnews.go.com/US/time-americans-waste-traffic/story?id=33313765 

LA in 2015 was right behind DC in lost hours due to traffic. Multiply that by the millions of commuters and by 365 days and you can see how quickly that lost time/money starts to add up.

What I was aiming at is, people in LA don't think spending large sums of money on transit is "throwing their tax dollars" because it already throws away billions of them a year collectively, by being stuck in traffic. 

Back to how this is relevant to the 2024 bid: Pierre suggested that associating the Purple Line to the bid is a bad move because it will show just how much more money was spent for the project and then somehow associate that to the cost of having the Olympics in LA, but I want to reiterate, I don't see it impacting them negatively because this is something LA County residents already want and ALREADY VOTED for. 

People just want the damn thing built already and again, if the 2024 bid helps shave 2 years off the construction time, I think LA County residents will see it as a good investment/money well spent.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Kinda sounds like NYC 2012.  There were a couple of infrastructure projects that were spurred by the Olympic bid and there's a line of thinking that the best thing that could have happened for some of those initiatives was for NYC to bid and to lose.  If LA needs this line so desperately, then build the damn line already.  What does hosting the Olympics have to do with that other than to give a reason to get it done earlier?  If Los Angelinos want to throw their taxpayer dollars at this and or as for more federal money, good for them.  But billions lost in the area from people idling in traffic?  All the lost productivity?  That has nothing to do with the Olympics.  And what happens if LA doesn't get the 2024 Olympics.. do they still rush to build the line then?  Or do they do it at their own pace without having to meet someone else's deadline?  Again, good for them if they think they can do it sooner.  That's going to cost more money though.  And someone is going to have to pay for it.

Also, there are no "Couple of Infrastructure projects" which are going to be "Spurred by the Olympic bid"

This is already approved, funded, and under construction.

The only modification to it, is that if LA wins the bid, the leaders can then back up their decision to accelerate it even faster.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

I know you get off on the notion of Paris 24, and LA 28, but LA is not Rio, is not Tokyo, is not Sochi.

LA is seeing unprecedented growth in its infrastructure sans Olympics. New airport, new transit lines, new stadiums, hotels and housing.... all finished well before 2024 with the exception of an extension of a line. Not even the entire route. Literally 3 station stops on the Purple Line is what they are highlighting here.

LA County Voters already committed $88 Billion to the transit lines when it passed Measure M. $750 Million looks like pocket change next to that.

 

 
 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That's what London, Sochi, Rio and Tokyo have all said.  You still don't understand this game, do you, Jesse?  It's the PERCEPTION.  Why do you think otherwise "perfect," solid cities like Munich, Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow, Boston, Rome all backed out of their bids?  BECAUSE of the perceived high cost of the Games.  And that is what the IOC is trying to contain -- damage control by the "cost" of the Games, budgeted or not.  

Actually, why I am even wasting my time explaining this to you?  If you don't understand it at first telling, you never will. SIgh.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  That's what London, Sochi, Rio and Tokyo have all said.  You still don't understand this game, do you, Jesse?  It's the PERCEPTION.  Why do you think otherwise "perfect," solid cities like Munich, Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow, Boston, Rome all backed out of their bids?  BECAUSE of the perceived high cost of the Games.  And that is what the IOC is trying to contain -- damage control by the "cost" of the Games, budgeted or not.  

Actually, why I am even wasting my time explaining this to you?  If you don't understand it at first telling, you never will. SIgh.  

Sorry I am calling bullshit right now. "The perception" 

Tokyo made it very clear it was building a new stadium. London dived head first in cleaning up their river adjacent parcel for an Olympic park, and don't even get me started on Sochi and Rio.

LA has been pretty transparent from the get go, gutting their Olympic Village to keep costs down.

Its own bid has a noticeable absent capital projects portion because it isn't building any for the bid doubling down on its claim and backing it up with actual independently reviewed budgets by an international group.

Even Paris' strong bid cannot claim that.

And LA has nothing to hide, they can show the IOC their sites now in 2017 plus those that are under construction for LA that they can benifit from without taking the fall for.

It taxed itself ahead of the games first in 2008 and again in 2016, any fear it would reflect poorly on the IOC can with that alone be put to rest.

These projects are being built independent of the games.

Budapest has a lot to build, and Paris well, a village to build, literally, and if you want to worry about potential cost overruns, I would start there if that is your arguement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

R u a Trump voter?  Or you do believe that unicorns come to your garden at night?   :rolleyes:

Tell me, what multi-year public works project in a major metropolitan area in ANY country has come in ahead of schedule and under budget?  

Sanders actually, and for starters two projects in LA came under budget and ahead of schedule.

Gold Line to East LA in 2009, and the Foothill Extension in 2016.

But you are right, capital projects are notorious for going over budget and on schedule which is why LA is happy to have the luxury of ommiting it from its Olympic bid entirely.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's the IOC's wet dream. They get credit for spuring all this infrastructure completion.... but the costs aren't associated with them.

Wont happen that way. Either they'll get both the credit and costs, or neither. Hard to say which way the public perception will go, if LA even gets the games.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

Yes, that's the IOC's wet dream. They get credit for spuring all this infrastructure completion.... but the costs aren't associated with them.

Wont happen that way. Either they'll get both the credit and costs, or neither. Hard to say which way the public perception will go, if LA even gets the games.

Agreed.

But the option is there, layed out on the table for them in plain English.

Cost overruns are normally attributed to capital projects that are being built specifically for the games themselves.

LA being able to seperate its long list of fully funded capital projects from its bid budget this amount of time before a decision is even made is not something the other two bidding cities can easily claim.

But, ah, the IOC. Full of surprises that bunch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JesseSaenz said:

Agreed.

But the option is there, layed out on the table for them in plain English.

Cost overruns are normally attributed to capital projects that are being built specifically for the games themselves.

LA being able to seperate its long list of fully funded capital projects from its bid budget this amount of time before a decision is even made is not something the other two bidding cities can easily claim.

But, ah, the IOC. Full of surprises that bunch.

What zeke said is what I was getting at.  Right now, the Purple Line extension (and other projects) has nothing to do with the Olympics, but if it becomes a case where the completion date is modified to accommodate the Olympics, then the argument can be made that cost overruns are due to the Olympics, so where does that money come from if they have to speed things up?  They said they can get it done in time for 2024, but if LA gets the Olympics, now that's more an obligation rather than a goal to shoot for.  And in general, these are the types of things that tend to put Olympic committees over budget.  Much different situation if you're doing something at your own pace for the good of your city as opposed to making promises you need to deliver on at almost all costs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

What zeke said is what I was getting at.  Right now, the Purple Line extension (and other projects) has nothing to do with the Olympics, but if it becomes a case where the completion date is modified to accommodate the Olympics, then the argument can be made that cost overruns are due to the Olympics, so where does that money come from if they have to speed things up?  They said they can get it done in time for 2024, but if LA gets the Olympics, now that's more an obligation rather than a goal to shoot for.  And in general, these are the types of things that tend to put Olympic committees over budget.  Much different situation if you're doing something at your own pace for the good of your city as opposed to making promises you need to deliver on at almost all costs.

I can see the goal vs obligation thing, yeah, true.

It will be interesting to see how LA2024 and Metro decide to word it moving forward.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think both Paris and LA are conservative enough that neither will generate really damaging headlines about overspends - this hosting cycle will almost certainly give the IOC some much needed respite in that regard, whichever they choose. A railway line going over budget is hardly going to be global news.

However, reading around it looks like a 2024 deadline would be extraordinarily tight, and if it becomes implanted in people's minds that this line is crucial for getting spectators to certain venues, then we could see an unexpected rush in construction and headlines like Rio had (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/2016-olympics-another-worry-brazil-major-subway-line-remains-incomplete-1566372). Rio, of course, just about made it with theirs in the end.

It's up to LA what they do, of course, but the deadline would seem to me to present the biggest risk in terms of negative headlines, not overspend.

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...