LA Union Station Run-Through Design Contract

[leemell]

In the minutes of the Metro Planning Committee meeting was this:

21."AUTHORIZE the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and execute a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract No. PS2451-3172 to HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Southern California Regional Interconnector Project engineering services for an amount not to exceed $31,000,000. This contract is base of four years plus two one-year options."

Run-Through (otherwise known as SCRIP) is about to begin.

 

[MattW]

The whole thing is only going to cost $31 million?

 

[trainman74]

The whole thing is only going to cost $31 million?

No, this is just the engineering services. Per the PDF that leemell linked to, it appears that they've identified $348 million in funding, so they're expecting it to cost at least that much.

 

[leemell]

In fact the cost estimate is $350M, so big surprise --- they ID $348M.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Why the heck do they still RFP on C+ contracts? They really need to start doing D-B fixed contracts. Seriously.

 

[rickycourtney]

Why the heck do they still RFP on C+ contracts? They really need to start doing D-B fixed contracts. Seriously.

Metro mostly does do design/build contracts... as a matter of fact they just signed a $927.2-million contract to build a 1.9-mile subway that will connect the Blue/Expo line with the Gold line.

Unlike the Amtrak & Caltrans "Run-Through Tracks Project" debacle of 2006, I think that Metro is very motivated and wants to see this project completed. The agency also very good track record getting funding for these big projects.

 

[George Harris]

Unfortunately the alignment shown for this version of the run-through tracks looks just like that in the 2006 version. My guess would be 15 mph at most. Maybe 20 mph at the outside.

 

[Paulus]

Unfortunately the alignment shown for this version of the run-through tracks looks just like that in the 2006 version. My guess would be 15 mph at most. Maybe 20 mph at the outside.

Since all the trains will be stopping there, how much of a problem is that though?

 

[MattW]

Ok, thanks for the clarification on price. This certainly looks like a good project. It looks to me like it's been downsized in the good way a bit. All the plans I remember seeing had the tracks come down through some of that light industrial area south of the station, but now it looks like it will turn east immediately and follow the highway. Hopefully this should establish a good flow of traffic through the station without too many trains having to cross back over each other's paths at one point or another. Some will of course since the entire station isn't getting run-through tracks, but if the 40-50% capacity improvement proves to be a reality, this should be great!

 

[TinCan782]

Unfortunately the alignment shown for this version of the run-through tracks looks just like that in the 2006 version. My guess would be 15 mph at most. Maybe 20 mph at the outside.

Since all the trains will be stopping there, how much of a problem is that though?

With the "run-through", a shorter stop in LA than the current approx 30 minutes. No need for the engineer to move from one end of the train to the other (unless there is a crew change which there frequently is).

 

[neroden]

With some of these contracts -- like this one -- there's essentially zero scope for design-build. The details are fixed in stone well before construction starts. The exact pathway and geometry is determined by various political decisions (relating to which properties people were willing to sell / willing to see taken by eminent domain), the appearance is predetermined by similar decisions (this runs through downtown LA), the materials are determined by various Metrolink, Amtrak, and Caltrans specs, etc. The design will be nailed down in great detail before construction starts, so design-build makes no sense. The upside of this is that the estimate of price should be very accurate.

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately the alignment shown for this version of the run-through tracks looks just like that in the 2006 version. My guess would be 15 mph at most. Maybe 20 mph at the outside.

I believe the 2006 version was supposed to allow for 20 mph, IIRC.

The real savings here is for trains coming from the south, which currently take a very loopy route, also at 20 mph or less, and often have to stop dead at the junctions for cross traffic.

For Amtrak, the Coast Starlight will not really benefit at all (it goes north, period). The Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited could save a minute or two (although they might take the old route). The Pacific Surfliner should benefit most, as the route already runs through -- it should no longer need so much time in the station to reverse.

For Metrolink, this will benefit the Riverside Line, OC Line, and 91 Line immediately. The Ventura Line, Antelope Valley Line, and San Bernadino Line will only benefit noticeably if some form of through-running is established. Which will probably happen. After staring at the proposed track layout and looking at the existing service, I'm going to guess that the San Bernandino Line will be kept isolated and run through Union Station as a loop, while the Ventura and Antelope Valley lines will probably be through-routed with the other lines.

 

[sechs]

What's that tunnel at Ducommun Street?

 

[neroden]

What's that tunnel at Ducommun Street?

Red Line going to storage yards & maintenance shop.

 

[rickycourtney]

I'm very interested to see the final design for SCRIP.

At one point Metro proposed having 7 tracks run-though, a 4 track bridge over the 101, a loop around the station and 2 new bridges over the LA river allowing trains departing from the south to connect to every possible route out of Union Station.

But this document appears to show the project has been scaled back to only 4 tracks will run-through on a 2 track bridge over the 101. The station loop remains but the 2 new bridges also appear to be gone. That means the Sunset Limited and Metrolink's Riverside Line & San Bernardino Line trains won't be able to exit from the south.

I guess the bright sides that even scaled back, SCRIP is still more ambitious than the failed Amtrak & Caltrans "Run-Through Tracks Project".

 

[leemell]

The contract has been approved by the Metro board. This is an article in "The Source" blog of sorts for the MTA.

 

[neroden]

I'm very interested to see the final design for SCRIP.

Me too.

At one point Metro proposed having 7 tracks run-though, a 4 track bridge over the 101, a loop around the station and 2 new bridges over the LA river allowing trains departing from the south to connect to every possible route out of Union Station.

That's the last design I've seen.

But this document appears to show the project has been scaled back to only 4 tracks will run-through on a 2 track bridge over the 101. The station loop remains but the 2 new bridges also appear to be gone. That means the Sunset Limited and Metrolink's Riverside Line & San Bernardino Line trains won't be able to exit from the south.

Disappointing in regards to the Riverside Line; maybe something can be done about that later. The San Bernadino line is probably faster coming in from the north anyway.

 

[afigg]

LA Times story on the run-through track project, aka SCRIP, at LA Union Station: Union Station to get $350 million in track upgrades. (Saw the link on skyscraperpage.com) Aiming for a completion date of late 2019 or early 2020 (my money would be on sometime after early 2020). The article has an overview diagram of how the run-through tracks would connect.

The LA Times refers to the run-through tracks allowing an express train to not stop at LAUS. Which makes little sense as what express train would skip LAUS, the busiest and primary station in Southern California? Would be like having an express train on the NEC skip WAS or NYP.

 

[Karl1459]

...The LA Times refers to the run-through tracks allowing an express train to not stop at LAUS. Which makes little sense as what express train would skip LAUS, the busiest and primary station in Southern California? Would be like having an express train on the NEC skip WAS or NYP.

The old joke about the reporter only getting half the story... and that half wrong. If an "express" were not stop at the station they could simply stay on the existing freight mains and not enter the Union Station as they could do today.

 

[gwschenk]

Why the heck do they still RFP on C+ contracts? They really need to start doing D-B fixed contracts. Seriously.

No they don't. Design-build is nothing but a contractor racket made to order for fleecing the taxpayer. Sounds good on paper, but a disaster in the field.

 

[jis]

Why the heck do they still RFP on C+ contracts? They really need to start doing D-B fixed contracts. Seriously.

No they don't. Design-build is nothing but a contractor racket made to order for fleecing the taxpayer. Sounds good on paper, but a disaster in the field.

Could you elaborate with example? I would really like to learn what the issues are. Since I am aware of plenty of RFP driven projects that have fleeced everyone involved at the receiving end, I am curious to learn how D-B is worse. I have seen RFP driven processes from both ends at close proximity but have very little experience with D-B.

 

[bmorechris]

In my opinion and experience (primarily DoD projects) D-B isn't good for anyone, someone always gets screwed. I am currently working on a project that was put out for RFP 3 times as D-B, and no one would bite (actually this project is design-modification as its a mod to an already existing system). Contract was broken into separate design phase and build phase, and we are currently in design phase. The reason no one would bid on it as D-B was because how could you possibly put a cost number on the build part if the design (and in this case, the extent of necessary modifications) is completely unknown? There is a high likelihood you will underbid because its hard to estimate how much needs to be done before the work starts. Then the customer will get angry when the contractor come back with contract mods because of the unforeseen issues that up cost and delay schedule. On the other hand, if you try to bid with enough cost and schedule cushion for all possible contingencies, its likely the customer will balk at the price.

An example from my current project is that once we got onsite, we realized that about ~250000 rivets needed to be drilled out, then the holes needed to be plugged (required to be a smoke-tight boundary), then another 250000 holes in the correct locations need to be drilled and riveted. That is a whole lot of man hours that would likely have been overlooked at the proposal stage of a D-B project. And this doesn't even take into account the miles of unmarked wires that need to be sorted out!

 

[afigg]

The LA Metro board has released renderings and diagrams of the current conceptual master plan for the new improved expanded LA Union Station. The Source blog: More details and renderings on the evolving Union Station Master Plan. Quite impressive if they manage to build most of this in the next 10 to 15 years.

The rendering that I expect will get the most interest here is the floor plan for the expanded station.

 

[TinCan782]

Back on the "run-through" topic, check out this from the USC Digital Library...Union Station Collection...

http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/search/collection/p15799coll6/searchterm/Los%20Angeles%20Union%20Station%20Collection/field/relatig/mode/exact/conn/and/order/nosort/ad/asc

Here is one map from 1932...

http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll6/id/61/rec/8

 

[leemell]

There is quite a discussion on the new station master plan over on Train Orders. One thing that is annoying to me is the terminology being used. This is Los Angeles Union Station, the name was officially changed a decade ago. Before that even though the name was Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal, nobody called it that, even from the beginning.