|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 22:08:28 GMT -8
From Tuesday's meeting, so email your comments to the Metro team in support of the Alternatives 5 and 6 This is my copy, I quickly drew in red circles the surface impacted areas if they build that variation. It's either resident impacts, tight LRV turns or direct proximity to off/on ramps. Bold Green Line on map means At-grade Bold Sky blue line means aerial/elevated Dashed purple means undergroundThis first one is Subway on Flower until 3rd or 5th, At grade Figueroa, Second. Utilizes Second Street tunnel and creates transit mall on Second.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 22:11:50 GMT -8
Flower Subway until 3rd. Aerial on Figueroa, At-grade on Temple.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 22:12:17 GMT -8
Flower Subway, Second Street Tunnel, Second Street at-grade transit mall, At grade Los Angeles-Temple Streets.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 22:12:47 GMT -8
Running in a mixed of at-grade transit mall down 2nd Street and utilize the Second Street tunnel
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 26, 2008 22:13:24 GMT -8
Finally, here's Alternatives # 5, 6 & 8 It's primarily down Second and Flower streets with a variety of portal choices.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 26, 2008 23:35:18 GMT -8
you would think that the MTA could up with better routing options than these. 5 and 6 are the obvious choices but still better things could ahve been done that would made it a less jagged line especially coming in from Pasadena. Since its underground they could have gotten easements and straightened out the lines. Also there are too many stations between Union Station and 7th/Metro and the two Bunker Hill stations are so close to each other. One can be eliminated. If the line curved a little earler it could stop at 3rd/4th and Grand and serve both Bunker Hill and Grand Ave project. Pasadena trains would then go LAUS, New Underground Little Tokyo megastation, Bunker Hill, 7th/Metro. I think this is more reasonable than say LAUS, Little Tokyo, City Hall, Grand Ave, 5th Flower, 7th/Metro. The slowness of such a line would negate its regional purpose and make getting to 7th/Metro jsut as slow as transfering. It would serve Downtown very well but this isn't a red car ciculator. The goal is to move people East/West and North/south faster so definitely alternative 6
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 27, 2008 6:40:45 GMT -8
Was there any overall consensus/feedback from those attending last night? To date, I've been rather unhappy with the outreach and organization of those planning this project.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2008 7:35:00 GMT -8
You would think that the MTA could up with better routing options than these. That's what I thought, I'm surprised an underground alignment under 1st Street wasn't looked at. Well the layout of the 2nd/Grand-Hope Street station is a good location to serve Bunker Hill, have Related pay for a station box and serve the core of Financial District via Hope Street and the various elevated walkways that are interconnected together. I could tell from a construction engineering standpoint that they'll have to build the first hundred feet of the existing Blue Line tunnel as a cut-cover to drop the TBM so they might as well consider adding a station there since they'll have to cut the hole out in order to tie into the existing tunnel. Ken, There were 8 commenters out of 35 people in attendance. Excluding Brian "Monorail" Brooks, all liked the idea of the tunnel, Alternative #5 or 6 as the main route to take and to look at the San Francisco Muni Metro as a guide to build and operate the Connector. In addition two speakers commented on the surprise that there are still at-grade options on this connector.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 27, 2008 7:51:22 GMT -8
I don't have a problem with where they placed the Bunker Hill station but I feel that the 5th/Flower station is much too close to 7th/Metro. It's not that much to ask someone to walk three blocks (don't even have to really tackle the hill at that elevation) You bring up a good point of them having to drop the TBM in there so what they should do with this station (since they are going to have a big box) is make it a Terminal for the Foothill Gold Line and have the Blue (Long Beach Loop to Memorial Park), and Aqua (Pomona/Atlantic to Santa Monica) bypass it. This way the long foothill line (Gold) has somewhere appropriate to terminate in Downtown without making a massive mess out of operations at 7th/Metro. After writing this I just realized that I really like this idea because I had all these crazy plans for reconfiguring 7th/Metro for a Foothill terminal that would never work without costing insane amounts of money and closing it down for a while. Might as well use what I don't like about the routing to my benefit ;-)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2008 8:07:14 GMT -8
You bring up a good point of them having to drop the TBM in there so what they should do with this station ... This way the long foothill line (Gold) has somewhere appropriate to terminate in Downtown without making a massive mess out of operations at 7th/Metro. Might as well use what I don't like about the routing to my benefit ;-) If a station is not financially feasible or ridership generative then that cut-cover section can be the perfect location for a stragetic 600' long 3 track section similiar to SF Muni Embarcadero so that trains ending at 7th Street Metro or Bunker Hill can turn back or trains that breakdown can be stored out of the way until a lighter travel time and can be towed to the Maintenance Yard. This same 3 track piece could be added by the Little Tokyo/Historic Core stop on Alternative #6.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 27, 2008 8:10:31 GMT -8
Thanks for the report, Jerard.
Did they get beyond lines on a map and address details like:
* Alts 1a & 1b - where would it come above ground on Flower; how would they route the curves to 2nd & Figueroa; how would the tracks be put on 2nd?
* Not to mention, the 2nd Street tunnel has been used countless times in car commercials and movies. Never again if light rail tracks go down it!
* Alts 3a, 3b, & 7 - Where's the portal that appears to be on 2nd west of Hill?
* How would the alternatives cross Alameda to join the Gold Line at either Temple or 1st? Is there a half grand union to allow trains to go both directions on the Gold Line?
I'm surprised that an east-west couplet wasn't considered, as it could provide signal priority that two-way running at 2-3-minute headways can't.
An aerial junction at Aliso and Alameda also seems to make more sense than at-grade crossings farther south.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2008 8:21:27 GMT -8
Thanks for the report, Jerard. Did they get beyond lines on a map and address details like: * Alts 1a & 1b - where would it come above ground on Flower; how would they route the curves to 2nd & Figueroa; how would the tracks be put on 2nd? * Not to mention, the 2nd Street tunnel has been used countless times in car commercials and movies. Never again if light rail tracks go down it! * Alts 3a, 3b, & 7 - Where's the portal that appears to be on 2nd west of Hill? To answer that question, No. They just showed the alternatives and I didn't ask questions on most of the alternates because from a design standpoint I don't see how they can physically built it at-grade with the twists and turns they're looking at. In addition the Second Street Tunnel closing is big thing which almost makes in my mind Alt 5, 6 and 8 built by default. Third Street tunnel and alignment were eliminated because it would require a considerable amount of rework to increase the height at the tunnel portals minus the higher 200' waffle slab section. In addition the hard turn from Alameda to Third makes it difficult. I could say the same thing on the Temple to Alameda curve which is at a tighter acute angle. For the at-grade couplet, I'm surprised at that too, but maybe no one else stated it in their letter so that's probably why it isn't included. As for the grand union at Aliso/Alameda, it's physically impossible to build a connection to that bridge without having to rebuild the new bridge because of the way it curves and the support structure needed to connect the two pieces together will need large straddle bents to carry the track structure with no place to put the columns in a constrained intersection next to a busy freeway right below. Now some might say, well they're tearing down the at-grade Little Tokyo station to build the tunnel options how come they can't do that to the bridge, here's my simple answer an at-grade station is a helluva of a lot easier to move, remove and replace than an aerial bridge over a busy freeway. If the connector were studied in 2000-01 then this would probably be the best option since the two pieces would be conjoined together since the East LA EIR was being done at that time.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2008 9:07:24 GMT -8
I don't know if you guys are looking at these images in your cache, but I just see red x's.
|
|
norm
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by norm on Feb 27, 2008 10:00:07 GMT -8
I can see the images, but the resolution (or my eyes) is too poor for me to figure much out. Are these posted somewhere on the Metro website? I found it odd that they went out of their way to post the recent Red Line Meeting Boards online, though not the Crenshaw or Regional Connector boards. Does anyone have links to either?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 27, 2008 10:45:44 GMT -8
was not this line already designed and planed for back with the first run of train lines? is metro just fulfilling there legal obligation for public input here.
seems like this is less of a high profile public hearing line and more of a utilitarian metro operations line.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 27, 2008 10:45:56 GMT -8
I can see the images, but the resolution (or my eyes) is too poor for me to figure much out. Are these posted somewhere on the Metro website? I found it odd that they went out of their way to post the recent Red Line Meeting Boards online, though not the Crenshaw or Regional Connector boards. Does anyone have links to either? Thanks for the reply. Evidently my company has tinypics on a list of restricted sites.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 27, 2008 22:33:37 GMT -8
Here's a sequence of photos I took today of the potential surface route, beginning at 1st & Alameda, then walking west from 2nd & Central toward the Bunker Hill tunnel. Not only are there frequent cross streets, 2nd Street is narrow, only two lanes in each direction, probably 50 feet or less. With a trackway down the center is there even space for one lane in each direction? Not to mention, nothing left for left-turn lanes or a station. Looking east from Alameda at new tracks on 1st. Route across block, looking south from 1st & Alameda. Route across block, looking north from 2nd & Central. Looking west at 2nd & Central. Looking west at 2nd & San Pedro. Looking west at 2nd & Los Angeles. Looking west at 2nd & Spring toward the tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2008 22:46:01 GMT -8
I'm trying to figure out, how in the world they're thinking of getting a 300' platform on Spring Street with ADA ramps? I guess they'll extend the sidewalk in those areas and have the ramps come off the sidewalk but a 3 car LRV may not clear the streets in Historic Core.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 27, 2008 23:14:35 GMT -8
ahhh I almost forgot any alignment but #6 would take out the quiznos there. Alignment 6 is clearly the choice to ensure full grade separation for what is going to be a busy busy mile and a half although it will require the closing of the Eastside line while they route it into a tunnel. In order to avoid this I suggest cheaply laying down rail in the middle of Vignes between first and Temple and temporarily closing them to Auto traffic (except for the DASH line to the city personnell offices) while the Eastside line runs through them for about a year or so. The 90 degree turns may slow the line down a bit but it will only be a minute or so slower because it doesn't have to stop at Little Tokyo. Once the DTC is finished we can keep those tracks as a non-revenue connector for train movements between Eastside and Pasadena
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 28, 2008 7:47:57 GMT -8
When they say transit mall, I'm envisioning something where they bricks over the street surface and eliminate street parking. Cars would have to travel over the rail or perhaps would be eliminated. Maybe like that transit mall in Sacramento where the lines converge.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 28, 2008 9:48:40 GMT -8
Is there any reason why there were no 1st Street alignments proposed?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 28, 2008 11:02:23 GMT -8
I thought that it was because it would require destroying the Little Tokyo station and then putting a new station underground at that corner. Am I just way off on this?
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 28, 2008 12:54:48 GMT -8
I don't see why a station would need to be underground in Little Tokyo with a first street alignment. Just build another platform on 1st street east of Alameda for East LA trains.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Feb 28, 2008 13:16:54 GMT -8
How would that work? You're going to have two trains on 1st street? 4 tracks? Tell me that there's something that I'm not picturing right.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 28, 2008 13:30:27 GMT -8
I don't see why a station would need to be underground in Little Tokyo with a first street alignment. Just build another platform on 1st street east of Alameda for East LA trains. The new station will be needed because they'll have to tear down the under construction station to build the portal to transition from subway and then use the existing aerial bridge to Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 28, 2008 13:41:04 GMT -8
heh. given my intense interest in the future of Little Tokyo, I am quite happy to see these maps for the proposed downtown connector, but I must admit that I am also squinting at them! if these maps are available in a larger size someplace, please post links XD
but I agree with the person who said get rid of the 5th/Flower station; way too close to 7th/ Metro.
I like the idea of a station directly south of the New Otani (or whatever it is they're calling it these days), especially as there's that parking lot there.
but, I can't help but think there'd be NIMBY resistance to digging a tunnel directly under Japanese Village Plaza. I know and you know that it can be done without sinkholes or disturbances, but do they know??
but anyways, this is all based on squinting at a computer screen...
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 28, 2008 15:10:57 GMT -8
How would that work? You're going to have two trains on 1st street? 4 tracks? Tell me that there's something that I'm not picturing right. Take a look at the Denver track map. Where the two lines come together is similar to what I would envision for a 1st street alignment. Except in our case we'd have to build another platform (side platform only) to serve East LA.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Feb 28, 2008 15:13:49 GMT -8
I don't see why a station would need to be underground in Little Tokyo with a first street alignment. Just build another platform on 1st street east of Alameda for East LA trains. The new station will be needed because they'll have to tear down the under construction station to build the portal to transition from subway and then use the existing aerial bridge to Union Station. They could do that. Or instead they could have the portal just west of Alameda. Similar to how the blue line emerges just before Pico station.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Feb 28, 2008 15:30:12 GMT -8
Is there any reason why there were no 1st Street alignments proposed? To me, Flower, then First is the obvious alignment. The connector may have to run fairly deep under Bunker hill. But, a First St route would hit the businesses around the Wells Fargo tower. It could also stop close to the Promenade. Then, it could interchange with the Red Line at Civic Center. What are our city and county planners thinking? *** It was not long ago that the "Zev" person was saying this whole thing was poor use of funds. But, didn't he also recant on the Zevway, and say it should have been built as light rail. I guess in about 2012 he wil see the light on the connector. :-) Adrian
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 28, 2008 17:11:52 GMT -8
The new station will be needed because they'll have to tear down the under construction station to build the portal to transition from subway and then use the existing aerial bridge to Union Station. They could do that. Or instead they could have the portal just west of Alameda. Similar to how the blue line emerges just before Pico station. True, but the configuration is off at that location depending on where and how it portals west of Alameda.
|
|