jomiy
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jomiy on Feb 28, 2008 19:18:04 GMT -8
Jerard,
Thanks for the image uploads. I was waiting for scoping results to be posted on the MTA website.
Any at-grade alignments in the Los Angeles CBD are just ridiculous. Underground all the way! As for the number of stations, I feel the more they have the better. If feasible, 4 tracks could be placed in so express trains can bypass. This is the center of the city, so if we assume high rise development for the next 10-20 years I imagine existing stations could have capacity issues. And I hate walking 3 blocks during rush hour in Manhattan.....
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 28, 2008 19:20:11 GMT -8
I got a lot of specific new information and answers to questions from Ray Sosa's presentation at the Regional Connector meeting today. First, here is a rendering of the proposed at-grade alignment on 2nd Street: You can't read it in the image, but the dimensions are the 60' street right-of-way is divided into 5' sidewalk, 10' station platform, 24' trackway, 11' traffic lane, and 10' sidewalk. This location is behind the new LAPD building, that will have a wide pedestrian walk like the Caltrans building. They're proposing split station platforms to use such spaces of widened right-of-way. Ray described why use 2nd Street: 1st has more traffic and major bus routes, plus the hill; 3rd creates a difficult transition at Alameda, and two blocks of using Alameda, and has a narrower tunnel. A couplet (adjacent one-way tracks) would impact two streets. He noted that if signals are timed to trains they would stop cross traffic less than current signal timing. The concept is similar to C Street in downtown San Diego (my analogy), with a traffic lane on each side for local access but otherwise a pedestrian- and transit-oriented street. The idea of Alternatives 3a, 3b, 7, 4a, and 4b is the median tracks on 2nd Street would run on the south side of the tunnel, then break through the existing tunnel wall below Grand Avenue, curve south to a subway station below Hope Street, then turn south onto Flower, cross 3rd at-grade, then drop into subway. He addressed my suggestion of an aerial junction at Aliso and Alameda, saying it would require demolition and reconstruction of that bridge, and also difficulty locating another aerial transition. Of the all-subway alternatives, 5 would transition to grade between 2nd / Central and 1st / Alameda, keeping the existing Gold Line Little Tokyo station, while 6 and 8 would build two new Gold Line portals and demolish that station. A possible mitigation for all the at-grade crossings at 1st and Alameda would be to depress Alameda itself below the tracks. The final Alternatives Analysis report will be out around late this summer. They noted that under the federal New Starts process it takes 7-10 years to operations. Selection criteria include community enhancement, cost-effectiveness, low risk, and travel time and ridership.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 28, 2008 21:34:30 GMT -8
I think that it would behoove the TTC to consider an evening forum that would be run by transit advocates to consider the correct routing and present it to the Metro staffmembers who need better input and ideas on this Connector.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 28, 2008 21:41:24 GMT -8
I also want to go on record as suggesting that, despite wishing there was a better way of doing this, I don't give a damn if they demolish/replace the Little Tokyo station if they create an operational phenomenon that enhances ridership of all four converging Downtown light rail lines and the Red/Purple Lines.
If we end up with a beautiful new station (not that I have a problem with the old one) at Little Tokyo, and with ridership galore as a result on the Eastside and Pasadena Gold Lines, isn't it all worth it?
Do we have to put up with an inferior Connector just for one station? If we get lots of ridership and quality operations, is it More or Less Cost-Effective to replace/upgrade Little Tokyo station?
At this immediate time, I favor Alternatives 6 and 8, and reject all at-grade routings.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 29, 2008 1:15:29 GMT -8
I haven't been keeping up with the updates like I should, and there's a lot that I'm still confused about, but I've got to agree with what Ken said.
with the addendum that the word REPLACE is key here.
Little Tokyo already got the shaft once when the Red Line extension was "put on hiatus" and the karmic end result was a much better station location with the Gold Line extension.
the way things appear to be shaping up, the J-Town station will be up and running long before construction starts on the Downtown Connector. I don't pretend to know what the ridership to/ from Little Tokyo will be like, but the Little Tokyo community is shaping up to be a busy place. if the 1st/ Alameda station is to be torn down, I would hope that the MTA can tell the people of the community how long will they will be without rail service, what alternatives are available, i.e. as much outreach as possible.
as luck would have it, alternative 6 includes an underground station for Little Tokyo that should be as good or better than the 1st/Alameda location. 1st/Alameda has the museum, but 2nd/ San Pedro has the community center. assuming, of course, that the station is built in such a way that the exits face east towards the middle of J-Town.
that's all I would ask. I'll support alternative 6 and tell others to do the same as long as I know there's a subway station entrance with the words "Little Tokyo" written on it.
the J-A community may have a reputation for being quiet, but we know how to make noise if we have to ^_^
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Feb 29, 2008 7:01:13 GMT -8
Oh, I totally agree that there MUST be a Little Tokyo station once this Connector is completed.
In the same vain that I pleaded (and was fortunately heard) to extend the first phase of the Expo Line to Venice/Robertson sooner and not later (no interim station at Washington and National for $10 million, and then tear it down in a few years!), I could just wretch knowing that the beautiful Little Tokyo station will have to be redone so soon after it's rebuilt.
So let's just take a deep breath, fight the urge to punch a hole in our computer screen, and recognize that the entire county will have to start referring to our current jewel of a Little Tokyo station as an "interim station" and start thinking of a way to rebuild it to establish an excellent multiportal (partially subterranean) station that accommodates first-rate connections between the Gold Lines and the Connector.
CALLING ALL EASTSIDERS AND SGV RESIDENTS: YOUR WISHES TO EXPAND THE FOOTHILL GOLD AND EASTSIDE GOLD LINES MIGHT BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THESE LINES ARE REBUILT THE RIGHT WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR INITIAL CONSTRUCTION THAT DIDN'T TAKE A NETWORK CONFIGURATION INTO CONSIDERATION!!!
CALLING ALL WESTSIDERS AND MID-CITY RESIDENTS: YOUR WILSHIRE SUBWAY WILL POSSIBLY BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL YOU FIX THE BLUE/EXPO ARRANGEMENT AND DOWNTOWN CONNECTOR INTERFACE, PROBABLY WITH ANOTHER SUBWAY DOWNTOWN THAT IS EXPANDED TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS OF BOTH THE BLUE AND EXPO LINES WITH RESPECT TO STREET-RUNNING RAIL...AND DON'T YOU DARE LET THE CRENSHAW OR WILSHIRE LINES BE BUILT UNTIL THE PLANS TO CONNECT THEM AT WILSHIRE/LA BREA ARE PUT IN PLACE!!!
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 29, 2008 7:25:16 GMT -8
Don't forget that Alternative 5 combines subway under 2nd Street with keeping the existing Little Tokyo station. The portal would be in the block northeast of 2nd & Central, near the front of Office Depot. Depressing Alameda would effectively grade-separate the 1st & Alameda ground-level crossing while simplifying connection to the now-under-construction Gold Line.
My recommendationed route options for the Draft EIS/EIR would be Alternatives 5 (full subway with Alameda transition as above) and 4B (at-grade on 2nd with tunnel diagonal and Flower station between 4th and 5th).
I don't favor the three tight at-grade turns of Alts. 1a & 1b, the perimeter route of Alt. 2 along Figueroa and Temple, or rebuilding the Eastside Gold Line into subway for Alts. 6 & 8.
The couplet up to Temple of Alt. 3A seems a wash compared to Alts. 4a & 4b. It removes the at-grade challenges in Little Tokyo and provides stations right by City Hall, but creates more turns, especially the tight one at Temple & Alameda.
I'd like to see the results of modeling signal priority on 2nd. If (that's a key if!) trains could run without stopping between stations at 35 mph, it would be hardly slower than subway and could create an inviting downtown transit mall.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2008 7:53:55 GMT -8
Don't forget that Alternative 5 combines subway under 2nd Street with keeping the existing Little Tokyo station. The portal would be in the block northeast of 2nd & Central, near the front of Office Depot. Depressing Alameda would effectively grade-separate the 1st & Alameda ground-level crossing while simplifying connection to the now-under-construction Gold Line... My recommendationed route options for the Draft EIS/EIR would be Alternatives 5 (full subway with Alameda transition as above) and 4B (at-grade on 2nd with tunnel diagonal and Flower station between 4th and 5th). I'm trying to figure out in my mnd how feasible depressing Alameda in relation to the entry of the Alexan Savoy condo on the SE corner of 1st/Alameda and any future development that Metro may be able to do on that SW lot where the trains come out of the portal. I'm thinking at that corner they design a portal station similiar in arrangement to the Trousdale Parkway entrance to the USC/Expo Park station. I wonder if it's possible to have a station and portal at that corner so that East LA riders can get off at Little Tokyo as currently witnessed on the 30/31 bus. Alternative 4B does look good, again if they can show prove that they can model those signals like that. But from many experineces jogging/walking down Second, I don't see that as a likely possibility because of the impacts along 1st Street, Spring, Broadway and Hill during Rush Hour.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Feb 29, 2008 7:58:21 GMT -8
Ray Sosa sounded like the idea has been mentioned relative to the condos there already and they (not sure exactly who) like the idea of separating Alameda's truck traffic from the new development.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2008 8:04:25 GMT -8
With that said, I don't know if there's enough room to depress Alameda for even three lanes, (two through lanes and peak directional lane) and preserve a passing lane for the Savoy development. Maybe for the Alternative 5 1st Street crossing, they make that section Transit Only(only for Buses and LRT) because Second and Temple streets become effective through traffic options.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Feb 29, 2008 8:29:17 GMT -8
That's why MTA is keeping a lane of traffic so that under PUC rules it is considered a side street alignment and thus capable running at street speeds (which I assume is 35 on 2nd). If it was just a transit mall it could only go 20mph. The Little Tokyo station doesn't need to be demolished even under alternative six. Once construction is finished the interim Little Tokyo station will still serve any Eastside train that needs to run to Pasadena. New year's day would be one example that I could think of plus maybe they can run some late night services to the north. It will be interesting to see how much Eastisde traffic continues north past LAUS once the line is built. Like I said earlier Eastside service doesn't need to be shutdown during the building of the Eastside portal. They can lay down track on Temple and Vignes to get around the worksite while they spend about a year on the portal. During this time Little Tokyo will obviously be closed but its not like residents will be miles away from LAUS or Civic Center (each about 6-8 blocks away). Its doable.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2008 11:14:37 GMT -8
...Eastside service doesn't need to be shutdown during the building of the Eastside portal. They can lay down track on Temple and Vignes to get around the worksite while they spend about a year on the portal. During this time Little Tokyo will obviously be closed but its not like residents will be miles away from LAUS or Civic Center (each about 6-8 blocks away). Its doable. Exactly, and the NE Lot is what Metro owns right now so they could build in a temporary connector track through the lot to Temple even add a temporary wooden station that would accomodate Little Tokyo/Arts District while they build the portals and new station.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Feb 29, 2008 11:59:24 GMT -8
has everyone submitted there comments to metro about this yet?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 29, 2008 15:24:05 GMT -8
has everyone submitted there comments to metro about this yet? I've been busy, but I'm going to get on that as soon as I can. EDIT: I just called the MTA's regional connector hotline and they have messages in English, Spanish and in Japanese. very cool, and it shows that they are keeping J-Town in consideration. I basically just told them to keep Little Tokyo in their plans. 1st/Alameda or the underground station at 2nd/ San Pedro, I don't really care as long as one or the other gets built/ rebuilt
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Mar 1, 2008 12:22:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 1, 2008 18:21:15 GMT -8
thanks for the link! after seeing those maps up close for the first time, I would have to say that Alternative 6 is the alternative which makes the most sense, as it is one of the few alternatives to include a true Little Tokyo station, and because it would be mostly underground. (although if Mikawaya falls into a Hollywood-sized sinkhole during construction, there's going to be hell to pay) Alternative 5 would be okay, because it would preserve the existing Little Tokyo station.
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Mar 1, 2008 23:00:01 GMT -8
I agree, we need this Connector to be tunnel all the way. There's too much traffic on 2nd st. and to even think about narrowing it further to build at grade, is just ludicrous. The current Little Tokyo station is adequate. But it's not an ideal location for Little Tokyo, or the Arts District, and doesn't really serve them both. It's on the northeast edge of Little Tokyo and the northwest edge of Arts District. They need 2 separate stations, one for Little Tokyo on 2nd, and one for the Arts District on 1st and Rose St.
An underground station should be closer to the Miyako hotel (Formerly the Otani hotel), Weller Court, Mitsuwa plaza, Little Tokyo village, and the new Block 8 Residential development on 2nd and San Pedro. My ideal Little Tokyo station would have two exits, one at 2nd and San Pedro near Little Tokyo village, one on 3rd and Central near or inside Mitsuwa plaza.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 2, 2008 0:19:39 GMT -8
shoot, I forgot about Block 8 in my previous comments. how about "Nihonmachi 8-chome" as a station name?!
I haven't been to Little Tokyo as often as I used to, especially after my father fell ill in November. it's hard to keep up with all of the new developments.
just like with all of the new development on Bunker Hill, we have to make sure that transit is part of the "growing up" of Little Tokyo
I'm not sure how you build a station that covers the distance from 2nd/San Pedro to 3rd/Central. ( Mitsuwa Plaza doesn't make my list of top priorities, but that's just me ;D )
but hopefully, even with all of the new construction, there should be room for a station box on second, right?
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Mar 2, 2008 18:17:19 GMT -8
Jez: ditto on the alternatives- they look great! I too support Alternative 5.
|
|
|
Post by zoostation on Mar 2, 2008 18:55:02 GMT -8
thanks for posting up the photos of the alternatives. I also think 5 is the best.
I'm curious as to why anyone would support the Temple Street route?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Mar 2, 2008 21:06:31 GMT -8
Temple St. would be close to the Criminal Courts Bldg--handy for jurors and prospective jurors, but not a good early until late location.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 1, 2008 21:22:47 GMT -8
But with a tight curve with an approaching aerial incline at Temple/Alameda, I don't know how they can operate at-grade there.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 1, 2008 23:17:48 GMT -8
It's a shame that First Street can't be used, but if Second Street is the best alternative I just can't imagine doing any better than that.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on May 2, 2008 9:30:29 GMT -8
These two alternatives appear to be the finalists for the Regional Connector (images from February's presentation): The at-grade version uses the Main St. - Los Angeles St. couplet up to Temple St. Apparently impacts of the at-grade alternative on 2nd St. all the way through Little Tokyo were too great. For the subway version, I saw an image from a presentation to the Metro Citizens Advisory Committee that detailed a portal at 2nd and Central, coming up to grade at 1st and Alameda. I hope that includes putting Alameda below grade as I previously posted. I don't know if station locations have changed from these February maps. I also heard there may not be that great a cost difference between these two options. Thus detailed study of Alternative 3A -- the best possible at-grade option -- is likely to conclude that the subway Alternative 5 is the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 2, 2008 10:43:30 GMT -8
Of those alternatives, 3A 5 is definitely the best choice. The deal-killer would be the price tag. But if, as you suggest, the price tag isn't that far from the alternative, then it seems to me building 3A 5 is a no-brainer.
EDITED: I meant 5, not 3a.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on May 2, 2008 11:03:44 GMT -8
oh dear god make it the subway
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on May 2, 2008 11:23:51 GMT -8
This really needs to be as much a subway as possible, and I really have questions about that acute angle at Little Tokyo, so I'd go with Alternative 5 (the subway), but I do like the better access to City Hall afforded by 3A.
???Would it be possible to merge the two by either having a 2nd Street subway that turns northeast around Main or Los Angeles to proceed either directly to Union Station (coming up for air somewhere around the Federal Building), or to have a subway with a stop at 1st and Main that then proceeds to a reconfigured Little Tokyo station.
At this immediate time, it really doesn't appear to me that the planners are making much sense in their conclusions. Furthermore, can't this subway move diagonally between streets rather than adhering to streets like we're seeing on this map (in other words, having a station at Disney Hall and 1st and Main).
Don't subways have more freedom to move between streets since they're freakin' underground? What the hell am I missing here?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on May 2, 2008 11:46:32 GMT -8
Don't subways have more freedom to move between streets since they're freakin' underground? What the hell am I missing here? I was thinking that too, although I do understand that surely some buildings have possibly several layers of underground foundation/parking/basements/etc.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on May 2, 2008 12:36:27 GMT -8
There's also a lot of surface parking lots that subways can definitely tunnel under, giving some extra maneuvering room. There is still time to make a difference, so if we can find something better, then we have to do it now.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on May 2, 2008 15:31:48 GMT -8
Of those alternatives, 5 is definitely the best choice. The deal-killer would be the price tag. But if, as you suggest, the price tag isn't that far from the alternative, then it seems to me building 5 is a no-brainer. I hope with this connector they look at the operational aspects of it and study the 3 track turnback at San Francisco's Embarcadero Muni Metro station. The third center track will be needed at a key strategic point between 7th Street/Metro Center and 4th Street/Central Library[/color][/b] (See sketch #1) to store broken equipment during rush hour or even for shortlines during rush hour so that mechanical issues doesn't hold up the entire system, like what happens on the Chicago Loop, where 4 routes operate on close headways on their track. Sketch # 1 (I apologize for the sloppiness, I was doodling this out on the 450X bus this afternoon): Also there is a need to have crossovers at both ends of each Regional Connector station for these potential set backs and of course lengthening the platforms for 4 car LRV's. And with some suggesting building it for 60-90 second headways we need to investigate having it operate under an overhead third rail that would provide better regenerative power without having to increase the voltage to handle the power loads.
|
|