|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 24, 2008 16:31:46 GMT -8
Precisely, because our very actions and presentation will make a difference. If the solutions we suggest during the EIR will be cost-effective and is feasible then there's a greter chance of having them listen to us as advocates.
If the solution that we propose actually makes it more expensive, reduces that throughput (by way of slower speed curves and junctions), riskier by way of the original undergound wye and doesn't answer the benefit of the development, what we will end up as default as the at-grade version which is the worst solution. Worse than Alternative #5.
So it's all about having good solution(s) to the problem and being clear as to how those solution(s) work in conjunction in the environment/site in question.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 10, 2008 1:16:35 GMT -8
Hey Guys, What do you think of this proposal? The advantage is that all routes share a single station, though it be at two levels, the footprint is minimized and the intersection is greatly simplified. The lower level would have to be bifurcated as at 7th & Metro. It's to bad this connection cannot happen at Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 10, 2008 5:56:00 GMT -8
It would be nice if we had an additional 500 feet to play with, as shown with the posts between Gokhan and Darrell.
Unfortuntely, there's no room for the trains to transition from underground to at-grade if there is a platform directly underneath the at-grade platofrm. Also there's not enough space for the LRT's to climb with a safe incline 5-6% to have the trains transition from underground to at-grade. The best idea for that proposal is moving the station to 1st/Alameda/2nd/Central site because there's the extra space needed to make this work. In addition the freeway bridge incline starts at the foot of Temple/Alameda so that is another reason why there are site space restrictions from pulling that off.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 10, 2008 10:34:21 GMT -8
You are correct, after wrapping my head around this I have come to the conclusion Gokhan's proposal is the best solution however passengers on a East L.A. to Pasadena train are not accommodated for on his map. I modified his map a little. These passengers will have to note to catch a non-Union Station bound train if they wish to debark at Little Tokyo. Orange = At grade Green = subway Purple = transition to grade Burgundy = transition box and station box. Note there is a box on either side of the above ground tracks. I think part of the Mangrove Site will have to be acquired in order to keep 1st open. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 28, 2008 11:50:20 GMT -8
^ Yep the site need to be purchased but not more to keep Alameda traffic open. Remember Alameda traffic is heavier than 1st Street traffic. So the mitigation to buy that lot for construction is an important one and one I think will make a significant difference in the cost comparison between this and the current at-grade wye/Alameda undercrossing design.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 28, 2008 17:52:12 GMT -8
Yep the site need to be purchased The city just sold the site a few months ago. Why would they sell the site to a developer and then need to repurchase it? That seems shortsighted, yet not necessarily unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 28, 2008 18:00:03 GMT -8
The city doesn't need to purchase it for possible work on the Regional Connector, Metro would have to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 28, 2008 23:17:54 GMT -8
It would appear the city still owns it. They will just be leasing it. I believe the park element is mandated by the city. Nikkei Center would provide 390 apartment units (20% affordable), 80,000 square feet of Japanese-themed retail, 166,500 square feet of office space and 1,286 parking slots. Anyone have a revised downtown connector proposal or suggestions on how their design can be modified? www.angelenic.com/773/nikkei-center-plan-selected-for-little-tokyos-mangrove-parcel/
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 29, 2008 0:25:02 GMT -8
I think if the Connector is built on that corner It will look very ugly no matter what is done to blend in or mitigate the visual effects of trains making that elbow turn. I would like it if the City did a land swap deal. Maybe build a pocket park on that corner of 1st / Alameda where it will be more visible and accessible. The track junction can be shielded from the street by trees and park furniture. Or The Connector Y can be integrated into the new building development. Just have the building hang over the tracks like at Memorial Park Station in Pasadena ... Good architecture can blend in, and even compliment light rail tracks.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 29, 2008 22:00:31 GMT -8
I've looked at your ideas about the town-down connector. But what makes you think that Metro will put another station on first st.? talk about confusion for the weary traveler!
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Nov 29, 2008 22:25:17 GMT -8
Well, one of the major reasons for having a Downtown Connector is to add a train station that is near City Hall, CalTrans, and the new Police Headquarters on 1st st.
Where exactly that station will be is up for grabs.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Dec 2, 2008 11:05:17 GMT -8
...The Connector Y can be integrated into the new building development. Just have the building hang over the tracks like at Memorial Park Station in Pasadena ... Good architecture can blend in, and even compliment light rail tracks. Or even a landmark pedestrian bridge that creates a center point for Little Tokyo and doubles as a Passenger mezzanine for the Light Rail platform(s). With next train monitors and careful wayfinding signage this is something that would improve pedestrian crossing safety and inform rail riders.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 27, 2008 0:17:35 GMT -8
New post at BlogDowntown today: Catching Up With... The Regional Connector. Most is a familiar recap of 2008 progress. It concludes: What's Next: Within the first month or two of 2009, the Alternatives Analysis will go to the Metro Board of Directors. Once approved, more engineering work can commence, a preferred alternative can be selected and formal environmental documents can be prepared. The project has not released a clear timetable for when the Connector would be up and running, since so much depends on how quickly the funding can be secured.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 27, 2008 14:33:49 GMT -8
I'm looking forward to, and am proud of the progress made so far on, the Downtown Connector planning efforts. As the next 1-2 years turns wishful thinking into actual reality, more and more individuals will realize that this mass transit alternative is an idea that has actual legs. I don't have all the answers to 1st and Alameda, but I'm looking forward to the efforts of The Transit Coalition to play a role in making this project a first-rate one.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 2, 2009 12:51:15 GMT -8
Is there a reason why so many seem to think that having all downtown connector trains stop at the under construction Little Tokyo Station is a necessity? We don't know where the connector stations will end up, but if there is one somewhere around 2nd and Los Angeles that would be the same distance to LT as the current station. Between Main and Spring would be only 1 block farther. That seems a better option than trying to figure a way to get all trains to stop at the under construction station, especially given that half of the connector trains likely will not be going to Union Station anyway. Unless we're expecting that Sierra Madre will need 20 TPH.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 2, 2009 20:07:09 GMT -8
Is there a reason why so many seem to think that having all downtown connector trains stop at the under construction Little Tokyo Station is a necessity? We don't know where the connector stations will end up, but if there is one somewhere around 2nd and Los Angeles that would be the same distance to LT as the current station. Between Main and Spring would be only 1 block farther. That seems a better option than trying to figure a way to get all trains to stop at the under construction station, especially given that half of the connector trains likely will not be going to Union Station anyway. Unless we're expecting that Sierra Madre will need 20 TPH. I don't know if all trains should necessarily have to stop at the Little Tokyo station, but the corner of 1st and Alameda is starting to look like a pretty good place to have a light rail station. you have the Nikkei Center planned for the northeast corner (the Mangrove property), you have that huge apartment complex at the southeast corner and the bulk of Little Tokyo is immediately to the west of the station. a reasonable alternative to 1st/ Alameda would be 2nd and San Pedro, because that would be in the heart of the neighborhood as well. 2nd and Los Angeles would be doable because the New Otani ("Kyoto Grand Hotel") is right there, but frankly, I just don't see 2nd/Main or Spring as being a useful alternative for Little Tokyo. the further west you go, the station starts looking less like a Little Tokyo station and more like the Red Line's Civic Center station, and we don't need two of those, especially since the-powers-that-be are pushing for a Broadway trolley.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 3, 2009 10:30:36 GMT -8
We could have this station have two entrances one at 2nd/Spring the other at 2nd/Los Angeles like it is at 7th Street/Metro Center, that could be a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 3, 2009 19:50:33 GMT -8
as long as there is a station at the corner of 1st/ Alameda (it doesn't have to be some sort of uber-station, accessible from all directions), they can put the 2nd street station as far west as they want.
however, if for some weird reason, they build the regional connector and completely eliminate the 1st/alameda station (which I don't see happening, but nothing is impossible in the world of transit politics), then Little Tokyo deserves some sort of compensation - a replacement station within the neighborhood, not adjacent to it. first of all, that is a growing neighborhood; secondly, they are likely going to have to deal with a large part of the construction effort.
that is really my only concern: that the MTA would give Little Tokyo a new station for the Metro Gold Line, only to yank it away a few years later.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 3, 2009 19:58:45 GMT -8
as long as there is a station at the corner of 1st/ Alameda (it doesn't have to be some sort of uber-station, accessible from all directions), they can put the 2nd street station as far west as they want. however, if for some weird reason, they build the regional connector and completely eliminate the 1st/alameda station (which I don't see happening, but nothing is impossible in the world of transit politics), then Little Tokyo deserves some sort of compensation - a replacement station within the neighborhood, not adjacent to it. first of all, that is a growing neighborhood; secondly, they are likely going to have to deal with a large part of the construction effort. [ edit: 2nd/Los Angeles would qualify for a Little Tokyo station, it wouldn't be perfect. again, this is only if 1st/Alameda disappears] that is really my only concern: that the MTA would give Little Tokyo a new station for the Metro Gold Line, only to yank it away a few years later.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 3, 2009 22:46:38 GMT -8
I don't expect the under construction station at 1st/Alameda to be abandoned, but if it is I could only see that happening if there were a replacement station. What I meant was that I expect that Blue line trains will go to Pasadena and Expo trains to East LA (switch those two if you prefer). If that happens then all blue line trains would stop at the 1st/Alameda station yet none of the Expo trains would. They'll stop at say 2nd and Main. I agree that Little Tokyo needs a station, I'm just at a loss to understand why everyone is intent on constructing a diagram whereby all trains would stop there when obviously not all connector trains would be able to go to Union Station.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Jan 4, 2009 12:02:37 GMT -8
I don't expect the under construction station at 1st/Alameda to be abandoned, but if it is I could only see that happening if there were a replacement station. What I meant was that I expect that Blue line trains will go to Pasadena and Expo trains to East LA (switch those two if you prefer). If that happens then all blue line trains would stop at the 1st/Alameda station yet none of the Expo trains would. They'll stop at say 2nd and Main. Abandon the under construction northeast 1st/Alameda station, and construct as it's replacement a shared station on the southwest corner of 1st/Alameda, and all four probable connections (Blue-Gold, Blue-Eastside, Expo-Gold and Expo-Eastside) would serve that intersection/center.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 4, 2009 14:10:00 GMT -8
^ If the Gold-Eastside connection were completely eliminated, the Gold and Eastside tracks could descend toward the south/west toward 1st/Alameda, and pass under that intersection.
However, should the Gold-Eastside connection remain, the tracks would have to pass over 1st/Alameda, and the SW block of 1st/Alameda would have to be used for descending to below-grade, in which case the station should be moved to Second Street between San Pedro and Central.
This all presumes, of course, that people are willing to sacrifice the Gold-Eastside station and/or connection.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 4, 2009 14:59:48 GMT -8
And BTW, the only thing sacrificed by eliminating the existing station is the *direct* route between Pasadena and the Eastside. Passengers would still be able to take that trip, but they'd have to transfer at the new station.
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Jan 4, 2009 19:33:17 GMT -8
It would be like transferring between the Blue and future Expo at Pico, or in a larger sense, between Metrolink trains at Union Station; you go into a spur and get out the same way in a different direction.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 5, 2009 10:51:40 GMT -8
This is a cross between Alternatives 5 and 6. The route and grade-separation is like Alt. 5, but the station is relocated to the west as in Alt. 6.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 5, 2009 11:25:14 GMT -8
I like this idea, it's a shame this isn't one of the MTA's official alternatives, although I see no reason why it couldn't be.
certainly this station location would more than satisfy Little Tokyo residents and visitors, especially if you have station entrances at 2nd/San Pedro and 2nd/Central. close to Weller Court, the JACCC, most of the shops in the area.
I'm not sure where you would put the station portals, because that neighborhood is pretty dense. I know how the MTA loves big station plazas, but I don't see that happening here
I do feel a little sorry for the Office Depot, because they will get eminent domained out of existance. oh well.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jan 5, 2009 13:25:08 GMT -8
^ That is the exact question I have because;
1) 2nd Street is only 60-70' wide in that section so, how does that effect the current businesses and their customers access to it? 2) Finding one large ADA portal location is hard to find there. The perfect spot would be at the SW corner of 2nd/San Pedro but that site is currently under construction for housing.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Jan 5, 2009 21:01:38 GMT -8
Well like I thought the recommendation to the board for the underground option based on the Planning Commission Agenda is to keep the under construction Little Tokyo station open and have a station between Los Angeles and Main. Okay I thought Main and Spring, but close enough. That makes a lot of sense to me. Little Tokyo keeps their station which will have the same frequency as the gold/blue lines which I don't see as a problem. There is also a station one block away. Little Tokyo is well served and so are the government offices. Win, win!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 6, 2009 14:18:54 GMT -8
^ That is the exact question I have because; 1) 2nd Street is only 60-70' wide in that section so, how does that effect the current businesses and their customers access to it? 2) Finding one large ADA portal location is hard to find there. The perfect spot would be at the SW corner of 2nd/San Pedro but that site is currently under construction for housing. building a light rail station underneath 2nd street in Little Tokyo would be challenging, which is not the same thing as impossible you'd probably want to abandon all hopes of having a large portal. assume that the ADA requirements can be met by installing elevators and build narrow station entrances for the rest. build the station in such a way that it straddles the 2nd/ San Pedro intersection, since I think 2nd street is a tad wider west of San Pedro than it is directly in front of Japanese Village Plaza. also, there are fewer businesses that face directly out onto 2nd west of San Pedro. I'm no engineer, but I know that there's an rather large underground parking structure at Weller Court that faces out onto 2nd Street just west of San Pedro.... oh, the mad scientist possibilities there ;D but then, some partypooper will probably tell me that messing with the structural integrity would cause the New Otani to collapse.... obviously, the best case scenario would be to keep the existing 1st/Alameda station.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 27, 2009 9:36:44 GMT -8
Metro Board Votes to Move Forward Four Major L.A. County Transportation ProjectsMarking a significant day in the advancement of key transportation projects in the L.A. region, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board of Directors today authorized four major transportation projects to move forward to their next phase of work. Metro’s Alternatives Analysis recommendations – considered the first phase of project work conducted over the past year and a half – were approved for three projects: the Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study to West Los Angeles; the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study in Downtown L.A., and; the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Study in the eastern portion of L.A. These projects will now enter into environmental review, which precedes final design and construction. At this same meeting, the Metro Board also certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canoga Transportation Corridor Project, a move that clears the way for construction to begin later this year on a four-mile extension of the Metro Orange Line from the Canoga Park park and ride lot north to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station in the West San Fernando Valley. “Advancing these transit projects closer to construction and completion sends a clear signal that greater mobility for Los Angeles is inevitable,” said L.A. City Mayor and Metro Board Chair Antonio Villaraigosa. “We can and will build our way out of this recession with projects that are ready to go and that will directly stimulate our local economy.” Project funding will be made available, in part, through Measure R, the countywide half-cent sales tax approved by voters during last November’s general election. Proceeds will begin to be collected July 1, 2009, and could fund up to $40 billion in overall transit, highway, pedestrian and bicycle improvements over the next 30 years. The Westside Extension Transit Corridor Study is the proposed extension of the Metro Purple and/or Red Line subway to Santa Monica. In addition to the No Build and Transportation Systems Management Alternatives, the Board approved two build alternatives for further environmental review and preliminary engineering: a Metro Purple Line extension via Wilshire Boulevard and another that also includes a spur from the Metro Red Line in Hollywood via Santa Monica Boulevard. The Board approved for further environmental review Metro’s recommended alternatives for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Study that would provide seamless travel between Long Beach and Pasadena, connecting the soon-to-open Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension with the 7th Street/Metro Center Metro Blue Line Station and the future Expo Line. Metro will now study possible at-grade and underground alternatives via Second Street in Downtown L.A.The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Study proposes to continue the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension now under construction. The rail extension between downtown Los Angeles and East Los Angeles is scheduled to open in mid-2009. In studying a possible continuation of the line from the future Atlantic station terminus, Metro recommended several alternatives for further analysis, including rail line extensions via State Route 60, Beverly, Whittier and Washington Boulevards. At the conclusion of the next phase of evaluation for the Westside Extension, Regional Connector, and Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2, the Metro Board of Directors will be asked to select a Locally Preferred Alternative for each project. Public outreach will continue to be a key component for all projects, and public comment incorporated throughout all project phases. For additional information on all of these transportation projects, visit metro.net. For transit trip planning assistance over the phone, call 1-800-COMMUTE.
|
|