|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 6, 2009 18:34:01 GMT -8
James, Since you seem to be around today... Do you have a link to what the current status is of the Nikkei Center? I was checking into this a couple days ago, and came up empty for anything recent. Last I saw was that they selected a group to build a mixed use development back in August 2008. Has the economy changed the plan, or is it still just being designed? I'm curious to see what will be in that large empty lot RT
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 6, 2009 19:38:35 GMT -8
James, I have no problem doing exactly what you see me and Justin Walker doing on another thread: linkWhat I've done here and other places is provided specific ways in which I think the project can be built, and the major concerns of the community, as I understand them), which I assume to be true and mostly legitimate (and not as you label NIMBYism) can be addressed, and I've provided for anyone to challenge the numbers. If there is something wrong with my assumption to tunnel height, grade, portal length, anything it is all here, specifically outlined and people can refute the math...not just rhetoric but with numbers. I have no problem referencing past practice, current standards, engineering possibilities, etc. and identifying when I think I'm pushing the envelope or not. You haven't done any of that, and neither has darrell. (In very darrell-like way the best he's done is supplied pictures.) But on a more important note, I did a Gold Line Eastside Extension ride today with much of the planning staff doing the Downtown Connector and an underground crossing of 1st/Alameda is back on the table and being seriously considered.I wouldn't be surprised if we see Alt. 6 being discussed at this round of meetings. So much for you requesting people fall in line...
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 6, 2009 22:44:38 GMT -8
(In very darrell-like way the best he's done is supplied pictures.) We look forward to scaled plan and profile drawings of your proposal to compare with the ones I've posted.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 3:55:44 GMT -8
James, Since you seem to be around today... Do you have a link to what the current status is of the Nikkei Center? I was checking into this a couple days ago, and came up empty for anything recent. Last I saw was that they selected a group to build a mixed use development back in August 2008. Has the economy changed the plan, or is it still just being designed? I'm curious to see what will be in that large empty lot RT You know, to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely certain what the current status of the Nikkei Center is. As I understand it, the Nikkei Center is being developed by a group of Little Tokyo investors, most notably the Little Tokyo Service Center. LTSC is a fascinating group, and they are responsible for a lot of projects, including the Budokan (recreation center). If you look at their Web site www.ltsc.org/index.html, they do a LOT of stuff in Little Tokyo, ranging from economic development to organizing fundraisers for various community causes. For better or for worse, they are not your typical real estate developer! (A developer might have more financial capital to build quickly, but less of a social and ethnic mission to fulfill the community's wishes). I suspect that the economy has slowed down the Nikkei Center. Still, the Nikkei Center has not been forgotten. The MTA certainly always includes it in their Regional Connector plans, and when blogs talk about "the developers of the Nikkei Center", you know that something must be planned. I hope to see the Nikkei Center built, as do many Japanese Americans...
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 5:16:30 GMT -8
But on a more important note, I did a Gold Line Eastside Extension ride today with much of the planning staff doing the Downtown Connector and an underground crossing of 1st/Alameda is back on the table and being seriously considered.I wouldn't be surprised if we see Alt. 6 being discussed at this round of meetings. So much for you requesting people fall in line... Okay, so I'm reading this and I get the general impression that Damien is attempting to yank my chain/ push my buttons/ rub it in/ taunt me in some way for some reason. The problem is, as taunts go, this one is a total failure. It's actually kind of amusing. I'm not in the slightest bit angered by it. Damien is apparently under the impression that I oppose the underground station idea, even though I have repeatedly stated both here and at Little Tokyo Unblogged that I don't oppose it. The thing is, unlike some people, I am actually capable of adapting my position as new information comes forth. I have, as a matter of fact, changed my position somewhat as the situation has changed and as the plans have evolved. For example, looking through the first six pages of this discussion, I find myself talking a lot about what it means to be Japanese American, because I felt (and I still do) that there were certain cultural considerations which had an undeniable effect on how the public accepted the Regional Connector. I spent a ridiculously large amount of time discussing the pedestrian bridge at First/Alameda. I wasn't even thinking in terms of underground vs. at-grade, I just saw a bridge that looked nice and a plan that looked good enough. I also previously thought that the Nikkei Center would oppose an underground center. At the time, there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The situation changed. Right now things look pretty good for the Fifth Option. It's on the table, where it can be poked and prodded and tested. Will it pass the test? Who knows? Onwards to the next evolution....
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 7, 2009 8:39:49 GMT -8
Yank chains, taunt? No. Trust me when I say my primary intent was to illustrate how the type of "advocacy" espoused by MANY on this board ( we can't do anything about it so pick one, shut up, fall in line, put lipstick on the pig, and fight the NIMBYs, which most of you define as "people who live in the community are most impacted by the project and dare to say something critical") is HURTING MASS TRANSIT EXPANSION IN THIS REGION. And if you think I've mis-characterized your statements you need only read them. Here's " we can't do anything about it": I can tell you why bringing that option forward won't work: Because the MTA won't listen. The MTA already came up with an underground wye and they scrapped theirs. Here's " shut up": We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal And: if presidential primary politics worked like transit advocate politics, the Democratic Party would still be arguing over whether Hillary or Obama was the better candidate.
seriously guys. it's great to suggest alternative candidates, but at the end of the day, the MTA still rejected everything but the two candidates that we are down to (technically four, but nobody here wants TSM shuttle buses and/ or doing nothing). [....] the rest of you are free to keep fighting for your prefered alternatives. but, know this: do so, and you are fighting against the underground option. And here's " pick one and fall in line": at some point, we need to unify around one. Here's " fight the 'NIMBYs'": Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA. Along the way, as you've been making these statements, I've been saying just let the process play out, the current options are bad and worse, there was/would be justifiably strong opposition to them ( 33-0!!!), an alternative was needed, an underground crossing was feasible without harming Nikkei, and pressure was needed to get Metro to go back to the drawing board. You kept saying, no no no. Everything is fine, impacts aren't that great, LTCC would marginalize themselves by opposing them both, personally went after me, repeatedly for pushing back*, and finally when the LTCC came out in opposition you went after them - called them "NIMBYs," "closeminded" and totally dismissed the fact that they had spent months dissecting both plans, hearing from the community and gave MTA considerable time to persuade them. Now that "transit advocates" have averted your suggested route of waging war against the community, trying to put prettier lipstick on the pig, sell some snake oil, or making a bunch of unfounded assumptions ( Darrell), options that were previously dismissed are on the table. Whether some modified version of Alt. 6 (my prediction) or "The 5th Option" is adopted, the point is by sending a unified voice of concern and opposition to their current plans and proposing an alternative, LTCC was able to get MTA off the path to train wreck and back on to safer grade separated, less environmentally disruptive ground. So sorry for being right James, refusing to close doors, shut up, fall in line, attack community members expressing concern and suggesting a viable strategy (implemented completely without my assistance) to get us to this point. And sorry for expressing pleasure that we're at this stage now. I admittedly prefer seeing a debate about Option 5 vs. Alt. 6 and seeing Metro/the community impacted try and modify one or both to make them work, than the other two travesties, which I said over a year ago "If built, someone at Metro should be fired." * = which is fine by the way, totally used to it, and completely expected the response I got when I finally pointed out how you were endorsing the wimp strategy.darrell: Its all over this thread and the blogdowntown thread.
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 7, 2009 9:49:46 GMT -8
Damien, FTR this thread is full of personal attacks, many of them from you. It's almost unreadable because of all of the miscellaneous attacks.
That aside I don't discount the opinions of the Little Tokyo stakeholders, but I also don't want the needs of the many held hostage to the NIMBY attitudes of a few. The result of that would be that every new rail line would end up being underground with stations placed only in business districts. There has to be some compromise and consideration for the greater community that will use the rail lines.
That being said I agree that none of the options are ideal and in large part because they are trying to better serve Little Tokyo. Based on the community concerns maybe the current Little Tokyo Station should be abandoned and riders could use a new underground station at Main and 2nd or Los Angeles and 2nd. That would eliminate many of the logistical issues associated with serving the existing Little Tokyo Station. The East LA portal could be on 1st street between Alameda and the river and the other portal could be on Alameda near where the existing station is. They would likely have to buy back Mangrove to make that work.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 7, 2009 11:12:35 GMT -8
Damien, in your rare posts in which you make a substantive argument (like this one), you bring forward very intelligent ideas worth discussing and debating. In the case of the Downtown Connector, I've actually agreed with you on the topics several times recently. The problem with the majority of your posts is that you always seem to get mired in your own compulsive need to (a) ascribe malicious motives to people that are not obvious to anyone but you, and (b) proclaim the superiority of your intellect over everybody else's. When you do that, who's going to listen to you? BTW, if what you say about riding the Eastside train is true, then congratulations. However, we'll all be riding it next weekend. And, barring any further obstructionist actions, we'll be riding Expo to Culver City real soon too.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 7, 2009 11:52:38 GMT -8
darrell: Its all over this thread No, not one drawing from you in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 12:23:35 GMT -8
You know, I just noticed something funny. Whenever Damien Goodmon tries to demonize me or prove that I'm some evil, anti-democratic jerk or whatever you want to call it, he typically does two things:
1) He cuts and pastes bits and pieces of old statements of mine, often out of context, often ignoring any changes in my position, and often ignoring the fact that I am responding to some hard-to-believe claim of his: the sort where he claims to be speaking out for a community of which he is not a part (either ethnic or geographic), or claiming joint ownership of the MTA (because, you know we also "own" the army, the navy, the post office and in the words of one famous bumper sticker, "the whole damn road")
so far, that's not too different from what a lot of people do on a lot of message boards when they are personally attacking a person. and when you're as wordy as I am, a little judicious cut-and-paste might be necessary. but then, he goes one step further:
2) because my statements, on their own, aren't strong enough, aren't evil enough, aren't megalomaniacal enough, aren't proving his point for him, he adds subtitles. he analyses my posts and he translates them into Damien-ese because without his own commentary interspersed among my comments like some sort of bad imitation of "the Daily Show," I'm rarely outrageous enough on my own to upset anyone.
Actually, this post is about as strong as I ever get, which is sort of ironic, but oh well.
Since it is highly unlikely that D.G. will stop using ths tactic, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to ignore the living daylights out of D.G. I'll keep on discussing the Regional Connector with anyone who isn't trolling the board, but D.G. will get a very large "..." from me. I imagine this post will elicit a response from D.G. about how I'm trying to censor him or something, which will lead to "..." from me. I should have done this ages ago.
Thanks for reading this, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 12:41:05 GMT -8
That aside I don't discount the opinions of the Little Tokyo stakeholders, but I also don't want the needs of the many held hostage to the NIMBY attitudes of a few. The result of that would be that every new rail line would end up being underground with stations placed only in business districts. There has to be some compromise and consideration for the greater community that will use the rail lines. That being said I agree that none of the options are ideal and in large part because they are trying to better serve Little Tokyo. Based on the community concerns maybe the current Little Tokyo Station should be abandoned and riders could use a new underground station at Main and 2nd or Los Angeles and 2nd. That would eliminate many of the logistical issues associated with serving the existing Little Tokyo Station. The East LA portal could be on 1st street between Alameda and the river and the other portal could be on Alameda near where the existing station is. They would likely have to buy back Mangrove to make that work. I understand your point, and yet I would hate to lose that station location. I'd consider "no station" to be the option of last resort, because I really do think a station at First and Alameda, either underground or at-grade (or maybe a two-level station?) would be quite useful. If we can't get all parties to agree to a reasonable solution, then the next best thing would be an alternative station. If we do that, I would want that station to be as centrally located in Little Tokyo as possible — on Second, between Los Angeles and San Pedro. Second and Main isn't part of Little Tokyo, although Second and Los Angeles would be. Even if it ends up completely underground, Little Tokyo will still have to bear a lot of the construction. It would be nice if the community got some reward for their patience, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 7, 2009 13:03:20 GMT -8
No, not one drawing from you in this thread. LOL! I'm beginning to understand. See I thought with all of those calculations, statements as to tunnel height, width, grade, distances between points/intersections, etc. I was making my point. But gosh, I forgot a rendering. How could I be so shortsighted? Sort of like entering a debate about at-grade rail safety without having pictures of people walking across the tracks without being hit. ("Leave the accident stats at home Johnny, just bring the pictures!") Incidentally the renderings are likely in other threads, but they're probably dated. Damien, FTR this thread is full of personal attacks, many of them from you. REEEEAAAALLLLYYY??? Do this little exercise: 1. Point out the "personal attacks" by me. 2. Link to the post and comment to which I was responding. It will totally make the point I'm making below in response to metrocenter... metrocenter: We should stick to the issues. We can have a perfectly healthy debate without ever diving into the banter that went on here, as evident by this discussion on blogdowntown.comBut you and a few others on this board like to dish it out, attack individuals/organizations/communities, name-call and demonize, and everything goes great until I call someone out, point out inconsistencies, let alone respond in kind. That is when things get to the point where someone's got to be chastised and to no surprise (given that I'm the one calling people out) it's always me. Hey people don't think I'm complaining; I'm just describing. Everything goes fine around here as long as no one is pointing out what you're doing, let alone engaging in kind from the opposite end. So yes, lets have a healthy discussion about the options being explored and other possibilities. Let us talk numbers, mitigation measures, station location, and all that good stuff (all of that is much more fun for me). And lets see how many posts we can go before someone (not me) returns to the name-calling, browbeating, and "KILL THE PROJECT" hysteria that infects most discussions on this board regarding anything substantive.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 7, 2009 13:48:32 GMT -8
And now back to the healthy discussion about the options being explored and other possibilities, can anyone recall, why Metro early on eliminated any 1st Street underground alignments?
Not just at 1st/Alameda, but 1st Street from around Flower to Alameda.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 7, 2009 14:28:32 GMT -8
An underground rail wye would very easily fit at 1st and Alameda. All it takes is to put the existing Little Tokyo Station underground and build a portal just west of Garey/1st and another portal just north of Temple/Alameda. This would be much better than an underground Alameda Street and the maze of flying pedestrian overpasses.
But the problem is that the MTA doesn't want to redo the Eastside Line only a few years after it opened. This could likely require the discontinuation of the service for years.
If the current plans get built, we will have the analogue of Flower and Washington. Is this a good thing? No. Would it work? Sort of, kind of, but not in the most efficient way.
My personal choice is to have things built right in the first place and therefore I would prefer an underground rail wye here, with the section of the Eastside Line between Garey/1st and Temple/Alameda redone along with the Little Tokyo Station and a temporary rail detour provided for the Eastside Line through the lot of the future Nikkei Center during the undergrounding of the Eastside Line. Of course, this could delay the plans for the Nikkei Center as a downside.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 7, 2009 15:34:01 GMT -8
An underground rail wye would very easily fit at 1st and Alameda. All it takes is to put the existing Little Tokyo Station underground and build a portal just west of Garey/1st and another portal just north of Temple/Alameda. This would be much better than an underground Alameda Street and the maze of flying pedestrian overpasses. For everyone, cause this is driving me bonkers an underground WYE is the wrong terminology, An underground wye would require two levels underground (as in BART in Oaklnad) for trains to move through SAFELY. About the only way this will work underground given the short proximity to recently completed infrastructure -such as the 101 bridge- would be make the 1st/Alameda below a flat junction as was mentioned when we discussed this last year and then proceed with building a temporary (or permenant depending on Nikkei Center developement) tracks through the NE 1st/Alameda lot. So let's get the terminology correct so that there no other tragic failures in communication. Which will also require careful planning and design in conjunction with this, but that hinges on whether the developer of Nikkei Center will want to take advantage of this downturn economy and construction bids are falling below projects as contractors/builders look for work or will the developer wait it out in exchange of something, Money? More land? Who knows? But the developer is in dialogue with Metro. There's also another party in the table and that is the Nishi Hompa Buddhist Temple on 1st between Vignes and Garey that has indicated from the beginning the need to not have any impacts again in a short period of time given the soon to be opening Eastside Gold Line.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 17:48:03 GMT -8
Jerard makes an excellent point. It always pays off to call things by their proper names, so I will avoid calling the underground junction a wye from here on out. I'll have to remember the term "flat junction."
===
As for the Nikkei Center, their opinion is going to hold a lot of weight. And honestly, I don't see a downside to that. They do hold the right to develop the property.
The Nikkei Center is a project of the Little Tokyo Service Center, and the leader of LTSC also happens to be a leader of the Little Tokyo Community Center, so you know that the official opinions of those two organizations are going to be pretty close.
And, a lot of people in Little Tokyo want the Nikkei Center built, so having the MTA negotiate/ discuss things with the Nikkei Center/ LTSC will help diffuse any hurt feelings Little Tokyo residents might have about the Regional Center.
So it will be interesting to see what sort of conclusions that those two organizations can come up with. I hope it's better than Hollywood/Highland, because I think that the MTA missed a huge opportunity there.
But the LTSC is not Trizec, thank goodness. Bill Watanabe seems like a nice, reasonable guy with Little Tokyo's best interests at heart. Whatever happens next should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 7, 2009 18:29:27 GMT -8
The purpose of drawing scale plan and profile drawings at the conceptual level is to show how the necessary engineering elements are proposed to fit together within the geography. Where is the station platform? Where are the ramps, vertical and horizontal curves, switches? What is the necessary curve radius, and what would that do to train speeds? An underground rail wye would very easily fit at 1st and Alameda. All it takes is to put the existing Little Tokyo Station underground and build a portal just west of Garey/1st and another portal just north of Temple/Alameda. If a portal is at Temple & Alameda, how would it interface with the existing 101 freeway overpass ramp that only comes down to grade at Temple (photo)?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 7, 2009 19:44:20 GMT -8
If a portal is at Temple & Alameda, how would it interface with the existing 101 freeway overpass ramp that only comes down to grade at Temple (photo)? Oops, didn't know the ramp was so long (nice photo). In that case they would have to redo the east - west section of the aerial structure as a ramp that comes at grade at Alameda. This would also require some street realignment of Commercial St, like they realigned National Blvd for the Expo Line when they redid the railroad aerial structure there. So, whether to grade-separate this or not will be dictated by the will of the nearby community and I appreciate their efforts in having this built in the best way possible. (Those few who are NIMBYs and just trying to stop the project will not have any effect on it, just like the Expo NIMBYs have not had/will not have any effect on the Expo Line.)
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Nov 7, 2009 20:03:57 GMT -8
You know, I have never met Damian Goodman, as far as I know. One of the reasons I don't participate more on this board is that while I actually agree with a number of his perspectives, I find his online presence to be corrosive and repugnant. I am sure that, like most people, he is a perfectly reasonable person in real life. But there is no way I am going to waste my time with either arguing with, or defending, someone who acts this way online.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 7, 2009 20:30:28 GMT -8
Oh man, I hate to imagine how much it would cost and how long it would take to rebuild that bridge, even if it is just the section north of Temple and not the part that goes across to Union Station.
(For some reason, I can hear Irwin the MTA accountant yelling, "YOU'RE KILLING ME, LARRY!" but I'm weird like that ;D )
Even worse, if you were to do that, I'm fairly certain there would be no way to build a "temporary detour" around the bridge. So, service between Union Station and Little Tokyo would be cut off.
Still, if you're going to go to the trouble to do all that, that re-opens the whole idea of building the bridge straighter so it lands somewhere ... where, exactly? Part of that block on Temple east of Alameda is used as a service vehicle yard, isn't it? And I think there's some sort of private businesses back there which would have to be eminent domained out.
Thinking out loud here, it would almost be easier to close Temple at the Alameda intersection, wouldn't it? Except you're cutting off an escape route from that neighborhood... hmmm.
What do you think, sirs?
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 7, 2009 22:37:22 GMT -8
You know, I have never met Damian Goodman, as far as I know. One of the reasons I don't participate more on this board is that while I actually agree with a number of his perspectives, I find his online presence to be corrosive and repugnant. I am sure that, like most people, he is a perfectly reasonable person in real life. But there is no way I am going to waste my time with either arguing with, or defending, someone who acts this way online. I sympathize and empathize with your sentiments, and have heard from others with similar sentiments. Although I personally have no tolerance for bullies I can just recommend that we all just remember that a nonresponse to a given message is, in fact a response. I also recommend that civility in "agreeing to disagree" is what works best on this or any other discussion board (and this applies to everyone, myself included). Warren, you have been a transit advocate for many years and are much of the reason why there will be an Expo Line someday to the Westside and a Green Line to LAX. It's my hope that you can contribute anything you see fit, and respond (or not respond) to anything you see fit--but to not have to feel intimidated or harassed in the process.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 8, 2009 0:12:58 GMT -8
Here's another view of the Eastside Gold Line bridge and ramp from Union Station to the Temple Street crossing. This is a test first two minutes of the full-length 20-minute cab view I'll post on the Eastside Gold Line thread when it finishes uploading.
Click full screen and HD!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 4:12:40 GMT -8
Here is an excellent bird's-eye view that gives the whole perspective. Full resolutionI wish this had been designed right at the first place. There is 750 ft between the beginning of the ramp and Temple. If they increased the slope to 6%, that gives you 45 ft of descent. This would be enough to go through a tunnel portal just north of Temple. So, in principle, it should be feasible to redo the ramp steeper so that it would go underground at Temple, allowing an underground Little Tokyo Station and eliminating all grade crossings and the need for the Alameda trench for the automobiles. Would Metro be willing to do this? I think a temporary spur station off the right-of-way could be provided in Little Tokyo, instead of the current station that would become cut-and-cover, while this is done to minimize the interruptions in service. With good planning, it could be done with only a few months of service interruptions when the ramp is reconstructed. Then, after, say 5 years, the Downtown Connector would open and they would get rid of the temporary spur station off the right-of-way and open the cut-and-cover station below the right-of-way.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 8, 2009 10:37:10 GMT -8
I well remember the political atmosphere at the time when funding for the Eastside LRT was being pursued, and I think that the Expo Line and the Wilshire Subway and the Green Line to LAX were all just considered pipe dreams. I remember asking the reps of Roybal-Allard, who were sympathetic but entirely uninterested in pursuing a larger transit dream that even included Expo. They'd not gotten their their Eastside Subway, it was their turn doggone-it, and if that was the only project to be pursued in the indefinite future then THAT WAS THAT.
Expo was considered on life-support, and The Transit Coalition's ideas for the Downtown Connector, the Wilshire Subway, to support the Crenshaw Corridor and Expo Line and even the Foothill Gold Line to Azusa and getting the Green Line to LAX were considered nice but the overall political response was "riiiiiiiiight...I'll get back to you on that..."
Inasmuch as the Eastside LRT should have been done right, I think that the relatively small expectations and goals of the Bush Administration and of Congress in general is that we were damned lucky we were finally getting something--anything--to the Eastside, and that anything else was just not likely or relevant.
Some of the old-timers at Metro still whine about the construction and operating expenses and goals and potential to actually do all this. They probably shouldn't be ignored, but clearly the overall voting public didn't buy the paradigm of low expectations.
So now we have an environment where we have to undo both the planning and paradigms of the past--the big question is will the feds be changed enough to allow a redo of the Eastside LRT to create a more seamless and high-quality Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 8, 2009 11:08:58 GMT -8
No matter how you slice it, cost is still going to be the biggest obstacle.
When I was born, America, and even the state of California, was still in "we can do anything, we can build anything" mode. Somehow, over the past 30 years or so, our nation and state has gone from putting men on the moon and building giant infrastructure projects to somehow not being able or not wanting to do anything.
The MTA had its reasons for designing the Eastside Line the way they did. Yes, in hindsight, they might have done a better job. But, I think they were trying to avoid bursting a budget, the Regional Connector wasn't immediately obvious as a pressing need, and the Nikkei Center wasn't approved by the city until last year.
This current administration is very much in the "we can do it" spirit, but given 30-odd years of "we can't do it", it is understandable if there will be skepticism and people pushing the other way. Large nations, like large ships, can be very hard to turn around.
In other words, even with a transit-friendly administration, money is still going to be a pretty big obstacle.
I do hope that we can get the funds we need to do it right, because I think that there are reasonable solutions. But, it will take more than hope to get this built.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 8, 2009 11:42:07 GMT -8
I well remember the political atmosphere at the time when funding for the Eastside LRT was being pursued ... It was even worse than that. Mayor Riordan was pushing Curitiba-style bus rapid transit ("It's like a subway train on rubber tires and carries 270 people") as the alternative to rail everywhere in Los Angeles, including the Eastside. Pasadena only preserved its line as light rail by taking it away from MTA by state legislation. Replanning for East L.A. following the termination of the Red Line extension in 1998 included options of entirely-surface light rail and buses, although in a corridor extending all the way to Whittier. Westside advocates supported light rail for the Eastside. But imagine the feeling of insignificance when I saw no less than Congressman Xavier Becerra pleading for light rail before the MTA board. The bus option was finally dropped, though (as was the route east of Atlantic), and the tunnel was added (funded with federal money already committed to the Red Line) to allow the 1st Street route (and probably to make certain elected officials happier).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 11:58:30 GMT -8
I think now it's the perfect time to have an "option" added in the EIR for the modification to 6% grade of the retained-earth ramp between Commercial St and Temple St, with a portal just north of Temple, and an open-trench Little Tokyo Station between Temple and 1st.
James, perhaps you and the Little Tokyo Community Council can push for this now? If there is an option in the EIR for this, then it will be built if the funds become available. It's a far better and more productive approach than "The LTCC opposes the build alternatives."
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Nov 8, 2009 12:33:53 GMT -8
Thanks for the videos Darrell! Too bad they didn't let you guys exit at either of the underground stations, although with active construction I can understand why.
Man, the train really crawls from Union Station to Little Tokyo, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 8, 2009 13:11:25 GMT -8
I think now it's the perfect time to have an "option" added in the EIR for the modification to 6% grade of the retained-earth ramp between Commercial St and Temple St, with a portal just north of Temple, and an open-trench Little Tokyo Station between Temple and 1st. How deep of a station depth is that? 15 feet? Because this now comes into question what method of construction will be used to connect the bored tunnel to the cut-cover open trench and the impacts of closing off 1st/Alameda to do this construction, given the communities concerns of construction impacts. Does this still require the taking of the Office Depot lot? If so, maybe this is the location of the station at the appropriate constructable station depth.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 13:22:07 GMT -8
I think now it's the perfect time to have an "option" added in the EIR for the modification to 6% grade of the retained-earth ramp between Commercial St and Temple St, with a portal just north of Temple, and an open-trench Little Tokyo Station between Temple and 1st. How deep of a station depth is that? 15 feet? The trains need to be able to clear at the portal just north of Temple; so, the portal needs to be at least 20 - 25-ft-deep or so. You can then go deeper or shallower at the station location, depending on exactly what you want to do. There is plenty of space between Temple and 1st to fine-tune the depth of the station. My guess for the depth of the trench station would be about 30 ft.
|
|