|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 3, 2010 7:09:04 GMT -8
Wow, We lose the "Little Tokyo" station name, as it changes to "2nd/Central" when it becomes a DC subway stop. I'll bet they get some public comment on that one. Appendix K also shows that there are two alternatives for the now 2nd/Central station. The second alternative has it as an "over and under" configuration, where the loading is side platform, with the northbound platform above the eastbound platform. This eliminates the at-grade wye design. They would assemble the TBM at the 2nd/Central location, then tunnel to 2nd/Hope, dis-assemble the TBM, then go back and tunnel the second bore. Looks like construction along Flower proceeding South would all be cut and cover due to the problems that TBM's would have with building basement tiebacks protruding into the shallower tunnel area. The rough distance is about 4,400 feet, so 30-50 feet per day means that each bore would take between 90 and 150 days. If you take the slower estimate, x2 for both tunnels, you are at 300 days, plus time to assemble and dis-assemble the TBM, so about 1 year of tunneling. This shows it rather nicely: It's also mentioned that they could alternatively start the TBM(s) at the 2nd/Hope site, and proceed East instead. That would make it much easier on the Little Tokyo area, since the TBM shaft would require lots of disruption itself, not to mention that the dirt removal would then be happening at 2nd/Hope versus in Little Tokyo. Seems like a better way to go, if you could locate the primary site so as not to impact the concert hall too much. They also mention the possibility of a single larger bore tunnel. I would think that would end up costing less, and also save time, thereby making the tunneling less disruptive. RT
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2010 9:11:32 GMT -8
As rubbertoe noted the staff-recommended locally preferred altenative (LPA) is the fully underground alternative, which has a 99% chance of being adopted by the Metro board. Note that people at one point widely thought that it was impossible to come up with a fully underground alternative because of technical constraints. I was the first one who had come up with this idea of altering the existing aerial ramp, and it appeared in Metro Source ten days later as a conceptual idea. (Were they reading our discussion board?) I can now consider myself as the man who designed the Downtown Connector underground Little Tokyo segment, in addition to various parts of Expo Phase 2 (such as the National/Palms and Expo/Westwood Stations) : 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. So, James Fujita owes thanks to me on this one. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2010 10:36:58 GMT -8
Note that the Downtown Connector Subway (fully underground option) has 2.00 times the cost-effectiveness of the most cost-effective option for the Westside Subway (Wilshire/VA).
This shows how expensive it's to build subways even in very dense corridors like the Wilshire corridor. Only in super-dense corridors like big-city downtowns, subways (like the Downtown Connector) are cost-effective. Elsewhere, aerial and at-grade rail transit are more cost-effective.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 3, 2010 10:43:21 GMT -8
Perhaps it's a coincidence, but since I believe that folks DO read this Board from all sorts of places, I don't believe it's a coincidence that your well-timed ideas were considered and even adopted, Gokhan.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Sept 3, 2010 12:26:37 GMT -8
Note that the Downtown Connector Subway (fully underground option) has 2.00 times the cost-effectiveness of the most cost-effective option for the Westside Subway (Wilshire/VA). This shows how expensive it's to build subways even in very dense corridors like the Wilshire corridor. Only in super-dense corridors like big-city downtowns, subways (like the Downtown Connector) are cost-effective. Elsewhere, aerial and at-grade rail transit are more cost-effective. I don't disagree and subways should only be pursued in limited areas with high densities. There are only a couple of areas that qualify in the West and Wilshire is one of those. However, I really think the estimates are underestimating ridership here. The 20 series busses on Wilshire already have over 60k in ridership, plus there are tons of people who work and live here who think the bus is too slow or just unappealing in general. Throw in Century City, I'd be shocked if we didn't get a total of 300k in ridership from the combined Red/Purple Line a year after this is open to Westwood. Add in a project like the 405 line and you are talking even more ridership.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 3, 2010 12:56:58 GMT -8
Wow, We lose the "Little Tokyo" station name, as it changes to "2nd/Central" when it becomes a DC subway stop. I'll bet they get some public comment on that one. I am definitely going to comment on the station name. If they are going to be turning Second/ Central into a construction site, the least they can do is honor the Little Tokyo community, which fought so hard for this underground option, with a station name. And I note that Gokhan seems determined to jab a stick in my eye.That's just dandy. They say hindsight is 20/20, but my previous statements were based upon the available technical evidence, and concerns that NIMBYism and cost would kill the project. I owe Gokhan nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2010 13:23:49 GMT -8
And I note that Gokhan seems determined to jab a stick in my eye.That's just dandy. They say hindsight is 20/20, but my previous statements were based upon the available technical evidence, and concerns that NIMBYism and cost would kill the project. Actually my post wasn't directed toward you. I was mentioning how desperate the situation was those days, and my original idea became the conceptual idea ten days after I posted it. I only teased you at the end of my post because I know how involved you were with the Little Tokyo planning studies. Again, I was only joking, but now I will send Godzilla on you.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 3, 2010 13:34:07 GMT -8
I graciously accept Gokhan's most humble apology. Moving on....
I quickly dashed off an e-mail to regionalconnector@metro.net:
I hear that the MTA has recently released the Draft EIR for the Regional Connector. Good! I am glad to hear that this vital project is moving forward. However, I am concerned that recent documents show the Little Tokyo train station does not have the name Little Tokyo. The new station at 2nd and Central will clearly be in the very heart of Little Tokyo. It is not on the border of Little Tokyo and the Arts District like the existing Little Tokyo/Arts District station. I would hope that if the existing Little Tokyo station is destroyed in the process of building the new station, that the new station be given the name "Little Tokyo." The Little Tokyo community has fought hard to have the all-underground option; and they have fought hard to preserve the community of Little Tokyo as a Japanese-American community. They deserve recognition for their efforts. I am also curious to know where the station entrances will be. I would hope that at least one entrance would face north towards the Japanese American National Museum. Little Tokyo deserves a Little Tokyo station. Thank you,
- James Fujita
I should probably send more than that, but at least I made my opinions heard.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Sept 3, 2010 14:13:33 GMT -8
I graciously accept Gokhan's most humble apology. Moving on.... I quickly dashed off an e-mail to regionalconnector@metro.net: I hear that the MTA has recently released the Draft EIR for the Regional Connector. Good! I am glad to hear that this vital project is moving forward. However, I am concerned that recent documents show the Little Tokyo train station does not have the name Little Tokyo. The new station at 2nd and Central will clearly be in the very heart of Little Tokyo. It is not on the border of Little Tokyo and the Arts District like the existing Little Tokyo/Arts District station. I would hope that if the existing Little Tokyo station is destroyed in the process of building the new station, that the new station be given the name "Little Tokyo." The Little Tokyo community has fought hard to have the all-underground option; and they have fought hard to preserve the community of Little Tokyo as a Japanese-American community. They deserve recognition for their efforts. I am also curious to know where the station entrances will be. I would hope that at least one entrance would face north towards the Japanese American National Museum. Little Tokyo deserves a Little Tokyo station. Thank you, - James Fujita I should probably send more than that, but at least I made my opinions heard. Of importance as well, though not culturally, should be the fact that 2nd/Broadway be re-named to Old Bank District (this may be the closest station we get to 4th/Main; and an arguement could be made the OBD starts at 2nd/Main), 2nd/Hope --> Bunker Hill, and 5th/Flower --> Financial District. These names have more sticking points to districts. I get tired of these xxxxxxx/yyyyyyy names. I'll e-mail Metro as well!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 3, 2010 14:27:19 GMT -8
I graciously accept Gokhan's most humble apology. Moving on.... I quickly dashed off an e-mail to regionalconnector@metro.net: I hear that the MTA has recently released the Draft EIR for the Regional Connector. Good! I am glad to hear that this vital project is moving forward. However, I am concerned that recent documents show the Little Tokyo train station does not have the name Little Tokyo. The new station at 2nd and Central will clearly be in the very heart of Little Tokyo. It is not on the border of Little Tokyo and the Arts District like the existing Little Tokyo/Arts District station. I would hope that if the existing Little Tokyo station is destroyed in the process of building the new station, that the new station be given the name "Little Tokyo." The Little Tokyo community has fought hard to have the all-underground option; and they have fought hard to preserve the community of Little Tokyo as a Japanese-American community. They deserve recognition for their efforts. I am also curious to know where the station entrances will be. I would hope that at least one entrance would face north towards the Japanese American National Museum. Little Tokyo deserves a Little Tokyo station. Thank you, - James Fujita I should probably send more than that, but at least I made my opinions heard. Of importance as well, though not culturally, should be the fact that 2nd/Broadway be re-named to Old Bank District (this may be the closest station we get to 4th/Main; and an arguement could be made the OBD starts at 2nd/Main), 2nd/Hope --> Bunker Hill, and 5th/Flower --> Financial District. These names have more sticking points to districts. I get tired of these xxxxxxx/yyyyyyy names. I'll e-mail Metro as well! This is precisely the stage in the game when names should be considered and re-considered. Just like with the original petition to get the Little Tokyo station name changed, I suspect that Metro may have simply overlooked these "little" details. And yet, they really aren't little! Names are hugely important to a community, and we ought to get these things straightened out before station signs are made. = On another note, I've been going through the DEIR — ai-ya, so many pages, so much detail, too much information — and I note that Section 2, Page 30 talks about the Little Tokyo station. Interesting, easily missed tidbit: "This shallow station may potentially be built without a roof or mezzanine, leaving the below-grade platform level exposed." I'm not particularly opposed to this idea, although I wonder why it is being considered. Wouldn't it be better to have a "roof" than a hole? If you can't put a building there, at least you could plant grass (or something less water intensive...), have a pathway, sculpture, something...
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 14:41:50 GMT -8
Interesting, easily missed tidbit: "This shallow station may potentially be built without a roof or mezzanine, leaving the below-grade platform level exposed." I've been trying to read as much as possible (given I'm at work). I'm guessing leaving the station as open air would provide two benefits: (1) the station could be more shallow, and (2) the station may need less ventilation equipment.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 14:46:13 GMT -8
BTW, I can see what Metro staff was doing: their ideas for names are very clear about their location. The problem is, those names, while technically clear, are horrible for normal people because they say nothing about the actual place. I cannot believe these will be the final names. But I'm not taking any chances. I'll be writing an email as well. Subject: Thank You, But...
Hello,
First I just want to say how much I (one member of the public) appreciate all the hard work that went into the DEIR (and for that matter, the Westside Extension DEIR too). This is a great start to an excellent transit facility for the people of Los Angeles.
Having said that, I am not happy about the new names given to the stations. The names should reflect a sense of place. The new names are unambiguous but cold, technically correct but unmemorable. They add nothing to the cultural landscape of Downtown. Not to mention the fact that replacing the “Little Tokyo” name with 2nd/Central is an insult to the community which has put up with so much related to rail construction.
I recommend using the following names:
• Central Library • Bunker Hill and/ or Disney Hall • Broadway • Little Tokyo
Again, thank you for your time, and have a great (long) weekend.
Thank You,
Joel Covarrubias
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 3, 2010 14:59:36 GMT -8
Concerning the entrances, the "Little Tokyo" station is going to be underground, but not very far underground if they go with the stacked station option. Take a look at these two pictures: The elevation picture might be a bit tough to read, but if you go to the DEIR Appendix-II on page 34 you can blow it up quite large: www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/deis-deir/Appendices/Appendix-II.pdfThe lower portion of the elevation picture shows that the upper platform is the Westbound platform, and the lower platform is the Eastbound platform. And they are stacked. The top of the upper platform is only about 5' below ground level. So this won't be a typical underground station where you take an escalator down to a mezzanine level, grab a ticket, then take another escalator down to the platform level. Here you would go down one level to the upper platform if you were going to Santa Monica (Expo) or to Long Beach (Blue Line). And you would take a longer escalator down to the lower platform if you were going to East LA (Expo) or Pasadena (Blue Line). If you wanted to transfer at this station, you would just hop off and wait for the next train, staying at the same level. If you were changing direction (i.e. switching from Blue South to Expo East) then you would have to go from the upper platform down to the lower platform. I would think they would have these escalators between levels, since you would get quite a few people making these transfers. At the other common stations where the tracks are side by side with a center platform, you either get off and hop the next train to switch to the other line, or you cross the platform to switch direction. Based on the stacked platforms, you are restricted to at most single entrances on either end. The entrance at the North end of the station would be on the Southwest corner of Alameda and 1st. If they put an entrance at the South end of the station, it would be in the middle of that block, about where the current (soon to be former) Office Depot entrance is. Since that entire block is being demolished, they could put another entrance there too. Not sure how much could be put on that block given that the tracks won't be very far underground. I would think the area on top of the tracks would be part of the station area, ticket machines, maybe even a park? The Northwest and Southeast portions of the block could be developed, and would be an absolute primo location. I wonder what the MTA plans are for the block when the DC is finished? I haven't seen anything about that. You would think they would sell whatever was available for development to the highest bidder, possibly giving consideration to the previous owner(s). RT P.S. I think I have this correct, I'm spatially challenged
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 15:11:24 GMT -8
Even if the station has to be open air or partially above ground, it will still be far better than the mess they were planning to make before at 1st/Alameda.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 3, 2010 15:21:12 GMT -8
I've having a hard time mentally picturing what an open-faced, double-stacked station will look like. (Also, I'm just about to head for my mid-afternoon-evening job. Weird work schedule).
But I'm absolutely hoping that they have at least two entrances, and the two most likely spots would be near the corner of First and Alameda, across from the museum, and somewhere near 2nd/Central, where the apartments are.
I'm sick and tired of these "one exit" subway stations.
And Little Tokyo, Little Tokyo, Little Tokyo! I've sent e-mails, blog comments and I'm going to write a letter to the Rafu, maybe to the Times as well.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 15:50:10 GMT -8
I've got it! The station will have no roof: that will be the single entrance! Just hop into the hole and hope that you land on a platform.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 3, 2010 16:00:32 GMT -8
Note that people at one point widely thought that it was impossible to come up with a fully underground alternative because of technical constraints. I was the first one who had come up with this idea of altering the existing aerial ramp, and it appeared in Metro Source ten days later as a conceptual idea. (Were they reading our discussion board?) I can now consider myself as the man who designed the Downtown Connector underground Little Tokyo segment, in addition to various parts of Expo Phase 2 (such as the National/Palms and Expo/Westwood Stations) : Gokhan, I was thinking about this on the drive home today. I remember when this discussion and brainstorming took place last year. You certainly deserve credit for the aerial ramp, and I'll take your word that it was your idea, as I don't feel like scouring the board for proof or anything. It just goes to show you what a positive impact that a single individual or group can have on the process, when they get constructively involved. Contrast this with the NIMBY'ism rampant on the Expo lines. Imagine if those people put that energy toward improving the design, like you did, instead of litigating and criticizing every single aspect of the system. You deserve to have a portion of the DC named after you. Here are a couple suggestions: 1. Gokhan Portal 2. Gokhan Wye(s) (Note: sounds like Gokhan wise) 3. Gokhan Plaza (above the LT station) 4. Gokhan Underground Or, with James permission, we revert to the original LT designation and really give you some major kudos: Little Tokyo / Gokhan Station
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 16:23:28 GMT -8
Darrell's map of a fully-underground option looks almost exactly like the final outcome, except his has an extra set of connector tracks and doesn't tweak the existing ramp. It didn't have all the fine points worked out. But my point is, lots of people contributed ideas. That's what brainstorming and forums are all about. The full build-out with the park looks fine. I don't know what the big deal is. It's sort of a quasi-grade separation. Traffic on Alameda is going under. Traffic on first cannot turn. All drivers have to do is stop on red and go on green. Can we handle that, at least? Exactly. Here's another way to look at it. This map is my most-feasible case of what it would take for the Regional Connector tunnel to extend under the intersection of 1st and Alameda. The plan and profile are from the Expo Line Flower Street ramp to the underpass, scaled to match the Bing photo map. Considerations: * There is maybe just barely enough length from Temple to 1st for a ramp down. Same for the ramp along 1st. * Switches for the Union Station-to-Eastside connection cannot be on the grades, therefore must be at the top of the ramps. * Because the existing ramp comes to grade just before Temple (Google image below), those switches and crossing would have to be in Temple Street, not a desirable location and possibly a show-stopper. * The at-grade diagonal connection would be a major impediment to developing this parcel. (This would be the first thing built, before the existing station and at-grade tracks were demolished.) * Space for switches and curve radii are approximate. Switches will take more space, but curves could be tighter. The inset shows the tighter radius of the 10 mph bridge over the 101 freeway at the same scale. My conclusion - Pro: * No signal delay to trains crossing 1st Street (Alameda is grade-separated in either case). Con: * May not be geometrically possible. * Higher cost, including replacement of existing Eastside facilities. * Significant impacts to development on this site. * Alameda functions better with the underpass below the at-grade wye. This is hardly a compelling case to oppose the current Metro plan.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2010 16:29:33 GMT -8
Note that people at one point widely thought that it was impossible to come up with a fully underground alternative because of technical constraints. I was the first one who had come up with this idea of altering the existing aerial ramp, and it appeared in Metro Source ten days later as a conceptual idea. (Were they reading our discussion board?) I can now consider myself as the man who designed the Downtown Connector underground Little Tokyo segment, in addition to various parts of Expo Phase 2 (such as the National/Palms and Expo/Westwood Stations) : Gokhan, I was thinking about this on the drive home today. I remember when this discussion and brainstorming took place last year. You certainly deserve credit for the aerial ramp, and I'll take your word that it was your idea, as I don't feel like scouring the board for proof or anything. It just goes to show you what a positive impact that a single individual or group can have on the process, when they get constructively involved. Contrast this with the NIMBY'ism rampant on the Expo lines. Imagine if those people put that energy toward improving the design, like you did, instead of litigating and criticizing every single aspect of the system. You deserve to have a portion of the DC named after you. Here are a couple suggestions: 1. Gokhan Portal 2. Gokhan Wye(s) (Note: sounds like Gokhan wise) 3. Gokhan Plaza (above the LT station) 4. Gokhan Underground Or, with James permission, we revert to the original LT designation and really give you some major kudos: Little Tokyo / Gokhan Station Thank you for your kind comments, rubbertoe! Your kind words and recognition on this board are more than enough. I should mention that I'm a big fan and admirer of the 80s-era Japanese cars and electronics and I own an aqua-colored 85 Corolla. Japanese engineering and workmanship was meticulous back then. So, I would be very happy with any honorary recognition from the Little Tokyo community for my contribution to the Downtown Connector. You are absolutely right that rather than opposing the project, working toward a solution makes a much bigger constructive difference.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 17:51:07 GMT -8
Yes, it was a fun road toward the final underground alternative. Let's take a trip down memory lane. Our first submission comes from our own Damien Goodmon, combatant extraordinaire: This map was from jejzowik and was quite popular: Then we have this contribution from Gokhan: This is really alarming and it needs to be fixed immediately before they attempt to plan more on this ridiculous configuration that makes absolutely no sense.... Let's also not forget that one of the factors that killed Pacific Electric was the fact that the lines in Downtown were mostly at-grade and the Downtown congestion eventually required getting rid of the lines there. So, let's learn from the history and not repeat the same mistake. And finally we have my map, which I apparently drew when I was either drunk or five years old: My version of this would require purchase of the property:
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 3, 2010 18:24:01 GMT -8
Gokhan, I was thinking about this on the drive home today. I remember when this discussion and brainstorming took place last year. You certainly deserve credit for the aerial ramp, and I'll take your word that it was your idea, as I don't feel like scouring the board for proof or anything. It just goes to show you what a positive impact that a single individual or group can have on the process, when they get constructively involved. Contrast this with the NIMBY'ism rampant on the Expo lines. Imagine if those people put that energy toward improving the design, like you did, instead of litigating and criticizing every single aspect of the system. You deserve to have a portion of the DC named after you. Here are a couple suggestions: 1. Gokhan Portal 2. Gokhan Wye(s) (Note: sounds like Gokhan wise) 3. Gokhan Plaza (above the LT station) 4. Gokhan Underground Or, with James permission, we revert to the original LT designation and really give you some major kudos: Little Tokyo / Gokhan Station Thank you for your kind comments, rubbertoe! Your kind words and recognition on this board are more than enough. I should mention that I'm a big fan and admirer of the 80s-era Japanese cars and electronics and I own an aqua-colored 85 Corolla. Japanese engineering and workmanship was meticulous back then. So, I would be very happy with any honorary recognition from the Little Tokyo community for my contribution to the Downtown Connector. You are absolutely right that rather than opposing the project, working toward a solution makes a much bigger constructive difference. Just for the record, Japanese electronics and automotive engineering are still quite excellent, as my Canon digital camera, Fujifilm memory chip, Casio watch, Sanyo phone and Honda Civic attest. Their train technology is quite nifty, too. Also, I propose naming the fare gates at Little Tokyo station for Gokhan ;D
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 3, 2010 20:17:27 GMT -8
Appendix K also shows that there are two alternatives for the now 2nd/Central station. The second alternative has it as an "over and under" configuration, where the loading is side platform, with the northbound platform above the eastbound platform. This eliminates the at-grade wye design. Since the inception of this project, I have strongly disliked Metro's low-key plans for the Little Tokyo junction. For a junction of such critical importance to our entire LRT system, it has been obvious from the beginning that a flying junction ( a la Wilshire/Vermont) was necessary. When I have talked to project engineers and Metro operations people, they expressed strong disapproval of the two level junctions that will bound the Regional Connector (at 1st/Alameda and at Washington/Flower). When I asked them why we were settling for flat junctions, they indicated something to the effect of "that's all we have money for." Even a flying junction (the best possible case!) is something of an operational headache alternating inbound services must be made to mesh with each other (in these cases, Blue-Gold-Blue-Gold-Blue-Gold-etc.) A flat junction is even more difficult to run trains through reliably because trains must, according to Metro, run though the junction in opposing pairs to maintain 2.5 minute headways (that is, two opposing Blue Line trains must run through the junction simultaneously and 2.5 minutes later, two opposing Gold Line trains must run through the junction simultaneously.) In the end, this means that one delayed movement through the junction (e.g. Blue Line northbound) will delay each of the other three movements through the junction. I was naturally excited when I first found preliminary engineering plans in the DEIR for a the stacked Little Tokyo station. Yet it seems there remains one more battle for us to fight; the stacked Little Tokyo station option has already been rejected by Metro.The stacked station alternative, formally known by Metro as the "Fully Underground LRT Alternative – Little Tokyo Variation 2," has been eliminated from further review. See the following passage from the DEIR: Based on considerations related to high cost and community concerns, this alternative was eliminated from further discussion and inclusion in the DEIS/DEIR. Community concerns regarding Little Tokyo Variation 2 focused primarily on the proximity of one of the proposed portals on 1st Street to the main entrance of the Los Angeles Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple, a key religious institution for the Little Tokyo neighborhood. The additional intensity of construction potentially needed for Little Tokyo Variation 2 was also cited as a concern. I personally will be submitting formal comments protesting the elimnation of Variation 2.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2010 20:56:56 GMT -8
For comparison to Variation 2 (the stacked variation), here is Variation 1 (the non-stacked variation).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 4, 2010 2:01:29 GMT -8
Just for the record, Japanese electronics and automotive engineering are still quite excellent, as my Canon digital camera, Fujifilm memory chip, Casio watch, Sanyo phone and Honda Civic attest. Their train technology is quite nifty, too. Also, I propose naming the fare gates at Little Tokyo station for Gokhan ;D Japan unfortunately and to my dismay has lost its edge quite a bit. Toyota recalls are a recent example of the decrease of quality in Japanese products. I would rather by a Taiwanese-brand memory chip than Japanese-brand. I would rather buy a Korean phone (Samsung, LG) or a Taiwanese phone (HTC) than a never-heard Sanyo phone. I would rather buy an American hard drive (Western Digital) than a Japanese hard drive (Hitachi). Canon is still a good company though (despite robbing people with expensive printer ink lately) and Honda is doing alright. You can name the fare gates after me as long as I get a percentage of the fare routed to my bank account.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 4, 2010 2:37:31 GMT -8
The stacked station alternative, formally known by Metro as the "Fully Underground LRT Alternative – Little Tokyo Variation 2," has been eliminated from further review. See the following passage from the DEIR: Based on considerations related to high cost and community concerns, this alternative was eliminated from further discussion and inclusion in the DEIS/DEIR. Community concerns regarding Little Tokyo Variation 2 focused primarily on the proximity of one of the proposed portals on 1st Street to the main entrance of the Los Angeles Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple, a key religious institution for the Little Tokyo neighborhood. The additional intensity of construction potentially needed for Little Tokyo Variation 2 was also cited as a concern. I personally will be submitting formal comments protesting the elimnation of Variation 2. hoo-boy. I hope a peaceable solution can be found which either 1) convinces Nishi Hongwanji to drop its opposition or 2) modifies the plans enough so that the portal isn't blocking the entrance. because I wouldn't want the temple as an opponent. I hope nobody takes the following advice the wrong way: I'm no Buddhist, but I understand and respect the cultural and historic significance to that particular temple. first of all, it is of course a religious institution. but, unlike churches, synagogues or mosques, Japanese Buddhist temples tend to attract community members beyond just the faithful (and believe me, Japanese religion is complicated). so, it's more like a community gathering place than just a place of worship. people come for obon, they come for various other matsuri, they come for services. I'm not sure how long that particular temple has been there, but the organization itself is over 100 years old. in the Japanese American community, it's incredibly important and extremely valuable. especially among the little old ladies who take their Buddhism seriously. you wouldn't pick a fight with obachan, would you? Now, I'm hopeful that there's a clever solution to this problem which Metro simply didn't think of. Or maybe there isn't one, and we may to accept "half a loaf is better than none". I'm not going to make any predictions one way or another. But whatever happens, please remember that we're dealing with more than just the MTA. you don't have to bow, but please be respectful
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 4, 2010 2:47:56 GMT -8
Just for the record, Japanese electronics and automotive engineering are still quite excellent, as my Canon digital camera, Fujifilm memory chip, Casio watch, Sanyo phone and Honda Civic attest. Their train technology is quite nifty, too. Also, I propose naming the fare gates at Little Tokyo station for Gokhan ;D Japan unfortunately and to my dismay has lost its edge quite a bit. Toyota recalls are a recent example of the decrease of quality in Japanese products. I would rather by a Taiwanese-brand memory chip than Japanese-brand. I would rather buy a Korean phone (Samsung, LG) or a Taiwanese phone (HTC) than a never-heard Sanyo phone. I would rather buy an American hard drive (Western Digital) than a Japanese hard drive (Hitachi). Canon is still a good company though (despite robbing people with expensive printer ink lately) and Honda is doing alright. You can name the fare gates after me as long as I get a percentage of the fare routed to my bank account. 1) if you prefer Korea over Japan, that's your loss, I suppose. *shrug* personal preferences. I've never bought a video game system that didn't say "Sony" or "Nintendo" on it, and in TVs or radios I go for Sony or Panasonic (aka Matsushita) 2) you mean there's a printer company that doesn't rob people blind on ink or toner? my mom's HP printer eats cartridges. Edit: oh, and Japan still has a huge edge on animation. Miyazaki > Disney
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 4, 2010 6:54:55 GMT -8
Based on considerations related to high cost and community concerns, this alternative was eliminated from further discussion and inclusion in the DEIS/DEIR. Community concerns regarding Little Tokyo Variation 2 focused primarily on the proximity of one of the proposed portals on 1st Street to the main entrance of the Los Angeles Hompa Hongwanji Buddhist Temple, a key religious institution for the Little Tokyo neighborhood. The additional intensity of construction potentially needed for Little Tokyo Variation 2 was also cited as a concern. I personally will be submitting formal comments protesting the elimnation of Variation 2. Jeez, I completely missed that. I will submit a comment too. So they are going to have the wye at a single level. If you have automatic train control, and it works 100% reliably, that shouldn't significantly impact operations or headways. But, there will always be situations where a train will have to wait for another to clear the wye, and no matter how fast the automated system can clear those trains, there will be occasional small delays. I'll have to take a closer look at the portal areas to see how they differ and might impact the temple. Concerning the level of construction activity: The difference between Variation 1 and Variation 2 aren't even remotely significant when compared with the difference between Variation 1 and doing nothing. In other words, if you are going to expose yourself and the community to years worth of torn up streets and trucks hauling dirt, whats another 2 months of pain if it ends up making the system better in the long run? One of the appendices had tables showing construction staging for the variations, including sites and activity levels. I remember that they did differentiate between Variation 1 and Variation 2, but I don't remember if they also broke out the numbers if the TBM's were to start at 2nd/ Hope versus 2nd/Central. That would probably reduce the construction impact at 2nd/Central. Also, a single larger diameter TBM was also mentioned. Presumably a single bore with stacked stations on 2nd would be easier to construct, time wise at least. If that ends up costing less, that might make up for the added cost of Variation 2? I'm not a tunneling expert, anyone care to comment? I believe they are down far enough that they are below most utilities and building foundations. The 2nd/Hope station is where they would then transition to cut/cover and conventional stations coming down flower. RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 4, 2010 10:07:57 GMT -8
One other issue: 5th/Flower station. It's actually between 4th and 5th, next to the Bonaventure. As told by thesource.metro.net, Metro may decide to cut that station to lower costs. The current LPA includes a station at 5th and Flower. However, to reduce project costs for this alternative, the possibility of eliminating this station from the staff recommended LPA is being explored as an option. The Metro Board will have to make that call when it considers the project LPA in October. The 5th and Flower Station was identified mainly due to its close proximity to the existing 7th and Metro Station. Obviously, some concessions will have to be made on this alternative to keep it within Metro’s board-mandated budget.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 4, 2010 10:30:19 GMT -8
yeah, I have to say that I was disappointed when I heard that this station might get cut. It's not really as close to 7th/Metro as people claim and the Bonaventure deserves a station. For a while there, I was hoping there might be some underground connections to the Bonaventure or to 505 Flower, but no such luck ;D Also, I love the illustration of the station's simple, yet effective sidewalk entrances: img267.imageshack.us/img267/8030/picture10pew.png(from the DEIR, Chapter 2, page 17) Compare that with say, this: simple, but stylishAh well. Budget constraints. What can you do?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 4, 2010 10:43:13 GMT -8
Simple and functional, why can't all our stations look like this?
|
|