|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 24, 2011 7:58:55 GMT -8
I will admit that early on in the Little Tokyo station talks, I was a bit concerned about the potentially NIMBY direction that things could go (especially when a certain Expo Rail gadfly butted into the conversation). I didn't see a problem with the original plan, and I was concerned about derailing the entire project.
However, I do think that Metro did the right thing by communicating with the community, rather than ignoring Little Tokyo's concerns. Through discussion between Little Tokyo, Metro and transit supporters, we were able to come up with a resolution which ultimately led to a much better station for the community.
While there have always been a few NIMBYs in the community, I think what Little Tokyo ended up with is a station which local residents and businesses can get behind, and a vitally important station for a very important rail project can be saved. I do not see this as a win for the NIMBYs, but a decent compromise.
It is unfortunate that the Financial District station got cut, but there have been other opportunities for the Financial community to get involved; other potential solutions (such as expanding 7th/ Metro or the Bunker Hill stations).
This situation with Eli Broad is a bit different. His group never got involved in the previous talks, they seem to be bullying their way in with money and hubris, and even if they had gotten involved earlier, their proposal is UNWORKABLE.
Bunker Hill simply can't accommodate a station at the proposed location, and without that, the changes to the other stations are pointless at best and could stir up old arguments at worst.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 6, 2011 8:47:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 6, 2011 10:04:45 GMT -8
This is really good news, especially with that in Downtown stations, the more entrances the better with the enhanced connectivity of an already walkable surface to arrive to, this is what I have hoped for. Bunker Hill and Little Tokyo Stations are about pitch perfect now.
If only there was a second entrance to North Hollywood Red Line Station that dumps out to the Orange Line Station. That's another matter.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2011 14:10:38 GMT -8
^ This is terrible news, I think you misread it. The station entrances in red have been removed, replaced with knockout panels for future expansion should the money become available. The removal of these station entrances by Metro staff was first reported by blogdowntown.com, and was only yesterday confirmed by a planner with Metro. Metro is claiming the loss of entrances is necessary to stay within budget. Turns out the expansive station at Little Tokyo is costing a lot more than expected. The current schedule is to finish the EIR this month, get approval from the Feds, and push the project through the board in December.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 6, 2011 14:59:54 GMT -8
I've said it before and I'll say it again: subway portals are very important to any underground rail line. The entrances, whether they consist of wide-open plazas or staircases on the sidewalk, are the only really visible, noticeable parts of a subway. Plus, the more entrances you have, the more locations there are for people to enter the subway, therefore people get a sense that the subway is more convenient. There is a psychological factor of "oh look, here's an entrance" even if the underground tunnel is a block long. I am glad that the Little Tokyo station will still have two entrances, with potential for a third. The First/ Central entrance is obviously the most important, and I am curious to see how close they can get to Second Street. I find it hard to believe that they can put an entrance on the west side of Second. It would be awesome if they could eat some of the Office Depot parking lot for an entrance there on the east corner. (Yeah, they'd have to tunnel under the shops there, but it would be so worth it ). And the First/ Alameda entrance ought to be a required entrance for any development at the Mangrove. I do share others' disappointment that the second entrance to the Bunker Hill station is going away. I don't want to turn this into a Little Tokyo vs. Bunker Hill issue, either. ALL OF THE STATIONS downtown deserve more entrances. That includes the 7th/ Metro walkway to 555 Flower and the bottom of Bunker Hill entrance. If Eli Broad is so interested in butting in to transit politics, maybe he can reach into his pockets for the funds for some of this. The knock-out panels are sort of a silver lining. At least they are acknowledging that yes, we can't afford the entrances, yes the entrances are needed, and could anybody spare a dime?
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 6, 2011 15:16:06 GMT -8
Yeah, the knockout panels are a silver lining. I'm not going to be picky, let's get this thing built already. There will be more money in the future to finish some additional entrances.
What's the problem with Los Angeles' business community, I haven't heard a peep from them about pitching in. Occupy Financial District!
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Oct 6, 2011 19:34:40 GMT -8
Each station should have, at minimum an access point to each end of the platform.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 7, 2011 8:11:16 GMT -8
Yeah, the knockout panels are a silver lining. I'm not going to be picky, let's get this thing built already. There will be more money in the future to finish some additional entrances. What's the problem with Los Angeles' business community, I haven't heard a peep from them about pitching in. Occupy Financial District! They could have ponied up the dough to keep the Financial District station alive.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Oct 7, 2011 10:25:11 GMT -8
You know, parking in that area is a bitch and the parking lot in front of the Office Depot is so busy that they have a guard issuing tickets counting down your time to ensure you leave.
Where will the Office Depot/mini mall customers park once the project gets under way?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 7, 2011 11:04:17 GMT -8
You know, parking in that area is a bitch and the parking lot in front of the Office Depot is so busy that they have a guard issuing tickets counting down your time to ensure you leave. Where will the Office Depot/mini mall customers park once the project gets under way? Take the Regional Connector. Providing parking = more convenience to drive and less reason to take Metro or alternatives. And the statement "parking is needed for businesses to survive" is false. Then why is Venice, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Downtown LA, Redondo Beach, Pasadena, etc... alll areas of economic hotspots compared to those areas with much higher parking (i.e. Valley or OC)? A huge parking lot in Little Tokyo is not needed. We need more buildings with office and residential use.
|
|
|
Post by thanks4goingmetro on Oct 7, 2011 14:16:46 GMT -8
^^^ Amen. If you're looking for something more tangible, all Metro Rail and MetroLink Lines have some Park & Ride lots/garages for you to use and they're even sometimes free!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 7, 2011 15:12:52 GMT -8
I'm well aware of the fact that parking in Little Tokyo is a bitch. In fact, I avoid parking in Little Tokyo as much as I can. I've shown people where the Little Tokyo light rail station is. I've even used "parking in Little Tokyo is a mess" as an argument in favor of the Regional Connector. Parking is the one thing keeping people from visiting Little Tokyo, and I've told people they don't have to park in Little Tokyo; take the Gold Line instead. The Office Depot parking lot isn't really all that huge and there are other parking lots scattered about. In fact, one of them will get eaten by the new underground Little Tokyo Station. The way I see it, the Regional Connector should more than make up for the loss of parking. And a portal at the Office Depot wouldn't have to be that huge. A smaller portal, similar to the one they show at First/Central, would be large enough. There's actually a fairly large setback from the sidewalk, not even parking spaces, where I would put a portal. The statue of Chiune Sugihara might have to move and some landscaping would be lost. Not really a huge loss for Little Tokyo.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 7, 2011 16:40:38 GMT -8
I'd like to see one of you lug a box of 40lb paper down the stairs to the train station Seriously though... the correct answer is Office Depot site should perhaps be redeveloped, rather than continue in its present state if lack of parking will impact its business.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 7, 2011 16:58:53 GMT -8
I'd like to see one of you lug a box of 40lb paper down the stairs to the train station Seriously though... the correct answer is Office Depot site should perhaps be redeveloped, rather than continue in its present state if lack of parking will impact its business. I wonder how they do it in other urban cities............ Look, we can't just have large parking lots b/c that one large purchase. That's what street parking is for (which I love and absolutely whole-heartedly endorse, because it slows down traffic and creates a buffer for pedestrians and speeding cars). There are loading zones appropriate for situations like this, which again, I totally support and agree businesses need. An urban area like Little Tokyo should NOT have large parking lots. It can have a few parking garages, that's fine. But not lots. It's funny, it was mentioned somewhere that we build parking for that "day after Thanksgiving" situtation. Our zoning codes are absolutely horrendous, especially for downtown/urban areas. But, in reality, we have way too much parking that prevents more people from using Metro or living a more car-lite life. Until people understand, it's the significant amount of free and abundant parking we have that prevents higher transit usage....
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 7, 2011 18:52:37 GMT -8
I'm not a huge fan of Office Depot in Little Tokyo because it doesn't really fit the character of the neighborhood. However, I do think that stores like that are needed. And if Office Depot wants to be in Little Tokyo, I don't see how we stop them. Does Office Depot deliver large items? They should, even if it cost more. (I buy my computer paper one ream at a time.... ) Getting back to the topic at hand, any proposed station stairs at Second and Central would have other uses other than Office Depot. There's Honda Plaza across the street, apartments nearby, more apartments further down the road, senior apartments nearby, the JACCC, etc. It's another entrance to Little Tokyo. More entrances would make the subway more convenient, and this would be no exception. As for parking structures: oddly enough, I don't really notice the parking structures in Little Tokyo unless I'm right in front of them. I notice parking lots more than I notice structures. The structures in Little Tokyo are actually well hidden, and I wish more parking structures elsewhere had stores and restaurants on the first floor as is often the case in Little Tokyo. (or the parking is underneath, as is the case at Weller Court) Los Angeles' parking requirements are ridiculously skewed, but there should be room in Little Tokyo for both parking and a subway station. Heck, it's Little Tokyo, where are the parking elevators?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 1, 2011 11:42:50 GMT -8
I was thinking this EIR should have been released by now. Same for the Westside Subway EIR. There seems to be some delay.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 4, 2011 16:20:35 GMT -8
The MTA says "Metro anticipates completing the Final EIS/EIR by the end of 2011." at the Regional Connector Web site, so we should be hearing something soon.
Maybe Eli Broad's proposal convinced them to slow down a little. Certainly, this project has been discussed up the wazoo, but it is also a very important project which has gone through a lot of changes. I'm still not happy with 1) not enough entrances and 2) no Financial District station, but I also realize (and am frustrated by) the funding constraints.
Also, people have threatened lawsuits for pushing EIRs through too quickly, so maybe...
I'd like to see this get done as fast as possible, but no faster.
( Geez, I'm sounding like a one-man version of the discussion of the Expo Line opening XD )
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 23, 2011 7:03:34 GMT -8
Some good TOD news along the DC route: www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1223-wilshire-grand-20111223,0,2448939.story The Wilshire Grand is going to be demolished, and replaced with a 45 story hotel with 540 rooms, and a 65 story office tower with 1.1 million sq/ft of office space. The current hotel has 896 rooms. The completion in 2015 should coincide nicely with the opening of Expo 2, though the RC is a few years later. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 23, 2011 13:37:13 GMT -8
I'm glad that they are going to do something big and interesting to replace the Wilshire Grand, but is this going to be a TOD? There's a difference between Transit Oriented and Multi-Use.
The location is clearly perfect for a direct link between the subway station and the property, unless there's some tricky underground stuff that I wouldn't know about.
A new station entrance, for example. The Times says there's going to be a public plaza and shops, which would be where somebody could potentially put the Metro Rail "M" sign. But I haven't heard anything.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 23, 2011 14:49:37 GMT -8
James, The NW corner of Figueroa and 7th I don't believe will have access to the DC directly. The tunnel will be going up Flower, and the new building(s) will be 1 block WNW of the DC tunnel. That corner is only about 200 ft from the current 7th/Metro station, so it will serve those buildings well. I guess when I said TOD, I really meant that the office building would be a prime destination for workers taking the subway or the light rail lines. That would be the second tallest building in LA BTW. There is nothing smarter than building very tall buildings either directly above or adjacent to subway stops, unless they are high schools of course RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 23, 2011 19:35:22 GMT -8
I don't think we should be calling a project a TOD unless it has some solid, direct connection to transit.
Developers should really make more of an effort if they claim to be building TOD. (Better yet, they could be required to make transit improvements as part of their EIR traffic mitigation.) Otherwise, they're just using a popular but poorly-understood term to gain public support for a project which may be just as auto-oriented as the next project.
In this case, a direct link is possible: there's already a subway/ light rail entrance at the corner of 7th/ Figueroa, so the existing pedestrian tunnel there could be extended. I'm not sure of the engineering, but it seems reasonable, especially as this will be a whole new development.
Of course, it is good that there will be new development near the 7th/ Metro station, which is a core hub of the Red Line and Blue Line and will soon be an important part of the Regional Connector.
But let's not go too far with praising it unless they do something to encourage transit use.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 23, 2011 19:44:16 GMT -8
I don't think we should be calling a project a TOD unless it has some solid, direct connection to transit. Developers should really make more of an effort if they claim to be building TOD. (Better yet, they could be required to make transit improvements as part of their EIR traffic mitigation.) Otherwise, they're just using a popular but poorly-understood term to gain public support for a project which may be just as auto-oriented as the next project. In this case, a direct link is possible: there's already a subway/ light rail entrance at the corner of 7th/ Figueroa, so the existing pedestrian tunnel there could be extended. I'm not sure of the engineering, but it seems reasonable, especially as this will be a whole new development. Of course, it is good that there will be new development near the 7th/ Metro station, which is a core hub of the Red Line and Blue Line and will soon be an important part of the Regional Connector. But let's not go too far with praising it unless they do something to encourage transit use. Right. The best way to encourage transit use is to significantly reduce the parking requirements, thereby making the development more affordable for the developer, which will make it cheaper to the end user and people will be encouraged to use transit as an alternative. By continuing to build massive parking garages and abundant parking, it defeats the purpose of Transit Oriented Development and instead becomes just "Transit Adjacent Parking".
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 28, 2011 8:24:46 GMT -8
I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier in this thread - but is there a plan for that empty lot on 2nd and Broadway? That seems more than ripe for a TOD with the stop that's going to be right there along with the Civic Center station right across the street.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 28, 2011 8:46:31 GMT -8
I'm not sure if it was mentioned earlier in this thread - but is there a plan for that empty lot on 2nd and Broadway? That seems more than ripe for a TOD with the stop that's going to be right there along with the Civic Center station right across the street. That parcel is owned by the federal government. The plan was to build a courthouse for $334 million but the cost has skyrocketed to $1 billion. Future plans are to be assessed by either continuing with the proposed courthouse, selling to county or waiting. Unfortunately, this parcel is still in the hands of the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 29, 2011 13:20:49 GMT -8
In the long run, it may be better to wait for the right transit-oriented project, rather than build whatever on that spot.
I believe the station is planned for the parking lot directly south of the L.A. Times. It doesn't seem like it would take much effort to build it in such a way that a link across the street can be established. It's still a while before the first shovel gets turned.
And a courthouse would be just about good enough for a station entrance; whereas something like the new Wilshire Grand could have, if the developers had the right kind of imagination, a whole underground level linking to the station.
And there's still also the Mangrove/ Nikkei Center across from the Little Tokyo Sta. as well....
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jan 4, 2012 14:32:23 GMT -8
I guess EIR didn't get released before end of the year like Metro promised. Oh well... at least we got the Crenshaw line EIR done.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jan 4, 2012 15:30:13 GMT -8
I guess EIR didn't get released before end of the year like Metro promised. Oh well... at least we got the Crenshaw line EIR done. The latest reported by Metro was early Jan., which would put the EIR in line for approval at the Feb. Board meeting. This was just announced in mid-Dec., so I am pretty confident we'll see it very soon. The Westside Subway is behind on its EIR as it was to be released in 2011 and no word when that will be done, although it is understandable given the probable lawsuit by Beverly Hills. Hopefully, they are getting close on that one too.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 13, 2012 10:39:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 13, 2012 15:22:38 GMT -8
I'm glad to see that the FEIR is finally going to be released.
I don't think anybody can legitimately complain that there hasn't been enough meetings, discussion and arguments about this very short yet very vital rail line.
What we have ended up with isn't perfect, but it's certainly an important part of this balanced rail transit system.
There's really nothing left to discuss. Hopefully, as we move forward, the MTA will continue to explain: here's what construction is and isn't, what it will involve, what the community ought to be prepared for, how long it will take, all of the steps and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 13, 2012 17:40:37 GMT -8
There's really nothing left to discuss. The discussion became quite one-sided after the last series of meetings were over. Cut 5th Street station. Cut entrances. Value engineer this project to the point where it's public benefit has been seriously compromised. There is one thing to discuss: thumbs up or thumbs down. This project has not yet been approved by the Metro Board. And at $1.5 billion $1.77 billion, this is by no means a no-brainer.
|
|