|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 25, 2012 9:04:46 GMT -8
Does anyone know if it is technically feasible to build the Flower Street section via TBM? They need to do cut-and-cover around 4th Street to build the crossover, right? And it's only a couple of blocks south of there to the end of the 7th street station box. I don't see how this could be done via TBM.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Feb 25, 2012 9:24:12 GMT -8
Does anyone know if it is technically feasible to build the Flower Street section via TBM? They need to do cut-and-cover around 4th Street to build the crossover, right? And it's only a couple of blocks south of there to the end of the 7th street station box. I don't see how this could be done via TBM. This older image is from Appendix K, the construction description. Note that they since changed the plan so the TBM goes partway down Flower as shown in the above photo... Here is Appendix K: www.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/Final_EIR/appendix_k_description_of_construction.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Feb 25, 2012 15:30:54 GMT -8
Does anyone know if it is technically feasible to build the Flower Street section via TBM? They need to do cut-and-cover around 4th Street to build the crossover, right? And it's only a couple of blocks south of there to the end of the 7th street station box. I don't see how this could be done via TBM. The segment of the Regional Connector between 4th St. and 6th St. has three basic requirements that make use of a TBM very impracticable. - Meet with the existing Blue Line at 6th St. Where TBMs are used, the two tracks will each be placed in a 21' diameter tunnel with tunnel centers typically spaced 30' apart. The existing Blue Line tracks at 6th St., however, are spaced with centers ~15' apart, much too close to match with using two TBM tunnels. At some point along Flower St., a "taper segment" must be constructed (see below), without use of TBMs.
- Include a pocket track. For both short-term operational flexibility and long-term potential for conversion to a station, the Regional Connector will include a pocket track structure between 4th and 5th Streets. Much like above, the three tracks will be spaced with centers ~15' apart (too close to construct with TBM). Further, it is much more difficult to convert TBM tunnels to a station facility than to convert a cut-and-cover structure to a station facility.
- Provide for TBM Retrieval. It is planned to use either one or two TBMs to construct the Regional Connector bored tunnels. In either case, it is planned to launch the TBMs in Little Tokyo and retrieve them on Flower St. The TBMs used on the Gold Line Eastside Extension were 344' long and similar TBMs are anticipated to be used on this project. Unlike in Little Tokyo, no locations are available off of the alignment to launch the TBMs, so a cut-and-cover vertical shaft on Flower St. will be necessary to retrieve the TBMs.
If the requirement for a pocket track was eliminated (which would be highly undesirable), TBM use could be extended to 5th St. Cut-and-cover construction would still be required between 5th St. and 6th St. to meet the other two project requirements.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteCity on Feb 25, 2012 22:06:28 GMT -8
Dang. Where may one acquire such extensive knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Feb 27, 2012 8:21:06 GMT -8
The segment of the Regional Connector between 4th St. and 6th St. has three basic requirements that make use of a TBM very impracticable. Well put. Actually, I would call TBM to 5th Street impracticable. TBM to 6th Street would be dang near impossible, due to the lack of anywhere near 6th/Flower to extract the TBM. The boring machine would have to get backed out at least to 5th Street, and then pulled out from the middle of the street (since there is no area nearby large enough for staging, with no parking structure.) This would create far more problems than cut-and-cover construction. I'd still like to know why Metro changed the original plan to extract the TBM at 3rd/Hope. (I'm still reading the EIR.) I thought that grassy hill would be perfect for TBM extraction. I'll bet Metro changed that due to the new museum and the threats from Eli Broad.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 28, 2012 11:16:05 GMT -8
I'd still like to know why Metro changed the original plan to extract the TBM at 3rd/Hope. (I'm still reading the EIR.) I thought that grassy hill would be perfect for TBM extraction. I'll bet Metro changed that due to the new museum and the threats from Eli Broad. This isn't official but just a guess on doing construction logistics, they might have thought that they will have to open up the street one block south at 4th/Flower for the Pocket track and future 4th/5th & Flower Station box that they can remove it there too. Also the method they were originally constructing this was more expensive and thus by continuing the TBM one more block and opening up with a smaller station box footprint they could save a few dollars because they wouldn't need to open up such a large hole there for Bunker Hill.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 28, 2012 18:34:26 GMT -8
I do hope that the pocket track gets built.
The possibility of a station at 4th-5th/ Flower makes too much sense not to leave that underground space for future reference. I'm no architect or engineer, but it seems like Metro could get together with the various developers of the skyscrapers in the area and work out a compromise — split the costs and create something where an underground subway/ retail partnership gets built that brings a profit to the Financial District and helps out Metro Rail at the same time. Mind you, this assumes that the various corporate suits/ county bureaucrats involved learn to think outside the station box.
If nothing happens along those lines, at least when we ride the Regional Connector, we'll know exactly where the station ought to be as we go past.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Feb 29, 2012 9:37:19 GMT -8
I do hope that the pocket track gets built. The possibility of a station at 4th-5th/ Flower makes too much sense not to leave that underground space for future reference. I'm no architect or engineer, but it seems like Metro could get together with the various developers of the skyscrapers in the area and work out a compromise — split the costs and create something where an underground subway/ retail partnership gets built that brings a profit to the Financial District and helps out Metro Rail at the same time. Mind you, this assumes that the various corporate suits/ county bureaucrats involved learn to think outside the station box. That idea was first broached and the property owners nixed that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Feb 29, 2012 14:12:50 GMT -8
Sure, that idea was nixed. But how enticing was Metro's offer?
If Metro was just "we'll let you pay for our station," then I can see how the developers wouldn't be interested in that.
What I think Metro needs to do is negotiate, and give them something more. Let them add retail to the station, add portals, maybe even let private development design the station, rather than just pay for a typical Metro station. Metro ought to set some parameters for station platforms, escalators, fare gates, ticket machines, but this could be much more than just an underground box.
Let them get a return on their investment.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 28, 2012 2:39:05 GMT -8
A person who wishes to remain anonymous (at least I think, but I'll respect that) Tweeted me a few PMs addressing this person's concerns, information and thoughts about the Little Tokyo station of the Regional Connector. (The Associated Press would call this "a source close to the negotiations.") These thoughts arrived a few Tweets at a time, so I hope I have interpreted them correctly: - Japanese Village Plaza's main concern about the project such as it currently exists is that they wanted to "build lower floors" beneath their existing parking structure. It is possible that the newest version of the Connector might conflict with that. - Apparently, JVP's parking plans had not been previously circulated in Little Tokyo. My thought: I must admit that parking is something that people do complain about in Little Tokyo. This is especially true during the heavy-traffic summer festival months. However, it seems to me that the RC would reduce this need considerably. And while I fully appreciate what the current owners of JVP have done to improve the shopping mall ( such as these shade umbrellas), this move does seem poorly timed. - Metro recently decided not to renew its contract with The Roberts Group (TRG), which had done outreach for Metro with the Little Tokyo community. This person states that TPG's budget included money for Little Tokyo mitigation and community input. My thought: The idea that Little Tokyo may not get the full attention that it deserves is somewhat disturbing if it turns out to be true. I have certainly sent Metro plenty of comments, concerns and suggestions without TRG's help, but it seems like somebody ought to be there to be the go-between between Metro and the community. There is supposed to be a Little Tokyo Leadership Council which would presumably serve this purpose, but Streetsblog points out it hasn't been formed yet. Metro certainly needs to make certain that it supports the community, listens to concerns, offers help and provide assistance to business. Construction is going to hit LT harder than it will hit the Financial District. Little Tokyo is NOT Beverly Hills High School. It would seem that until the EIR gets final approval from the board, the Regional Connector is in limbo. These issues with the Financial District and with JVP need to be resolved quickly so this community relations limbo can end. I am just optimistic enough to believe that Metro will not, can not simply let the community be ignored. And I believe that the community will not let itself be ignored. The next steps of station design and engineering will be just as important as the previous stages.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 29, 2012 20:40:59 GMT -8
So was the parking structure issue something that was put on the back burner as the community rallied for the underground wye or was it something that just never came up until now?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 30, 2012 14:19:39 GMT -8
I'm getting all of this second-hand, so it's not entirely clear. But whatever their plans were, it sounds like it wasn't announced to the public until after it became obvious that the newest plan for the Regional Connector — the one which most of the community supported — would involve tunneling under Japanese Village Plaza. It could be that they wanted clarification, or that they wanted it a few feet to the left or something. It does seem strange that this wasn't brought up earlier. But to be fair, it wouldn't have been an issue with the earlier Regional Connector designs.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Mar 30, 2012 20:29:57 GMT -8
I think this community is waayyy better off with the underground wye than with an immense underground parking facility. However, if parking is that much of an issue, I'm sure something can be worked out with the owners of the lot by where the current Little Tokyo Station is.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 31, 2012 11:16:15 GMT -8
Just for the record, Japanese Village Plaza's parking structure isn't where the wye will be. It's on the other side of the station. (JVP is at Central, rather than at Alameda).
The Regional Connector seems to be threading the eye of a needle through Little Tokyo, but I do agree that it would be needed more than JVP's parking expansion.
The problem is, every parking space is potentially a money-maker for JVP. This could be an eminent domain issue. **I'm just speculating
Also, the corner of 1st/ Alameda has been used for overflow parking. It would be used for staging during construction. That's one reason why the EIR includes stuff like parking shuttles and remote parking.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 26, 2012 12:09:15 GMT -8
Metro Board meeting is going on now, call in @ 213.922.6045.
Discussion of Regional Connector FEIR is in progress. I will report back.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 26, 2012 13:33:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Apr 26, 2012 14:38:45 GMT -8
Thanks for that bzcat.
I got so caught up in all the bickering over the past several hours that I forgot to report back!
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on May 10, 2012 22:04:57 GMT -8
Metro did offer to let the Financial District pay for a station in the Financial District. The district wasn't too keen on that idea, even though they probably could have afforded it. It's too bad this didn't work out; Old Bank would have been a rocking name for a subway station.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 22, 2012 10:41:49 GMT -8
The Beverly Hills Courier "claims" that The LA Business Journal reports that Little Tokyo has filed a lawsuit against metro - adding to the endless litigation (if it is true). I should have become a Metro Lawyer: I would read it but I don't want to subscribe or download anything from them: bhcourier.com/tokyo-sues-metro-subway-noise-vibration/2012/06/21
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Jul 2, 2012 15:04:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 2, 2012 18:55:24 GMT -8
Just a question: Can a ROD be issued if there is a pending lawsuit? I'd like to know if this a cause for a champagne cheer or a drown your sorrows in beer moment.
|
|
regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Jul 3, 2012 17:08:53 GMT -8
Just a question: Can a ROD be issued if there is a pending lawsuit? I'd like to know if this a cause for a champagne cheer or a drown your sorrows in beer moment. Lawsuits can be filed both before and after a federal agency issues a Record of Decision. A ROD gives a green light from the federal government, no more and no less. Local and state governments, as well as courts at all levels, operate independently. Basically, in this case the ROD means that the project is cleared to receive federal funding.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 10, 2012 14:31:23 GMT -8
I saw this illustration linked to the Downtown News story about the federal approval and I have to admit I hadn't seen that picture before. My thought was it seemed to be a bit bulky for the ground-level of a subway station, unless some sort of vendor, shop, lockers or bicycle parking was included. It would appear to be either the Little Tokyo station or Second/ Broadway, but the caption doesn't say.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 10, 2012 23:57:33 GMT -8
I saw this illustration linked to the Downtown News story about the federal approval and I have to admit I hadn't seen that picture before. My thought was it seemed to be a bit bulky for the ground-level of a subway station, unless some sort of vendor, shop, lockers or bicycle parking was included. It would appear to be either the Little Tokyo station or Second/ Broadway, but the caption doesn't say. It kinda looks like the public restroom at the beach. The shower is on the left side I think.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 11, 2012 13:05:20 GMT -8
Whatever and wherever it is, it's a handsome piece of architecture though! For the sake of consistency and to keep people from jumping to conclusions, I wish they had used a rendering that was going to actually be built. Or is that the fabled 4th/5th St. Station?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 11, 2012 19:11:18 GMT -8
I'm not really a fan of architecture for the sake of architecture. Art is good, and memorials and what not. But I can't imagine why Metro would need that much space.
I highly doubt that they would put in showers. But I am curious to know what they have in mind. If you look at the scale of it, it is large. It looks like an elevator on the left side, and a subway entrance on the right.
I want my subway entrances to be subway entrances. Stairs, escalator, a few maps and signs and a nice overhang to keep the sun/ rain off. This looks like more than that.
Little Tokyo would be the most likely spot, given that they will eminent domain out the restaurants across from JANM. If that were the case, perhaps they can build the current owners a new building, but this doesn't look like that, either.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jul 16, 2012 16:26:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Jul 16, 2012 19:10:00 GMT -8
I really want to get excited and say this is going to bring back 4th/5th St. Station. But I know it's not. So is this just a cost cutting measure to keep the project in budget?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Jul 16, 2012 22:43:03 GMT -8
I really want to get excited and say this is going to bring back 4th/5th St. Station. But I know it's not. So is this just a cost cutting measure to keep the project in budget? If it gets built after all, I'd like to see them call it the "Library" or the "Central Library" station. Picture a literary theme for the station art!
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Jul 17, 2012 4:10:12 GMT -8
I really want to get excited and say this is going to bring back 4th/5th St. Station. But I know it's not. So is this just a cost cutting measure to keep the project in budget? It's not a cost cutting measure, it's just sticking with an existing construction plan rather than switching to a more expensive option. This won't free up more money somehow.
|
|