|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 19, 2009 21:15:51 GMT -8
In this version,
-Alameda is the below grade tunnel. -First St and LRT trains are at-grade -Pedestrian are elevated in a ped bridge. -The building that both ends of the pedestrian bridge connect to, do not yet exist.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Aug 20, 2009 3:16:54 GMT -8
What I'm seeing instead, is the "Build It Right" NIMBY: more like the Cal HSR NIMBYs of the San Francisco Peninsula, or along the Expo Line. Is this the same or different as a concern troll?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 20, 2009 7:39:42 GMT -8
That intersection seems a little confusing. A full underground intersection would be easier, right? I mean 1st would already be below grade, Why couldn't Alameda? I think your point is: Why not move the roadway intersection below grade? I wonder if this possibly has been fully considered. Sidewalks and rail would be at-grade. Below grade would be for automobiles. To me, that seems much less confusing, with less impact, than the current proposal. I think that big arch/bridge thing is not necessary. The design concept shown in the flythrough looks very final and would have a huge impact on the neighborhood, more than necessary. It amounts to a huge change for the entire neighborhood's look and feel. I think it is extremely presumptuous for the MTA to unilaterally impose this extensive of a change to the neighborhood, without considering what the community might find aesthetically acceptable on its doorstep. If I lived there, I would be very concerned as well.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 20, 2009 8:48:26 GMT -8
What I find interesting about the flythrough video is how everything after 1:10 is showing an empty walkway above the street, leading to nothing at all. What is the purpose of that?
Downtown L.A. already has plenty of unused aerial walkways (e.g., near the Bonaventure). These are a relic from 70's architecture. A bridge+arch is one thing. But this feels much more extensive, like a redesign of the neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 20, 2009 9:10:08 GMT -8
"-First St and LRT trains are at-grade"
A couple questions. I paused the video at 0:50 seconds in. The tracks that veer off to the right will then be the only tracks that will have a vehicle crossing, is that right? Cause I believe that once the vehicles coming East down 1st cross those tracks, the tracks will then be North of both traffic lanes.
Second question concerns whether the video depiction shows the at grade DC option or the underground DC option, or both? From the video it isn't clear whether the tracks that go off to the right eventually head underground or not. I'll check the DEIS to see whether I can figure that out or not.
I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the pedestrian overpasses. Seems pretty large in scale, and if the locals are worried about the area losing its character and/or losing space, it might make sense to do a smaller scale pedestrian bridge that has less impact.
RubberToe
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 20, 2009 9:18:03 GMT -8
To Wad: It depends upon who it is that you are accusing of being a Concern Troll. And also, which definition you are using. Personally, I like #5. Be very careful about throwing words like "troll" around.
=
As far as the intersection is concerned, I much rather prefer the design that is shown in the video to the idea that MetroCenter has brought up.
First of all: Pushing First Street underground would cause much more disruption to the Little Tokyo neighborhood than pushing Alameda underground. You would obviously need a certain distance to lower the street down, and the block between Alameda and Central is a relatively short one, which means that the road tunnel's portal would potentially block pedestrians crossing First Street at Central.
The Japanese American National Museum has already expressed concern about construction on their backside (i.e., at the wye), and lowering First Street would mean construction directly in front of the museum's front entrance. I would oppose that.
Secondly, I like the bridge. It gives pedestrians a safe and easy way over the wye and it looks interesting, like a "gateway" to the Little Tokyo area. Without the bridge, the wye looks much less appetizing to me.
I think it was a mistake for the MTA to include that "building" at the southwest corner of First and Alameda when no plans currently exist to build such a thing. I could be wrong, but it looks larger and more imposing than either the Nikkei Center (which I hope does get built) or the Savoy. Little Tokyo residents were already spooked by the wye, why add to the confusion by including a phantom building?
But beyond that, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the bridge itself. From the pictures I've seen, it looks like it leads into a plaza on the north side (the Nikkei Center side), and I would certainly hope that it would be designed in such a way that the south side would not be left "hanging in mid-air" if the big building doesn't get built. I am reminded of Blossom Plaza in Chinatown, where you have the light rail station already in place first and the development comes afterward.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 20, 2009 9:31:35 GMT -8
That intersection seems a little confusing. A full underground intersection would be easier, right? I mean 1st would already be below grade, Why couldn't Alameda? I think your point is: Why not move the roadway intersection below grade? I wonder if this possibly has been fully considered. Sidewalks and rail would be at-grade. Below grade would be for automobiles. To me, that seems much less confusing, with less impact, than the current proposal. I think that big arch/bridge thing is not necessary. The design concept shown in the flythrough looks very final and would have a huge impact on the neighborhood, more than necessary. It amounts to a huge change for the entire neighborhood's look and feel. I think it is extremely presumptuous for the MTA to unilaterally impose this extensive of a change to the neighborhood, without considering what the community might find aesthetically acceptable on its doorstep. If I lived there, I would be very concerned as well. How do you safely accommodate rail from three different directions, traffic from four and potentially a lot of pedestrians at the same intersection? It's a challenge would you agree? The problem with your suggestion, by lowering both roadways is that the cost, engineering, utility relocation and construction disruption is much much more because now your doing it to two streets and not just one. Also, there is a slight safety issue with having a blind intersection underground. I disagree with your assertion that the DTC is being 'imposed' on the people of little Tokyo. That's like saying a sewer is being imposed on them if they need sanitation. The DTC is public infrastructure for the benefit of all. The businesses and residents of Little Tokyo benefit due to reduced traffic congestion and the increased accessibility to their businesses. Really, it will only make that community better. Secondly, Metro is conducting community meetings, getting feedback and will be addressing issues as best practicle. "Imposing" wouldn't involve the community process. They would just do it. It was in previous community meetings that it was established that the DTC would be subway. In regards to the design, believe it or not it's just conceptual. It's a starting point to help us imagine what might be. Lastly, in regards to changing the character of the community. The building depicted on the currently empty lot on the North East corner is already approved via a separate process that has been ongoing for many years. The building on the opposite south east corner is only conceptual. Last week I saw a park depicted there. (I wanted to post that image here but I can't find it at the moment) What is there now? Mostly, parking lots, a big box office supply store and four of five smaller business none of which are Japanese or historic. Senor Fish (Mexican themed) has probably been there the longest. The others were put there when they built the big box office store seven or eight years ago. If I was king of the world, I would put a very green park there and maybe a small amount of retail to replace the few business that were displaced.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 20, 2009 9:32:14 GMT -8
Downtown L.A. already has plenty of unused aerial walkways (e.g., near the Bonaventure). These are a relic from 70's architecture. A bridge+arch is one thing. But this feels much more extensive, like a redesign of the neighborhood. The neighborhood around the Bonaventure is very sterile, IMHO. The Little Tokyo neighborhood is nothing like that - it is much more active. You can't make judgements based on the Bonaventure. Also, some of the models show the bridge leading to some sort of park space/ plaza area and not some big building. Taking that big phantom building out would reduce the feeling of "redesigning" a neighborhood. Keep in mind also that the neighborhood in question is deeper than the blocks shown. Little Tokyo has already undergone several changes in recent years, with the addition of new apartment buildings on vacant lots (Hikari and Sakura Crossing), while Japanese Village Plaza and Weller Court have remained relatively unchanged since I was a kid.
|
|
|
Post by billcousert on Aug 20, 2009 9:34:03 GMT -8
Why isn't Union Station the final destination for the Downtown Connector? This would give people in Long Beach a direct line to Metrolink and the CaHSR.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 20, 2009 9:48:49 GMT -8
Why isn't Union Station the final destination for the Downtown Connector? This would give people in Long Beach a direct line to Metrolink and the CaHSR. The reason why Union Station isn't included is because that link (between Little Tokyo and Union Station) is already provided by the already-existing Eastside Line. = I agree with what SAUNDERS says. You could easily make the south side of First Street a park of some kind, and have a much lower-profile development that was more in line with replacing what exists there now. No matter what is put there, the bridge is still useful because people would be able to walk from the JACCC or from Japanese Village Plaza to First and Alameda and use the "bird bridge" to get to Nikkei Center.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Aug 20, 2009 9:49:50 GMT -8
Here's a rail view of what is being depicted without the buildings or pedestrian bridge.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 20, 2009 9:53:09 GMT -8
Ok, now I get it. Here is the picture from section 2 of the Alternatives Analysis study: The video is obviously showing the underground alternative, because in the above ground alternative the Gold Line connection is North on Temple Street. Other thing is it does look like from the above picture that 1st is indeed separated from the tracks and never crosses them. If that is the case, then I guess Alameda is in a trench, 1st is somehow above it, then the tracks are above that? The entire block that contains the Office Depot would be acquired to be a staging area for the TBM, and then to serve as the portal where the line goes underground. The Little Tokyo station would then be on the North/South line, while the East/West would bypass Little Tokyo. I know this was covered previously. From a community perspective, I would think that losing the Office Depot and then being able to develop something more appropriate like retail and/or housing would be a huge plus. If the underground option for the downtown connector is chosen, that will be one of the premier locations. Of course you have to live with a one block construction site for several years, but I would think that would be worth it for the long run. Does anyone have a clear idea whether the underground alternative is a slam dunk, or whether there is a possibility that they would do the above ground option? Underground seems better to me if the money is available, which it probably is due to measure R. Assuming they do this, they will have to rename the lines when the connector is finished. The Gold Line from Pasadena will then continue on what had been the Blue Line down to Long Beach. The Expo Line coming East will then continue onto what is currently the Eastside Extension of the Gold Line. What would the new names be, assuming they do a renaming?
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 20, 2009 10:33:52 GMT -8
At least the connector would be easy enough to operate and would not require buying more trains to run (I think?). I doubt that the connector would cost much more to run and might even save money for Metro operations. I hope that the underground option is chosen, but I don't think anything is assured at all in the long range plan for Metro except the funded lines.
|
|
|
Post by billcousert on Aug 20, 2009 10:45:14 GMT -8
Nice. It looks like they did it in Sketchup. They should consider running it through a better rendering program.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 20, 2009 12:16:42 GMT -8
First I want to say, my main question was about whether or not the option of putting the auto intersection below-grade had been explored. If it's not possible, I'm fine with that. We certainly wouldn't want to do this if it meant extending a trench west of Central, and thus ruining the existing shopping street.
Second, I will say that a bridge+arch may be useful, but what is being shown is huge and I think out-of-scale for the neighborhood. If the community is fine with that, then it's fine by me. But I wouldn't be surprised if that hulking form hovering over the intersection is what is scaring long-time residents.
Finally, with regard to the area around the Bonaventure: I would argue that that area is sterile and 'dead' largely because of the separation of pedestrians from the streets, the streets from the buildings, etc. I feel that grade-separation of pedestrians should always be used with caution, because it has a deadening effect on the neighborhood. In this case, I'd say limit it to the crossing. There's no need to wrap it around the building unless it is being a designed as a long ramp ending at-grade near 2nd and Central.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 20, 2009 12:30:22 GMT -8
I disagree with your assertion that the DTC is being 'imposed' on the people of little Tokyo. That's like saying a sewer is being imposed on them if they need sanitation. The DTC is public infrastructure for the benefit of all. The businesses and residents of Little Tokyo benefit due to reduced traffic congestion and the increased accessibility to their businesses. Really, it will only make that community better. Secondly, Metro is conducting community meetings, getting feedback and will be addressing issues as best practicle. "Imposing" wouldn't involve the community process. They would just do it. I never asserted such a thing. I think the Regional Connector is needed, possibly one of the most important projects Metro has to build. And, if you look back at my posts, you'll see that I am a huge supporter of the subway option. What I was referring to was the images being offered of the huge blue and green bridge looming over the intersection and stretching into the huge buildings at opposite corners. This may be conceptual, but locals are being asked to look at these things and give their thumbs up or down. So to me, it's not surprising that some have concerns. Here's an analogy. Imagine the electric company tells you they need to install a telephone pole next to your house. Fine, the need is justified. Now imagine they show you a rendering of the pole, and it has orange and purple flags spinning around in circles, with red flashing lights on it. Your favorable opinion might change very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 20, 2009 13:05:39 GMT -8
I've been reading the blog posts and the comments, and it is clear to me that it is not the bridge that is the problem.
In fact, one commenter referred to the bridge as "lipstick on a pig". In other words, bridge= lipstick. Project = pig. Lipstick is a good thing, last I checked ;D
If anything is scarring local residents, it is the project itself and not the bridge. Specifically, it seems to be the wye section, as well as shoving Alameda underground.
I haven't heard that many complaints about the Second Street subway section. In fact, some commenters wish that the whole thing was underground. They are worried about tearing down the Office Depot block. For all I know, they could own the yogurt stand or the other businesses there, I don't know.
Some are also probably worried about the "potential development" that would replace the Office Depot. That would be a fair concern IF the potential development actually was part of the plan. It isn't.
It isn't the bridge. The area around the Bonaventure isn't dead because of elevated walkways, the area is dead because there's nothing to do in that area. You can take out the walkways, plop people down onto the sidewalk and there still won't be pedestrian traffic in that area unless you bring in retail, a movie theater, something...
There are plenty of shops and restaurants and even grocery stores (not to mention a major museum and a cultural center) in the Little Tokyo area, and one bridge over what is admittedly going to be a tricky intersection isn't going to change that.
The bridge is art. I like art. Some people don't like art. But it's obvious that's not the root cause of the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Aug 20, 2009 14:16:17 GMT -8
Right now the Underground option is the one currently being pursued more, because it has a better FTA Cost-effectiveness value compared to the at-grade alternatives.
Regional Connector Underground Alt: $18.63 Medium can recieve Federal funding for the FEIR/Preliminary Engineering. Regional Connector At-grade alt's: $24.36 Medium-Low (high probability of not receiving federal funding)
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 20, 2009 14:22:37 GMT -8
The bridge is art. I like art. Some people don't like art. Alright, got it. If I don't like this bridge, or wouldn't want it hovering over my historic neighborhood, then I don't like art. Well it's clear it is not OK to question the aesthetics of the bridge on this forum, so I'll just drop it. Lest I be labeled 'NIMBY', which on this forum might be a fate worse than being banned! However, I will continue to disagree with you James on one thing: the elevated pedways in the FiDi are a big part of the problem there. So are the buildings with impenetrable fortress walls and the superwide streets. These things combine to send a clear message: 'pedestrians are not welcome on the street'.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Aug 20, 2009 14:38:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by erict on Aug 20, 2009 16:56:18 GMT -8
It is also similar to the many many pedestrian bridges in Hong Kong that make getting around the city much easier. No destination would be eliminated with the crossing that I can see, the corner is pretty vacant except for the Museum - which would gain a direct connection.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 20, 2009 18:57:39 GMT -8
Spokker makes an excellent point, and so does erict. There are many great examples of pedestrian bridges that are more than just functional. Alright, got it. If I don't like this bridge, or wouldn't want it hovering over my historic neighborhood, then I don't like art. Before MetroCenter falls on his martyr's sword, I just want to make one little point here, which is: the thing which makes Little Tokyo historic is not the architecture. Not by a longshot. There are plenty of old buildings in the neighborhood, but there is nothing particularly remarkable about most of them. It's not the buildings. Its the fact that historically speaking, this neighborhood has always been about Japanese American culture and it has historically been where Japanese Americans settled and started up businesses. The best places in Little Tokyo (IMHO) are not particularly "historic": the JACCC is as modern as they come and while JANM started out in a historic building, they moved to their modern new location as soon as they could afford it. Japanese Village Plaza is faux-Japanese, but it is a relatively recent construction. Even some of the Buddhist temples. The list goes on and on. What makes this community worth preserving is the people in it and the stores, shops and restaurants that cater to a Japanese American/Asian American clientele. With a few exceptions such as the Chop Suey sign, it has never been about preserving this or that pile of bricks. It should be about preserving this sense of culture. In this context, the new light rail station (which I think was designed by Ted Tokio Tanaka, an excellent JA architect) fits in perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 21, 2009 8:15:07 GMT -8
My statement was that this is a 'historic neighborhood'. These people have lived here for decades, and the community has survived despite the internments and the growth of the civic center. So I hope you agree with me that this is a 'historic neighborhood'.
I said nothing about historic architecture. What I said was (1) the bridge/arch is out of scale, (2) I don't personally like the look of it, and (3) the flythrough video is likely to turn off some in the community.
I don't live in Little Tokyo, and neither do you. What really matters is what the people of that community think. If the community is OK with the design, then so be it.
Ultimately, the bridge is not art. It is first and foremost a means for crossing over the tracks, being placed in someone's neighborhood. To tell those people that they just don't get it is condescending and elitist. If Metro wants buy-in from the neighborhood, it is best that they not antagonize folks by imposing art on them.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 21, 2009 9:06:37 GMT -8
I certainly do agree that Little Tokyo is a historic neighborhood. However, I also do think that some people, and when I talk about "some people" I am including some Little Tokyo residents and some people on the Little Tokyo blogs, who have confused what it truly means to be "historic." In the case of a Little Tokyo, I think the neighborhood has evolved, and yet it is still Little Tokyo. Quite a few of the newer buildings are very modern and a couple are tall, but the neighborhood has remained "Little Tokyo" because it is not the architecture that matters. In other words, the architecture of the bridge is not that important. If you, MetroCenter, were to read the Little Tokyo blogs or the comments made to the Rafu Shimpo article, you would see that nobody is putting the emphasis on the design of the bridge that you have been. I honestly think that you are overemphasizing the importance of it. The sense that I have been getting is that if anyone is angry about the bridge, it is a case of "guilt by association" If it were just the design, it would be very easy to unravel the opposition. Metro could just eliminate that part of the project and move forward (which would be unfortunate because the bridge is Japanese American by means of having been designed by a Japanese American). However, it is by and large not the design that bothers people. There may be a bit of "guilt by association" surrounding the bridge, but that seems to be a side effect of other concerns people have. People aren't saying "I hate this bridge, therefore I oppose the project." No, it is "I hate this project, therefore I oppose the bridge." It is the construction, and the mess that construction will make, and concerns that the neighborhood will suffer during the construction, and concerns that the wye itself will make it hard for cars to navigate First and Alameda. Don't take my word for it, read the blog. Read the comments to the blog. Or even this blog post (same blog, different person) . Read the article written in Little Tokyo in a newspaper for Japanese Americans. You are correct; I do not live in Little Tokyo. However, I most certainly am a customer of Little Tokyo's, I spend money in Little Tokyo and (admittedly, for a short time), I used to work there. I have promoted Little Tokyo to others, and I have even asked (just as a suggestion) people on this transit board to visit. I have been going to Little Tokyo for longer than I can remember — and I do mean that literally, since my parents brought me down for Nisei Week when I was a baby. Furthermore, I am Japanese American. When I go to the Japanese American National Museum, it is my own ethnic background that I am studying. When I go to Nisei Week, it is my own culture and my own "ethnic pride" that I am celebrating. So yes, I feel that I have a direct and personal stake in the neighborhood. I am not a resident, but I feel as strongly about the neighborhood as anybody.
|
|
|
Post by billcousert on Aug 21, 2009 9:14:19 GMT -8
Why isn't Union Station the final destination for the Downtown Connector? This would give people in Long Beach a direct line to Metrolink and the CaHSR. The reason why Union Station isn't included is because that link (between Little Tokyo and Union Station) is already provided by the already-existing Eastside Line. But that means another transfer, another delay. But if the trains will be run every five minutes it probably won't matter much.... What will the light rail map look like when the Downtown Connector is finally built? Will the current portion of the Gold Line that goes to Pasadena be renamed Blue Line (as it was originally supposed to be)? Will the Expo Line be an extension of the Gold Line, or will it have its own color?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 21, 2009 12:49:44 GMT -8
I honestly think that you are overemphasizing the importance of it. Fine. And it is my assertion that Metro does itself no favors by rendering this thing as a massive development involving bridges and yet-to-be-approved complexes in addition to the rail and trenches themselves. However, it is by and large not the design that bothers people. I think it depends on the people, but by and large I can accept your opinion. Don't take my word for it, read the blog. Read the comments to the blog. I do. And I have attended the meetings. Many people are not happy. I think the bridge overemphasizes the scale of the change, and thus does not help gain acceptance of the train. You are correct; I do not live in Little Tokyo. However, I most certainly am a customer of Little Tokyo's, I spend money in Little Tokyo That makes both of us. As I have said in the past, I too am connected since childhood to Little Tokyo, am a big supporter of it, and want this thing to be built right. And I have as much right as anyone to critique the presentation and/or the design of the thing, especially when this is something that will affect the neighborhood for generations.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Aug 21, 2009 17:14:14 GMT -8
I honestly think that you are overemphasizing the importance of it. Fine. And it is my assertion that Metro does itself no favors by rendering this thing as a massive development involving bridges and yet-to-be-approved complexes in addition to the rail and trenches themselves. If you are talking about the "building" at the southwest corner (i.e., the Señor Fish/ Office Depot corner) of First and Alameda, then I agree with you. Metro made a mistake with that. However, there are other renderings that do not include that building. For example, the scale model that they had at JANM does not include that building. Obviously, that building is not integral to the wye, the bridge or the project as a whole and can still be quietly dropped. The Nikkei Center (on the northeast corner, Mangrove property) is a different matter; that project is real and it does have community support. Although that support may not be unanimous, it is still a project built by Japanese Americans for Japanese Americans (if you'll pardon me for saying so), and that has helped to blunt any objections. The Nikkei Center is important to Little Tokyo's future economic growth. On all the models that I have seen, the bridge touches down in a ground-level plaza on the Nikkei Center side and does not constitute the same sort of "elevated walkway" that exists in the Bunker Hill area. As far as the bridge itself is concerned, I can tell that we have reached an impasse. We are starting to go around in circles. I love free speech, but I'm not interested in arguments that amount to "it's massive" - "no, it's not" - "yes it is" - "no it's not" etc. Architecture is a very subjective thing. Ask five people about Our Lady of the Angels cathedral, and you are liable to get five different answers. I used to hate it; now I have grown used to the design there. People have many opposing viewpoints about Disney Hall. That's fine. I know that people are unhappy, but I think that anger is aimed at the wye itself, and not the bridge. I support the Regional Connector. I support the bridge such as it is currently designed. I support the idea of an interesting looking bridge rather than a boring one. And I don't see how any of those things are harmful to Little Tokyo. That's about all I wanted to say.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 23, 2009 8:52:58 GMT -8
Yes, agree to disagree on the aesthetics. As long as they build this connector, with the subway alternative, as soon as possible, then I am behind it.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 17, 2009 13:52:18 GMT -8
I sent an e-mail to the people planning the Budokan (that's sort of a sports center/ gymnasium project proposed for Little Tokyo), asking if they would support the Regional Connector. Here's their reply. They don't say yes, but they very diplomatically don't say no either, and they do acknowledge that a station could help:
=
Mr. Fujita,
Thank you for your recommendation and your interest in the matter. Although we do not have an official stance on the Metro Connector issue just yet, it's safe to say that another rail station in Little Tokyo could help bring more people to the Budokan and surrounding area (and Budokan station does sound nice). We are continuing to keep a close eye on the Metro proceedings and appreciate your input on the matter.
Thank you,
Kevin Sanada BoLA Communications
=
James Fujita writes: Hi-
I hope that the people backing the Budokan of Los Angeles will support the proposed light rail line known as the Regional Connector.
Specifically, we all need to throw our support behind the underground option for the Regional Connector. The underground option will be much better for Little Tokyo than the at-grade option.
If the underground option gets built, Little Tokyo will gain a new underground light rail station. This new subway station will be at the corner of Second and Los Angeles, just down the street from where the Budokan will be located. (In front of the Little Tokyo Library and near the Kyoto Grand hotel).
This would be a great addition to the Budokan. People would be able to get to the BoLA without having to drive or search for parking. They could take the train, instead. You might even be able to reduce the number of parking spaces needed for the Budokan.
None of this will happen if the At-Grade option for the Regional Connector gets built. The at-grade option will be slower and messier than the underground option.
In short, I hope that Budokan will support this very important project that will improve Little Tokyo. How does the Budokan Subway Station sound?
- James Fujita
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 17, 2009 14:42:46 GMT -8
Their response was polite but non-committal. I'm sure they are more focused on their capital campaign right now, but it sure would be great if they would write a letter of support to Metro.
|
|