|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 17, 2009 15:09:45 GMT -8
Well, I wasn't expecting much. worst case scenario would have been "no, we're with the NIMBYs on this one"
the Budokan is an interesting project. they are part of the Little Tokyo Service Center, and the LTSC is scheduled to get comfy new digs if the Nikkei Center gets built as proposed. and the Nikkei Center has links to both the Little Tokyo light rail station and the Regional Connector project. so I know they are not novices to the local transit situation.
at the same time, you are right; their first and foremost concern would be financing. the community is fairly solidly behind the Budokan project. they have a location and a design, so all they lack are the funds to build it.
it would be awesome if the Budokan people were to support the underground option, because I think their opinion would hold a lot of sway. at the same time, I know they're preoccupied with their own problems. I certainly wouldn't press them on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 17, 2009 17:56:22 GMT -8
^ But it is good that at the very least they can know what it is and how it could enhance their project in the longer term. Thanks for reaching out.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 18, 2009 8:47:19 GMT -8
The design and location of Budokan (formerly the LT Rec Center) are fantastic. What a great asset to the community. Along with the library, Budokan will make the area much more family-friendly.
A subway stop at 2nd/Los Angeles would be very well used. I can imagine workers near Metro Center or Bunker Hill taking the train to Little Tokyo for lunch. Not to mention all the tourists and regional visitors (like me).
At-grade must not be allowed. This connector must be underground, preferably with 1-2 express tracks. It is the bottleneck of the future, so should it be designed for maximum speed and flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 18, 2009 10:26:49 GMT -8
^ Or make sure we have crossovers at every station to quickly allow trains to manuever and reduce operational delay for any LRV train that malfuctions inside the tunnel. We definitely need an extra pocket track after 7th Street Metro Center to store malfuctioned equipment.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 18, 2009 15:06:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Sept 18, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -8
And, this Tuesday, Sept. 22 at 6:45 p.m., The Transit Coalition dinner meeting will feature Metro CEO Arthur Leahy. I think that will be real interesting to be able to ask questions to the CEO.
|
|
|
Post by mattapoisett on Sept 19, 2009 1:09:50 GMT -8
Is it possible to get a bigger room at Philippe's? I think there is one across the hall. We were standing room only and out to the hall for the last meeting. With Art back again its sure to draw a crowd. And, this Tuesday, Sept. 22 at 6:45 p.m., The Transit Coalition dinner meeting will feature Metro CEO Arthur Leahy. I think that will be real interesting to be able to ask questions to the CEO.
|
|
|
Post by Transit Coalition on Sept 19, 2009 6:17:47 GMT -8
Is it possible to get a bigger room at Philippe's? I think there is one across the hall. We were standing room only and out to the hall for the last meeting. With Art back again its sure to draw a crowd. And, this Tuesday, Sept. 22 at 6:45 p.m., The Transit Coalition dinner meeting will feature Metro CEO Arthur Leahy. I think that will be real interesting to be able to ask questions to the CEO. The amazing thing about our meetings over the last couple of years is that we've had a much smaller crowd and the lure of hearing from the High Speed Rail folks doubled or tripled the attendance. We ask that folks RSVP, so we can judge how much material to print up. We did receive 6 RSVP's and two of those did not show up. So, just like transit, the crowd size can be unpredictable. And, yes for this meeting we will move to the Center Room, as we would expect to see at least 25 people. With Art leaving at 8:10 p.m. for his OC Amtrak train, we are going to start right at 7 p.m. and the folks that drag in late are going to miss part of the show. If you plan to attend the meeting Tuesday, Sept. 22 at 6:45 p.m., please write an RSVP to The Transit Coalition.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 22, 2009 15:12:47 GMT -8
I don't know what's going on the agenda at Metro's regular meeting on Thursday, but apparently some of the anti-connector people from Little Tokyo are planning to show up and protest or at least speak out on the project.
At least, that's what I heard from somebody who e-mailed me today.
Regrettably, I've got too much other stuff to care of on Thursday to be able to attend, but I'd sure like to know what they have planned...
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 24, 2009 13:02:23 GMT -8
From Dolores, the Project Manager of the Regional Connector, the actual public release of this will occur later but these are confirmed dates and times for the meetings. I'll get a follow-up on any public comment submission deadlines. "There will be a series of five Community Update meetings for the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project on the following dates and times: Nov. 5 at 6:30pm, Lake Avenue Church, 393 N. Lake Avenue, Pasadena Nov. 7 at 10am, Wurlizer Building, 818 S. Broadway, Los Angeles Nov.10 at Noon, Los Angeles Central Public Library, 630 W 5th St., Los Angeles Nov.12 at 2pm, Japanese American National Museum, 369 1st St, Los Angeles Nov 12 at 6:30pm, Japanese American National Museum, same address as above"
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 25, 2009 9:13:53 GMT -8
This Metro press release was also posted on the Red/Purple forum: Westside Subway Extension, Regional Connector Projects To Seek Federal Funding
In a move that places Los Angeles County in contention to receive its fair share of future federal rail funding, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors today voted to pursue long-term funding agreements through the US. Department of Transportation to build the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects.
The two projects are expected to score highly in the rankings necessary to secure Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) under current federal New Starts requirements. The Federal Transit Administration administers the New Starts program for major capital transit investments nationwide. Projects eligible for future funding through this program must compete with other projects nationwide to be selected to enter into these types of contractual agreements.
Both the Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects are slated to provide critically needed transit linkages for existing transit riders traveling to, from and through some of the most densely populated and commercially significant areas of Los Angeles County. They are both included in the Measure R half-cent sales tax expenditure plan and the agency’s draft Long Range Transportation Plan that is scheduled for future Board consideration.
“These two projects will not only result in significantly greater connectivity in the Metro subway and light rail systems, but also will result in a dramatic increase in overall system ridership and user benefits,” said Ara Najarian, Glendale City Council Member and MTA Board Chair. “In short, they are our best chance to secure future federal funds, and in so doing, will free up precious local monies for other regionally significant transportation projects.”
The Board’s decision to select the two local rail projects and advance those projects in the New Starts Program could establish reliable, multi-year funding as early as the federal Fiscal Year 2012. Over the past six years, for example, the agency has received an average of $80 million per year in federal rail funding through the New Starts program.
Without this federal match, the agency would be forced to utilize local funds to build heavy and light rail projects, which would make completion of the promised Measure R program of county transportation projects difficult to accomplish.
The Westside Subway Extension is estimated to cost $4.2 billion in today’s dollars for completion of the Measure R segment from the current terminus of the Metro Purple Line at Wilshire/Western Station to Westwood. Measure R funds would be used to match federal funds. The project is currently in its Draft Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) phase, and the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment later next year.
Ridership has been projected at 49,000 new station boardings for the Wilshire alternative to Westwood. An additional 27,000 boardings are estimated to be generated throughout the Metro system as a result of the subway extension. The project would connect key job centers such as Century City and Westwood with the growing Metro Rail system.
The $1.3 billion Regional Connector project would receive $160 million in escalated Measure R funds. Also in its Draft EIS/EIR phase, the MTA Board is expected to make a decision on a preferred alignment late next year. The project would connect the existing Metro Gold and Blue Line light rail lines through Downtown Los Angeles.
In addition to joining these two lines, the project also would enable trains to run directly between the Gold Line Eastside Extension, expected to open in 2009, and the Expo Line, which will connect Downtown L.A. to Culver City in the 2010-2011 timeframe.
The Regional Connector anticipates generating 16,000 new systemwide boardings and additional ridership on the connecting light rail lines through the county. The line would connect major downtown activity centers, provide a one-seat regional ride and reduce transit travel times by 12-20 minutes.
For additional information, visit www.metro.net/westside and www.metro.net/regionalconnector.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Sept 25, 2009 9:53:04 GMT -8
Was rooting around the FTA website this morning trying to find out what the 2008 rankings were for that years New Starts projects. I have heard others here provide numbers that showed the rankings, and I couldn't find that. But I did come across the list of funded projects in a document dated December 15th, 2008. So presumably the next years allocations will be decided in December of this year. Here is the table. Eastside Gold Line extension is the only LA entry, but there are a bunch of others... If anyone has any idea how they do the rankings, or when that happens let us know. RubberToe
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Sept 25, 2009 13:02:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 29, 2009 15:04:36 GMT -8
this was included in this morning's "Los Angeles Transportation Headlines" from the Metro Library, but I thought I'd include a link here for those who might not be subscribed to the service: LTCC Struggles with Regional ConnectorExtremely interesting bit of news, especially as some of the battle lines appear to be drawn. For example Sats Uyeda, who made the motion for the Little Tokyo Community Council to take a stand on the Regional Connector, has come out in the past as saying that he opposes the project. And the guy who seconded it was "Daryl Garibay, owner of Advance Parking Systems." Vested interest much? Also interesting, IMHO, is that Metro has adapted the plans so that only the Senor Fish (not Japanese) and Office Depot (also not Japanese) would be taken out. Goes to show what a little community outreach can accomplish... I hadn't realized previously that the at-grade option would also include an Alameda underpass, which kinda kills the "OMG Alameda underground" argument against the underground alignment.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Oct 3, 2009 19:55:55 GMT -8
The Senor Fish outlet was once the famous 'Atomic Cafe.'
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 4, 2009 0:49:20 GMT -8
The Senor Fish outlet was once the famous 'Atomic Cafe.' No, it was Cafe Troy. Great place for eastside artists and poetic people back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 4, 2009 10:36:11 GMT -8
I hadn't realized previously that the at-grade option would also include an Alameda underpass, which kinda kills the "OMG Alameda underground" argument against the underground alignment. It actually just makes the choice bad and worse, and from the Little Tokyo community's prospective it's probably a coin flip between which one is bad and which one is worse. How folk get angry at those that say, "Well then pox on both of them, we're opposed to the whole darn thing," when the choices are bad and worse always perplexes me. What are they supposed to do bend-over and take one for the team. Put a rail system and crossing that is entirely the product of MTA's own decisions ahead of their long-fought for and historically protected community? Seriously? I don't get how train advocates get either angry or express bewilderment when people show anger or opposition to a crappy plan. And how do you know it's a crappy plan, even here on the Transit Coalition board, I think only James and Jerard have expressed support for the 1st/Alameda street-level crossing/Alameda under-crossing (and the basis of Jerard's nonsense is the inaccurate statement that "WYEs aren't built underground"). And that's here! where many practically have proudly expressed their fetish for light rail. Everyone else is saying the crossing is ridiculous. The best people have had to say about it is the design of the pedestrian bridges, which was the whole point anyway! To put lipstick on the pig - to distract everyone from remembering that MTA is trying to get people to KISS A PIG! Pay no attention to the tail (at-grade crossing), hoofs (trench construction) and oinking (noise pollution), just pucker up because Wilbur's sporting some pretty cherry lipstick (bridges). The problems still remain the opposition will continue to infect the project. Everything else is window dressing.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2009 9:47:31 GMT -8
I'd like to hear from more Transit Coalition members on this issue. Damien Goodmon has just accused the entire message board, except for Jerard and I, of opposing the crossing, which is part of the underground option. Opposing the crossing is tantamount to opposing the underground option. The results of this poll suggest otherwise.There has obviously been a lot of confusion surrounding this project. Confusion is understandable in some cases, given a project of this size. However, confusion can also sow anger, and NIMBYs and rail opponents can use confusion spread misinformation and fear. The MTA has done the right thing by holding community meetings, and I hope that they can diffuse the confusion before it is too late. For example, some people are confused about Second Street. The underground option will not and must not be built cut-and-cover. Also, the current plans call for only a couple of buildings to be taken out. As it so happens, the two buildings are the Office Depot and the Senor Fish. When people talk about preserving the historic neighborhood, they are talking about the Japanese-American ethnic character of the neighborhood. If there is opposition to removing Office Depot or Senor Fish, you will not hear it from the Japanese American community. Putting Alameda in a trench will separate traffic on Alameda from rail traffic at that intersection. I think every one on this message board agrees that grade separations are safe. Finally, the entire northeast corner of 1st/Alameda will be taken up by the Nikkei Center, a Japanese-American built and operated TOD which has the support of many Japanese Americans, both within and outside Little Tokyo. If you want to see some real opposition to the Regional Connector, try bringing the underground option up to the surface on that side of the street instead of the southwest corner.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 5, 2009 11:30:22 GMT -8
For example, some people are confused about Second Street. The underground option will not and must not be built cut-and-cover. My usual contribution; a map to confirm: Putting Alameda in a trench will separate traffic on Alameda from rail traffic at that intersection. I think every one on this message board agrees that grade separations are safe. While that is correct, what Damien is indicating is that a full grade-separation of the LRT junction from 1st/Alameda would be even better for both safety and operations. I think everyone would agree with this as well. In short, while Metro's Underground Alternative is better than their At-Grade Alternative, the Underground Alternative itself could be improved. Metro's Underground Alternative | A Better Underground Alternative (rejected during AA) | | |
A junction of this importance ought to be fully grade-separated from vehicular traffic!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2009 12:23:35 GMT -8
Justin's point, while valid, is moot. The "better underground alternative" was rejected. That option is no longer on the table.
I don't know why it was rejected, but I can think of one logical reason: the northeast corner will be the Nikkei Center. That project effectively trumps any underground crossing of 1st/ Alameda.
Little Tokyo would oppose any attempt to meddle with the Nikkei Center project. They fought hard for that.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 5, 2009 13:10:05 GMT -8
James, many members of this form have expressed ways that the WYE could be constructed underground without requiring acquisition of the Nikkei property. And I suspect that the impact of the at-grade 1st/Alameda crossing and Alameda trench on the Nikkei Center is one of the things fueling opposition. So it's not like MTA's proposal is a solution.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 5, 2009 13:39:11 GMT -8
That intersection is one of the biggest nuts to crack for this project because the ways it can be done couldn't consitute this to be a true underground wye, because;
1) The amount to transition underground to the existing foot of the Gold Line bridge is impossible without tearing down the newly built Eastside extension.
2) To create a truly safe underground wye would require two underground levels not one.
3) Any consideration now to built this truly safe underground two level wye would require conflicts with not just the Nikkei Center,but another widening of First Street for the construction of the portal, which impacts to the newly built Savoy apartments on the SE corner due to any track curvatures and tunneling needed.
4) Any design will require the reconfiguration and closing of Alameda Street during its construction.
So what we're left with is either the existing Metro proposal with needed traffic adjustments and or a proposal of a underground flat junction and understand that the Pasadena-Eastside route will not operate under the Regional Connector.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2009 14:06:53 GMT -8
if presidential primary politics worked like transit advocate politics, the Democratic Party would still be arguing over whether Hillary or Obama was the better candidate.
seriously guys. it's great to suggest alternative candidates, but at the end of the day, the MTA still rejected everything but the two candidates that we are down to (technically four, but nobody here wants TSM shuttle buses and/ or doing nothing). at some point, we need to unify around one.
personally, I don't have a problem with the MTA's underground option. Little Tokyo loses two non-Japanese businesses, it gains a subway station (and I'm going to be fighting for this one), it gains the Nikkei Center.
I was looking at some of those other options Damien mentioned, and I don't think people are aware of how large the Nikkei Center is going to be or how hard it would be to build those other options without ripping the Nikkei Center to shreds. so, I say NO to the underground wye.
the rest of you are free to keep fighting for your prefered alternatives. but, know this: do so, and you are fighting against the underground option. you are presenting Little Tokyo with confusion and excuses to oppose the Regional Connector.
so, who wants the Regional Connector to succeed, and who wants to keep fighting?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 5, 2009 15:05:30 GMT -8
1) The amount to transition underground to the existing foot of the Gold Line bridge is impossible without tearing down the newly built Eastside extension. And your point is? By that logic the Flower Street portion of the Blue Line will have to remain as such because it was built that way. This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that makes so many professionals critical of Metro. They screwed up, therefore they should make the situation even worse instead of going back to fix it. And the statement that they can't/shouldn't go back and fix it is not one predicated on anything substantive (i.e. "Limited funding") rather it's something on the order of: just because. Interesting logic there. Let's evaluate it: First, you are NOT claiming that a single level wye can't be made safe. Indeed if you did that might actually be something we could debate. (It's rather easy to refute that claim.) No instead you're just saying it would be REALLY safe if it were two levels and therefore because the two-level wye is not realistic and has all these adverse impacts the current contraption is acceptable. Then you express concern for the Savoy as though the construction impacts of what is currently proposed are supposedly better. Again all I can do is Wrong again. As I have pointed out before, the Gold Line can be single-tracked between Temple/Alameda and Vignes/1st during construction, and a shoofly and temporary station can be constructed while the Little Tokyo station and section on 1st between Alameda and Garey is reconstructed. Furthermore, that component of the project can be delayed until it's the final phase, so the delay is the minimized. When the premises are flawed, so is the conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 5, 2009 15:27:01 GMT -8
it's great to suggest alternative candidates, but at the end of the day, the MTA still rejected everything but the two candidates that we are down to (technically four, but nobody here wants TSM shuttle buses and/ or doing nothing). at some point, we need to unify around one. This is bad advice for two reasons: 1) The DEIR won't be out for another year. So now is the time to push for alternatives. And IF a project is built these alternatives will be considered and will likely result in changes regardless of whether you/I/anyone else like it or not. If alternatives are not considered this project is subject to delay of years, either through the supplemental EIR process and/or litigation. You propose people sit back and do nothing to avoid that, and I bet you do that ironically in the name of expediency. 2) Suggesting people rally around a bad option, because previous ones were dismissed without being provided detailed explanation is such an abdication of a citizens responsibility and waste of building transit knowledge it's beyond explanation. Yes, we know, you and Jerard. Everyone else, including those who matter most - the stakeholders immediately impacted do. Actually the size of the Nikkei Center is an argument FOR keeping the wye underground instead of the current contraption that you want everyone to fall in line behind. It's interesting in that in one bredth you claim people are so powerless they can't get Metro to change the project, but are powerful enough to hypnotize/confuse the Little Tokyo community into making Metro...change the project.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Oct 5, 2009 16:41:10 GMT -8
As someone who'd ideally like the wye to be underground, but recognize that either the legal, financial, political or technical realities might prevent this, I recommend that a continued asking be done just to keep all options open on the table.
If push comes to shove (and it often does), then we'll have the underground option with a wye that's not perfect but something that can and will be built.
My own guess, which is as good or as lousy as any, is that the financial and technical and political and legal issues force the Metro team to make do with what they have and to not even touch any preexisting project lest they piss off Washington--which is still paying for this Eastside LRT.
If I have to "blame" anyone, it would be EVERYONE who didn't get the Pasadena Gold Line connected to the Blue Line, and who didn't get the Eastside Gold Line connected to the Blue Line. Now we're sorta screwed, and might have to work this Downtown Connector in an (overall) effective but certainly less-than-ideal fashion.
This Downtown Connector should have been done BEFORE the Gold or Expo Lines were planned and constructed...and now to get buy-in from the feds for financial support we have to cheap out and work with what we've got.
...but it still doesn't hurt to ask just why and how we can possibly get the wye underground, just to get the proper responses from Metro.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 6, 2009 8:04:02 GMT -8
If push comes to shove (and it often does), then we'll have the underground option with a wye that's not perfect but something that can and will be built. Remember we wrote extensively on this a year ago on the October Regional Connector Meetings thread? Putting the Connector below 1st and Alameda would not only require rebuilding the Little Tokyo Gold Line station, it would require taking much of the parcel beyond the station because the half-grand-union cannot be put on the 5% grade of the ramp down (quote below from my 2008 post, based on the Expo Line's plan and profile into its underpass south of Jefferson). The current proposal does provide grade separation of tracks from Alameda traffic, plus the benefit of grade-separating Alameda traffic from 1st Street. Here's the same plan and profile where a ramp would have to descend along Alameda between Temple and 1st if the tracks are to be under 1st & Alameda. Again, it appears to just barely fit. But things get more complicated with the track junction that would be under 1st & Alameda. I presume the engineers wouldn't want to put turnouts (switches) and crossings on a 5% grade; therefore the junction would have to be farther west after the tracks level out in the tunnel. And it appears the Gold Line connection between Union Station and 1st Street could not be done in the trench, as its turnouts and crossings would have to occur on the 5% grade. Perhaps on an at-grade diagonal across the block? You could request this be studied as an option in the Draft EIS/EIR, where the engineers could design the actual vertical and horizontal curves that would be necessary. Which would also give a more definitive comparison of its additional cost, travel time difference, and comparative traffic impacts.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 6, 2009 8:39:56 GMT -8
The world is not black and white: there are many shades of gray. For me, the current crossing proposal is gray. It is not ideal, but it gets us a mostly-grade separated Regional Connector.
For those of us who are driven toward an ideal but are able to acknowledge the need for tradeoffs, our discussion has generally been civil, even when we disagree. What purpose does it serve to label the other side 'wrong' with an issue that is so subjective?
If I would agree with Damien on one thing, I would say that the process of elimination should be far more transparent. In other words, if Metro staff is going to simply eliminate an important option like an underground wye at First/Alameda, they should provide concrete evidence to show why the option is not feasible.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 6, 2009 9:53:48 GMT -8
Putting the Connector below 1st and Alameda would not only require rebuilding the Little Tokyo Gold Line station, it would require taking much of the parcel beyond the station because the half-grand-union cannot be put on the 5% grade of the ramp down (quote below from my 2008 post, based on the Expo Line's plan and profile into its underpass south of Jefferson). On a technical note, fitting in an underground junction would be slightly easier that the above analysis indicates. I say this because the current Metro Underground Alternative calls for a 6% grade (obviously steeper than the assumed 5%) to descend into the 2nd St. subway segment.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 6, 2009 10:07:34 GMT -8
I'm applauded and despised for my ability to cut to the chase. So don't allow me to disappoint: if they can construct that Alameda trench, they absolutely can construct an underground wye.
All parties recognize that:
*From a construction standpoint the underground wye is at worse a draw as compared to the current contraption. *From an operations standpoint the underground wye is far superior for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to the movement of the Little Tokyo station (to the southwest corner of 1st/Alameda) so that trains all trains stop at the Little Tokyo (currently only those heading to Union Station do), and the Little Tokyo community's desire to maintain current vehicular set-up.
That clearly makes the underground wye a better option.
The only impediment is exactly what ken pointed out: Metro would have to rip up some brand spanking new tracks. MTA would have to admit that they screwed up - that their planning process is terribly broken, and the reality is that when the choice is between admitting on the record that which the entire country already knows (MTA doesn't know how to plan) or pushing an inferior option, the planners chose the former course. Simply, saving face and refusing to admit to their incompetence is more important than building a superior project. Most everything else is window dressing.
And if people have other explanations for why the current contraption is so highly favored by MTA I'd love to hear them. Because so far, the only explanation we've gotten so far is from Jerard, which I and others have already exposed as having more holes than a pound of Swiss cheese and more unsupported premises than the Iraq war authorization.
|
|