|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 21, 2009 6:59:43 GMT -8
I think any avoidable death or injury is equally tragic. The question is responsibility, and that's where we get cost. Who is responsible for the loss makes all the difference in the world. Which is why it's absurd when people use statistics like 'X people have died in Metro crashes over the period Y' without mentioning how many of those crashes involved Metro's negligence.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 21, 2009 9:35:54 GMT -8
I think any avoidable death or injury is equally tragic. The question is responsibility, and that's where we get cost. Who is responsible for the loss makes all the difference in the world. Which is why it's absurd when people use statistics like 'X people have died in Metro crashes over the period Y' without mentioning how many of those crashes involved Metro's negligence. Your right in that most accidents were caused because of the negligence of pedestrians and auto drivers. However, if a LRT line has an abnormally high accident rate it behooves designers to look into what causes these accidents and then introduce design elements to mitigate these causes irregardless of who is at fault. I know a fellow who while driving, changes lanes not leaving enough room for the car behind to break safely. When I pointed this out to him he contended if they rear end him it's their fault. I asked him, "Do you want to get in an accident even if it's not your fault?" Same goes for trains. With that said, the biggest reason I support grade separation in appropriately dense locations, and more specifically a grade separated downtown connector, is not so much for safety as for operational efficiency. In the case of the DTC the train can glide through downtown unencumbered by automobile traffic above. A slow lumbering trolley, like the proposed red car, does not have efficiency as one of it's main goals.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 21, 2009 10:06:30 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). 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. My apologies if this has been talked about before: If Temple St. was closed at Alameda would that allow enough room for the wye to be constructed underground?
|
|
|
Post by wakko11 on Oct 21, 2009 11:42:32 GMT -8
I think any avoidable death or injury is equally tragic. The question is responsibility, and that's where we get cost. Who is responsible for the loss makes all the difference in the world. Which is why it's absurd when people use statistics like 'X people have died in Metro crashes over the period Y' without mentioning how many of those crashes involved Metro's negligence. Your right in that most accidents were caused because of the negligence of pedestrians and auto drivers. However, if a LRT line has an abnormally high accident rate it behooves designers to look into what causes these accidents and then introduce design elements to mitigate these causes irregardless of who is at fault. I know a fellow who while driving, changes lanes not leaving enough room for the car behind to break safely. When I pointed this out to him he contended if they rear end him it's their fault. I asked him, "Do you want to get in an accident even if it's not your fault?" Same goes for trains. With that said, the biggest reason I support grade separation in appropriately dense locations, and more specifically a grade separated downtown connector, is not so much for safety as for operational efficiency. In the case of the DTC the train can glide through downtown unencumbered by automobile traffic above. A slow lumbering trolley, like the proposed red car, does not have efficiency as one of it's main goals. Actually, the accident would be your friend's fault since he made an unsafe lane change. The question really is how much do we should design and spend for efficiency (safely) versus the ignorance of people.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Oct 21, 2009 12:45:05 GMT -8
Actually, the accident would be your friend's fault since he made an unsafe lane change. This is true but I think you understand my point. :*)
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Oct 29, 2009 7:52:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 29, 2009 8:20:19 GMT -8
"Among the few concerns raised included questions about the actual feasibility of building such a station, and whether or not the underground option would actually function as a terminal station that would require passengers from other rail cars to transfer to Gold Line trains. Other members were worried of the impact of this new option would have on 2nd Street businesses and the Nishi Hongwanji Temple."
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Oct 31, 2009 8:05:29 GMT -8
However they get Metro back to the drawing board to consider something better than the existing contraption is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 1, 2009 0:02:08 GMT -8
(I would have responded earlier, but I've been out of town in a place without [cheap] internet access)
It seems to me like there's an awful lot of IFs involved in this "Fifth Option"..... whether this would affect Nishi Hongwanji, for example; whether an underground station would allow trains to head both north and east; how badly would this would affect the Nikkei Center...
I've been operating until now on the assumption that an underground station and wye would be too difficult to engineer, too expensive and/or require too large a sacrifice from Nikkei Center...
The MTA could very well say that it's not possible, or at least too expensive to build. There's a lot of reasons why this might not work.
IF the MTA could squeeze an underground wye in to that location, more power to them.
However, if the MTA says no to the Fifth Option, I hope that people will be willing to accept the crossing.
Let's not throw out several months worth of perfectly good planning...
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 1, 2009 10:03:53 GMT -8
However, if the MTA says no to the Fifth Option, I hope that people will be willing to accept the crossing. Let's not throw out several months worth of perfectly good planning I think the problem is that there aren't many people who consider the current contraption "good planning" from a construction or operations standpoint. Just break up the construction issues for an underground crossing of 1st/Alameda and underground wye: 1) Is it possible to do cut-and-cover construction at the intersection? 2) Is there sufficient distance and width between Temple and 1st to fit a portal? 3) Is there sufficient distance and width on 1st Street to fit a portal? 4) Is there sufficient right-of-way to construct the portals and run temporary track on Alameda and 1st simultaneously? The answer to all of those question is yes, so why would it not be feasible? The remaining issues are mitigation of the construction impacts and the station location.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 1, 2009 17:32:09 GMT -8
The two fully-underground options - 6 and 8 - in the Final Alternatives Analysis (17MB PDF; plans & profiles on pages 36 and 40) could not fit a station on east of 1st and Alameda due to tight curves and steep grades. Perhaps option 6 (only) could fit one west of Alameda, but it instead located its Little Tokyo station west of San Pedro.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 1, 2009 22:01:30 GMT -8
I liked that station location for Alternative 6. But I'm guessing that putting a tunnel directly underneath the Japanese Village Plaza might have worried some people. Even if the tunnel boring equipment is safe.
As for putting an underground station at 1st and Alameda ... quite frankly, whether there is theoretically room for the underground station and the portals or not matters less than whether the developer of the Nikkei Center would be willing to accept an underground station under their development.
We are fortunate that at this point in time, it appears that they are willing (which was a surprise to me). But that could change if "The Fifth Option" turns out to be less optimal than Damien claims.
And yes, the Nikkei Center is that important. Little Tokyo has shrunk over the years, and the Nikkei Center would help reverse that trend.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 2, 2009 10:07:40 GMT -8
Perhaps option 6 (only) could fit one west of Alameda, but it instead located its Little Tokyo station west of San Pedro. First question: why not also Alt. 8? Alt. 8 already has the station under Main, just shift it to the location between Los Angeles and San Pedro. Aside from the station locations, Alt. 6 and 8 differ only in the location of the east portal (towards East LA). Alternative 6 puts it under 1st (further proving that it is feasible to construct the portal in the median of 1st), Alt. 8 puts it on the Nikkei site. Both have the north portal (to Union Station) on the Nikkei site, which is problematic. The north portal simply needs to be moved to the location of the current Little Tokyo station. Back to the station location issue: from a systemwide perspective a station on 2nd between San Pedro and Los Angeles may be a good thing. With portals to Los Angeles Street (City Hall) and San Pedro (Little Tokyo) it allows one station to do the job of two and the DTC to remain a 3 station project as opposed to four (which it would be if a station is added to 1st/Alameda), reducing the cost of the project even further (no Alameda vehicular trench). As I recall, the area (southside of 2nd between LA and San Pedro) is a parking lot now, creating a convenient staging location. Will it remain that way though? Google maps doesn't yet show Sakura Crossing, which is towards the southern section of the parcel. A parking lot is still there, but again, for how long? The big issue likely for the Little Tokyo community is the construction impact of building the station there. 2nd Street is very narrow and a cut-and-cover station box right under it in the heart of Little Tokyo would be devastating, no question about it. If the station is constructed off street (a possibility - especially if the parcel remains a parking lot) or via large single bore tunnel (not likely) the impacts are significantly reduced. So it really comes down to whether that parcel of land will still be empty 3-5 years from now, or alternatively, if there is a developer, whether they're willing to partner with Metro to delay and redesign accordingly to fit the station to reduce the construction impacts. There remain big problems with alternatives 6 and 8: again, they both still have portals on the Nikkei Center property. Alt. 6 simply needs to be modified to place the north portal (to Union Station) where the Little Tokyo station (that way the Nikkei site remains unaltered) is currently located and we have something that with some tweaking may work. (Alt. 6 already has and the east portal (to East LA) under 1st Street). The other issue with Alt. 6 and 8 is the location of the tunnel boring machines removal/launch. If the Nikkei Center site remains vacant until construction (questionable) that's the spot (as shown in the Alternatives Analysis) for launch per the drawings. Otherwise it's got to be the Home Depot site - so we're really right back to square one, and may have worsened things by placing the station closer to Little Tokyo exacerbating the construction impact. Is Metro willing to compensate the Nikkei developers for use of their site, off-setting the additional construction cost for a delay in their project? If so, how much is that $25M? 50M? 100M? And how much delay are we really talking about, i.e. is the Nikkei even ready to go in the next 3 years? And are the Nikkei developers willing to endure the wait? If both parties are willing, then that may be the solution. The Nikkei site is the ideal location for staging and launching or removing the TBMs. It also creates more space to create a temporary track and station (although I argue they can still single track it within the current right-of-way limitations.) But the willingness of the developers to wait for Metro and ability of Metro to strike such a deal are big "IFs." So at the end of the day we might be right back to where most were when this started (relocated station on the SW corner of 1st/Alameda and underground WYE). By the way its clear by the drawings for Alt. 6 & 8, Metro was not at all concerned about having an underground WYE, so we can throw that piece of fiction out of the window. They just don't (as I've said repeatedly) want to rip up their brand new station. But that could change if "The Fifth Option" turns out to be less optimal than Damien claims. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems as though you want Metro to fail this community, and I don't really understand why, if you profess to care for it so much. LTCC are not engineers or people who spend every day thinking about transit. They're conveying their concerns in the best way they can possible. A good agency would attempt to translate the spirit of their motion (i.e. NO Alameda vehicular trench, limited displacement and no at-grade crossing 44-48 times per hour), into an option that fulfills their goals. We're discussing that here. Try to be part of the solution. It's okay to question Metro James. You, I and the rest of the public are after all their "client."
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 2, 2009 14:19:55 GMT -8
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems as though you want Metro to fail this community, and I don't really understand why, if you profess to care for it so much. Damien, "failure" depends on what your goal is. Just like with the war in Iraq, many different people can have differing views as to what constitutes a "success" or a "failure". One person's "failure" can be another man's "success." If your goal is an ultimatum — build the station underground or else don't build it, period — then of course anything that doesn't satisfy the conditions of the ultimatum can be labeled a failure. That would appear to be your goal (forgive me if I'm misinterpreting). However, it does not sound like the Little Tokyo Community Council shares that viewpoint. from Little Tokyo Unblogged: "The Community Council is in favor of continuing the Underground Emphasis Option, which currently tunnels underground at 2nd Street, by continuing tunneling under 1st & Alameda and providing Little Tokyo with a station under the present Gold Line Little Tokyo / Arts District Station, subject to the approval of the Nikkei Center, LLC and respecting the property and integrity of Nishi Hongwanji Buddhist Temple. This would also save merchants and property owners adjacent to 2nd and Central (Office Depot block) from years of construction disruption."Note that they are not demanding an underground station at that location. There are no ultimatums, only a request for considering a fifth option. The motion shows concern for Nishi Hongwanji and concern for the Office Depot block (which would seem to rule out a station at the southwest corner). They also appear to have no qualms about tunneling under Second. From Little Tokyo Unblogged again: "LTCC Chair Bill Watanabe, however, made it clear that the board’s motion was drafted to urge Metro investigate a fifth alternative, and did not represent an endorsement nor a preclusion of any of other proposals thus far presented by Metro."Now, the MTA may very well accept their idea. The MTA could say "You are absolutely correct. How stupid of us not to have realized this earlier. Thank you, LTCC, for bringing this to our attention." I would be perfectly fine with that result. Maybe the Nikkei Center people are willing to wait. Given the state of the economy, waiting may be a good idea. Maybe they would plan a Tokyo-style underground station complete with underground mall. HOWEVER, if it is not possible to build an underground station there — either for physical, engineering reasons, or because negotiations between the MTA and Nikkei Center break down — then I would think that a Plan B might be in order. Thankfully, the MTA has already developed a Plan B. Plan B involves a grade crossing, a lovely origami bird bridge and Alameda underground.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 2, 2009 17:06:29 GMT -8
Thankfully, the MTA has already developed a Plan B. Plan B involves a grade crossing, a lovely origami bird bridge and Alameda underground. I think, for the MTA, that is Plan A.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 4, 2009 11:33:33 GMT -8
I am appalled this morning to learn that the Little Tokyo Community Council's transit committee apparently voted 33-0 to oppose both of the MTA's existing options for the Regional Connector, according to Little Tokyo Unblogged. (To my knowledge, no one else has reported on their decision yet, but I could be wrong, so I apologize if this is old news.) I have not seen the motion that the committee passed, so I can not comment too deeply on it. However, before the meeting I sent an e-mail to the LTCC, asking them not to oppose the underground option. I almost immediately got back a response from June Berk, the LTCC's community relations coordinator. She said her response was personal, and not officially the LTCC's, but she essentially took up the typical NIMBY talking points: traffic, noise, property values. I don't know if the rest of the LTCC echoes her sentiments, but a 33-0 vote sends a pretty strong message. Taking a hard line stance against both the underground and at-grade options effectively ties Little Tokyo's hands and limits the community's ability to negotiate with the MTA. It is one thing to want to make changes to an existing plan. That is reasonable. It is quite reasonable to prefer one option over another option. However, it is not reasonable to completely cut off that other option. it is close-minded and it shows an unwillingness to compromise. It is the ultimatum that I feared that the council would give: Do it our way or else. We still do not know if the Fifth Option is feasible. We do not know if the MTA will accept it. Under the circumstances, to oppose the underground option because of a street crossing is foolhardy. I will continue to support the Fifth Option, but I have grave concerns for Little Tokyo if a NIMBY attitude is allowed to prevail.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 4, 2009 12:53:25 GMT -8
I agree with your concerns, James. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and while I will ALWAYS strive for that perfection...I do not EVER want to toss away my credibility as someone who can negotiate if I can't have it ALL my way.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 5, 2009 7:12:51 GMT -8
I agree with your concerns, James. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and while I will ALWAYS strive for that perfection...I do not EVER want to toss away my credibility as someone who can negotiate if I can't have it ALL my way. Kind of easy to tell someone on the other side of town to "take one for the team" from a Mar Vista home. Incidentally, why is challenging Metro to go back to the drawing board a bad thing? Is the current proposal really so great we should rush to line up in support of it? And is this another one of your flip-flop Kens? Seems you were saying not that long ago that Metro should be more transparent about why they didn't have an underground crossing at 1st/Alameda and alternatives. Now the stuff has hit the fan and you're saying they should fall in line and start negotiating the trees. Please correct me if my interpretation is wrong, sometimes its hard to keep up with you my friend. Incidentally, how has that Light Rail for Cheviot plan (work with Expo to get grade separation) worked out at Overland? In my opinion LTCC has sent the right message: 1) You need to begin looking at alternatives, and we're willing to support alternatives, but 2) What you're currently proposing is ridiculous. If now isn't the time to request they come back with alternatives than when is?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 5, 2009 10:19:50 GMT -8
Wouldn't the 5th Option require a transfer between the underground Little Tokyo Station and the current one? If that is in fact the case, doesn't that take away a lot of the attractiveness of the Regional Connector? It would be better than today as one could transfer between Blue/Expo and Gold directly without having to go on the Red/Purple Line. I'd think an additional transfer would take down the ridership figures and thus hurt the chances for New Starts Funding. We would then have to call it the Regional (not quite) Connector.
Perhaps this would just mean rebuilding the current Little Tokyo station underground at the site proposed by LTCC, which means we could have the same functionality as originally designed, although would this mean we'd have to close the Gold Line to the Eastside to construct this???
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 5, 2009 11:40:30 GMT -8
Page 1 of the Regional Connector Final Alternatives Analysis Report's Executive Summary states: The project would include several new stations downtown and would allow train operations between Long Beach and Pasadena without the need to transfer. Simultaneously, it would allow train operations between East Los Angeles and Culver City also without the need to transfer. Any option that required passengers to transfer from a below-grade station to an at-grade station at 1st and Alameda would not fulfill this fundamental project requirement would be discarded.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 5, 2009 12:36:42 GMT -8
Probably the only Regional Connector option that tunnels under 1st & Alameda and provides a station near Alameda would be similar to the original Alternative 6. I've added in yellow such a station location to its plan and profile (FAAS Section 2, page 36). The steep grades east of Alameda appear to preclude a station there, unless one proposes a long loop that would take up most of the NE corner parcel and add more train time than signal delay at 1st & Alameda at-grade. But the criterion in the Little Tokyo Community Council 5th option motion conflicts with such a station west of Alameda: This would also save merchants and property owners adjacent to 2nd and Central (Office Depot block) from years of construction disruption. I'd expect a similar outcome from studying a fifth option as the Santa Monica City Council studying alternatives to the Verizon maintenance yard site, that engineering reality will prevail. I hope Metro going through that process will help inform the LTCC members.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 5, 2009 13:07:53 GMT -8
Probably the only Regional Connector option that tunnels under 1st & Alameda and provides a station near Alameda would be similar to the original Alternative 6. I've added in yellow such a station location to its plan and profile (FAAS Section 2, page 36). Alternative 6 doesn't have a station at the location. As everyone can see on the rendering, Little Tokyo and City hall are served with a station on 2nd between Los Angeles and San Pedro (a site which is currently a very large parking lot). Additionally, despite the fact that Alt. 6 assumes the station will be demolished it places the portal on the Nikkei Center. Makes no sense. It's because of the curve assumed for the TBMs. That needs to be altered. Alt. 6 also requires a lot of assistance from Nikkei as it assumes the TBMs will be launched on their site. Metro could conceivably launch them at Flower and pull them out of the ground on Alameda. The latter activity won't be pretty for however many months it would take to pull them out of the ground. In comparison to the Alameda trench construction though it's much less disruptive. I'd hope Metro going through the process would result in something that fulfills the needs of the project and mitigates the LTCC members concerns. Not sure why anyone would desire otherwise Mr. Clarke.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 5, 2009 14:43:18 GMT -8
One way or another, I certainly hope that there would be a station at First and Alameda. Second and Los Angeles would be nice, Second and San Pedro would be better, but First and Alameda does seem like it would have the best opportunity to getting people to Little Tokyo from all four corners of the Blue/Gold lines. (Best case scenario: Second/Los Angeles AND First/Alameda). Whether that station is underneath the Nikkei Center or next to it, I don't know.
Ultimately, that decision rests in the hands of the MTA. They are the ones with the engineers, the designers, the consultants, the contractors, the digging equipment and most importantly, the money.
Of course, I would expect them to ask for help, ideas, suggestions and input from the community. That's only fair. But the LTCC isn't building the Regional Connector — when the shovels hit the ground, it will be the MTA doing the digging (or at least signing the checks).
Then, there are the developers responsible for the Nikkei Center. We know that they were behind the motion for the LTCC's Fifth Option, so they might be more willing to accept an underground station than we suspect. Of course, we don't know how far they would be willing to go, or how long they would be willing to wait.
=
On a slightly unrelated note, I recently received an e-mail from Bill Watanabe of the Little Tokyo Service Center (which is actively involved in the Nikkei Center) and the LTCC. His viewpoint on the Regional Connector seems to differ from June Berk's and suggests that the LTCC's position is more moderate than flat-out NIMBY.
I'm not sure what to do with these e-mails. On the one hand, they were addressed to me, and not the Transit Coalition. But they do provide insight into what the community thinks.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 5, 2009 17:25:17 GMT -8
Incidentally, though we can be certain Metro is not considering this, the DTC can maintain connections to Pasadena with an underground station at the current site of the Little Tokyo station by extending the tunnel 1 mile north to the Chinatown station, which isn't the worst idea in the world considering: -15 mph restrictions on the Union Station-Little Tokyo curve -Speed restrictions on the Chinatown-Union Station curve -Proposed emergency response facility off Temple -The Chinatown elevated structure was falling apart not that long ago -Improved connections to Olvera Street and possibly the subway (station box would likely be built in the Union Station parking lots) -A more industrial area for staging. How much this would increase the cost of the project is debatable. Speaking of which sometime soon they're going to need to explain how this puppy is $925M. And who knows it may not take much of hit in regard to cost-efficiency (would cost more, but would also speed up travel times). By how much I don't know - I haven't timed the Chinatown-Union Station and Union Station-Little Tokyo yet. Second and Los Angeles would be nice, Second and San Pedro would be better, but First and Alameda does seem like it would have the best opportunity to getting people to Little Tokyo from all four corners of the Blue/Gold lines. If the station is located on 2nd between Los Angeles and San Pedro (as shown in Alt. 6) the assumption is that one portal would lead to Los Angeles and the other would lead to San Pedro. And of course an off-street station box requiring Metro acquisition, which may not be a bad thing, (i.e. joint Mixed Use development) would better mitigate the construction impacts. Dude do you have this thing way backwards. This is taxpayer money. Metro's client is the public. This isn't about asking for help, but rather winning public approval. And yes, station location is still being discussed. The one on 2nd Street around City Hall in particular.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 5, 2009 20:11:50 GMT -8
Incidentally, though we can be certain Metro is not considering this, the DTC can maintain connections to Pasadena with an underground station at the current site of the Little Tokyo station by extending the tunnel 1 mile north to the Chinatown station, which isn't the worst idea in the world considering: -15 mph restrictions on the Union Station-Little Tokyo curve -Speed restrictions on the Chinatown-Union Station curve -Proposed emergency response facility off Temple -The Chinatown elevated structure was falling apart not that long ago -Improved connections to Olvera Street and possibly the subway (station box would likely be built in the Union Station parking lots) -A more industrial area for staging. I think what I like best about this idea is that the MTA hasn't even given us an inch on the tunnel and Damien is quite literally taking a mile ;D Of course it's taxpayer money. And you know what? That doesn't change the fact that if the entire Bus Riders Union marched to MTA HQ and demanded more buses, fewer trains, lower fares, friendlier drivers and a portrait of Karl Marx in the MTA HQ lobby, the MTA would be required...... to do diddly squat. It would especially not change the fact that there are limits on curve radius and on the length of Alameda between First and Temple or how tall a ramp can be or how wide tunnels have to be. Public support will not change the laws of physics or engineering requirements. Well, Darrell has been doing a better job of explaining this stuff than I can.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 6, 2009 7:42:19 GMT -8
It would especially not change the fact that there are limits on curve radius Emm hmm how large, and what evidence do you have that its not feasible? Emm hmm, how long, and what evidence do you have that the length is not sufficient? Emm hmm, how tall? Emm hmm, how wide? Indeed, which is why it's best to deal in the world of specifics with measurements and documentation and not assumptions of "well Metro didn't propose it so it can't be done."
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 6, 2009 11:33:18 GMT -8
Public support will not change the laws of physics or engineering requirements. Indeed, which is why it's best to deal in the world of specifics with measurements and documentation and not assumptions of "well Metro didn't propose it so it can't be done." Okay Damien, I'll bite. You obviously don't trust the MTA to do the right thing and you obviously don't trust the maps and measurements that Darrell Clarke has provided on numerous occasions. So, who do you trust? I'm afraid I lack the technical skills to do it myself, I lack the funds to pay for an architect or an engineer, and even if I did draw up my own measurements, I'm fairly certain that you would reject them. So, that pretty much leaves yourself. Well, that's just nifty. I'm fairly certain that you agree with your own assumptions, but then who's to say that they aren't faulty? How about this: You yourself said it's the Little Tokyo community that's going to be most affected by this project, so let's let the Little Tokyo community voice their objections. Already done and done. Step two: Wait and see what the MTA's response to those objections are. If the MTA says yes to the underground station, celebrate. If the MTA says no, but doesn't explain why, go back to step one. If the MTA says no, and explains why, then move on to step three: Plan B. Work with the MTA to make the grade-crossing work better and mitigate any problems. Or, if Plan A fails and you don't like Plan B, I suppose you could throw a temper tantrum, oppose the whole project and generally act like a jerk. Hey, who needs compromises when you're already perfect, right? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by erict on Nov 6, 2009 14:08:40 GMT -8
A lot of downtown will be affected by the Regional Connector, not just Little Tokyo. What about the other stations proposed along the way? I suppose Little Tokyo is different since it will be the crossroads of 4 rail lines. But in the end I would think is a benefit to the area, which is one of my favorite parts of downtown already. I do sympathize with them recalling the Sinkhole during the Red line construction here in Los Feliz. But now the area is more vibrant with one of the highest walkable rankings in Los Angeles on the Walkscore.com website - 100%. www.walkscore.com/get-score.php?street=4600+hollywood+Blvd.+los+angeles+ca+90027&go=Go
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 6, 2009 15:50:33 GMT -8
A lot of downtown will be affected by the Regional Connector, not just Little Tokyo. What about the other stations proposed along the way? I suppose Little Tokyo is different since it will be the crossroads of 4 rail lines. But in the end I would think is a benefit to the area, which is one of my favorite parts of downtown already. You are correct, Erict. It does seem like we have neglected the other areas of downtown which will be affected. However, if you look at the other station locations, they are all heavily tilted towards either big business or government. It is understandable that there would be far less controversy at Bunker Hill or near the Bonaventure Hotel. In addition, we are looking at very basic underground construction and station designs for these locations. Little Tokyo, on the other hand... we have apartments, we have grocery stores, we have small business owners, we have a very large senior center, we have museums and several Buddhist temples, at least one of which may be affected by the Regional Connector. We have a population that is jittery about its future. (speaking of which: Bill Watanabe e-mailed me again. He said he would feel better about the project if Little Tokyo had more control over new businesses moving in. I told him I would have no problem with local control.) The situation is also trickier, with both the Office Depot block and the Nikkei Center block to consider. And, of course, that darned wye.... [edit: I honestly believe that you could build an underground extension of the Blue Line from 7th/Metro to the Kyoto Grand Hotel (Second/Main-Los Angeles, or even Second/Los Angeles-San Pedro) in Little Tokyo with little or no controversy. Why anyone would want to do that is an exercise I leave for another transit nerd, but it would be less contentious than building the whole thing.... ;D ]
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 6, 2009 17:03:08 GMT -8
The public as client is a lofty ideal, but how do you deal with a client that wants everything, nothing, and everything in between everything and nothing? The public isn't like a guy with a bunch of cash who knows what he wants for the addition to his house, it's a collection of mostly disinterested people and a smaller portion of concerned stakeholders. As a practical matter, the public can certainly steer a project in a slightly different direction, but the public cannot have complete control.
Measure R is the closest thing to a public mandate we have. Of course, it specifies what to build, not how to build it. Perhaps we should put downtown connector alternatives up to a vote? Who would vote? Little Tokyo residents? City of LA residents? County residents?
I'm just thinking out loud.
|
|