|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 8, 2009 13:23:00 GMT -8
I sympathize and empathize with your sentiments, and have heard from others with similar sentiments. Although I personally have no tolerance for bullies ken, Since you and your friend warren want to reopen the door, I only have to say your claim for a desire in civility only goes as far as you can demonize a person/group for challenging Metro, call someone a NIMBY or a racist for opposing at-grade/unmitigated rail in their backyards, and when you make them, YOU'RE APPLAUDED! (I dare you to deny you've repeatedly made these statements.) Indeed, there's great irony in your stated abhorrence to any discussion of possible institutional discrimination at Metro, given your propensity to label your neighbors "racist" for opposing Metro plans. When someone yells obscenities at a man who just minutes earlier hit a woman, when someone responds to various jabs with a rhetorical left hook, well then that's when we need to stop "bullying," all need to be concerned about "civility" and should "agree to disagree." You speak of harassment as though the Phase 2 scoping meetings weren't filled with Friends 4 Expo/Transit Coalition folk yelling in the faces of people, to say nothing of the ridiculous death threats and obscene things that can be regularly read on any article comment section, blog or message board that has a proud member of the TTC on it. As I said many times, I'm Johnny Come-Lately in this whole ordeal. Y'all have been dividing, demonizing, mocking the dead, and running campaigns to divide communities since before I knew what LRT stood for. It's your M.O. Your objection is that I'll call you out on it, have no problem at times returning the fire in kind, and can in very easy to understand terms expose the ridiculousness of what's been stated. Yea, if I were in your shoes, I would be a bit perturbed as well. You've been getting away with it for years. And now the person calling you out on it is: -Black -Doesn't have a car -Rides Metro -Likes rail -Has community standing My biggest mistake in all of this is assuming about 24 months ago that a sane conversation could be had here given the strong feelings of what we shall call "your kind of transit advocates." And I only made that mistake because duplicitous statements like the one you laid above are so rampant. Back to the discussion: why ramp up north of Temple instead of south of temple?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 13:30:34 GMT -8
Back to the discussion: why ramp up north of Temple instead of south of temple? There is not enough space south of Temple to interface an aerial structure with an underground line, especially considering that there would be a station and wye there. The ramp needs to be north of Temple but steeper (6% grade instead of 3%) so that you can transition from the aerial structure to the underground line at a portal located just north of Temple.
|
|
|
Post by warrenbowman on Nov 8, 2009 14:21:56 GMT -8
Damien, thanks for making my point for me.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 8, 2009 15:10:13 GMT -8
Back to the discussion: why ramp up north of Temple instead of south of temple? There is not enough space south of Temple to interface an aerial structure with an underground line, especially considering that there would be a station and wye there. The ramp needs to be north of Temple but steeper (6% grade instead of 3%) so that you can transition from the aerial structure to the underground line at a portal located just north of Temple. So your attempting to place the underground station between Temple and 1st, as opposed to the incline. Incidentally, grade separating the Temple/Alameda crossing is a good thing, considering the emergency service facility soon to be located east of the intersection. Shutting down service for minimum 3 months though? Hard pill to swallow.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 8, 2009 15:54:33 GMT -8
I think now it's the perfect time to have an "option" added in the EIR for the modification to 6% grade of the retained-earth ramp between Commercial St and Temple St, with a portal just north of Temple, and an open-trench Little Tokyo Station between Temple and 1st. James, perhaps you and the Little Tokyo Community Council can push for this now? If there is an option in the EIR for this, then it will be built if the funds become available. It's a far better and more productive approach than "The LTCC opposes the build alternatives." I can't speak for the Little Tokyo Community Council or the LTSC, but personally, I'm not pushing for any specific plans until I see what the MTA comes up with, and how the Nikkei Center reacts to what the MTA comes up with. I'm not saying that Gokhan's plan is a bad one; in fact, I think it sounds like it probably might work. But I am curious to see and learn more first and I'm willing to give the MTA the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 8, 2009 16:40:03 GMT -8
Rebuilding the 101 crossing might be prohibitively expensive and would likely shut down the barely-completed Gold line for months. But if it could be done, would it be possible to make a new, straight bridge aimed south at Hewitt Street, with a portal in the parking or service lot between temple and decorum? I don't know if there is any development planned for that area. Then, the junction could look like this: maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=34.051468,-118.236408&spn=0.008925,0.018904&t=h&z=16&msid=118421907942452958270.000477e5136aa66408165 Google maps (Sorry, not sure how to put in an image) There would still be the issue of the east portal being uncomfortably close to the temple, but perhaps it would work.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 8, 2009 16:48:35 GMT -8
Here's a comparison of these three LRT alternatives: | FAAS Underground Alternative | FAAS Alternative 6 | Gokhan's portal @ Temple | Little Tokyo station | Existing at-grade | Underground west of Alameda (my location) | Underground below existing | Travel time impacts | Signal delay @ Alameda | Slow ramp @ Alameda | 6% grade | Main construction impacts | Alameda underpass, Office Depot portal/ramp | Little Tokyo station box, 2 portals/ramps | Most - Gold Line closed for months for new station and portals/ramps | Traffic impacts | Better for Alameda; worse for 1st | No change | No change | Cost | Least? | Middle? | Greatest? | NE parcel impacts | Least | Construction; Alameda ramp space | Construction |
Copy and edit this table if you'd like to add to it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2009 17:38:44 GMT -8
I should point out that my alternative is the only fully grade-separated one. The FAAS Alternative 6 and 8 still have a grade crossing at Temple and moreover they place the Little Tokyo Station in an undesirable location. Therefore FAAS Alt 6 and 8 don't have much advantage over the at-grade-wye alternative and that's why they have been discarded.
Also, the 6% grade won't affect the speed much, as there is a 90-degree turn at one end and a station at the other end of the ramp.
I'm personally fine with either the at-grade wye or my alternative. The main problem with the at-grade wye is some LRT delay there -- probably roughly a minute. But then I guess we could live with that. We have the same thing at Washington/Flower anyway.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 9, 2009 2:52:31 GMT -8
I should point out that my alternative is the only fully grade-separated one. The FAAS Alternative 6 and 8 still have a grade crossing at Temple and moreover they place the Little Tokyo Station in an undesirable location. Therefore FAAS Alt 6 and 8 don't have much advantage over the at-grade-wye alternative and that's why they have been discarded. Gokhan's idea is an interesting one, and I know that for it to work, it would require Temple to be grade-separated. But, I don't see how grade-separating Temple makes Gokhan's plan better than the other plans. The existing Temple crossing is not a particularly confusing one. It is pretty straight forward. The neighborhood east of Alameda isn't residential and it's not commercial; it's pretty much all industrial and Temple doesn't cross the river the way that First does. I haven't done a formal traffic study, but east Temple can't possibly be very busy from what I've seen. I wasn't too clear on why the station is in a trench, either? I guess that's because it wouldn't be as deep as an underground station?
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 9, 2009 2:54:42 GMT -8
I should point out that my alternative is the only fully grade-separated one. Au contraire! I suggested extending the tunnel a mile north to Chinatown, with new stations at Union Station and Chinatown. In addition to some of the other things mentioned like speeding up service in that very slow section between Little Tokyo-Union Station-Chinatown, it increases real estate value around the Chinatown station, allows Gold Line service to be maintained during construction, provides better connectivity to Olvera Street and possibly improves the Gold Line-Red/Purple Line junction. The flat junction remains a significant construction impact at 1st/Alameda, but that's for any plan. True, but the Temple/Alameda crossing would have 22-24 trains per hour vs. 44-48 at 1st/Alameda. Not that the cumulative impacts of 22-24 at-grade crossings at Temple/Alameda and 22-24 Garey/Alameda aren't significant. Just saying there is a difference. Didn't think anyone suggested 2nd/San Pedro was an undesirable location. It's closer to the heart of Little Tokyo any way. But if there is a strong desire to have a station at 1st/Alameda, perhaps there should be a 1st St alternative with the station box between Alameda and Central. Doubt the construction impacts would be desired, and I can't remember why 1st Street was dismissed early on. Using 1st Street also puts the City Hall station closer to City Hall (1st between Broadway and Spring), and with that location being a publicly owned piece of property (that's remained vacant for how many years) it would provide a good and cheap (dare I say free) staging area. Disagree, for many previously stated reasons.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Nov 9, 2009 7:58:23 GMT -8
How deep of a station depth is that? 15 feet? The trains need to be able to clear at the portal just north of Temple; so, the portal needs to be at least 20 - 25-ft-deep or so. You can then go deeper or shallower at the station location, depending on exactly what you want to do. There is plenty of space between Temple and 1st to fine-tune the depth of the station. My guess for the depth of the trench station would be about 30 ft. When I was calucalting it quickly in my head with the open trench idea I thought it wasn't as deep. But when I found a sheet of paper ;D did a simple 6' rise to 100' run coupled with looking at the conceptual engineering drawings with a height of 20' above grade that works out to be 20-25' below matching what you have. The next thought or question would be, Is having a station right below the existing Little Tokyo one the best location to put a station for the area? Right now that would only serve Pasadena-Foothill bound lines and miss out on Eastside bound passengers and ridership which would help those FTA cost-efffectiveness numbers we all love so much AND hold so dear to our beating hearts. (Oh, do be still, my beating heart!)
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 9, 2009 12:55:41 GMT -8
The next thought or question would be, Is having a station right below the existing Little Tokyo one the best location to put a station for the area? Right now that would only serve Pasadena-Foothill bound lines and miss out on Eastside bound passengers and ridership which would help those FTA cost-efffectiveness numbers we all love so much AND hold so dear to our beating hearts. (Oh, do be still, my beating heart!) Right now, I kinda suspect that it's the best location if the Nikkei Center says it is. The same goes for any ramps or trenches or street crossings. I'm thinking not just about construction concerns or the ability to build around a train station or the ability to salvage as much of the property as possible, although those are obviously immediate concerns. I'm thinking, if a person steps off the train in Little Tokyo, and there's a ramp or a corridor or something which leads directly from the platform to the Nikkei Center's shops, then that's a huge plus for the developers.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 9, 2009 14:07:34 GMT -8
How about a short aerial structure in the median or right lane of Alameda? In this manner Alameda doesn't need a trench, Nikkei Center is not interfered with, there is not a problem with slope and the existing Gold Line can stay open for the maximum amount of time while construction is ongoing. You might even be able to increase the radious of the curve on Alameda thus allowing for greater speeds. Existing Gold Line can be converted to an Alameda traffic lane once aerial is operational to compensate for the loss of a traffic lane.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 9, 2009 14:50:28 GMT -8
How about a short aerial structure in the median or right lane of Alameda? In this manner Alameda doesn't need a trench, Nikkei Center is not interfered with, there is not a problem with slope and the existing Gold Line can stay open for the maximum amount of time while construction is ongoing. You might even be able to increase the radious of the curve on Alameda thus allowing for greater speeds. Existing Gold Line can be converted to an Alameda traffic lane once aerial is operational to compensate the loss of a traffic lane. Unfortunately this configuration wouldn't work because you only have 450 ft diagonally in the SW block there -- not enough to transition from an aerial to an underground line.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 9, 2009 15:00:26 GMT -8
How many feet are required?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 9, 2009 15:03:17 GMT -8
How many feet are required? At least 750 ft or so. You are looking at a 45 ft or so descent and even with a grade as steep as 6%, 750 ft * 0.06 = 45 ft -- barely makes it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 9, 2009 15:04:14 GMT -8
This is the summary of my fully grade-separated alternatives:
Alternative 1: Redo the ramp of the aerial structure by increasing the grade from 3% to 6% so that a portal is provided just north of Temple, and the new trench Little Tokyo Station is built under the existing at-grade Little Tokyo Station.
Alternative 2: As suggested by James and others, continue the aerial structure straight to the south with a 5%-grade ramp instead and build a portal in the parking lot there. Note that this would eliminate both 90-degree turns in the aerial structure. Then you can build the Little Tokyo Station either below the Nikkei Center or under the existing at-grade station as a trench station. This alternative can minimize the service disruptions. But the downside is that it may interfere with plans for development in the parking lot.
Or go with the current proposal by Metro to keep the existing at-grade station and have the wye built at-grade.
|
|
|
Post by damiengoodmon on Nov 9, 2009 19:25:27 GMT -8
Jerard has rightfully pointed out that by locating the station under 1st/Alameda that Expo-Eastside trains would not stop at Little Tokyo.
So either that plan should be ditched or a second station at 2nd between San Pedro and Los Angeles should be built.
But if a station is built with a portal at 2nd/San Pedro that raises several questions, among them: 1) Is a second one needed or strongly desired is the question? 2) What are the benefits vs. the losses?
Jason has a good idea, but I'd question the visual impact of an incline down the middle of a street. Perhaps directly parallel to the existing incline, with one lane for right turns onto Commercial Street (access/exit point to I-101) after demolition.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 9, 2009 22:58:08 GMT -8
How about this one. Adding a curve adds another 75 feet or so. That should be enough to get below grade. The biggest problem with your alternative 1 proposal Gokhan is the construction of it. It necessitates shutting down the entire Eastside Gold Line extension while those two blocks of ramp and station are demolished and an underground station box, portal, new ramp, and two level station is built all in the same footprint as the existing Goldine. That can be years of work. You could build a rail bipass through the Nikei site but you still have to interface with the existing aerial structure. How are you going to do that if the ramp is being demolished and rebuilt shorter. It would be hugely expensive not to mention problematic to build a new temporary ramp elseware. I like what your calling alternative 2 better but as you say it's not without it's problems. It seems every solution has problems.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 10, 2009 0:18:16 GMT -8
Here are two items from the FAAS that relate to Gokhan's Temple portal. First, they do not want to alter the existing bridge (page 2-5; one of my suggestions was to extend it along Aliso): Other alignments which were screened and removed from consideration included those which considered a new extension from the recently constructed Metro Gold Line LRT bridge over the 101 freeway, as seen in Figures 2-4 and 2-5. Those proposed alignments would require a major alteration and, in some instance, complete demolition and reconstruction. These options would not be financially feasible for the project. But second, the At-Grade Emphasis LRT Alternative would require shortening the ramp along Alameda (page 2-52): In order to accommodate the turning radius for the trains, the existing mechanically structure [sic] earth (MSE) ramp which connects tracks from the bridge over the 101 freeway to the tracks on surface just north of Temple Street will need to be adjusted to provide a steeper grade. So there would be a plan to alter the ramp (to 6% grade), but a shorter length than Gokhan's and not below ground (see the plan & profile on page 2-60).
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 10, 2009 10:37:11 GMT -8
L.A. Curbed covered this weekends community meeting. la.curbed.com/archives/2009/11/regional_connector_update_chugging_along.php#reader_commentsIncluded is a nice rendering of a possible West portal (Figueroa) Quote from article: "Roybal-Saltarelli was cool-headed when she was asked why the connector couldn't open more quickly. She said the schedule they have now is considered ambitious by most engineers and transit planners. "It's completely feasible that construction could begin in mid-2013," she said."
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 10, 2009 16:19:17 GMT -8
somebody asked me the status of the Nikkei Center.
Bill Watanabe (LTSC) told me that Kaji and Associates, a partner with the LTSC, is taking the lead on the project. They are currently looking for investors. They are hopeful that the downturn won't affect the project.
I vaguely know of Kaji and Associates, they are based out of Gardena, and Jonathan Kaji is the son of former Gardena councilman Bruce Kaji (* the 110/ 91 freeway interchange is named for Bruce Kaji). I met Bruce when I was a reporter for the Gardena Valley News, I can't remember if I ever met Jonathan.
=
as for the Curbed article, I really like the Disney Hall station design. I notice that they show the at-grade version (you can see a train approaching the station), but I hope that canopy thing is used with whichever version.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Nov 10, 2009 23:13:13 GMT -8
You know, the pictures from LA Curbed are great, but I can't visualize the second one. It claims to be 1st and Alameda, but the placement of the Savoy and Japanese-American Museum is off, isn't it....? Can't tell which way is north, among other things.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 11, 2009 3:17:57 GMT -8
I seem to have made a slight error in my previous research, so I wanted to clarify before a small error becomes a big one:
1) The Little Tokyo Service Center was part of the group which succeeded in gaining the right to develop the "Mangrove" property into what will now be the Nikkei Center.
2) However, the LTSC is not a formal part of the Nikkei Center LLC that was formed to do the actual planning and construction, etc.
3) The LTSC is still involved with the project, because they want affordable housing included.
Thanks to Ron Fong of the LTSC, who caught the error in a previous Transit Coalition post I made, and brought it to my attention via e-mail.
=
also: Nick, the picture from L.A. Curbed is correct.
In the picture, the Nikkei Center is at the bottom, JANM is on the right, some large, unexplained building is at upper left (Office Depot block), and the Savoy is on the left. The picture looks roughly to the southwest from the northeast corner of First and Alameda, with First Street curving off to the right as it heads into Little Tokyo.
It's worth pointing out that this version is somewhat dated as the big building has been replaced.
|
|
|
Post by nicksantangelo on Nov 11, 2009 10:24:04 GMT -8
James, thanks for the clarification. I'm down there at least twice a week and the rendering was really throwing me.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 19, 2009 17:13:29 GMT -8
This was just posted on The Source (I converted their large .png map to .jpg to post here). This is essentially Gokhan's portal at Temple and my underground station west of Alameda. Metro planners say they have heard these concerns and have worked closely with local stakeholders to devise a new fully underground concept that they will present tonight at a meeting with the Little Tokyo Working Group. It is important to note that the concept is just that — a concept — and the decision has not yet been made to add it for consideration under the current draft environmental impact statement and report that is underway.
The alignment is generally the same as the current Underground Emphasis alternative, which proposed to have trains cross at current street level — with a new underpass being built for Alameda — and then enter a tunnel on the west side of Alameda. The tracks would continue underground to Metro Center at 7th and Figueroa/Flower. The point of this exercise: to tie together the Blue Line, Expo Line and both legs of the Gold Line so that passengers on all four lines can ride a single train — no transfers necessary — through the heart of downtown L.A.
The new concept, as the above map shows, has the Gold Line entering tunnels on the east side of Alameda and then stopping at an underground Little Tokyo/Arts District station to accommodate Regional Connector trains. That would bring to four the total number of stations on an underground alignment of the regional connector.
One tunnel portal on 1st Street would allow a connection to the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension, requiring the street to be widened between Alameda and about Hewitt. The second portal would be built along Alameda Street, allowing for a connection to the tracks to Union Station and, beyond, the Gold Line to Pasadena.
The new concept solves the problem of getting the regional connector tracks across Alameda, but it does create other issues. Among them:
1. It could add about $200 million to the cost of the project. The underground-emphasis alternative of the regional connector — which seems to be favored by many downtown community members — already is estimated at costing $910 million in 2008 dollars. The project is set to open in 2019, under the long-range plan recently adopted by the Metro Board of Directors.
2. It also means that Metro would likely have to acquire some property along both Alameda and 1st Streets. It is important to note that Metro Regional Connector officials have already met with the Nishi Hongwanji Temple on 1st Street and assured them that none of their property — already impacted by Eastside Gold Line construction — will not be taken for this project, should it come to pass.
3. Metro will have to figure out a way to build a new underground station under the existing retail outlets on Central Street that are near the Office Depot store, which the agency would have to acquire for an underground line.
Metro will continue to refine this concept in the coming weeks — based in large part on the reception it gets in the community. To comment on this concept, click here. Is it worth $200 million additional? All trains would stop at Little Tokyo. It would save trains a minute or less of signal delay at 1st & Alameda. The Office Depot site would still need to be acquired, plus new land east of Alameda. Alameda traffic would lose the benefit of grade separation from 1st Street, but 1st Street traffic would benefit.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 19, 2009 17:57:48 GMT -8
Darrell, You caught this just before I did. What a cool development. Those maintaining that Metro is ignoring the community look pretty silly right now. I have to say that I like the idea of the (new) Little Tokyo station being on both the Blue and Expo line! That station would then get a lot more traffic I would think. Also puts it a little closer to the heart of the community. If you lose the Office Depot, wouldn't that be dafault mean that the area above the new underground station would then be available for TOD? What a prime piece of real estate that would turn into...
That would free up the space where the current station is, and they would likely leave the space above the underground tracks next to the old station free of development, creating a long small strip of land next to Alameda. Not sure what that could be used for, maybe integrated into the Nikkei Center somehow?
Looking forward to seeing what others think. If the Feds kick in 50% then the MTA tab would be $100 million. Would the TOD mabye get some of that back?
RT
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Nov 19, 2009 21:39:24 GMT -8
This was just posted on The Source (I converted their large .png map to .jpg to post here). Absolutely beautiful! I'm glad to see Metro's finally looking at what we all thought the Regional Connector should have looked like from the start. They will also earn them quite a few points for being responsive to the community in a real way. They sure do want to hang on to the existing Little Tokyo station, though. I just don't see any need for it, given the new proposed subway station. The existing station would only serve East LA-Union Station-Pasadena trains, which likely won't exist when the Connector is open.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 19, 2009 23:47:04 GMT -8
This is essentially Gokhan's portal at Temple and my underground station west of Alameda. Yes! Darn Metro has stolen our ideas! Don't we have copyright on the stuff we post here? Can we sue them and make $$?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 20, 2009 0:08:26 GMT -8
This made my day. I am glad that Metro is listening to us, and the community. Even 1 minute of delay, multiplied over 100,000 trips a day, every work day, for 50 years, equals over 1 billion minutes. If time is worth merely 12 dollars per hour, it is worth it on that basis alone, not to mention improved pedestrian connections, improved streetscape, a better station location, improved ridership...
Now we need to convince Metro to rebuild the bridge in a straight shot from Union Station south to Hewitt St, with the portal to the east of the Department of Water and Power property (instead of next to the current station). This would require coordination with the Nikkei development (if that section has to be cut-and-cover), but would save another 1 minute per trip.
Metrolink wants run-thru tracks, and High Speed Rail MUST have run-thru tracks over the freeway in the same area; perhaps these bridges can be built as one structure to save costs.
The current, curvy bridge can stay, for use by the Downtown Streetcar once that is extended up to Union Station and Chinatown.
|
|