|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 29, 2010 15:27:11 GMT -8
Memories of the "sinkhole" in Hollywood (actually, some moderate subsidence) will never go away. Moderate subsidence? It was a complete and total disaster. The crane even fell into the hole. Anyway, that was a long time ago, still it is hard to forget the idiotic actions of the MTA at the time. You're right, it was bad. There's footage on YouTube of one sinkhole opening up. But no crane fell into any hole. Not that I remember anyway. This link describes what happened in central Hollywood. Anyway, the sinkhole is now the stuff of legend, and the grist of anti-subway activism. And not just the sinkhole: the MTA had all kinds of problems with subway construction back then. Three construction workers died. And the tunnel liners were poured too thin, allowing gases and water to enter the tunnels. Aye, Dios Mio! Things have changed since then. First of all, Metro seems to have learned lessons from those days, especially regarding contractor supervision. Second, the tunnel through Little Tokyo will be bored with new-technology boring machines that pressure-stabilize the earth. These machines have a very good track record.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 30, 2010 6:56:51 GMT -8
I agree totally, Metro has changed 100% since those dark days (even changing it's name). But Metro must live in the shadows of it's MTA past, which is good because they need to make the extra effort to ensure things are build correctly, which they are doing and will do with the DTC.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Sept 30, 2010 10:33:58 GMT -8
Part of the problem also is that the MTA hasn't done a whole lot of tunneling lately, so people don't have a whole lot to compare with. The Boyle Heights tunnel is relatively short and the Expo Line just has that one corner near USC.
Now Metro is talking not just about the Regional Connector but a lengthy Purple Line extension as well.
In any case, the Hollywood sinkhole put the MTA into a hole of mistrust, so to speak, and they have been digging their way out since then. It forces Metro to show that it has learned from its mistakes.
The organization really has a huge obligation to the community, and that includes telling them/convincing them/proving to them that their new equipment is everything they say it is — I know it's safe and the MTA knows it's safe, but how much does the community know?
Some people may be unreachable, but plenty of others would appreciate the reassurance.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 30, 2010 14:10:12 GMT -8
Cross-posted in: Expo Phase 1, Expo Phase 2, Foothill Gold, Regional Connector, Purple Line/Westside SubwayKey transit project meetings in October
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 5, 2010 10:08:54 GMT -8
Are there any ridership projections for the Blue and Gold Lines with the Downtown Connector in place? I'm especially interested in the Blue Line since, if they're planning on routing it through Pasadena like they're suggesting, it's going to be a massive LRT.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 11:04:50 GMT -8
Are there any ridership projections for the Blue and Gold Lines with the Downtown Connector in place? I'm especially interested in the Blue Line since, if they're planning on routing it through Pasadena like they're suggesting, it's going to be a massive LRT. Metro is not yet commenting in detail on the operational impacts of the Regional Connector, but they are going to have to during the Final EIR study. It's not just the length of the lines, but also the imbalance of demand, that will have to be addressed. As I've said before, the Blue and Expo lines (Phases 1 and 2) are likely to produce 160,000+ daily boardings. Yet both branches of the Gold Line currently total less than 40,000 daily boardings, and even with the Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa, that number will not likely exceed 60,000. So on the Gold Line branches, Metro will have two choices: (1) run lots of empty trains to the ends of each branch, or (2) turn some trains back before they reach the end. I'm guessing they'll do option (1) for the Eastside branch (since it's so short), and option (2) for the Foothill branch (since it's so long and they can't afford to run so many trains at such a distance). Thus, we may see half of the Blue Line trains being turned back at Chinatown or thereabouts. This, however, is pure speculation.
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Oct 5, 2010 11:35:53 GMT -8
If so, then maybe they can split what could be a massive Blue Line in half. Have the existing Blue Line terminate at Union Station and have a new line go from Union Station to Azusa, Montclair, etc. (even though this means having to transfer to get directly downtown).
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 5, 2010 11:56:08 GMT -8
If so, then maybe they can split what could be a massive Blue Line in half. Have the existing Blue Line terminate at Union Station and have a new line go from Union Station to Azusa, Montclair, etc. (even though this means having to transfer to get directly downtown). No, it would be more efficient to have every other rail car be from Chinatown to Long Beach and every othe rail car be from Pasadena to Long Beach. Maybe once every 30 minutes have a full train go from Azusa to Long Beach...but have interval trains between Asuza and Pasadena (that's the main destination of the SGV'ites).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 12:13:05 GMT -8
No, it would be more efficient to have every other rail car be from Chinatown to Long Beach and every othe rail car be from Pasadena to Long Beach. Maybe once every 30 minutes have a full train go from Azusa to Long Beach...but have interval trains between Asuza and Pasadena (that's the main destination of the SGV'ites). That sounds good, except that then we're talking about four different subservices. This could be a bit confusing for Angelenos who have gotten used to simple rail service (one route per line). But I guess that's a bigger topic: Metro is going to have to work hard to realign people's understanding of Metro Rail once the connector opens up. Maybe they could name them as follows: - Blue Line B1: Long Beach - Chinatown.
- Blue Line B2: Long Beach - Pasadena (Lake).
- Blue Line B3: Long Beach - Azusa (Citrus).
- Foothill Line F: Pasadena (Del Mar) - Azusa.
B3 might not even be necessary. Long-distance commuters from Azusa to Downtown L.A. could transfer in Pasadena between B2 and F. (Note that I have B2 and F overlapping in Pasadena, between Del Mar and Lake.) Here is a schematic map, showing only B1, B2 and F.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 5, 2010 13:23:34 GMT -8
You wouldn't even have to go that far with the divisions.
Beef up the station signs, monitors and station announcements so people would know "Next train, Blue Line to Chinatown" or "Next train, Blue Line to Pasadena", "Blue Line to Long Beach" "to Azusa" or whatever. That way, it would be no more complicated than knowing the difference between a Red Line train to North Hollywood and a Purple Line train to Wilshire.
You could give the Foothill Line it's own color and identity. That would help clear up some confusion.
We have to be careful about having too many "lines" on the Regional Connector map, since the Blue Line will already be sharing that section of track with the Expo-Eastside (Gold? Aqua?) line.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Oct 5, 2010 18:05:51 GMT -8
Going back to the "ancient times", when Pacific Electric ran out my way, the base service had all trains going to Monrovia, and every other train continuing to Glendora (which was "the boonies" in those days).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 5, 2010 18:21:13 GMT -8
You could give the Foothill Line it's own color and identity. That would help clear up some confusion. We have to be careful about having too many "lines" on the Regional Connector map, since the Blue Line will already be sharing that section of track with the Expo-Eastside (Gold? Aqua?) line. I chose "B1" and "B2" just to facilitate our discussion. I would imagine they would both be called the same name in public (either "the Blue Line" or something else) but with different endpoints. Already, Metro runs some Blue Line trains in the evenings that end at Willow instead of Downtown Long Beach. But yes, the Foothill Line as shown above would need to have its own name and color, since it is a completely different service. (BTW, I am aware that purple is already taken.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Walker on Oct 5, 2010 19:23:44 GMT -8
At the April 2010 Transit Coalition meeting, Bruce Shelburne, Metro's Rail Service Development Manager, discussed several possibilities to deal with the extreme length of the post-Regional Connector "Blue Line." Possibilities include: 1) Trains switching operators as they pass through Downtown 2) Only operating a shuttle service along the most distant portions of the Gold Line, like metrocenter's proposal. (No particular operating strategies have been adopted yet, mind you.)
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 5, 2010 19:24:18 GMT -8
B1 and B2 will remain "Blue line" on the map F will remain "Gold line" on the map Santa Monica to East LA (Whittier?) will remain "Aqua line" on the map
That sounds like a workable solution
|
|
|
Post by travelman on Oct 8, 2010 19:34:54 GMT -8
I like the idea James Mills came up with.. The PE station reopened/modified match Pershing Square. Blue line trains northbound after 7/flower to turn into this station. Gold Line trains after 4/flower turn into here. That way 3 car blues can turn back and 2 car Golds can turn back. Run ELA accross town to Culver City. This turnback station can also hold extra rush hour trains 'off the main' to allow the tunnel to be keep clear as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 8, 2010 22:39:52 GMT -8
I like the idea James Mills came up with.. The PE station reopened/modified match Pershing Square. Blue line trains northbound after 7/flower to turn into this station. Gold Line trains after 4/flower turn into here. That way 3 car blues can turn back and 2 car Golds can turn back. Run ELA accross town to Culver City. This turnback station can also hold extra rush hour trains 'off the main' to allow the tunnel to be keep clear as much as possible. Not a bad idea at all, but not on the table at this point. The closest thing we could expect is a pocket track with crossover for turnbacks. Since Flower Street will be tunneled cut-and-cover (not bored tunnel), Flower Street would be the place to put this trackwork. Incidently, the preliminary plans actually include a crossover and pocket track between the 5th/Flower and 2nd/Hope stations.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 9, 2010 17:32:07 GMT -8
When you're right, you're right. It's been at least five years since I last visited Yokohama, so I'm not entirely familiar with that specific scene, although I see that it comes from Minato Mirai (Minato= section of Tokyo, Mirai= view, so "Tokyo view"). Very typical of Kanto Japan at its best. A lovely waterfront, some parkland, but also notice the skyscrapers in the background. It looks like they took an old railroad bridge and preserved it as a rail-trail. Japan is not afraid to build big and dense, and they have the money to do it right. They preserve what is important of their history, and maintain their cultural identity, yet they are not afraid to try new things. They rely very heavily on public-private partnerships and straight-out private development, and yet somehow they don't end up with corporate greed monsters. They work hard but they also play hard, they take vacations and sing karaoke on the weekends. I honestly don't know if that experience is repeatable in the U.S. = Compared to "Big Tokyo," Little Tokyo isn't much but it was built on a forge of discrimination, immigrant determination, internment, urban redevelopment, more community-based determination to rebuild, booms and bust economies. In answer to Shawn's concern about government "forcing" ethnic communities into existence: If there was government involvement at all in Little Tokyo, it has been very limited. In fact, government's role was largely negative from the 1920s through the 1970s. " Colorblind" is boring and gray. I like Los Angeles' rainbow of ethnic communities. Official recognition is just the icing on a very colorful cake.I couldn't agree more with that statement. LA (and by that I mean greater LA) is one of the most diverse places in the world. People have come here for generations from all over the world (and the country) to build better lives. This ethnic diversity has been the cause of many sad things (Chinese Massacre, Executive Order 9066/Japanese Internment, Zoot Suit Riots, Watts Riots, etc, etc.) However, LA's diversity is what makes it great. Cultural centers are part of the fabric of this country. While they were established due to racism and the concept of people emigrating and living with people of similar cultures, they are a HUGE part of this country's history. Take something as simple as food. LA has some of the best "ethnic" food in the country. You can walk down the street and find a Chinese restaurant next to an Ethiopian one next to an El Salvadoran one. That is awesome! When I studied in Beijing, I would have killed for some good pasta or a good steak. Yes, they're served in certain places, but it's not the same. China doesn't exactly have a huge Italian immigrant population. In regards to Little Tokyo, if anyone is dumb enough to try and rename that station(or stations or whatever they decide), then they're asking for a major, major community/regional backlash. In reality, the current Little Tokyo is a shell of it's former self. The Japanese American residents of Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights did not just all one day decide to move. FDR, most famous for his New Deal, is rarely talked about as having OKed the Japanese Internment. People went from their house on Central to being held in the Santa Anita Racetrack horse stalls to Manzanar or one of the other internment camps. The very least we can do is show respect for and preserve the memory of this community. With regard to this heated discussion of the neighborhood names in Los Angeles claimed after a multitude of foreign countries, I dedicate this picture I took: It turns out that this is nothing but the well-known Vermont Avenue, just south of the Santa Monica Freeway. Perhaps we should name the future Vermont Line the El Salvador Line. In the background is a mechanical, 10-horsepower (7,500-watt), special-duty Federal Siren SD-10 from the atomic era. It sounded like this. 115 dBA @ 100 ft would blow your ears.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 9, 2010 17:50:40 GMT -8
The following is from a 2009 LA Times editorial on "Little Bangladesh": When a group of Bangladeshi businessmen filed an application with the city clerk to name the blocks from 3rd Street to Wilshire between Vermont and Western in honor of their homeland, Korean activists moved to quash the proposal. The Koreans came across as petty and prideful. "We don't want to seem like bullies, but this is Koreatown," the chairman of the Korean American Federation of Los Angeles told one reporter -- but they were also acting completely rationally and in their self-interest.
Why? Because ethnically designated neighborhoods are as much about marketing and branding, about telling the world where to buy sushi or kimchi, as they are about where people live, their actual New World turf or even ethnic pride. Yes, both Korean and Bangladeshi activists will try to sell you the line that everyone needs a place to be proud of in America, blah, blah, but when push comes to shove, they'll admit that it's just as much about cash. What could be more American? And this interesting observation: Look closely and you'll find that many ethnic "neighborhoods" are more shopping districts than residential enclaves. And finally: In fact, only 2% of residents of Thai Town are Thai. Little Ethiopia is less than 1% Ethiopian. Indians make up less than 5% of the part of Artesia known as Little India, though it has never gotten an official title and sign. And really, how many Greeks do you think actually live in the Byzantine-Latino Quarter?
Way back in 1980, when Korean businessmen first lobbied the city for a sign on the Hollywood Freeway designating Koreatown, only 7% of the area's residents were Korean. Today, Koreans are still not the majority of the population in the area between Melrose and Pico, Hoover to Crenshaw (more or less).
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 9, 2010 22:27:10 GMT -8
Look closely and you'll find that many ethnic "neighborhoods" are more shopping districts than residential enclaves. Regarding the shopping district vs. residential district question, I would say: Of course they are shopping districts. We no longer live in an era of racially-restrictive residential covenants or anti-Asian/ anti-minority laws. There are no laws requiring me to live in Little Tokyo, but when I make curry, ramen or udon, I know what brands I like, and these are all inevitably Japanese. Where can I find these products? In Japanese stores, of course. And if these Japanese stores are all conveniently packed together, all the more better. And who organizes cultural events and festivals? Often, its the store owners and chambers of commerce who have a vested interest in retaining the local flavor of a neighborhood. Oh, and counting up percentages is a moot point. Throw away the statistics. What's important is how people react emotionally. If a community looks Korean, if it feels Korean, if it acts Korean, it's Korean. (Same goes for Salvadorean, Chinese, Mexican, German, Italian, Japanese, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc.) Little Tokyo is still Little Tokyo, any way you slice it.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Oct 10, 2010 18:54:21 GMT -8
"Santa Monica to East LA (Whittier?) will remain "Aqua line" on the map"
It's off topic, I'm nit-picking, but I have to mention this. The Expo Line has no designated color yet. Yes, Aqua is the unofficial color. However, I think a color was intentionally not picked so that when the connector is built and the East L.A./Whittier trains start running through to Culver City/Santa Monica, Gold can become the new designation. Pasadena was supposed to be Blue and it seems as though it's going to after all. The reality is I don't know the politics of why Expo didn't and hasn't yet received a color designation. It just seems to me that after reading everything I've read so far, the Whittier-DTLA-Santa Monica Line is going to have a set up similar to the model posted here for the Long Beach-DTLA-Pasadena-Azusa Line.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 7:24:08 GMT -8
Yes, Aqua is the unofficial color. However, I think a color was intentionally not picked so that when the connector is built and the East L.A./Whittier trains start running through to Culver City/Santa Monica, Gold can become the new designation. Yes and no. The color "aqua" was definitely recommended by staff for the Expo Line. However, Bernard Parks at the last minute threw in the idea of a Rose Line, claiming his community had never been consulted and that Aqua was chosen by Westsiders. Arguments ensued, and the topic was tabled indefinitely. That's why a color was not chosen. However, I think since then, Metro staff has probably not pushed the topic because they realize now that any color designation would be temporary, for the reasons you cited.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 7:31:28 GMT -8
The staff recommendation for the specifically discusses elimination of 5th/Flower (bottom of page 3): The estimated capital cost of the Fully Underground LRT Alternative is $1.320 billion in the 30/10 Initiative YOE dollars. In order to reduce the cost to meet the LRTP and conform to the local match limitations, one option is to eliminate the 5th/Flower station, refine the design and raise the percentage of the federal match. Capital Cost of the project reduced to three stations is approximately $1,366 YOE. FTA Cost Effectiveness Index for the Fully Underground LRT Alternative with three stations is $14.34. The improved cost effectiveness will strengthen our New Starts request to increase our federal match to cover an additional 10 percent of the project cost (resulting in 60 percent federal match), which would reduce the burden on state and local funding sources. The findings and analysis in the DEIS/DEIR remains valid for the LPA with three stations. In the next phase, further efforts will be made to reduce the capital cost of the project. Four stations would cost $1.442 billion YOE. Three stations would cost $1.366 billion YOE. This means eliminating the 5th/Flower station would reduce costs by only $76 million. For me, that's not enough cost savings to eliminate this important station. It's important to note, Metro staff is not "recommending" elimination of the station (although it makes a pretty strong argument in the paragraph cited above). EDIT: it looks like Metro staff is recommending that 5th/Flower be eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 12, 2010 14:01:11 GMT -8
If you read the first page, to me the 4-1/2th St Station now looks like nothing but history (first paragraph under B and "Deleted Station" under 1.a), assuming Metro doesn't take action otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 12, 2010 14:11:11 GMT -8
Streetsblog today mentions that some Japanese business owners in the Little Tokyo area oppose the regional connector: rafu.com/news/2010/10/metro-regional-connector_japanese/It sounds like many are at least willing to listen to the MTA, maybe negotiate a solution. Certainly their concerns are legitimate. Rail construction can disrupt. Metro needs to do what they can to ensure that these businesses are compensated in some way, maybe even monetarily. Obviously, more dialogue between the MTA and Little Tokyo is badly needed. At the very least, explain what construction can and can't do. IMHO, it's not our jobs as rail transit supporters to do that. Even if we did campaign in Little Tokyo, the Rafu let business owners off the hook: they allowed names to remain anonymous. Except for the organizer: Kintetsu is a real estate developer here in the United States, but international rail transit fans should recognize the name Kintetsu for other, more ironic, reasons: the own and operate Japanese private commuter railway lines.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 14:30:11 GMT -8
It's important to note, Metro staff is not "recommending" elimination of the station (although it makes a pretty strong argument in the paragraph cited above). If you read the first page, to me the 4-1/2th St Station now looks like nothing but history (first paragraph under B and "Deleted Station" under 1.a), assuming Metro doesn't take action otherwise. Yeah you're right. I think I skipped the first page. The recommendation is to eliminate the station at 5th/Flower. Only Board action will save it now. And that is unlikely. As I said above, a cost savings of $76 million is no reason to eliminate a station serving the Financial District. It looks to me that this is part of a deal with the FTA to get more federal funds for this project. By removing the station, they increase the federal match to cover 60% of the cost instead of 50%. That amounts to $137 million additional dollars from the federal govt. for this project. The additional fed funds, plus the cost savings, add up to $200 million, which isn't chump change. In fact, it's just enough to pay for for the all-underground option through Little Tokyo.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 12, 2010 15:08:10 GMT -8
On the plus side, this should reduce the travel times by 90 seconds or so. So Pico to Union Station may take 8-9 minutes now, vs. 10 minutes with the 4.5 Street station included.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Oct 12, 2010 17:15:00 GMT -8
I can't believe it's more "cost effective" to build miles and miles of track to Montclair than to create an additional downtown station. The number of riders using this station would be immense. What a loss.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 12, 2010 17:42:35 GMT -8
On the plus side, this should reduce the travel times by 90 seconds or so. So Pico to Union Station may take 8-9 minutes now, vs. 10 minutes with the 4.5 Street station included. Actually the additional time should be less than 60 seconds, including a 20-second dwell. If the study is saying 90 seconds, this is simply exaggerated and incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 13, 2010 18:43:45 GMT -8
It is disappointing to see that the 4th/5th Street station is effectively dead.
That area deserves a subway station, and there aren't a whole lot of alternative options available. I hear talk of the Pacific Electric subway tunnel, but that's a big IF. Pedestrian tunnels are an interesting possibility, but I don't know where to start with that.
I would have rather seen the 2nd/ Broadway station eliminated, but that idea didn't have wings.
Let's face it: Little Tokyo underground, for all practical purposes, killed the Bonaventure station. We should have seen it coming.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 14, 2010 15:19:42 GMT -8
I'm not that surprised the 5th St station is sacrificed but I'm not too upset by it either. Perhaps now Metro will investigate the possibility of adding access points and tunnels to Metro Center from as far away as 5th St and 9th St? What about involving all the property owners in Downtown to seriously think about adding underground access to ALL the subway stations?
|
|