|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 11:36:31 GMT -8
The financial district could have also ponied up some dough for that 4-1/2 station if they really wanted it. Little Tokyo also fought incredibly hard for underground (except for a few who fought against the whole project). Somehow, NIMBYs and transit fans ended up on the same side of the argument. I don't remember hearing much of anything about the Financial District fighting for or against it. Ah well. Moving on. I forget, what's underneath City National Plaza? Anything worth hooking up to? Bars, restaurants, 24-hour fitness....again, I would actually prefer an expanded "mega-transit center" for 7th street station. It would be very cool actually....
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 11:39:12 GMT -8
The financial district could have also ponied up some dough for that 4-1/2 station if they really wanted it. Little Tokyo also fought incredibly hard for underground (except for a few who fought against the whole project). Somehow, NIMBYs and transit fans ended up on the same side of the argument. I don't remember hearing much of anything about the Financial District fighting for or against it. Ah well. Moving on. I forget, what's underneath City National Plaza? Anything worth hooking up to? Little Tokyo are NIMBYs. Financial District are either neutral or YIMBYs. You're comparing apples to oranges. NIMBYs always fight harder. On Dan's note Little Tokyo obviously didn't pony up any dough either.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 11:41:43 GMT -8
They are making desperate attempts to somehow revive the study for the 4-1/2th St Station. When people are even objecting to a study, you know it's politics.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 11:50:02 GMT -8
Little Tokyo also fought incredibly hard for underground (except for a few who fought against the whole project). Somehow, NIMBYs and transit fans ended up on the same side of the argument. I don't remember hearing much of anything about the Financial District fighting for or against it. Ah well. Moving on. I forget, what's underneath City National Plaza? Anything worth hooking up to? Little Tokyo are NIMBYs. Financial District are either neutral or YIMBYs. You're comparing apples to oranges. NIMBYs always fight harder. On Dan's note Little Tokyo obviously didn't pony up any dough either. EDIT: I might add that there are both NIMBYs and non-NIMBYs in Little Tokyo. And yet, when push came to shove, transit activists stood up alongside the NIMBYs of Little Tokyo. Are they NIMBYs if they're on your side?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 12:01:15 GMT -8
After long discussions LPA has been approved with three stations. Staff was instructed to identify private funding for the study of the 4-1/2 St Station for the next board meeting. I'm skeptical that this station has much chance now.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 12:03:14 GMT -8
Little Tokyo are NIMBYs. Financial District are either neutral or YIMBYs. You're comparing apples to oranges. NIMBYs always fight harder. On Dan's note Little Tokyo obviously didn't pony up any dough either. EDIT: I might add that there are both NIMBYs and non-NIMBYs in Little Tokyo. And yet, when push came to shove, transit activists stood up alongside the NIMBYs of Little Tokyo. Are they NIMBYs if they're on your side? If the transit advocate knew that this would mean the elimination of the 4-1/2 St Station, he wouldn't stand by their side.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 12:03:44 GMT -8
After long discussions LPA has been approved with three stations. Staff was instructed to identify private funding for the study of the 4-1/2 St Station for the next board meeting. I'm skeptical that this station has much chance now. Well, who else could provide private funding if not the financial district?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 12:06:06 GMT -8
After long discussions LPA has been approved with three stations. Staff was instructed to identify private funding for the study of the 4-1/2 St Station for the next board meeting. I'm skeptical that this station has much chance now. Well, who else could provide private funding if not the financial district? I think this is only a decoy. The study is already going to FTA and I doubt this will make any difference. I also doubt that the Financial District will throw in $2 million (study) + $180 million (construction), but I hope they prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 12:10:21 GMT -8
Unfortunately, the Financial District didn't have the interest or energy of Little Tokyo's business owners to put on an alternate case.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 12:17:16 GMT -8
EDIT: I might add that there are both NIMBYs and non-NIMBYs in Little Tokyo. And yet, when push came to shove, transit activists stood up alongside the NIMBYs of Little Tokyo. Are they NIMBYs if they're on your side? If the transit advocate knew that this would mean the elimination of the 4-1/2 St Station, he wouldn't stand by their side. Hindsight is 20-20. In truth, we all knew, or we should have known, that the underground Little Tokyo station would be expensive. We all knew that it would add to the pricetag of the project. Underground is always, always more expensive. We also knew that the MTA had limited cash. They still do. What we didn't know, was where the additional money was going to come from, or if a station was going to be eliminated to pay for this. We should have expressed more of a concern over what might happen to the project if the Little Tokyo underground station was built. All things considered, the MTA chose a very careful, well-calculated path. The project is still alive. Little Tokyo got its station, and the NIMBYs, for the most part, have been silenced. I'm willing to let past bygones be bygones, but I do want the record perfectly straight. This is the outcome that we should be willing to accept because we, as a group, openly pushed for it.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 28, 2010 12:30:26 GMT -8
Hindsight is 20-20. In truth, we all knew, or we should have known, that the underground Little Tokyo station would be expensive. We all knew that it would add to the pricetag of the project. Underground is always, always more expensive. We also knew that the MTA had limited cash. They still do. What we didn't know, was where the additional money was going to come from, or if a station was going to be eliminated to pay for this. We should have expressed more of a concern over what might happen to the project if the Little Tokyo underground station was built. All things considered, the MTA chose a very careful, well-calculated path. The project is still alive. Little Tokyo got its station, and the NIMBYs, for the most part, have been silenced. I'm willing to let past bygones be bygones, but I do want the record perfectly straight. This is the outcome that we should be willing to accept because we, as a group, openly pushed for it. Everybody makes this sound like a bad thing. Having an underground station in Little Tokyo is fantastic. It would speed up the performance of the downtown connector. If it wasn't built like this, we'll be talking about how short-sighted the MTA is without yet (see: Flower street segment for Blue/Expo). This was a great decision. We don't need 5th/Flower station as long as a portal is opened on 6th/Flower. Let's help advocate and push MTA to make 7th street/Metro center the 2nd largest station in LA and make it a "mega underground station". That would be very awesome.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2010 12:31:48 GMT -8
When the full underground option was proposed, the 5th/Flower station was still included. Nobody said we were trading one station for the other - not until the recommended alternative came out and eliminated the FiDi station.
5th Street station is pretty much dead. Now the push has to be for expansion of 7th Street Metro Center north to 6th Street.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 12:34:51 GMT -8
There would not have been unity on this within the advocacy community.
Some would have preferred to hold onto 5th/Flower and try and face down those who wanted an underground Little Tokyo station.
Some would have said eliminating 5th/Flower to make sure this project continues is a good enough, albiet imperfect outcome.
Some would have held out for both 5th/Flower and an underground Little Tokyo station even if it delayed the project.
I wouldn't assume that everyone would have said no to the underground Little Tokyo station if it meant there could be 5th/Flower.
I wish there had been 5th/Flower, but I don't see this decision as a "deal breaker".
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 12:39:13 GMT -8
Hindsight is 20-20. In truth, we all knew, or we should have known, that the underground Little Tokyo station would be expensive. We all knew that it would add to the pricetag of the project. Underground is always, always more expensive. We also knew that the MTA had limited cash. They still do. What we didn't know, was where the additional money was going to come from, or if a station was going to be eliminated to pay for this. We should have expressed more of a concern over what might happen to the project if the Little Tokyo underground station was built. All things considered, the MTA chose a very careful, well-calculated path. The project is still alive. Little Tokyo got its station, and the NIMBYs, for the most part, have been silenced. I'm willing to let past bygones be bygones, but I do want the record perfectly straight. This is the outcome that we should be willing to accept because we, as a group, openly pushed for it. Everybody makes this sound like a bad thing. Having an underground station in Little Tokyo is fantastic. It would speed up the performance of the downtown connector. If it wasn't built like this, we'll be talking about how short-sighted the MTA is without yet (see: Flower street segment for Blue/Expo). This was a great decision. We don't need 5th/Flower station as long as a portal is opened on 6th/Flower. Let's help advocate and push MTA to make 7th street/Metro center the 2nd largest station in LA and make it a "mega underground station". That would be very awesome. Oh, as a Japanese-American supporter of Little Tokyo, I do agree that the underground station in Little Tokyo is going to be a great thing for Little Tokyo. On the other hand, as a pragmatic transit supporter, I didn't oppose the ground-level wye. I will admit that I miscalculated how quickly and how eagerly that the MTA pounced on the drawings that we, at the time, were so busy working on and fighting over. Both the ground-level wye and the Financial District station are dead. These two events are not coincidences. Moving on: I also agree that a portal at 6th/ Flower would be awesome. I have no idea how we fund such a thing. Maybe we could convince the Financial District to pay for it, but I have no idea how we do that. If the MTA builds it, the funds have to come from somewhere. But it would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 12:56:00 GMT -8
There would not have been unity on this within the advocacy community. Some would have preferred to hold onto 5th/Flower and try and face down those who wanted an underground Little Tokyo station. Some would have said eliminating 5th/Flower to make sure this project continues is a good enough, albiet imperfect outcome. Some would have held out for both 5th/Flower and an underground Little Tokyo station even if it delayed the project. I wouldn't assume that everyone would have said no to the underground Little Tokyo station if it meant there could be 5th/Flower. I wish there had been 5th/Flower, but I don't see this decision as a "deal breaker". BTW, for what it's worth, unity in the transit community, in my experience, is very hard to come by. We have this organization called the Transit Coalition, which speaks for us as a political voice, but I don't agree with everything the organization says. We don't all agree, which is why this message board is so important. Regarding this project specifically, we didn't all agree on the options that we had available, either. EDIT: If we knew the Financial District station would be killed, it just would have been a more interesting fight, is all.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 28, 2010 13:35:29 GMT -8
Moving on: I also agree that a portal at 6th/ Flower would be awesome. I have no idea how we fund such a thing. Metro staff said today they might be able to convert emergency exits at 6th/Flower to full exits. I'd like to know how much that would cost. If not too much, they should do it and include it in the budget. I'm for private partnerships buy only if it's universally and fairly applied. It's not right to charge neighbors for this entrance, but not charge other property owners at other stations for those entrances or other amenities.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Oct 28, 2010 13:44:57 GMT -8
EDIT: If we knew the Financial District station would be killed, it just would have been a more interesting fight, is all. Agreed. There would have been lengthy, interesting and informative debates.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 28, 2010 14:21:40 GMT -8
Moving on: I also agree that a portal at 6th/ Flower would be awesome. I have no idea how we fund such a thing. Metro staff said today they might be able to convert emergency exits at 6th/Flower to full exits. I'd like to know how much that would cost. If not too much, they should do it and include it in the budget. I'm for private partnerships buy only if it's universally and fairly applied. It's not right to charge neighbors for this entrance, but not charge other property owners at other stations for those entrances or other amenities. Obviously, the cheapest route would be a sidewalk entrance at 6th. That wouldn't be much, but it would be far better than what we have now. I've said it time and time again: we need more station entrances. Anything beyond that, I would imagine, would require City National Plaza (or whoever) to step up to the plate and say "yes, we want our Starbucks, our gym, our food court, to benefit from having the subway entrance, and we're willing to pay XXX dollars for it." And you would have to have negotiations between the Metro and the real estate developer, hopefully better than whatever the bleep happened in Universal City. The end result, if the money is there, really ought to look maybe a little something like this.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 16:24:07 GMT -8
Well, I guess we'll have to put the 5th St Station issue behind and celebrate the Downtown LRT connector. If the system gets really popular and overcrowded, they will have to build another connector in the future.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 28, 2010 16:52:21 GMT -8
Katz expressed his skepticism on the appearance of station. Somebody (woman) said if the 5th/Flower station is not built, they are looking at converting the emergency exits to 6th/Flower into full entrance portals. That was Martha Wellborne, Metro's new chief planning officer, who was accompanied by two men involved with the project. On the Metro Regional Connector (#20) discussion today, as has already been noted here, staff made the point up front that they were proposing to complete existing emergency passages into a 7th Street station entrance at 6th Street. The cost to complete the FEIS for the 5th Street station was estimated at $2 million. If downtown interests (such as speakers for Thomas Properties and the Bonaventure Hotel) commit to chip in the next 60 days it will be studied as an option on top of the base proposal for three stations. An earlier amendment to just study it failed, 4-3-3. Considering that there would be three stations in just over half a mile (7th, 5th, and 3rd), closer than any others in our system, and trains would lose 90 seconds, I’ve become a doubter even if the money were there. Which it’s not, as Yaroslavsky and Katz emphasized.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 28, 2010 17:05:56 GMT -8
Katz expressed his skepticism on the appearance of station. Somebody (woman) said if the 5th/Flower station is not built, they are looking at converting the emergency exits to 6th/Flower into full entrance portals. That was Martha Wellborne, Metro's new chief planning officer, who was accompanied by two men involved with the project. On the Metro Regional Connector (#20) discussion today, as has already been noted here, staff made the point up front that they were proposing to complete existing emergency passages into a 7th Street station entrance at 6th Street. The cost to complete the FEIS for the 5th Street station was estimated at $2 million. If downtown interests (such as speakers for Thomas Properties and the Bonaventure Hotel) commit to chip in the next 60 days it will be studied as an option on top of the base proposal for three stations. An earlier amendment to just study it failed, 4-3-3. Considering that there would be three stations in just over half a mile (7th, 5th, and 3rd), closer than any others in our system, and trains would lose 90 seconds, I’ve become a doubter even if the money were there. Which it’s not, as Yaroslavsky and Katz emphasized. I would like to emphasize that each station only adds about 45 seconds, not 90 seconds, and you start to doubt these studies when it's obvious that they're massaged according to a desired outcome. That said the removal of this station will mean about a 7-minute (0.29-mile) extra walk for some people, which shouldn't be a big deal. One fear is the platform-capacity problems. As I was half-joking in my above post, perhaps if the ridership becomes too high in the future, they will build a second LRT connector.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 29, 2010 14:07:59 GMT -8
I sort of suspect that a second LRT connector is something that we will want to have sooner or later.
Really, when you get right down to it, Metro Rail is one of those projects which should have no ending. There are regions of the city and proposed rail lines which aren't on 30/10. When the Green Line reaches Torrance, the Purple Line reaches the Westside and the Gold Line reaches Azusa, we should already be asking what's next? And when the Vermont Line reaches San Pedro and the Gold Line gets extended to Burbank, those crazy ideas in the dream file can be moved up to "why not" status. Mind you, unless we get an influx of cash, I'm talking decades here...
Even within the constraints of 30/10, there is the possibility of a second connector being eventually needed. We're linking up four different "legs", and once we succeed in connecting Santa Monica with East L.A. and Pasadena with Long Beach, I would love to see Blue and Gold get "untangled".
Of course, this isn't immediate, and a second connector might not touch the Financial District, but never say never....
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 29, 2010 14:38:57 GMT -8
The ideal place for an 6th/Flower entrance is on the northwest corner. As you can see, the underground mall already has an entrance at that location. This means Metro wouldn't have to find space for the entrance by taking land from anyone or taking sidewalk space. It would just need to connect to the mall by breaking through its underground wall. It might have to renovate the mall entrance for capacity, and add an elevator ADA compliance. But that shouldn't be too big of a deal: clearly there's plenty of space. None of the other corners, at 6th/Flower or Wilshire/Flower, have space like this. I'm sure they could lease one of the retail stalls for 99 years or whatever, and put an entrance in there, like they did with the 7th Street entrances. Apparently there already exist emergency exits for the station. I'd be interested to know where those are.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 29, 2010 19:24:55 GMT -8
I should have posted this here -- the final vote tally (they go by so fast, but a photo captures it): And here's the initial failed (didn't receive a majority yes) vote on Ridley-Thomas' motion to not drop the 5th Street station from the Final EIS (see the strike-out text):
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Oct 29, 2010 19:26:14 GMT -8
The ideal place for an 6th/Flower entrance is on the northwest corner. That makes a huge amount of sense -- it already looks like a subway entrance!
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 29, 2010 20:41:40 GMT -8
I knew that there were underground malls in that area, I just couldn't quite remember where the entrances were. [ EDIT: For some odd reason, I thought 505 Flower was one block up from that. ] That said, of course the combination underground mall entrance/ subway station entrance makes perfect sense. It makes so much sense that we probably ought to remind the MTA how much sense this makes. They have a bad habit of not thinking outside the box (or thinking outside the country, as the case may be). This is exactly the sort of solution that I have been asking for. It looks like a subway entrance, because it basically is a subway entrance, only without the subway trains. You might have to make a few adjustments for ADA compliance, but beyond that, once the engineers figure out which walls are safe to blast through, you put up some signs showing both Metro Rail AND shops here. Probably save money this way, too.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Oct 30, 2010 2:20:46 GMT -8
You might have to make a few adjustments for ADA compliance... I don't think all station exits need to meed ADA compliance. As long as there is elevator access to the station from the street we are fine, and that is already at place at 7th and Flower. Consider that the exits at Hope and Flower and at Figueroa and Flower only have stairs and escalators. A simple staircase would be fine at 6th and Flower, since the trains will only be one level down. It would be great if Metro could use that underground mall entrance. Talk about cost-effective! The current emergency exits are small panels in the sidewalk. Here's one just south on Wilshire on the west side of Flower: Google StreetviewThe other side of the street: 6th and Wilshire South EastNorth of Wilshire (south of 6th), I believe these vents are for the current station:
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 30, 2010 2:30:36 GMT -8
The more I think about it, the less bummed I feel about losing the 5th/Flower station.
Sure, it would have been helpful to manage capacity, but without it, the line will be faster and the potential additions of new entrances to 7th/Metro (with connections to underground shopping) is something to look forward to.
Plus, we're getting a fully underground alternative, which I think we should all be thankful for at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 30, 2010 6:32:38 GMT -8
I believe in most downtown subways, station spacing is very small. They are making a big mistake by thinking that this is an interurban subway (like the Westside subway) and therefore should have mile-apart stations. They are going to lose a big opportunity and, as I said, the platforms of 7th/Metro will not hold the passengers if the system becomes successful. It's almost like they want the system not to be successful by thinking that the capacity of 7th/Metro will be sufficient after the expansion of the system. Gokhan, You and others have mentioned the capacity issue at 7th/Flower several times. This obviously is worth thinking about more. Is there any hard data available that we have access to that would shed more light on what the actual problem will be? I know that the Blue Line has 80,000 daily riders, and the Red/Purple Line has 160,000, but I don't know how many enter/exit at 7th/Metro. I believe someone posted previously that Metro doesn't make this info available? Then the Gold Line (what is now the Gold Line) will also be going through that station. The next part of the equation would then be what is Expo ridership expected to be? I seem to remember seeing a 50,000 number tossed around. Then how many of them would be getting out at 7th/Flower? Seems like there are a lot of numbers that we don't have. If we had them, then you could do a rough estimate of how many people would be using the station after the DC is completed versus now. In summary, right now you have at 7th/Flower: 1. Red/Purple entry/exit. (now 160k ridership) 2. Blue entry/exit. (now 80k ridership) After the DC and Expo line are in you will then also have at 7th/Flower: 3. Expo entry/exit. (estimated 50k ridership) 4. Current Gold Line (both Pasadena and EE) entry/exit. (now 35k ridership) Just looking at the above numbers, you have 240k ridership on lines that go through 7th/Flower. After the DC and Expo go in you get an additional 85k potential riders going through. Or an additional ~33%. People who want to transfer from the Blue to Expo or Expo to Blue can do so at any of 5 stations, so that shouldn't cause that many additional people entering/exiting at 7th/Flower. RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Oct 30, 2010 12:10:02 GMT -8
You might have to make a few adjustments for ADA compliance... I don't think all station exits need to meed ADA compliance. As long as there is elevator access to the station from the street we are fine, and that is already at place at 7th and Flower. Consider that the exits at Hope and Flower and at Figueroa and Flower only have stairs and escalators. A simple staircase would be fine at 6th and Flower, since the trains will only be one level down. It would be great if Metro could use that underground mall entrance. Talk about cost-effective! Well, that's why I said "might have to" make adjustments. I wasn't sure if an elevator would be needed or not, and that's not really our decision to make. You are correct that not all entrances have a corresponding elevator exit attached. However, each of the existing exits — Figueroa, Flower and Hope — are not that far apart. That may make a difference. For that matter, I'm fairly certain that 505 Flower has to have an elevator of some sort already (it's been a while since I visited), and that might satisfy ADA demands as well. Either way, connecting to 505 Flower would be a win-win for the subway and for 505 Flower. The subway gets a much-needed new entrance; 505 gets potential new customers...
|
|