|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 20, 2009 1:30:17 GMT -8
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). In fact they don't even need to rebuild the bridge -- only a short (150-ft-long) branch from the existing bridge over Commercial St by Hewitt St is all there is needed. The rest would be a retained-fill ramp and then a trench portal in the lot there. This seems to be the right way of doing this and it should certainly be included in the plans as an option. As a bonus this would eliminate the service interruption on the Gold Line, too. To me this is no brainer but I should also say that I don't know how this would interfere with the future plans (Nikkei Center etc.) in this area.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 20, 2009 6:42:08 GMT -8
It's indeed possible that Metro staffers read this discussion board for potential ideas and internal debate--but, in the end, despite their flaws the Metro staff honestly do want to achieve community buy-in to make a project's design, costs and impacts more tolerable to the community.
I think it's darn hard to let go of the old station at Little Tokyo considering it is so new. On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that when the Eastside Gold Line was designed and built, both Metro staff and the EGL's political supporters all collectively were saying "riiiiiiiight..." when we brought up the Downtown Connector, which would explain why this is so challenging to fit the Pasadena and Eastside Gold Lines into the Downtown Connector.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 20, 2009 8:43:50 GMT -8
Fantastic. This is how the environmental process should work: Metro should listen to concerns being voiced the public, and respond with new solutions. In this case, planning staff responded constructively, by meeting with locals and going back to the drawing board. This new solution has far less impact on the surrounding area than the old underground alternative.
As for the existing LT station, it has to remain while the Regional Connector is being built anyway. So yes, the new proposal must assume the old station remains intact.
The next step is to push the Metro decision-makers to include this proposal as an official alternative for the EIR documents.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 20, 2009 8:52:48 GMT -8
Ken, Thats the danger of putting together a transit system piecemeal, as the money becomes available. On the other hand, even if the DT had been brought into the discussion when planning the Eastside Extension, it would have been a pretty hard sell to the Little Tokyo community to have told them that there would have been no LT station on the Gold Line, but that if a DC were ever built, then they would get the underground station that we now see as a possibility.
The current station will see several years of use before the DC is ever built. Hopefully the economic impact of the current station in that time will have offset the cost of building it then tearing it down 5 years later. Once the community sees the positive effects of having a station there, I would think they would be even more supportive of it's eventual relocation to under the Office Depot there.
Are we sure that if the underground station is added, that they would get rid of the current LT station? As someone mentioned, the bypass tracks will be built so as to allow the current EE to run while they are building the DC. If you wanted to keep the current tracks, you could then still run direct Pasadena/Eastside service alongside the new alignment. Keeping the current tracks would allow Eastside riders to get to Union Station and Pasadena without a transfer, and Pasadena riders to the Eastside the same.
Since the tracks and junctions will already be in place, why not actually operate the existing service, even at a much lower frequency, when the new alignment is then added 5 years from now? I could see if the land being taken back could be put to a much better use, but that small strip where the current LT station is couldn't be used for anyting substantial, especially if it is right to the West of a new underground portal/tunnel.
RT
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Nov 20, 2009 9:16:53 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.. To be fair Damian Goodman is the first post I saw that proposed a station west of Alameda in Ocotober 08 under the October Regional Connector thread. Several people ideas incorporated this feature including Metro Center. Also, many people's idea included portals at first but most were trying to bring it up before 1st not after. Changing the slop of the ramp was a good idea and required a little bit of knowledge. Good job. In regards to the current LT station, I bet those canopies and other station components can be disassembled and reused at another future station.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 20, 2009 12:36:48 GMT -8
Well, this has certainly been an interesting couple of months for the Regional Connector! Who would have guessed this outcome back in August or September?
I'm glad to see that something good has come from all of the community meetings and discussions between Little Tokyo and the MTA.
I have to admit, I wasn't certain that the MTA could come up with a plan that would satisfy all of the requests of the Little Tokyo community.
It is one thing for transit and community advocates to come up with plans — and let's face it, it feels like we came up with dozens of plans. It is quite another thing for the giant transportation planning agency to come up with an official plan.
I am still a little worried about the $200 million. The MTA isn't made out of money, and I fear that every million given to the connector is a million that doesn't go to Crenshaw, LAX via Harbor Sub, Foothill Gold, Wilshire subway, bus improvements, bike lanes, the TAP card or some other worthy project.
Still, this is good news.
It seems like one way or another, the Office Depot is toast, which shouldn't upset Little Tokyo preservationists any. I am curious to see what happens to the rest of the "Office Depot block." You wouldn't necessarily need to put in a TOD, and the community might oppose anything that was too big or didn't respect the history and culture of the place. The area is greatly lacking in open space, and perhaps that's what's needed, more than new shops.
I was saying earlier that an underground station could have underground shops, but that was when the station was going to be underneath the Nikkei Center. The situation will be different with the Office Depot block.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 20, 2009 13:25:03 GMT -8
I am still a little worried about the $200 million. The MTA isn't made out of money, and I fear that every million given to the connector is a million that doesn't go to Crenshaw, LAX via Harbor Sub, Foothill Gold, Wilshire subway, bus improvements, bike lanes, the TAP card or some other worthy project. The problem may be whether it throws this project from having a good cost-effectiveness ratio to a poorer one thus jeopardizing federal funds. Hopefully, the answer is no as this sounds like a pretty good solution. However, I don't know if there would be any operational benefit such as a faster speed or more ridership due to this (I suppose it would be slightly faster than the previous underground alternative, but I'm not sure by how much). Hopefully, this project can move forward as it is critical now that the Eastside Gold is up and running and Expo almost is. Everyone is going to see how critical it is now. On a positive note, it appears that the Little Tokyo community especially seems pretty pleased with the Gold Line extension and some of the new business it has brought in.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 20, 2009 13:40:33 GMT -8
Well, you weigh the extra cost of the new design against the benefits of the one minute in travel time saved, the time saved since stupid people won't be running into trains on Alameda and 1st, and other stuff. The annual benefits must be discounted to 2019 and beyond, obviously. As far as I can tell construction will still be a headache in that area, unless someone else has better information.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 20, 2009 13:49:47 GMT -8
a couple of other thoughts I didn't add to my last post:
It looks like from the MTA's illustration (if I'm reading this right) that they should be able to save the original Little Tokyo Station. If they can save the station, I don't really see a reason why not. The MTA might want to keep service between East L.A. and Union Station, even if just in a limited capacity.
At the very least, an extra set of tracks could come in handy. Let's say there's some big event going on in Little Tokyo — something along the lines of the Nisei Week Parade, which tends to attract a huge crowd — that could potentially overwhelm the underground station. Having the at-grade station would give the MTA some extra options for providing service.
Now, of course, if it turns out that it would cost more to keep the station in operation than it would to tear it down, then by all means, take it down. But even then, I would hope that the underground station would be up and running before they took the at-grade station out.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 20, 2009 14:22:56 GMT -8
I see no need to get rid of the existing LT platform. It will serve Eastside-Pasadena riders, as long as that route remains in place.
As for cost-effectiveness: I know this will add $$ to the project, but I am also aware that the DT connector had the highest cost-effectiveness rating of all projects proposed by (M), so I'm sure it is still plenty cost-effective.
Finally, as far as who came up with this: I think the free flow of ideas resulted in this solution, involving Damien, Darrell, Gokhan, and many other people (myself included). But again, the important thing is whether or not this gets included as an alternative in the EIR process.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Nov 20, 2009 14:46:41 GMT -8
There is one refinement that would greatly improve train operation. However, I am not sure if there is sufficient space: If the new undergound station were to be split level the underground junction could be non-conflicting.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 20, 2009 14:49:30 GMT -8
Here is how the bridge over 101 could easily be modified into a straight bridge: There would be a new, short bridge section, about 150-ft-long, highlighted in blue. This would be supported by two new columns and an abutment, highlighted in red. Then there would be a retained-earth-fill ramp of 6% grade, bringing the rail to at-grade about 400 ft south, highlighted in green. Further south it would enter a trench section and a tunnel portal. The advantages of this modification are obvious. The resulting aerial section would be shorter and the two 90-degree turns would be eliminated. The resulting travel time between the Union Station and the new underground Little Tokyo Station after this new bridge section would be about 80 seconds, assuming 35 MPH speed limit and 2 MPH per second acceleration and deceleration. The cost would be around $20 million to build the new bridge section. Note that if the Nikkei Center is built in this area, they could bridge the new buildings over the light-rail ramp and trench section, similar to the condos at the Gold Line Memorial Park Station. James, perhaps you can pass this around to Metro and the community.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 20, 2009 16:07:55 GMT -8
The advantages of this modification are obvious. The resulting aerial section would be shorter and the two 90-degree turns would be eliminated. The resulting travel time between the Union Station and the new underground Little Tokyo Station after this new bridge section would be about 80 seconds, assuming 35 MPH speed limit and 2 MPH per second acceleration and deceleration. The cost would be around $20 million to build the new bridge section. Note that if the Nikkei Center is built in this area, they could bridge the new buildings over the light-rail ramp and trench section, similar to the condos at the Gold Line Memorial Park Station. James, perhaps you can pass this around to Metro and the community. It's a nice idea. But again, the Nikkei Center is still in the way. I'm not certain that they would want to "bridge the new buildings" around the light rail station the way things are at Memorial Park. To be perfectly honest, I don't even like the way they did things at Memorial Park. It looks forced. I'm not saying it can't be done. Obviously, it can. But I just don't see the time-savings as being significant enough to warrant the extra cost involved or the potential unforeseen problems for the Nikkei Center. We already have a perfectly usable underground plan from the MTA that effectively addresses Little Tokyo's concerns while barely affecting the Nikkei Center at all, and apparently keeping the existing station intact, to boot. I'm sorry, but I don't see any need to keep tinkering with it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 20, 2009 16:50:52 GMT -8
But I just don't see the time-savings as being significant enough to warrant the extra cost involved or the potential unforeseen problems for the Nikkei Center. The time savings would be about two minutes. The disruption of service on the Gold Line would be less if the bridge is modified, as opposed to using the existing bridge. If the old bridge is demolished after the modification, the Nikkei Center would be accessible from Alameda as well. But I don't know the negative impacts of this on the Nikkei Center. Although, when I look at the aerials and bird's-eye views more, I see that placing the northern support wouldn't be desirable in that split between the exit lanes and the main lanes, and there are other engineering complications for modifying the bridge. So, my original proposal of modifying the ramp only, which has gladly become Metro's newest proposal now, seems to be the simplest solution.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 20, 2009 20:30:42 GMT -8
By The Way, has the, or perhaps the question should be "should", Transit Coalition taken a position on First and Alameda?
Now that the Little Tokyo community has an official MTA option that the majority (the "Office Depot" block might disagree, considering what will undoubtedly happen to that block) can rally around, instead of just "back of the envelope" ideas, it might mean a lot if we, as transit advocates, could say that we stood with Little Tokyo in what remains of that fight? (i.e., actually getting that option to the next few steps)
Just a thought....
|
|
|
Post by jeisenberg on Nov 20, 2009 22:56:38 GMT -8
Gokkan, I see no need to assume 35 mph operation. Your route would be 100% grade separated between Union station and the new underground Little Tokyo East station, so 55 mph should be possible with 2 mph max acceleration (as is standard for light rail, I believe). With only 0.6 miles (3000 feet) between the two stations the higher top speed would save another 10 seconds, for a total trip time of about 70 seconds.
If the current trip takes a little over 3 minutes on the current Gold Line even after the software upgrade, the new alignment would save 2 minutes per trip. That's cost-effective. Remember, we are building the whole thing for $1000 million to save 10 minutes for trips from the Expo or Blue line connecting to the two parts of the Gold Line; 2 minutes for $200 million is an equivalent price per time saved.
Thanks for modeling the route, Gokkan. I still think that rebuilding the north half of the bridge as well would make sense; we need new bridges for HSR and Metrolink anyway, and that current bridge would certainly be handy for a streetcar. A separate northern half of the bridge would also make the tie-in with the current tracks easier. Any idea on how much a bridge like that would add in cost? $50 million?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenberg on Nov 20, 2009 23:05:29 GMT -8
As far as the current station and Gold Line are concerned, I think they can be eliminated if the Nikkei Center wants the land back. As long as the Regional Connector is built well enough to handle trains every 2 minutes, there will be plenty of service on both segments of the current Gold Line, but connecting to Downtown and then to the South or West instead. Most people will want to go to Downtown or beyond, rather than looping from East LA toward Pasadena. Those that do want to go to LA Union Station would be better served by a quick transfer at Little Tokyo (average wait for next train: 2.5 minutes) rather than waiting 5 or 10 minutes for a "direct" train to Union Station and Pasadena. This is why most rapid transit systems use transfers and straight routes, rather than lots of branches. High frequency and 0 to 1 transfer is better than low frequency and 0 transfers, for almost everyone.
As far as Nikkei is concerned, couldn't we avoid any open, cut-and-cover work in that parcel, with Gokkan's plan? The Tunnel Boring Machine could start at the portal to the north of the Nikkei site, tunnel under and meet up with the eastern TBM at the cut-and-cover station at the Office Depot block. At the Nikkei center everything would be be underground. As long as they don't need multiple levels of underground parking (yuck), everything should be fine.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 21, 2009 3:55:01 GMT -8
I think a lot of us, myself included, make a huge mistake when we presume that we know what other people want, especially when those other people are developers. Of course, there are certain things which can safely be assumed. A large, uninterrupted parcel is better than one which has been bisected by roads, rails or other obstacles. There are also certain requirements imposed on a development by government, including (oh the horrors) parking. Fortunately, the developers of the Nikkei Center have provided clues to what they want built on their property. Here's an early, and obviously preliminary, rendering from last year: www.angelenic.com/images/nikkei_center_rendering.jpgIt's a tad on the large-ish side, and a tad... um, orange. But note that it was designed with the Gold Line tracks anticipated to be there. Here's another view. Still large, but now more colorful: 1.bp.blogspot.com/_cYRmsUIQKKI/SKn66dV0hbI/AAAAAAAAADk/BmY4o8bDl04/s1600-h/Nikkei-Dusk-final2.jpgAnother view: farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2778347177_c84d48bd16_b.jpgThere's a round plaza that appears to be the front entrance, and the larger buildings are wisely to the back, further away from the intersection of 1st/ Alameda. The whole thing is looking wonderfully colorful at this point. Note the light rail tracks in this version as well. When the Regional Connector project came into existence, I thought that the bridge integrated really well into the Nikkei Center: 3.bp.blogspot.com/_cYRmsUIQKKI/Sr3iw7787lI/AAAAAAAAANo/Zbe1ViaewBE/s1600-h/IMG_0689.JPGNotice, by the way, that there is underground parking in this version. The Nikkei Center proposal has undergone changes, and they have adapted to fit either what the community wanted or what the MTA needed. But, some things have been constant through all the plans: 1) the thing will be colorful, artistic and certainly not dull; 2) there will be a main entrance plaza at the corner of First and Alameda; 3) the property appears to be completely built out Will there be underground parking? I can't say for sure, but considering the size of the project, I can't see how they could get away without it. Another consideration: the MTA apparently expects the Regional Connector to open in 2019. That timetable almost ensures that the Nikkei Center will be ready for operation before the Regional Connector is. Even as slow as the economy is now, I doubt they would wait that long. Which also means that the existing tracks will still be in place when the Nikkei Center gets built — if the tracks get taken out, it won't make any difference to the size of the Nikkei Center.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 21, 2009 7:21:06 GMT -8
There is one refinement that would greatly improve train operation. However, I am not sure if there is sufficient space: If the new underground station were to be split level the underground junction could be non-conflicting. I haven't seen anyone else comment on this, but this certainly seems to be one of the more important considerations if they choose the new underground alignment. You may also want to consider whether Gokhans new(er) idea could work if this were how they built the station. I'm not a railroad engineer, but this strikes me as a no-brainer (maybe not, see later thoughts). If the underground Y where the Expo and Blue lines merge is side-by-side track, then all trains on both lines will need to make sure that only a single train is going through the junction at any point in time. I needed to actually draw this out on paper since I'm not good with 3 dimensional stuff. If you assume 5 minute headways, then you have 4 trains going through every 5 minutes, or one train every 75 seconds. This is where I get a little confused though. Assume that the Y is stacked, and the LT station is also stacked. So, entering the LT station from the East, the Blue Line and Expo Line arrive on separate tracks, Expo line on the upper level and Blue Line on the lower level. Every train leaving LT and going East has a clear shot since there are separate tracks. So far, so good. But, assuming that you are not going to build 2 levels of subway all the way, then the 2 sets of tracks still have to merge West of the LT station, presumably before the Broadway station. If that is the case, then don't you have the exact same problem at that Y? That junction will be exactly the same from a functional standpoint as the Y that would be built East of the LT station, with the only difference being that the tracks that will be merging are initially at different levels versus being on the same level. Do I have this right? Assuming that the Y has the same traffic throughput issues wherever it is located, then maybe it would be better to put it East of LT. Building an underground Y on a single level is probably easier from an engineering standpoint than building one where you are connecting 2 separate levels into a single level. Plus, if the Y is East of LT, then you also have the added benefit of a single platform at LT where you can jump on either the Expo Line or the Blue Line. All downtown DC stations would then have a single platform that would serve both the Expo and Blue lines. If you are switching lines at any of the DC stations, there would be no need to take an escalator up/down to the other tracks. Anyone have some preliminary engineering drawings put together yet that can help illuminate this for us? RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 21, 2009 7:37:35 GMT -8
James, Very cool pixs, and yes, that is a pretty large structure. That 3rd picture looking down and NE toward the corner shows what is essentially an unobstructed view of the development. The 4th picture/model is from a different perspective so its hard to tell how it would all work together.
I still don't get whether in the model, if the traffic on 1st is grade separated from the trains Y junction? If there are going to be trains going through there every 75 seconds, it better be separate, or the traffic on 1st is going to be spending a lot of time sitting around.
RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 21, 2009 9:30:41 GMT -8
I know I've seen a picture somewhere which showed the same thing as picture #4, only from a better angle. I couldn't find it, so I went with the other one.
Keep in mind that picture #4 is about a year older than picture #1. I used all four pictures to illustrate that while the circumstances may have changed somewhat, the proposal hasn't changed significantly since they won the right to develop the property.
The Nikkei Center is still a fairly large project, but it is a project which has community support, so we should keep that in mind when we propose changes to the Regional Connector.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 21, 2009 16:14:09 GMT -8
Rubbertoe, No, the LB/Pasadena Line and Expo/Eastside lines would not be on different levels.
A two-level station would be similar to Wilshire/Vermont:
North/East bound trains would be on the upper level (for example) and South/West bound trains would be on the lower level. Each platform would only need one track next to it (Though two track on each level would be great, it would not be require).
To the southwest of the station, the upper track and lower track would unstack and come side by side, never crossing. To the northeast, the upper track would split and trains would head north or east. The lower track would have trains merging onto one track, in the same way. Before the portals, the stacked tunnels would need to come to the same level, side-by side.The benefit is that trains going in opposite directions never cross tracks; no head-on collisions are possible!
The big issues of a two-level station are: 1) Increased cost, due to a deeper station, longer elevators, two sets of escalators; and 2) is there enough space for the deepest level to come up to the surface at a reasonable grade % between Alameda/1st and the portals?
I think an underground, one-level station would be fine for light rail, with modern positive train control to prevent collisions. Trains would have to cross opposing tracks, but a properly designed crossing with gentle curves into the station should not limit train thru-put or impair safety. Now if we want 2 minute headways on both lines, then we are going to have problems at all of the existing grade crossings before this area becomes an issue, if Metro has the intersection underground.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 21, 2009 16:42:36 GMT -8
For further information about the benefits of stacking the tracks in a station, see this thread: transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=eastside&action=display&thread=78&page=9Justin Walker describes old plans to make the Red Line subway stations thru downtown all with tracks at two levels (such as was done at the Wilshire/Vermont station) so branch lines could be built more easily in the future, and so an extra pair of tracks could be later added at each station by digging up just half of the street.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 22, 2009 9:17:35 GMT -8
Interesting article in the L.A. Times about the connector: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-little-tokyo22-2009nov22,0,3316013.story They don't allow comments, but I would note: 1) I know where Mr. Uyeda's store is, and it is nowhere near the construction. S.K. Uyeda is over by the Kyoto Grand. What is he worried about? 2) The talk about the "Office Depot" block as being popular. Perhaps it is, but it's certainly not Japanese American. If people are worried about retaining Little Tokyo's character, eliminating Senor Fish and Office Depot would be a step in the right direction...
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 22, 2009 12:14:42 GMT -8
Office Depot is a good place to pee, though. They don't have signs up saying that restrooms are only for customers and they don't notice or bother you when you use the restrooms. One of the worst things about exploring the city by transit is when you have to pee and businesses won't let you. I will miss it.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Nov 22, 2009 21:25:32 GMT -8
Pretty sad when simple basic needs like relieving one's self is a hard task to do.
To pee is key--without it, urine big trouble!
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 22, 2009 22:17:32 GMT -8
I have bought many a snack I did not want because I just had to use a restroom.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 22, 2009 23:24:12 GMT -8
Spokker, when you spend money just to use the restroom, let the shopkeeper know. Many business owners assume most of their customers arrive by car. They need to know that transit and bike riders are supporting them. Even if it's just to use the restroom.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 22, 2009 23:30:59 GMT -8
first of all, what's wrong with buying snacks? Japan has come up with some of the best snack technology on planet Earth, ranging from classic traditional osembei to Pocky sticks, much of which is available at many of Little Tokyo's stores and shops. not to mention melon soda and tea flavors not found elsewhere. also: there are public restrooms in Little Tokyo. your best bet is the lobby of the Kyoto Grand Hotel (formerly New Otani). another is at the Japanse American Cultural and Community Center. the Japanese American National Museum is free on Saturdays, including restrooms. however, I suppose for emergency purposes, we could ask somebody to install one of those automated, self-cleaning public toilets (similar to the ones they now have along the waterfront in San Pedro) near the new Little Tokyo station. EDIT: an automatic public toilet in San PedroEDIT: Jeisenbe also came up with a good idea
|
|
art
Junior Member
Posts: 64
|
Post by art on Nov 24, 2009 18:36:12 GMT -8
Here is how the bridge over 101 could easily be modified into a straight bridge: There would be a new, short bridge section, about 150-ft-long, highlighted in blue. This would be supported by two new columns and an abutment, highlighted in red. Then there would be a retained-earth-fill ramp of 6% grade, bringing the rail to at-grade about 400 ft south, highlighted in green. Further south it would enter a trench section and a tunnel portal. The advantages of this modification are obvious. The resulting aerial section would be shorter and the two 90-degree turns would be eliminated. The resulting travel time between the Union Station and the new underground Little Tokyo Station after this new bridge section would be about 80 seconds, assuming 35 MPH speed limit and 2 MPH per second acceleration and deceleration. The cost would be around $20 million to build the new bridge section. Note that if the Nikkei Center is built in this area, they could bridge the new buildings over the light-rail ramp and trench section, similar to the condos at the Gold Line Memorial Park Station. James, perhaps you can pass this around to Metro and the community. Note to whine such semantics but, I had reccomended this exact concept for the past 3-4 years, including on this board. Although I just verbalized it on this forum, and did not create the nice illustration gokkhan has. And Im sure, me, gokkhan, james and damien all came to this conclusion on our own, as it seems so pragmatic.
|
|