HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #421  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 9:00 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Okay, so I just sent an annoying and poorly written mass PM to 38 (yes, 38 forumers) of you encouraging that you all send in your comments to the MTA regarding the placement of the station immediately west of the 405. If you did not get a PM and/or if you're not familiar with what's being discussed, I'll try to bring you up to speed. Back in August (when the last set of public meetings were held), the MTA had narrowed the terminus MOS 3 station (the station immediately west of the 405 Freeway) to two locations -- Wilshire/Barrington and Wilshire/VA Hospital. Well, as of the most recent round of meetings, the Wilshire/Barrington option has been axed in favor of a station at Wilshire/VA Hospital. If you're familiar with these two locations, you'll know that Metro made an absolutely horrible decision. If you're not familiar with these two locations, then let me direct you to these links...

Wilshire/Barrington
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pp7...96&lvl=1&sty=b

Wilshire/VA Hospital
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=pp8...ngeles%2C%20CA

I think those aerial shots speak for themselves. Perhaps those two visuals can persuade all 38 of you (and those who are reading this post) to just take a minute or two to contact the MTA and let them know that they made a huge mistake by selecting a station at VA Hospital over Barrington. The subway only has enough Measure R funding to go one station west of the 405, so it's either a Barrington or VA Hospital station serving Brentwood (which one does a better job? -- don't answer that). The Bundy station does not have funding and it will come much later down the road. And it too bypasses the bulk of the density and activity, so Brentwood would not be adequately served by the subway.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #422  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 11:32 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
There are escalator malfunctions at the various stations here in DC on a daily basis. The escalator at the north side of the DuPont Circle station has been out for weeks. Lack of money and an aging system are the most likely causes here.
To quote Mitch Hedberg - escalators can never break down, they can only temporarily become stairs.

Handicapped people aren't taking the escalators anyway, so having one broken down just means you have to make your lazy ass walk up (or down). Understandably, this is a big deal at Rosslyn or Wheaton, but Dupont Circle is fairly shallow IIRC.

The escalators break down less often when they are sheltered from rain and snow that infiltrate and corrode the machinery. Metro's open-air escalators are problematic, which is why the newer subway stations have glass canopies or full buildings over the escalators.

On the Barrington/VA option... wouldn't a station at San Vicente be the best of both worlds?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Nov 19, 2009 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #423  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 12:49 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Whereas I see you point that many residents and shoppers will prefer your choice, I also see Metro's point. The VA Hospital will have visitors too, but it's shift workers alone will make that station highly used.

Why can't Metro build both stations?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #424  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 1:13 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,129
San Vicente would be a good compromise.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #425  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 1:16 AM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Whereas I see you point that many residents and shoppers will prefer your choice, I also see Metro's point. The VA Hospital will have visitors too, but it's shift workers alone will make that station highly used.

Why can't Metro build both stations?
Is a station directly between the intersection that Westsidelife prefers and the locations Metro prefers not possible? Position it so that an entrance at the far western end is located within a block of Barrington & Wilshire and an entrance at the far eastern end is located within the roadway ring that circles the medical center? That way both locations can be served reasonably affectively. (and now I see WonderlandPark beat me to it by about 3 minutes )

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Handicapped people aren't taking the escalators anyway, so having one broken down just means you have to make your lazy ass walk up (or down). Understandably, this is a big deal at Rosslyn or Wheaton, but Dupont Circle is fairly shallow IIRC.
Dupont Circle isn't all that shallow. I've walked up the escalator at that station before and while I certainly could handle it, older people especially might have some difficulties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #426  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 4:17 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
The rationale for having a station at Wilshire/VA Hospital is that it would provide for a park-and-ride option and reduce construction costs because of staging.

Federal/San Vicente (same thing) would be okay, certainly far better than the VA Hospital location. It's still at the eastern periphery of Brentwood; Barrington is dead central to the employment center that is Brentwood.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #427  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 4:59 AM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
The rationale for having a station at Wilshire/VA Hospital is that it would provide for a park-and-ride option and reduce construction costs because of staging.
Large park-and-ride lots are usually a poor use of valuable land unless the station is at the end of the transit line (i.e. Vienna, VA) Richard Willson from Cal Poly Pomona provides some excellent recommendations for parking at transit-oriented development: http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%208-5%20Willson.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #428  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 8:20 AM
dl3000's Avatar
dl3000 dl3000 is offline
500 foot Groundscraper
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
No, but it is still not fun to walk down. Wheaton on the Green line has the longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere. Bethesda and Rosslyn are also 'stations of a thousand steps.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_(Washington_Metro)
O thanks for the info. I just remember Dupont being like walking down to hell.
__________________
"San Diego...drink it in, it always goes down smooth" - Ron Burgundy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #429  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 9:13 AM
StethJeff's Avatar
StethJeff StethJeff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
I think those aerial shots speak for themselves. Perhaps those two visuals can persuade all 38 of you (and those who are reading this post) to just take a minute or two to contact the MTA and let them know that they made a huge mistake by selecting a station at VA Hospital over Barrington.
I don't see a problem at all with putting a station next to the VA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #430  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 6:06 PM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
Maybe the area's not as dense?
__________________
Revelation 21:4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #431  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 9:42 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
The full Alternatives Analysis Study for the Harbor Subdivision...

Alternatives Analysis Study – November 2009
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #432  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2009, 1:50 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,939
Little Tokyo wary of proposed light-rail connector line (LA Times)

Little Tokyo wary of proposed light-rail connector line

The community fears that construction, noise and hundreds of daily trains could ruin businesses and property values. But Metro has offered up an underground plan that seems to be easing concerns.


By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times
November 22, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3316013.story

Satoru Uyeda has lived through Little Tokyo's shifting fortunes for six decades.

In the 1940s, the removal of Japanese Americans from the entire West Coast after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor emptied out Little Tokyo. But when the war was over, his father opened the S.K. Uyeda Department Store on 1st Street to sell bedding, clothes, kitchen supplies and other goods needed for returning families. Eventually, the community rebounded.

In the 1950s, the city took a key block away from Little Tokyo for the Parker Center police headquarters.

In the 1980s, Japanese investment and well-heeled tourists poured in. But that brought panhandlers and thieves, prompting Uyeda and others to form a voluntary safety patrol to drive them out.

In the 1990s, Japan's economic recession sank tourism and foreign investment in the neighborhood.

Now, just as Little Tokyo is beginning to thrive again with a multicultural mix of businesses and visitors, county transportation officials are proposing to plow a light-rail connector line through the historic heart of Southern California's Japanese American community.

"It took 15 years for all of this economic activity to return to Little Tokyo, and I would hate to see that broken," Uyeda said. "Once you break it, people will find other places to go. That will be a tragedy."

Community members fear that the construction, noise, traffic and specter of hundreds of trains running through the neighborhood could kill off businesses, devastate property values and discourage visitors to the museums, cultural centers and other community institutions.

The controversy has even reached Washington, D.C., and the ears of Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who heads the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. A key backer of the Japanese American National Museum, Inouye weighed in with a letter to L.A. County transportation officials expressing "strong interest" in the project and its effect on Little Tokyo.

But late last week, county transportation officials surprised the community by presenting a new concept that would keep the entire connector line underground through the key intersection of 1st and Alameda streets.

Officials are scheduled to present the idea Tuesday to the Little Tokyo Community Council, which represents more than 90 community organizations.

"We are responding to what we are hearing from the community," said Dolores M. Roybal Saltarelli, manager of the regional connector project for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. "It's all a work in progress."

Before the new concept surfaced, Metro had officially selected four alternatives to close the two-mile gap through downtown in the regional light-rail system. The aim is to connect the 7th Street/Metro Center stop and Union Station to allow a transfer-free ride from Pasadena to Long Beach and Culver City to East Los Angeles.

The project is expected to reduce the number of transfers at Union Station by 17,000 a day and to save riders both money and time -- as much as 20 minutes per trip, Roybal Saltarelli said. Metro is completing an environmental impact study and expects to issue its recommendation for a plan next fall, she said.

Two of the four alternatives involve building a connector through downtown. An above-ground route would weave from Union Station to 7th Street/Metro Center along Temple, Main, Los Angeles and 2nd streets. In a preliminary analysis, that route was estimated to cost $700 million in 2008 dollars.

An underground route would travel east on 2nd Street and surface on a lot at Central Avenue, where Office Depot and several restaurants sit. Then the trains would cross at 1st and Alameda above ground. Cars would run along Alameda on a submerged road, and pedestrians would cross on an overhead pass. The route was estimated to cost $900 million.

This underground plan in particular has horrified many community members. A projected 526 trains a day would run through the 1st and Alameda intersection, Metro says.

Owners of the Savoy condominiums at that intersection have protested because of a potential loss in property values. The Japanese American National Museum, also located there, could suffer from reduced visitors and school tours -- especially during a construction period estimated to last four years, museum spokesman Chris Komai said.

Uyeda wonders if his shop -- which sells kimonos, futons and other Japanese specialty items -- could even survive.

And the plan could kill the liveliest part of Little Tokyo, critics say. The lots bounded by Central, Alameda, 1st and 2nd streets, which the county would buy, are currently occupied by 300 parking spaces and popular restaurants such as Senor Fish, Green Bamboo and Yogurtland. The parking and eateries have brought crowds back to the neighborhood.

Last month, the Little Tokyo Community Council voted to oppose both plans.

"A lot of older people feel that Little Tokyo has never gotten a fair shake from the city and government agencies," Komai said. "They've just done things to us. This is for some people the final straw."

But Roybal Saltarelli said that Metro heard the concerns. Among other steps, the agency offered to retain the Central Avenue restaurants and move tunnel boring equipment away from Little Tokyo.

Metro's latest underground plan had been one of the agency's final eight proposed designs. But it was put aside in part because planners did not want to affect the proposed Nikkei Center, a Japanese American development on the northeast corner of 1st and Alameda, Roybal Saltarelli said.

After Nikkei Center developer Jon Kaji expressed a willingness to discuss ways to coordinate the connector line with his development, planners were able to bring back the idea for exploration, Roybal Saltarelli said.

The new plan is still simply a rough concept, but it has thrilled Uyeda and other members of a Little Tokyo working group, all of whom are on the community council. Last week, they and others voted to recommend approval of the new idea by the council board.

"Everyone is upbeat," Uyeda said. "We said, 'Hey, they're starting to listen to the community.' "
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #433  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2009, 6:33 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,860
I'm kinda excited about this story; Caltrans is finally working on the Pasadena Freeway/Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR-110) to make it look more aesthetically pleasing and to give it a more historical character befitting its status as a California Historic Highway.

From the South Pasadena Review:

Closures of Ramps, Lanes for Parkway Improvements
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will close ramps, lanes and connectors of the Pasadena Freeway (also known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway, or SR-110) and the Golden State Freeway (I-5) as part of the Arroyo Seco Parkway Improvement Project.

The project involves replacing the existing metal beam and temporary barriers with decorative concrete barriers that reflect the stonework architecture seen throughout the surrounding communities. Historic reproduction lighting will also be installed.

Project benefits include improved safety for motorists, reduced maintenance costs, improved appearance of the historic highway, and protection for Caltrans maintenance workers.

The $17-million project is expected to be completed in fall 2011. The contractor is Cooper/Myers. Project and closure updates will be announced as they occur.
___________________________________________

Here's a link to the Caltrans fact sheet about the project:

ARROYO SECO PARKWAY SCENIC BYWAY (STATE ROUTE 110) FROM US 101 TO GLENARM STREET FACT SHEET
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #434  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2009, 7:49 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,054
Quote:
202_Cyclist Little Tokyo wary of proposed light-rail connector line

Just read the article about Little Tokyo and the Downtown connector in the LA Times. Man those who live in the neighborhood have it all wrong. Having the connector run thru the neighborhood would make it even more desirable and would increase property values.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #435  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2009, 9:16 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,939
Quote:
Just read the article about Little Tokyo and the Downtown connector in the LA Times. Man those who live in the neighborhood have it all wrong. Having the connector run thru the neighborhood would make it even more desirable and would increase property values.
The impacts of transportation projects on communities like this in Little Tokyo are a very real concern. As a result of the excesses of urban renewal and highway building projects in the 1960s-70s, we have the environmental impact statement (EIS) process to help determine the social and environmental costs of these projects. At the risk of sounding like Robert Moses, the costs of disruptions such as these are weighed against passenger time savings (up to 20 min per trip) and forecasted ridership increases when doing the cost/benefit analysis for funding.

These large infrastructure projects also involve some transfer in income from current residents and businesses who will be impacted to future residents/businesses that will benefit from greater accessibility and higher property values.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #436  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 2:04 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Little Tokyo is in the danger of having too much light rail, not too little.
Little Tokyo already has an Orange Line station which recently opened.


The regional rail connector corridor through downtown L.A. rough routing may add just one new light rail corridor, but several light rail lines. The little Tokyo light rail station wasn't built to accomodating all the potential transfers that could eventually occur. It's not built like Union Station with plenty of platforms.



Worse yet, the initial plans have the connector line using several streets in close proximity to the sole light rail station. So the local concern about too much rail traffic is genuine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #437  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 2:19 AM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Little Tokyo has a Gold Line station, not Orange.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #438  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 5:58 AM
LAofAnaheim LAofAnaheim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 761
If you read the article...Little Tokyo's concern is moreso about the visual of trains constantly rolling over 1st and Alameda...not the concern "under 2nd street". From the meeting I went to two weeks ago in the Japanese American museum (anybody here go?), Little Tokyo wants transit improvements, but totally grade seperated and primarily underground. This new proposal by the MTA sounds like they have responded to Little Tokyo's concerns.

Re-read the last sentence in the LA Times article: "The new plan is still simply a rough concept, but it has thrilled Uyeda and other members of a Little Tokyo working group, all of whom are on the community council. Last week, they and others voted to recommend approval of the new idea by the council board. "
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #439  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 8:58 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a large number of transfers going west occur at 7th/metro instead for those switching from lrt to hrt, with little tokyo acting as just another stop along the gold line and uninterrupted into the expo and blue lines via the regional connector? why would there be transfers..isn't the point of the connector to reduce transfers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #440  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 3:16 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't a large number of transfers going west occur at 7th/metro instead for those switching from lrt to hrt, with little tokyo acting as just another stop along the gold line and uninterrupted into the expo and blue lines via the regional connector? why would there be transfers..isn't the point of the connector to reduce transfers?
The point of the connector is to reduce the number of transfers a passenger must make, not the number of passengers needing to make a transfer. As is, those on the Red & Purple subway lines, as well as Metrolink passengers can transfer to the Gold line at Union Station. Number of transfers required =1.
Light rail passengers on the Blue and the soon to be completed Expo lines, as of today, would have make two transfers, one at 7th/Metro Center and the second at Union Station. Number of transfers required = 2. By having this connector built, these light rail passengers only transfer once at Little Tokyo. So, not only does it reduce the number of transfers, it makes Little Tokyo a transfer point which, as you can see from the photo I posted earlier, is too small to make an effective transfer point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:23 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.