Interurbans on October 14, 2008, at 11:47AM – #1

Leave it to the MTA to set things up so there is no choice. With all of the surface alignments selected which did not include 1st which would have most likely been the best choice, the MTA selected the worst. Closing the Second St tunnel to auto traffic and not using 2nd St to Central as with subway alignment, but choosing the much slower and longer Temple St alignment must be MTA’s attempt to make the surface alignment to obnoxious that the subway alignment “must” be chosen.

If a surface route is to seriously be considered 1st St should be considered as well as some of the better of the original selections.

Incidentally my personal choice is the subway.

Bert Green on October 14, 2008, at 12:06PM – #3

In the earlier meetings there was a 1st street option. This round of meetings is to get further comments on the surface route that the community preferred in the last round of meetings.

There was a general preference for subway among most people.

Brian on October 14, 2008, at 01:15PM – #4

For those of us who work during these times, how can we make sure our voices are heard regarding the two options? Is there an online submission form that will actually make it to people who matter?

If they are serious about getting community input, why don't they provide meetings that are accessible to regular working folks? Noon on a weekday? Impossible for most. 6:30 on a Tuesday? Better, but still way too early.

8:00pm weekday is approaching reasonable, with a Saturday or Sunday morning meeting ideal.

Juanito on October 14, 2008, at 02:25PM – #6

About the parking structure on the west side of Central, south of First. I'm not sure if it was built as part of the Japanese Village Plaza in the Seventies or a separate project. However, Metro should consider taking it down so that the track alignment coming west from First and Alamenda can go underground and run beneath the Village Plaza and then curve to the northwest to run beneath Second Street. This way, the newly built commercial outlet at Second and Central can remain along with the daily social regimen at the sidewalk cafe along the frontage. Close off through access along Central and allow vehicular access into a rebuilt garage and whatever development that could be constructed up and over the descending track between Alameda and Central, just like the housing development over the Gold Line in Old Town Pasadena. This would also likely require bridging across the descending track with lightweight metal for pedestrian access, right on the centerline of Central, so that people can walk on up to the museums. This bridge could be designed to have novel or be a novel feature of the new Japan Town.

Jerard on October 14, 2008, at 07:17PM – #7

Juanito,

That idea would make it least likely for anyone to come Little Tokyo because they can't find a place to park and vehicles will be circling around like crazy adding to the congestion in the area ensuring that no one else will come outdoors and eat al fresco along Second or Central thus be more detrimental.

That will ensure that there will be no room for trains to transition from underground to at-grade level because you are now dealing with the shortest piece of the block. That is the key reason why they are using that whole block because it's large enough to stage construction activities, the easiest to concentrate and wall off with very little disruption to the business in Little Tokyo and the best way to have enough room to actually build one portal. Here's another reason why it's best to use that 1st-Alameda-2nd-Central block because in case the soils in the area aren't stable, we won't have Hollywood Sinkhole part two at a major shopping center in Little Tokyo which means more $$$ that we don't have to mitigate for damages that we could use towards additional streetscape improvements along Second Street.

The street cafe could be relocated to a nearby storefront along Second Street or in Artist District and Lord knows that Starbucks will find another location in the area in fact it would provide better business to the locally owned coffee houses in the area.

Jonathan on October 14, 2008, at 08:11PM – #8

Whats 150 million dollars to the city when it can be a project of such higher quality? The underground option is clearly nicer and less invasive.

Not to mention, how much money does the city make on filming car commercials and tunnel action scenes for Hollywood in the 2nd street tunnel?!? seriously though, that tunnel is in constant use and its a cool piece of architecture in the area that i would be sad to see taken out of service...

Juanito on October 14, 2008, at 08:25PM – #9

Jerard, yup, in looking/comparing with the Blueline transition to underground on Flower Street, there ain't enough space to get down enough, fast enough. And yes, Japanese Village Plaza collapsing into a sinkhole would be a dream come true for journos at the L.A. Weekly. Otherwise, with all of the trains crossing the intersection of First and Alameda, that locale will become a crowded, noisy environment. The developer on the northeast corner is gonna have a big problem selling or leasing his units.

Ginny-Marie Case on October 14, 2008, at 08:46PM – #10

Jonathan

The city makes Very little money from the film permits. The tunnel generates money only for the advertisers and movie makers.

If the loss of the tunnel was a big deal, I would think FilmLA would have said something by now.

Juanito on October 15, 2008, at 12:45AM – #11

Reflecting some more on the First & Alameda intersection: this area has/is becoming heavily residential with the adjacent apartments and condominiums. Alameda is a truck route. Build-out of the Bunker Hill redevelopment project will only bring added east west traffic to First and Second streets thru J-Town. I can remember being frustrated waiting in stop and go traffic at rush hour along Alameda in this area ten years ago.

It's not hard to see that an at-grade light rail solution at the intersection is likely to get this area of Downtown in a permanent pickle. That when such a project is completed, the mayhem caused by construction will only continue, that the clanging of raising and lowering crossing gates will be a bane on adjacent residents, that Alameda will have become infamous for traffic congestion and with the northwest corner of the intersection having already been heavily developed, that there will be no way out of the nightmare.

Deciding at this time to proceed with a surface solution and to let the northeast corner be privately developed may be or become an acute blunder.

Decisions, decisions.

Jerard on October 15, 2008, at 10:18AM – #12

Reflecting some more on the First & Alameda intersection: this area has/is becoming heavily residential with the adjacent apartments and condominiums. Alameda is a truck route. Build-out of the Bunker Hill redevelopment project will only bring added east west traffic to First and Second streets thru J-Town. I can remember being frustrated waiting in stop and go traffic at rush hour along Alameda in this area ten years ago.

I think this will make traffic easier to navigate with the at-grade wye because motorists will use Temple Street or 2nd Street to Vignes for local traffic and for other traffic trips they'll utilize 3rd/4th St couplets and use the 4th Street Bridge instead. In fact all the trains coming in and out with passengers in full view is exactly what a developer would want to invest in those two corners of 1st/Alameda.

With Alameda Street being lowered to accomodate the Regional Connector it solves that key issue that the same residents have with Alameda Street with all the truck traffic which calms 1st Street.

Closing the Second St tunnel to auto traffic and not using 2nd St to Central as with subway alignment, but choosing the much slower and longer Temple St alignment must be MTA’s attempt to make the surface alignment to obnoxious that the subway alignment “must” be chosen.

The key reason 2nd Street at-grade from Los Angeles to Alameda was a consideration to Little Tokyo in that area has a large number of events and festivals on both First and Second Street that the closing of the tracks for those events wouldn't be a good idea. Plus First Street is too steep and congested with bus traffic to go at-grade on First nor will there be any location in the Little Tokyo area to transition from a tunnel to at-grade without having to build two new portals taking out the recently built East LA Gold Line in the process.

Juanito on October 15, 2008, at 02:11PM – #13

eeek. Never mind.

Forgot about the grade sep.

Sameer on October 15, 2008, at 04:07PM – #14

subway subway subway!!!

Dan in La on October 20, 2008, at 03:35PM – #15

Eric Richardson writes: interurban: Light rail trains can’t climb up Bunker Hill. The grade’s too steep.

That is why San Francisco stuck with cable cars, like the ones that used to traverse Bunker Hill.

Juanito on November 22, 2008, at 06:10PM – #17

Obama's Saturday radio address, his intention to achieve a greater spending stimulus may become an added boost to transit fortunes for L.A.

The New York Times gives a far more thorough report of his speech than does the L.A. Times.

Prospects for design and construction of the Subway To The Sea and the Downtown Connector seem much more favorable given the heightened emphasis on public infrastructure and energy conservation. Hallelujah!