Tim on August 14, 2009, at 12:31PM – #1

What a disaster. When they built the gold line extension through the Arts District, they needed to plan for the connection to the Expo and Blue Lines. They didn't. And now they are offering up this monstrosity. This plan is unacceptable. The First Street Station needs to be placed underground. It will be disruptive to the transit rider in the short term, but it will be much better in the long term.

Ravi on August 14, 2009, at 01:13PM – #2

So - the Proposed Future Development flanked by the 2 cylindrical towers is the current home of Office Depot, Starbucks, Green Bamboo, etc? 'Seems rather congested and messy. A COMPLETE 180 degrees from the atmosphere in Little Tokyo.

jbr on August 14, 2009, at 02:29PM – #3

i don't like the proposed buildings at all. it too vast, unfriendly rows of concrete and wall that leads to nothing. this is the same for the street level scape as well.

Scott on August 14, 2009, at 04:32PM – #5

I can see validity in all of the comments, but where have all of these people been for the last year, when meetings were held at the Japanese American National Museum and things seemed to be sailing right along?

Clearly, integrated long range planning hasn't been a strong suit in the past (Green Line to nowhere) and there is more coming Expo, Subway to the Sea and and West Hollywood line.

Long term I think this will increase the visibility of Little Tokyo (for better or worse), but I can see how the constrution could be pretty disruptive.

I ride the Red/Purple and Gold to Pasadena and back daily I keep thinking that we haven't gone far enough to synchronize linkages between Green, Red/Purple, Blue and Gold, and that it would be great to have an escalator or something that just went straight from the Red/Purple to the Gold at Union Station.

klaus on August 14, 2009, at 06:01PM – #6

i like it : )

James Fujita on August 14, 2009, at 11:42PM – #7

You can count me as one Japanese American who SUPPORTS this project.

I love Little Tokyo. I don't live there, but I visit and I spend money there as often as I can. Light rail would make it much easier for me to visit. Little Tokyo has traffic and parking problems and light rail would be an excellent alternative.

Maybe including that weird boxy cylinder thing was a mistake, but it is strictly hypothetical. (What's so wonderful about Office Depot, anyways? There's nothing Nisei about that.)

And I like the walkways in the design. The picture here isn't as colorful as the pictures that I've seen elsewhere. In other photos, they look like the grand entrance to a place that deserves a little fanfare.

I can't wait for the Little Tokyo station to open and I hope that the MTA goes forward with the Underground Regional Connector, because I think it is much better than the at-grade one. (So why was the Eastside Line built at grade? Because it's cheaper, and there's a huge difference in the available space on Second Street and on Alameda.)

There's a lot of NIMBY nonsense surrounding this project and I hope Metro ignores it.

Light rail will make it easier for Japanese Americans such as myself to visit Little Tokyo.

Henry on August 15, 2009, at 10:24AM – #8

Of course underground, its an easy choice. For efficiency of all transit, speed, and aesthetics, this choice effects the future livability of LA in the long term.

It is unfortunate that Metro lacks the forethought to conveniently link all of its lines. They think piecemeal, and it shows. Think about convenient efficient connections please!

regarding comments by Rafu and LTU, the JAM will survive by the increased visibility and access it gains with the addition of this line, it will survive by promoting itself, and offering alternate access when it can and making it very clear to visitors. LTU, yes you will have to "take another one for the team" to allow LA to have a reasonable transit system. Just as all others in its path will have to. Dont be selfish.

Vero Queero on August 15, 2009, at 01:09PM – #9

To the comments above from Rafu & LT Unblogged: disruption is an unfortunate necessity. And it's not to help a commuter skip $1.25 fare; currently a rider is required to pay another $1.25 when transferring from Gold to Red, or Blue to Green, or so on. As a regular rider of the Red, and occasionally the Gold and Blue, underground, though more expensive, is the much better option. At grade = slower and more possibility of accidents. The comment about lack of planning is funny and quaintly innocent--the history of Los Angeles is full of lack of planning, and there's too much infrastructure now to even start, so we just go with the flow.

John on August 16, 2009, at 10:52AM – #10

I don't think this is a responsible plan. First, this plan will destroy all uneasy builded cheerful street experience and avtivities along Central Ave. There are so many retail shops already there and people like to spend their time there with freinds and family. It is not make sense to destroy all these fruitful results that need decade to build and put our hope in an even unexist "potential future development". Second, I agree that underground option is fast than at grade option, but I need to point out that we are human, we are not deadly manufacture products. From point A to point B, fast is not the most important, instead, the travel experience is more important to us. we like to see the beatuful bule sky and street avtivity during our traveling time, not only under the dark and boring tunnel. I hope that we can really think about these treasure we already have and work out a more responsible plan for all the communities.

Henry on August 16, 2009, at 01:57PM – #11

John, you can look at the pretty blue sky on the Gold line already as much of it is already above ground. And you can look at the pretty blue sky again as you walk to your destination. I like to look at the sky too, but after a few rides, id rather get to where im going quickly, and read the newspaper or a book while on the train. I think most people who commute think the same. Underground for this dense, busy stretch of the line makes more sense because not only is it much faster, but it is much safer as it is completely grade separated. Cars and pedestrians and bikes wont have to wait for the train and the train wont have to wait for pedestrians and cars and bikes. Good long term planning is what we need. Hmmm, does this mean i am a "deadly manufacture product"?..

Tim on August 16, 2009, at 03:10PM – #12

^ No, but some jerks might call you "quaintly innocent" in your call for long term planning.

Henry on August 16, 2009, at 03:55PM – #13

^haha, i guess that i could live with that. I'd also like to be quaintly critical of metro's denseness regarding the importance of speed/efficiency. People dont ride the gold line as it is because it is SLOW! - especially through highland park and south pasadena where it runs at grade, and requires noisy gates and bells that has caused in stir in the south pas. community - they dont like the noise this causes, and it invites accidents - cars running through the gates and being hit by trains. Ridership of this line is well below original estimates precisely because it is SLOW. Metro couldn't understand why ridership was so low, so they did what big slow bureaucracies do: a study - they asked people why they were not taking the gold line, and this is what they found out: it is simply too slow, they would take it if it were faster but since it is not, they choose to stay in their cars clogging up the 110. Metro needs visionary people who get it, who understand the essential components of long-term transit planning like this. "Quaintly innocent" - probably, but i cant help it.

James Fujita on August 16, 2009, at 03:55PM – #14

Call me crazy, but I just don't see Office Depot, Weiland's or Señor Fish as being vital to the continued success of Little Tokyo. Japanese Village Plaza, Weller Court, JANM and the JACCC are much more important for maintaining Little Tokyo's "Japanese-ness"

I also don't think that the train station at First and Alameda needs to be underground.

The tracks on Second Street need to be underground. That's a given.

When the Eastside extension opens, Little Tokyo will see a burst of new activity, thanks to the new train station. The same thing will happen if they build the Regional Connector, but only if it is underground...

Tim on August 17, 2009, at 10:25AM – #16

Richard - A station further east on 1st Street would work only if the sole destination of the Blue and Expo Lines were East L.A. Unfortunately, by having the train surface along 1st Street east of Alameda, there is no way to connect it to the northbound tracks and into Union Station.

In theory, the Expo line needs to head into East L.A., and the Blue Line needs to head to Pasadena. One train heads east, the other heads north. That is why they are coming out of the tunnel and heading into the 1st Street station in a "Y" configuration.

Maybe there is a way they could build this by coming into the station from the south, instead of the west. But instead of taking the Office Depot site, they would need a site east of Alameda to bring the train up to the surface. And more importantly, the train alignment would have to be further south (perhaps under 3rd instead of under 2nd) in order to cross Alameda and have enough distance to get up to the surface and roll into the 1st Street Station. And that won't happen because the MTA decided a long time ago that they want a second street alignment and I doubt whether they are going to revisit that issue.

Stephen on August 17, 2009, at 10:42AM – #17

Could they just make an underground station before the Y splits, basically right underneath the Office Depot? Then have the entrances on the corners of the block, so you wouldn't need the whole elevated thing, and you can keep Alameda in tact. Then eliminate the existing LTAD platform to allow the Pasadena bound trains to come up from underground.

Tim on August 17, 2009, at 11:08AM – #18

Yes, but then you wouldn't need the existing 1st Street Station. And I think the MTA wants to utilize it.

Also, I think it would force the East L.A. line to end at a temporary station in the Arts District and the Pasadena line to end at Union Station while the MTA builds the two new underground-to-above ground portals for each side of the "Y". I cannot imagine you can have that level of construction east of Alameda without it disrupting train service. That would take at least six months, and the MTA doesn't want to take the Gold Line out of commission for that long.

But, those considerations aside, I would much prefer your suggestion versus the proposal pictured above.

Interurbans on August 17, 2009, at 11:48AM – #19

The Downtown connector is needed and should be funded and built as the next transit project behind the Expo Phase II. The MTA’s design overall seams OK and I understand the need for so many stations in order to get Federal funding for the project, but the First Street Alameda interaction is not workable as now planned. Most traffic on First street from the east turns on to Alameda with very little continuing into Little Tokyo. With all of the money being spent to widen the First Street Bridge to allow for traffic flow to Alameda the proposed plan will make the bridge widening unnecessary.

The rail lines need to be below grade not Alameda. The new below grade First and Alameda station and open plaza and concourse can be integrated into the new retile residential complex allowing free pedestrian access below ground between the complex the Gold Blue line station and Little Tokyo. This will allow traffic on First Street and Alameda to flow freely and be able to take full advantage of the widened the First Street bridge. The overhead concourse shown in the rendering should be below ground and part of the Gold / Blue line station.

A temporary Gold Line detour could be built on the now vacant land where the new complex will be built to allow for the construction of the below ground station and concourse plaza.

By having the rail lines not Alameda below ground will make this intersection much more usable for auto and truck traffic, for pedestrian and for rail line convenience. The MTA needs to go back to the drawing board to move the station underground and Alameda above ground.

Ron on August 19, 2009, at 10:27AM – #20

For the subway alternative the MTA proposes to stage construction at the Office Depot block, which means using the portal to haul dirt and debris out and construction material in. At the same time construction of the Alameda underpass will occur. Any suggestions on how MTA could mitigate 4 years of construction impacts on nearby businesses and residents?

James Fujita on August 31, 2009, at 03:51PM – #21

they will mitigate the cosntruction the same way any developer mitigates any large-scale construction.

actually, they will probably do a better job, because as a public agency, they are under greater scrutiny and have a strong mandate to protect local residents and businesses.

they've been at this construction business for a couple of decades now, in neighborhoods ranging from Compton to Hollywood to Boyle Heights, and the construction methods they have available today are better than what they had available two decades ago.