Tony V on May 07, 2008, at 03:19AM – #1

It's a transformer. Email Joseph Ramallo at DWP for more info.

tornadoes28 on May 07, 2008, at 10:52AM – #3

Hey, that was a pretty good observation. I am surprised the Downtown News did not write this story. You should write for the DT News.

I agree that several streets DT do not seem to need all the lanes, even during "peak rush". Additional parking or even better, a wider sidewalk would be better.

Benjamin Pezzillo on May 07, 2008, at 01:14PM – #4

Actually Eric, I have to disagree on the lack of calimity caused by this equipment.

Last week, a film production shut two lanes on this block, in addition to the lane with the equipment. With passage reduced to one lane eastbound traffic backed up to the 110 off-ramp at Figueroa.

A two-minute trip at 4p became a 15-20 minute trip. Unacceptable under any circumstances -- let alone on a stretch of crosstown with the vast amount of bus traffic (including the large articulated buses) that Sixth Street gets.

The transformer is needed, the film production company (Criminal Minds) not abiding by its permit's requirements to keep two lanes open to traffic was not.

Ben on May 07, 2008, at 01:28PM – #6

What I neglected to also state was that without the film crew, as a daily traveler and observer on this route during evening rush hour, the traffic has backed up to between Hill and Olive whereas before that wasn't the case -- so I don't agree there is not an impact from the obstruction due to this equipment.

Terry Roberts on May 08, 2008, at 02:09PM – #7

Downtown is rife with similar examples. Do we really need FIVE lanes of traffic on Spring Street during "rush" hour? That's one more lane than the 10 freeway has. The traffic and parking restrictions designed for suburban neighborhoods just don't work for us, yet the city applies them anyway.

Metro Local on May 08, 2008, at 10:19PM – #8

Terry: The answer is yes, those lanes need to be open during rush hour. Downtown serves as the region's largest mass transit hub 24/7. Not only do the approximate 500,000 people who work Downtown during the day move through these streets at rush hour but so do tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds even) more who use Downtown to connect to their commute's mass transit transfers. If you did not have these lanes open during rush hour you would see more congestion due to the large amount of buses that would back up the flow of traffic because curb lanes were not open.

tornadoes28 on May 09, 2008, at 09:52AM – #9

It's to bad the idiotic urban planners back in the 60's decided to emphasize cars in downtown and the idiotic elevated lanes and ramps for example 4th street through Bunker Hill from the 110.

It would have been such a nicer urban downtown if all the streets such as 4th and Grand actually intersected rather then going under and over each other. Grand was already at a higher elevation then the rest of DT so it was mronic to raise it even further above the surrounding streets. Oh well. Anything that can be done to improve the streets as they are no such as eliminating uneeded lanes is a good thing.

nirad on May 15, 2008, at 06:15PM – #10

i'm jumping on this a bit late, so it may fall on deaf ears- i've been thinking the same thing lately- that we should eliminate a parking lane on both 5th and 6th streets. Those narrow sidewalks are extremely crowded for most of the day- especially in areas where the Rapid picks people up. OTOH, the vehicular traffic never seems to be gridlocked. The city doesn't need to subsidize parking with cheap meters and the expense of people who walk.

Benjamin Pezzillo on May 15, 2008, at 06:44PM – #11

Here's a test of whether or not these parking lanes are needed -- trying parking you car in a space legally at 6:01p and see how traffic behind you reacts.

John Crandell on May 15, 2008, at 10:51PM – #12

Tornadoes28: no, Grand Avenue was not "elevated" above the other adjoing streets. The top of Bunker Hill was excavated further down. In 1970, Grand was all on-grade and had a hump to it. The high point was about at Third Stret. The second major excavation of the top of the hill had occurred when the rooming houses were demolished in the Sixties. The first excavation of the top of the hill took place in the 1880s, when the Second Street Cable Railway way constructed.

Following the second excavation, there were these weird concrete pillars sticking up into the air along the Grand Avenue median, for some engineer's transit wetdream that never happended. I once was acquainted with the engineer who designed it all, it's present iteration. Believe me, I understand your viewpoint. The engineer's were always in charge of things and that has always been the problem. Your point about Fourth Street is on the money. It is a veritable freeway, divides the hill, north and south.

And if all that weren't enuf, they tried to give us the 'People Mover' as well. I would love to see an L.A. Mayor who would first of all, get rid of the CRA. Send them all packing and be sure they'd not get their shoehorns into any other positions in Los Angeles. Send them to Podunk.