LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0

[JDRCRASH]

Look guys, I know i'm not a lost cause yet....but ughh, I can't help it! Things need to move faster, faster, and faster!

BTW Colemonkee, did you show up at that Transit meeting yesterday?

[JDRCRASH]

Comments Clear on Connector Route Alternatives: Go Underground

By Eric Richardson

Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at 10:33PM

Staff presents possible alignments for Metro's proposed Regional Connector. Of the eight "Build Alternatives" presented at tonight's public meeting on the proposed Regional Connector, five would run trains through Downtown on surface streets, with all but one of those removing auto traffic from 2nd street and converting it to "transit dedication." After the presentation, the message delivered by stakeholders was clear: at-grade alignments through Downtown are simply not feasible or acceptable.

The street-running span on 2nd brought concern from a varied group of stakeholders. Issues raised included the effect on Little Tokyo events that currently use the street, the ability of LAFD to navigate a single narrow lane left for vehicle traffic, the effect of trains on north-south traffic, and whether such an option would provide the capacity needed. After the meeting several current and former City staffers expressed shock that Metro could even think of building and running such a system.

There were two all-underground alternatives in Metro's presentation, differing only in specifics around the connection to the Gold Line eastside extension. The presenters stressed that the connection to the currently under-construction Arts District / Little Tokyo station from any subway alignment would be problematic, suggesting even that the station would have to be eliminated should such an option be chosen.

A hybrid option would run entirely subway until just beyond Central Avenue, taking out the parking lot for Office Depot to emerge to the surface before crossing Alameda and 1st at-grade and connecting to the existing station. The presentation suggested that an underpass be built for Alameda street, taking through traffic below the surface crossing. Such a plan would still leave the tracks exposed to auto interaction from 1st street.

Downtowners wishing to get their voice heard have one more opportunity to do so in this round of meetings. Metro holds its second meeting Thursday at noon, at the Central Library (630 W. 5th street).

In the interest of disclosure, I was quoted in the paper on Monday saying that a surface alignment would be a "pox" on Downtown. I said much the same in comment tonight, saying that this project was important enough to take the time to do correctly.

[Echo Park]

I would not mind seeing that Office Depot parking lot go.

[BrandonJXN]

Wee.....I'm moving to Tampa!!

....

Wee.....I'm moving to Tampa.

=(

[DowntownCharlieBrown]

I called Tampa and... they said they're not prepared.

[BrandonJXN]

I don't think they're ready for this jelly.

[StethJeff]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

I would not mind seeing that Office Depot parking lot go.

Me too, but then again, its the only way to get free parking at Weiland's

[LAofAnaheim]

^ Hence, the reason we need more street parking in LA, so we can get rid of these deadzone parking lots, and provide alternatives.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

BTW Colemonkee, did you show up at that Transit meeting yesterday?

I did. Eric Richardson was there (obviously), as was Damien Goodman and Wright Concept (the artist formerly known as PracticalVisionary). All three of those gentlemen gave comments supporting the below grad alignments, which I also support. Aside from the requisite monorail supporters, who were quite entertaining to watch, the remaining comments were in support of the below grade options. There were a few questions, but literally every comment was in strong support of the underground alignment along 2nd Street.

The thing that really bothered me was the gentlemen from the MTA, Diego "something-or-other", who got up at the end of the question and answer session and gave a speech about how the MTA is "building the city of the future, blah blah blah." The not-so-thinly-veiled subtext of his speech suggested that the MTA had already made the decision to run the line at grade. He was suspiciously apologetic - as if to preempt future apologies for going against the obvious wishes of the audience - and pushed the "successes" of the current above grade lines like the Gold Line (which isn't that successful, btw). His comments seemed completely out of context to the rest of the discussion, which really concerned me. I'd love to hear anyone else's take who was there, but this really struck me as something very alarming.

I strongly suggest everyone in this forum go to the MTA site and submit a public comment in support of the underground alignments (Alternatives 5, 6 or 8). If you need some copy on the reasoning behind this, PM myself or Wright Concept, and we can give you several reasons why the underground option is better in the long run.

[JDRCRASH]

^
Already did. I gave a comment saying that driving on Alameda in the 90's was a NIGHTMARE; and that making most if not all at sub-street level was the wisest approach. Would it drive up the cost? Absolutely! But it's far better than making traffic worse on our streets that are already dealing with more than what they can handle every day.

[cava]

colemonkee - glad you spoke out it favor of underground along second street. What are the reasons you and others give for doing so? To me it seems it would be much faster and efficient if underground. aboveground in the center of the city seems misguided and fraught with potential problems.. i fear aboveground is what MTA knows how to do well , and therefore wants too, and it wants to save money. MTA needs more experience with efficiency and subways - thinking long term to help the regions needs.

and sorry about this Diego guy. I think he is hung up on being cheap and anti-rail. Ill write to MTA to encourage the subway once I hear your reasons too.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

If you can't, I fear that you'll grow up to become citywatch.

Hmm, not exactly sure how to take that. However, if I may be immodest, I'd rather have more ppl like me in LA than this doofus, who was quoted in today's LA Times:

Compounding the debate is a move by city officials to allow denser development in an effort to encourage construction of affordable housing.

"I've been warning people to wake up, there's a new philosophy and a new direction being advocated by the leadership of the city at all levels," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who worked to curb development as a Los Angeles councilman during the 1980s.

"If you care about this in San Pedro, or Encino, or Lincoln Heights, you have to be heard, because all the city cares about right now is negotiating with developers and their agents."

For those who don't know about Yaroslavsky's career, when he was an LA city councilman back in the 1990s, he opposed what is now the Metropolis proj, which would have been located one block north of what is now LA Live, cuz he claimed it would cause too much congestion. He's also the idiot who placed the anti subway measure on the ballot in 1998, which banned the use of county tax dollars for underground transit projs.

[JDRCRASH]

Yaroslavsky is a

[Just-In-Cali]

Im sure Yaroslavsky lives in the Valley somewhere.
I think the one thing that DTLA has in its favor is the fact that it is a niche market as far as the though of "urban living" goes. It may escape the brunt of the housing slowdown. Of course, a few bad policy choices, and we could see 1990 all over again.
Maybe we can lure the "straight white suburban male" set into investing downtown. Turn Grand Ave into a drag racing strip, dump sand in Pershing Square so they can "off road", change the Disney C.H. into a Dave & Busters, and put a "Hooter's" sign up on the US Bank Tower? It worked in Vegas!

[JDRCRASH]

^
I know you were joking about that White-Suburban Male thing, right?

No, Yaroslavsky probably live in the I.E. That's where he gets his anti-urban crap attitude from.

[colemonkee]

Originally Posted by citywatch

[/b]Hmm, not exactly sure how to take that.

Ha! Just pokin' a little fun, that's all.

cava, the three main arguments for the Downtown Connector staying below grade are, in order of importance 1) it allows for faster connections between Little Tokyo and 7th Metro because it doesn't have to make turns on surface streets, 2) it's far more scaleable - they can build bypass tracks around stations, for example), and 3) It won't disrupt emergency access, traffic patterns, or any other planned surface mass transit like rapid bus lanes, the Broadway Trolley, etc.

The main argument against keeping it above ground is and will be cost savings.

Of course, the issues are much more complex, and there are additional arguments that could be made for underground, but that's the best way to boil it down.

The other thing that really bothered me about some of the above grade plans is that they had the trains going through the 2nd Street tunnel. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this, but the 2nd Street tunnel is kind of a recognized landmark in the film and television world. It's literally in 50% of all car commercials. I'm sure the City would lose a fair amount of money over the course of, say 20 years, by removing that location because they wanted to save money in the short term.

Oh yeah, and Zev Yaroslavsky is an ass clown. Plain and simple. If you ever meet him, and don't tell him he is an ass clown, you are no better than he.

[Just-In-Cali]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Oh yeah, and Zev Yaroslavsky is an ass clown. Plain and simple. If you ever meet him, and don't tell him he is an ass clown, you are no better than he.

(Puts on "Zev Yaroslavsky is an ASSCLOWN" t-shirt.)
Colemonkee has given us a directive...we must comply.
Anywhoo, underground is the best way to go if they want to avoid the mess they have in DT San Diego. Their trolley system is nice, yes, but causes havoc when there is heavy of car traffic, and the roads have to be closed every ten minutes to let one of their surface trains get through. And forget about it after a game at Petco Park. Compound that with the ring of freeways and the lack of two way streets downtown, and you have a mess!
In LA, you would need to go above grade, or below...plain and simple. Plus, with these "mega projects" coming in over the next few years, there really needs to be a system of car direction downtown, lest we turn into the place where every event clears out early to "avoid the traffic."

[Just-In-Cali]

Oh, and citywatch, there is nothing bad about comparing you to JD. If I were compared to say...Helen Keller...I wouldnt take that badly...per se.

Just kidding JD...your the lil brother all of us pick on, but still makes us smile.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Ha! Just pokin' a little fun, that's all.

cava, the three main arguments for the Downtown Connector staying below grade are, in order of importance 1) it allows for faster connections between Little Tokyo and 7th Metro because it doesn't have to make turns on surface streets, 2) it's far more scaleable - they can build bypass tracks around stations, for example), and 3) It won't disrupt emergency access, traffic patterns, or any other planned surface mass transit like rapid bus lanes, the Broadway Trolley, etc.

The main argument against keeping it above ground is and will be cost savings.

Of course, the issues are much more complex, and there are additional arguments that could be made for underground, but that's the best way to boil it down.

The other thing that really bothered me about some of the above grade plans is that they had the trains going through the 2nd Street tunnel. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this, but the 2nd Street tunnel is kind of a recognized landmark in the film and television world. It's literally in 50% of all car commercials. I'm sure the City would lose a fair amount of money over the course of, say 20 years, by removing that location because they wanted to save money in the short term.

Oh yeah, and Zev Yaroslavsky is an ass clown. Plain and simple. If you ever meet him, and don't tell him he is an ass clown, you are no better than he.

I'll just add to cc the Mayor and ALL the Metro Board members when you send your letter.

[Wright Concept]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I did. Eric Richardson was there (obviously), as was Damien Goodman and Wright Concept (the artist formerly known as PracticalVisionary).

LOL, Artist formerly known. I should create an avatar on that. LOL

Aside from the requisite monorail supporters, who were quite entertaining to watch, the remaining comments were in support of the below grade options.

I was tempted to break out in the Simpson's Monorail song when they appeared. But I was tired and didn't give a damn to give those clowns any consideration.

Originally Posted by colemonkee

The thing that really bothered me was the gentlemen from the MTA, Diego "something-or-other", who got up at the end of the question and answer session and gave a speech about how the MTA is "building the city of the future, blah blah blah." The not-so-thinly-veiled subtext of his speech suggested that the MTA had already made the decision to run the line at grade. He was suspiciously apologetic - as if to preempt future apologies for going against the obvious wishes of the audience - and pushed the "successes" of the current above grade lines like the Gold Line (which isn't that successful, btw). His comments seemed completely out of context to the rest of the discussion, which really concerned me. I'd love to hear anyone else's take who was there, but this really struck me as something very alarming.

Yep, he said that same speech at the November scoping hearing and the Downtown Neighborhood Council forum.

So this all the more reason to keep send as many letters/emails as you can.

Now personally I'm not against at-grade LRT for one or two lines but when you have 3 lines 2 of which will operate on very close headways with the possibility of two more per the Long Range Transit Plan (Burbank/Glendale, Silver Line) that will run through Downtown operating at-grade is a non-starter.

Originally Posted by colemonkee

I strongly suggest everyone in this forum go to the MTA site and submit a public comment in support of the underground alignments (Alternatives 5, 6 or 8). If you need some copy on the reasoning behind this, PM myself or Wright Concept, and we can give you several reasons why the underground option is better in the long run.

Not only that but email ALL the members of the Metro Board and keep sending in an email letter every day or every other day if neccessary. In particular Alternatives 5 and 6 since they are the most straight forward and most effective. This connector will be our version of the San Francisco Muni Metro.