There will be a meeting of the Transit Issues subcommittee on Tuesday, Nov. 3 at 4 pm at JACCC to discuss the Downtown Regional Connector that is being proposed by MTA to come through Little Tokyo at 1st and Alameda, at street level, and/or the option to have the at-grade train come down Temple Street, at grade, and cross Alameda at Temple, at grade, will be discussed.This discussion will be based on the recent motion passed by the Council to have Metro explore a fifth option build for the regional connector.
Dream Houses: Still Some Tix Left to Tour Lautner's Elrod House This Weekend
-
Click here to view the full photogallery. If you've never stared in saucer-eyed wonder at the saucer-like wonder that is John Lautner's Elrod House, well, no...
13 hours ago
16 comments:
I will be unable to attend this meeting.
But, I do hope that Little Tokyo will support, or at least not oppose, the Underground Option.
I like the Fifth Option, but it is quite possible that it won't work out. If that happens, then the Underground Option would be the best alternative for the community.
The committee voted 33-0, with 1 abstention, against both build alternatives and urged the MTA to consider other alternatives.
That should be "both build options as currently proposed by the MTA". Other alternatives to consider would include the 5th option.
Thanks, Ron, for the update.
I am uncertain as to what the committee's intention was, but personally, I think opposing both options would be a mistake.
Taking a hardline stance against both options effectively closes doors and limits the community's ability to negotiate with the MTA.
It would be much better to leave the underground option open as an alternative to the "fifth option".
I applaud the vote! Little Tokyo deserves better than an at-grade train/car thoroughfare with a mini-freeway below it.
At-grade crossings are common elements for rail transit lines throughout the United States, including the soon-to-open Gold Line Eastside Extension, which will greatly enhance Little Tokyo's connections to the rest of Los Angeles.
The Regional Connector is too important of a transportation improvement not to be built, and Little Tokyo deserves to be part of it.
If the MTA says no to the "fifth option," then what?
90% of even transit advocates who favor the project for connectivity believe that both alternatives were horrible. The "underground emphasis alternative" with an at-grade 1st/Alameda crossing featuring 44 crossings per hour and vehicular trench were terrible.
MTA can and MUST do better. Hopefully they will.
Damien Goodmon, I presume?
You didn't use your last name to sign your message, so I can't prove that this is Damien Goodmon, but you sure talk like him. If this is Damien Aihara or Damien Watanabe, I apologize.
In any case, Mark Twain said that there were lies, damn lies and statistics. Damien, where on Earth did you get that 90 percent statistic from?
I highly doubt that 90 percent of the transit advocates in Los Angeles think that the crossing is horrible.
The only one I can think of who opposes the crossing straight out, with no compromises, no exceptions and no chance for redemption, is Damien Goodmon.
James,
You've been taking this way too personally from the beginning, and I don't care to know why. Here's what you said on another board:
"We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal, or we can try to discuss things with the Japanese American and Little Tokyo communities (note the use of the plural) [sell MTA's plan to them]. Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA."
Based on media reports the LTCC has thoroughly evaluated both options and are saying the impacts won't be good. Any person suggesting otherwise either doesn't know the impacts or just isn't being honest about them. The construction impact of the Alameda trench and operation impact of an at-grade crossing with 44-48 train crossings per hour is as bad as anything Metro has proposed in years. To assume as you have said that their opposition is solely because they're NIMBYs, don't like transit, or are uneducated is unfortunate - and it's what I typically see by those who want the masses to fall in line behind Metro and not challenge their conclusions and assumptions.
Re: 90% - at every meeting I've attended on DTC held by MTA (I've been to over a half dozen) and on every discussion board online (I've followed them most) just three people have not expressed strong reservations about the 1st/Alameda crossing, solely from an operations standpoint. Two of them happen to be the biggest at-grade advocates in town and you're the third. The rest (in which 90% probably isn't high enough) recognize, solely from an operations standpoint, the severe impact of an accident at the crossing. Just look at them talk about the at-grade alternative, where everything they say is applicable to the 1st/Alameda crossing. An accident in the DTC would shut down 80% of the MTA light rail system. This concern goes back to scoping comments, and the 2nd round of meetings where the 1st/Alameda crossing first appeared, where I was the first one to point out what they were originally describing as the "underground option" still had an at-grade crossing; hence Metro's rhetorical change to "underground emphasis."
There is a process going on right now where Metro has to respond to everyone's concerns - where they need to go out there and WIN the public's support. Transparency and doing due diligence is Metro's obligation, not option. They haven't done either at this stage, hopefully the LTCC Subcommittee vote will force them to. And in my opinion whatever can be done to bring Metro back to the drawing board where they can propose something better is a good thing. If the 5th Option doesn't work, Metro has a responsibility to come back with something that fulfills the intent of the 5th Option.
Why you're in such a rush to push something down the Little Tokyo's community throat is not clear to me, either from a moral standpoint or a timeline standpoint (now is the time more than any other for debate). Perhaps you can explain further here???
If I have been taking this issue personally, Damien Goodmon, it is because Little Tokyo is very personal to me.
I consider Little Tokyo to be a very important part of my cultural heritage. I have worked in Little Tokyo (at the Rafu Shimpo), I shop in Little Tokyo, I have attended Nisei Week and New Year's events (and more) in Little Tokyo, I have supported Little Tokyo through donations to the Japanese American National Museum and other organizations.
I also don't appreciate it when people take my comments out of context. So, I suppose that is also personal.
Should the good people of Little Tokyo kowtow to the MTA? Of course not.
Should Little Tokyo work together with the MTA to come up with a reasonable compromise that will work well for both the MTA and the community? Of course.
I would love to see an underground station at the corner of First and Alameda. I have seen what developers have done in Tokyo. They have built underground malls which lead directly into subway stations. If the Nikkei Center were to include something like that, that would be wonderful.
However, it is quite possible that an underground station might not be possible. There may be engineering reasons why it can't be done, or maybe the portals would cause problems for either the Nikkei Center or for Nishi Hongwanji.
If that happens, if an underground station is not possible, then the Little Tokyo community deserves a fallback position. There needs to be room to negotiate. Mr. Goodmon, your position leaves no room for negotiation or compromise.
All I am asking is that the Little Tokyo community remain open-minded to the possibility of an at-grade crossing at First and Alameda.
Yes, I am concerned about NIMBY attitudes, both within Little Tokyo and within Los Angeles as a whole. At-grade crossings are nothing unusual or to be frightened of. There are grade crossings in South Pasadena, East Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton and virtually everywhere that light rail has gone.
I remember the hullabaloo when the Gold Line was built through South Pasadena. The NIMBYs there complained about noise, traffic, property values and safety issues from the light rail line. The Gold Line was built at-grade through South Pasadena. South Pasadena is doing fine. I would even say that light rail has helped, not hurt, that community.
As for 90%, there is a huge difference between having reservations about a project and opposing it. As a Japanese-American, I know all too well that the world is not "black and white."
If there is anybody still reading this blog after what must feel like a mile of text from both me and Damien Goodmon, I hope that you will keep an open mind about all options for the Regional Connector.
Thanks.
I'm uncomfortable with describing any significant portion of LT stakeholders as transit NIMBY's. Many stakeholders I talk to support the greater connectivity that the Reg Conn will bring; all of them want to do this in a fashion that minimizes disruption to the community. Nearly everyone I've talked to is against the at-grade crossing at 1st/Alameda, the demolition and staging proposed for the Office Depot block, and the trenching of Alameda.
The community would support a route that does a better job of minimizing impacts. After much consideration, the transit subcommittee unanimously (but for 1 abstention) decided to send a strong, clear message that what the MTA has proposed to date does not accomplish this.
James said: "There needs to be room to negotiate. Mr. Goodmon, your position leaves no room for negotiation or compromise."
James -
This is about the Little Tokyo Community Council Sub-committee position, not me.
Furthermore, you say I'm taking your words out of context, well then why don't you explain them:
"Opposing the [1st/Alameda at-grade] crossing is tantamount to opposing the underground option."
And:
"seriously guys. it's great to suggest alternative candidates, but at the end of the day, the MTA still rejected everything but the two candidates that we are down to (technically four, but nobody here wants TSM shuttle buses and/ or doing nothing). at some point, we need to unify around one. personally, I don't have a problem with the MTA's underground option."
And again:
"I can tell you why bringing that option [an underground 1st/Alameda crossing without the Alameda trench] forward won't work: Because the MTA won't listen. The MTA already came up with an underground wye and they scrapped theirs. [....]
We can waste our time fighting the MTA and fighting ourselves over a third-party proposal, or we can try to discuss things with the Japanese American and Little Tokyo communities (note the use of the plural). Some of the community will fight us, but we stand a better chance against them than against the MTA."
Instead of name calling and demonizing people who simply want to preserve their community and center of cultural activities, and attacking me or anyone else, why don't you spend your time explaining how the current MTA proposal for a 1st/Alameda at-grade crossing (44-48 trains per hour during rush hour) with an Alemeda vehicular trench (minimum 1 year total re-route of vehicular traffic) can be improved to mitigate the construction and operation concerns echoed not just by Little Tokyo, but people across the Los Angeles basin?
I haven't seen you do that here or elsewhere. I just see you saying...well what I quoted above.
Mr. Goodmon, my previous post fairy well outlines my current position on the Regional Connector. I recommend that you read it.
The situation is evolving. The MTA's current proposal is different (and, IMHO better) than what was initially proposed several months ago.
In addition, until recently, I was not aware that the developers of the Nikkei Center might be interested in an underground station at their location. That willingness would alter the situation considerably and could make an underground station more feasible. I have adapted my positions to meet the current situation.
To pull up older comments that I made weeks or months ago, as if they applied to the current situation, is intellectually dishonest.
However, if people reading this blog want to see the full story of what transit advocates really think, I fully recommend reading this:
http://transittalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?
I can only assume the "name calling and demonizing" that you are referring to is the use of the word NIMBY, since I can see no other "name calling" in my previous posts.
I have not resorted to calling people "a subset of transit advocates who are wimps" as Damien Goodmon has. And, for the record, I always refrain from personal attacks. I have never called anyone stupid or ignorant. I attack positions, not people.
NIMBY is not a pretty word, and I am proud to say that many in the Little Tokyo community are not NIMBY.
However, when people talk about a "wall of trains" dividing a neighborhood (as June Berk of the LTCC did in an e-mail yesterday), when people talk about trains causing noise and safety issues while ignoring the noise and safety problems that cars, trucks and buses already cause, then the term NIMBY does apply.
I believe that mitigation is possible. An underground station might work. Or it might not work.
If the underground station does not work, then we need to find a way to make an at-grade crossing work. The MTA can limit the takings in the Office Depot block. I do believe that an Alameda underpass would be better than having Alameda at-grade, but if the community disagrees, we could try it that way. The MTA could even limit the number of trains, but I do not think that will be necessary.
Look, I do not have all the answers. However, I would much rather discuss issues than to unconditionally oppose one option because it happens to be less perfect than the option we prefer.
James,
I didn't say you were a wimp. What I said after you said you'd rather fight LTCC than MTA was this:
"I've repeatedly stated that to put it mildly there's a subset of transit advocates who are wimps who would rather fight communities instead of challenging Metro because they figure communities are easier to beat down. (Just look at my signature line - 'If that passion were directed at fighting for grade separation instead of fighting the people who want grade separation, it might actually get us closer to the type of rail transit system this region needs and deserves.'). I freely admit I have a certain distaste and total lack of respect for people who would rather go after or lie to a community than tell the truth about the deficiencies of a public plan, as does the rest of the sane world."
I have no problem standing by those words.
Regarding your less personal points:
-I do think "walls of trains" accurately describes a crossing of a 270 foot long train every 75-82 seconds, and I think few people would disagree.
-Each one of those train comes with the gong and possibly the horn and it is disruptive. You can go to the crossing now where there are "only" 17 trains per hour and understand why people would have concerns.
-At-grade train crossings, especially these types are proven to be the most accident-prone in this city. They are undoubtedly more accident prone than grade separated trains.
-What does the hazards of cars have anything to do with the hazards of 225-ton 270-feet long light rail trains?
Even IF it were true that cars were more noisy and less safe than trains (that is absolutely NOT true), then at best your argument amounts to: yea this is bad, but that's bad too. Sort of like saying, "Sure you're husband is a gambling alcoholic, but some wives have husbands that beat them every night; aren't you worried about them?!"
-You mentioned other lines and locations, but not a single crossing on the entire Metro center currently has anything that comes close to 44-48 trains per hour as proposed at 1st/Alameda. The busiest crossings have HALF that many trains.
It is being proposed on Flower St with the Blue Line and Expo Line and we will see how detrimental that will be soon. But even as bad as Flower St will be, it is no where near as bad as 1st/Alameda crossing where Metro's proposal cuts across the entire intersection.
The train crossing would likely need it's own dedicated traffic cycle if everything were on the same level. That is the reason Metro staff has proposed to depress Alameda in both the at-grade and the elevated option. So no it is not possible to have both Alameda and the train at-grade.
-You can't restrict the number of trains that MTA operates through ONE crossing on the entire system. This a project built for the next 75-100 years. And even if it were a possibility, how many trains do you think you can get MTA to cut? Want them to go from 48 trains to 40, i.e. a crossing every 75 seconds to every 90 seconds? That's not much improvement.
-I too have issue with anyone who labels stakeholders with concerns about light rail NIMBYs, especially since, many attempt to use "NIMBY" in the same manner other derogatory labels have been used in our country's history: to attempt to silence people's critical voices.
-Finally, as Ron said, this wasn't a fly by night knee-jerk reaction. You know that this dialogue has been going on for months. They're sending a message to Metro that neither plan is acceptable. And James, I, many other people, and most importantly the people Ron said he spoke to who are MOST impacted, agree. They went out of their way to propose a 5th Option I assume to signal to Metro that they're willing to accept something that minimizes the impacts.
That's not NIMBYism. That's democracy, advocacy and how this process is supposed to work.
Ladies and gentlemen,
On behalf of Damien Goodmon and myself, I sincerely wish to apologize for the ridiculous and rude hijacking of Little Tokyo UnBlogged.
Instead of attempting to engage my fellow Japanese Americans and the Little Tokyo community, we have engaged in a one-on-one transit nerd fight in a public forum.
In fact, the debate that you see here is essentially a compressed version of a debate that has been ongoing at the Transit Coalition for months now.
* * *
This is not to say that the issue at hand is trivial. The Regional Connector will have a huge impact (hopefully a positive one) on Little Tokyo's future.
Personally, I think that an underground station at First and Alameda would be the best option for Little Tokyo.
However, we have to take into consideration that an underground station might not work. There are technical and geographic limitations which may make an underground station unfeasible.
An underground station may have unforseen consequences for the Nikkei Center or other properties, especially the Nishi Hongwanji.
If that is indeed the case, then we need a Plan B.
The grade crossing isn't perfect, but it shouldn't be ignored or thrown away. It would be far better to keep options open.
* * *
The objections that I have heard to the grade crossing can be boiled down to four issues: noise, safety, traffic and property values.
1) Property values: It has been well documented that property values have gone up in areas were light rail has been constructed. For example: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10850014
2) Noise: Do light rail trains produce noise? Yes. Do they produce excessive amounts? No. A busy street such as Alameda produces about 70 decibels of noise.
3) Traffic: If the at-grade crossing is built, Alameda traffic will pass underneath the trains. Pedestrians will walk over the trains. Only traffic on First Street will be directly affected.
4) Safety: This one is tricky because there are so many fun ways to twist around statistics. Are trains safer because there are many more automobile fatalities than train accident deaths in a year? Or (using the "SUVs are safer" logic) are they safer because they are larger?
But, as a friend of mine likes to point out, trains can't swerve at you. They have to remain on the tracks.
Thanks for reading. Bye for now.
"Yes. Do they produce excessive amounts? No. A busy street such as Alameda produces about 70 decibels of noise."
LRT noise ranges from 85-97 dBs and decibels noise is logarithmic meaning an increase in 10 dBs DOUBLES the noise level. Video of light rail noise readings: http://www.youtube.com/fixexpo#p/a/u/1/j2KZCSRPxCY
"It has been well documented that property values have gone up in areas were light rail has been constructed."
That's not entirely true, and it's far more complicated an issue than you make it seem. Additionally, based on the media reports I think most businesses are worried that they'd survive construction (in particular of the Alameda trench).
"If the at-grade crossing is built, Alameda traffic will pass underneath the trains. Pedestrians will walk over the trains. Only traffic on First Street will be directly affected."
I think you've overlooked the impact of the crossing to the area's traffic circulation. 1st Street isn't the only boulevard impacted. As anyone who has ever driven in L.A. knows, restrictions on turning movements or increased delay at one or a couple of intersections pushes traffic to other streets, and in the heart of Downtown - an area that doesn't have any excess capacity, the increase in congestion can be severe.
Also, no one has proposed restricting pedestrian movements at 1st/Alameda, and I doubt that such would be good for either side of Alameda. That means there will be an increase the cycle time delay for 1st St motorists and potential delay for transit operations. Furthermore, again per media reports not everyone is wild about the aesthetic impact of Metro's bridge (I have affectionately called it the "lipstick on the pig"), and I'd question given the complicated nature of the intersection whether the CPUC would even allow it or the landscaping for line of sight reasons. There are pretty clear restrictions on what can be built within 25 feet of an crossing and the height. Additionally, if people have the option of walking across the street or going over the bridge almost all will chose walking across the street. The only way to prevent that activity is to erect large fences at all four corners of the intersection, making the option even less desirable.
"Are trains safer because there are many more automobile fatalities than train accident deaths in a year?"
Just as there are many more homicides in the entire country of Canada than there are in the city of Compton that doesn't mean it's safer to live in Compton than Toronto.
The point of course is that in L.A. millions of cars travel the road everyday, while there are only hundreds of trains. That doesn't mean that an individual car (with shorter breaking distance and a steering wheel) poses a more significant danger to ones health and safety than a 225-ton 270 foot long train. Stats on comparative accident and fatality rates show at-grade light rail is much more likely to result in an accident and much more likely to result in fatality: http://fixexpo.blogspot.com/2008/09/comparing-accident-rates-of-light-rail.html
And yes I freely admit to being a transit nerd. :-) But I've also gone through the experience of personally dealing/attempting to negotiate with MTA, LADOT and CPUC staff, so I have a better understanding of what is and is not feasible and the typical bureaucratic impediments.
If any are offended by the dialogue I do apologize. But my intent was always good in nature and an attempt to be informative and factual.
Post a Comment