<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Public Wants Below Ground Light Rail for Downtown Connector</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:23:58 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jack</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2747</link>
		<dc:creator>jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2747</guid>
		<description>LA needs massive investment in public transport.  Piecemeal solutions do accumulate, but are met with resistance each time.  What LA needs is a big bang investment, 10 heavy rail lines at once, its about time LA grows up and competes with New York.  Beijing is doing it, why can&#039;t we?  It will cost us just as much either way, in oil or in construction costs.  Gridlock is a choice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LA needs massive investment in public transport.  Piecemeal solutions do accumulate, but are met with resistance each time.  What LA needs is a big bang investment, 10 heavy rail lines at once, its about time LA grows up and competes with New York.  Beijing is doing it, why can't we?  It will cost us just as much either way, in oil or in construction costs.  Gridlock is a choice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerard</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2746</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:58:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2746</guid>
		<description>&quot;I don&#039;t pretend to think construction of the WYE will be any easier underground than it would be at-grade.  Simply, I think it&#039;s a bit short-sighted to assume that anything that approaches typical construction schedules would be implemented for something of this magnitude whether at-grade (with the Alameda underpass) or underground.&quot;

You stated that from the beginning: 

&quot;You can do this WHILE MAINTAINING SERVICE ON THE GOLD LINE, except for probably one long weekend or even just one long day, when you need to connect the two.&quot;


Bit short sighted? Do you understand that because you have residents directly abutting this, 8-12 hour schedules will be mandatory and 24-7 schedules will be prohibited.  And again the amount of material for just this one portion you will not get a Concrete plant anywhere to set-up without a large upfront payment, because you are having them put on hold other vendors for their needs for concrete. Which is why there&#039;s a cost premium for this.  

Same for the workers unless stipulated in the contract specifications or placed in the schedule of values (the list of the materials, time and workers and an estimated cost value for each) for the contractors winning bid.  The contractor will have to pull workers from their other jobsites to work on this section because now that is an additional 2-3 shifts of workers not included in his original bid. However that&#039;s not a change order, it&#039;s means and methods and in this method the Contractor will lose a crap load of $$$ on the job. 

The construction business works on supply and demand. 


&quot;When the 10 fwy fell during the Northridge Earthquake, I&#039;m pretty sure we weren&#039;t working on 8-12 hour schedules.&quot;

Yes; because the FEMA insurance and Fed. Gov had to pay for that extra time, there are only a few residences about 500-600 feet away from the 10 freeway, and the structure itself was a simple beam on post overpass, not a curved wye that will require precise engineering to ensure the Big Rig truck&#039;s live loads don&#039;t prematurely age the concrete-rebar. Since we will have it go in both directions, well that&#039;s a lot more to engineer. 

Also the Contractors have to bid on this project based on that condition of 8-12 hour work schedule.   


&quot;And closing off 1st St? You do know this is the only crossing over the river in the 1 mile between Cesar Chavez and 4th St?&quot;

Let me be more specific as to where to close off 1st Street, at Alameda.  I do know that this is the only bridge between Chavez and 4th Street. I walk this area every other day.  

You do know that there&#039;s Temple and 2nd Street one block away from 1st. That extending Hewitt Street to Temple could enable and organization of the traffic which will be noticiably lighter because the bulk of First Street bridge crossing traffic is coming from Mission Road for autos driving through Little Tokyo. You do know the bulk of that Mission Road traffic turns at Chavez.

However this can be figured out during the EIR phase where these questions, solutions, suggestions and issues need to resolved and analyzed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"I don't pretend to think construction of the WYE will be any easier underground than it would be at-grade.  Simply, I think it's a bit short-sighted to assume that anything that approaches typical construction schedules would be implemented for something of this magnitude whether at-grade (with the Alameda underpass) or underground."</p>
<p>You stated that from the beginning: </p>
<p>"You can do this WHILE MAINTAINING SERVICE ON THE GOLD LINE, except for probably one long weekend or even just one long day, when you need to connect the two."</p>
<p>Bit short sighted? Do you understand that because you have residents directly abutting this, 8-12 hour schedules will be mandatory and 24-7 schedules will be prohibited.  And again the amount of material for just this one portion you will not get a Concrete plant anywhere to set-up without a large upfront payment, because you are having them put on hold other vendors for their needs for concrete. Which is why there's a cost premium for this.  </p>
<p>Same for the workers unless stipulated in the contract specifications or placed in the schedule of values (the list of the materials, time and workers and an estimated cost value for each) for the contractors winning bid.  The contractor will have to pull workers from their other jobsites to work on this section because now that is an additional 2-3 shifts of workers not included in his original bid. However that's not a change order, it's means and methods and in this method the Contractor will lose a crap load of $$$ on the job. </p>
<p>The construction business works on supply and demand. </p>
<p>"When the 10 fwy fell during the Northridge Earthquake, I'm pretty sure we weren't working on 8-12 hour schedules."</p>
<p>Yes; because the FEMA insurance and Fed. Gov had to pay for that extra time, there are only a few residences about 500-600 feet away from the 10 freeway, and the structure itself was a simple beam on post overpass, not a curved wye that will require precise engineering to ensure the Big Rig truck's live loads don't prematurely age the concrete-rebar. Since we will have it go in both directions, well that's a lot more to engineer. </p>
<p>Also the Contractors have to bid on this project based on that condition of 8-12 hour work schedule.   </p>
<p>"And closing off 1st St? You do know this is the only crossing over the river in the 1 mile between Cesar Chavez and 4th St?"</p>
<p>Let me be more specific as to where to close off 1st Street, at Alameda.  I do know that this is the only bridge between Chavez and 4th Street. I walk this area every other day.  </p>
<p>You do know that there's Temple and 2nd Street one block away from 1st. That extending Hewitt Street to Temple could enable and organization of the traffic which will be noticiably lighter because the bulk of First Street bridge crossing traffic is coming from Mission Road for autos driving through Little Tokyo. You do know the bulk of that Mission Road traffic turns at Chavez.</p>
<p>However this can be figured out during the EIR phase where these questions, solutions, suggestions and issues need to resolved and analyzed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Goodmon</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2739</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Goodmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2739</guid>
		<description>anonymouse:

&quot;Incidentally, it would probably be a good idea to also put the south end of the downtown segment into a tunnel as well, up to the point where the Blue and Expo lines split.&quot;

I put those comments into scoping and reiterated them at the meeting.  No change.  I believe it&#039;s outside the scoping area.


Jerard:

I don&#039;t pretend to think construction of the WYE will be any easier underground than it would be at-grade. ;-)  Simply, I think it&#039;s a bit short-sighted to assume that anything that approaches typical construction schedules would be implemented for something of this magnitude whether at-grade (with the Alameda underpass) or underground.

When the 10 fwy fell during the Northridge Earthquake, I&#039;m pretty sure we weren&#039;t working on 8-12 hour schedules.

And closing off 1st St?  You do know this is the only crossing over the river in the 1 mile between Cesar Chavez and 4th St?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>anonymouse:</p>
<p>"Incidentally, it would probably be a good idea to also put the south end of the downtown segment into a tunnel as well, up to the point where the Blue and Expo lines split."</p>
<p>I put those comments into scoping and reiterated them at the meeting.  No change.  I believe it's outside the scoping area.</p>
<p>Jerard:</p>
<p>I don't pretend to think construction of the WYE will be any easier underground than it would be at-grade. ;-)  Simply, I think it's a bit short-sighted to assume that anything that approaches typical construction schedules would be implemented for something of this magnitude whether at-grade (with the Alameda underpass) or underground.</p>
<p>When the 10 fwy fell during the Northridge Earthquake, I'm pretty sure we weren't working on 8-12 hour schedules.</p>
<p>And closing off 1st St?  You do know this is the only crossing over the river in the 1 mile between Cesar Chavez and 4th St?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerard</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2727</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:20:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2727</guid>
		<description>Damien,

That idea will require a lot more time than you&#039;re suggesting especially for a shallow station and when there needs to space for the portals to transition to Temple/Alameda because the foot of the aerial bridge starts at Temple/Alameda. So demolishion of existing facilites on regular 8-12 hour construction schedule about 2-3 weeks. Add another 1 week for preparation of the portal. (This usually takes about a month due to the utilities, but this was done previously when building the original platform)  The location and construction of the temporary platform can be done concurrently with a wood structure. 

In addition, It takes a massive underground concrete-rebar structure like that at least 7-14 days to cure at 80% strength, full strength of curing requires 28 days. But before that it will take up to 45-60 days to just construct the rebar cages and prepare the forms needed for that intersection.  

In order to keep a constant flow of concrete going you&#039;d need a platoon of trucks and whole lot of workers to sustain this one part of the operation. That can be done but it will cost a whole lot of money for just one series of points rather than spread out over a longer period of time which more concrete plants look for in their clients.  Many construction companies can&#039;t afford to do during their bids because it will not make their bid proposal feasible. They have to space out their workers appropriately. They can&#039;t hire so many workers that they&#039;ll have nothing to do after one big phase of the work. 

The advantage an at-grade wye has is visablity even with a pedestrian bridge.  The Chicago &#039;L&#039; loop are really a series of at-grade wye crossings and jucntions raised on an elevated platform with train movements of a train every minute as is the case on the Brown-Purple Lines. Modern version of this with the dispatching and located cameras and 3 vantage points will visually add another level of eyes to keep the flow of crossing movements. 

With the depression of Alameda and potential suggestion to close of the 1st Street for cars and have those diver a block north and south on Temple and 2nd Street will do plenty to mitigate the traffic that are merely passing through Little Tokyo rather than stopping in Little Tokyo. People stopping in Little Tokyo will come through via San Pedro and Central to the parking facilities like they are doing now. 

For transit buses, keep First Street open for Buses only. That would further reduce the collisions because bus operators are specitifically trained to wait at the at-grade intersections until a solid green light.  A visable example is at Washington/Broadway notice the buses even when having the potential to cross with a changing light, they never do that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Damien,</p>
<p>That idea will require a lot more time than you're suggesting especially for a shallow station and when there needs to space for the portals to transition to Temple/Alameda because the foot of the aerial bridge starts at Temple/Alameda. So demolishion of existing facilites on regular 8-12 hour construction schedule about 2-3 weeks. Add another 1 week for preparation of the portal. (This usually takes about a month due to the utilities, but this was done previously when building the original platform)  The location and construction of the temporary platform can be done concurrently with a wood structure. </p>
<p>In addition, It takes a massive underground concrete-rebar structure like that at least 7-14 days to cure at 80% strength, full strength of curing requires 28 days. But before that it will take up to 45-60 days to just construct the rebar cages and prepare the forms needed for that intersection.  </p>
<p>In order to keep a constant flow of concrete going you'd need a platoon of trucks and whole lot of workers to sustain this one part of the operation. That can be done but it will cost a whole lot of money for just one series of points rather than spread out over a longer period of time which more concrete plants look for in their clients.  Many construction companies can't afford to do during their bids because it will not make their bid proposal feasible. They have to space out their workers appropriately. They can't hire so many workers that they'll have nothing to do after one big phase of the work. </p>
<p>The advantage an at-grade wye has is visablity even with a pedestrian bridge.  The Chicago 'L' loop are really a series of at-grade wye crossings and jucntions raised on an elevated platform with train movements of a train every minute as is the case on the Brown-Purple Lines. Modern version of this with the dispatching and located cameras and 3 vantage points will visually add another level of eyes to keep the flow of crossing movements. </p>
<p>With the depression of Alameda and potential suggestion to close of the 1st Street for cars and have those diver a block north and south on Temple and 2nd Street will do plenty to mitigate the traffic that are merely passing through Little Tokyo rather than stopping in Little Tokyo. People stopping in Little Tokyo will come through via San Pedro and Central to the parking facilities like they are doing now. </p>
<p>For transit buses, keep First Street open for Buses only. That would further reduce the collisions because bus operators are specitifically trained to wait at the at-grade intersections until a solid green light.  A visable example is at Washington/Broadway notice the buses even when having the potential to cross with a changing light, they never do that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymouse</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2724</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:29:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2724</guid>
		<description>One thing that I haven&#039;t heard is what Metro&#039;s operations will look like after the connector opens. I suspect that it will involve running through service along the lines of Santa Monica-Pasadena and Long Beach-East LA, and probably some trains terminating at Chinatown, since Pasadena demand will be lower than any of the other three branches, but Union Station and Chinatown still need frequent service. In this case, the current plan is pretty silly, since East LA  trains wouldn&#039;t stop at Little Tokyo at all. The thing to do then is exactly what Damien Goodmon said: have the station on the southwest side, before the lines split, and since the station has to be more or less level, the light rail will be underground through the intersection, surfacing at two portals north and east of the intersection. It would probably require a flat junction underground, which isn&#039;t optimal, but still MUCH better than throwing cars into the mix as well. Incidentally, it would probably be a good idea to also put the south end of the downtown segment into a tunnel as well, up to the point where the Blue and Expo lines split.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing that I haven't heard is what Metro's operations will look like after the connector opens. I suspect that it will involve running through service along the lines of Santa Monica-Pasadena and Long Beach-East LA, and probably some trains terminating at Chinatown, since Pasadena demand will be lower than any of the other three branches, but Union Station and Chinatown still need frequent service. In this case, the current plan is pretty silly, since East LA  trains wouldn't stop at Little Tokyo at all. The thing to do then is exactly what Damien Goodmon said: have the station on the southwest side, before the lines split, and since the station has to be more or less level, the light rail will be underground through the intersection, surfacing at two portals north and east of the intersection. It would probably require a flat junction underground, which isn't optimal, but still MUCH better than throwing cars into the mix as well. Incidentally, it would probably be a good idea to also put the south end of the downtown segment into a tunnel as well, up to the point where the Blue and Expo lines split.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Goodmon</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2709</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Goodmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2709</guid>
		<description>Yea it&#039;s your typical bureaucracy: refusing to admit a mistake.

If there is only to be one station it should be a shallow diagonal underground station on the southwest corner of 1st and Alameda.  They&#039;re taking/purchasing the property anyway.  From there it can transition to the at-grade tracks at Alameda/Temple into Union Station, and 1st and Garey (into East LA).  

You can do this WHILE MAINTAINING SERVICE ON THE GOLD LINE, except for probably one long weekend or even just one long day, when you need to connect the two.

Hope to have renderings by late today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yea it's your typical bureaucracy: refusing to admit a mistake.</p>
<p>If there is only to be one station it should be a shallow diagonal underground station on the southwest corner of 1st and Alameda.  They're taking/purchasing the property anyway.  From there it can transition to the at-grade tracks at Alameda/Temple into Union Station, and 1st and Garey (into East LA).  </p>
<p>You can do this WHILE MAINTAINING SERVICE ON THE GOLD LINE, except for probably one long weekend or even just one long day, when you need to connect the two.</p>
<p>Hope to have renderings by late today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2702</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2702</guid>
		<description>Regarding the 1st-Alameda intersection, the need to stop at the Little Tokyo station seems to be driving the intersection design. I think that instead of putting Alameda underground a better solution would be to keep the train underground. Make the Little Tokyo station a two level station, street level and underground and have the Connector tracks emerge from underground to join the Gold Line tracks between Little Tokyo and Union Station and along 1st Street. It would involve a little more tunneling for the train tracks but would eliminate the cost of building an Alameda underpass and eliminate the traffic and pedestrian tie ups from 48 trains an hour going through the intersection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the 1st-Alameda intersection, the need to stop at the Little Tokyo station seems to be driving the intersection design. I think that instead of putting Alameda underground a better solution would be to keep the train underground. Make the Little Tokyo station a two level station, street level and underground and have the Connector tracks emerge from underground to join the Gold Line tracks between Little Tokyo and Union Station and along 1st Street. It would involve a little more tunneling for the train tracks but would eliminate the cost of building an Alameda underpass and eliminate the traffic and pedestrian tie ups from 48 trains an hour going through the intersection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Newton</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2700</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Newton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2700</guid>
		<description>Ubrayj, as I understand it, that&#039;s actually their plan.  I changed the text in the first paragraph to make that point more clear.  The 20 minute wait and the scramble?  Gone.  Poof.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ubrayj, as I understand it, that's actually their plan.  I changed the text in the first paragraph to make that point more clear.  The 20 minute wait and the scramble?  Gone.  Poof.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ubrayj02</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2697</link>
		<dc:creator>ubrayj02</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:17:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2697</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t it have been a dream to ... I dunno ... connect the Gold Line with the Blue Line? I thought they were using the same types of light rails cars for this reason. Wasn&#039;t that the plan originally? There is already a &quot;connector&quot; between 7th St Metro and Union Station  the Gold Line. It just requires a 20 minute wait and a scramble at 7th St Metro to catch the Blue Line (or a hike upstairs to get above ground).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn't it have been a dream to ... I dunno ... connect the Gold Line with the Blue Line? I thought they were using the same types of light rails cars for this reason. Wasn't that the plan originally? There is already a "connector" between 7th St Metro and Union Station  the Gold Line. It just requires a 20 minute wait and a scramble at 7th St Metro to catch the Blue Line (or a hike upstairs to get above ground).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damien Goodmon</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2696</link>
		<dc:creator>Damien Goodmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2696</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not a subway alignment.  It&#039;s a primarily subway alignment.

There is still an at-grade crossing at 1st and Alameda, that I imagine is no where near as easily mitigated as Metro has lead folk to believe.

There also the issue of where near Little Tokyo east-west trains will stop.

It would literally bypass Little Tokyo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's not a subway alignment.  It's a primarily subway alignment.</p>
<p>There is still an at-grade crossing at 1st and Alameda, that I imagine is no where near as easily mitigated as Metro has lead folk to believe.</p>
<p>There also the issue of where near Little Tokyo east-west trains will stop.</p>
<p>It would literally bypass Little Tokyo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Friday</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/16/public-wants-below-ground-light-rail-for-downtown-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-2689</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Friday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1269#comment-2689</guid>
		<description>I also attended the meeting and drafted a side-by-side comparison of the two alternatives:

http://www.angelenic.com/5818/underground-preferred-for-regional-connector-link/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also attended the meeting and drafted a side-by-side comparison of the two alternatives:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.angelenic.com/5818/underground-preferred-for-regional-connector-link/" rel="nofollow">http://www.angelenic.com/5818/underground-preferred-for-regional-connector-link/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
