Metro Local on November 13, 2007, at 08:52PM – #1

I'm not sure there is any reason why a connection south of Little Tokyo on its own grade is impossible.

The connector can come in above or below the street and be apart from the Gold Line People can transfer unless the 'concept' is to provide use of the same rails by multiple lines.

It might be better to route the connector line out east on or south of Seventh Street Metro Center to the rail lines by the river, coming above ground at Los Angeles/Maple, then up to Union Station, or through Central City East to the Gold LIne, than retrofit an shoe-horned after-thought.

If you are going to spend the money, might as well bring some good to an area while doing it...

In any event, the key will be dedicated smaller, more frequent trains on the connector.

Metro Local on November 14, 2007, at 08:42AM – #3

Then there should be one, maybe two, "Express" stops in Downtown Los Angeles for the connectors -- Union Station and Metro Center.

If the purpose of the connector is to promote regional transportation then it should focus on that rather than stopping at all the Metro stations Downtown.

Whitman Lam on November 14, 2007, at 09:57AM – #4

If it's possible, they should build the "Y" junction at Union Station just North of the Goldline Station. A tunnel can emerge out of the parking lot at Union Station and link with the At Grade tracks. Unfortunately, the Construction of the Mozaic apartments next to Union Station makes this idea unfeasible now. I wish the planners would've seen this sooner, instead of rushing to develop the parking lot.

LAofAnaheim on November 14, 2007, at 11:12AM – #5

All downtown stops are heavily utilized, especially during rush hour. I don't see why we need 'express' routes in downtown. 'Express' routes should only surpass outskirt stations that are not heavily utilized (i.e. Highland Park, Southwest Museum).

Jerard Wright on November 14, 2007, at 12:53PM – #6

"Then there should be one, maybe two, "Express" stops in Downtown Los Angeles for the connectors -- Union Station and Metro Center."

At most there will be 2 maybe 3 (Bunker Hill, Historic Core, Little Tokyo or Financial District) stops along the enitre portion of the line. Most of these stops are sited in locations that makes the current Red/Purple Line a tough hike and climb up the hill, such as Bunker Hill. With the Grand Avenue development EIR stating the traffic and access is severly limited due to the configuration of Bunker Hill a transportation corridor like this makes it easier for people to access it.

In addition as it was pointed out after Yesterday's DLANC meeting this corridor would link 3 key nightlife centers (LA Live, Grand Avenue and Little Tokyo) that would help promote access within Downtown.

"If the purpose of the connector is to promote regional transportation then it should focus on that rather than stopping at all the Metro stations Downtown."

That is why knowing how the LRT is built makes a big difference. If it's built at-grade and there are some street blocks that wouldn't allow you to berth a 3 car LRV because the street isn't long enough for a station and provide ADA access. In addition the running time of a mostly at-grade running would defeat the purpose of a regional connector running two maybe three rail lines. So that leaves elevated or subway grade separation.

Personally, I could see the train run underground until 3rd/Flower transition into a "short" elevated section before going into a "tunnel" under Lower Grand Avenue/2nd Street and then after Olive Street the line portals from a tunnel to an elevated to take advantage of the topography of the area.

John Crandell on November 14, 2007, at 04:06PM – #7

I was looking at a satellite photo last night trying to route a tunnel under Third and it looks pretty tough with all of the existing midrise buildings on Bunker Hill. There could be an underground station at the north edge of the block bordered by First, Alameda and Central. From there the tunnel could emerge up to grade at the northeast corner of First and Alameda, run eastward along the north side of First and split into two with one line at grade heading to East L.A. The other, to Union Station/Pasadena, would climb up onto a viaduct and curve northward. Once it crosses Temple at the intersection of Garey Street, it would go through the city maintenance yard, be high enough for large trucks to transit beneath and exit the north side of the yard at Hewitt and Ducommun and run up the east side of Ducommun to the existing viaduct lately constructed across the 101. After constructing this, the at-grade portion along Alameda would then be abandoned

West of the station at First Street, the tunnel would run beneath Japanese Village Plaza, the Buddhist temple, parking garages on both sides of San Pedro Street and then curve slightly around the New Otani and run northwest beneath Second. A station may be possible at the south edge of the second phase of the Grand Avenue project. This would of course need to be north of and parallel with the Second Street Tunnel. Station escalators and elevators would then provide access to the top of Bunker Hill. A viaduct running along the south side of the 101 west of Alameda would be very high and would be an eyesore as well. The 101 Gulch in this area isn't a pleasant environ as things stand. Running the line along the north side of the Civic Center would make it way too peripheral. Yes there could be a station on the north or west side of the Music Center as well as at Third and Flower. I feel this route would give less bang for the buck. Stations at Third & Flower, Second & Olive and at First & Central would be VERY efficient.

Metro Local on November 14, 2007, at 08:54PM – #8

If the purpose is REGIONAL transportation --hitting every stop Downtown slows the overall travel time from one end of the region to the other while at the same time clogging those stations with cars from every other line.

Look at NYC's subway system -- one which has been operating for over a century. The Locals hit every stop, the Express make only the major connectors and have their own platforms. Local trains yield to Express trains on exiting stations.

So if you are going from Brooklyn to the Bronx you don't have to make every stop in Manhattan. You step off at the Express stop before your the local stop you want and catch a local train.

What you all are describing here isn't a connector, it's a new line that plenty of people want to carve as they see fit for their own purpose.

A new line is not the solution for getting people educated on using the existing system.

There's already a Red Line stop at Hill and First (at the base of the Grand Avenue project) so engineering another stop there is silly.

All you have to do is hit Metro Center for traffic from south and Union Station for traffic from the north and then transfer to the Red Line. The Gold Line will serve Little Tokyo at First/Alameda.

If you want to build something with a positive impact head this new rail east out of Metro Center (Red/Blue) and make a left through Central City East with a connecting stop to the Gold then stop at Union Station (Red/Gold).

Central City East is the most populated area of Downtown that is not within what most Angelenos would consider walking distance of an existing light rail stop. Bringing regional transportation there would mean giving people real opportunity to connect with low skill employment in other parts of the county.

But I know, it's much more fun to play trains then think about the positive impact they could have on the life on the less shiny side of Downtown.

Naturallawyer on November 14, 2007, at 10:42PM – #9

Has anyone discussed a timeline for the connector? Perhaps it was mentioned and I just missed it, but I'm curious if the powers that be have targeted any sort of hopeful ground-breaking and completion dates (or years).

Juanito on November 14, 2007, at 11:04PM – #10

I've never rid the rails beneath NYC. It would be interesting to compare the size of stations of the L.A. Redline and that of stations of the older parts of New York's underground. I stood among a hoard of people on the platform of the Wilshire-Vermont station during the 2000 Democratic convention and watched a train pull in and depart. It actually stretched from one end of the station to the other. The capacity of this length of train I imagine does exceed any train on the older New York system. At any rate, in downtown L.A., sedimentary clay or unconsolidated alluvial soil has to be contended with. A tunnel couldn't be routed beneath a midrise or highrise. No way - as compared to the granite beneath Manhattan; you have to run up Flower to at least Third. No other way, Jose.

The idea that an express tunnel should be bored around the east side of the financial/historic core, the cost of it, so as to provide high capacity heavy rail transit to the teeming masses of City East, for them to be able to commute to their daily jobs along the Gold, Blue, East L.A. and Exposition Corridors is interesting. Quite sensible in fact; you might just as well run another leg from City East along an express, direct route to Poland.

Metro Local on November 14, 2007, at 11:32PM – #11

"The idea that an express tunnel should be bored around the east side of the financial/historic core, the cost of it, so as to provide high capacity heavy rail transit to the teeming masses of City East, for them to be able to commute to their daily jobs along the Gold, Blue, East L.A. and Exposition Corridors is interesting. Quite sensible in fact; you might just as well run another leg from City East along an express, direct route to Poland."

Or you might study history and urban development. Economic depression is often found in areas isolated by transportation (think Appalachia and the Interstate freeway system for a macro example).

Chicago's elevated trains are another way to go -- you eliminate the traffic collisions which plague the "at grade" Blue Line.

If you look at Washington, DC you'll find urban renewal centered around anti-sprawl city dwellers who like a car-less commute. But your tennis shoes on for the train and slide your dress shoes on when you get to the office.

I seriously doubt dollar for dollar tunneling under Hope and Grand will be any less economically sensible than tunneling under the Historic Core to Central City East where a line could surface to elevated rail.

Cut out the Pershing Square and Civic Center stops and you are probably look at near equal time even with one stop somewhere Central City East adjacent.

In short, if you aren't already on mass transit, it's unlikely a stop here or there is going to change your mind about using it from the suburbs.

Mass transit should follow the users who already depend upon it for subsistence survival.

And yes, the idea that people could go from housing shelter to assisted housing to employment not hindered by transportation options is perhaps too much to aspire to do as a society.

I hope your stop at Third and Flower includes a Starbucks -- the one in the Bank of America tower right there always has such long lines!

Juanito on November 15, 2007, at 12:43AM – #12

I drink green tea, bulk. I once worked in the Union Bank of Calif Tower. I stayed two weeks, quit and walked out, proceeded on a three mile jaunt around Downtown and never looked back. About seventeen years later I got in to interview the reason (with two legs) why I quit and walked, for research purposes. He didn't remember me and proceeded to describe to me how he was going to circumvent the cardinal in the design of the new cathedral. That so far has been my one and only meeting with a categorical American fascist.

Yes, heavy rail transit in the central city ought to be routed so that low income residents can disperse to their jobs all over the region, rather than middle and upper income residents throughout the region having more convenient, energy saving access to culture, jobs, services, government and whatever urban passtimes - in the most densely constructed area of southern California. By the way, can you tell us what the unemployment rate is in Central City East? Can we assume that you're an ex-member of the Bus Riders Union?

Metro Local on November 15, 2007, at 08:28AM – #14

"Can we assume that you're an ex-member of the Bus Riders Union?" No, you cannot. Never have been part of that organization.

"By the way, can you tell us what the unemployment rate is in Central City East?" No, I cannot. Ask EDD. What is clear is that Central City East remains the concentration of services for people in need of assistance. Making that more accessible through mass transit is a bad thing because?

"...rather than middle and upper income residents throughout the region having more convenient, energy saving access to culture, jobs, services, government and whatever urban passtimes [sic] - in the most densely constructed area of southern California." What part of these people do NOT use mass transit now is unclear?.

Adding stops you think are convenient for white suburbia is not going to get them to use mass transit. Economics gets people to use mass transit, not convenience. Increased parking fees and gas prices will drive people to use mass transit -- not now there's a stop two block closer to my office at the cost of $250 million

Juanito on November 15, 2007, at 11:40AM – #15

To paraphrase a post on another thread: 'Perhaps Metro-Local's anger at supposedly whitebread Bunker Hill will eventually lead to acceptance.' And to quote: "The commute-less life Downtown has value many are only beginning to realize and are willing to trade for a lawn-less life." But such a life had best be east of L.A. Street, right? Access to mass transit: how many bus stops are there presently in Central City East as compared to one light rail stop? I would guess that the cost of the connector in present dollars would easily surpass 500 million. Your thinking is that half a billion dollars ought to be spent to provide a light rail station at Fifth and Maple All for one (and one for one). Have you been communing with Mike Davis? No, hold that; not too many years back he wrote that his first and primary aggenda would begin with the total demolition of Downtown Los Angeles (L.A. Weekly).

Jerard Wright on November 15, 2007, at 04:53PM – #16

I wonder with Metro Local, what would his/her response be if when the line does open and the area is gentrified with the rapid influx of development and refurbishment?

Granted portions of Downtown need to be tied into to the Transit Network and currently some of the proposed services in the Central City East area through LADOT's review would not work because there's not enough ridership to justify it.

How would spending $$$ there on a larger investment for even an At-grade LRT line when other spots like Fashion District, South Park, Industrial District could use the added access. This could be done through by moving the street running Washington Blvd portion of the Blue Line to a new grade-separated corridor linking these areas together.

Metro Local on November 15, 2007, at 08:52PM – #17

"I wonder with Metro Local, what would his/her response be if when the line does open and the area is gentrified with the rapid influx of development and refurbishment?" It would be one way to solve the chronic concentration of homeless services in the Central City East area.

If you are going to spend a billion dollars of public funds, might as well attempt to address the plight of Downtown development's supposed largest impediment to acceptance in suburbia -- Skid Row.

As for Bunker Hill, add a pedestrian tunnel to get to the First/Hill Red Line stop as part of the Grand Avenue development. Problem solved.

The connector is going to go in somewhere. Put it where it will do some good for a larger problem instead of throwing billions at routes you THINK will entice middle-class riders to convert from single car use.

Joel C on November 16, 2007, at 09:13AM – #18

I favor connecting to the Gold Line by adding a wye at Temple and Alameda. That is the easiest connection, and it makes a City Hall stop feasible.

Joel C on November 16, 2007, at 09:41AM – #19

Metro Local wrote: "Economics gets people to use mass transit, not convenience."

Not true.

If you're talking about low-wage workers, then I agree, economics is primary. But if you're talking about middle- and high-wage workers, convenience is primary.

I work at a mutual fund company. Most of the people I work with drive, and are willing to pay a lot for the convenience (real or perceived) of driving.

As someone who takes two buses and two trains to get to work, I can say with certainty that convenience matters a lot. Specifically, I take transit because my transit connections are very convenient. Especially when compared to driving the 405 Freeway.

Why do you think such a broad spectrum of New Yorkers takes transit? It's not because of the low price. It's because of the relative convenience.

Jerard Wright on November 16, 2007, at 10:04AM – #20

"The connector is going to go in somewhere. Put it where it will do some good for a larger problem instead of throwing billions at routes you THINK will entice middle-class riders to convert from single car use."

I could be saying the same thing with Skid Row. If the connector was built along Central City East as you've advocated, what happens to the Homeless? Would that actually solve the problem or make it inconvienent for ALL riders to use?

Juanito on November 16, 2007, at 02:16PM – #21

With all of the mendacity, corruption and tradgedy spawned in Washington over the past five years, one would hope that a year from now, there will be an increase in progressive representation at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Likely there will be ever more evidence mounting that voters will be more concerned over the fate of the Earth than jihadists hiding under every mattress. Work can then begin on a Subway To The Sea, a Downtown Connector and David Broder can be retired (if he hasn't already died of a heart attack on election night).

Metro Local on November 16, 2007, at 03:08PM – #22

"Would that actually solve the problem or make it inconvienent for ALL riders to use?"

What would be inconvienent to all riders? Being reminded there are people less fortunate living right here in Los Angeles? That is inconvienent isn't it? Who wants that?

Something tells me making middle class people commute through Skid Row would solve the problem of over concentration of homeless services there quicker than anything else suggested to date.

Your out of sight, out of mind mentality is what caused the very problem in Central City East you seek to avoid. Avoidance will not solve this problem. It must be confronted in new ways, and routing the regional connector through Central City East is one way to do it.

Metro Local on November 16, 2007, at 03:17PM – #23

"Why do you think such a broad spectrum of New Yorkers takes transit? It's not because of the low price. It's because of the relative convenience."

Nuts. It's about $500/month to find a parking space near most office buildings in Manhattan. Add tolls, gas, insurance, wear and tear, etc and most New Yorkers know better. Cars in New York become even bigger status symbols than Los Angeles.

True, the subway can get you around faster. But most Manhattanites traded their car for their increased rent in Manhattan. The rich leave their drivers to worry about the details.

In Los Angeles, a car is the ultimate convenience tool. You can go where you want, when you want -- not on a mass transit schedule.

Middle class people in Los Angeles will not commute by mass transit until economics outweighs the convenience of single car use.

Jerard on November 16, 2007, at 04:03PM – #24

"Something tells me making middle class people commute through Skid Row would solve the problem of over concentration of homeless services there quicker than anything else suggested to date.

Your out of sight, out of mind mentality is what caused the very problem in Central City East you seek to avoid. Avoidance will not solve this problem. It must be confronted in new ways, and routing the regional connector through Central City East is one way to do it."

If you really want to build infrastructure that would solve the Homeless problem have LAUSD build a school there. Isn't that out of the box thinking? You'd have the police, parents, politicians and the entire Downtown Community rallying for a change in order to "protect the kids".

Routing a transit corridor for the sake of hoping it will turn things around isn't going to work. Why is that? Ask our friends in zoning, planning and land-use as to the reason for this. Break-up the zoning in Skid Row and watch things start to change such as allowing cops ON the street and not get beat down by lawsuits by ACLU.

Take a look at the Blue Line through South LA if you want an example as to why this doesn't automatically create the change you ask for. Building a transit corridor in an area that has no riders to support is money that is being wasted. The main reason for the lack of change in the Blue Line are the land-uses and zoning hasn't been adjusted for the Transit.

Another example of this is Portland with it's streetcar and MAX lines that has the homeless riding and serving similiar Skid-Row like areas and that hasn't dramatically turned things around.

Metro Local on November 16, 2007, at 04:35PM – #25

Try Ninth Street Elementary on Towne for schools in proximity to Skid Row.

City Planning Department? Don't know much about them.

What I do know is that there are plenty of workers in the Fashion District, Warehouse District and Toy District who would support a transit stop within reasonable walking distance.

They already take the bus whereas people in the Figueroa Corridor do not.

You're talking about a desire to support suburban transit options -- enticing white office workers going to shiny towers to use a nice new train and a fancy station that will double as the next most filmed location ever.

I'm talking about different people who already use mass transit and not as an option.

John Crandell on November 16, 2007, at 05:37PM – #26

An alignment beneath Second Street: shut down the tunnel, excavate and demolish the portion of the tunnel east of Olive. Boarding platforms of a station at this locale would be set directly beneath a reconstructed tunnel. Access down to the platorms could be bifurcated with escalators and elevators set to rise up to grade on both the north and south sides of a sloping new Upper Second Street which would connect Hill with Olive. Escalators and elevators to the north would integrate with the second phase of the Grand Avenue Project. Escalators and elevators to the south would rise up to a plaza at grade with Olive Street, north of Angelus Plaza. Likely, the tunnel would have to be shut down while the transit tunnels are bored beneath it extending/curving around to go down Flower. The existing Blue Line beneath Flower was rapidly constructed by cut and cover. A lot of concrete slurry would need to be injected deep beneath Second Street eastward into J-Town for tunnels to be safely bored through alluvial soil.

Imagine being able to board a train either next to the Japanese Village Plaza or at Second and Olive and be able to ride to Pasadena, Long Beach or Culver City or transfer at Seventh-Metro to hurray for Hollywood or proceed to Warner Center.

Jerard on November 16, 2007, at 06:05PM – #27

"Try Ninth Street Elementary on Towne for schools in proximity to Skid Row."

That's ONE school on the outer boundary of Skid Row. If we add a few more IN Skid Row, that will change things for the better.

"You're talking about a desire to support suburban transit options -- enticing white office workers going to shiny towers to use a nice new train and a fancy station that will double as the next most filmed location ever."

There are many different social-economical backgrounds using the buses or are on the current Metro Rail system along the Figueroa Corridor. In case you noticed they're not all YOUR stereotypical white, suburban, middle class worker bees.

But I guess that you're not trying to do the same thing by dispersing Skid Row so that movie studios and yuppies can use the area as their "New York Backdrop"

You're trying to spin classism and racism at every post and it's getting you nowhere. I guess Historic Core and Little Tokyo doesn't count in your discussion because you care so much to improve Skid Row.

You're deluding yourself to believe that this will be the only transit component built in Downtown. In case you haven't noticed theres a Streetcar proposal and possibly a Bus Transit Mall that are in the works. And with Downtown being a major hub to the regional transit network that is being built out more rail lines will radiate through the area. So in the future there will be a need to build additional "connectors" such as an added North-South one maybe down Main or LA or San Pedro Streets.

Urban Trojan on November 16, 2007, at 08:00PM – #28

I see what you're getting at: trains from East L.A. would continue on to Culver City, trains from Pasadena would continue on to Long Beach. Riders from Pasadena who want to go to East L.A or Culver City would change trains at either the Japan Town or Bunker Hill stops. Riders from Culver City who wish to go to Pasadena or Long Beach would do the same. With a Y at Aliso and Alameda, trains from East L.A. would only go to Pasadena. Eastside riders wishing to go to Long Beach, Culver City or anywhere on the Redline would have to go up to Union Station to transfer to either the Redline or a southbound light rail train. Taking the Y approach downgrades transit convenience for Eastside residents. Metro Local should be concerned! Antonio would be concerned..

Metro Local on November 16, 2007, at 08:33PM – #29

The Historic Core has the Pershing Square stop. Little Tokyo will have a Gold Line stop.

Figueroa Corridor already has Pershing Square, Metro Center and First/Hill. There are MTA buses on Flower that already take you to Union Station/Transit Plaza but most of the ones I see ride empty at rush hour.

The 90071 zip code has the highest wages in Southern California. Those high wage workers don't commute home to anywhere light rail currently serves. MetroLink perhaps, Santa Clarita bus yes. But most still drive.

Check American history, public transit routes have often been about socioeconomic and political factors because of the flow of people they bring and the revenue that comes with them.

Developments have sprouted up over nearly every Red Line station -- none of which would ever be classified as upper income housing (except for perhaps Hollywood/Vine and Hollywood/Highland).

Catch my drift Jerard? Infrastructure development is not about utopia building, it's about doing what is best for sustainability needs at the time. The three quarters of Los Angeles you never go to has needs too.

Urban Trojan on November 16, 2007, at 10:09PM – #30

Way back in the day, circa 1985, by the lights of Metro-Local, the Redline would instead have began at 5th & San Pedro, proceeded down Central Avenue to Imperial Highway, from there over to Alamenda and on south to Wilmington, east to desiderata gone deteriorata in west Long Beach, then north on an express track to Altadena, West beneath the Verdugo Mountains to downtown Pacoima, south to the center of Sepulveda, from there to the slums of Santa Ana and onwards to Downtown Tijuana.

Personaly, I would have loved to have had the option of riding light rail to classes from home in City Terrace or to get to work at a job on Venice Blvd. near Culver City or stop off in downtown L.A. to get blasted on my way back home.

Metro Local on November 17, 2007, at 02:04PM – #31

Wow Trojan, was this the same Red Line that could not go under the LaBrea Tar Pits due to White Fright but now can do to Congressman Waxman's flip-flop on the issue of solving Westside traffic ills?

John Crandell on November 17, 2007, at 07:45PM – #32

Yes, Urban Tro! Exactly, and thanks for expressing concern on behalf of Antonio and Metro Local... Thinking more of the intricacy of formulating a light rail stop at the east end of the Second Street Tunnel, I thought of how to get or provide for natural light to shine down into the lower boarding platform despite the tunnel structure itself. With a problem such as this, wouldn't it be a natural for a designer like Gehry to collaborate with artist James Turrell and an innovative structural engineer such as Ove Arup? Santiago Calatrava comes to mind as well.

Prior to the '84 Olympics, the redevelopment agency planned to construct a terraced landscape above the east end of the tunnel, extending from the portal up to Olive Street. Plans prepared by the SWA Group included a water element. Someone raised concern over the stability of the soil above the portal and plans were dropped. I'd hope to see a portal to the sky with a water cascade to provide white noise to counter the screetch of trains and automobiles. People down in the station could look upward through portals on either side of the tunnel to the sky. All they would see would be firmament. No buildings! Perhaps a jetliner coming in from off the Pacific or scudding clouds lit brilliant at sunset.

Metro Local on November 17, 2007, at 09:36PM – #33

John, if you build it they will come:

"...a fancy station that will double as the next most filmed location ever."

No one else will come but its beauty will be admired in magazines all over the world. And best of all, when people do come in person to see its design, they will drive to it!

Your ideas for the Second Street Tunnel redo are interesting but do you really think a stop is NECESSARY rather than the alternate of having people to walk, or conveyor, a few hundred yards to the Civic Center stop at First/Hill?

Maybe a cute, and silent, one car electric rail which runs under a transparent road surface?

But while you are building the Garden of Babylon station in your mind, I'm still saying route the connector where it will get used, not admired.

John Crandell on November 17, 2007, at 10:31PM – #34

Best wishes with your gentrification effort; the way things are going though, a good sized chunk of the area could already be gented by the time a station would be up and running in C.C. East. In New York, authorities are proceeding with design and construction of a one mile section of subway to extend from Times Square to Javits Convention Center at a presently estimated cost of 2.4 billion dollars. Central City East is not L.A.'s most densely populated area. The Westlake District is and I imagine that a demographic contrast exists as well. Unless a likelihood arises that Jugo Chavez will be elected to the White House next year, I think you should apportion your efforts more wisely. Believe me; I KNOW about pipe dreams. Uber alles James Turrell!

Metro Local on November 18, 2007, at 12:01PM – #35

Westlake already has the MacArthur Park station.

The Javits Center is a hike from Times Square whereas there are pedestrian platform connectors in the Times Square subway maze longer than the distance from Second and Figueroa to the First and Hill Red Line stop.

Gentrification isn't my goal, common sense with public dollars is.

And more public dollars will continue to flow into Central City East until the underlying core problems are addressed through solutions like putting the area on the map instead of mapping around it.

So, once again, the connector is going to be built -- might as well route it through an area where it can help address a much larger problem, a concentration of homeless services that has isolated an area in the minds of millions.

There is of course the issue that the Eastside is more likely to use mass transit than the Westside, again out of necessity not convenience, but that seems lost on most here who would rather be stroked for their urban planning visions.

Whitman Lam on November 18, 2007, at 10:02PM – #36

A Downtown Connector is needed to make Public Transportation in L.A. reliable... realistically practical. Our sprawling city smothered in car fumes needs some traffic relief. Downtown is drowning in a sea of cars by day ... deserted ghost town at night. Downtown Connector can change that on Opening day, bring in some spending customers. Get ALL people of ALL races and classes to work in synchronized solidarity. Rediscover our Cityhood our Urbanism.

Downtown Connector a solution for the Homeless ?? Now I've heard everything ... look at Pershing Square station... even the uber Cosmopolitan 7th/Metro station. Homeless, panhandlers, and the mentally ill are still aplenty.

"Sidewalk lifestyles" will continue to thrive with or without a subway stop. Passengers coming in and out of the station will either give spare change, or pretend the homeless don't exist, with is just fine, as far as the homeless individual is concerned... more encouragement to urinate and smoke dope in plain sight.

A Downtown Connector won't do anything that Loft Conversions, makeovers and Retail has not already done. The homeless are still being "Dumped on Skid Row". Homeless services / enablers are located on every corner, both public entity and private do-gooderism makes a virtual fortress of Vagrancy. No Cure for homelessness... just more "help". Eventually the City, developers, the public, will realize ... a swollen, festering wound under the band-aid of homeless service providers. Enforce the laws... get the homeless Off the streets ... not just shelter ... jobs / housing / the ol' stick and the carrot. No more breadcrumbs for pigeons unless they play ball.

And yes, that is urine you smell coming up the station escalator... homeless urine

Juanito on November 18, 2007, at 10:18PM – #37

Dear Lam, THAT was not Whitmanesque. You may have just killed the Connector, now and forever!

Dunne's Ghost on November 18, 2007, at 10:33PM – #38

How to handle panhandlers: tell them that Dick Cheney has introduced genetically altered cockroaches in the area. That'll clear 'em out pronto. To really solve the problem you gotta tell 'em that Larry Craig is now in charge of street sweeping.

Metro Local on November 18, 2007, at 10:57PM – #39

Here's a thought, make it easier for people in homeless shelters and transitional housing in Central City East to get on a regional rail system to find employment and longer-term housing solutions.

At the same time, make it easier for people working in Downtown's manufacturing districts to incorporate rail into their daily, existing mass transit commute.

How? Simply invert the current vision for the Connector through Downtown so it goes through Central City East rather than Bunker Hill.

No one in Bunker Hill will be any less off without a Connector stop and people in Central City East might actually start to believe change is possible -- even on Skid Row...

Dunne's Ghost on November 18, 2007, at 11:48PM – #40

Metro, you gotta stop smokin' that local weed. Nevah gonna happen! A connection running through skid row would likely dissuade people from using it to get from north or east side to get to south or west side. This, as much as other commuters would want to use it. How much property do you own in the area? Sounds like some sort of Gilbert Lindsay ponzi scheme.

Metro Local on November 19, 2007, at 08:49AM – #41

A ponzi scheme is when you take money from one party to pay out another party but never repay the original loan (think Social Security -- current payers are paying the current recipients). At a certain point, ponzis collapse when the money coming in can't match the money needing to go out to support the growing scheme.

I don't own property in Central City East. Instead, I marvel at people who lament Downtown because of Skid Row but don't want to do anything to change it when they have the opportunity.

Not sure what research has been done yet but I suspect the only people who will truly use the regional network from end to end north to south will be tourists. Others will be able to transfer at points on either side of Skid Row to get into Downtown or west.

East to west will get traffic but those same people already go through Skid Row on buses so I don't accept the argument they will not use a Metro connector in CCE.

In reality, what you are all talking about is building a transit system you think will appeal to white Westsiders enough for them to use it. That's a pipe dream that has yet to materialize after BILLIONS in mass transportation development.

What I keep saying is, that's not the way to build transit infrastructure.

Put more mass transit where mass transit is already being used. MTA already owns a patch of land at Sixth/Alameda/Seventh for a bus depot. A connector could go out Seventh to Alameda and north from there.

You can't build infrastructure in the hopes new users will flock to it. You have to build it for the people already depending upon it -- otherwise, it's not infrastructure, it's utopia building and SoCal doesn't have the money for utopia building.

Jerard on November 19, 2007, at 10:11AM – #42

"Developments have sprouted up over nearly every Red Line station -- none of which would ever be classified as upper income housing (except for perhaps Hollywood/Vine and Hollywood/Highland).

Infrastructure development is not about utopia building, it's about doing what is best for sustainability needs at the time. The three quarters of Los Angeles you never go to has needs too."

So based off your own analysis, running this corridor through Skid Row AT THIS TIME is not sustainable because you're trying to develop your own utopian dream of "cleaning up" Skid Row. BTW Metro Local, Are the new Homeless centers being planned next to the existing Light Rail lines? Remember my last comment on Planning and Zoning. Yeah, it's backkkk!

Just FYI Expo Line isn't there just move white folks around, if you take a look at ridership on the 38, 40/42/740 and Dash F buses that will be the key catchment area of the line and tie that into Downtown and a growing job corridor right next to the Expo Right of Way.

So Metro Local, This piece of infrastructure through Bunker Hill, Historic Core and Little Tokyo is not utopia building as you hallucinating it to be, it is about the here and now with the provisions to improve upon it in the future.

John Crandell on November 19, 2007, at 03:57PM – #43

Bravo, Jerard. Under the dominant economic system on this planet, a ghetto, a slum, a barrio, a whatever label, is an economic NECESSITY. If one of these locales is located at such a location as Central City East given what has happened to the area immediately adjacent over the past eight years, there will be an impact. Just consider what has happened with the Alexandria, Frontier and Rosslyn hotels. The interface between the Historic Core and C.C.E. has been receiving major attention by police and civic authorities. And now you speak of improving C.C.E. and seek a light rail stop in the area to assist the wordaday life of those in the area who manage to have employment elsewhere. All this points in one direction and you won't find it very pretty: gentrification. Under our system, what is to prevent the rehabbed SROs from being bought out, other than their outright purchase by government? It's not hard to see a Connector costing at least a billion dollars to construct ten years hence. Routing it through C.C.E. would make it near twice in length as compared to a Second Street alignment, which then requires hundreds of millions of dollars more, so that gentrifying residents can ride light rail rather than a bus. And the upper financial district would remain remote to all suburban communters across the entire metropolis. By the way Metro, have you been to the westside recently? You'd be amazed at the mix of people living there.

Metro Local on November 19, 2007, at 06:53PM – #44

Yes, I've been to the Westside and I've look at the people using mass transit on the Westside -- have you? They are easy to spot -- they are the people on those large buses moving here and there all day and all night long.

So what if the connector is longer going through CCE? With only one stop between Metro Center and Union Station (rather than two or three more as indicated above in all the Northwest Passage plans) travel time will be equal. Given the engineering hurdles of the Northwest Passage the budget will likely run the same too.

Also, the Upper Financial District and Bunker Hill are NOT currently isolated from the current Red Line. There are stops at Hill and First, Pershing Square and Metro Center (Seventh/Flower). All that is required is some walking...both the Second and Third Street tunnels provide a means to do that without having to go up hill with Angels Flight being out of commission. There are escalators on Hope Street at Fifth as well as Olive and Fourth near the Pershing Square exit on Fourth and Hill.

Jerard Wright on November 21, 2007, at 01:58PM – #45

"Yes, I've been to the Westside and I've look at the people using mass transit on the Westside -- have you? They are easy to spot -- they are the people on those large buses moving here and there all day and all night long."

Good you've seen the 720's, 33-333, 28,328, 30, 534 buses which are the key candidate areas for the Expo Line in addition this would link these points to Bunker Hill, Historic Core and Little Tokyo.

"So what if the connector is longer going through CCE? With only one stop between Metro Center and Union Station (rather than two or three more as indicated above in all the Northwest Passage plans) travel time will be equal. Given the engineering hurdles of the Northwest Passage the budget will likely run the same too."

Good I'm glad you've stated that this route would be slower and the fact that the budgets by your admission would be the exact same, yet we can serve more riders on the same amount of $$$. Guess which alignment we'll go with?

"All that is required is some walking...both the Second and Third Street tunnels provide a means to do that without having to go up hill with Angels Flight being out of commission. There are escalators on Hope Street at Fifth as well as Olive and Fourth near the Pershing Square exit on Fourth and Hill."

The Second and Third Street tunnels have rather narrow sidewalks and (especially Third Street) traffic whizzing by at 45+ mph in the opposite direction is a very comfortable walk and then you'd still have to hike up to reach the areas since the escalators only operate Mon-Friday. In addition the 4th/Olive escalator requires a very steep walk up Fourth Street to reach it, forget it is your in a Wheelchair.

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Metro Local on November 21, 2007, at 04:34PM – #46

The 720 runs down Wilshire as a Metro Rapid -- no where near the Expo Line.

Again, if the idea of the connector is regional transit then additional stops Downtown are counterproductive because they will slow the regional transit going to points on the other side of Downtown. This is why the connector need only stops at Metro Center and Union Station. So if you are using the connector to get Downtown, you can transfer to a Local line and let the connector continue as an Express.

What escalators are you referring to when getting from the 2nd/3rd street tunnels to the stop at First and Hill?

Also, I didn't say the route would be slower. What I said was with the additional stops that have been suggested, a route through CCE with one stop would be equal, perhaps even faster, in TIME to a route through Bunker Hill with three stops. I also presumed the budget would not be much different given the engineer needed to carve another tunnel under the Financial District.

It's an assumption that a route through Bunker Hill will get more riders than a route through CCE. I presume you have dismissed the tens of thousands of workers on the east side of Downtown who ALREADY USE mass transit and who would likely use a regional line with a stop in CCE?

Again, most of the people reading and posting here do not already ride mass transit. You are under the illusion that if there was a mass transit stop in your lobby you might use it. You think spending billions on such a plan is the answer to getting you to stop using your car. It is not.

Plenty of people in Los Angeles already use mass transit. Build mass transit infrastructure for them, not as a means to remove mental blocks middle class people have to using mass transit they have avoided their entire life.

Juanito on November 21, 2007, at 09:58PM – #47

Why should transportation planners take heed of the views of someone who is bigoted?

Jerard on November 22, 2007, at 06:21AM – #48

"Again, if the idea of the connector is regional transit then additional stops Downtown are counterproductive because they will slow the regional transit going to points on the other side of Downtown. This is why the connector need only stops at Metro Center and Union Station."

So the East LA Gold Line doesn't need to be tied into this we're just thinking Union Station and 7th/Metro? So what if this piece was a four track set-up with Local and Express tracks? Would that satisfy that requirement?

It's the same logic if one day a Wilshire Subway were to be built. The stops and it's stop spacing and how the line is built (at-grade, aerial, subway) will determine how fast or slow the trains go. And not having a couple of stops misses opportunities to provide additional cross bus service along Los Angeles, San Pedro even reinstitute the #58 bus that has been discontinued due to low ridership because there's now more regional access to the areas.

"So if you are using the connector to get Downtown, you can transfer to a Local line and let the connector continue as an Express."

What "Local line" ?

What also makes connections is that we don't have to force time consuming transfers making the overall trip time for the riders quicker. Imagine if our Freeway system through Downtown didn't have any on-off ramps in Downtown. Some locations would see less traffic, others like the only on/off ramps on the outer edges of Downtown would be gridlocked 6 hours a day.

Two stops will be neccesary in this project, in two of the key areas; Bunker Hill and Historic Core, end to end time from the two points 8-12 minutes depending on how it's built. But one key thing to understand is that by eliminating the transfer to the Red Line we save the 10 minute wait time for two trains during Rush Hour! We can save upwards of 40 minutes with the trains running at night and this with only using two tracks!

Think of how many concerts and events that are now going on around Staples/Convention Center/LA Live. Think about how direct trips from East LA and Pasadena can now be done because of running the trains through Bunker Hill and Historic Core along First or Second/Flower. This is one of the things a CCE alignment will miss at this time and provide a slower trip time for a through connection.

This would also be a slower trip time into USC/Exposition Park from Union Station and the Gold Line because despite the lack of a stop it's the turns onto Washington Blvd and then again at Flower that will impact the trip times and operations of a line.

Notice I have consistently never stated that CCE doesn't have merit. It is the timing of how the pieces come together that makes all the difference. For another bit of visioning the bulk of the CCE ridership will probably be at Fashion District.

How can we solve this? We can run a busway or streetcar through there to start.

In the future when the Blue Line Washington Blvd running is over capacity, build a grade separated alignment tying, Convention Center, Fashion District, back to the Blue Line Railroad right of way thus providing regional connections all while adding capacity.

"What escalators are you referring to when getting from the 2nd/3rd street tunnels to the stop at First and Hill?"

I never mentioned escalators. I said the sidewalks inside the tunnels are not wide enough and once you are through the tunnel you'd still have to hike up to reach your destination, thus not helping anyone.

"The 720 runs down Wilshire as a Metro Rapid -- no where near the Expo Line."

On the end of the Line in Santa Monica it is, and thus creates a catchment since it would provide very fast and consistent trip times between Santa Monica and LA.

Metro Local on November 22, 2007, at 04:41PM – #49

The Gold Line already connects at Union Station but I could also see the benefits of something south of there connecting the East to the South and West. The Blue Line already serves Staples Center.

Either the point of the connector is to allow for trains to go across Downtown to make regional rail transportation seamless or it is the make access to Downtown easier.

The best way to do this would be to bypass as much of Downtown as possible but still made sense (think of being able to take a bypass from the 110N that put you north of the 101 from south of the 10 without having to deal with the interchange traffic at the 110/10 and the 110/101).

Because what's the point of getting caught in Downtown traffic if you are heading to the other side of Downtown? If you are heading into Downtown, cope. But if you are trying to get to the other side of the county as a regional connector suggests, don't bog it up Downtown.

Perhaps another way to skin the cat would be two 'L's -- one South and West, the other North and East? The corners meet Downtown. Then you get increased access for traffic-specific Downtown and nominal slowdown when transferring to go across the region.

The closest comparable that comes to mind is Washington, DC's Metro system.

Whitman Lam on November 23, 2007, at 01:03AM – #50

The Downtown Connector, if and when built, should be a viable East/West and East/South Corridor. It must be grade separated (underground) to be reliable. Whether we put in a few, or a couple stations in between won't really matter in the big picture. Even with 3 or 4 new stations, it will still be much faster than the current Goldline/Redline/Blueline transfer method we use now.

The main priority will be to get people from East of Downtown to West of Downtown and vice/versa...by Expo Line (And Purple Line extension eventually). Even with all the improvements to make Downtown a "total destination", people are still trying to get to the Westside for jobs, many of these are working class. Until the Subway to the sea is realized, a Downtown Connector with ExpoLine is our only hope.

Jerard on November 23, 2007, at 01:33PM – #51

Whitman, that is a good point to add to this, with the Intial Downtown Connector alignment and the transition that Downtown is increasing in residential residents along main areas of Little Tokyo, Historic Core, Bunker Hill and South Park provides those residents to use the system to go to jobs in Pasadena, or along Expo at USC, Culver City, West LA and Santa Monica along our existing rail infrastructure.

Metro Local on November 23, 2007, at 06:07PM – #52

As I've been saying, build mass transit for people who already DEPEND upon it for transportation to their employment -- not hopes increasing convenience of 'casual' users who do not use mass transit now.

People who already live Downtown and already work in Pasadena can already take either the Red Line, Dash D or any number of other buses to get to the Gold Line in Union Station.

Jerard on November 24, 2007, at 01:41AM – #53

Who says they don't already do it? All I said was that their is greater potential there because of the changing residential base on top of the existing and growing job base, there's those zoning and planning factors showing up again.

In addition with the future Expo Line when it reaches Culver City, West LA and Santa Monica hits key jobs that new residents Downtown are woking in.

If we look at Cenral City East the biggest area of jobs is Fashion District, not enough at this time to justify a full corridor investment, but give it 10 years and a few more additional lines/factors.

Metro Local on November 24, 2007, at 10:19AM – #54

"the biggest area of jobs is Fashion District, not enough at this time to justify a full corridor investment"

Hmm, is this the same Fashion District that does more a year in retail trade than Rodeo Drive (not including wholesale or manufacturing revenue)?

And who works in all those warehouses in CCE and the Industrial District? What about the burgeoning residential population in the Arts District or the redevelopment of the Los Angeles River? None of those are worthy of rail transportation where there is none now?

Jerard on November 24, 2007, at 12:54PM – #55

Part of that reason is looking at the existing Bus services. There is a large gaping void there. Now again I never said it isn't justified, just not with the idea of running straight up through CCE compared to the more direct connection between Financial District to Little Tokyo.

Again Fashion District could gain rail service through grade separating the Washington Blvd Blue Line through Fashion District between Convention Center to the Railroad right-of-way or a streetcar service can be implemented in this set-up as well.

Whitman Lam on November 24, 2007, at 01:41PM – #56

The Fashion district does alot more business than most people assume. As seen on numerous episodes of "America's Next Top Model", it's the unsung hero of the fashion industry. A SoHo - esque creative hub on the West Coast. Unfortunately it's still mostly a 9 to 5 neighborhood. Large crowds during the day, especially on weekends, but deserted at night. At grade is out of the question, the streets are too narrow, and filled with heavy trucks. A Downtown Connector subway station would be running almost 24-hours. A single-track Streetcar can run on a more flexible schedule depending on local demand. And it allows tourists and shoppers to see the streets. Resulting in less blight.

I doubt there would be much off-peak train demand at night... Unless the area becomes more residential and commercial retail. Which would happen eventually, if a train station is nearby. But would that drive away the Creative studios, and workshops ?? I fear that a new Eastside Gold-Line Station in the Art's District could be the final nail-in-the-coffin for Artist's Lofts, Studios, and Art Galleries that need cheap rent and large spaces to thrive.

Metro Local on November 24, 2007, at 03:27PM – #57

I'm not certain there is anything inexpensive about the Arts District as it is now.

John Crandell on November 24, 2007, at 10:56PM – #58

The greatest good: spend a billion dollars for easier light rail transit thru Downtown as well as easier access from throughout the region to workplaces, culture, government, services or visit friends in the area of Bunker Hill or J-Town OR spend such funds for less easier light rail transit thru Downtown plus easier access to the suburbs for the marginal employment base housed in the area of Central City East. ???? Where lies the greater good? Which solution removes more cars off of streets and freeways? Which solution accelerates gentrification and dislocation in Central City East? Which solution facilitates revamping the existing urban design nightmare on the west side of Bunker Hill?

Metro Rapid on November 24, 2007, at 11:39PM – #59

"Which solution removes more cars off of streets and freeways?"

This redefines pipe dream -- no one driving to work Downtown now is going to jump onto the Metro because of a new stop in Bunker Hill, get real.

It's good to see you articulate that "visit friends in the area of Bunker Hill" is a priority for mass transit infrastructure in Los Angeles. That's really what it comes down to isn't it? You want to increase the convenience of Bunker Hill residents with some Gehry-inspired Metro stop that will be the talk of the West Village.

No worries on making sure battered women or homeless throughout the county have ready access to shelters in Central City East through a light rail stop there. That's not important.

Instead, recreate the wheel and put in stops at First and Hill and Pershing Square that more people will not use instead of their cars when visiting Downtown.

Nothing about putting the connector in Central City East would deter access to workplaces throughout Downtown. What it would do is increase access to the concentration of private social services the county already depends upon to serve the homeless population.

They only people who would be deterred from riding the Metro through Central City East would be the same people who avoid Downtown now because of the homeless problem.

Putting the connector through CCE would be a clear signal that plight of that area and the long-term future of development Downtown are joined at the hip.

Simply put, until you solve the homeless problem and the concentration of services in CCE, every pretty Metro station you build will become the latest spot for the locals you want so much to avoid in your urban design nightmare of flowing gardens in Bunker Hill.

It all comes down to one word -- reelection.

John Crandell on November 25, 2007, at 12:38AM – #60

Yes, reelect Gil Linday! He prolly had his fingers in more pies than anyone else in L.A. history. That's why there ought to be a memorial lizard lounge in his honor atop the 65 story multi-use 'whitebread' highrise which should replace the world trade center, with a light rail stop right outside, hallelujah.

John Crandell on November 25, 2007, at 12:44AM – #61

But I'll give him one good credit: if not for his shenanigans, the city council would never have clamped down on the redevelopment agency and exercised direct oversight. And it should be remembered that he have Tom Bradley more heartburn and more belly laughs than anyone else in local government.

Militant Angeleno on November 26, 2007, at 12:57PM – #62

Juanito: Regarding Los Angeles vs NYC subway stations, they are very extreme opposites. Most of NYC's stations were built in the early 20th century and thus not ADA-compliant. They are more shallow (not not that far below the street) and longer (their trains go up to 10 cars in length) and overall very narrow, cramped spaces with narrow pathways.

Los Angeles subway stations are far deeper (60+ feet below the surface), are all ADA compliant (since they opened after 1990). The stations are slightly shorter (our stations can handle trains up to 6 cars in length) and have very wide, spacious areas.

John Crandell on December 31, 2007, at 01:48PM – #63

Let's hear more about that Gil Lindsay Memorial Lizard Lounge!!!

Paul on February 24, 2008, at 10:55PM – #64

San Diego's Trolley runs at-grade through their downtown and it works just fine. I used to ride that to work and back, it was very pedestrian friendly. Sure, it can cause some backup of car traffic, but that's yet another motivator for drivers to take mass transit instead. Plus, the parking in Downtown San Diego is hell. Angelenos should be more concerned with finishing at least one of their routes to the Westside and get a route to go directly into LAX before worrying whether or not to bury a "regional connector" downtown.

John Crandell on February 25, 2008, at 01:23AM – #65

On second thought, with all of the disruption of cut and cover construction along a second and Flower street alignment, it looks like deep, twin-bore tunneling between the east side of Japan Town and 7th & Metro is the solution, to include a station at Third & Flower. The World Trade Center has got to go! Trains coming either from East L.A. or Pasadena ought to be able to enter directly into the east end of such a tunnel. It would be very ridiculous for riders from East L.A. having to go up to Union Station and then transfer to southbound trains from Pasadena to go either to Culver City or Long Beach.

Jerard on February 26, 2008, at 11:13PM – #66

Paul,

At grade LRT for Downtown LA would work if our LRT system operated less frequently and didn't need the expense of a subway tunnel within 25-50 years. Also our street blocks depending on how it's built will make a big difference on how this would work.