Aaron on February 26, 2008, at 11:22PM – #1

I speak personally when I wonder why they don't simply route this line to a sub-basement under the Red Line or alongside the Red Line at Union Station. I think the important thing to do here is to reduce the number of transfers to 1. A rider from Pasadena or Pomona is going to be OK with making a single transfer at Union Station; it's the double transfer, from Gold/Metrolink to Red to Blue/Expo that is the concern; the Subway portion needs to be skippable, and that's the goal here - a secondary and also important goal would be to bring rail transit to the Northwest quadrant of Downtown. I don't know too many people who are desperate for a one-seat ride from Sierra Madre to Long Beach; frankly, that would be a pretty sore seat by the end of the trip.

I don't see how they somehow run this into the Little Tokyo station without creating a track-switching nightmare, and if they do that, the only possible routes that can be linked together are East LA-Long Beach and East LA-Expo, but it creates a strange situation of the core problem of Pasadena-Long Beach, and the Little Tokyo is just too important to pass-up.

Jerard on February 26, 2008, at 11:36PM – #2

Aaron,

Because that would cost a considerable amount of $$$ and disrupt the Red Line tunnels severely to plan or build such a piece not to mention the amount of time and land to re-route the Gold Line from it's elevated Chinatown station down to a 40' deep underground station under busy railroad tracks to carve out a station.

All that to save 20,000 riders a trip commute of 3-5 minutes with the transfer and you're spending the same amount of money to get less out of it.

LAofAnaheim on February 27, 2008, at 12:13AM – #3

A big detrement to consider at-grade for the connector is the development of the Little Tokyo station. If the MTA thought about the connector in the future, this station should have been built either aerial or underground. Having this mode of switching for a possible 3 routes at-grade, will be a transportation nightmare.

Aaron on February 27, 2008, at 12:26AM – #4

Jerard: I see what you mean as to the Red Line part, but I wasn't recommending routing the Gold Line underground, but instead terminating the Blue Line at Union Station and creating a major transfer hub, thus not requiring any construction at all on the Gold Line. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Having said that, I don't disagree re: cost. Metro has a problem and I don't see an easy solution. But I'm not a civil engineer, thankfully.

LAofAnaheim: Don't doubt it. I don't see how they get this to work at Little Tokyo without violating the laws of physics, but the station is so important that they can't just cancel/dismantle it for convenience's sake - to be blunt, it's probably the only Eastside Gold Line station that I'll use with any frequency, and I'm probably not the only one saying that.

Jerard on February 27, 2008, at 07:22AM – #5

Aaron,

Oh ok, I see what you mean. And in some cases it might be possible to route the Blue Line to only go as far as Union Station, while Expo and Eastside run as one straight route and the Gold Line could run through to only USC/Expo Park. This is only a conceptual routing so anything is possible.

The main thing about the connector is building it so that this possible conceptual route will take place and it can operate reliably.

Urban Bruin on February 27, 2008, at 09:09AM – #6

Again, for all the cost and trouble I still don’t see the great need for this specific project. Understandably, transfers increase commute time, and the cost to operate the metro line, but many, if not all metro systems have this problem. As the metro system grows there will be more points of connection that will require transfers.

Also, I agree that most metro traffic goes into downtown, not through it. If we are concerned about eliminating a transfer point, the Blue and Green Line transfer at Wilmington Station would provide greater benefit to more commuters. Right now all traffic on the Green Line, (from Norwalk and the Southbay) going into downtown have to make a transfer at Wilmington Station. Aside from the security concerns for evening commuters at that station, I believe more people are impacted by this transfer than those going from the Gold to the Blue Line.

Lastly, I think when the Expo Line is finished; it’ll run into Union Station. So for South Park commuters they would only have to transfer once at Union Station from the Gold Line or the Metro Link to the Expo Line rather than the Gold to the Red to the Blue. I’d assume that would take care of most downtown commuters.

Jerard on February 27, 2008, at 09:38AM – #7

Urban Bruin,

Now you have all the transfers between Gold/Blue/Expo along with the extra new Purple/Red Line riders between 7th St/Metro and Union Station and we create operational delays on all the lines! This further impacts the subway extension westward because now there's little room to add more trains and more seats to for the westward expansion because ridership is through the roof in this one area, that is unless they add a third or fourth track parallel or beside Red/Purple line. That third/fourth track is this connector!

1)Better turnback operations for Blue/Expo Lines for improved on time performance. Improved on-time performance reduces operation costs on a very cost-effective LRT lines.

2)Increases reserve capacity on the existing Red/Purple Subway for future extensions such as the Purple Line to Westwood or Red Line into Van Nuys or Sun Valley. This is important if we're trying to build an extensive transit network.

On top of the repeated issue, I wonder if we were to build those flyovers to directly tie the Green Line and Blue Line tracks how does that impact capacity on the Blue Line from 103rd all the way to Downtown?

7th Street Metro Center will be inching near capacity with the connector when Expo Line gets built to Santa Monica, how would adding two more direct lines from Norwalk and Aviation stations along the Blue Line tracks help us? We would need the connector to be operational to even suggest this flyovers to directly connect the Blue and Green lines.

For all the cost and impacts to decimate an entire neighborhood to build flyovers to connect the Blue and Green Line tracks together is not worth it there either considering Crenshaw Corridor is coming up and that will divert in my guess 35% of those transfers from the Blue Line.

Tim on February 27, 2008, at 09:45AM – #8

Urban Bruin...you said that when the Expo line is finished, it will run into Union Station. That is not correct. It will end at 7th Street, just like the Blue Line.

Urban Bruin on February 27, 2008, at 10:03AM – #9

Tim: Looking at the proposed route map on the MTA site you're correct. I thought it would go to Union Station but I guess my faith in MTA was misplaced.

As for line capacity and other details of the rail lines I’ll defer to Jerard as it seems he has a good handle on the specifics. But that said;

1. The Crenshaw project is only in it’s beginning stages and many years away from becoming a reality;

2. There are other projects that are more pressing that will have to be funded first, such as the extension of the Purple Line to the ocean;

3. Despite the costs of creating a flyover at the Blue and Green Lines, I’d bet that the cost for that project would be a small fraction of the cost for the entire “Crenshaw” Line so I don’t see much comparison between the two ideas.

Here’s an alternative. Why not keep all the lines as they are now and just extend the Gold Line through the Little Tokyo Station southward? Have it meet up with the Blue Line near Washington Blvd. That would create a “Downtown Loop” route connection all major lines in downtown. Also it would provide metro services to the eastern edge of downtown where there is currently no metro service.

David Kennedy on February 27, 2008, at 10:08AM – #10

Are the proposed alignments available on-line or were they simply handouts at the meeting?

Jerard on February 27, 2008, at 10:45AM – #12

The Crenshaw project is only in it’s beginning stages and many years away from becoming a reality;

But Crenshaw is a lot closer than building flyovers and needing the Freeway right-of-way to build it and added grade separations (which are needed) along the Blue Line. Which requires an study/EIR and some sort of funding mechanism to do it.

There are other projects that are more pressing that will have to be funded first, such as the extension of the Purple Line to the ocean;

I agree, but like I stated at least twice already, that capacity would be extremely limited on the Downtown section the farther west the subway goes. So this project will be pressing a lot harder than the subway towards the ocean. Not building the connector again, makes it difficult to run the type of service and capacity needed on the Purple Line.

Despite the costs of creating a flyover at the Blue and Green Lines, I’d bet that the cost for that project would be a small fraction of the cost for the entire “Crenshaw” Line so I don’t see much comparison between the two ideas.

Ok, I'll explain the impacts regarding the already burden station at 7th Street Metro Center and running of the Blue Line along the railroad. There are hidden costs that you're not even seeing in conjunction with these flyover(s).

1) For example to add the different destination trains will overload the at-grade running of the Blue Line in downtown and along the railroad right of way requiring Grade separations at all the crossings.

2)The south Alameda connection would be a worthwhile goal but that's wasting $250M and we still haven't solved the capacity and turnback problems at 7th Street Metro Center for both Blue AND Expo line trains, that will still be needed once the main through connection is built.

Aaron on February 27, 2008, at 12:41PM – #13

UrbanBruin: I'm one of those evening commuters through Imperial/Wilmington, and it's ridiculously safe. I'm in a wheelchair (and thus have to have heightened sensitivity to personal safety issues) and I have no problem at all sitting there playing DS or watching movies on my iPod, I'm never bothered and the station is extremely safe.

Logistically, I think Metro has built themselves into a corner at Imperial/Wilmington (but when you have to construct onto a freeway, I'm sure their options were quite limited). The only easy connection that could be made there would be from Long Beach to Norwalk, but even that would necessitate moving the platform south a couple hundred feet. Moving the platform south would prevent any trains from going from Norwalk or El Segundo to Downtown LA. Thus, Imperial/Wilmington is a permanent setup. I also agree with Jerard that it is doubtful that the right-of-way from Watts to LA can handle much more traffic without problems between Downtown and Vernon Station, trains already run with a good frequency.

The reason for the Connector, to me, is not for any one particular reason, but instead for the sheer number of birds that can be killed with 1 stone.

1) Reduce transfers 2) Ease up over-crowding at Metro Center. 3) Increase capacity on the LRT lines with new stations. 4) Connect the Northwest part of Downtown into the system (and the Grand Ave Project, which is close to the subway but nearly vertical). 5) Make Union Station, which has the physical space to accommodate many commuters, into LA's main station.

Each individual reason isn't good enough to do this project. All of them together are quite compelling. And I've probably left out some very good reasons.

Ginny on February 27, 2008, at 01:14PM – #14

For those who are looking for the materials from last night - Metro is working to post them at the project website at: www.metro.net/regionalconnector

Urban Bruin on February 27, 2008, at 01:18PM – #15

Granted it’s unlikely that a Blue and Green Line flyover will be built. But it’s an example of where there are other locations that a direct route would benefit the traveling public.

Aaron, despite your personal experiences (which I don’t doubt), I’ve had numerous encounters at that station and still stand by my original point that the Blue & Green Line route is not suitable as the route unsuspecting travelers should take when entering or exiting L.A., especially at night.

That station needs more and better security.

Urban Bruin on February 27, 2008, at 01:20PM – #16

As for the connector; I guess I won’t understand it but I’ll appreciate it when it happens.

LAofAnaheim on February 27, 2008, at 01:40PM – #17

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Blue/Green Line connection at Imperial/Wilmington. You cannot have just one line that goes absolutly everwhere. The east/west Green Line is a good line (though, further expansions are hoped for).

Urban Bruin...please spend some time at mta.net to understand yourself with L.A.'s Metro system. It's not that difficult, 4 rail lines, pretty simple map.

I would agree with Aaron. If we cannot do a connector at Little Tokyo, have the Blue/Expo terminate at Union Station and thereby only a single transfer is required into downtown and points south (Culver City, Long Beach).

Nirad on February 27, 2008, at 03:10PM – #18

It seems to me that the problem isn't the physical infrastructure, but the way the pricing works on a per-line basis. If you went from the Convention Center to Chinatown, you'd have to ride on three different lines- at that point it would be cheaper for people to drive.

Urban Bruin on February 27, 2008, at 04:50PM – #19

“Urban Bruin...please spend some time at mta.net to understand yourself with L.A.'s Metro system. It's not that difficult, 4 rail lines, pretty simple map. “

Simple map for a simple metro system. I've taken our system for years; traveled around the world to where they have very extensive metro systems; so thanks for your advice but I think I got a handle on it.

BTW – The “Angels” began in LA, hence the name. Hope that solve any confusion on your part.

Alan Fishel on February 27, 2008, at 09:27PM – #20

My vote is for the connector to continue north under Flower with a station as part of the Grand Ave project at First and Grand or Olive where it comes to the surface. Then on the north side of First St in grass right of way to San Pedro where First could be a transit and walking maul to Central Ave where First would be open to automobile traffic again to where it meets the Gold Line at First and Alameda.

Every other Blue Line and Expo Line train world through route with either the Gold Line to Pasadena or the Gold Line to East LA.

This world relieve congestion at the 7th St Metro Station, serve the Civic Center offices and Little Tokyo, and bring Little Tokyo’s core to a visitor friendly walk able East First Street.

Where do the MTA engineers and consultants get their ideas? Are they biased on politics, cost, best way to move people and trains through downtown, disruption of auto traffic, aesthetics or just what. How could they leave out First Street with all of the available real estate making room for a wide street and the LRT line?

First Street would disrupt less traffic overall, could be the fastest surface route even including the slow running through the Little Tokyo pedestrian maul

Of the selected routes # 5 seams to be best as either a subway or surface route. The other surface routes go out of the way with many turns that will slow the line way down with out serving any kind of passenger generators. The routing looks as if they are simply trying to get the tracks out of site and out of the way with no regard to the speed, usefulness or an efficient route.

It is time to go back to the drawing board.

What would the cost be of route # 5 surface, part surface and subway until Alameda?

What would the cost be of a subway to First and Grand or Olive then surface on First to Alameda?

Are there really any other options?

LA has surface running LRT lines in streets on Flower and Washington, Marmion Way in Highland Park and Long Beach Blvd in Long Beach. The new Expo and East LA Gold Line will have surface street running along much of their routes. Most LRT lines through out the country have at least some surface street running along their routs. Is a partial surface route through downtown really all that bad? Remember most downtown auto traffic is not through traffic but on its way to a parking spot or garage some place downtown. Sure this will slow down the line and traffic around the line but how should we allocate or transit resources?

However it is importent that the LRT line get signal priorty to speed the trains through the city. Stopping at every cross street for red traffic signals will discurage any kind of ridership.

Jerard on February 27, 2008, at 10:41PM – #21

As a surface route First Street won't work. Because during rush hour that street is a LOS F west of Spring Street because of all of the El Monte Busway Buses utilizing that corridor mixed in with other local routes. But as an underground or elevated I'm surprised that it wasn't studied.

At first in 2001-02, I thought a Second Street Transit Mall (similiar to Calgary's LRT Transit Mall) could be developed where Second Street becomes a strengthed commercial and retail corridor because street access is important and noticable and vehicular access to the buildings can be accessed from the side. The problem now comes with the new residents lining Second Street making the impacts more noticable, not because of the residents but because of how those residents enter their living space especially along Second street with no other access points available.

Scott Mercer on February 28, 2008, at 06:41AM – #22

It has to be underground. At-grade is a non-starter.

I'd recommend "no build" over at-grade, and the money for the Regional Connector can (here's hoping) be dedicated to to the extension of the Expo line to Santa Monica, or the Crenshaw line, or the Gold Line extension. Of course, I would like it built, but only if it's underground.

And as far the point of the project, the idea is not for a "one seat ride from Pasadena to Long Beach" only, but a one-seat ride to everywhere along the two lines in between ALSO. For Highland Park to Watts, or Pasadena to Compton, or Long Beach to Chinatown, or South Pasadena to East L.A.

Or any other combination. The key is building a NETWORK. The more destinations that are reached, the more potential riders we pick up.

JDRCRASH on February 29, 2008, at 07:58AM – #23

Does this not bring back memories of Alameda in the 90’s?!

In this of car-oriented city, having light-rail go in between surface streets causes backups, traffic, and inevitably, collisions. Besides; as it is, our streets in Downtown are ALREADY handling more traffic than they can handle. Let’s not make it worse.

Would it drive up the cost and price to build and maintain? ABSOLUTELY! But I have come to the conclusion that they benefits far outweigh the costs when evading street traffic from the cars buses taxis and shuttles.

Having said that, my vote would go for the 100% underground alternative.

Metro Local on March 01, 2008, at 01:08AM – #24

There's just no way at-grade rail on Second Street with cars would ever work. During mid-day, when cars are parked on both sides of Second Street between Hill and Broadway, there is routinely a three light delay to get east from the tunnel to past Broadway (and with the mess between Spring and Main, it really gets jammed in both directions).

Build the station in LIttle Tokyo, then go underground to a station somewhere like Seventh and Central, then underground to Metro Center.

In short, take a southeast passage underground, a northwest passage at grade will hurt, not help Downtown.

Jerard on March 02, 2008, at 12:10PM – #25

"Build the station in Little Tokyo, then go underground to a station somewhere like Seventh and Central, then underground to Metro Center.

In short, take a southeast passage underground, a northwest passage at grade will hurt, not help Downtown."

That could work, you're taking it a half mile out of the way and not serve anyone else in Historic Core or even your beloved Central City East not to mention the hard curves and turns that will be needed to connect the tunnel to 7th/Metro Center. But hey it doesn't hurt to try it out.

Metro Local on March 02, 2008, at 12:33PM – #26

One new stop between Little Tokyo and in on the Southeast route to Metro Center will still be faster on a longer route than two new stops on a shorter Northwest route.

Main/Spring/Ninth might be an alternative to Central/Seventh although with the Metro Depot and the Greyhound Station over there (as well as the LA River project) it just seems like rail service there connects to a major bus hub. Perhaps go straight down Central from Little Tokyo at grade, then go underground to Metro Center under Seventh?

Most of this is theoretical as the funding isn't there yet. All the more reason to be frustrated by the focus on catering to Grand Avenue, a project that flounders while the Fashion District flourishes.

John Crandell on March 02, 2008, at 01:08PM – #27

Of course, let's have an underground station at 7th and Central so that workers in the Produce District can get to work. There's likely already enough parking space for them if they wish to drive and we just can't have them riding buses, can we?

Perhaps the condominium complex west of Disney Hall is not so large that tunnels could be bored underneath, so as to make the turn from an alignment coming up Flower and curving east beneath First Street. Crossing under the Redline Civic Center Station: what could happen here, structurally? Could a lower level light rail platform be dug/constructed beneath the subway level under Hill Street?

What happens to the block of land east of City Hall East when Parker Center is demolished? Could a light rail tunnel cross under this block at an angle, say from First and Los Angeles up to Temple Street? A light rail alignment could then connect with the Gold Line via a tunnel portal on the north side of the Geffen Contemporary. The only problem would be traffic interuption with trains having to cross out onto Alameda to go either to Pasadena or East L.A. Locate an underground station where the Arts Park is or was supposed to be located north of the East-West Players Theater/remodeled church. Then eliminate the at-grade station at First and Alameda. By this route, trains coming either from East L.A. or Pasadena could enter directly into the tunnel to proceed to Culver City or to Long Beach.

Yes, construct a light rail stop under Flower, next to where the World Trade Center now stands. Then blow that pile of *&⁾ to smithereens!

And the Exposition Line west of Culver City ought to be rerouted so as to go to Venice instead. Just look at a route map of the presently adopted Exposition line plus the Purple Subway To The Sea. This is a wastefull overlap of mass transit service. What's so special about Santa Monica, that so much waste needs to be expended? Do the city fathers/mothers of that city intend to rezone their downtown to become the new Century City?

Jerard on March 02, 2008, at 02:26PM – #28

Well John, Instead of routing the Wilshire Subway to Santa Monica, why not turn that line Northward through the Sepulveda Pass and to the Valley to serve Sherman Oaks/Venutra Blvd up to Van Nuys and leave Expo as is. So that the Valley and Westside are connected and would be a better use of a tunnel than Wilshire west of the 405 Freeway, since Expo would mimic that Wilshire Subway in that area for a lot less in cost.

John Crandell on March 02, 2008, at 02:53PM – #29

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. There could be lots of stations between Sunset and Ventura Boulevard. Coyotes could have far easier access to family pets in the lowlands. Why yes, there's all sorts of comparisons and similarities of the wilds of the Santa Monica mountains and the urban density of the Wilshire corridor westerly of the 405. Seriously, connecting the midvalley to the westside is secondary as compared to problems of the Wishire Corridor. That is an issue of getting people/goods past wilderness, as compared to getting same through the congested urban jungle.

On the other hand, do you work as a transportation theorist at the Getty? Yeah, I do understand though. I commuted from Studio City to grad studies in Westwood once upon a not too long ago time and on a couple of occasions, the traffic was so bad that I had to resort to using a rutted fire road across the mountains to get home. A minor brush fire in the Sepulveda Pass can create gridlock on the westside.

I'm not Potus on March 04, 2008, at 07:27PM – #30

I hope this cross posting is not considered spam but I don't want anyone to think I am pillfering ideas from here. I came up with this routing over the weekend. I will keep refining it and would like comments. I haven't read through all of the typed suggestions. This feature of google maps I think is more helpful.

Jerard on May 02, 2008, at 05:00PM – #31

John,

(Chuckles) I wish those coyotes still lived there, because the 405 HOV project would have been built.

But seriously, Wilshire still has activity up till Bundy Drive and then it drops off considerably on top of being so close to Expo Line. So maybe a branch is extended to Wilshire/Bundy or have the subway end at the Expo/Bundy Stop.

John Crandell on May 02, 2008, at 07:18PM – #32

A Wilshire subway should be designed to accommodate future construction of a branch to the north, westerly of Westwood Village. Fifteen or twenty years from now, people will be amenable to the idea of a subway under the mountain range extending up to Sherman Oaks and on up and intersect with the Orange Line.

A recent transit blog in the L.A. Times asked why there has been no real progress on the subway to the sea, beyond talk. Why there has to be a light rail link between Santa Monica and Culver City is beyond me, in light of the need to get the Purple Line engineered and constructed. Meanwhile, the federal dept. of transportation has done a 180 degree switcheroo and will now fund an extension of the D.C. Metro all the way to Dulles Airport. Meanwhile, the Downtown L.A. - Santa Monica urban axis, the nation's second most populated and congested area stagnates, at $4.00 per gallon.

This connection between Santa Moncia and Culver City ought to be reviewed in the general light of area congestion. As I've mentioned previously, it seems more sensible to extend the Exposition light rail towards Venice southwest from Culver City. Yes, the wide median on Venice Boulevard is an asset. Only the 405 overcrossing would need reconstruction.